>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the tragic mass shooting in san bernardino, california. here's the "cbs evening news" coverage of the tragedy. >> oh mix gosh! the rampage ended on a residential street in a hail of gunfire. (siren) when it was over, the the two suspects were dead, but police say the couple left behind an arsenal of weapons, 6700 bullets inside their home along with 12 pipe bombs and enough materials and tools to build several more. according to san bernardino chief. do you believe they're planning another attack? >> we don't know. clearly they were equipped and could have. we intercepted them before that

happened. >> rose: police say sayed farook and wife tashfeen malik parked a rented black ford expedition at 11:00 a.m. in the parking lot behind the south building at the inland regional center. walked through unlocked doors directly into the room where the holiday party were underway. investigators say the two were wearing masks and black tactical clothing armed with semi-automatic rifing. >> when they entered, fired between 65 and 75 rounds from their rifles at the scene. >> rose: did they appear to be targeting anyone in particular? >> they sprayed the room with bullets. i don't know if there was any one person they ultimately targeted. >> rose: sources tell cbs news, health department managers were the first ones shot. the couple left behind three pipe bombs tied together and connected to a remote control car. police believe it malfunctioned, there was no explosion. witnesses who worked with farook told police he attenned the party but left early. >> where that came from was another person in the building

that knew him who identified him by name who expressed concern over his behavior prior to the event. >> rose: police put his home under surveillance and gave chase when they spotted the black suv. cell phone video captured the gunfire that erupted. >> holy (bleep). >> rose: the couple fired 75 rounds at police, a total of 23 officers returned fire with 380 rounds, killing too roo -- farok and his wife. officers found two semi-automatic riffs and two 9-millimeter pistols with 1600 rounds. >> rose: also the reporting of bloomberg reporter. >> it's a high crime area, low economic opportunity, they declared bankruptcy in 2012. the police force is used to dealing with pretty grizzly imagery but as you noted this is the most deadly mass attack that we've seen in the u.s. since n

newtown. >> rose: and we conclude with a conversation with mike morell, former acting director of the c.i.a. and deputy director talking about i.s.i.s. and intelligence. >> a year and a half ago i.s.i.s. becomes a big, big deal, takes all this territory and the united states goes to war against i.s.i.s. at that point, i'm sure the intelligence community was asked to make i.s.i.s. a key focus of their efforts. you can't flip a switch and develop the intelligence you need. it takes time. >> rose: the recording of eznay duprez from bloomberg and conversation with mike morell when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been 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: once more in our history a deadly mass shooting has shaken the naismghts a married couple stormed a office holiday party in san bernardino, california. one of the shooters is believed to have worked in the building, 14 killed, 17 wounded, makes it the deadliest mass shooting in the united states since 2012. president obama said in an oval office statement this morning that the motives of the shooters remain uncertain. he did not rule out the possibility of terrorism. >> at this stage, we do not yet know why this terrible event

occurred. we do know that the two individuals who were killed were equipped with weapons and appeared to have access to additional weaponry at their homes. also possible that this was terrorist related. they don't know. it is also possible this was workplace related. >> rose: joining me from santa barra, esme deprez and has been reporting from on the ground. welcome. >> hi, charlie. >> rose: do we know about motive? >> we still do not know motive. officials are not ruling out anything at this time. people have said, obama

included, this could be an incidence of workplace violence, it could be terrorism related in the traditional sense of terrorism as we've come to know it, or it could be a combination of the two. so we do not know the motive behind it yet. what we do know, to begin, with is we have a biographical sketch to have this couple, kind of a picture of who they were -- again, not what their intent was but who they were. we have a timeline of the events that transpired yesterday. we know what kind of guns they used. we know they have an enormous cache of weapons, not only in the car they were driving but back home as well, and we know the tally of the carnage, 14 dead. the wounded count has gone up to 21 in that time, and we just have another community very scarred by this horrible attack. >> rose: and we do not know whether it was set off by some incident at the party? >> well, the police chief in san bernardino has discussed witnesses coming forward saying

there was some kind of dispute at that party and mr. farook, perhaps, left early and came back with his wife and all the weapons and ammunition, but they've underscored a really important point, which is the level of planning, the level of sophistication, you know, to have this stockpile, we'll talking over 5,000 rounds of ammunition they had between at the house, in the car, on their person. so the officials are really stressing this was planned. it might have been a workplace-related incident that set them off at the last steps, but they were planning for something. you couldn't just go out on a whim and gather all this am ammunition. they had over a dozen pipe bombs as well and a lot of material to make even more pipe bombs. >> rose: so it may very well be the case and it would be total speculation now but looking at the amount of weaponry they had, that they had plans to do other things.

