warmongering politicians. capturing people is missing what he did there and isn't telling them easy we were his are of the right to kill any person anywhere any time. they can do not listen but they can't be trained to muslims makes these things every. politician says. a new kind of power fiennes technology sad is very tempting. fish farms waters do you have the palm of me because. i saw you spread all over norway this is the most cultured food you have in the whole world. drama zones in the fischel inquiry further more restrictions.

really knows what's inside the. news recently soon. follow and welcome to crossfire all things considered i'm peter lavelle debating american foreign policy is there one any more traditionally the political left and right had clearly different positions on how washington should exert power in the world today it appears everyone in the establishment is a hawk. to

cross-talk american foreign policy i'm joined by my guest james carafano in washington he's the heritage foundation's vice president as well as a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges and in philadelphia we cross to walter he is an independent scholar and freelance journalist as well as a former senior executive at the department of defense or a gentleman cross-talk rose in fact that means you can jump in any time you want and i very much encourage you james let me if i go to you first in washington used to be there was a left right division on looking at foreign policy and american interventions abroad is that just completely disappeared now because it seems that there's variations of being a hawk these days. yeah well i think the premise of your shows you know completely wrong i think they were wrong reading of american foreign policy is so you know first of all american there's always a bit of a sine wave between the left and the right we're go through these periods of relative consensus and then clear divergence you know so for example the early

years of the cold war there was kind of relative convergence in the in the early fifty's but what's going on i think here is interesting i think you framed it wrong but i think it's really interesting and i think you're really on a something and that's that you know we had this kind of manichean debate in the last couple years between that the options of american foreign policy or this kind of rampant isolationism would you just need a home stay home and mine or a business and this kind of character of what we need to go out invade every country and be a neo con and you know president obama if you listen to his west point speech try to frame that like i'm the alternative which is you know i'm not an isolationist i'm not a neo con i'm the prudent middle path well the problem with that is i think on the right and the left everybody looks at this foreign policy say give me a break it's a disaster and so what i think you see both republicans and democrats trying to do is to kind of walk this path to say look i'm not an isolationist because americans generally really aren't that and i'm all also not this kind of neo con ish i want to conquer the world thing i am the prudent alternative in the path so that may

sound slightly hawkish but i actually think it's them trying to kind of walk a middle path between the character of the america wants to conquer the world and americans just sit home and sit on their hands that's that's the way i see it what do you think walter he has a left right dissolved and there's everyone's a hawk right now because i think there's a you know if you look at a lot of leading democrats there are a lot considerably hawkish these days and then we have a paleo con like ron paul and he is very non hawkish he's very much against military interventions around the world. well as i was thinking about this subject last night i came up with fourteen areas where there is almost no difference between the right and left when it comes to politics i mean what comes to us foreign policy they seem to share rousseau phobia. hillary clinton is as bad as john mccain. they both support they both supported the illegal or more in moral evasion of iraq. they they ignored the role played by the right wing

fascist in the in the coup in ukraine there but they're equally ignoring that position they. they've they've studiously avoided the murderous assault that's taking place in slovyansk the artillery in the air and the air attacks. they they they both they are both sides except this end of history idea about the. there's an in exile or a ball march in which markets and democracy are going to penetrate the world and it will be for the candidate answer walter i agree with you that a lot of things but there's a number to go on and on but why is that the case here why is hillary clinton really no different or even worse than john mccain. well. russia is the area where i have some some expertise and i think it's because we don't have many

we don't have many thoughtful russia scholars anymore you could i could almost list them on one hand i would include somebody like steve cohen for example is one of them nobody's listening to those people and so when it comes to something like that they're all in agreement you know hillary says something stupid about the comparing putin and president putin to hitler and mccain says something totally ridiculous when he says the russia is nothing more than a state masquerading as a gas station this is absolutely ridiculous it indicates no understanding of what's really going on in russia and that's in part because there's a we lost much of our scholarship when it comes to russia and james what is the difference between a neo conservative and a neo con and a liberal interventionists yeah you know we can tell you're you know this is a set up because you told me before and they're going to ask this question but it wouldn't matter because it's thoughtful it no no thoughtful ads there are new york

ads or what about exactly the same which is you know you know this i mean this is what happens when you mix ideology and foreign policy i mean you know foreign policy. wouldn't win a divergence from principle in ideology. you wind up on these extremes and when you go to the extremes you often wind up going full circle so yeah at the end of the day if if you believe in this character. the purpose of power to make the way you make yourself safe in the world is just kill everybody that could potentially be your enemy which is kind of the character and you know con or the alternative is the way to make yourself world safe is to get rid of all the evil in the world which is kind of this liberal interventionists have notion yeah it kind of takes you to the same place which is you're imposing your will on the entire world but i got to tell you most mainstream american politics nobody believe that that's that's a rational logical foreign policy. maybe what do you think about that walter because i always find it quite interesting is that you have to find a reason export democracy human rights violations there's always that this kind of

