. >> rose: welcome to the program, we begin this evening with week two of the trump administration. and talk to dan balz chief correspondent for "the washington post." >> shaking up washington is in and of itself not a bad thing. as we know, this has not been a town that's worked particularly well over the last eight years or 16 years or for quite a long time. so the idea that dg business in a different way is show wrong, i think that a lot of people would say it's exactly what needs to be done. but as you suggest, the question is do you create so much chaos, do you create so much disorder, do you create so much distrust or uncertainty, do you literally create so much exhaustion on the part of both your allies and your friends in congress that people don't know exactly where this is heading. and as a result it sets off

other reactions whether it's with our allies or whether its' in the streets that are hard to contain. >> rose: we conclude this evening with lisa monaco. she was the former chief homeland security and quownt terrorism advisor to president obama. >> we left yemen some years ago, given the conflict there. and the threat to our personnel there. so any time you are undertaking operation, there's got to be consideration of the risk to the force. so the risk has to be worth the reward. and so those e the types of things you are considering. what is the next step in trying to go to raqqa. what is e force? we assess the only capable force is the kurdish military that we have been working with and providing assistance to. the provide with that, of course, is the reaction of the turks. >> rose: right. >> our nato ally. but we're really on the horns of

the dilemma here if we do not arm the kurds in order to go towards raqqa to take raqqa and dislodge isil and its external operations there. if we do not do that, there's no other, we've assessed, capable force of going into raqqa. >> rose: dan balz of "the washington post" and lisa monaco when we continue. funding for charlie rose has been 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 a look at politics. less than two weeks into his

presidency president donald trump continues to ignite controversy. earlier this week he abruptly fired sally yaits after she announced that the scrus tis department would not defend the administration's imtbraition ban in court. yesterday president trump engaged in a heated debate on twitter with the iranian government, accusing the iranians of ingratitude for the nuclear deal negotiated with the west. today president trump vowed to overturn a law of political speech for tax exempt churches. "the washington post" dan balz writes that trump's presidency has done more than pom arize the country, it has established terms of battle likely to persist indefinitely. he joins me now from washington. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: let's begin there, terms of battle that are likely to continue indefinitely. size up those terms of battle. >> well, it's an extension of the campaign that we went through, charlie. and i think that everything that

has happened since the election through the transition and particularly in the opening weeks of the trump presidency have reinforced the divisions that we saw in the election. donald trump has come to washington determined to shake it up. he promised that he would do that in the campaign. i'm not sure everybody took him as seriously as they should have. but it's determined to do that in his opening weeks. all of his moves in part are designed to send the signals that he's going to keep the promises that he made in the campaign. that he's going to offend the establishment without worrying about it. that he's going to be true to the people that he knows put him in office. and that he is going to alarm a lot of people not just in this country but around the world. and one of the things we've seen in the wake of everything he has done and he has moved at such a rapid pace and moved in so pean different directions, that it's kind of hard to think about what is the center of gravity of all of this, but it has created an enormous backlash.

it has created alarm around the world it has put people in the treat streets here in this country and elsewhere. and i think that it is as i said set the terms of battle for how you respond to donald trump over the next weeks, months, this year, next year, heading toward the 2018 and ultimately the 2020 election. >> rose: so tell me what, on the one hand, you could argue in some cases, you know, that there comes a time in which someone needs to come in and shake things up and create some ideas that are not simply what has been done in the past. on the other hand, you can say that you can come in and shake things up so that you create circumstances that will lead to a far worse situation in the end and you create circumstances in which you can't do anything, that you even intended to do over the long run in terms of betterment for the pop louse. >> i think that's the real risk,

charlie. shaking up washington in and of itself is not a bad thing. as we know, this has not been a town that has worked particularly well over the last eight years or 16 years or for quite a long time. so the idea of doing business in a different way is show wrong, i think that a lot of people would say it's exactly what needs to be done. but as you suggest, the question is do you create so much chaos? do you create so much disorder, do you create so much distrust or uncertainty smrks do you literally create so much exhaustion and on the part of both your allies and your friends in congress that people don't know exactly where this is heading, and as a result it sets off other reactions, whether it's with our allies or whether it's in the streets, that are hard-- that are hard to contain. and i think, you know, we're so early in this administration that i think that we all have to be a little bit cautious in kind of extrapolating in a linear way

