>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a conversation with david petraeus about the threat of terrorism today. >> do we have the right people and the right organizations to enable those iraqi leaders who are inclusive and who will bring about the kind of political change that brings sunni arabs back into the fabric of iraqi society and, as we mentioned a moment ago, this is about having a new anbar awakening. that's what also has to take place even as we take the fight to the enemy on the battlefield. >> rose: we continue this evening with a conversation with valeéry giscard d'estaing the former president of france. tell me about putin himself. i mean, what does he want is the question on the minds of most people in the west. >> first, he is an intelligent man. he is not a mad man.

he has been very shocked by the dislocation of the soviet union because the soviet union was the second world power with the u.s. for years, and now it went down. >> rose: we conclude with journalist and author richard reeves, his new book is called "infamy: the shocking story of the japenese-american internment in world war ii. >> the japanese-americans were totally patriotic, they allowed themselves to be put in what amounted to concentration camps because they thought that was their debt to the country. but after three or four years of living in the wilderness in terrible places, yes some of them had turned against the united states. >> rose: david petraeus valeéry giscard d'estaing and richard reeves when we continue.

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin with david petraeus, the former four-star general and c.i.a. director, talking about the rise of ice i.s.i.s. in iraq and syria and the lessons he learned there as commander in iraq and in afghanistan. how bad is the situation on the ground in iraq and syria today because the presentation is that

i.s.i.s. has been inground in the cities. >> it's worrisome. the enemy gets the vote, that's what happened in ramadi. iraqi forces lost the provincial headquarters and indeed the headquarters of the anbar operational command. so this is both an operational and a strategic setback, a significant one. i think ramadi will be retaken. i think we'll regain the initiate ifer on the ground and in iraq, but this is, again a moment at which you sit back and say what do we need to do in the military arena what also do we need to do in the political arena, because let's not forget, you have to make the games on the battlefields, the front lines. i.s.i.s. is almost a conventional military force right now, but the center of gravity is in baghdad and that's where we need to look to determine do we have the right military structure to complement the embassy the diplomatic structure who's there to work with the ambassador, do we have

the right people and organizations to enable iraqi leaders who are includive and who will bring about the political change that bring sunni arabs back into the fabric of iraqi society and, as we mentioned a moment ago, this is about having a new anbar awakening. that's what also has to take place, even as we take the fight to ten my on the battlefield. >> rose: is it a threat to the united states? >> i.s.i.s. is clearly a threat to the united states our allies and partners around the world and, of course, very much in the region where it's instigating inl stability and violence and so forth and also in north africa and trying to recruit in afghanistan and pakistan. >> rose: when you look at what's necessary to do, we need a new strategy, you say part military part political. does it mean more american participation at any level? >> i think it does, and i don't know that you need a whole new strategy. what you need to do is look at what you have, figure out where

you need to augment. do we need to bring advisors down to brigade level for example, now they're just add division level, perhaps battalion level. should there be teams of joint tactical controllers on the ground. >> rose: should there be? i think so. >> rose: is there risk to losing lives? >> there is, but there is also risk of not winning this fight a very important fight against a very threatening organization an extremist organization of considerable magnitude that has state in its name. it wants to control territory and that the what they're trying to do. >> rose: can it happen if the iraqi troops neither have the will to fight or the ability to fight? >> first of all we know they have the will to fight if and only if there is good leadership they can count on and if they think someone has their back. the troops at ramadi fought for months and then came the moment where apparently confidence was

shaken and they decided to retreat. they weren't completely defeated in a sense. they retreated to fight another day. that's not what you want to do. they'll retake it. again, we have to look at. this how can we help our iraqi partners better. what else can we do to help with reconstitution of forcers, train and equip effort, speeding getting equipment in their hands. don't forget baghdad. the complementary piece, not just the military piece but the political-military piece where our military leadership and diplomatic leadership can help shore up prime minister abadi and again help with the leaders who are going to be inclusive who will get the sunni arabs back into the fold instead of feeling alienated as they came to feel in the yeast after we left. >> rose: if push comes to shove should we let an iraqi militia with connections to iran

participate in order to defeat i.s.i.s.? >> well, i think that's something we don't want to do. >> rose: we might have to do it. that would be a last resort. that's something that protects baghdad at the last minute or something. >> rose: what about them taking baghdad? >> i think that's not in question. they're not getting to the outskirts of baghdad. what we need to do is look at what the concepts are we have, determine how to augment, refine, change them burks in particular, focus not just on the military. it's not -- you can't kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency like this, charlie, really an industrial-strength conventional force because that is what i.s.i.l has come to be. you need to have the political component. without that you're not going to -- >> rose: the political component is support in baghdad that will enlist the support of sunni-arab tribes in iraq?

