good evening from los angeles, i'm tavis smiley. we'll speak with russian national security expert, tom nichols about russia's u.s. election meddling, possible support for the syrian chemical weapons attack and more. we are glad you joined us. a conversation with national security expert, tom nichols coming up right now.

♪ ♪ >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers look you. thank you. >> tom nichols professor of national security at u.s. naval war college written several books on russia and u.s. foreign policy. his latest "the death of expertise" the dcampaign agains established knowledge and why it matters. get to that later. start with the latest in syria. and secretary tillerson's upcoming trip to russia. mr. nichols good to have you on the program. >> thank you for having me. >> sequester tercretary of stat tillerson, first trip to russia,

secretary of state, what do you expect from the visit tomorrow? >> it is hard to know. it is unclear what the ajen days. obviously plenty of things to talk about. the strike in syria. russian meddling in the election. sanctions which is what i think the russians probably want to talk about. but, it its unclear that they went with any kind of definite agenda especially in the whack -- in the wake of the strike in syria. >> what should be, could be on the agenda, from your vantage point, what ought to be on the agenda? >> representing my own view rather than the government here. my view is that we need to have some kind of new understanding with the russians about the limits to russian action. the limits to russian meddling. not just, in, in europe, i mean, ukraine is all most forgotten in all of this. but, in our own elections. i think the russians staged a direct attack on american political institutions. basically got away with it. >> if the issue of, the issue of russia's meddling in our elections if that issue were to come up on the agenda what is

tillerson going to say? where does the conversation go? >> the problem the russians have an easy out. well it wasn't really us. it was wikileaks, other agents. we didn't have anything to do with it. tillerson has to say yes we know the was you or doesn't. i am not sure that conversation goes much further. other than us telling, as president obama did before this, saying, look we know it was you. and, this needs to stop. because we can't have a relationship between two peers, between two great powers, based on this kind of interference. and i think that, that, i think the russians think they're getting away with this. so far they kind of are. >> is that as far as it can go? we tell them, we know you guys did it. don't dupe a do it again. that's it. >> they're under sanctions for so man other things. hard to know what more we can sanction. one way we can move forward. say, look there are other things come down the pike here. again, some kind of negotiation over the middle east. some kind of understanding of,

of relationship with nato. but, you know, this one, i think with the russian election meddling this is one where they got away with it. they don't have to keep getting away with the activity. i thin thak they have to look td the future. don't think there is a point trying to get even when they're under sanctions already. >> no price for them to pay again? >> so far, there hasn't been a price for them to pay. we could put sanctions, expelling people. don't know we will get much farther with that. unfortunately. >> they would look to, russians would like to see sanctions on the agenda tomorrow in what regard? >> they want them gone. they want the united states to, to start, giving cover to other people who want to let these things up. a lot of money to be made. russians obviously are chafing under this. president putin of russia so far successful in telling his people that their miserable situation is because of the americans and the west. that's not going to last

forever. some point, the russians know, overall scant be right, russia is wrong. or, the whole world is wrong. russia is right. so i think there may be some sense there that they want to get the sanctions again to get the americans to lead the way. but, they have also got to talk to the germans, european union and other as the but that. but if the americans break the ice, that, that's probably something they're hoping for. i don't think they're going to get it for what that its worth. >> to your last point. don't think they will get it. let me follow up on that. i want to go there. can't imagine. you are the expert. not me. i can't imagine given the disease that americans already have about the role that russia may have play in our election, could there be any traction, whether politicians would be wise to pursue any activity, where would we would be lessening sanctions on russia right now. >> depend on which americans you are talking about. i think the president supporters, don't much care about this. the, you know, that they, all during the election. the president said we need a bet

rear lae ter -- better relationship. old news, ukraine is far away. don't care about syria. other stuff. there may be constituency out there says, yeah, get this off the table. i think though, in congress that is not going to be a popular move. especially with, with, people that have been really pressing for some kind of price, diplomatic or otherwise for the russian space. they may not pay a further price. letting them off the hook don't think will fly. >> seems to me, before you got to price. these investigations have not run their course yet. we don't know, what happened, who did what, when they did what? we don't know anything yet. >> no. >> how could you talk about reducing or letting up on sanctions. too many question not answered. >> there is no answer. no answer. >> do you think there will be an aens answer? >> don't think we will get an answer that satisfies everybody. americans think, finally we got the smoking gun. we have the picture of the