where this is all heading and what it is going to do. but there's no doubt that what he's done so far has created much more turmoil, i think, than most people would have expected he would have been able to do in this short amount of time. >> rose: and some also argue that if you speak to everything, you speak to nothing. people do not have a real understanding of your values and your priorities. >> that's correct. although i think that with donald trump there are still some-- some core convictions. one certainly has to do with trade and jobs and his view of what has happened to the united states of america over a long period of time. whether through globalization or trade deals or whatever it it is. but that in one way or another the united states has gotten the wrong end of the stick on this and he wants to send a signal that he wants to reverse that. he's been consistent about that in all his meetings with creest or with labor, in the way he's talked about what he wants to do. now talking about it is one

thing. beginning to act on it is another. accomplishing it is of course the biggest question mark of all. and he's got, you know, he's got very little done other than a kind of a few small successes that he can point to with this company or that company. but nothing on the kind of macro scale that he's talking about. so there's-- there's that issue. on immigration and in a sense national identity he was very clear in the campaign. and a number of the things that he has done have moved in that direction. building the wall and most controversially, the steps he took with the executive order on immigration and refugees over the weekend, which created, again, a huge backlash. in other areas it's not clear what he wants to do. we're not quite clear. he wants better relations with the russians. but today the u.n. ambassador nikki hailey made a very strong statement saying that the sanctions will stay in place as long as the russians are in

crimea. and she was very tough about the activity in the eastern ukraine. so we're still wondering how this all shakes out, whether he has a firm idea of kind of where he wants to get to. >> how about the issue of veracity. looked at from two separate angles. one angle is here is a man who said what he was going to do on the campaign trail and has begun to do that. so he has been true to his word. on the other hand there are constant questions about even including the iranian deal, when he talked about $150 billion in a regime that was ready to collapse. and other examples that question among many people and many foreign policy people, cred allity. >> i think there is probably sprairable issues here, one is where he says things that aren't true. you know, the issue of three and a half to five million illegal immigrants who voted in the election, no evidence for that at all.

that's one thing. on foreign policy, i think the question is how much does he know. what does he know about the world? what does he know about the complexity of the relationships that exist or the history of the relationships that exist. and so when he says certain this something that he wassay told, is this something that he's studied? has he digested this or is this something that he heard or saw somewhere that wasn't particularly reliable. so i think we have to wait a little long tore judge him. but every time he does one of these things, certainly within the foreign policy establishment it's going to rattle some cages. >> is one of the tests we're going to see in the first 100 days of this administration, whether it's people that have a larger respect among lots of people, not only in the united states but around the world, meet people like general mattis, people like rex tillerson, whether they will find themselves in a very difficult place where they feel like

either they have to pushback very hard and insist on a different direction or insist on not participating in it. or resign. >> well, you know, let's put the resignation issue at abeyance for a little bit and let them at least find their-- . >> rose: i'm not suggesting there is an issue there. but i'm suggesting that you do hear, and we have seen in which the president has said things and they're on record as disagrees. >> they absolutely are. and i think that the question as we watch them operate and particularly secretary tillerson but to some extent secretary mattist-- mattis as well who has been very outspoken on some of these things. to what extent do they feel obliged to reinforce, at least in part, the messages that the president is sending on some of these controversial issues, and to what extent do they feel obliged to either fight back internally and or externally,

send conflicting signals so that at least there is a sense around the world that there is a different view and that there is a debate going on and that these are not necessarily set e8ed policies at this point. >> rose: steve bannon t is reported, at every turn when donald trump was being urged by other people to become more presidential, to be more inclusive, urged him to drill down with his-- with his known core constituency. and it is now assumed that that went a long way to helping him win the presidency. and i assume by doing that, earned a special place for steve bannon. >> well, we can already see that he's earned a special place, in the role that he's been given in the new administration. he is, if not the most important one, one of the two or three most important people in the white house at this point. and therefore in the administration. he also has a worldview that may be more complete and well shaped than donald trump's. donald trump has viseral

instincts, and i think those mesh nicely with stephen bannon's view of the world. but bannon, we had a very good piece in the post a couple of days ago about things that bannon has said over the years in interviews, on radio programs, in discussions, you know, on radio interryus with donald trump, speeches and things like that. they add up to something that is is coherent. it's radically different than sort of the conventional view that a lot of people accept. it's certainly different than a lot of our major allies have embraced over the years it is anti-globalization, anti-globalist t is pop lism, it is a view that the biggest single crisis that we and the world face is radical islamism. and that that needs to be the focus of creating and making alliances to focus on that as opposed to some of the other things. there is a nationalist element

