>>ose: welcome to the broadcast, tonight we take look at the futu of iraq and t united states mission ere with alissa rubin and micel gordon both of the "new york times". and fred kagan of the american enterpre institute. >> one thing iran has done very well guably better than t u.s. isit hasad ry strong ties to each o e politicalarties. it has, u will finthe leaders of all the parties have visited iran. somef them have housesin tehr. there is a lot of linksith the kurds, with obviously with the shiites, the iranians, most of them shiites and with the suns. so iran is aonstant factor and in communicatn and very much on top ofwhat is going on in iraq. wi they influencet' it disproportionatelys what we can quite tell yet.

>> in iraq after many long years of casualts and difficulties, there has been some success. and i think it'sthe goal now ought to be to consolidatthat succeed ses and also to use what leverage we haveo try to influence polical developments in the rit way and that involves arab issue but alsonvolves weighi in if we think there are abuses onthe part of t iraqi government and there is some concern tha it might be ving in a littleit of a authoritarian direction. >> i think the rolwe play is a role continng to encourage iqis not to use olence, using that term with a l of latite. d also sporting the functioning of a politic process in ira so that there is a way that these issues cane resold in this wa it is aery importantole that we can play and i agree with mike ll is a moment where wehould be leang forwar diplomaticay and politicall and unfortunately, it's not

entirely clear to kn me at that is what is actually going on in baghdad. >> re: we conclude with part two of our conversion with general tony zine -- zinni who served as envoy of the middle east and commander of ce income tcom ld now by geral petraeus >> if we say we won't take th risk and we will compromise hum rights or our civil rights or whatever, i thi we ma a g mistake. we dame our is ofs in the eyesf the world and we lessen oursees in many respects. and i think thas the bi message. take theisk in order to preserve what u believe in. >> the futurof iraq and the pspectives o ty zinni xt. funding with for charl rose has been providedy the following:

captioni sponsored by rose communications from our studi in new york ty, this is charlie rose. >>ose: as the united states military shifts its resources and mind-s to afghanistan, 130,000 troops rain in iraq. since june 30th th have withawn from the cities d are taking on a subordinate advisor role where u.s. officers made decision iraqisfficers are now largely in char. there has been fricon and there has been violence bu the top u.s. comnder general ray odeiron says the transition has ge better thanxpected. he says the u.s. military will play a stabilizing role as the coury prepares for nation elections in january. but washington wilhave let's leverage aitresses

ime minister maliki wards political reconciltion on oil, law and solving a border dispute with the kurds. the geral has said that ar-kurdish tension is the number bun driver of instability iraq today. joing me now to talk out all of this, alissa rubin o "the n york times"she has been the paper's baghdad bureau chief andwill now be moving toeport from av ban stand. fr washington michael goon, chief military correspondent om "the new yorkimes". he is currently on lee from t time and wor on a ok about iraq and fred kagan ofhe american enterprise instute. heas in iraq this summer and just returned from afghanistan where he w helping with general stanley kristol's strategyeview. i'm pleased have each of these knowledgeable pele about iraq andfghanistan on this program. tell me where you see iraq toda and what are the -- how do y assess th pitfalls that mighstill be there, and the opportunitie and the possibilitiesven

of celerated withdrawal. >> well, i think what's very clear ishat iraq's problems a as genal odierono has said. this he are predominantly potical to you t there an undercurrent, under -- ongoing vience tt really has not stopped. and i thk that ishat has made cerinly american policymakers nervous. but alsoasade iraqis nervous. because what they don't feel sure of is whether tha could aelerate. general odierno has talked a lot about the frictioin the north between the kurds and the arabs but there is so just day-to-day olence going on. certainly it is gng on in mosul where some of it is kurd-arab nsion but there is also still cres against christns, murders,and just inasunni assassinations. ambushes. just there's consistently

attacks onhe police and on the iraqi police and the iraqi millather. w these are at a low lel and people have talked a lot about aqis toleran for olence. t i think the questn is as the u. dws back, does some of that become larger. and i think we're not goi to know e answer tthat question until there's really much greater draw down in troops. >> in the memorandum and general odierno's response. >> i saw it reflected wt a lot of troops feel ich is they feel very frustrated thathey're not able to do what they see as eir job but to leave too quickly -- particularly leas a lot of sortfacuums very raply

for the iraqis. and it is quite unclear how they would be filled. and. >> that going back towards violence more quily. now maybe that's wt would happennyway but the question is do you want to do that right before a naonal election. >> same questionichael, pi it up as to where you thinwe are and where we're going and what are the dangers and the portunities. >> well, i think we have to recoize if we stand back from it all that iraq has made aconsiderable stre in reducing the levelf olence thanks ton large part to the american military andhe succs of the rge, if you lk over a several year period. that sd, as alissa correctly poind out, there is t potential for olence. and general odierno has maed out a prudent strategy and there's a logic to it. he's keeping the lk of his remaining forces in iraq through the next iraq national electio which i