lofty ideal to commit violence around the world and you know who the last fifteen years there's been quite a few i mean there's it's one car wreck after another it's. it's a fig leaf for the penetration of the rest of the world by the one percent that's essentially what it is the whole idea of this new liberal world order where. markets and democracy are beneficial to everybody and therefore it's harmless and if it so happens that nato happens or kompany the penetration of the of the of the markets and democracy while nato is harmless as well that's another area where you can get consensus but you've got to you've got to you've got to you've got to place those to those you've got to put a good name on top of what's actually going on which is the united states is power is behind the penetration of the of the world by essentially by the one percent ok

james i mean that's a laughable caricature of foreign policy i'm sorry i mean look when when russian counterattacked against the germans in world war two and they said we are fighting against fascism i mean that was true russia also had an interest in defending its own territory so i mean the point that sometime your principles and your actions coincide that's that's a good thing actually but claims everything on ground that i want to take over the world there's not a lot of evidence yet other than the let me ask you a question and then give you a you didn't like commentary you didn't like how i framed it so let's all fame in a different way do you think that the american follow i don't see is a pretty good question do you think it's a you know america has a principled foreign policy let's put it that way. actually i do you know is it perfect no but do i think america tries to walk between protecting its interest and doing what's right in the world and the answer is riette do they get always right i'd say no but i think that's the core but your point is right is to

argue for a liberal when you hear progress is argue about well you know protecting your interests is wrong but there are suffering children in this country and therefore we need to invade it to protect them i mean that's kind of equally not i mean a good example that's the right to protect doctrine which i would hope all kind of right thinking people would think is kind of a nutty idea that somehow the world should stand in judgment on every individual country and have the right to intervene in that country's interest i think that's kind of nutty you know yeah maybe there's a but ok let me let me go to walter but that's a different thing but let me go to walter but that's exactly what the united states stands doesn't it it judges it makes a decision to either go live the thing or do it that will let a really well you know do what you don't right no no no no no no no names come on like that let me go away this is i don't know why the time that you set the rules you said no wait a second you set the rules and you made this all about the united states and why couldn't we have this exact same discussion about russia and ukraine ok it's russia

invaded ukraine. has it i mean we're going to know he has a name disguised as out the russian president does it invade countries ok or as someone said to me once russia doesn't star ok fine is them ok ok ok i don't know what country you're going on since the end of the soviet you know you can deny the i'm tired of this mythical country using these as all right come on let's go to walter we've got another guest here while the guy in the the issue of what is going on in ukraine boils down to a february one thousand nine hundred ninety promise bade by james baker to make all gorbachev that know that nato would not expand one inch eastward if gorbachev assisted in the peaceful unification of ukraine the west broke that promise specifically bill clinton broke their promise every time nato expanded russia russia and went ballistic so to speak and but they were ignored so long as they were weak will finally in two thousand and eight ok i'm sorry using the pretext of

shelling walter finish your point come on a lot be fair guys finish your point walter oh you use use using the pretext of shelling in georgia the russia invaded and shut lopped off pieces of georgia and essentially it was a smack across the face of the united states and nato saying you're not going to expand nato any further and the same thing as happened in ukraine when when the when the coup changed the government from a somewhat pro russian leader unocal which to the to the coup regime. this russia did exist made sure it secured its black sea fleet by. making allowing a referendum to take place in which they voted to join russia in both cases it was a slap across the face about possible nato expansion those were red lines which the west wanted to cross and russia said no that's and that's in essence what's been

going on in ukraine just very rightly quickly go ahead i'm going to write what this note very quickly this is this is what right this is what i hear you say that a free and independent nation if they want to join the nato alliance they don't have a right to do that because russia gets a veto that on that point we're going to end and go to a short break good point james after a short break we'll continue our discussion on american foreign policy stakes are. you know the police will. lead it was. very hard to take.

to get. a place like that that would make their lives. please. please. please the people. in justifying their stance they're citing all sorts of what they see as international passage in cost of coming referendum but the response that they're

hearing from the west is that what you're saying is illegitimate but what we've been doing is still full of life a measure if you break into their story. america does is right. people. like russia countries like this straight. back whatever america does is right because america doesn't. just want to keep allowing saudi arabia qatar and iran to fund millions and millions of pounds worth of them in this country where they have them addresses where we have a hundred thousand four to sixteen year old children who have been schooled in these which is encouraging complete non integration within the society.