>> or that this attack could have been a lot bigger. we still, obviously, don't know what exactly they had in store, whether they even meant to -- you know, this event that happened yesterday, whether that was their intended target. we simply don't know. officials will be combing through all the evidence now. obviously, the f.b.i. is leading the investigation now. they've already shipped some evidence they've gathered back to d.c. to analyze in a fast manner so we can get answers quickly. they're already talking to family members. officials said that the family members are cooperating, they're looking for more family members. they will be talking to co-workers, interviewing moret withs -- more witnesses and the people who have been hurt just to try to find out as much as we can. obviously the social media presence and the online presence will be really important. f.b.i. said they took computers and cell phones and thumb drives from the home so they said digital media in this case will be really helpful to kind of figuring out who they may have been in communication with, if

anybody. this was a couple on the ground but it's possible somebody may have been helping them from afar. >> so what's the conclusion based on what they know in terms of what the authorities are willing to share with reporters like you? >> they just say, you know, they're just being really careful. i mean, obviously, we're just 24 hours out of this attack now so it's still really early. they want to be very careful about not calling this terrorism in the traditional sense right now, as we know it. of course, there were people terrorized by this incident that cannot be left out. there is a very interesting piece by peter baker today in the "new york times" talking about our traditional definition of terrorism versus domestic terrorism and what should we call these events that go on. you know, when the newtown massacre claimed 26 lives there, when the boston marathon bombing happened, we don't know what to

call them when there is confusion about what to call them, and names matter, so i think officials are being very careful about the language they use in describing what they know so far. >> rose: how do they describe the boston marathon massacre, for example? >> certainly, there were, you know, thinking there with boston that, you know, there were sympathies that the brothers seemed to be inspired by extremist islamist views, so that's something officials will be probing with this one. they have the drill down now. they know how to go after and see if these folks had international travel. we know mr. farook was american-born but of pakistani origin, along with ms. malik was born in pakistan or at least

here on an pakistani visa -- american visa but using a pakistani passport. so they will be looking for ties, recent travel to sites that may have connection to islamic extremist views and if they have ever been in contact with people who hold those views. >> rose: how did they get to know each other? >> so there have been reports they met while mr. farook was in saudi arabia. they met on an online dating site, i believe is what we're hearing now. so that's what we believe. ms. malik was in the u.s. on a fianceée visa of sorts. the couple was married as of yesterday when they committed this attack. they had a six-month-old child. that was after they came back from pakistan and came to live in california. mr. farook was a county health inspector. i don't believe that we know whether ms. malik had a job or not.

i'm not aware of what her profession was. but this was a newly wed couple, 27, 28 years old, just starting their lives and obviously it ended yesterday. >> rose: and before they met that end, left their 6-month-old baby with his or her mother, right? >> they did, right. so yesterday morning, before that party, we've learned they dropped off the 6-month-old child with the grandmother, and that is giving indication again this was planned. i believe mr. farook went to that holiday party alone yesterday. i don't believe his wife was there initially or had reason tore there. but there is indication again of this advanced planning, that they dropped off their 6-month-old because they might have been, you know, planning something to transpire that day, obviously, you know. so mr. farook left the center, went back and got his wife and

just, you know, entered that facility and just sprayed bullets everywhere, and now we were left with just another community wrecked by the shooting. san bernardino is a pretty tough place. it's a high crime area. it's low economic opportunity. they declared bankruptcy in 2012, so the san bernardino police force is used to dealing with pretty grizzly imagery but, as you know, this is the most deadly mass attack in the u.s. since newtown. so, obviously -- >> rose: 2012. since 2012, right. they're operating at a level unseen here before. >> rose: the president today praised the san bernardino law enforcement. >> he did, and they have been very quick to respond to this. i've actually spent time with the san bernardino police department for a story i did earlier this year, and there has been a lot of praise for the

police department for jumping in, and the law enforcement and the level of coordination of the law enforcement in the surrounding areas, not just san bernardino but the county p.d. and all the areas that jumped in to help. you saw this yesterday when it played out. yesterday, when the event happened, the suspects were on the loose, and that was a scary proposition in san bernardino because the killers were on the use. it was a mere few hours we saw the police able to track them down, go to the home, find the cache of weapons and ammunition and get into a chase and ultimately a gun battle with the suspects in plain daylight, in a residential area in san bernardino, and i think that probably attests to just the rapid fire response of law enforcement in dealing with this danger. >> rose: what's interesting, also, as you surely know, is that, hey, this was unusual and it was a husband and wife team, the woman was involved.