>> exactly right. >> rose: propaganda war. because i.s.i.s. is using social media like no one has ever seen before. they're getting recruits around the world that are replenishing their forces. what does the west have to do, what does the coalition have to do to bring to bear a combat in the world of ideas? >> a lot more. there is clearly a war of ideas being fought in social media and other places in cyberspace, and we have to contest in that war of ideas all of the coalition countries -- and this is by the way where the gulf council cooperation countries come in so importantly. it's really quite impressive that they are in this fight. they're all in it. huge coalition. >> rose: should they put their own troops on ground if necessary? >> no you don't want neighboring forces signed iraq or inside syria i don't believe, unless it's a butcher zone in syria or something like that but certainly not iraq. iraqis can handle it with the assistance that we're providing

with the intelligence, surveillance reconnaissance assets, planning and precision fires from the air. if we also add some of the other assets i've discussed and also augment the training equipment. >> rose: but has our combating them online and in social media been insufficient by definition because they're recruiting people from around the world? >> yeah, i think. clearly tough numbers to prove that. so i think there's no question about that. empirically, that war is not going well. >> rose: president calls you to his office and says general you have a lot of experience over there. are we winning or losing at this moment? >> these are fights where if you're not winning you're probably losing because time is on your side. >> rose: and we are not winning. >> well, it's arguable now in iraq. we'll turn it around. we will win again in iraq. i do think iraq can definitely be handled. i think it can be kept in tact. we've got to do a lot more in

syria, and indeed we have to do more in some of the other areas. this is already a long war. it's become longer because of the advent of the islamic state and we have to recognize that and we have to be in it. >> rose: what if aleppo falls? what's the significance of senate. >> well, you would have a major city, the biggest city, really, before at least all the population went away. i mean, let's remember that in syria there's already been 225,000 syrians killed, millions are displaced outside the country, millions more inside the country. the fall of aleppo would be an enormous victory for the islamic state and in this war of ideas nothing succeeds like success. if you want to attract jihadis, they want to go with the winner and, over time we've got to show that i.s.i.l is not a winner. >> rose: but all we can do is to provide a battle of ideas the air support with americans on the ground helping direct the air support, and also the arms for them to do it.

>> in syria we've got to help get that ground force going. >> rose: right. this has been, obviously, a long effort, something that needs to be shot with steroids because, obviously, the forces there are insignificant and we've got to figure out if there are some other allies and partners we can enable on the ground in syria because then and only then, as we saw in kobani, when the syrian kurds made their stand against the islamic state our air power hammered them, despite the determination of the extremists. >> rose: as you know, there are people in the political world who will say, if the u.s. had left troops in iraq, we would not be watching the rise of i.s.i.s. >> well, look, i supported leaving troops, as a number did around the situation room table and -- >> rose: but wouldn't troops have led to impeding the rise of i.s.i.s.? >> it's arguable. i would like to have tested the proposition but it is by no means certain. there were other agreements made

at the with president obama's support that were not consummated and required no boots on the ground, no uniforms but would have helped enormously, even those were not allowed to be brought to bear. i was involved in that, and, so there's no guarantee that having them on the ground would have changed everything. it certainly would have given us better situational awareness, better infrastructure for what we're doing now and a lot of other positive features but again, no one can guarantee that. >> rose: valeéry giscard d'estaing is here for the past 50 years he's been a pivotal figure in french and european politics. he was president of france from 1974 to 1981. he was also one to have the architects to have european -- he was also one of the architects to have the european union and presided over the eu that drafted the constitution for europe. he continues to actively lobby

for further european integration. i am please to have had him back at the table. welcome, sir. a pleasure to have you back. let me talk about europe first because you have the crisis in the eurozone of the greek debt. >> well, it's an exaggeration. >> rose: an exaggeration. yes, greece as a country is important in the eurozone. they have a problem. they should not have been a member. >> rose: they should not have been? >> no, because we are 28 countries. europe1818 are your 10 are not. >> rose: including britain.

