basically she just refused to address the very valid question of why we aren't doing everything we can to get back all of our military men like we did with bergdahl sakis bumbled a lot of answers recently about israel john kerry about press freedom in the u.s. lots of issues so it makes you wonder how she got this job where all she has to do is answer questions well and make prepared statements about u.s. policy but honestly i'm not sure if the problem is with her i kind of feel like the problem is with the job itself because how do you defend all of the indefensible crap the u.s. does around the world how do you keep walking up to a podium over and over again to answer questions from informed people and try to sell them on a bunch of wars and invasions and tactical maneuvers in other countries that don't make any sense so honestly if i take issue with anything in this story it's not what saki bumbling all over the place it's with the bumbling foreign policy she's

contractually obligated to defend tonight but to talk about that by following me on twitter as the resident. you believe these people. these are. blowing welcome across we're all friends are considered i'm peter logo gulf war three should want you to get used to. terry force to determine who rules in baghdad

what is the true nature of the iraqi regime and the insurgency sweeping across the country and is iraq facing the grim reality of becoming a failed state and or partition. to cross-talk iraq i'm joined by my guest john kiran in boston he is the executive director of mit center for international studies as well as an author and foreign policy expert and in new york we cross to stephen solicitor he is a fellow at the century foundation and author of the book act of creation or a gentleman crosstalk rules in fact that means you can jump in anytime you want i very much encourage it john in boston if i go to you first iraq isn't a failed state at least yet but it seems the regime in baghdad is why should the united states again use military force to prop up this government that is obviously quite unpopular and in very much motivated by keeping its ties to

washington and not to the people itself well i think that the regime the maliki government in iraq is not unpopular with the shia. the problem with this situation is that we're having a sectarian war again in iraq that is that the the sunni's in the north the shia in the south. our are basically confronting each other through this. insurgent group isis that is sweeping through mosul and to crete and other cities in the arab sunni parts of iraq maliki is fairly strong with the majority shia there sixty iraqis sixty percent only twenty percent arab sunni so you know in the long run the regime should be stable and i expect them to be able

to resist the isis offensive from here on out but you're right to ask the question about u.s. involvement and my advice would be to stay out of it militarily the the maliki government once it organizes itself should be able to resist this i mean one of the reasons it wasn't resisting in the north was because of the sectarian factor the sunni people up there simply turned on the shia led army of iraq stephen in new york but my look he's had quite a few years to get himself organized and let's not forget about that twenty five billion dollars in military assistance and training i mean if he couldn't get himself organized the last eight years what why would we expect that in the next few months and well i think that's a good question i think the fact is that he has presided over

a diminishing regime even though he was supposedly demur democratically elected he failed to include in his government majority sorry the leading figures in the sunni community and the kurdish community in a way that made them feel that they had a investment in his government and with this iraq this. is. as arising. it shows really the weakness of his set up the fact is that i have want to repeat what something that john terry said which is i do not think the u.s. should get involved in this crisis you know the u.s. spent eight years in iraq first of all in a war which i think we should never have been involved in the first place i was totally against it was all based on a false or that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq and iraq and there were turned out to be none but any case we sacrifice forty four hundred or so

american soldiers we had around thirty four thousand casualties we probably killed between a hundred and two hundred thousand iraqis themselves in the course of that eight years and what do we have to probably spend about three trillion dollars of american taxpayer dollars what do we have to show for it a weak government which has been unable to bring together the three tribal groups in a effective way inside the country and is now on its last legs holding desperately on to baghdad so no i think that maliki as prime minister has brought this on by himself and i think the u.s. has exhausted every effort to help him we don't really own many thing anymore and if the iraqis are not willing to fight to the end for this cause why the hell should the u.s.