good lover tour. was to build a new most sophisticated robot which on fortunately doesn't give a dollar amount anything tunes mission to teach music creation and why it should care about humans. this is why you should care only. please. welcome back across the uk we're all things are considered on peter lavelle mind you were discussing america's foreign policy. ok and we're also now joined by evan berthold in washington he is a co-founder of the startup accelerator seven hundred seventy six right evan i'm

glad you joined us here on the program here we're actually talking about what is the difference between the left and right if there is a in any difference anymore when it comes to american foreign policy when we have so many killer in clinton and one party and we have john mccain in another party how do you square the difference they have there seem to be a competition who can be more hawkish what are your views yeah i mean i think had the privilege to listen the last couple minutes the debate before the break and what was fascinating to me was how much the debate you know is in american foreign policy kind of in that you know liberal interventionist versus kind of neo conservative frame to this day you know i think you look at the current administration and i think it's actually employed a relatively realist framework when it's looking at a lot of these issues which might traditionally be something that would be you know more something you'd be perceived as coming from the right you know in terms of the left right debate and i think the administration is is really looked at an awful lot of pretty volatile situations in a changing world really through

a perspective of you know what are america's in fact interests in various conflicts and issues you know combined with an appreciation that you know a neo liberal appreciation of the fact that you know norms and mores are important they are what you know create some level of stability in the modern world in that those norms and mores are important to be enforced with some balancing point towards you know what are america's vital interests in any given particular situation or conflict ok it's interesting james if we you know ever since the end of the cold war particularly since the events of nine eleven we've seen a number of interventions here can you name one that's gone well. i take the point about i think it's really interesting about. saying obama is a real realist i think there's a difference between being a realist and being realistic i don't think he's a realist at all which is this notion that it's all about power i do think i think

it's debatable whether he you know whether this is realistic you know give you two examples which i just thought were disastrous i mean the u.s. intervention in libya i thought was just wacky stupid right about the threat to bomb syria it was just kind of wacky stupid. you know the funny thing is the only thing the left in the right agree on is that obama's foreign policy is just working really awfully hardly terribly bad it's interesting james and i tend to agree with you and i don't like agreeing with the you know that walter it's just because obama's failed see is so dismal that it makes people on the left and right join together because they've abandoned this president i mean it would be better if he just signed some somebody else to do foreign policy and he can stick to fixing that website only his health care thing go ahead walter. with the exception of iraq which he took great pains to try and make sure that we removed himself from that

awful immoral mistake. what he has done is in many cases much worse than what george the the bush administration did when you come to that when you talk about the drone attacks when you talk about the interventions when you talk about the spying on americans it's no no wonder people i mean this as much as i supported him his foreign policy is abysmal ok evan and you know iraq was just mentioned here and iraq is very much in the news right now but there's been other interventions you know think of libya i mean libya is you know i could use a lot of words but it's a pretty dismal place to it's a good reflection of obama's foreign policy and but my point is is that we are still learning curve we go from one country to the next we're engaged three cancer daily go to the next one so. certainly concede the point on libya but i think broadly you know much of the criticism domestically of the president often tends to be that somehow america should be doing more right america should have somehow

prevented what was going to happen in egypt america should have you know left more troops in iraq so we don't see the unraveling we're seeing literally today right america should do something to stop what's happening in ukraine i think the point about a realist element to this president is in fact in the number of times he has resisted calls domestically for more intervention the number of times he's in fact restrained american foreign policy and gotten the u.s. detained gold from situations you know in which putting the military on the ground is simply not in america's vital interest or in fact going to help the long term you know accumulation of american power ok so james is there a learning curve here that's a realist perspective go ahead james. you know i'm sorry i thought that was a terribly pollyannish description of obama's foreign policy if you listen to the west point speech which is very very telling he basically says look you are turning gives or sitting home and doing nothing or invading the entire world and i am the

prudent middle path but that's what he defines as the prudent middle passes doing but what is that what he defines as the prudent middle passage is doing something well of something is not the alternative to everything or nothing the right answer is the right thing and i find it very hard to find an example where obama did the right thing and when you say he's been restrained it was obama that wanted to bomb syria what a nutty idea to drag the u.s. in the middle of that war that's the guy that you want to say it's been restored or it was or it was obama that put or it was obama that put that possibility in motion in order to drive towards diplomatic solutions i think that's a that's a somewhat simplified is a totally bogus that is i totally bogus argument that is absolutely not what they had in mind and you know that you know that the russian stepping forward was obama's get out of jail free card because when he presented that to the u.s. congress the u.s. congress of bomb syria democrats and republicans they said you must be out of your mind and it was you want to reply that evan go ahead. yes you know i mean i think

the american know the reality here is the reality is i think if you asked an awful lot of democrats and republicans they would agree that the u.s. has a vested interest in finding ways to maintain a red line against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction the issue of how do you get there. you know is a complicated now do i agree specifically that the president's approach of saying you know we're going to bomb but gosh we need to pause and ask for congress was the most effective way to get there probably not but i think in general here to say that every single decision the president has made has been a disaster is a a grossly biased reading of you know what in fact has been. you know a presidency with a tremendous number of of complex variables that have come into play ok and you have to remember the james is from the heritage foundation so good cut him some slack you know let's go to walter i really want to jump in there one of the