russian ambassador dropping a suitcase full of money or something. you are not going to get that. that, that intelligence work, and this kind of interference doesn't work that way. what you are going to get is a kind of probable conclusion, say it is likely, with a high degree of confidence that this or that, or another thing happened. i think, for most people. certainly for congress that will be close enough to an answer. i think for people that want 100% certainty. never going to got there. not the nature of the world. not how the things come out. >> i think what i have hard time swallowing the others may feel the same way you can get to your point. high degree of certainty. russia dichtd this. then it is hard to then ask me as a citizen to accept they're going to get away with this scott free. all we say, don't do it again. par ticularly if their involvement in any way impacted the outcome of the election. a builter pill to swallow. >> hard for old cold warriors to

swallow. began my career when there was a soviet union. when the soviet union fell. i wanted there to be bet rear lagssh -- better relationship with russia. i was optimistic. i think we are in a second cold war. i feel the same way, it is really, a, a tough thing to have to accept that this brazen attack, because the thing that struck me about it. not that it was an attack on our institutions. we played these dirty games with each other for a lot of years. that it was so brazen. so, almost like they were bragging about it. not even trying to hide it. that's the part that really, really astonished me. i think that they should have paid a hyigher price. i think in the weak of the election. all of the other news that happened. probably not going to happen. unless there is some shocking or really, direct revelation out of these congressional hearings. >> yeah. >> would you agree though, that whether or not russia pays a price or not, the american people ought not to be given anything less than some answers

to what in fact did happen. put another way, these investigations ought to go forward, ought to be results here? >> personally. i think so. and i think it would be great if the american people would reengage on these questions. to remember that russia is out there. we can't turn our backs say that was yesterday. this is today. part of the reason this is happening. part of the reason the russians have been able to get away with the behavior. people have been disengaging from foreign policy, from russia, china, middle east to an extent. so i hope that these things, these investigations go forward. but more to the point. i hope the american people stay engaged with us. want these thengz ings to come conclusion. >> the middle east. we are all in now. back in now in the middle east at least. we talked about the, the elections, talked about the lifting, not lifting of sanctions. let's talk then about the middle east. we sit here for this

conversation tonight. russia has moved a -- a ship, with cruise missiles off the syrian border. for what purpose would they do that? >> to basically show they're doing something. there is not much else they can do. they have already said all of the angry things they can say. they did step aside during the night of the cruise missile strike. because i think they had to. think there was no way around that. so they're going to move the ship because that's how, how, great powers like russia show their displeasure with things. they're going to move a ship into the area. unless, something changes the situation, i don't think that's going to amount to very much. now a lot of things could change that situation. if assad decides to use, president of syria, assad uses chemicals again. we are going to be in a, really new game again. >> russia would do what? >> the question, russia would wonder what we are going to do now? now we have laid down, haven't called them red lines. >> sean spicer if you can

believe what the press secretary, sean spicer said earlier today at the white house, if you gas babies this president is going to respond. so, if assad does this again, the spokesperson says the president will respond again. and if these are big ifs of course, if he gasses babies again. if donald trump responds. russia does what? >> depend on what the word respond means, right? because, it, respond could mean almost anything. scud mean we go off to the united nations. we increase sanctions. do a military strike. hard to say. a lot are saying, there is a lot of policy. was it emotional reaction from the president. is this the beginning of a new policy. it's hard to say. which administration official is speaking at any given moment. if this happens again. americans say now we will respond. then, we are potentiallien a

se -- potentially in a serious crisis. our guy had to take a beating once. doesn't have to take another one. what might russia do? >> well they could try to interfere with a strike, try to shoot down, cruise missiles, try to move forces in the way of american naval forces. i don't think they can threat tune retal yaen to retaliate. >> if they do what you suggested initially, that still puts us on an indirect conflict with russia. >> it does. it does. puts us into a mess. into a real -- chaotic situation. where -- you know, things happen, the way bad things happen is usually not by direction. it's by mistake. that's actually what i worry about more than anything in the situations. where all of these people -- all of these forces are in close proximity to each other. that, you know, somebody doesn't get the word. somebody fires at the wrong guy. next thing you know we are in crisis. neither the russians nor the americans wanted.

all sparked by a guy, assad, who's willing to do anything to stay in power. and he really doesn't care if the plunges the world into war. >> mentioned a moment ago. as i, i should, in fairness tot you. as one of us, series of things. list of things you laid out. this could have been on the part of the president, one of the things, emotional response. could have been. that's what you said. all right, do you agree or disagree with his decision to drop the 59 tomahawk missiles on syria? good move? bad move? >> i agree. well again. important to point out. only represent my view. >> asking your point of view. >> i agree with the decision. because the i was actually pushing for this years ago. i always tell people, that, i date my hope that the united states would intervene in the syrian war not by the number of years ago, but by the number of death as go. pushing for intervention.