the region the czech weapon of mass destruction -- the czechrepublic or denmark. >> rose: what will be the consequence ifs greece leaves the eurozone? >> i support a solution to let greece have again -- there are people sov social success with the local. this need to have a country that could be liberated, the need to have it. >> rose: the need to be --

it went down in six months the dollar is 1.8. the greek need to have a country they can develop which would help them and to make adjustments. so the solution would be to say the bank of greece can issue a new guarantee. if everything goes well, you may come again. >> rose: what about david cameron who was just elected in a very, very strong way, to the surprise of many? >> brilliant. >> rose: brilliant. you thought he would be doing that well when everybody

expected -- >> no one expected before the election we should vote for him and he would be elected by a significant margin. >> rose: he's having conversations with the european european union because he wants it to reform. >> it's the mutual interest in the european union is good for both. both have interests to stay together. the demands there are some that were made, including the time of the constitution we mentioned by introduction. many of them could be satisfied, in fact. it supposes serious negotiation

which hasn't started yet. we say france should support some of the british demands because there was the new opening two days ago. so normally there would be a change in the administration of the european union in the direction of the british. >> rose: you recently met with putin, president of russia, who is engaged, in one way or the other, of supporting some insurgents in ukraine in eastern ukraine. tell me what you think he's doing, and did he satisfy -- satisfactorily answer your

questions? >> yes, we had a long conversation open. he told me something which was very important that he accepts the external border of ukraine. you can ease a problem by itself. it is a country that has been very badly governed for the last ten years and with the split between groups some of them are very russian, they speak russian, they are orthodox in religion. so while there are near poland -- so while they are near, they are fighting the each other. the solution is neither for the

russian or ukraine. >> rose: what's an acceptable solution to vladimir putin? >> very simple and we're working on it now, it's to have a decentralized system with the possibility of -- you have an example. you have spain. you have scotland. you have britain. it's not hard to imagine one party in ukraine will fight the other and you can't support the idea of fighting in ukraine. i think the united states should be prudent there. >> rose: what does that mean, prudent? >> it means an indication to support military action by the people. >> rose: but the military

action is coming from those russia supports in eastern ukraine, not only with arms but also there's been a captured russian soldier. >> yes. of course. but you have a long border. you have a choice. the east cannot win. the east can't go. >> rose: but they want to go. they could if they had the russian support. if the west is doing some military action into the east

which creates conflict. we have now an inspector. it has an open structure, corporation, institution. there must be reinforced and they must publish who is doing something, which side, because the left came from the west and then finish the negotiation to have the decentralized ukraine lift the sanctions and have an election. >> rose: do you approve of what the russians did in crimea? >> yes. >> rose: you approve of what they did? >> yes. please, listen to me...

russia at the end of the war when stalin convinced them to finish the war. crimea acquired two centuries ago by russia catherine ii and turks. so the only point you can debate, it's a way the crimea was annexed by russia. they were organized by the people. it was then controlled by the open community and institutions.

but the full majority of crimea was russia. so the ukraine question whether you have appropriation -- >> rose: let me understand the rule of law. you're suggesting if there's a country in which the people would like to vote to change their nature and their association, that's okay as long as the people vote for it? >> yes. >> rose: but it's not okay if there is some element of force that's used? >> yes. it wrub done in -- it must be done in a regular way, not improvisation. >> rose: tell me about putin himself. what does he want, is the question on the minds of most people in the west? >> well, i think -- i had a

conversation. first, he is an intelligent man. he is not a mad man. he is intelligent with a strong will. he has been very shocked by the dislocation of the soviet union because the soviet union was the second world's power with the u.s. for years and now it went down. >> rose: he said it was the worst thing that ever happened in his life to see that. >> no, but it was not tied. >> rose: he will try to rebuild the russian influence? >> yes. why not? they do not support him with public i opinion, but they want to have a relationship with russia.