it is unusual in that they seemed to want to escape. they did not go in to commit suicide. >> that's exactly true. right. these are just questions -- i mean, we definitely have more questions than answers right now. it does not have the hallmark of the typical, if you want to say, mass shooting we've seen in the recent past. it was a couple. you know, that makes investigators' jobs even harder because they have to piece together the motive. it wasn't a lone wolf or, you know, just a lone killer out on the run and, again, the fact it was pre-planned in this way, too. i mean, the level -- that huge cache of ammunition, it was so large that i think it's really going to just -- it just leaves a lot of unanswered questions right now. >> rose: and tell me who are the victims here? >> so today we were due to get a list of victims of the 14 victims that lost their lives in

this attack. i have actually not seen the list and, of course, names -- we just have names now. pictures will emerge of the victims i'm sure in the coming time as we learn more, but 14 dead, 21 wounded including two officers. so clearly, you know, that meeting that mr. farook was -- you know, opening firing with his wife, that's where he was an employee. he was an employee of the county health department. so ostensibly, there have to be co-workers in that bunch, whether there were others invited to the holiday party or meeting, i don't think we know the answer to that yet but we'll find out hopefully soon. we're also due to hear today or soon from his employer from the county health department, just to hear about, you know, were there any red flags, what kind of employee was he. i mean, the police have been very clear they didn't have any sense he had a criminal record or was on any kind of watch list, to the extent that we know now. maybe that will come out as we keep reporting. but we don't know of any overt

red flags now that people should have seen. >> rose: it is my understanding also that at least four of the guns had been obtained legally. >> correct, that's what we're being told and the a.t.f. certified that. california has some of the strongest gun control measures in the country, but this gets at the heart of the argument of gun control supporters is you can pass gun control laws state by state but how easy is it to cross state lines, buy guns legally, have them registered in your own name and then come back and commit murder or atrocity like this with those same guns. so as accepted, we're hearing this has gotten very political very quickly. obviously lots of calls by not just president obama but other democrats saying this heightens the need for more gun control, more gun restrictions. obviously, you have republicans coming out very strongly against

that idea. so i'm not sure anybody really thinks that this is going to change the gridlock in washington that we've seen so far. perhaps an optimist does, but after newtown, remember 26 killed, all of those children, you know, there was an attempt by congress to pass tighter background checks, and that failed. so whether this may prod more action, you know, remains to be seen. >> rose: it's been a long day for you. i thank you so much for taking time to come speak with us. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: eest me deprez, a reporter for bloomberg news. black in a moment. >> rose: we continue looking at the threat pose bid i.s.i.s. with mike morell, former deputy director of the c.i.a. earlier this week, president obama ordered the deployment of 200 special opens forces to iraq

and syria. in a conversation with nora o'donnell in cbs news, obama defended his current strategy and said that the deployment will not lead to an iraq-style invasion. >> we have been able to push back i.s.i.l from territory they had taken both in iraq and in syria, and we are developing partnerships, although they're not as strong as we want yet, with local tribes and sunnis who are willing to fight i.s.i.l. and what i've said is we're going to continually modify and adjust our strategy based on those things that work and those things that may not work. >> rose: i'm pleased to have mike morell back at this table. welcome. >> thank you, always good to be here, john. >> rose: let me begin with san bernardino. tell me what questions we ought to be asking based on the information we know. >> so we really don't know the motivation at this point, right. we don't know if it was workplace venus o -- workplace

violence or al quaida or i.s.i.s. inspired or some combination of the two. it's absolutely clear, charlie, that given the amount of weapons he had, the the tactical gear he had, that he was planning to do something. it's possible that maybe he had another target in mind and he got angry at his workplace party and that then became the target rather than the original target. the possibilities are -- we just don't know, yet. but i think the fundamental question is the motivation and what drove him to do that and is it i.s.i.s.-directed, al quaida-directed, inspired, that's the question. >> rose: even though not directed, inspired is the key word. >> right. >> rose: go on the internet, online, and see things that touch and motive you. >> right. >> rose: we also know and many people go back to saudi arabia, lots of muslims around the world go to saudi arabia, means nothing but the religious tone,