expect in january. and really for one or two months after tt, because they thinkt will take several nths for a new iraqi vernment to form. and ter that the reductions begin in earnest. so for those w prose an accelerated withdral of american forces i think you really need toeep the iraqi politics in md. and the importance of keeping ourorced deployment synchnized with iraqi political developments which is what genal odierno is attempti to do. >> re: can w make better the political tensions betweensunni-shi'a. between kurds and the iraqi government? >> i tnk that i agree with general odierno that t arab-kdish tensions are the paramount prlem in iraq today and theroblems are imarily political. and i think theres aole for the united states in that and the americans have not been as engag in that as

th might be. and perhapas they oht to be. you know thunited nations has been involved in that but the chief u. diplomat harecently left and is being replaced. and i don'think the u.n. real carries the clout that the united states h. so i think it would be logicafor the united ates to play a more asseive role in tryin to resolve those disputes before the arican combat presence ends whic is currtly scheduled for augu 2010 when the cbat forces lve, leaving behind a residualu.s. presence of six advisory brigades and roughly 50,0 troops. >> rose: michael, what do you make of the arment that se make that weeed to me sure we get iraq right becse iraq is more importanin the longun than afghanistan. >> iwill play a more pivotal role in the region than ahanistan will. >> i think irais a very importt country. it's important for our strategic interes. buthe fact is we're i iraq and we're in

afghistan and i think the united states has no choice reallyut toattempt to succeed in both. and iraq, after many long years of casuaies and difficulti, there has been someuccess. and i think the goal now ght to be to consolidate that success andlso to use wh leverage we have to try to influence political developments in the right way. d that involves at rab-kurdish sue. bualso involves weigng in if we think there a political abuseon the part of the iraqi govnment and there'some concern that it mit be moving in a little bit of anuthoritarian direction. so i don't think whave choosef we do this right. and i think we need to kee, to be involved and i don't st mean militarily. i mean in terms itf the white use, involved in both situations. >> fred? >> i would highlight the importance of seeing the litical side of this through. i think we have an opportunity in iq that

comes maybe once a geration. an it's an opptunity really to reorient o strategy in the mile east in a very fundameal way. but only if we rein commted toelping the aqis navigate the iraqi scholls of the upcoming political transition i'm a little bit worried about the adminiration taking it's of the ball. i'm a little bit wried about themotions that hav surrounded this iss and the campaign making it harderor some peopleto see the real opportunies that we have. and i do recognize the dangers. and i think that michael and alissa are th absolutely right. that ts is not something that we can pocket and move on. you shld never turn your back on a war. th is, there is still a war there. olence is at very low levels b that didn't mean it c't come backment and our enemy, an enemto the aqi state have not given up. so i think thathis is something that i tnk the draw down mes sense. ihink that theresident's call for responsible drawdown isomething that the generais ilementing

very well. and i think it can work. but i think we shouldbe very cautis about ev beeving that we're on a glide path and i also think it'sime to start thinking beyond, okay, iraq might not be a disaster a start thinking, okay, well, what can we actually get at the enof all of this for the sacrifices that we'vmade. >> as all of yo know ryan crocker id on leaving that thbig decisions iniraq remain ahead o them rather than behind them. i think that's rig. think there's obviously a big disputeboutil that isundamental to the future the country. that has not bee settled. it is not at there is n an oil law. and it's not just having a law but it's hing a consensus aboutow oil contractwill be ld exactly w the incomewill be distributed among the different provinces. that's a huge issue. and it's a huge issue to the kurds but it's also an issue throughouthe coury as, you know, st of how will

weal be distributed. anat theoment it's a veryuncertain pture. >> how far along are they in develong refineries and doin something to genere real revenue from the l? >> well, they'reble to se crude oil. and they sl a decent amount of it. th're not pumping as much as they should be. they're not pumpg as high quality oil as they should be. and that's one reason they uld like to have investment. and investment would bring new thnology aore soisticated sort of methods for getting the oil out of the groun anthe refineries, there's not much refinin done in iraq they reimport a lot of it. >> whoere the political players in iraq who will determine its futu? >> well, that's a really complicated question. and i think 's onehat consntly, thatis in th process of changi now. at one time the united states w certainlyould have beenne of the main swers. i thk one of the

difficulties about become a player in politic ihat u.s. power and leverage has already ebbed and is ebbing furtr. and as either michael or ed said, y know, st of as soon as the troops -- as more troops lve it deeases even more so. but even now it'less than it was. and it's ve difficult to knowow the u.s. can exercise leverage. viously prime minister mali has some power, there's thi very sort of fractured shiite pitical mmunity, lots of different parties. they ce together on me things, they're very much divided on other mostlyeligious. there are sunnis. some sunni powers still. and e kurds are an important por, in part because they have bee cked by the unid states. >> and what about iran. >> iran is a constant. i think you know e thi iran has done very well