therapeutic i gave was guy on there and i got a lot that i did right back to you that i that obama is doing a great job with care if you want to go ok what's going on actions are going up going i. i did i did i did want to jump in america after two debacle in in iraq and afghanistan and the latter is that by and large on obama's responsible for that after those two debacle so america doesn't have the stomach for more boots on the ground instead what we've done instead is we've we've we've reverted to bombs and to drones and that's the and these despicable drone attacks but it's still intervention any way you look at it ok evan you want to jump in there. yeah i mean i think you know you let's take a specific example right now right so we have a an intensive pated rapidly moving situation in iraq right we have a country that the u.s.

is significantly supported we had a military on the ground there for ten for ten years you know and we have a situation right so so so what is the right you know dynamic we're supposed to play right now is the u.s. opposed to send more troops back into iraq as you're supposed to do something i think that the president's general approach of saying you know what iraqis to stand on its own and we may need to provide more support and more advisors you know the u.s. has a constrained capacity versus you know ten years ago we've we've gone through ten years of war we need to consolidate power we need to stay out of these dynamics now is the question of you know drone attacks on terrorists at the same time you know these are people who are threatening america's you know security and safety you know are we going to invade pakistan or are we going to send drone attacks in to take these people out and these are very but this is it can't go on the can play do you know because this is called blowback jane this is blowback so if we hadn't gone into these places we wouldn't have to be droning these people well first of all there you know there's no do i do the history and i agree with everything he said

except. except that this is unanticipated all the analysts said that if we pull out of iraq the way the president wants to do it the whole thing's going to melt down it did on the drug thing doesn't actually put the drone wars stupid you look at the study from the rand corporation terrorism is more rampant than it ever was and the using the drone as a substitute for foreign policy produced exactly the result which which we predicted you can go to our website and look at our two thousand and seven report we said it's going to fail and the stuff's going to metastasize and it has so what we're really talking about here is not not about a principle of doing something or doing nothing we're talking about per person out of the world doing things and by and large with the exception of places like canada getting it mostly wrong walter is that it's america's. i'm policy genetic code interventionist again because i started out the program by looking at left and right and it seems that the left and right have joined each other in the back here is this just the nature of american foreign policy and i'm looking at you know

looking at the economics and corporations i mean there's that element here which is not ideology we are the exceptional nation. both parties extolling american exceptionalism and both parties and i was surprised that to hear obama say it is we are the indispensable nation this is all rubbish we have caused more problems with our interventions and we've solved ok james you want to jump in there well i mean. look it's an understandable comment when you have a president who's running for president and somebody says is american exceptional nation and he says well we are exceptional like you know everybody else is exceptional and then he turns around six years later in the west point speech because his foreign policy isn't in the absolute toilet and stands up america is an indispensable nation and exceptional it just shows that the guy is not more an anything i mean so it's hard if the criticism is this is a mr foreign policy appears kind of chaotic and not working i kind of i kind of

find hard to defend that ok i haven't a lot to fifteen seconds go ahead. i think what's interesting about american foreign policy today is how incredibly difficult it is to be a noninterventionist and to argue that america's indispensable role can often be best played by by having authority and power both moral and military in reserve rather than always putting into play and i think there is a dynamic going the right way right rove run out of time gentlemen fascinating program i think americans should use more diplomacy many thanks to my guests in washington in philadelphia thanks to our viewers for watching us here darkie see you next time and remember. these.

clean more zero casualties war this is the great fantasy of war mongering politicians. capturing people is messy what do you do if the innocent killing them easy we were serve the right to kill any person anywhere any time. they could do that in the gym but they come to tremendous amounts of makes these things certain for some politicians to get a new kind of power via this technology sad is very tempting. mum. and.

dramas that trying to be ignored to the. stories of others who refused to notice. food since changed the world lights never. a full picture of today's events no longer from roads to blow from. brooklyn. to. in fish farms waters. you have the pond to me because. i saw it spread all over norway is the most toxic food you have in the whole world. drowns out in official inquiry furthermore tells restrictions.

really knows what's inside the village. to get water and power shortages saundra busy cities of eastern ukraine the worsening situation has led the un to demand a stop to finding t. and the humanitarian crisis. and the united nations believes nearly three hundred thousand people have been displaced by the escalating standoff between fear of on me and local militia with most of them fleeing to russia r.t. follows their road to safety. also the new ad with snowden that the u.s. is suspects a new whistleblower as leaking sensitive data about the spying programs well than a year after the scoop of the n.s.a. surveillance was first takes.