>> rose: does he consider it a european country? does putin consider russia a european country? >> absolutely. >> rose: okay. absolutely. >> rose: he talked about his relationship with asia. >> well, he's speaking about developing a relationship with china because they have a long border. >> rose: yeah. i told him, it cannot be symmetrical of what you have to do because the chinese are different from you, they are another culture. they will be competitive for russian products. europe is a natural partner, china is not. so he agreed. and he considered himself under

pressure from the united states -- >> rose: some believe that what he would like to do is develop a relationship with china in opposition to the united states in the same way that your friend henry kissinger developed a relationship with china in opposition to russia. >> yes, but i told him i don't think it's realistic. i don't think so. russia, economically, is more advanced than china. >> rose: economically more advanced than china? >> technologically. >> rose: yeah, but the chinese economy is growing better much faster and not energy-dependent like the russian economy. >> yes. the competition by the chinese will be very hard for the russians, so they will not gain

much. he will have to compete with china and not to get the support of china. and, so, i understand he had the relationship. but i am absolutely convinced you see the future of russia as a partner of the european union. >> rose: what happened as you know is the effort by ukrainians to have a dialogue with europe and that was part of the problem. >> yes but the european union have complications already. but some new member, will not add example complications. complications. >> rose: the dream for europe, is it alive today in your opinion? >> in the public opinion, probably no. >> rose: yes.

some leaders yes. it was rather vague. it was about the federation of europe. at this time, western europe. so you understand that the eurozone is in the line of the thinking, it's the same project and will succeed. >> rose: one last question about russia, are the sanctions against russia having an impact. >> yes. >> rose: and do you favor them? >> well, they have an impact. the definition, first i'm against sanctions against individuals when they are not

heard. people cannot participate in international life. it hurts the russian economy but it hurts ours, also. so we're both losers in this event. at this moment, that cannot be changed. >> rose: right. but i think that, at the end of this coming year, the end of 2015 should end them. >> rose: let me turn to french politics. what do you think of francois hollande? >> i think it's unfair -- >> rose: well, there have been interim people since you were president, for goodness sakes, from chirac -- >> no, but i have sympathy for

the function. i'm in line with the goal. the goal is not having battle with the politicians. so i do not observe that france is in a good situation. >> rose: does the rise of lipan worry you? >> no, it's not a very serious threat. all over europe you have movement which are movement of protest. some are on the right, some are on the left. in greece, it was the left. in spain it is the left. in france, it is the right. in poland, it is the right. so we are about 15% of people who disapprove of modern

politics. usually, they are people of simple life, so they cannot be judged too harshly, i think. people who are frustrated. >> rose: can france have a modern economy as long as it has the level of statism. >> no, clearly not. so we need to have a wind of freedom, we need it. if we do it, and i hope it will be done, things will burgeon again, because we are good people, we are good engineers for one thing but, of course, the constraint of the administration, the wake of the administration, the excess of regulation should be changed must be changed. >> rose: but what's interesting is the french foreign policy.

your foreign minister in the p5+1 and the iranian negotiations it appears, is taking a tougher stand than secretary kerry. in other words, he has raised serious questions about the agreement. >> there are complex problems. not a simple question of yes or no. >> rose: but there does seem to be a reasonably muscular french foreign policy at play. >> well -- >> rose: from what you did in libya. you saw what you did in -- >> yes, that's the former president. >> rose: i know, but it's been

continued. >> in a more prudent way in africa of the west, the sub is a hair -- thesub-saharan. the french will put an end to the war culture. it is finished. >> rose: it is finished. yeah. now there are -- i think that question should be addressed in a sensible and responsible way and avoid excesses on one side or the other side. you will have a terrible problem in the middle east. >> rose: in terms of the threat of terrorism.

>> yes. there are a number of victims. so the country is in a his toricle mood about their origins and then the protection of private life. it must be taken into consideration. >> rose: the french were -- there weren't that many deaths at charlie hebdo but it deeply shocked france. >> yes. at first because we are a neutral country as you knew. and there were two elements -- one element was the freedom of speech and the other is journalists because journalists have difficult responsibilities and to come with a war shocked

deeply the french people. there was a burst of indignation which was expressed. >> rose: do you worry about china and its ambitions? >> no. >> rose: no. no, i'm very much interested in china. i go there usually once or twice a year. i have studied the language, the culture. i know many people there. i understand there is a trend the behavior of the west in china in the 19th century is a scandal, because it was made in a very harsh way for cynical reasons, for the opium war. so they had the past, very

difficult. they went through a change of regimes. they had the civil war. the japanese invasion. now a new leader. >> rose: now they have a new young, vigorous leader. >> yes. no one knows how to govern 1 million, 500 million people. because the election, you can't have a campaign for that. >> rose: one thing is clear they're committed to the party. >> yes, for the moment. it has some advantage because it's a political system. you have the government, the

body. thethey fight against corruption is made by the party. the inquiries are made by the party. where you have a fight in all countries, justice is behind criminals, judges. so they need to have a future organization in which the legal part of -- >> rose: a rule of law. yes. >> rose: finally this -- you have spent many years on this earth. you have been president of your country. at one time you were president i think of the academy of

france, a remarkable group of artists of which you just announced a new member from haiti. what worries you the most? what do you see happening? your friend henry kissinger talks about world order and disorder, and you think what is most troubling today? >> for france or for the world? >> rose: for the world. it's a new sort of violence. this is not war. the fact that peace exists in some parts to have the world country doesn't exist in other parts. so i hope there will be an understanding of what the muslim world really wants.

