>> funding for "third rail with ozy" is provided in part by: the corporation for public broadcasting. the pew charitable trusts. driven by the power of knowledge to solve today's mostwl challenging problems.ob and by contributions to this pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ ♪ ( cheers and applause ) >> watson: hey, everyone. now does america need some alone time? i'm carlose watson, editor in chief of the digital news site

ozy.com. this week at the u.n. general assembly, president trump hammered home america first.ca he was calling kim jong-un rocket man and warning that his country could come to an end in rubble. now, the north korean leaderl shot bark, of course, calling pre-mentally deranged and a gangster. got a little bit heated. so tonight our "third rail" question, "should america be the world's cop?"wo or put another way, should america continue to strive to be the world's leader or as president trump suggested focus on america first? all right, debating for team "yes, yael eisenstat. yael you're a former c.i.a. analyst, worked at the whiteh house with vice president biden. i like to think of you as kerry mathison. should we focus on america first, or should the u.s. continue to be a world leader? l >> we should absolutely be a global leader, which, by the way, is not mutually exclusivey from putting america first. >> watson: oh, interesting.n you can make it nuanced right up

front. author and actor hill harper, fantastic new show on abc "the good doctor," and those who love "homeland" saw him play chief of staff there.st a little mutual love there. hill, what's the right answer, focus on america first or america condition in a very proactive way to be the worldy leader. >> i think we're the greatest country in the world and we have to continue to show leadership particularly around democracy, so absolutely. >> watson: not even just "yes," but absolutely. joining us on the "no," team. t from the cato institute, emma ashford, international securitys expert. what's the right answer, focus on america first or continue too be very much a world leader or very much a world's cop. >> i's think america can be a world leader without trying to solve every world problem. we shouldn't be the world's policeman. >> watson: just say no.>> >> just say no. cliff maloney, representing millennials today, all that youth and that kind of good

stuff. what do you think of the question? >> i think it's absolutely a noo we should not be the world's policeman. let's breng the troops home and focus on rebuilding this country. >> watson: we want to hear from all w of you good informatn at home as well as the studio audience. we want to share your comments on social meetia.e you can also vote at pbs.org/thirdrail. or, of course, twitter, or if you're one of the folks still texting-- and we know who you are-- text to nevada 9. and type "yes" or "no. of, of course, message and data rates may apply. today, the u.s. deploys about 200,000 troops all around thend world, many in conflict zones like south korea, syria, iraq, afghanistan. price tag for operating almost 800 bases, about $100 billion annually. so, yael let me turn to you. you heard president trump in a very proactive way say in front of the u.n. like, "you need to focus on your own countries and we need to focus on ours."

is he wrong? >> so in this age right now, unfortunately, there are no conflicts in the world that do not transcend across the world. so you cannot just say we're going to bring everyone home, hunker down, and not worry about the rest of the world.r because those conflicts will come knocking on our doorstep if we do not actively engage. now, by "actively engage," our military having them around the world right now to proactivelyo train other countries' troops, to help build their capability c of solving their own conflicts, so that we don't have to go to war, that's the whole point of globally engaging. >> watson: emma, that's who we have beenwe since world war, two the world leader.d we have had over a million troopsll overseas, today 200,00, so a record low in the last 50 years. so is yael right, without u.s. leadership in lots of hot spots, the world would, frankly, be more dangerous, more unstable? >> i think there's a big difference between what the u.s. did during the cold war when we

helped to stand up to the soviet union, when we probably needed more troops awkward, needed more bases. and the things we've done since the cold war, particularly since 9/11, where we have engaged in a long-running series ofs interventions in other countries, they haven't always made things better.gs in fact, the vast majority of the time they made things worse. if you look at iraq, you look at syria and libya, these are all place where's american interventions produced a worse outcome than if we left things alone. >> watson: hill, do you agree with that? i know once upon a time you were a harvard law student, classmate of president 44, president obama. what do you think when you hear emma say, "you know, we're not n in the same era, and a lot of times we're making things worse." >> the piece about what weh should do is not about whether we should be there or not. it's what strategies are we employing overseas. rather than actually being-- an i think you would agree with me on this-- rather than being