but yet some people go and come back and are inspired. >> right, he both went to saudi arabia and he went to pakistan, so he took two trips. you know, the vast majority of people that go on those trips, completely fine, nothing happens to them. but sometimes people hook up with people who they start a conversation with and who talk to them about what they're religion really means and radicalize them, begin the radicalization process, right? and in other cases, when you're already some ways down the radicalization road, you might meet with somebody who helps you think about carrying out an action, right, suggests a course of action for you when you go home. maybe even says to you, here's the target i want you to case, surveil and think about. so that's what we have to figure out here is exactly what happened, what motivated him, what did he do when he went to saudi arabia, what did he do when he went to pakistan, what was he thinking about. >> rose: here's what's interesting, too.

a relative was on television last night -- i can't believe this. how could that be, too? harbor all these and not want to share in some way with somebody who's family? >> one of the things, charlie, you're told when you're talking to i.s.i.s. online or you are talking to i.s.i.s. or al quaida in saudi arabia or pakistan or syria and iraq is they're telling you, don't talk to anybody else, don't let anybody know you're talking to us, don't let anybody see your true feelings and your true emotions about what you believe and don't believe because there are people who are out to get you. that's part of the education process. >> rose: is this primarily a need now for further surveillance of people coming in, in terms of who they, are where they are and where they have been in terms of the surveillance allowed by the united states? >> right.

>> rose: and what else, as part of a new intelligence operative, that is part of homeland security? >> so the lesson learned from al quaida and al quaida's multiple attempts to attack the homeland post-9/11, plot after plot after plot disrupted, the primary lesson learned from that is twofold. number one, your homeland defenses need to be as robust as possible -- t.s.a. screening, immigration screening, vetting of names, the putting of names on "no fly" lists, all of that needs to be robust and carefully monitored and kept up to date, et cetera, et cetera. the other and more important is for the country's intelligence services, our country's intelligence services to penetrate the leadership, penetrate with spies the leadership of those organizations -- so the

leadership of i.s.i.s., the leadership of al quaida -- because it's when you penetrate those leaderships that you actually see the particular plotting that's going on. you see the individuals they're in contact with and, when you have that information, you're able to disrupt the plot. >> rose: well, that's one of the things that seems to be part of the present strategy, to go after the leadership. >> mm-hmm. >> rose: you're saying it depends on how good your intelligence is to identify and locate. >> yeah. so i'm making a bit of a distinction here. on the one hand, it's the part of the c.i.a., n.s.a. and intelligence community to penetrate the leadership of i.s.i.s. just to know what they're doing, just to know what they're planning, what they're think what their capabilities are, who they're in contact with so you can find out what they're going to do and stop it. that's one piece of the intelligence responsibility is here. the other piece to have the intelligence responsibility is -- the other piece of the

intelligence responsibility is, charlie, to collect intelligence on exactly where these guys are and where they're going to be at a certain moment in time so that our special forces, either by capturing or killing them, can remove them from the battl battlefield. so that's what the president has just done is to ramp up a number of guys on the ground who are going to be able to go after senior i.s.i.s. officials and remove them from the battl battlefield, hopefully capture them to get more intelligence. >> rose: the purpose of the special forms on the ground are intended to be on the ground in iraq and syria? >> the primary purpose is to go after and remove the leadership in as rapid succession as possible. in order to do that you need the intelligence i talked about. once you start, it becomes civil-sus -- self-sustaining. that's what we saw in iraq and afghanistan. when you capture somebody, you bring them back and interrogate them, and you also get his pocket letter, whether actual

paper, phone, computer, ipad, so you have all that information and you're interrogating him and that turns into new intelligence on other guys you can then turn around and action. so intelligence gets you started. the operations then begin, and then it sustains the intelligence. that's what we're trying to achieve here. >> rose: and your definition of boots on the ground? >> so boots on the ground is in the eyes of the beholder, and it's used more politically than militarily. >> rose: but this is an aggressive use of american forces in the region. >> yes. so here's how -- >> rose: so then can support somebody else. >> so there is over 3,000 american soldiers on the ground in iraq who are advising, assisting and training, right? that's physically boots on the ground but they're not in combat, right? they're not fighting or in

combat. then ther there are special fors who are doing up-close and personal advise and assisting closer to the battlefield. they're still not in combat but closer to the battlefield and much more at risk. most people would not call that boots on the ground. >> rose: for planning attacks and all that. >> yes, but they're still not in combat, right? then you get to what the new guys will be doing, and they will be conducting raids to capture and kill people. they're going to be in combat. they're going to be -- >> rose: and some will be killed. >> they will be shot at and shooting people. >> rose: and there will be casualties. >> there will be casualties. boots on the ground? yeah, i'd say so. but then you get to what everybody agrees is boots on the ground, which is 10,000 troops,

