>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the supreme court and three decisions handed down today. we talk to adam liptak, the supreme court correspondent for "the new york times." >> i think most people would prefer to have a reasoned decision from a full supreme court than to have three judges on the united states coulter of appeals for the fifth scifort deciding this for the whole nation. because they did issue a nationwide injunction blocking this program. and that sort of nationwide action we usually expect to come from the supreme court, not from a lower court. >> rose: and we continue talking about isis and the aftermath of orlando with mike morrell and admiral james winfield. >> we want a transition from assad to a new government. but we want assad to go in a you away that leaves the institutions of power, namely the military, security services,

intelligence services in tact, right? in iraq it was the u.s. government that made the decision to destroy those organizations with debath if i kaition. in libya, it just happened under its own weight, right it was so institutionalized, so personalized with qaddafi that when qaddafi and his senior guys went away, the military just disappeared and went away, right? i'm concerned that if assad just goes away without a transition to something else and we know what that is, the same thing may happen to the syrian military. >> rose: we conclude this evening with nejra cehic of bloomberg news in london with the mood as great britain went to vote on brexit. >> there is a real sense that the way you voted today is really going to matter, not just for the future of the u.k. but for the future of europe and globally as well. >> rose: new decisions from the supreme court, the battle against isis, after orlando and the brexit vote in great britain

today. all of that when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> 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 this evening with the supreme court, the justices dead locked in a challenge to president obama's imgraiks plan, a 4-4 ruling leaves in place a lower court decision that the president exceeded his authority. the program would have shielded millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. the court's decision is considered a blow to president

obama's the president expressed his disappointment in an address from the white house earlier today. >> here's the bottomline. we've got a very real choice that america faces right now. we will continue to implement the existing programs that are already in place. we're not going to be able to move forward with the expanded programs that we wanted to move forward on because the supreme court was not able to issue a ruling at this stage. and now we've got a choice about who we are going to be as a country, what we want to teach our kids and how we want to be represented in congress and in the white house. >> rose: an important decision, the supreme court also ruled on affirmative action upholding a race conscience program used by the university of texas at austin. joining me now from washington, adam liptak, the supreme court correspondent for "the new york times." welcome. let's talk about immigration first. >> it's a big blow for one of president obama's real legacies, his attempt to overhaul the

immigration program, to spare as many as five million people from deportation and allow them to work. and the effect of this 4-4 tie was to leave in place a federal appeals court decision that blocks the program and it effectively ends any chance of reviving the program while president obama is in office and raises real questions about whether this immigration overhaul will ever come into being. so even if the court did almost nothing and set no supreme court precedent, it had enormous practical consequences. >> rose: and for his legacy it is what? >> it is a blow. i don't know that after health care this might be his second most ambitious domestic agenda item. so it's a real setback for him. it's something that the administration felt confidence was lawful. lost in the lower courts, hostile to them, thought they had a shot in the supreme court. and ended up with a 4-4 dead lock. >> rose: so what can they do now, nothing?

>> well, the case will go on in the lower courts and sooner or later it might find its way back to the supreme court. but that will take a year or two, and a lot can happen in the mean time. but it may be that eventually a nine member supreme court with either a hillary clinton or donald trump appointee on it will have another look at this question. >> rose: perhaps this is one reason that the president pushing so hard for judge gar land? >> yes, and he said so at the white house. this is a reason why we need a nine member supreme court. republicans might counter and say this is a reason why they're happy with an eight member supreme coulter. >> rose: if scalia had been there it would have been the same decision w gar land a different decision. >> that's quite right, yeah, they don't announce who voted how. but the chance of this being an idea logical split with the four liberals on one side, the our conservatives on the other, very, very high. >> rose: what else did you read into what the president said? >> you know, a level of frustration. a level of sympathy for the

unauthorized immigrants whose live this will effect. and some frustration with congress that he can't get any forward motion on his supreme court nominee. >> rose: and i mean the question then becomes, obviously it's a people question as you said at the beginning. it's a question of people who will not have a certain consequence they thought they might have. >> right. and there are to be sure difficult legal issues here. and congress gives the president substantial authority to decide whom to deport. but there was some authentic legal questions in this case. and i think most people would prefer to have a reasoned decision from a full supreme court then to have three judges on the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit deciding this for the full nation. because they did issue a nationwide injunction blocking this program. and that sort of nationwide action we usually expect to come from the supreme court, not from a lower court. >> rose: let me turn to affirmative action. what is the historic

significants of that decision? >> this is big. this is a 4-3 decision upholding a affirmative action plan at the university of texas written by justice kennedy whose basically been a sceptic of affirmative action. has never before voted to uphold an affirmative action plan. and while there is language in the decision that both sides might like in the affirmative action debate, the basic message of the decision is that it's okay. universities can take account of race as one factor among many in deciding whom to admit to their colleges and universities. and that's a big move. it looked like in this case, that the constitutionality of a fimple tiff action program was be cut back some. and to have them endorsed, is a sign that this is done, this is over, this is something that will be with us for a long time. this thing that university admissions officials say they