arguably bette than the u.s. is it has ha very strong ties to each of the potical parties. it h, you will findthe leaders ofll the parties have visitedran. some of them he houses in tie ran. there is a lot of -- in tehran. ere is a lot of links with the kurds, obviously wi the shtes. iranians, most othem are shiites and with the suns. so iran is a constant faor and in communication and very much on top of what's going on in iraq. will they influence it disproportionate is what we can'tuite tell yet. i would just like sa all of that, i agree again with all of this. but i would just like to add that barham sala is ght. t the question we always, the queson has always been not wh, are we going get all of these huge natial deals done sn. i don't think so. the question has ways been are the iraqis goingo resoe these issues politically and peacefully or will they try to resolve

them by violence. because this is something that t i think the rye racki state wi be estling with a lot of these ndamental issues for a decade or more. as long as they aredoing that within th polital enviroent where the violence is not fundamentally driving the decision-ming, then i don't think we have problem with that. i think that the role tt we plais a ro of coinuing courage aqis not to use violence. using that term wh a lot of latitu. and so supporting the functioning of the political press in iraq so that there is a w that these issues can beresolved in this way. it is a very important role th we can play. and a aee with michael. this a moment when we should be leaningforward diplomatical and politically and unfortunately it's not entirelylear to me that that's what is actually going on in baghdad >> wt's going on in baghdad? >> well, i'm no sure that to what extent we're reall leaning foard, partularly the embassy is reallyeaning rward to help the iraqis continue to

rsue political solutions to the probls. toort of take up the slack as the miliry withdraws, you would expect t see a more significant involvement and presence of american civilian influence both from the embassy and from outside in trying toelp the iraqis to do this and i'm not, it's ely days yet but i'm not sure that at is the direction we are aded. >> is that criticism of chris hill? >> it's no a criticism, it's a qstion. and i think that it's mething that we're going have to look at very, very closely. and i hopehat the administration and washington wl pay very ose attention to this question. i thinit really isery portant. >> micha, you know t military as well aanybody i know. what is thegreat debate within the military now about iraq. because general petraeus said ia piece that was written by -- in the times, he said there's just an intellectual shift towards

afghanistan. >> well, i think that the concern er iraq is -- pertai to the american role, a year or soand just whatthat will be. and e degree to which the erican forces are going to be under litical constrnts in iraq. and you know not all the constrais are coming from the iraqis. some of the constrais are self-imposed political constraints om the unid states. t you know the iraqi military stilli think the united state still does have leverage in ira for the simpl reason tha the iraqi military still depends us a lot for their logistics, for our air power, for assistance with medevac, something they call route clearance but basically means sweeping the bombs out of the strts so the iraqis forceson't get blown up by them. theyant to buy m-1 tanks th're talking about buying f-16s. there are a whole host of ways in which the ira

military will contin to ed american support beyond the life of the strategic agreement. and maliki prime minister maliki wn he wasn washington alluded o to this, the psibility of coinued it amecan training and volvement beyon 2011. so i thi that alone gives us se leverage. i think t debate within the militaryow is it's ea to stand ba fm let'say bagged da and let the iraqis have the lead. we're not in a purely advisory rolby the way. we still have combat operatio. but they're just not in the cies per se. can do combat operations out of the city. t you know we'restanding back. they're taking more of a ro. that's all part of the olution that everybody's anticipatinged but over -- -- this has been a little bit of difficult process. and there has be as flected in the colonel piece memo se concern over the past month as to whether

there are too many constraints ing put on american mitary operatis. and then commanders like genera odierno have come forth and said no we're working is out. wehink we can make it work. i think at's the date amonthe forces in iraq. but i think everydy recognes that the way to the effort is -- weighof the effort is shifting understandabl to afghanistan which promises to be a very difficu figh >> rose: what ishe new strategy that isemerging from general mcchrtal. >> okay, i thi that michael phrased this very well. the siation, i had last been in afghanistan in february f ten days. and thene came back r this exercis the situation isorse than i thought it was wn hi come backn fruary. ihink thate are in serious danger in kandahar province in particular ere the enemy s made signicant gains. and we have not reacted properly. i think that hav

underestated the nviolent oronlethal part of the enemy's strategy which is really a very sophisticated mpaign of intimidation a also attrtion that the enemy engages in. and think that we've also underestimated the degree to which misgovernanc by this afghan governmentas been actively contributing to the problem. i think that if the situatiois manageable, i think that it will require significantly more resrces. and i think it stearn wi require a new strategy and a new approac to this problem. i do think that mcchrystal is the rightan in the right plac and i think that if he is operly resrced, i think we canurn this around. but i thk it'soing to be a harder fight probabl than most people image. >> rose:ichael, what's the influence of miral mullen in afghanistan and afghanistan a priority for him? >> well, i tnk afghanistan