we see the extremist, fanaticism extremism cannot be a solution for the world. so how to have a stable relationship with the muslims as we had in the past with persia and turkey. in the western world, there is no type of violence. there can be tension but there's no serious danger. in american restructure published a month ago that in 15 years' of time, the number of muslims in the world will be above the number of christians

which means a change of the balance in the world. very important. so we must think of that and try to adjust to it. >> rose: what's also relevant is it is the rise of non-state actors. >> yes. yes. true. two closures. one is globalization. globalization as it has been made by the u.s. went too far. it should have been a slow process. the globalization, if we are

more organized it would be easier. so the social network communication because it changes the postures of people. they think it can have a shape on everything, every moment. >> rose: they said they can have an opinion on everything. >> on everything, without having the information -- >> rose: more responsibility for what they say. >> it changes the face of the vote. the vote in the past. people were voting looking high, who will be the best man or woman to lead the country? who will be the best government to solve the problem. now they look down. what these people will do for

me. how will they answer to my personal questions. so it's a reversal and it's not up to now well organized. >> rose: thank you for coming. pleasure to see you. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: richard reeves is here. he is an award winning journalist and the author of more than a dozen books about politics and history. senior lecture at annenberg school of communication. his book talks about the japanese-americansjapanese-americans internment. i am always interested in what brings a good writer with broad

experience to write a book. what was it? >> i've always been fascinated by the story. i've lived part of the time in california. if you're going skiing in mammoth and those areas you just go back by the gatehouse which is in the middle of nowhere. people in the back seat would say, that's where they kept the japanese? indeed it was. the other part of it was all the laws that made this possible are still on the books. we could round up the muslims the border crossers, whoever tomorrow with the same laws and probably with the same negative result too. >> rose: negative result means what? >> the negative result? >> rose: yes. go back to the fact of what happened -- the camps in a way were like iraq easy to get in, hard to get out.

i mean, if you compare in hawaii, we did not incarcerate the population, and we did in the mainland united states. when the time came we realized we made a mistake, 1943 only 1200 kids, young men from the camps, enlisted. 20,000 in hawaii surrounded the recruiting office, and they had not been -- >> rose: because they had not been interned, they were more favorable towards america. >> the japanese-americans were totally patriotic. they allowed themselves to be put in what amount to concentration camps because they thought that was their debt to the country. but after three or four years of living in the wilderness in terrible places, yes, some of them had turned against the united states. >> rose: you say it's the best

and worst of america. >> yes. >> rose: why is it the best of america? >> it's the best of america because the -- i mean, what is america about at its best? it's redemption. one result of what earl warren, one of the great villains of this book, the attorney general of california, he was arguing that the reason there was no japanese sabotage was because they were waiting for a big one and the the instructions from tokyo. 15 years later whatever it was this guilty lutheran, if you read his works organizes ground topeka and ends segregation, at least legal segregation in america and it's because of this he did that, i'm sure.

the thing that makes measure about it is california does these extensive oral histories of their governors. warren's was six days and on the sixth day the interviewer, a come named amelia frey, said, no mr. chief justice, i'd like to talk to you about the events of 1942. warren broke into tears walked out of the room and never came back. he knew. >> rose: you have said here that what has pushed america forward is not the values of the forefathers. what has pushed america forward from generation to generation is the blind faith of each new wave of immigrants. >> that's what i absolutely believe. even leaving aside slavery and the indians, we brought the chinese in to build the

railroads, we brought northern europeans in to farm, and in the north and west jews -- irish need not apply. and in these cases we treated these people as if they weren't us until they were us and they are us now. the people in this book, the people who came aboard in ellis island and every place else, that's our great strength. >> rose: they get them up here and they have political impact, is what happens. >> right. that is our great strength. if you look at europe today, the problems they're having with that, we -- i don't know if we solved, but we dealt with those problems, and all the people, you know, in a book like this who were literally at rifle point rounded up, now are some of the most important people in the country. >> rose: like?