20,000 troops, infantry troops who are taking and holding territory. >> rose: but that's what the president was referring to when he said, that's what my definition is? >> yes, these guys are not going to take and hold territory. >> rose: they're going to take and hold individuals. >> they're going to go to a critical spot inside the islamic caliphate, grab somebody and leave. >> rose: that's what they do actually. >> that's what they do and they do it better than anybody else on the planet. >> rose: talk about and walk through all the threats posed by i.s.i.s. >> it's a great question because we as americans tend to focus on the terrorist threat here. i see, charlie, four different threats from i.s.i.s. the most significant is actually not the terrorist threat, to us. the most significant, in my view, is the risk that i.s.i.s. poses to the stability of the entire region. a region of the world that still accounts for 30% of world oil

production, a region of the world that has right smack in the middle of it our most important ally, israel, that has in the middle of it sunni-arab allies pushing back on iran's desire for significant influence in the region. this is a very important region. one of the real risks that i.s.i.s. poses is the spread -- imagine the spread of what's happening in syria and iraq to other parts of the region -- to lebanon, to jordan which i really worry about, and even northern saudi arabia. so that's threat number one, right, is a threat to regional stability. that is a threat that most people don't think about, talk about. >> rose: is that growing? because the president also talked about how we have been able to shrink them, to "shrink" the amount of territory that they have taken and held. >> yeah.

so the president's right, absolutely right, we have shrunk them by about 20%, 25%. most of the shrinkage was in the very early weeks and months of the campaign. there hasn't been a lot of shrinkage in recent months. and i.s.i.s. has solidified its position inside the caliphate to a degree that they didn't have at the beginning. >> rose: among other things, it's enabled them to access money. >> right. >> rose: and resources. ight. so i think it's fair to say that i don't think it's likely that i.s.i.s. is going to push out from its caliphate into lebanon and into jordan and into northern saudi arabia. i think it's more likely that the sectarianism that they have created and the sectarian conflict that they have created could pop up in these other places as a result of what's happening in iraq and syria. that's the threat to regional stability. >> rose: and that's what happened in iraq?

>> that's what happened in iraq. that's one. the second is the threat posed by -- the terrorist threat posed by i.s.i.s. to the homeland by radicalizing young men and women, right, who go online and who read their propaganda and who might even chat with them online. so it's what might have happened here in this case, right, in california, certainly what happened in canada in a couple of cases and western europe and australia over the last year, right, the radicalization of young men and women to conduct attacks on behalf of i.s.i.s. without i.s.i.s. directing them. that remains at this moment the most likely i.s.i.s. terrorist threat to the homeland. the second -- number three, right, the second terrorist threat is the direct i.s.i.s. threat to the homeland.

paris, where the plot is conceived of, organized and directed in raqqah and carried out in paris, new york or washington. >> rose: do they have the capability to do what they did in paris elsewhere? >> i don't see intelligence anymore but i would say we don't know, and the reason i would say we don't know is because we do know that i.s.i.s. spent about nine to twelve months building their attack capability in europe and we didn't see it, and we certainly didn't see paris coming. so if we didn't see the building of the capability in western europe and didn't see paris coming, then the fact that we don't see it here doesn't give me a lot of confidence, right? so because we don't see it here, and i don't know whether we do it or not, but i'm assuming we don't or it would have leaked out by now. i'm assuming we don't see it here, but it doesn't give me

confidence because they didn't see it there, and we know they want to, that they want to build that capability here. so that's treat number three. over time, if we don't degrade and defeat them, that threat will grow. then you get to threat number four, with which is the threaty pose by radicalizing other militant groups around the world. we've talked about this before, the extremist militant groups in 20 different countries who say we now are with i.s.i.s. we're now i.s.i.s. affiliates. the threat those pose to u.s. interests and to western interests, that's the story of the bringing down of the russian airliner over the sinai, for example. >> rose: and even boko haram and a group like that which is large in number are saying we are united with i.s.i.s. >> right. >> rose: whether they report to them, whether they look to them for leadership, they do say we have a united appeal and what