come in and fight for them well exactly john i mean you know using military force of the always starts with you know planes and then it always spirals out but you know why should you think logically speaking why but continue to back this government because it will just create a slippery slope you know just call the american just call washington and you know they'll bomb the hell out of our enemies until we start all over again. i don't think we're going to do that. i don't think there's going to be military intervention of any significance. the things that the obama administration has done so far have been largely symbolic that is sending an aircraft carrier group into the into the persian gulf which really has no. actual purpose except to show the flag. and sending additional marines i think to protect the enormous u.s. embassy in baghdad. but there isn't going to be i think air strikes is

john kerry suggested was possible yesterday. i don't think there certainly won't be any boots on the ground. the maliki government should be able to defend baghdad and push isis back. isis is not really going to be the long term problem in iraq the long term problem is a steve just pointed out this lack of of including the arab sunni in their leadership or the kurds for that matter in governance of all of iraq and that's that's the key to the future whether it's maliki or another shiite leader. but i don't see the u.s. playing a big military role apart from maybe intelligence and some advice. in the back rooms of steve in the islamic state of iraq in syria it's in western media it's

played up as a very vicious terrorist group and there are some really vicious people in that group but if we look at the insurgency in iraq it's just a lot of people that are just disaffected by this government and i think western media overplays that terror element well i think that this terror on both sides i mean let's let's be frank about it but i think the problem is that i see this is considered more of. demonic than even the al qaeda group that apparently al qaeda has sort of warships hands with isis so i think that it's fair to say that that that group is a fairly diabolical organization and is willing to slaughter what's they regard as religious infidels in this case sunni shia shiites in a way that really is quite scary and frightening but i agree with. john i think that the baghdad will be defended by the maliki

government i mean it's predominantly shia shia i don't ever think that a group of maybe six or seven thousand isis fighters are going to be able to over well. a city of the size of baghdad with so many shiite fighters in a way that will you know bring this war to an end and allow for a sunni. triumph. i also agree that i think the u.s. role in this is going to be limited i don't think that in the end the u.s. will ever arise airstrikes the fact is the airstrikes are hard to control you know it's very difficult to locate who exactly your enemy is especially when they're blending in with the local population and you or as you was threatened by as they call them collateral damage and so if we were to but still be

a few months stephen and i doubt a few if it's even and then don't you think a lot of citizens but don't you think by bombing the it will placate some of the right wing that the mccain e.-x. of the world might by saying something is being done because always something has to be done and for people like john mccain and lindsey graham military use that's what they like most something must be done and they wash their hands of it to. go ahead stephen i think the problem you're probably are of putting a figure on is that the media in this country has been given exorbitant attention to these two gentleman the senator senator mccain and senator lindsey graham as if they speak for the entire congress remember it was the entire congress that threatened not to endorse the u.s. bombing syria over the chemical weapons and therefore it's one of the reasons why obama withdrew from that notion unfortunately the russians came in and arranged

a negotiated kind of exit but the pet fact is that these these individuals who are crying out for blood all the time do not represent the sentiments of american people and therefore give a much distorted image to the rest of the world about where american thinking is on these kind of issues john how much does iraq could be playing at some guy had just been jumping ahead i just i want to add something on the air strikes issue because . something that hasn't been commented on i think in the in the last few days is how we got to this point with respect to the conduct of the war itself the u.s. war in iraq. you know by my calculations or calculations of epidemiologists who study this there were between a half a million maybe six hundred thousand. iraqis killed in the war much higher than

most estimates so we hear about there were five million people displaced. that was preceded by twelve years of sanctions and with hundreds of thousands of children and i mean you had a sister you have a society that is still devastated by the war devastated by the u.s. led war and what how this plays out today of course is going to jump in here gentlemen it is i'm going to jump in here gentlemen we're going to go to a short break and after that show break we'll continue our discussion on iraq stay with our game.

it was a. very hard to take. to get here. that that will make their lives. please. please. please the people. well you like me you want your comedy news and some t.v.