350 death as go. i was hoping the united states, president obama would act, i was hoping the international community would act. so, as far as i am concerned the only thing this strike really accomplishes is to pop the bubble of the myth that, that assad's regime is untouchable. that's what ate coit accomplish. that's a step forward. i think that send a signal to the international community. this is doable. there are ways to reach out touch this regime for doing these terrible things. i think is was a good, a good first step. is it a policy? something else coming out that we can cheer and support. i don't know. >> let me press back on that. i take your point. want to press a bit. we deidn't need to drop tomahaws on syria to know his regime is untouchable. we are the united states of america. there is no regime in the world untouchable for us if that's what we decide to do. i mean, i am mindful of the, of

the, of the edict, it is not about the right of might, about the might of right. but if we decide that we want to touch somebody we can touch anybody we want. why do we have to drop the tomahawk muscle to make your point they're not untouchable the we know that. >> well, but i think, you know, knowing it hypothetically and seeing it happen. >> not hypothetical. if we, if we wanted to wipe syria off the map, we could do that. so to argue we needed to drop the tomahawk missiles just to show they're not untouchable. i don't know. >> we always have capability. did we have the will to do it? important part of dedeterrence. >> do you have the will? >> not skill, will. >> the united states can reach out and touch anybody it wants. face it. with varying degrees of cost. smaller power, no cost. larger power, great cost to ourselves. i think assad did this strike because he was trying to establish to the arab world and

to his own people, whom he is trying to terrorize into submission, to say look what i can do. look at the things i can get away with. no one will ever touch me. it doesn't matter that america has a new president. doesn't matter that the french are having election or germans or russians what any bed says. i can do this. now, the damage could be that if he gets, if he says, all right, i did this. i got hilt. does it again. and americans step back from their own, don't want to call them red lines, guarantees, whatever it is. then i think, then he is going to come out of it looking stronger. say, well once, it really was a one and done. but i think until now. he has been getting away with saying, no one, no one has touched me. and never will. >> obama made a huge mistake to draw the line that assad crossed in not doing anything about it. >> think so. i was, behind, president obama. on this. i wanted him to do it. i think that -- that he would have had a lot of bipartisan

support to do it. i know congress -- i worked in congress, as you know. in the senate years ago. congress never wants the responsibility for these things. turn to congress and say, i'm unsure whether to do this. congress would say you are the president. i was hopeful, president obama would do this in 2013. secretary of state kerry gave a great speech. laying out the rationale. the problem is if you set that lane. and then you don't cross it. after something happens. then you are setting up a lot of bad things to happen. >> irony of congress' my phrase, not yours. irony of congress' cowardess, the minute you do that. they come after you. for not getting mour power. >> exactly. exactly. >> if you are the president. excuse me you want win or lose on that pin the. >> congress wants to be in ian it when it goes right. have hey trap door on it when it goes wrong. >> to stay we didn't tell you to do that. >> another question.

in retrospect then if you are right about the fact it was the right thing to do. sends a message that they're not untouchable. was it wise to go solo? >> that is a great question. i think there was a problem with trying to get the rest of the world on board because of the time factor. one of the problems here is the longer that goes between theis -- initial offense and actual strike. the point gets lost. if it is two weeks later and there is a strike. or three weeks or several debaelts dod debates down the line. international community says wait, why we were doing this again? >> bad to be fast or right. john wooden, ucla coach said be quick not in a hurry. >> they tried. on this, the white house deserves some credit. tried to shave difference between those. it was fast but small. which leaves the door owe tune doing it again. on the other hand does put you in the position of the rest of world community, of course as

you know pretty supportive. canada, you know people that normally aren't getting behind things like strikes, have been coming out saying this was a good idea. well if you do that, and then it happens again, and again, you step back from that, then, then it's going to lead -- >> but to your point. they're saying it was a good idea. they didn't join in. >> the question arises if this happens again will nay gin in second time. now everybody is committing themselves to the notion this was a good idea. hopefully, we won't have to test that a second time. but if, if chemical weapons are used again it will be a really important question in the international community. did you moon whean what you sai week ago when this happened? mean what you stead when you said this was a good idea. may have to go to the issue of policy, dan. we know what we did in terms of strikes. appears, one an done. to your point what that accomplishes. i don't know. frankly. what ought we be doing on the policy front? >> i think we need a policy. that is the problem. on the policy front, seems like,

we are kind of playing catchup ball. for example, the person enunciated the most coherent policy so far, u.n. ambassador nikki haley. her speeches tend to be i think kind of really self-contained. good explanations of what is going on. problem is the u.n. ambassador doesn't set policy. secretary of state is the cabinet, responsible for it. in the end always the president of the united states. whatever the president says, is policy. so i think on the policy front the first thing the white house should do in my view is, have a consistent policy across all of its cabinet officers all of its representatives. rather than -- than this kind of where are we today, you know, is, are we doing regime change. a chemical weapons response. because i think it allows our opponents. it allows our opponents to cherry peck whick what they're attention to.

keeps friends confused. >> nikki haley, rex tillerson and others. sound look we are talking regime change. tomahawk missiles punishing him for what he did to his people. as the i hear her and others i'm hearing regime change. >> then tillerson says but our policy hasn't changed. >> it is schizophrenic. >> confuses our friends. gives our enemies an out. i think there has to be some consistency there. i've hope some emerges because this is, this is the kind of situation once you have used force, where there is a lot of landmines you are laying out for yourself. consistent ensy consistentency is important to get through maze. >> think this to the death of expertise and campaign against established knowledge and why it matters? >> well in the book i are gue people have decided they don't listen to experts. the president campaigned against experts. point-blank on foreign policy, what if i didn't have experts

would it be so bad? i was really concerned he was going to try to prove the point in real time. >> some think he has. >> well, you know, i think especiallien the fy ein the fir. executive order. phone call to china. other thing that really did look like, this was -- you know totally lacking of any kind of, expert advice. it looks like he is learning the lesson that all politicians learn eventually. there are only so many hours in a day. you need people who know the terrain. who know the subject. who know the issues. who have to advise you. i worked for a u.s. senator. do child care in the morning. nuclear weapons in the afternoon, foreign trade by dinner you cannot, one person cannot master all the issues. so hopefully, we're not going to go down that road here. but of the public, unfortunately, has gotten it into its head, experts are the source of all their problems. whether doctors, professors like me, journalis like you.

they seem to think that experts are the, are the root of all social problems in america now. they are just wrong about that. >> all due respect on the public i depend on to watch the program every night. it is as though all agree that all opinions are created equal. everyone is an expert. they can download something on the internet. everybody knows everything. >> you know that doesn't have to be -- i would never argue for simply doing whatever experts say. none of us do that. don't go to your doctor. say, go ahead, doc, whatever you want to do. i think people who watch a program like this are trying to become more informed. that's what i suggest people do. listen to a lot of voices. taken a diverse set of, set of views. read as much as you can. you know, the internet is a great tool. be careful how you use it. a lot of great stuff. a lot of bad stuff. >> hasn't it complicated the notion? >> it has the. people think the second opinion on an experter eis not to ask

expert. ask the internet. the internet, the way searches for exam pull are structured it will give you any answer you want. that's part of the problem. or give you the answer that somebody figured out huh to put first in a search. kind of the same problem with, watching media. you know you can change the channel any tomb you hear something you don't like. change the channel. you can start hearing something you do like. it is really important to listen to things and read things that you don't agreen with. that's what keeps you sharp. >> is there a campaign against established knowledge. some areas there are. the people who attack the the idea of vaccines have been very organized done a lot of damage. because there are some diseases that are starting to re-emerge. i think there have been campaigns on gmos, climate science. people reject climate science, verying or nighed about it. so, i can't say there is an overall campaign against experts. there are campaigns against ex-perex expert views in medicine and

public policy and things like that. >> the book is called the death of expertise. the campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. written by our guest, tom nichols. appreciate your insights on the complicated world affairs tonight. but good to thatch yhave you on program. >> thak for having me. >> that's the show for tonight. good night from los angeles. and as always, now more than ever, keep the faith. ♪ ♪ for more information on today's show, visit tavissmiley.pbs.org. hi, i'm tavis smiley gin me for a conversation with former nixon white house john dean. that's next time. see you then. ♪ ♪

good evening from new york, i'm tavis smiley. 50 years ago martin luther king jr. delivered his prescient, beyond vietnam, just 30 minutes away from this studio, a courageous and singular call to conscience, a map for the future based on justice. tonight, we conclude our meeting on dr. king, speaking with our anti-war and social justice theme and what is called the triple racism of poverty. glad you have joined us, a look