they believe in, we believe in. >> right, and boko haram is a group i worry deeply about. >> rose: because? because they're large, they control territory in northern nigeria, they are every bit as brutal as i.s.i.s. and they were as brutal as i.s.i.s. before i.s.i.s. ever existed in terms of the kind of attacks they conducted, but i worry most about them because if they wanted to engage in terrorism outside of northern nigeria and the geographic area right around it, if they wanted to do that, the nigerian deaspera around the world is so large that they would be able to blend in and take advantage of it in a very significant way. so if boko haram ever wanted to

develop an external attack capability, the diapara would help them. >> rose: what is your idea of the intelligence capabilities we have. >> a year and a half ago, yiepsz becomeyiepsz -- i.s.i.s. becomea big, big deal, takes all this territory and the united states goes to war against i.s.i.s., right? at that point, i'm sure the intelligence community was asked to make i.s.i.s. a key focus of their efforts, and you can't just flip a switch, right, and start developing the intelligence you need. it takes a lot of time. >> rose: how do you do it? if you don't have a presence on the ground, you don't have an embassy, you don't have a consulate, you don't have any other u.s. presence that you can operate out of, it's even harder. it's very hard to operate in a

denied area where you're not allowed. so it's difficult to begin with, it becomes harder because it's a denied area, but it's still doable. we've done it in many, many places. >> rose: is it primary an issue of recruitment of people that you can turn? >> it's both the recruitment of human spies, absolutely, and you have to figure out how to do that, and it takes time to meet people and develop them and recruit them and send them back in and get information from them, it's a very complicated process. and then technical collection, right? listening to phone calls and e-mails and all that kind of stuff, right? a lot more than that that i can't talk about. but the technical collection, too. so it's a matter of both. and my assumption, charlie, is that it's getting better over time, but we're still not where we need to be, and i say that for two reasons -- number one, we didn't see paris coming, so

we don't have the inroads, the intelligence inroads we need to disrupt these attacks. we did that with al quaida all the time. we saw an attack coming and disrupted it. and we're not removing leadership from the battlefield in the numbers that would tell me that we have -- that the intelligence is as good as it needs to be. >> rose: to we need more powers of surveillance? >> i think the question more is resources. i think the question is more resources. so, you know, one of the stories about the "charlie hebdo" attack in paris earlier this year was that those guys were under surveillance by french security forces for a period of time, and then the french had to drop off them because they didn't have the resources. there were other guys they had a higher priority on. same was true in france prior to

paris, same resource problems. same true in the u.k. and the united states in terms of resource problems. let me make this as specific as i can. this is not really about surveillance. this is about intelligence capabilities in general. the number of employees, charlie, at the central intelligence agency is a classified number, so i can't say it, but i can tell you that, in 1991, it was x -- this is an algebra problem -- it was x. in 2001, it was .75 x. so 25% decline in ten years, that was the peace dividend from the end of the cold war. >> rose: can you get the same kind of efficiency, though, because of advances in technology? >> no, intelligence is a people business, particularly humans, particularly the recruitment of spies and analysis, that's the two things the c.i.a. does. it's a people-heavy business.

people-intensive business. so resources grew dramatically after 2001, but when i left the c.i.a. in august of 2013, we were at one point 1x. so just 10% higher than in 1991. so essentially the same number of employees as we had in 1991 in a world that was much, much, much more complicated. john brennan said, after paris, that the c.i.a. is literally overwhelmed by everything that it has to do, all of the threats that are facing the united states, and i'm sure he was referring to exactly what i'm talking about right now. >> rose: you think of that and, at the same time, you look at how much the budget is, the defense budget is in this country. those are priorities decided by the executive branch. >> and by congress. >> rose: and by congress in

terms of the appropriations. several more things i want to talk about. one, it is how do we understand what the real threat of terrorism is? it's not just dead bodies. it's more than that. >> so i think, charlie, i think this is a great question and a great conversation and i think it gets -- the conversation i think will help people understand where the president is coming from a little bit. so i think most people think of the terrorist threat as dead bodies, and it certainly is, and we need to take it very, very seriously from that perspective. but there are other consequences of terrorist attacks that are very, very, very important. so -- and these consequences result from the way the public reacts to them. we react the to -- we as the public react to terrorism in a way that we don't react to