really need and want is something the supreme court has now said they can do. >> rose: so what exactly was the university's program? what did they say? >> the university's program was a little odd. is it admitted most people to texas, the university of texas by taking the top 10% of anybody who graduated in a texas high school. so if you did well in your high school whether it was a good high school or bad high school, they let you in. that part of the program was uncontested. everyone agreed that was fine. in fact, that generated very substantial diversity but largely because texas high schools are fairly segregated. what the university of texas did, and this is the part that was contested is layer on top oc admissions program where they did take account of race directly as one factor among many. and that's how almost every college and university in america admits people. and that's how they generate diversity is by making race a plus factor. and whether that's constitutionally per missable

has been the subject of decades of legal wrangling. and the bottomline of the decision today was that it's okay. you can do that, diversity is an important, compelling interest. and we're going to largely defer to universities if they say they need to take account of race to make sure they have a critical mass of a diverse student bodsee. and so it's a big decision from a seven member court. we didn't have scalia, of course. we also didn't have justice kagan because she worked on the case as solicitier general. so you have this quite truncated court making a quite big decision. >> rose: and why did kennedy change his mind? >> it is hard to know. i would have predicted he goes the other way. i think he does like to be in control. he does like to be the hero. and this gave him an opportunity again as with same-sex marriage to be some one who delivered a major social impact decision to the american people. >> rose: you quoted larry tribe who frequently is a guest here who said no decision since

brown versus board of education has been as important as fisher will prove to be in the long history of racial inclusion and educational diversity. >> that is probably a stronger statement than many observers would sign on to. but i think the direction is quite right. i think that although this involved the idiosyncratic program we were talking about in texas, in a general thrust and outcome of it is a big, big boost for supporters of affirmative action, big liberal decision from this court. >> rose: and unexpected would you say or not. >> surprised the hell out of me. >> rose: when you look at this court ending its term soon, how many more decisions. >> monday. we have one more decision day on monday, three decisions to go. >> rose: what are the three? >> one is another case from texas involving restrictive abortion laws down there. a second is a minor guns case. and a third looks at the cor rupg conviction of virginia's former governor mob mcdonald.

>> rose: so he may get a chance to get out then if the court would rule in his favor. >> i think wrong as i was about affirmative action, i think i'm right in saying he's going to have a good day on monday. >> rose: you say that because? >> the tenor of the argument was such that lots of justices including liberal ones, notably jus tus stephen briar seemed to have a lot of sympathy for the former governor's legal position. >> rose: thank you, my friend, great to have you. >> good to be here. >> rose: adam liptak from "the new york times." back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: tonight we look at make's ongoing battle against extremism it has been 11 days since the largest mass shooting in american history took place in orlando, florida. in its aftermath questions of home-grown terrorism and gun control have come to a head. how can lone wolf terrorists be better tracked and stopped. is gun control a national security issue. on wednesday and thursday democrats staged a sit-in in the

house demanding votes on gun control legislation. the sit-end ended when speaker paul ryan and his fellow republicans reclaimed control long enough to force through a spending bill. the u.s. political and military strategy has also come under fire. last friday 51 state department officials signed an internal memo protesting u.s. policy in syria. the diplomats urged president obama to carry out military strikes against the syrian government to stop its persistent violations of a ceasefire and to gain some leverage in negotiations. in iraq the fight against isis took a significant step forward when iraqi government forces retook a majority of fallujah which had been controlled by isis militants. yet still there seems to be no end in sight in the long war against isis and extremism. joining me now is mike morrell. he is a cbs news national security correspondent. he has served as deputy and acting director of the cia. also joining us james winfield served as the ninth vice

chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who had made him the number two man in the armed services in america. during the time period of that position. i'm pleased to have you to join mike morrell who has been a frequent guest on this program. and has become kind of i must tell you this, a kind of rock star for my audience. >> a rock star for me too. >> so let's just talk about orlando. and what does it mean in terms of the ongoing battle against extremism. >> and terrorism. >> i think the first thing, charlie, to say about orlando is we still do not have a perfect understanding of what exactly orlando was. there are indications that it was terrorism. and there are indications of his being radicalized. there certainly last minute indications of him, of him claiming he was acting on isis'

dehalf. but there is also-- . >> rose: pledging allegiance. >> right, there are also indications that this was a hate crime, right? and there are also indications that this was some sort of revenge crime. because he was gay. he had an attraction to gay latinos. and there is some evidence that he was spurned by them and he was acting out of revenge, right. so we don't know what the massive motivation is here. but it does seem that there was something in the isis narrative that-- that attracted him, that may have pushed him over the edge. may have just been an excuse at the right at the end of the day. i think orlando is very, very complicated. but it is absolutely true that there are a large number of young people in the united states who are attracted to the ideology, who are being radicalized by the message and that we need to worry about those guys. >> rose: and are we doing enough, obviously no. >> you know, dealing with lone wolves is very, very difficult.

right? because the way you catch terrorists is, is through either through the communication from the center to the terrorist, right. you pick up that communication and you discover this guy over here. and you disrupt. or you have a small group of individuals who are planning a plolt and you get inside their communications, right? that's the way you catch terrorists, with a lone wolf, with a lone wolf there is a single individual not connected to the center. so it's very difficult to find them, right? and it is a real challenge for intelligence, for law enforcement to discover them. if this happens in their home, in their basement, in their bedroom, they are not posting things on social media, it's very difficult to find them before they act. >> rose: so what do we need to do? >> as far as-- . >> rose: as far as the effort to stop lone wolves, to know more about them. to have a greater connection to the community so we have a sense

that people who care about these kinds of issues for a range of reasons, a, because protecting human lives, b because it leads to an unfair characterization of their religion, whatever it might be. >> i think stopping the lone wolf attacks, charlie, goes to the heart of the whole question about how you stop fundamentalist extremism, whatever, from the beginning. and if you believe that this is a generational issue, where it's going to take a generation or two for the huge majority of muslims who are responsible, who don't believe in violence a chiefing political means through violent ends, before they can actually get control of this themselves, raises two questions. one is how do you protect yourself in the mean time. and the other is there anything we can do to help hasteen that day where extremism no longer has this kind of cred ability that it has gotten. the first question dommestically, of course s not about the military. it's more about law enforcement. about fbi. and i think we need to do everything we can in a responsible ray to empower those

guys to do their job. you know, there's been a big debate in the country about privacy. we believe in strong privacy laws in this country. but i think there are some responsible things we can do to help these guys find them. >> but on the narrow question, right, on the narrow question of what is the best way of learning about these guys before they attack. >> right. >> on that narrow question, i think the evidence is absolutely clear. that the best way to do it is not through broad surveillance, right, which alienates these communities. but the best way is through community policing. the best way is through encouraging muses limb communities, muslim leaders, muslim teachers, muslim parents, right, friends, family, to come forward when they see red flags, and to inform law enforcement. that's the way it works very effectively in the united kingdom it doesn't work that effectively in other parts of europe where those communities

feel disenfranchised. but that, i think, is how you deal with lone wolf terrorisms at the end of the day. >> rose: it is not a new idea to say we have to have some capacity to combat isis and their ideology that is throughout social media, you know. and i know at the state department they tried to create programs that will do that but my impression is they have not got to where they want to be in that kind of social media counterattack, saying we have a better idea. >> right so now we get back to sandy's bigger point. >> right. >> so there is one question about how do you deal with terrorists who already exist. how do you stop them from attacking you, right. the other question is how do you prevent the creation of these guys in the first place that is where sandy is coming from. >> i would say, and this is a composite picture but if you look at a young muslim male who doesn't have much economic opportunity, who doesn't get a lot of respect, who doesn't maybe feel a sense of justice, who is only being reached out to educationally or religiously by extremists, and who has this social media view of what we

call jihadi cool, you know, the kid with the ak-47 and bandana who looks sex aye or whatever. that, i think, understanding those underlying causes. and then figuring out what we as a society can do not necessarily ourselves but to empower the muslim community. >> rose: are we doing enough to, in a sense, to communicate and to have serious and important conversations out of respect for the religion, get them to do more? >> i think that's an area that we need to explore much more deeply than we are. most of the attention in this game is that first question. how do we protect ourselves. i think the lion's share of attention probably could shift over to answering that very question. >> rose: go ahead. >> i was just going to say, i agree 100 percent. for every, and i'm not exaggerating here. for every thousand hours that we spend in the situation room talking about how to deal with the terrorists who are trying to kill us, we spend an hour talking about how to stop the

prevention of terrorists in the first place, so the wait does need to shift. i just wanted to say. >> is that primarily the responsibility of homeland security, the fbi. >> not necessarily. >> no, this san issue that the whole world needs to get their arms around, right. and there's not a lot that the united states can do directly. we can't-- united states has no credibility talking to young muslim men about their faith, right. that conversation needs to come from their leadership. their clerics. their teachers, their family. we can lead, right, we can get people together to talk about this. we can get resources together, right to make it happen. that is just one piece of this. there is economic opportunity and there's social issues, right. all these have to be dealt with. and we can lead in that regard. >> rose: understanding mental illness and all of that. >> it is not only a whole of government, it is a whole of society. >> the point i wanted to make is the u.s. government's emphasis on dealing with the guys who are, the bad gies who already exist, that emphasis since 9/11

sundays standable, right? it's the equivalent of when gang members try to break into your home and kill your family, right. you are focused on stopping them. the last thing you're thinking about, right, are the socialio economic conditions that created gang in the first place. >> basically how do i save myself. >> exactly. >> rose: rather than how do i worry about what made him do this. >> it doesn't mean we don't have to shift but we do. >> rose: at least go to the larger picture, the president talks about this all the time that we are winning and doing better, how many people in the top leadership we have killed and all of that. what is your assessment, both of you, of where we are in this june day with respect to the battle against isis? >> so i thought the most important news from last week was the director of cia's john brennan's testimony before the senate intelligence committee. it was opened to the public. and it was where are we with

isis. and what director brennan said was that yes, we've made a tremendous amount of progress against them in iraq and syria. we have taken 50% of their ter tor. we've shut their finances, essentially down. we have taken the number of their leaders off the battle field. but then he contrasted that with four very powerful points, i thought. one was-- one was despite all the success, we have not yet dented. we have not degraded at all their overseas terrorist cap abilities. two, is that it's going to get worse, the terrorism overseas is going to get worse before it gets belter. cause as we squeeze them more in iraq and syria, all of the west europeans, the americans, the canadians, who went to fight for isis in iraq and syria are going to leave and come home and become a threat. three, dedefeating isis is no longer just beating them in iraq and syria, it's now beating them

in all the other places of the world where they spread. the best example of that is libya where there are now 6,000 of these guys. >> rose: and lots more going there. >> more going there than are now going to iraq and syria. and then four, the lunch line of all of that was we're going to see a lot more attack, both directed and inspired in the future. very powerful message. >> rose: i read it carefully and i actually talked to the vice president about it. is anything that the director of the cia said inconsistent with the president had been saying about the battle against isis? >> no. so. >> rose: there is no contradiction, no conflicts between the cia direct are and the president. you wouldn't expect there to be. >> no, i don't think there is any conflict. we were talking about this earlier today, right. this is ha become-- this issue of how we are doing against isis has become a political issue. in this country. when the white house talks about t they tend to put the emphasis

on here's the success we're having. when the republicans in congress tend to talk about it, they tend to talk about the remaining threat, right, the threat that we're still facing. john put both of them together. >> rose: he spoke about both of those. both success and the failure whereas the white house doesn't talk much about failure. >> right. >> so let me just talk about all of those. libya. how are we responding to the growing menace in libya. >> well, we-- . >> rose: a failed state with a lot of oil. >> right. we got a late start. >> rose: right. >> we effectively removed moammar qaddafi from the equation there. i think there's a lot more that we could have probably done in that moment of opportunity to help the libyan-- countries. >> rose: do you think it was a mistake to remove. >> i don't think it was a mistake to remove him. but i think often times in situations like this, we done have a plan for day two. and we didn't, i don't think, have a very strong plan for how we were going to support the libyan people, the libyan state in the wake of moammar qaddafi

going away. >> rose: so it ended up ruled by tribes. >> right. and we run that same risk elsewhere in the world if we're not careful. >> rose: like where. >> like syria. >> rose: in other words, we don't know what happens if with you go after assad. >> right, you can go after assad, you can weaken him, even have him pulled from power through a negotiation. but until somebody can show me what is the plan after that for the stability of the syrian state, for the stability of the syrian government, to look out after all of those syrian people, not just a certain sect, i won't necessarily be terribly wild about seeing even-- . >> rose: that will happen more in negotiations will it not n incipal player as well as the iranians perhaps and certainly, syrian president. >> but i think what we're getting at here. >> rose: charlie, is those people who are calling, right, including the 50 some state department diplomats, right, who are calling for much greater military application. >> rose: in order to give leverage to the negotiating

track is their mantra. >> yes. but, but, i think, i think that-- that the goal, the focus, right, the focus of what we are doing in iraq and syria is on isis. that is the threat to us. i know the humanitarian toll in syria is huge, right. and it's heartbreaking. but the threat to u.s. interests is isis. and the power in iraq, the power in iraq that is doing the most damage to isis is assad's military. a little bit of the courage in the north but most of the territory, most of the territory that has been taken back from isis in syria has been taken back by assad's military. and my concern, my concern is and sandy might have a different view. but my concern is that if you significantly weaken a sad, not

knowing what comes next, back to the same question, not knowing what comes next, you may actually create more instability. you may actually reduce the effectiveness of the fight against isis. you may actually give isis more running room in syria. >> rose: let me just make sure i understand you. one of the arguments made after iraq was that the army was gone. and they had fled because they had been dismantled by the forces. and almost in a wide giant swath. and secondly, political people who only joined the bawt party because they wanted a job and had no ideology about it and were not sort of best friends of saddam hussein were also taken out. and therefore you were left when he fell, with no strong internal structure. and are you saying it's in our interest to make sure that those syrians, even in the syrian army and other syrians are not necessarily killed by throwing out assad. >> yes.

so. >> rose: so that they are left there to build their state. >> so what we want is we want assad to go, right? we want a transition from assad to a new government. but we want assad to go in a way that leaves the institutions of power, namely the military, security services, intelligence services in tact, right. in iraq, it was the u.s. government that made the decision to destroy those organizations with debath if i kaition n libya it happened under their own weight it was so institutionalized, so personalized with qaddafi that when qaddafi and his senior guys went away, the military just disappeared and went away, right? i'm concerned that if assad just goes away without a transition to something else and we know what that is, the same thing may happen to the syrian military. and certainly u.s. air strikes against the syrian military would-- could potentially weaken them to the point where you have instability once assad goes. >> rose: but then the question is, are the turks, the-- are the

saudis or other people in the arab world who are sunnies prepared to accept, we've got to let him stay around for awhile until we get rid of isis. >> i done know that him staying around until we get rid of isis is necessarily the equation. they are deeply interested in what syria looks like when and if this ever happens. i think i'm where michael is. i just want to see the plan for what syria is going to be like at the end of this negotiation. and if you scan the blowingsphere, i want to see the letter, for example, that says okay, when assad leaves, this is how syria will be governs and fairly for all the syrian people. there won't be massive blood shed, score-settling and that sort of thing. i haven't seen that. >> rose: the plan should come from the white house, from where? >> i think it should be lead by probably the united states. because we have a lot of t it has to have buy-in fromsort this huge juxtaposed grouch of

conflicting, you know, people with an interest in syria, kurds, sunnies, turks. it is a difficult problem to come up with that. but i don't think we've done the hard work to make it happen. >> rose: so i want to know why we haven't done t and who's responsibility is it to do it. you know, and my impression that part of what the negotiation is about is trying to figure some of that out. so you are trying to get the russians to find some third party, not assad, because they are not necessarily wedded to him, they have made that clear. so where is that sort of planning should have take place. john kerry is out there saying i need some leverage. i need something. that is what the 51 disip lo mats were talking about. so-- dip-- that is what the 51 diplomats were talking about. i hate to shy away from that, it wasn't my responsibility. but i did, in fact, ask many times. >> rose: do we have a plan. >> where's the plan for what happens after assad goes.

>> and we can't have a sort of we'll work it out when that happens approach. >> rose: so. >> so i believe that just as sandy said at the end of the day, it's all the parties to this conflict sitting down and figuring out. but, but, it is only going to work if the united states walks in the room with a plan. it's only going to work that way. >> rose: so i have an idea what the plan is. >> okay. and have i run this by a handful of people. >> rose: you have an idea in your own mind. >> in my own mind from my own experience. >> rose: what the plan ought to be. tell us what it is. >> so don't laugh, seriously, so i think that in both syria and iraq, you know, the fundamental problem is that you have got this mult teud of groups, right? and nobody, nobody trusts anybody else. right? so the shia don't trust the sunnies in iraq. sunnies don't trust the shi blanca the kurds don't trust either of them, et cetera, et

cetera. same is true in syria, just a different group. so i think the solution in both places is a lebanon style, a lebanon style political solution. and what does that mean? that means that the different groups, the different ethnic groups, the different sectarian groups, they all have a guaranteed-- they all have a guaranteed set of authorities inside the government. guaranteed jobs that they are going to get that won't be taken away from them by the vote. what happened in iraq was it was straight up democracy. and not surprising to anybody that the shia controlled and took advantage of the change. >> rose: because they were in the majority. >> they were in the majority, right. same thing in syria today where the allo-whihes run everything. >> rose: but they are not in majority. >> if there was real democracy, the sunnies would written. >> rose: but the allo-whites would have a portion. >> under michael's idea they would. they would have-- . >> rose: maybe 10%. >> maybe they would be get the

defense ministry all the tiesm or the presidency, or the prime, right. you would set that out in the institution ahead of sometime-- in the constitute ahead of time so straight up democracy or votes are not going to disenfranchise everybody. >> rose: what do you think of this plan? >> i think it would be interesting to have that discussion with the parties involved, where is russia on this. russia is-- . >> rose: good question. >> russia has, you know, a famous greek fill os fear once said that philosopher says a conflict comes from fear, honest and-- . >> rose: what is the fear. >> quite honestly something we can agree with, that is that the terrorism that is emanating from that part of the region will end up in russia which it has. i can be sim path edic to it. the honor piece is russia wanting to reassert itself on the world stage, to be seen as a coequal partner strategically to the united states and to have that sort of stick in the world. and the interest piece, of

course, is their desire to have a foothold in the middle east, a port on the mediterranean that is outside the black sea. so all of those things, and you find when those things are on top of each other, that the potential for conflict is ripe. so they have serious interests, they have to be accounted for. >> rose: do we have a problem with the third, their interest and giveern the kind of interest they have. >> i think we will have to if we are going to have a successful conversation. >> rose: you will have to include it. >> you have to include the russian interest there but we also have to be firm negotiators and include a lot of other people's interests as well. the sunni arabs, in particular. the turks on their northern border, coughs coughs are course their own interests, the kurd piece, northern and eastern syria will be terribly important. as michael points out, an awful lot of parties to this thing who all bitterly mistrust each other, who have to come up with some sort of a solution and what michael suggests might work. >> rose: you were saying this administering does not vay strategy for what comes, regardless of whether assad goes

or not. >> you know, i think it was after paris, charlie. i came on your show and i said the president's strategy is not working. what i should have said was the execution of a strategy is not working. >> rose: so he has a strategy. >> so i actually think there is a strategy and i think it's the right strategy. and the strategy as simply as i can is militarily take back territory from isis, using local forces, right? not putting hundreds of thousands of u.s. troops on the ground to do it. the other part is politically to give the sunnies a stake in the future of iraq. and give the sunnies a future in the stake of syria, right? so that you don't just get rid of isis and something else comes and replaces it. remember we started with al-qaeda ang then drove al-qaeda out and then isis comes and replaces it because we didn't deal with the fundamental plilt kal problems. so i think the strategy is fine. my question is, the execution of

the strategy. and my question is why, why weren't we more aggressive, why weren't we more-- why weren't woe willing to take more risk, right snr one of the things that struck me, charlie, is every time there say-- a terrorist attack, right, whether it's terrorists, san bernardino, brussels. the united states has done more. so we've taken advisors who were-- who were-- . >> rose: ratchet things up. >> we ratchet things up, right. so we take advisors at the bri gaid level and push them down closer to the fight. we take special forces guys and put them on the ground to conduct operations themselves to collect intelligence and conduct operations against senior leaders. we take special forces guys and put them in syria, right? every time something bad happens, we ratchet it up. and i say to myself, why weren't we already doing this. >> okay. >> rose: that could have been a.

>> yes. >> rose: are the rules of engagement in iraq and for americans, and syria different? >> not that i'm aware of. >> because you see more stories, in fact the secretary of defense said to me yes, we have special forces in iraq going on search and destroy. when i said to the president in hanover, what are the rules of engagement for the syrian soldiers, for the special forces in syria, he said you know, they just added like 200. and he said to me, i can't really tell you that. >> so i better understand the question now. rules of engagement, are who can you shoot and under what six. the authorities for military action is really how i would interpret that. for the longest time they were different. we were-- we had more soldiers on the ground. we had more authority in the air. very early in this. in iraq. and then gradually it was expanded. one of the key event there was the president said i need to have a political partner in iraq that i can work with before i'm going to do more.

and in fact when prime minister abadi came in, he dramically expanded the authorities the u.s. military had in iraq and into syria. remember we were trying to get coalition partners to come with us into syria to use their power because we could do it legally under international law against ice dis-- isil. because they presented a threat us to and to our partner who asked for our assistance, iraq. not so with the assad government, there wasn't a basis in international law to go after assad himself or his forces, for that matter. and as michael has eluded, those authorities have expanded over time. so we do have more special forces on the ground. and we do have some controllers and that sorlt of thing. so they have expanded. they could probably go a little bit more. but i'm also mindful of the fact that the president in my opinion is trying to be very careful about having a slippery slope. where nobody is advocating except a few getting 100,000 people in there. but it is not a lot of steps between this didn't work so let's do i a little more.

and that didn't work because the american people want to see success. >> rose: what can you do in six months? i asked that tho vice president biden and i asked david petraeus, you know, can they having taken fallujah and shia militia, having taken fallujah, can they take mosul. is it possible that show there is a military action that will be able to in the next six months take raqqa back. or is that even a reasonable question? >> i think that raqqa maybe a bridge too far in the next six months just because you have to have a ground force to do it and expecting the kurds to take raqqa back is probably a bridge too far. there's not a powerful enough sunni force to go all the way to 's assad's army and i don'tless think they will get out there. i think that the next target of opportunity is going to be mosul. and there is an open question, even whether that can be done in

the next six months. there are going to be a lot of lessons learned for the iraqi army in fallujah. they are not done yet. they have declared victory but they have if the finished that. >> and so there are several things to watch for in fallujah. one is they have to finish the job. that could potentially be bloody. they have done a good job so far but it could be bloody. we have to watch out for what the shia militias are doing. i don't have evidence to support this, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were atrocities going on with the shia militias there filtering people. and then we really need to watch carefully to see what the iraqi central government does in the waisk the liberation, let's say, of fallujah to now dem disrate that it will be a good political party. that it will include sunnies, take care of refugees, put some resources in there so people go back to their homes. and fallujah becomes a successful state. because if they don't, it will go right back to what it was. >> so this is exactly one of the areas where i think we need to be more aggressive. and it's the area of the

political negotiations between the sunnies in iraq and the shia in iraq, the a bati government. the shia want three things. they want autonomy, kurds want the same thing, they want autonomy. they want an end to debaathifications so scunis can work in the iraqi government, and that would complu pengses for those individuals who worked in the iraqi government, or saddam, and who are in the iraqi army under saddam. and they want an end to the antiterrorism law which basically allows the central government to arrest anybody they want any time. right? those are the three main things they want. we have gotten absolutely nowhere in the negotiations between the government and the sunnies on a way forward on that relationship. and that is an area where it's only going to happen if we and the iranians put intense pressure on abadi and we and our

sunni gulf partners, saudi arabia,u ae and the others put intense pressure on the sunnies. but we haven't made any progress on the political side, right. so if you are-- if are you a sunni in iraq, are you more afraid of the shia militia than you are of isis. >> rose: today. >> today. today. >> and when you see noteaus of-- the ground in fallujah, that does not do anything to help this. >> rose: having just gotten back from moscow. so what about the iranians? what role will they play in iraq and in syria? >> i mean they is done some of the-- hezbollah acting on their behalf did some of the early fighting. >> right. so they came to-- they came to bashar all assad's assistance the first time in the fall of to 12. he was to therring, they came to

his assistance with shia militia that they trained in iran and funded and equipped. provided weapons to. they brought hezbollah in from leb done-- lebanon. they put guys on the ground to advise these folks. they saved assad the first time. they're still doing not all of that, in syria any more but still some of it. the second time assad was to therring, the russians came in to support him, largely with air strikes. and in iraq, they are probably the most effective fighting force. the shia militias that they trained. >> why is that. >> and they equipped. because the iranians are really good at. this the iranians are really good at training yowk men and providing weapons and money to fight. and with a lot of guidance from soanier officers including-- . >> rose: so there is also change, i mean in terms of where are we in terms of the saudis and the emirateis and being so

very much mesmerize by the conflict with iran? which reflects a sunni-shia thing as well as a very different view of who ought to have primacy in the region? >> i would say that our sunni gulf arab partners are deeply concerned about two, what they view as existential threats. the first is what we have been talking about, that is the extremeists, that very much threaten their regimesnd their way of life. and also iran. they're very much afraid of iran, iranian hegimony over the region. they have seen an iranian advance over the war in iraq. they basically turned iraq into a weak partner, that they can dominate. they participate in syria and they have this shia kres ent and that worries our gulf arab partners a great deal. it say little hard to understand i think in the united states how deeply they feel threatened by iran.

>> it's not-- it's not an overstatement to say that the sunni gulf states see iran as their soviet union. they see it as an existential threat to their states. >> and do they see us as not really appreciating that? and secondly, urging them to be more open minded about iran. i mean the president has said just that. >> yes. >> so they see us as not fully understanding the threat that they are facing. and they see us as not providing enough leadership in pushing back gensz the iranians. and they see us as not doing as much as we could. >> directly to push back on the iranians. >> rose: which is? >> as far as pushing back? >> rose: yeah. >> that's where you get into some pretty interesting questions on things like international law. let me give you an example. there is a u.n. security council resolution that says iran is not allowed to export weapons to anybody. they do it all the time, right? they put them aboard-- they sail

out of iran, go places like yemen and up into sudan and other places where the weapons are moved either to hezbollah or yemen itself. the problem with that u.n. security council resolution is it has no enforcement mechanism. russia and china would not vote for that resolution if it contained the ability to use force to stop iran from exporting weapons. so you can see an iranian sail by and under iranian law technically are you not able to stop it the one thing could you do perhaps is get a little more liberal interntion of international law that says you know, those weapons present a threat to a partner who has asked for our help. and there's the possibility that we could do more, let's say, to prevent iranian expert -- export of weapons. and there are countless other examples that some would fall into classified areas and others not where we could probably do more. >> rose: why aren't we doing more? does it have to do with the mindset in the white house. >> i sthi part of it has to do with, candidly, a deep respect

this administration has for international law. they are very reluctant to push hard against international law. it is possible to do that under legitimacy arguments. about you there are very strict limitations under that international law and when and how you can use force. and they have tended to abide by those. part of the reason for abiding by those restrictions because the more you dip into that welshing the more you sort of empowers others to do the same. for instance russian going into crimea ar going into the south china see. it is something that has to be used juddish usually. and if you don't want to do do something, an international law reason say good reason to say no. >> rose: what did you think about the obama doctrine as defined by jeffrey coberg in atlantic magazine? >> you know, it was a very interesting interview, wasn't it. i think the president was expressing some pent up frustrations. i don't know-- . >> rose: about saudis and others. >> about saudis and others. but i think deep down inside he

realizes how important these people are as partners for us. otherwise he wouldn't be meeting with eye mom sal man recently. i think there was blowing off of steam there, he would like to see more from our gulf partners in terms of a partnership. >> rose: is that a reasonable question? >> well, you know, they are good partners in many ways on the counterterrorism front, contrary to popular beliefs, they have been extroamly helpful. michael can describe to you what they have done in that regard, preventing attacks on the united states. no relationship is without its challenges. but we, this partnership is incredibly important to us. >> rose: what have they done in terms of fighting terrorism to help us. >> so the saudi and emiratei, the jor danian, the egyptians, a large number of these countries have been extraordinary counterterrorism partners. >> rose: in terms of their intelligence. >> in terms of collecting

intelligence that allows us to stop and disrupt plots. you know, there were a number of plots that came out of yemen by al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula, aimed at the united states, that the saudis helped us to disrupt. so there are americans alive today because of the partnership between saudi arabia and the united states and counterterrorism. >> rose: as far as you know, does hillary clinton and her worldview different from barack obama and his worldview? >> yeah, i think it does. >> rose: it is said that she is-- how would you describe it? she's-- i was thinking of words like she's more of a hawk than he is. >> i think -- i think she has a pretty broad definition of national security interests. i think she is open to doing more in some of these cases.

i have known her at the table to argue for more. i think she would be more willing to try to find an accommodation in this whole international law question, to try to do some of these things like let's stop iranian boats from taking weapons all over the place. so i think she's would be very-- pragmatic and to try to deal with some of these issues. and she listens, right? one of the big complaints of our arab partners and many of our other partners around the world is that nobody is listening to us. she is a great listener. >> i agree 100 percent of what michael said. the one thing i would add to that is having observed two administrations, bush administration and the obama administration, great people working inside those administrations, patriots, hardworking people, is the world looks a lot different when you are sitting in the chair at the

end of the table at the white house sit room than it does anywhere else. and it is easy to snipe, it's a easy to say whatever, but that person man, woman, whatever has got a lot on their shoulders. >> rose: this has been great, in a sense a perfect place to close because both of you have been in the situation room, where the questions are tough, you know. and there's no easy answer. and every answer has consequences. and some of them may be unintended. >> the complexity of these issues can't be overstated. they're not simple. i smile when i read ten paragraph op eds that tell you how to solve syria or isis or how to solve russia or china, right. these are complicated issues. >> rose: i hope you will come back. >> that be would great. >> pleasure. >> rose: hope you will join us again. >> pleasure to meet you. >> rose: thank you.

we'll be right back. stay with us. british voters headed to the polls today for a referendum on whether the united kingdom should remain in the 28 member european union known as brexit. the campaign leading up to today's vote has been one of the most defiance-- devicive issues in british politics. so we talked to bloomberg news and nejra cehic about that and welcome her to the broadcast. >> thanks, charlie. >> rose: give us a sense of what it was like in great britain today. >> well, charlie, i would say that there has been a real sense of graferrity. because this has been one of the moses devisive votes in a generation for u.k. voters here. the decision on whether to remain or to leave the eu. and i myself like many others went to vote earlier. there say real sense that the way you voted today is really going to matter. not just for the future of the u.k. but for the future of europe and globally as well. and you know, you might not be surprised to know that actually, you know, with british weather, we had a terrible torrential rain today, floods in many parts

of the countries. in fact, there was some polling booths that actually had to be moved and relocated for voters to be able to get to them. but despite that, its like people have soldiered on, have gone to the polls and cast their ballot on this vote today. but yeah, there is a real sense of gravity. and a lot of suspense ahead of what might happen. >> rose: turnout may be large. >> it is expected to be a decent turnoutment but you know, it's always hard to say how this is going to go. there was a large number of reg separations in terms of voter registration. i believe it was close to a record, so that is a positive thing in terms of turnout. whether the weather will have have affected turnout remains to be seen. but it wouldn't be important as well is how turnout might affect the way that the vote goes. again, this is quite hard to call. there are some that say that a high turnout would be positive

actually for the remain camp because they tend to be younger voters. but there are others who dispute that. >> rose: going into the vote today, what were the book makers and pollsters saying? >> well, the polls have been pretty close. the whole way through. and what we have had so far tonight is a poll commissioned by sky tv which showed 52% for remain, 48% for leave. now that is pretty close. we actually had a note, for example, from jpmorgan recently that is saying anything less than a five point lead for remain could mean that we'll have another referendum by 2025. so at the moment that is looking pretty close. but if you look at actually what the bookies have been calling, they are calling for a much higher chance of remain, at the moment, more than a 90% chance for remain. and markets also seem to be braces for remain. we have been seeing sterling rally, we have been seeing stock

futures in the u.s. rally as well. >> rose: when will we know the final results. >> so results will go through the night, of course. and the bullk of them are expected to come around 3:30 a.m. or 4 a.m. u.k. time. the final results due around 7 a.m. u.k. time, that is 2 a.m. eastern time. but these are always approximate timings, so we all have to stay on our feet but we should know the result by breakfast time in the u.k. >> rose: nejra, thank you so much. i know it is late in london, thank you for joining us. for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

this is "national business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. decision day. 120ks close in on their 2016 highs as investors bet that voters in the united kingdom will decide to remain in the european union. surprise diagnosis. health officials say astrazeneca one regarded at the best to protect kids from the virus doesn't work. troubling results. one of the most popular small suvs performed the worst in the latest crash tests. those stories and more tonight on "national business report" for thursday, june 23rd. good evening. i'm sharon epperson in tonight for sue herera. >> and i'm tyler mathisen from 30 rock in new york city. stocks ral