is the american military priority, rst of all it's the obamadministration's priority. second of all, it is the military's priory,dmiral mullen is e chairman of the jot chiefs reflects that. but i think swren mcchrystal is the keyigure. d you know, the obama administration has allocated some fces for afghanistan and it was apparent to me just as analyst writing an iraq book that that would not be sufficiento turn that difficult situation around. and even gener mckiernan who recely retired and was being placed by geral mcrystal indicated that he wanted some 10,000 addional troops next year, that the oba ministration has not yet committed. so o can aume that mcchrystalcoming on on the heels of mckiean will want even more than that. because you're dealing with a country with very difficulterrain. we don'tave sizable afghan national ay. in iraq we hava very large, no iraqi army and iraqi

lice. you dot have a comparable large institutionnv stand -- afghanistan there are a whole host factors that make afghanisn a more chlenging placeo have a so-called surge in forces an in iraq. that's not to say is impossible. but just the log suggest it's going to require more foes, it will entail grter american casualties. and it will take more time than i think a lot people anticipated. you know, if you reflect back on the campaign some of the candides were talking about tuing afghantan arnd by sending a brigade or two. i think nobody really thinks that any more. >> ros we've seen in iraq the trning of a newgroup ofmerican, future american military leaders. what arehey takingay from iraq,ecause some them aring t afghanistan, michael? >> well, i think wee learned lot in iraq the ha way. you know, a lot of the principless of

counterinsurgency wereknown but i think they wer rened. you know, if you do twoor three tos in iraq as an army oicer marine, you learn a lo about how to teract with the people, all sos of tactics and predures. and basically how to synchronizthe civil aware affairs with what they call the kinetic, the offensive sidef the operation so i think there's a lot that has been learned in ira that can be applyed in afghanistan but you know each place is unique. and the's, you know, everybody now is for counterinsurgency. but there's a lot of thin being grouped under the rub rick of counterinsurgency that may not ke sense in a givesituation so ihink we've got a lot of exrience. but i thk afghanistan ses a lot of challenges. there, for example, you don't ve, iraq has tradion of a centralized governmentnder saddam and since. and nownd maliki's gathering

powe well, you n't really have that tradition in afghanistan of a centralized government wse authority can extend throughouthe cotry. that's a masve challenge ght there. >> rose: all right. one last question alissa. first of all, you were the bureau cef inaghdad. and you were given a lot of crit for your impact on the bureau as we as your verage of that w. so what is it about you and r? you're now going to ca -- cab you will. >> well, -- kabul. >> well, i guess some pem --. >> rose: a 5 foot 4 of you. >> i guessou always wt to cover sothing where y thk it -- something's at stake. and there is nothing whe it so, i more apparent what's astake than in war. and at least from my point of view, it's alway abo civilians' lives it's a littledifferent for mike wholeollows soldiers,

and differe obvisly for people who look at t diomacy and the global securiment but for me it taking the se questions bulooking at what happens to civilians. and somehow youactually know why are y there, why are you journalist when you hav-- when you see that life-and-deh is a stake. and you, maybeyxplaining it aittle bit better peop make a slightly different cision. mayb fewer people, just might die, maybe jus a few fewer. >> rose: someoneriting about you id that in your library is not the biographies of great lders, but potes and people who had written about thing in an extraordinary wais that true and why? >> well, that's in my traveling liary that i take with me to different places. >> ros these are things th you refer to all the me, right? odn. >> odden and yatesment ty actually wrote a lotbout war. and they wrote a lot about

realit tes saw the iris wars. >> rose: what do they tell >> well, they told lot abounot being naive about the r barity of human beings, but also not losing hope in the possility r some moments of beauty and redemption within -- whin or a times of enormous bloodshed and pain. an that's someing you want to remind youelf of when you are looking at teible grief and terrible violence. >> ros thank you for coming. >> thankou. >> rose: pleasure to you have at this table. whenev you come back for a briemoment,from the front lines. thank you, michael. good luck on the new boo >> thank you. >> rose: fred, again, thank you as ways. >> thanks veryuch. >> rose: we'll be back. stay with us. rose: general anthony zinni isere durinhis 35

year career as pay par even he led central command, forcthat overseeshe ddle east in south asia until he rired in thousand. part two of our conversation with general tony zinni. afghanistan, is going to be a long sha people like you say. >> uh-huh. >> rose: meaning what? >> i think for several within reasons. one you have tbuild up the afghan security forcesyou casee the marines are ere in the worst part of a afghanistan attempng to kler and hd an wit thousandof marines on t ground and clition partners, the.k. and others, we have a handfull of afgha--fghan security forces. it's goi to take threeo fiveears for those forces to be fully trained, organized and equipped. >> rose:s this political will iamerica to do at? >> it could be that political will could be lost if we're not careful i think it requires us to cotantly inform the ameran people of the iticality of thisegion of the world. if we wer to withdraw,