well, daniel innoway was one of the characters. >> rose: later received the medal of honor didn't he? >> he lost an arm and won the medal of honor in italy. he was a great leader among the -- the hawaiian-japanese americans were different than the others. these places were in the middle of nowhere. temperatures ranged from 120 in the sum tore minus 30 in the winter. in heart mountain, wyoming, the local scout master in cody, which was the nearest place, took his -- there were scout troops. these are little americas, these camps. the japanese-americans turn to them into little americas with boy scout troops and baseball leagues. the scout master decides he will bring his troops from cody for what the scouts call a

camp-a-ree at heart mountain one of the internment camps and there will be an american and japanese-americans in each one of the pup tents. the american was alan simpson. the japanese-americans was norm manetta. >> rose: both politicians. both politicians and friends for life. the friends for life is what made america work. >> rose: share ago pup tent will do that for you, won't it? (laughter) there are also heros and villains. cordell was a villain. >> right. >> rose: simpson was a villain. >> right. >> rose: what was f.d.r.? a villain in this case. obviously one of the greatest of men, but he had real flaws and impatience and stupidity and he believed in nugenics and he

believed if you look at white house archives and internal debate he believed the japanese were aggressive because they were skulls were shaped differently than caucasian skulls and it will take 2,000 years for them to reach the civilized level of you and me. that's, of course, ridiculous. >> rose: what convinced him of that? >> a lot of people who grew up in the 1920s believed in that stuff, but also his advisors were from the smithsonian institution who also believed -- i lost the part about roosevelt talking about castrating all the generals. that would have taken a lot of effort. but he had -- you know and he had other things on his mind. >> rose: that's what the nazis talked about before they talked about it. >> absolutely. well, in both tokyo and berlin, this wasn't a big story in the united states.

most people did not know this was going on but it was a big story in berlin, and it was a big story in tokyo. you know, what are we doing that's different from the americans, putting all these people under machine guns and tanks and barbed wire? in thed, en it's an american story on both sides of the barbed wire, and in this case we resolved it. >> rose: that's the reason john mccain is opposed to torture. >> right. i disagree with him on most everything, but on torture, right. >> rose: okay. ask the man who knows. >> rose: exactly right who's been there. who are the heros? >> the heros are the young attorneys at the aclu who resigned when roger bald baldwin, the founder, who was friends of roosevelt, said they cannot bring any cases that mentioned

race. these young guys quit and represented these people for free for years including the latin americans the peruvians and whatnot that we kidnapped and put in the camps to trade for prisoners. and when the war was over, we tried to deport them as illegal aliens because they never had papers when they were brought handcuffed to america, and then people stole their lands as they stole the land and the money of the japanese-americans here. >> rose: these are books you've written the kennedy years, portrait of camelot, president reagan, president nixon. running in place how bill clinton disappointed america. president kennedy, profile of power, one of my favorites, the reagan detour, and many others. there's a real interest here in presidential power. >> yeah, i think i've run out of presidents. >> rose: not until i ask you

about this one. what's your sense of obama as he gets, as he says, into a last stretch? >> i think obama is a terrific man. i don't want to get into stephanopoulos-brian williams thing. my daughter is a special assistant to the president. >> rose: does she think he's a great president? >> she does, yes. his personnel policy is terrific. (laughter) >> rose: he knows bright women when he sees them, doesn't he? >> he does indeed. he's on the right track in relations with other countries. he's not meant to be president. he's too thoughtful to be president. i mean, presidents who survive hishisshistorically are like harry truman who operate from the gut.

president obama operates from a very well-honed mine. >> rose: where did lincoln operate from? >> gut. though churchill and lincoln obviously, were high i.q. guys, but that's not the major qualification for president. >> rose: right. good to have you. >> good to be here. >> rose: richard reeves "infamy: the shocking story of the japenese-american internment in world war ii. good to see you. >> good to be here. >> rose: thank you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: on the next charlie rose, a former u.s. senator and majority leader george mitchell and the two restaurant owners of the spotted pig, ken kriegman and april bloomfield. it's extremely important to ve a partner like april who esn't forget it's not about e next project it's about the st project, making sure each plate that goes out to the people who chose to come to our restaurant is perfect.

"the jewel in the crown" was made possible in part by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ ♪