isolation, we go in and impose our will militarily. it's about empowering and teaching folks, to be biblical,i learn to fish yourself. but at the same time, we need to help them get there. >> watson: cliff what, do you say? you hear hill saying you guys agree, but i'm not sure you agree-- >> i will back up hill 100%, and i'm a big fan of saying let's try diplomacy. >> absolutely, absolutely.ut >> there's a difference between dropping bombs on countries because we're trying to help. we're trying to help, you know, in a humanitarian wayo rebuild and promote democracy. let's try diplomacy.p let's pick up the phone and talk to leaders, let's try to solve problem glz what if you get push-back from president trump who says that all sounds nice but it sounds like kicking theh can down the road. and that's how we end up with kim jong-un in north korea, with 20 to 60 nuclear weapons. we have him test something 20 missiles this year, more than his father and grandfather combined. so that all sounds nice, but in practical reality it makes the world a more dangerous place.

what do youro say in those case? >> when i look at, really, the last three administrations. you know, since 9/11, and we've had kind of this need for security, right.r it's always security. we need to help other countries and keep america safe.f what i think is that there are tactical differences and, youf know, hey, we keep 20,000 troops here, we put another 5,000,0 troops here. but i think we need a real discussion-- and i appreciate you for having it today-- on what is america's foreign policy. to me the rhetoric can be different. i'll give barack obama, came out very much fori' peace. wee bombed seven countries under president obama.id now you've got-- our new president in, and he had a campaign that ran on america first, you know, and a more restrained foreign policy, the focus here.s but i'm not seeing those changes with his receipt announcement in afghanistan and his speech at the u.n. >> watson: i mean what, do you say to that? there are a lot of people who appreciate cliff's point and want that to be true, but say that, like, that's a nice world if we can live in it?

>> if we really want to tackle issues like syria, like north korea, any of these major issues, at the end of the day, we need our allies to be able to step up and be our partners in this. and as long as we continue toer tell them we are only focused on america, we don't care how you run your countries. and we continue to shun them, when we need them, they're in t the going to step up and back us. >> watson: let me ask what may feel like an obvious question.us why do we need our allies? if you say the u.s. is the largest economy, say that wewe have the largest military, and it's not that we dote want our allies but why do we need our allies? >> so we don't have to fight all the wars on our own. let's look back at some of them. right after september 11, nato scrambled planes to protect our airspace. when we invaded afghanistan,ed australia sent troops to back us up. the whole point is we don't want to have to be the only person on the world stage fighting these wars. but this "america first" policy of "we don't care about working

with our allies anymore," is exactly what's going to make us less safe. because whether woe like it or not, in the cold war it was easy. it was soviets versus us, everything and was in that context. there are no more conflicts now that remain within borders or remain within sovereign states,i which was the president'sr favorite word during his speech this time. that doesn't exist anymore. any conflict overseas will somehow affect us eventually. so we need allies to not just want to help us because we bully them into it, but because they believe that we are truly their friend, partner, and share a same world view, and that is how we leave those conflicts to not have to turn into major war that requires all of our troops. >> what she said. ( laughter ) >> that sounds like diplomacy.di >> watson: that's an easy line. what i'm going to do is go to the viewers at home, as well as here in the studio audience, and remind you to vote and let us know what you think. is either side situation your

opinion? , of course, hill just said what he thinks. so we know they're on the same team. emma, i want to turn to you. you thought about thisto questi. you thought about the idea america should pull back and not be as involved as we have been. any concern that someone else would step into the breach if america doesn't assert itself as the most patrol world leader, even in situations that are a little thorne? >> you know,in wong of the t questions is who do we want to step into the that breach. while i agree with yael that wel want allies to work with america and be there for us, presidentus trump has actually made a good point when he talks about the iu fact nato allies, for example, don't contribute nearly as much to the organization asne the u.. does. we would all be stronger. the the world would be safer for everybody, if the nato allies-- most of which are very wellie, very prosperous european countries-- if they stepped up and also contributed. and that would also free the u.s. to do more in other