we were to allow thiso return to being a sanctuary fo extremists, if we lowed for this thing to spread toughout the region with a nuclear arm, pakistan at risk, the potential for confrontation beeen two nuclear armed forces in india and kistan that could result, when you look at all the possibilities o ting this go, and i thi that's got to be clearly made to americans, t not only americans i mean i think no has been woefully uerrepresented in this thing. when we go to, who reay has put boo on the ground and engaged, is the brits, it'she dutch, it's the canadians. ere are the others, you ow, in the 28 nati. >> so that's aery important point abt presidential learship. so how do you -- w do you get them t come around? >> well, i think tha we have to have tse sorts of -i think this is a defining momenfor nato. they shouldn get a pass on this. wasn't just waington and new york that re attacked. it was madrid and it was lond and almost several other capits.

and of course the charter ys an attack on one ian attack on all. that is what was, you know, oked in terms of the nato commment. and i don' think we shld be giving passes at, look, u can sort of provi some economic support and you get a pass on putting boots on the ground. only a fewountries can suffer theasualties. that's what the american peopleave a tough time with. >> syou got to sayhis is a threat to onand a thrt to all that's right. and are you hearing now in the united kinom and canada and elsewhe compints about this too. because thei soldiers are paying the price for this alongside ours. >> i suspect inne way or the other are talkingo the taliban, don'you? >> i tnk eventually youe going have to dohat. i ink there were two sort of cnnels, ifou will. fr my being out in the gion and talking to people on the ground, not ju americans butthers, there seems to be an understatementhat the liban are not a monoliic group. they are not all heily ideal local. >> some are ki of mercenaries wnt.

>> and some them are just watching their village. >> looki for money. >> inctives that could bring em away. there a term out there, irreconcable taliban. >> but it's not an oxy moron. you kn, so it is always smart to lessen the number of enemies. we saw it masterfullyone inraq. the sunni awakening, and former enemies that were brought over. >> rose: petras did it in mol in the beginning. >> he did it rig from the beginningment we have a great team out tre with mcrystal and petraeus. >> rose: speakinof that. whatid you make of this lonel memo, as the old saying goesuests like fish begin to smell after three day, since theigning of e security agreement we are guests in iraq and after six ars in iraq we now smell bad tohe iraqi nose. today t iraqi security forces are good enough for keeping e government from overtan that might have toppled it a yearo two. iraqay well collapse into chaos or ove causes bute

have made th isf strong enough for the internal securityission. perhaps it is one of the most -- thosefamous, infamous para docks of countensurgencys that while the is is n good in any objective sense t good engh for iraq in 009. >> in terms it of surity i agree wh that. i nothink the issue going forward is goingo be the inality of the iraqi security fces to cope with the security situation. >> rose: they cado it. >> they can do it theyl have have some prlems but they can basically do it anwe will ntinue a security sistance program, military support that wilkeep, you know, improving their capability. the issue now is governce. it's the maliki government. and it's ality to deliver essential serces, good administrationo the peop. and tt's what i heard on the streets when i was out ere. >> rose: when were you there. >> i w there in november. >> re: right. >> and they el, the peoe feel strongly if the govement can deliver, if i can ha my elericity on 24/7 you pickup my garbage

and sewage, th know how to administer arogram, alloca resources, youknow, i thinkhen they'ron the road to success. there'two more elections. the firsone wentell eaier in the year. ifhe other two go well, people respond, they' coming to the polls, that's a good sign. if there is some sort of working out of lal auority and autonomy in some places because, you knowyou can't centralize it in baghdad. that isn't going to worany more. that will work. there arestill fault lines beeen the kurds and the abs, the and the sunni. an those have toe handled very cefully because those are potential points of eruption and conflict. and they'lhave to be managevery carefully. so it's going t takeome pretty bright -- adro governance capability and diplomatic capability on the part of the government >> do you ink they want us there or not now. >> i think that they are ready for us t leave in terms of our large military formation. >> b we have essentially gone to do tha haven we. >> yes, we have. >> what do you disagree with

the memo abo. he ened it bsaying we too ought to declare vt real estate and bring our cbat forces home. >> well, i agree with the combat forces. but that sometimes is interrupted as it we are tally out there of there. like i said theris going to be a sigficant security assiance program. were going to provide equipment, training, joint exercises, things to boler d ensure tha iri security forcesre capable. not just military, i mean the key here is poce, too. lice training. they have all sts of police. they have border policil poli, they have trol police, local police. it's unbelievaeably mixed bag. some othe police like t national police weon't haveeally a counterpart. and theuropeans whoave, you know, the may be more capablof training them. so there'sgoing to be a military insecurity investment going forward. so the important pnt there and i would agree witht, is that term comba forces. you know, becse it doesn't mean we are going to leave