school shootings or shootings at women's health clinics. >> rose: how do we react different? >> we are willing to have our government go and bomb another country in retaliation for a terrorist attack or even in fear of a terrorist attack. we don't react with anywhere near that intensity to a school shooting in terms of the actions that we actually take. so what are the risks from a terrorist attack? i think this is a little bit about what the president is talking about. one of the things that happens in the aftermath of a terrorist attack -- it certainly happened in the aftermath of 9/11 -- is that we as a public are willing to give up some of our privacy and some of our civil liberties for the sake of surveillance and security. but the public, after a terrorist attack, is willing to give it up. that's a bad thing. this is a country that's founded on privacy and liberty and civil

liberties and having the public want to give them up is a bad thing, i think, and that can be the consequence of one of these. imagine the worst nightmare scenario of a nuclear weapon being detonated in new york city. you can imagine -- the american people would give up all their freedoms, right, to make sure that didn't happen again. >> rose: you make the statement they'd give up all their freedoms. >> not all, but they'd give up an awful lot of their freedoms. >> rose: they would be willing for the pendulum to swing toward security. >> significantly toward security. another one of the consequences is what americans would demand of the president in terms of military action post a paris-style terrorist attack here, and i think the public would be much more demanding of actual boots on the ground as the president defines them. go and take care of this

problem. >> rose: so if paris happened in new york city, there would be a huge demand on washington? >> you can package the voices -- you can imagine the public voices saying we've got to solve this problem, we've got tovolve it right now, let's put our boots on the ground and send 50,000 troops, and that demand would be there. >> rose: tell me how this connects to the president. >> i think he understands this. i think he understands -- >> rose: so therefore what? does that affect his judgment, his choices? his actions? >> i don't think it necessarily affects his judgment and actions, but it b affects what he's trying to say to us. >> rose: which is? which is yesterday in a conversation with norah o'donnell, he was trying to make the point we can't be so fearful here that we're trying to give up the freedoms we're trying to protect. >> rose: he does say, and said

to her, you know, the circumstances -- we can dramatically reduce but we cannot eliminate. >> right. so one of the things that actually worried me is i don't think u.s. infantry guys in the thousands holding and taking territory in syria and iraq is the answer to this. i don't believe that. but i fear that a paris-style attack here could lead us down that road. >> rose: because the public would demand it? >> because the public would demand it. >> rose: why don't you think it's the right thing to do? >> because we don't have -- because we learned in both afghanistan and iraq that taking the terrorist is really easy and holding it is somewhat easy, a little more challenging, but turning it over to somebody else who can control it from that point on is very, very, very

hard. somebody who can control it in a stable way is very, very, very hard. so what's the end game? what's the end game of a u.s. invasion of iraq and syria that's successful in pushing i.s.i.s. from holding territory back into the safe houses and, you know, back into the mountains, what's the end game? who's going to come in and take over and be in charge and have a security force capable of ultimately holding it so that we can go home? it's that end game that becomes very, very, very difficult. >> rose: if you don't have an answer to that, at least you better have an alternative. >> right. so because the consequences of an attack here are greater than just the people dying, i think there is got to be a significant, as we talked about the last time we were at this table -- >> rose: acceleration.

-- acceleration, amplification. >> rose: intensification. -- intensification, acceleration on what we're doing both on the military side which the president has done in regard to the special forces and the diplomatic side in getting a political solution in damascus and baghdad. >> rose: the question of assad comes up all the time because of what's going on with the entry of the russian planes, the role it's playing and the idea that they believe that as long as assad is in power it contributes to i.s.i.s. so what's the policy, is what i do not understand? clearly, they want him out. clearly, they believe the u.s. will take time. they can't do it overnight. but what's the plan to get him out? >> so this is what i think the plan is, right? so -- >> rose: how long? so we believe, right, we believe that he's a big part of the i.s.i.s. problem, that i.s.i.s. is, in part, as big and strong as it is because of

opposition to him. and who's the most effective fighting force against assad is i.s.i.s. so why not join the guys doing the best, right? that's absolutely true. it's true assad going away allows you to focus on i.s.i.s. in a way you can't when he's there and takes away some of the kindling that supports them, et cetera. so he's got to go. not everybody agrees with that at the moment. the russians and iranians don't agree with that. they think, okay, let's have an election, but let's let him run and if he wins then he gets to continue to govern, right? that's their position. our position started out as, he can't even come to the negotiating table for a transition to a new government and to elections. he can't even sit at the negotiating table. i think our policy is now

evolving so he can actually be part of that transition from him to elections, actually be part of that conversation, but he can't stand in the elections. i think that is our policy at the moment. >> rose: and the saudis and the emirates and theturks, will they accept that? >> i don't think the saudis are there yet. >> rose: in acceptance t of that idea, they haven't reached that point? >> i don't know about the turks or the emiratesies, but i don't think the saudis or the iranians are there but the russian are getting closer. >> rose: who has more influence, the iranis or the russians? >> the iranis because they have more skin in the game, they have more fighting force. they have their own guys. they have shia militia they've

trained and sent into syria and have hezbollah which game into lebanon at the request of iran. >> rose: so you think assad might be more willing to listen to the ayatollah? >> yes, but i think the play for us is to convince the russians this is the way to deal with the problem, this transition to assad without elections to assad and have the russians work on the iranians. >> rose: how much do you think this president is influenced by that he has a considered belief that he came to washington, to the white house to get us out of a deep involvement in the middle east, out of a war in iraq and afghanistan, and that's what he campaigned on, believed in and promised and, therefore, it is almost impossible for him, in the remaining time that he has,

to reverse that in a forceful way? >> i think what motivates him is less -- and we're speculating now, until we talk to the guy -- i think it's less that he made a campaign promise to get us out. >> rose: i think it was the mindset that made him make that promise because he believed that was in the best interest of the united states. >> yes, and i think that's true, and i think what he believes and what he would say if he were here is that i don't think that's the solution to these kinds of problems and, actually, us being there makes it worse. i think that's what he would say, that it's not the right policy move. that putting 50,000 troops on the ground in iraq and syria to deal with i.s.i.s. is the wrong strategic move. i think that's what he would say. >> rose: because the damage of it is more and larger than whatever the benefit will be?

>> yes, you might get short-term benefit but longer-term damage. >> rose: so is this the way it is today, a manageable issue? so if it doesn't get any better for them or for us, can we live with that? >> no, i don't think we can. because of the risk they pose to the region that i talked about, because of the terrorist threat that they pose here and the potential consequences that we talked about -- not only the deaths of the people but the other consequences -- and because of their radicalization of other groups in many, many, many other countries, no, i don't think this is -- you can just let this go on. you can contain it physically and geographically, but you can't contain the ideology and you can't contain the terrorism. >> rose: so do you think the recruiting -- let's assume you're the recruiting agent for

i.s.i.s., whoever that person is or how many there might be, it is an easier or harder sell today? you look at paris and say, we're on the march, or do you look at iran and syria and the caliphate and say, it's not going as well as we thought and they're getting ready to attack us in mosul? >> no, i think if i'm the recruiter, i would love the current situation i'm in. i love both those things, right, because with paris, i can say, we are successfully attacking the enemy, the enemy we ultimately have to defeat here, the threat to our religion, we're successfully attacking them. on the other hand, i can say, they are aggressively coming after us, and we need you on our side. i love both of those. >> rose: so then the question becomes, are we winning?

>> you know, the answer to that question is no. it's absolutely no. it's less because of paris and perhaps california, now, and it's more because you can't win in this situation unless the other side loses, right. stalemate, in a geographic sense, is them winning. >> rose: and do you think there is a plan that is either about to be unleashed or is on the table now that will win? >> so -- >> rose: which has been the central complaint against this president -- he does not have a strategy. >> so as we talked about before around this table, right, there is a military solution in syria, which is syrian sunnis fighting

i.s.i.s. organized by a new syrian government and supported by the international community, that's a workable military solution. there is a military solution in iraq which is the same thing, sunni tribes armed, trained by the international community, but neither one of those things is possible without a political solution in both places. the political solution, the political problem in damascus is assad. the political problem in iraq is the disenfranchisement -- >> rose: is it within our power to solve the political problem? >> by ourselves -- yes, we can't do it by ourselves but we can certainly lead. >> rose: and do we need russia and iran to do it? >> yes, yes. that's what they get for putting skin in the game, all right, by

militarily supporting assad, both of them, they get a say at the negotiating table. that's the way it works. >> rose: thank you for coming. thank you. always great to be here. >> rose: thank you for coming. 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

this is "nightly business report," with tyler mathi n and sue herera. sharp drop with the markets on edge. is it time for long-term investors to shift their strategy and take on less risk? search for stability. the stocks that may provide some calm in a volatile and changing world. and what to watch. will tomorrow's jobs report seal the deal for an interest rate hike in just two weeks? all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for thursday, december 3rd. good evening, everyone. welcome. a new reality. the european central bank cut interest rates to kickstart that region's economy. the federal reserve may be on the verge of tightening rates for the first time in nearly a decade. and there's the possibility that yesterday's mass shooting in