locations. >> emma, that's kind of not true. if you compare g.d.p. to cotion it's kind of along the same lines. we are the big gorilla in the room, and, therefore, we pay a little bit more-- or a lot more-- because we're so much larger. >> but that's not actually true. and i thinkll the question about spending basically boils down to the u.s. bearing the vast majority of the budget for nato operations, when all the other nato members have a larger population and g.d.p. putt together than the u.s. does. >> watson: you want to jump in? >> i'll go even further and say, yeah, i think we should bring them all home because people miss-- we're talking about who is paying what percentage-- but we're broke. we're $20 trillion in debt. and i think borrowing $1 millio$ a minute and trying to, you know, exert ourselves militarily, i think the greatesr threat to our national security-- or the greatest threat to the united states is our nationals debt. and i get a lot of crap for that. but the reality is i think that people miss that --

>> you have ape former c.i.a.c agent across there who may say-- >> who is nodding right now. i'd love to comment on this, actually. let's be honest. as much as we-- we haven't even gotten to the moral imperative of being global leaders in supporting democracy around theg world. if wera are willing to cede our position as global leader, we have to accept someone else will fill those shoes. and, come on, global leadership. it's in our self-interest. we don't do it because we are just so generous. we do it so we get to call the shots ase well. as long as we pull bark we will no longer be the ones who have the upper hand in pulling the shots. if i could give one quick example. us pulling out of of the paris agreement, for example. i no doubt that there u.s. will continue to promote climate change solutions and that states and cities will stepte up. however, by pulling out of that global leadership role, we are ceding it to china or who whoever else want want fill that void. the germans are already creating alliance with china now after that.

and if we are willing to bawng, we have to be willing to accept the new world order that may not share our values, and we may not be able to control anymore.ol >> watson: pay the cost to beo the boss, somebody once said. since world war ii, the u.s. has been the de facto leader of theh free world.r 67% of americans still agree, and 30% do not. that's according to our maris poll. emma, what do you hear when you hear that?ar it seems like there's strongs american support for filling that vacuum, for not allowing china or even russia to potentially fill that role. so it seems like there's broadeb popular support than you might think is wise. >> it dpebdz what you look at, right? if you ask americans a question like, "should the u.s. landlord the world?" a lot of people think that's a good idea. i think that's a good idea.id if you go out and ask americans, "should we be fighting wars to help nations become democracies? should we be fighting terrorist groups everywhere?"gr the responses are very different, and americans are

actually far less interventionist than you mightis think when you frame the question in that way. so i think a distinction we really do need to draw here is there is a difference between talking about u.s. bases and u.s. overseas infrastructure and u.s. interventionism, as it has been in the war on terror, as i, has been in humanitarian interventions. those are very different things. >> but you understand if we withdraw the bases we have to fill that with diplomats, usaid officers. it means we will reappropriatere to the people who should be doing this kind of work. whereas you still want to withdraw all the money back to the u.s. and you say, "go, diplomacy." i'm on team diplomacy, but we just said we're going to cut the state department budget by 30%. we're going to practically get rid of usaid. who will be filling that void? diplomacy to fill in the void-- do you know why we have so manya military around the world? they're filling in the job the diplomats are supposed to be doing and we don't want to pay diplomats to do.

i appreciate your argument, but somebody still has to pay for it. >> yeah, but do you think there's a difference between dropping bombs and the cost of dropping bombs and military and defense. woe can put diplomacy in defense spending. >> watson: i want to bringi this back to north korea. have heard a lot of back-and-forth. when the president and secretary of state sayf they're really difficult situations andt sometimes we have seen in previous administrations kickra the can down the road. in fact,e america needs to be more of a world leader, not less, that we need to be maybebe more assertive in some ways.wa what do you say? is there any reasonable pointe he's making with regard to north korea? >> i just think it's funny.f north korea has been an issue for administration after administration. yet, somehow in the last six months we've gone from here to here. that is all rhetoric. i mean, yes, they're launching missiles and this is very serious. but rhetoric of going back and forth and just screaming at each other and saying, "i'm bigger