mitaryly totally. wean't and we shouldn't in my mind. >> why aren't you the ambassador? >> i don't know. >> don'tou really know. >> no, ionestly don't know. >> i was never told, n, honely. never told. >> an how mu, howard ve you tried to find out? >> not hard, mean you know i'm past it. >> here's the tore see -- ory that we know. one that you had evy incation they were about to nominate you and joe biden call kd you up to congratulate you. >> that is true. >> a jim jones the naonal security advisor says, what did hsay? >> well, i actually called him because --. >>ose: you hadn't heard anything. >> i hadn't heard anything. and hi taken my orders fm the secretary of state t get my busine and get things in order, ge the paperwork moving. we're goingo move up the confirmati hearing. >> rose: fm the secretary state. >> from e secretary of ste in her office. >> rose: saying get ready to go to iraq. >> y, absolutely, andthe sooner theetter. rin crock certificate coming out and i d't want to gap this too long. and with herere two others he deputy and also bill

burns. and she was oviding directn to them. you know, i was begning to s up to resign from boardsnd put myinance use in or, kiss my wife good-bye. and noing was hpening. and i called jones and --. rose: and had i not called jones late that evening i would ha read abt it in "the washington post >> rose: so at did he say? >> he said he didn't know. >> rose: didt know. >> no. rose: but it wasn't going happen. >> no, it h been decided earlier. and iaid no one told me. and he said ll, i understood that the secretary s going to do that. and i heard from her office well s understood that jonewas going to do it. and then e las conversaon i had with general jones was that he would find out what happen and why. but i have never hadhat rern call. >> rose: he never call you back. general jones never cled you back to sayhat happened and why >> no, he hasn't >> rose: doesn't he owe th to you. >> iup to him to decide rs well, first of all 're talking about two former marinesare we not. >> yes we are.

>> rose: of the hiest level and friends. >> four stars, and friends. and admiration, dual mutual. >> mutual. >> rose: yeah. >> yeah. >> rose: expla this to me. i dot understand. >> don't know, you are asking me to explain something i can't explain. you know. li i said i mean i say this again. i moved on. i don't worrybout those kinds of things. i mean, u know --. >> re: but you wantedhe job. >> which would say, you know, r my country. >> rose: well, becau are yo-- exactly. >> yeah. >> ros that is what you have done all your life. you have beea professional soldier. >> my -- i considerably better now. >> rose: i think were doing all rig. i cat, it is unfathomable to me that nobod pick approximates up thfebruary and sa to someone w has done what you haveone for the country and rved where yo have served, and calls up and says th is what happened. i'm sorry. >> yeah. >> rose:t minimum. >> yeah. >> rose: or say toou, also ey say he offered you ambassadorship tsaudi

arabia wh no disspect to saudi abia. you told them wre they could put it. >> yh. >> rose: is th what you did. >> yes, exactly. anit was nodisrespect for saudi arabia. a matter of fact, had i been offered the position first i wod have accepted it. i thinsaudi arabia is critally important. maybe more important an we've given it credit in terms of importance. but as an afterthght t was insult, i thought, to the importance of saudi arabia, not just to me. and you know, pernally didn't want to take a position like that as sort of anfterthought or a throw away becau i think 's too important a position. >> rose: suppose y called on tgive a las lecture, say. and yowant to tell uwhat you have learned about u.s. military a political role around the wor. >> well, i think fst of all,he united states is reected for what it stands for. r constitution, our ideals, r attempts always to be a perfect nation. we're not alwayserfect but the idea tt we want toe,

you know, our reach always exceeds r grasp. and welways are constantly trying to better ourselves. we represent the bt in the wod. we reprent the hope of the world. i'm the son of immigrantsto this country. ani know my parents and grandparents came he becausthis was hope. this was a future. and f their son to become a four-star genal and all the other things that you know theood lordas sent my waythis represented amera. d so amica has to understand it is what jefferson said that shining beacon on the hill. and we have to constantly ve up to that image. in everything we do whethert's the conduct, our conduct in conflict a war. whether it's how we do our diplomacy, how we interact with other nations. and sohen thingshappen that are not amecan, you know, we go through th abu raibs and the other things that happen, itamages us. and it damages the hope in the world that we represent. that's why, you know, we just discussed how the

iranian people love americans. t maybe not amerin policy, yo know. it is our freedoms, it's our education system. it's our rights. it's the way we approach things. when i became a mine i swe an oath to the constitution not to the president,o, we don swear an oath to a king or queen. we swear anath a concept. and ide. and that's what we are lling to put our life on the line for and we have to protect it. i have to p my life on the lineo protecthe centers that i might not agree with. bu that's our syste and when we, if we eve compromise on that, we ever moveaway from it, if we ever say for security reasons we won take that risk and we will compromise, u know, human rigs or our civirights are or of what ever, i think we make a big stake. we damage ourselves in the es of the world and we lessen oselves in many respects. and is this that's the big message. take the risk inrder to preserve what you believe