. comedy news to be a bare fisted no holds barred fight to the dad. but the truth vampire fighting into the next of the corporate elite billionaire freaks well they're going. well that's what you get with my new show project in the night. that's right. people are going to. want. to take everything. oh well. my. life.

sometimes for nothing. just still will be. if you see the state. welcome back to cross talk we're all things are considered i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing the latest catastrophe to hit iraq.

ok steve let's talk about strange alliances or bedfellows here here we have a regime in baghdad calling out for help to his counterpart in assad reaching out to iran a good friend of the maliki government we have israel warning the united states not to engage iran on this issue and we have saudi arabia another key ally of the united states funding a lot of this stuff. groups that are trying to overthrow the go the government of syria and threatening iraq strange bedfellows how does the united states react. well i think the united states is reacting with great caution but you know the fact is that in some instances in some crises sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend and in this case. you know is willing to support us in protecting the government in iraq so it is something that the u.s.

city typically should consider and we already have a statement by secretary of state john kerry yesterday basically saying that we are starting to talk to the iranians about this i believe in vienna where the talks are ongoing right now on the issue of the rainy and snootily or program there were some side discussions over the last twenty four hours on the possibility of there being some sort of coordination between the iranians and the u.s. in kind of blocking or defeating the isis attacks in iraq so yes life place tricks on everybody and suddenly the u.s. which has the great enemy of tehran wants to have its friendship now and for a reason that has to do with its own strategic needs john is this a game changer of some sort say to go ahead well i want i just want to add to that

i agree with what steve was saying the one of the other things that has not been commented on much of this crisis is the origins of isis and how isis became what it is today. it's partly of course the syrian civil war which is a complicated matter but it's also the support the financial support of the saudis the kuwaitis and qatar in particular. were funneling lot of money from their oil revenues into the coffers of some of these most radical group. oops fighting the assad government and the reason that they were doing that with purely and simply because assad was an ally of iran and they have bought into the idea that they should be enemies of iran something by the way that the united states has basically encouraged for several years that is using

the gulf countries the arabs as a wedge against iran this is coming back to haunt us as well exactly stephen you know we don't hear the term arab spring very often anymore arab awakening it's kind of old fashioned now for obvious reasons but it's not like it was a hobby awakening a wahabi spring right now this is the intriguing question actually there's always been a spring i mean goes back for decades the wahhabi influences been around for literally i'd say the last seventy or eighty years and has been part of the way many of the countries in the middle east calculate their politics and i think that . i think that was high but the resilience of the wahhabi movement is quite impressive whether you agree with her and the fact is it has tremendous support

from countries like saudi arabia which have huge. huge amounts of money through their old oil sales and can spread the word in a way that very few other countries can promote their religions in a competitive way so you do have a. continuing movement of the wahhabi religion in not only the middle east but in southeast asia and in parts of pakistan and afghanistan. which is quite extraordinary and it's been. been able to exist beyond all the conflicts that have been going on it seems to me if we look at saudi arabia and you know hobby islam guys come from saudi arabia but they have to be you know the government they're the regime they're probably has to be a bit worried they could come back and bite them i mean this could be the ultimate

nightmare for the gulf because you know we've seen you can empower these jihadism these extremists and terrorists and whatnot but it's homo some possible to turn them off and that's exactly right and it's happened i think already in saudi arabia i think that there have been attacks inside saudi arabia they were attributed to al-qaeda or similar organizations. and you know the they also are creating a situation of instability in the region. that. can come back and bite them in ways that they can't anticipate it's not just a soured relationship with iran which after all in the new government of rouhani is is reaching out to saudi arabia and the other go for arab states but. maliki you know you think of a rock is. as a natural rival in many respects to saudis if you look at the predominance of the

shia of versus sunni rivalry oil sales and whatnot. by promoting isis or other kinds of groups like that in the region they're just fanning the flames of already. you know unstable relationships to see when we seeing a redrawing of the map in the greater middle east right now because you know we there are you know there is there there is israel there there are military interest there i mean i'm looking at it basically from up the western world but you know all . on the ground as you pointed out this is a sectarian. conflict for many many people in the region here how is that going to change the map of the middle east here because if we if iraq you know falls apart then it has it's a knock on effect we have the kurds we have turkey it's membership in nato what's happening in lebanon i can go on and on and on you know what i mean how is the map

being changed or could be changed. well i think the map is being changed right now i'm and of course who as we all know that the map in a sense has been artificial from the beginning it was created back in the versailles treaty negotiations in one thousand nine hundred and in the second world war and. they've never been secure borders a war has been stretched through tribal. possessions and forced different groups groups of religious beliefs force them together in a way that they never wanted to be forced together and i think that you are seeing the break up at least in a gradual way in iraq between the three big tribal divisions between the kurds and in the north and the sudanese in the south and west sorry and in the east

east north and west and then you have the. shiites in the south so it could be it could be i would think it would be quite remarkable vote did happen in any structured and peaceful way but it could be you would have a vision of a three point three way division three new countries created out of iraq and of course once you do that once that happens as you were saying that has tremendous repercussions throughout the middle east because each little small new of a country has its own. threats to the re to the surrounding neighborhood neighborhood so who knows where this is all going to lead but it's certainly not going to leave leave the middle east in any better condition it is right now and it's certainly going to end it and probably worse condition how about you john how do you see this because it seems like the the obviously the borders of the of the first first world war that were drawn in the middle east are coming to

an end there's an enormous amount of pressure here i can't see how it's going to be peaceful because most of the time in that part of the world people aren't asked what they want it's always leaders generals autocrats and outside forces determining how they live their lives and where. well i agree with with what stephen and you just said but i do think that it's very hard to change borders. it's it's hard to do it for lots of reasons not least of which is is getting consent from from the people in the region in such a contentious region as as the middle east you know a lot will depend i think on the syrian civil war the course of that war will have a more profound effect on the borders then this incursion by isis isis simply cannot sustain what they have gained they can control it. they're going

to be pushed back a little hard to say exactly where they'll end up but i don't think that this particular crisis is going to change the borders i think the syrian civil war could change the borders i think the kurds who have now moved down into kurd cook could change the borders. but. it's it's certainly possible. that we're going to see some kind of realignment of sovereignty in that part of the world but it but it's a it's a hard thing to work out steve i'm going to give you the last word on the program. will the united states continue to arm and back this government in iraq the u.s. will give this government limited support but you know the president president

obama made the all conditional whether prime minister maliki would broaden the base of his government so far maliki hasn't done that he's not brought in the kurdish leadership in the way we thought he has not brought in the sunni lady leadership in the way promise and if that doesn't happen it's very hard for me to see where. the u.s. is going to really give a very much support to way a government that is not unwilling to change well it's ok gentlemen we've run out of time it sounds like wag the dog to me many thanks to my guests in boston and in and in new york and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r t see you next time we member.

on air and in the financial world. developments coming out stopping only take you to credit. and life there. eh eh eh. eh. eh all the tried to. play polo to be. much more efficient playing every minute of the lead the law the lead by a leg like the legs flick the society molten lead skis is the most elite clubs lead sometimes from

nothing the lead is so mean and simple. it's like just keep up the story you'll be just everything you see being a stage eight will be. but speech was plenty. plenty. of chances are force let it. play the love legislation and the finish line a marathon. club at the end of. the i'm playing. the a lead. lead

. well it's good guys i mean martin and this is a break in the set so perhaps no other mascot professional u.s. forces more overtly racist than the football team in the nation's capital washington d.c. and that's only because the hook nosed angry arab is a high school mascot in california i'm of course talking about the extremely offensive name the washington redskins but in a rare symbolic win for the native american community today the u.s. patent and trademark office actually cancelled six trademark registrations for the team's name so under federal law offensive and derogatory language cannot be trademarked and.