than you are. i'm more powerful than you are," is not going to help the situation. if you notice none of our military leaders are guessing out the same message our president is. that in and of itself is a huge issue. >> it's really about dennis rodman. >> watson: you're right. >> can i give you an example using-- right.in you might laugh at the dennis rodman thing, and this is nothi north korea so much, but i want to give an example fi can, from the work i've done. i spent time in some of the most dangerous, remote areas of the world. and i can say-- it might be a small example-- but the time i put in, in small villages along the somali border, reallye getting to know people it's soft power, the diplomacy, winning hearts ask minds, making friends, showing them what america values are-- i will say years later came back to benefie us when we needed those same people's help to save an american life. >> watson: what if someone said tom you, yael, totally good point, makes complete sense, but the reality is there are a lot

of people that don't have strong educations, don't have prospects they're excited about. so in a world where you have to make choice we would be smarter spending more of time that, more of that energy, more of that money here at home. you would say to those folks what? >> that's why i say it's not mutually exclusive. >> watson: what if they sayf there's a limited budget.li >> and unfortunately so much of our budget does go to military now instead of diplomacy. >> i want to get in on this. we're setting it up to be a false choice. the way the president is portraying it is we can come home and just focus at home or we can use our military to do everything overseas.ng and he is ignoring the fact that engagement with the world does not necessarily mean military engagement. there are other ways to engage. there is diplomacy.th you know, bernie sanders actually gave a big foreign policy speech yesterday, and he set up this comparison that i thought was really effective.ll he basically compairld the north korea situation-- he says, youou know, "trump's tweets aree

completely out of control and the rhetoric is escalating," and we could end up in a war. and he compared that presidentre obama and the negotiation of the iran nuclear deal.a he said, look, these are two states that were basically in the same situation. we tried diplomacy with iran.a no one thought that it wouldo work, and it actually did.i and here we have a state in iran that has been stopped from getting a nuclear weapon.nu >weapon. >> watson: what do you make of the president's critique that iran has been stopped but only stopped temporarily and there are other kinds of militarization that they can pursue. when you say diplomacy, he could say sometimes diplomacy is what you would call the worst deal in history. >> the comments of the president and nikki haley are profoundly misleading. it's been said that iran is in compliance. the idea that the deal ends in taken or 15 years is also not accurate. at that point, iran joins the nuclear nonproliferation treaty

and is subject to the same rules as everybody else. e these are kind of talking points the administration isoi making, but actually the nuclear dealea has been remarkably successful and didn't involve a military solution. our maris poll asks, "with president trump in office, do you feel more or less safe around the world?" 62% said they they feel less secure, 32% more, 6% were not sure. not sure who those were. cliff, what do you think?u >> looking at it-- i'm 26 years old, right. and young people-- i've grown up and we've been at war theoretically since the day i was born.ths we have been at war a long time. just looking at afghanistan.f 16 years. we used to talk about five, 10-year wars. who does that?a you know. i think the perception of people feeling safe, and there's thish dangerous path of becoming numbn to the idea of endless, really, war. ends bombing andr. endless occupation and nation buildingio and policing the world. so i think that people, my age

especially, we're a little tired of it. because, you know, we've got-- i've got different people i know who some people have lost their dads and some people have lost their brothers in the same war. i mean, to me that's pretty profound to think about that we've been somewhere. so i think with talking about different occupations and different options, i feel like it's always, "do we go to war with them or cowe not go to war with them?"wi i agree with what everybody is saying about diplomacy, figuring out what that looks like, but -- >> i think it's an interesting point about bwhether or not we have become numb to it. hill any concern we have become numb and the assumption thereth will always be conflicts we are involved with, some more, some less? >> i would agree previous-- vietnam was a very long war.wa >> watson: sure.n: >> so this isn't new. you know, it's not like it's new baseball. the issue to me, though, is, has the military carved out and

gotten so strong as far as being able to control the budget in such a way, that being able to sort of turn the "titanic" is very difficult. >> watson: you think we're still at risk, from what president eisenhower called the military industrial complex? >> absolutely. >>co 100%. >> uh-oh, we agree again. a >> watson: listen, i want toan ask folks at home and here in the studio to keep on commentino and voting. and team no, i will go to both of you, but i'll start with team no. what's the most interestingt thing you heard from team yes in the course of the conversation today? >> you know, i don't think it's necessarily something that i've heard per se, but i'd like too call out the generation gap across this table. >> watson: are you callingl them young?em >> yes-- no i'm pointing out that both people on this side of the table are millennials. people who came of age during the war on terror, lived through the wars in afghanistan, lived through the war in iraq.a

not necessarily through the cold war. and have basquely been at war almost their entire lives.e >> watson: and, therefore, what? that's really interesting. therefore, you think what is the generation gap? >> young people are much more likely to support a foreign policy of peaceful engagement-- trade, diplomacy-- but not military engagement.mi not the kind of interventions that we've seen over the last 15 years. >> we don't disagree with that.h i wouldn't call that an age difference here. >> watson: she would, though. >> you're right, i'm not a millennial, but again, that's not the point we disagree on.re neither of us are for more military engagement in the world. the difference is this idea of should we redirect all of our budget and focus at home. because i think we all agree on the diplomacy should be stepped up. but i will say, i joined the c.i.a. before september 11. i also joined it in this idea of i want to work towards a more peaceful, global world, where we're engaged in a positive way. i was globally minded. i still am..

and it doesn't-- everything that i've done since then has been about how can we continue to be a world leader without having to fight wars?gh you're right, iraq was a catastrophe. the mistake we made, in addition to launching that war to begin with, is to then not followingo up and just saying, "now we're getting the heck out"he guess what, it would have cost more military spending to stay a little bit longer and make sure we were actually dealing with the consequences afterwards.qu but we all agree on military engagement not being the answera >> watson: but here's--e >> military action. >> >> watson: we're running out of time and i want to get a final word from everyone. i'm going to start over there, cliff. i'm going to ask everyone for a final thought, whether a thought you agree with on the other side or a fresh thought you haven't shared yet.sh 30 seconds but no more. >> i do think we've been a generation of war. it's something my organization-- we're trying to educate students on having real conversations on foreign policy and i thinki that's what we're doing. i do think we have got to focus on diplomacy.

bombing countries, from my opinion, is never going to be the way we're going to reach people. and i'm glad to hear --e >> all right, diplomacy here.he emma, i have to close out. give me a thought over here you agreed with ourier final big thought. >> i will give you a thought i disagree with, which is the last point you made, now we are there in iraq, and we have to state course. and i think that is one of the mistakes we have learned in thee last 15 years, we go in, we intervene in a country, whetherh it's afghanistan, iraq, libya. and then we are effectively stuck there forever. >> to clarify that's not exactly what i said. i don't think we should stay the course now. we got out too soon, though, and we let them go in, make all the sunnis kick them all out. i don't think we should have intervened to begin with.gi but we got out too soon, and, that is the catastrophe that happened. >> watson: hill, you get the final word. >> putting america first andme using that type of rhetoric isn't about building walls and bringing everybody home and being isolationists.

putting america first is about being a leader around the world, around our democracy, around education, around fighting andg battling for people that are abusing people in terms of human rightsan abuses, and folks that are murdering people. you know, at the end of the day, we have to be willing to step in with an international coalition to deal with those things and not be afraid to step outside of our border glz all right, i want to thank you our terrific panelists. hill harper, yael eisenstat. thank you guys so very much.ry emma ashford, cliff maloney,rd thank you guys as well. finally we want to hear from you. did our debate change your mind? go to pbs.org/thirdrail. i'm your host, carlos watson. we'll see you next week. w ( applause ) captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.orgio media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> funding for "third rail with ozy" is provided in part by: the corporation forth public broadcasting. driven by the power of knowledge to solve today's most challenging problems. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you.ie thank you. >> you're watching pbs.

hello and welcome to "kqed newsroom." i'm thuy vu. coming up on our program, with the unexpected passing of san francisco mayor ed lee this week, we look at his legacy and what lies ahead for san francisco's leadership. plus we'll hear from former cia director leon panetta. but first, california congresswoman jackie speier has introduced bipartisan legislation to crack down or sexual misconduct in congress. earlier this month, three lawmakers announced their resignation following sexual harassment allegations. republican trent franks and democrats john conyers and al franken. amid the ongoing national reckoning, speier has also