in. you know, i see this all the me. i saw this allhe time in e military where we would not use you kw,unlimited force for humanitarian reasons. that we try toobserve the just war concept in theory, in wt we did and prortionality and other things. it ps us at risk to do it. but it says moreabout who we are when we do these sorts of things. and i think sometimes we get pressureor out of fe or out of a sensef taliation, we sometes slip o those. and we usually comback and you know, every war we've had this happen. whether it w interment japanese, or whether itas thelien and seditian acts or waiver of habeas corpus, you can go throu the well litany. we have comeack -- the civil war. we havcome back and said we shouldn have done that. and we lea that lesson and we try to move forward. and i think when we're harmed in someay,we feel thneed to react. have to remember those

thin. >> tell me whait is tha you think is the ierative for the united states in the world. and whats the nature of the new wor? >> yeah. i think that the naturof the new world is not at easy tounderstand. you know, in t past undersod threats. ey tended to be monolithic and clea i mean during the world w -- cold war era we through what the threat was. now we hav a very confused world. there ist aingle threat. it's vague a hard to describe. instability the world and parts of the world that you know,reate problems for us whether they afct the ennment, our security, our economic welleing, it's aonfused world an it's moreifficult than to create strategy for a nfused world. yocan see right now in the department of defenctrying to decide what kind of militarye're going to have going foard. are we going to be commitd and leaning toward ese sorts insurgerys a dealinwith rrorism.

are we going preserve balancin terms of -- conventional fors even though it y not be the st probable threat to us so we preve adventurism by maybe potentl adverrys that would use th. and so nows the time we need t marshalls and the kenans and the thinkers that can provide a strategic design for dling with this very confused and a better te complex world. >> rose: so we need a marsha plan for 2010. >> and it y not ju be a marshalllan as such it needs to be a marshal design. i don't think we invest enough in understanng what is happening in the world and why it chang too much and whatre the dynamics. >> rose:e have a young president who came to offi with a huge crisis at hand. glal economic crisis. and a war in iraq and a war in afghanistan. >> right. >> rose: and wn't going well a still to the going ll. >> yes. rose: and other issues around the world. doou have any sse that they are, thathey have a

strategy, they have a plan that they have a worldview or have they just simply ved from crisis to crisi to crisis? >> i think in some cas they have ted to develop a strategic design. i think in afghanistannd pakian they havelearly need to internationize it regionalize it, the steps gog forward and planing it out. i thk we have a very strong pentagon team with secretary gates d admiral mullen, iave deep respect for general traeus and general mcchrystal and others. >> odierno. >> gat respect for him. and that's ne very well. the onomic csis came on us very fast, ver quickly. me decisions were made. very ctroversial. it's bn maybe more reacon area. but in a way i wou say we ve to understand the conditions came upon us that quickly. it was overwlming. it wasard to think through what might be done. you had the choicesid not present a clear best option

it was like the lst worst option in going forward. anso i think they're still ying to get grips on the economic conditionand where it i how dp the problem was, u know, whether the actions they've tan are the right ones, more, different. and there e all sos of views. >> rose: and providi all the heth care for them and all thoseorts of things. >> do u think the present did too much at one time. >> no, i think he had to do it. >> rose: all the tngs. >> edution, climate change, health care, were essential to be on the front burner from the beginning. >> yeah the were a lot of frontrunners, unfortunatel you couldn't take them in sequence or one at a time. now having sd that, there are some this i would take issue with i think t president g himself out in front too much le on iran. i don' think he should have been the lead on that. you know, i thk he had to pick and choose where he personallyas involved and where others might lead the way. i think thejury is still out on some of this structure. all these speal envoys, these superenvoys which

superimposed on the existing structure, i mean does that ally work? we have these, youentioned richard lbrook and hug stf and nonconrmable position. i mean mbe a constitutional issue here. i'm not criticizi it. 's a difrentpproach but. >> rose:t confusing. >> yeah. >> re: if you are in a reign country,ho do you spk to and who speaks for the -- >> that's right. and of course the tm of rivals,trong personalities an egos have atome times caed some differences. who's maki policy. they sort of rbed and bumped up against eh other. >> sin this book is about leing the charge how do u measure (pam ba >> i think certainualities obously superb, his ability toommunicate, h chisma and personal acon, his sort of tireless wiingness to commit and work issues. think hs certainly understands how lead a very diverse nation in this case.