about it, very clearly. and he said that he is a nationalist. >> rose: tell me what america is going to look like if donald trump succeeds in all of his objectives. >> well, i mean, we're going to be a much more inward looking nation. we're going to be as he says taking care of america first. at the extension of things we have done, alliances we have had. we are going to be very muscular at least in the way we look and talk about certain parts of the world, particularly isis. i don't know what that means in terms of military action. but it could certainly lead to that. we know that. we are going to be a very, very divided country because as we've seen, the anger on the left, the anger in the progressive movement, the anger among people who did not vote for donald trump has escalated, really, since the election. people were upset and unhappy

the morning after the election. i think as a result of what has happened since then, they're more alarmed than they were and they're making their views known. so we're going to be even more divided than we were. >> rose: dan, it's always great to have you here, i hope you will be here many times to help us understand this. it it is a remarkable time. i'm glad you are there covering itment and we're having an opportunity to understand it as it explains it self. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: thank you. right back. stay with us. lisa monaco is here. she served as president obama's chief homeland security and counterterrorism advisor for four years. that role put her at the next us of many pivotal national security issues. her portfolio included the fight against isis, hostages, sanctions, cybersecurity, disease outbreaks and natural disasters. she also chaired both deputies and principals meetings of the national security council. i'm pleased to have her back at this table.

welcome. >> thanks, charlie, good to be back. >> rose: we talked about this the other day. who was on your principals committee? >> so what i did, charlie, as the president's homeland security advisor was chair meetings of the principals meeght, that is the cabinet level, members of the cabinet addressing homeland security issues. things like ebola, zika, border questions. the attack on the boston marathon. the boston marathon bombings. we didn't know what the origin of that was. was it international, terrorism related or not. i convened the principals so the secretary of homeland security, the attorney general, the secretary of the treasury, the cia director, you name it, on down the line. >> rose: fbi director. >> fbi directer, depending what the issue is, the attorney general as i mentioned, the secretary of state. you know, so the whole, the relevant members of the president's cabinet who have

expertise, knowledge, interest, equity, perspective on the homeland security issue. >> rose: and were there other principals meetings that did not include those issues that were chaired by someone else, by the national security advisor or by someone else. >> sure, susan rice chairs the principals committee of the national security council. >> rose: right. >> and that would involve depending on what the issue was, all of the people i just mentioned and maybe others. >> rose: when you look at this incident in yemen, it it is said to have been thought about, considered, planned in your administration -- administration, correct? >> so here is the thing, have i been seeing some of the reporting on this today, first, let me say, operations like the one that have been reported are always going to be inherently risky. and i certainly wouldn't second guess those who planned and certainly not the operators from putting their lives on the line to undertake these types of operations, so the risk is

considerable, always, if are you putting people's in harm away. and there will also be risk in inaction. i don't know what was presented to president trump, what process was undertaken to approve that operation. and i'm not going to get into internal, i'm out of the government now quite obviously but i'm still not going to talk about internal delib rations in the obama administration and i'm not going to talk about classified information. but the white house was presented in the wanting weeks of the-- waning weeks of the obama administration, a broad proposal. so not a single raid, a single operation on a single target, a broad proposal for increased military operations in yemen. it was of such a nature and of such scope to include a request for broader authorities that had

significant policy implications, risk to force implications, and it was going to be undertaken in large part if not exclusively after january 20th. so. >> rose: so it was being considered to be implemented after a new president takes office. >> the view was that this has, it is of such significants and it was such a broad proposal that would extend well past january 20th. and pose significant policy issues that it ought to be deliberately considered by the new team, considered by the new president, with the benefit of input from his advisors, his national security team. so there was interagency discussion about the proposal, but for the purpose of basically enabling the text team to come in and undertake some careful

consideration of what to do. >> rose: let me just understand what you are saying. really understanding all the parameters what you could say and not say, was it not to be carried out because you wanted to leave something, that was an ongoing mission in the hands of the new administration, was that the reason to wait? >> the reason to not undertake a decision in the obama administration is that the actual operation was going to be undertaken after january 20th. it, so it it would pose policy issues, risks that the new administration would have to deal with. and it's not appropriate for the obama administration to kind of get in front of that, right. and to undertake, take a decision for something that was going to be happening after president obama left office. now let me say, charlie, it's not to say that the obama

administration might, might have approved the proposal that was presented to us. we just didn't reach that conclusion. and which is not to say also that the obama administration might have approved whatever was ultimately presented to president trump. >> but you can help us understand in the interest of the national conversation, what are the risks of something like this. >> sure. >> and what kind of target has to be there underto undertake those risks. there has to be a high value target. what institutes a high value target? >> again, what i-- first of all, let's separate two things. there is the inherent risk in any time you are putting special operators on the ground to undertake an operation. >> on foreign soil. >> on foreign soil against a very dangerous enemy, al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula, in a situation where we don't have infrastructure, we don't have a

presence, right. we left yemen some years ago given the conflict there. and the threat to our personnel there. so any time you are undertaking operation, there's got to be consideration of the risk to the force. and so the risk has to be worth the reward. and so those are the types of things you're considering. for a broader engagement, if you are talking about doing not one raid, not one operation, but a broader sustained level of u.s. military involvement including increasing the number of troops on the ground, increasing and expanding their role so that they would be in harm away in a more sustained way, you're going to be thinking about what are the authorities that are needed. does that pose new questions of expanded authority what is the risk to those forces. what type of mitigation, which is the word that we use.

what kind of things are being to be in place to lower that risk. what engagement has gone on with the government of that country. what coordination has been done with partners in the region, with partner forces who may be present. those are all the types of considerations and what you want to do is have everybody at the table, charlie, to have that discussion. so you want to have a full airing and a full consideration. and frankly, a full understanding from the intelligence community. and that's what we would do. we would ask the intelligence community, give us an assessment of what might happen if. if we undertake this operation or this series of operations or we embark on this campaign of operations, what might happen, what might be the reaction of the local pop lows. what might be the reaction of the enemy. and what are the risks entailed in that. so we can weigh, so the president can get the advice and

considered input of his whole team. that's the state department, the ambassador to the united nations, the dni, director of national intelligence, the cia director, the attorney general, you name it, the full team needs to come together and understand and provide their best advice. >> in this case we had those brave people on the ground taking fire and calling in fire on top of a building in which they have acknowledged there were women and children killed. what are the rules of engagement for doing something like that? >> so it can depend, well, first of all, and again i don't know what was entailed in this particular operation. >> i understand but there are rules. >> well, the defense department and our military observe the laws of war, right. they have to do everything they can to avoid civilian casualties, to undertake what's called proportional operations.

to be discriminating in how they're approaching and engaging in their own self-defense. now you know, there have been reports that there may have been civilian casualties here. i think the defense department will undertake a careful and thorough review and investigation. and in part lessons learned. >> but i will ask you more directly then. you know, is there any obligation to find out whether there were women and children, when you call in fire on top of a place where you are receiving enemy fire. >> sure. you want to-- . >> rose: what are the requirements that we as a nation insist on. >> well, first of all, we're going to be training our fire and our use of force on a compound in the first instands. we should not be doing that if we think there may be civilians there, unless there is a grave risk to our soldiers. but we wouldn't embark on this

if we think that there's a risk or a disproportionate risk of civilian casualties. and that takes a lot of very careful intelligence work. and it takes sometimes imperfect information but these are some of the considerations that you want to have the full team really looking hard at gathering intelligence, using a whole range of tools to understand what the picture is. >> but if you don't know and you feel like you're at risk, then you are perfectly appropriate to call in fire, if you do not know, and you feel like you are at risk from the fire. >> if our service members are in harmee way and if their lives are threatened, they can respond. but i think you want to step back and consider what is the purpose for the operation in the first place. are we going in to disrupt an imminent terrorist attack. are we going in to assist partner forces, you know, what is, what is the purpose. and again these are all the types of things that would be

considered and get really worked over and carefully discussed at the situation room. >> rose: i would assume, knowing nothing, but i would assume there would be a couple of things they want to know. one is whether there is a whole lot of information about future activities of al-qaeda on the arabian peninsula, and two, there may be some people that you have been following, that you want very much to either kill or capture. >> those would be absolutely important reasons. and valuable things that you want to be going after and would justify putting our folks in harm away. >> rose: would you assume that it is a reasonable assumption that in this case they had to have one of those two possible? >> they may well have. >> rose: the realities. >> but again, is this an isolated operation s it it part of a broader-- . >> rose: part of a broader thing you are suggested. >> it may well have been, again, i don't know what was specifically presented to president trump. what was presented to the obama administration in the remaining weeks of the administration

again, was a broad proposal for a sustained increased military engagement in yemen that presented a host of policy issues that we felt needed to be considered. >> rose: bob gates age others have sat at this table and said, you know, that the a bomba administration in its aggressiveness in it terms of the kinds of missions it was willing to undertake at the end of the administration was more where they wanted to see it than it was several years earlier. do you think that is a fair appraisal of where you were in terms of tactics and strategy against isil, al-qaeda, and any other, you know, similar group. >> well. >> rose: that you had moved to a more aggressive posture. >> well, so i can only speak to what my purview was in the last four years in the white house. >> right. >> rose: i think what the president was very clear about is he wanted to put isil on a path to lasting defeat.

>> rose: right. >> before he left office. and as i think the secretary of defense would tell you and the chairman would tell you, every proposal they made, every request for authorities they made in the campaign against the so called islamic state was approved by the president. >> rose: ash carter has said that to me. >> because our interest was in making sure that isil was put on a path to defeat. that we were working with capable partners, the iraqi security forces who demonstrated resolve, in an environment in iraq, where they are making careful and steady gains and now in the process, we hope, of making mosul. so with the right balance of it's in our interest, we're working with capable partners, we've undertaken the planning to make sure that the risk entailed to our service members is calibrated and in our interest to take, absolutely. the president was, i will put it

this way. i never saw him hesitate to act in our national interest, particularly when u.s. lives were at risk from ter rest plots. >> rose: what is the fundamental-- of fighting isil within the obama administration, were the fundamental assumptions beyond boots on the ground that he did not believe was in our best interest. >> so i think there are two separate things, right, you are talking about the campaign against isil which i think has been waged quite aggressively and we're seeing the fruits of that rolling back isil from the territory, it occupied in iraq and syria. >> rose: first mosul and then raqqa in syria. >> ultimately that is the goal. and from my standpoint-- . >> rose: it's not just the goal t is the strategy of plan, the operational effort. >> sleutly. but we'll see, right, iraqi security forces are moving towards mosul. and moving at a pace and deliberately undertaking this, ensierk elling mosul and pushing

them out. remains to be seen what comes now with raqqa. my own view, charlie, is that that ought to be pursued. it ought to be done with the only capable force that we believe is there to do that work, the kurds. >> right. >> and we have to provide them the arms and capability to take-- to take raqqa. why is that so important? cuz it's the seat of isil's exterrible operations and the plotting against. >> do you believe they believe they've been given all that you can, that the united states could provide them to do that? >> we're talking about the kurds now? >> yes. >> i don't-- i don't know. >> rose: cuz there are reports they don't feel like they got as much as they needed. >> look, i think there's active discussions as you think, it has been reported about what is the next step in trying to go to raqqa. what is the force 6789 we assess the only capable force is the

kurdish military that we have been working with and providing assistance to. the problem with that, of course, is the reaction of the turks. >> rose: right. >> our nato ally. bt we're really on the horns of a dilemma here, if we do not arm the kurds in order to go towards raqqa to take raqqa and dislodge isil and its external operations there, if we do not do that, there's no other, we've assessed, capable force of going into raqqa. >> rose: was there any possibility of creating an arab force, an arab government that would be willing to put people on the ground. >> it it is never materialized. i will tell you, i have sat in a whole slew of meetings, bots by laterally, my own conversations with partners and in other discussions and it has never, never materialized and never been something that was a viable

option. >> rose: so say they're doing it, when you got-- when push came to shove, it didn't happen. >> did not happen. >> and why. >> i think there are a few things. one there is inherent capability issues, a willingness to a, train folks and then put them in. and what's the incentive to, you know, to be a force in there that is going to take and hold and sustain that area. >> rose: an was there also a question of targets and priorities? >> well. >> rose: meaning that they were more interested in taking down assad than they were going directly at isil. >> sure. that discussion, now that's evolved over time, right. there came a time when i think, and we've discussed this before, charlie, though one thing i would say that has galvanized our gulf partners is the fight against isil. they could all agree that isil was something that needed to be reckoned with and needed to be

dealt a very final and lasting, a lasting blow. but you know, how to do that and as you say, how to prioritize that in the conflict, the broader conflict in syria has been the subject of ongoing conversation. >> how much significant how significant is a russian cooperation against that within i think it's something to keep an eye on. and what we have seen is russia enter in to syria, as you know, and you were there at the beginning with your interview with president putin, right when that happened. they went in, claiming that they were going to fight isil and help bring the syrian conflict to an end. >> yeah. >> never did it. >> neither one of those things. >> they also acknowledged they were going in to prop up assad. putin never tried to deny that

he was going to prop up assad because he believed there was a necessity. >> a necessity for a strong central government. he has an---- weak central government as he described it. >> be that as it may, we never saw and still have not seen a convert-- concerted effort against isil. as you know john kerry worked very hard to try to do that. >> rose: a lot of people look at what the russians did, and believe they accomplished their goals. that they were successful in syria, no matter how abhor ant it is to us in terms of what it took to put assad in a stronger position, when-- russia. >> i wouldn't quarrel a lot with that. the two caveats i would make to it is they have as you have said undertaken activities in aleppo

just to name one of abhor ant behavior, as you said, flowting international norms and rules, humanitarian horror that has occurred there 679 the otherwise consequence has been a continued flow of foreign fighters. a continued capability of isil to operate to some degree. and frankly a further outflow. we now have the isil caucuses af russia's involvement. >> what is the circumstances in libya knowed? >> so the circumstances in libya is that isil had moved in to libya, particularly to the cert

coastal town and established a significant presence. and what we did there was work with the government of national accord and their forces, to assist those forces, those partner forces on the ground, to assist them to route isil from cert. and we have done that, they have pushed isil out of cert. now we've also seen isil undertaking, retreating to a set of camps south of cert and frankly, just in the last days of the obama administration, our military undertook action against those camps. so the point going, where isil has taken hold and has tried to establish yet another safe haven, we have and did undertake efforts, working with partner governments, to dislodge them and prevent that from happening. >> is the answer to the question who controls libya, nobody?

>> i think that that is a pretty fair statement. now we've got the sirrage government and the government of national accord but it's teetering. we've seen general halftar leading forces that have undertaken efforts against the oil fields there. so st quite-- it's tenuous. >> rose: donald trump said in a tweet in the last i think 24 hours. iran was on its last leg and ready to collapse until the u.s. came along and tbaif it a lifeline in the form of the iran deal. $150 billion. deconstruct that sentence, please. >> i'm going to have a hard time. you know, i'm not going to characterize tweets and the like. >> rose: okay, i will ask the question then. >> yeah. >> rose: did the united states provide $150 billion for iran. >> no. what the united states did was

work with the p-five, right, the five other countries, to undertake a very rigorous process it to impose sanctions that queezed iraq-- iran, put them in tremendous deficit economicically to make them come to the table, to arrive at the joint comprehensive plan of action which has stopped their nuclear program and expanded the time it would take them to get a nuclear weapon. >> what he said it was on its last legs and ready to collapse, was it because of the sanctions ready to could lapse if there had been no negotiations leading to the iran nubbingly deal. >> i think what we saw is their economy in free fall. and their need, dire need to get some relief from that. >> so i mean you might argue, i think netanyahu and others have argued this. you had him on the run.

you had him in a terrible economic situation. if you just simply applied more pressure, more sanctions they would have collapsed and there wouldn't even have been a question of a nuclear-- nuclear. >> i think what flies in the face of that, our ever schinc. aring time that o described, that there was for a breakout. >> right. >> which netanyahu would have-- which netanyahu would agree with. >> right. >> so those two things are not. >> they may have been collapsing economicically but they were also in a short term to a breakout which mean this he would have had the materials to build a nuclear weapon. >> exactly. >> rose: what do you make of iran's behalf-- behavior since of the nuclear deal. >> they appear to be undertaking, you know, testing, probing of reactions here and elsewhere. we have seen them undertaking blind, what i will characterized

at malign activities in the region for many years. and activity for which we have not given them a free pass. set aside the iran deal, that is about the nuclear program and our interests and the rest of the p-five countries interest in halting that. we have never disregarded or ignores their millish shus activities whether it is aiding hezbollah, whether it is providing arms to the-- whether it is placing the babel men dez strait, placing of vessels there in some risk as we saw with an attack on a saudi vessel just in the last 48 hours. so those efforts continue. we have to, i believe, continue the work that the obama administration did which is not allowing those malign activities to have a free pass. that means sanctions, working with the international community for sanctions. that means continued des ig nations, that means intradictions against those

types of weapon shipments to iran, to other-- to yemen, rather, and to other places. so those pressures need to continue to be applied. and we need international cooperation, importantly, international cooperation to do it. >> rose: the president said i think in december 2016, we have to take a long view of the terrorist threat and pursue a smart strategy that can be sustained. what is the legacy in the end of the obama administration on not only containing terrorism but defeating terrorism if that's the word you use. >> so i would say that the legacy is one of applying relentless pressure to al-qaeda, to other groups that would seek to do us harm. to be unfavorring in our attention to that, and not shy about taking action unilaterally

where we must and working with our partners where we can. but over the long-term building a strategy and a set of, we call them platforms in every sense of the word. partnerships with other countries who themselves can take the fight to the terrorists where they are and keep them from establishing a safe haven before they get to the point where they can threaten the homeland. and it's critically important that we have those relationships, those partnerships with countries like iraq so they can undertake that work. like libya, as we talked about. and more importantly, enabling the-- those local forces to take and hold ground and work with the governments in those countries so you don't have the seeds of grieveances and discord that provides the environment for a group like isil to take hold in the first place. >> president trump said in his

inaugural speech that you know one of his principal goals was to eradicate from the face of the earth radical islamic extremism. was that your goal too? >> no, i think our goal was to and is as i said, to first and fore most disrupt plots against the united states. and u.s. persons abroad. and to work with partners to make those safe havens not have a-- the seed corn that allows those groups to take hold. you're not going to be able to eradicate extremism unless you get at the underlying grieveances that allow it to fester in the first place. take the rise of isil. isil was able to roll through in 2014. >> rose: we're talking about the goals, not how you do it it. we're talking about the goal to eradicate radical islamic

extriesmism. was that or not the goal, to eradicate radical islamic extremism. >> no. because i don't think that that is a-- that is is not the-- it's not where i would assign the issue to be confronted, right. first of all, we can talk about nomen claiture, right, first and fore most, there has been lots of debate about what you call it. and at first i would not do things that are going to feed the recruitment capability of a group like isil. isil exists because they claim that we the united states are at war with islam. they feed off that. >> rose: with those radical islamic extremism suggest a war with islam or a war with radical

islamic extremism. >> radical extremism is different from simply islam. >> sure. but what you can do is is you can feed and how you talk about this, you can feed the propaganda machine that isil has that says you're making it about a war between the u.s. and islam. and us and them mentality. now look, nobody is trying to deny that violence has been a horrific vy len has been perpetrated by isil and al-qaeda and others baided on a perverted and radical interpretation of islam. that is not the issue. no one is denying that. the question is, how do you get at the underlying grieveances that allow isil oral quieda to take hold in a place like syria, in a place like yemen. how do you stop that from being a magnet to travelers from the united states to go over and be

recruited that this. and one of the ways is not feeding into their own messaging that we are at war with islam. >> jonathan krsh-- who you know i assume and you read what he writes and has on this program and other programs defended the obama administration and spoke approving of many things about it this is what he says in his new biography of president obama. what is indisputable is that the administration failed to carry out comprehensive response to the disintegration of states across the middle east. do you agree? >> i guess i would like to know what is is entailed with that. what is the prescription that was not carried out? what is is true is in a place like syria which you have-- which you know well and have studied extensively, is that we val yaited first and fore most what's in our interest. what is going to be in our interest in terms of exercising

military power, military intervention, in syria. it's not to say we didn't do anything. we wrestled with this question, as you know. you've studied it extensively. but first and fore most our responsibility, the president's responsibility is to focus on u.s. interests. and our first responsibility is to make sure that it it isn't being used as a place to plot attacks against us. so what did we do, in 2014 we undertook, began the campaign against isil with 48 countries. but importantly, and what sometimes i think gets lost in all this, charlie, is there is another group that has taken root in syria. it's called al-qaeda in syria. >> right. >> it is now the largest a affiliate of al-qaeda, the core of which is decimated in so-wn there by

assad's activity. and they went there to specifically to establish a new safe haven, to plan and plot, including against the homeland. in 2014, at the same time we began the campaign against isil, we undertook very specific strikes against those al-qaeda veterans, they were called the corason group. but the chaos has continued in syria. al-qaeda in syria has expannedded. they continue to be focused on attacking the west and attacking us. and my own view is we cannot let up on that pressure as the obama administration did not in the last four years. and that's got to be kept up. and that includes working with parter ins to do it. >> help us understand the national security implications of bio chemical weapons and bio

terrorist weapons and the whole range of things that are sometimes called pan demics and the range of weapons that have a powerful possibility to be used as weapons of attack. >> so i think about this in two ways, charlie. one is the ever present concern that a militia actor state or nonstate or terrorist actor is going to get their hands on a patho gen that they can weaponnize. or use, chemical attacks as we've seen isil doing in iraq. so that concern is ever present. now it takes a certain amount of sophistication, it takes a safe place to plot and plan which is why we're applying the pressure we are as we just talked about. so we need to continue our focus on and keep them from a, obtaining those things, those path agains, building that cap ability, to weaponnize cuz it

takes some sophisticated doing. but i separate out that concern which has got to be at the top of the list, not to minutize it at all, from what i consider a concern and a homeland security threat right up there with terrorist actors and cybersecurity. the third thing i told my successor in the transition, that he las to focus on and because it's what has kept me up at night, is the third pilar of threat which i feel is ever present will be a focus going forward is emerging infectious diseases. and what do i mean by that? not any path again that has a mill i shus origin. i'm talking about things like ebola, like zika. and the concern is is that because of globalization, because of climate change,

because of the fact that human beings are now living a lot closer to formally developed areas and there is a lot more travel to urban centers as we saw with the development of ebola, that the threat of emerging infectious diseases is much greater than it was before. and i firmly believe the next administration will confront a challenge from that. >> rose: we learned an important lesson from the ebola threat. >> we did. and one of the things we've learned, i believe, is we have got to double down and continue to sustain something we call the global health security agenda. something the obama administration started. now has 50 countries in it, focusing on their own global surveillance, capabilities to detect when a new disease emerges. because we've got to keep it out before it comes into the

homeland. so we have learned that something like ebola, we had plans on the shelf due to in part very good work by the bush administration to combat say pan demic flu or h1n1 but ebola required a different place book. and so we got to be able to adapt to that. >> rose: how many times did you have to call the president and wake him up? >> i don't know how many times i actually woke him up. >> rose: let's say you or the national security advisor. >> so i will tell you-- . >> rose: or the chief of staff, whoever wakes him up. >> there was one specific time, first of all, he is a night owl. >> rose: if you get there before 3:00 he's okay. >> yeah, but i did very specifically have to wake him up my third week on the job. >> rose: what was the incident. >> the boston marathon bombing. we, i had gun that week interestingly with a meeting of the deputies of all the national security agencies talking about a new strain of avian flu that

was coming out of china, h7n -9d and we were very concerned that we would detect it here in the united states that was monday morning april 15th. 2013. >> right. >> patriots day in boston. >> right. >> later that afternoon, i look up the tv and bombs had gone off in boston. and that set is the tone for the rest of the week, rapid investigation on the phone with bob muller then the fbi director, with john brenner at the cia, whole host convening the principals committee to determine what had happened in boston. fast forward the end of the week, 3 a.m. early that friday morning, we, i learned from bob muller that one of the boston marathon bombers was dead, the other was on the run and there was a man hunt going on in boston. and i made the determination that if was a public safety issue. we didn't know if there were other plots being planned.

that i needed to wake up the president. >> rose: there was some indication they wanted to come to new york too. >> that's right. and i woke the president up and told him that. >> rose: thank you for coming. much success in your future career. >> thank you very much. >> rose: great to have you here. lisa monaco, thank you for joining us, see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online 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. >> you're watching pbs.

boom! hello, i'm julia child. welcome to my house. what fun we're going to have baking all kinds of incredible cakes, pies and breads right here in my own kitchen. today, taught by master chef michel richard learn all about making and baking puff pastry from these charming breakfast sweets to this splendid savory tourte milanese.