e jury is still out on effectiveness and peormance because we're going to looat the economy. we're gog to look at afghanistan, middl east peac process, iran, a number of other issues and we haven't sn the outme yet and some of th decisions made othe proaches taken or the presses or structureut inave come under some criticism d we have yet to see if these were the right ways to go. i think onhat side of it, because ultimately we're ing to be jued on performance, you kw, on succes every leaderis. we see in sports a manager that the team loves, everybody likes, and appeals to everybody can't win game >> re: doesn't go. >> and certainly he's winning games. >>ose: speak for a moment in terms it of leading the arge, i think i the wld thate live inoday, the capacity to e language well. >> yes. >>ose: and precisely and evocatively, both. >> i, you ow, i tnk the ability to communicate,to move people wi words should not be derestimated.

ani think mae more so now because we e high communicion society in the world today. information technogy allows us tdo that. we can project ourselves all over the wor in the most remote places at a moment's notice. and i think that communication has taken on more importance than ever beforeecause it's in realtime and it is highly competitive out ther you ha others thathave different messes that are coeting with yours and so ifou can bring that personalitto bear, if you can brinthat kind of emotional -- and the em pottee a the ability to get the ssage acrossnd now th president obama. here in your book you said persona development is one of the most significant attributesf a truly suessful leader.

think, if i ha to pick a single indicat of a future top leader i wod say it's the degree of his or her commment and determination to improve themsves on theirwn. >> absolutely. >> see tell me about that before we go. beuse that's what i --. >> i met t many leader that he stoppedlearning. they think theyave arrived. ani think to the day you lead learship positions totally you should never stop learning and developing. me i've spent almos50 years in learship positions. and i lear something new every day, usually from the lead, you know, from the bottom. i sa i learned more from sergeants than genals in my time the military. and ifou are not constantly loong at ways to improv youelf, improve your confidence, improve your leadershipbility to learn more,earn more abou the environment you're functioning in. >> that ishe changing environment u live in. >> and that has to be constantlyone, you know, and weave seenoo many leaders shut down. they have ol business models. d ways of doing what ty

do. they're outdated. they've lost touc they continue to do ings in a wayhat are mang them fl at an ever more increasingratement and th don't change. we've seen that in industry, in business, whether it's autobiles orirlines or atever. and soheyose imagination, innovation, becausehe learning process, the analytical pross of the environmt they're in s ceased in some w. they thinkthey've arrived and they don't need to do th. 've all encountered those kinds ofeople. >> who is the greatest military leadere've ever had? >> you know, arguably, george marshal, i think he's also been a hero of ne. i think hwas not only a great litary leader operationally tackicay and sttegyly, he proved to be a great sectary of defense and state. hisesign for how we would de with the cold ware era set us up with a marshall plan, the creation of nato, you know, working with the truman admintration,

restructuring government, 1947 natiol security act. and he was a key architect of much that. and it got us through half a century wiout us goingo a hot war. and so pit myed, i think, not just mility leader that can lead in a military contexbut had the scope and the breadth to lead in other areas too, in diplomacy, i understanding the fure, in sting up our economic structure. and to looking at parts of the world and what we needed too to change the conditions out there that lead to chronic warfare an chronic conflict. rose: if the president would call you tonight and say neral, i need you, would you go serve? >> absutely. if i felt i cld serve my country, i don't thi in terms of servinin administration or an individuali think in term of servi my country, my country saidhey needed me, and i felt that i had someing to offer and contribute, it just in my dna. u know, and i would do it. >> rose: general toni zinni,

thbook written with tony coltz is called lding the charge,leadership lessons from the battlefield to the boardroom. ank you. >> thank you, chaie. >> re: here is a sneak prevw of tomorrow night's sh t is a look at julie and july y the movie aut juliahild starring meryl streep andhe director. >> were you spys? >> n, yes, no. (lauter) >>ou were in the office of strategic rvices and yo are no spies? >> was oy a file cle. but paul, paul desned all the seet war roomsor general -- >> well, just maps and exhibits and things. >> he did. he sine-handedly won the r. >> wel i had to. someone did. i mean it was drag o wasn't it? anyw, so there we were in

china, just friends having dinner, and it turd out to be julia. it turned out be julia all along julyia, are you the butter to my bread and the breath to my life. i love you, darling gir happy ventine's day. >> happy valentine's y. >> she was irresistable. and every one fel in love th her. when she moved france, i meanhe lived ina couple of countries whe she was even taller tha tall. she was in china and then france and wiin a wk evyone there kne her because she wa so -- she stooout literallynd she rexed everyone about the fact that she- was bigger than they were. >> yes.

a larger-than-life character en. >> she was the real deal. and m sad iever met her. >>e too. >> because think she i think she would have been one ofhose, one ofhe few that just madeou not remotely disappointed in them as a person. >> i felt such, yo know, you never know reall, the in and outs of a person, personality. i mean is hard enough to know, understand the people in yo own famil and your own pents. buo imagine that youknow the innerlife and conflicts andnxieties of a plic person, is very, very diffult. but it's endlessly inresting. 's at makes me want to be an actor.

ptioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group awgbh access.wh.org

>> funding f charlie rose habeen provided by the following: >> additional funding s also provided these funders: