welcome to our program, tonight, martin fed sign and david walker on preliminary proposals for reducing the federal deficit. >> one of the most exciting and to me positive things about this plan is that they spend a lot of attention on the so-called tax expenditures, the spending that is built into the tax code, and they indicate just how much potential there is for deficit reduction in reforming those tax expenditures. >> rose: in the final analysis the president of the united states has to look at all different options around the table and decide what he is going to embrace in his 2012 budget and part of his legislative agenda he has to lead and the republicans and democrats in congress have to work with him, because we can't afford to wait another two years

to start addressing this problem. >> rose: we continue with one of the great reporters of our time, dexter filkins of the new york times. >> we are saying yeah we are going to pound the taliban as we are doing now, we are going to bleed the taliban, we are going to diminish them as much as we can and force them to the table. but at the very same time, the white house is saying we are going to do all of that, but then we are going to start leaving. so they are kind of cross purposes those two things, as you can see, it might work but it might not. >> rose: we conclude with journalist thanassis cambanis, his book is a privilege to die, inside hezbollah's lesions and their endless war against i see . >> the hezbollah idea is very compelling, it is very simple, hollies stick islam that tells you how to raise your kids and how to live your life and be a good believer, step two, per etual war, securing your dignity by being prepared to

fight and that two step dance appeals not just to testosterone fueled teenage boys, that message appeals to the mothers/narcotics, the soccer moms of hezbollah. >> rose: fed sign, walker, fill kins and cambanis when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose was provided by the following. >> maybe you want school kids to have more suppos exposure to th, maybe you want to provide meals more the immediate difficult. or maybe you want to help when the unexpected happens. >> whatever you want to do, members project of american express can help you take the first step, vote, volunteer, or doe mate for the causes you believe in at members project.com. take charge of making a difference. >> rose: additional funding provided by these funders. >> and by

bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with a look at the federal debt, president obama bipartisan commission laid out preliminary proposals to reduce the federal budget deficit, the proposals would cut more than $3.8 trillion over the next decade, they include sweeping changes to social security, elimination of popular tax breaks and cuts to medicare and defense spending the final report is due on december 1st. the president addressed the issue generally at a press conference for the g-20 summit in south korea earlier today. >> i set up this commission precisely because i am prepared to make some tough decisions. i can't make them alone, i am going to need congress to work with me.

there was a lot of talk during the course of this campaign season about debt and deficits, and unfortunately, a lot of the talk didn't match up with reality. if we are concerned about deaf and -- debt and deficits, then we are going to have to take actions that are difficult and we are going to have to tell the truth to the american people. before anybody starts shooting down proposals, i think we need to listen, we need to gather up all of the facts, i think we have to be straight with the american people. you know, if people are, in fact, concerned about spending, debt, deficits, and the future of our country, then they are going to need to be armed with the information about the kinds of choices that are going to be involved, and we can't just engage in political rhetoric.

>> rose: joining me now from phoenix is david walker, he is a ceo and founder of the peterson foundation, joining me now from boston is martin fed sign, a professor of exhibition at harvard, i am pleased to have both of them on this program. welcome. let me begin with you, marty, what do you think of the proposal as much as we know about it. >> there is a lot to like in it. i think that it is very bold, every aspect of the fiscal problem has been put on the table and yet when i looked at the numbers i thought it didn't go far enough, when you look ahead to the end of the decade, there is they are still looking at a ratio of government debt to gdp that is higher than it is today, and higher than it has been historically. >> rose: david? >> i think it was a courageous plan, it was very comprehensive. there were changes in every major aspect of the budget. it demonstrates that we are in such a deep hole that nothing

can be off the table, and you have to make some tough choices. frankly, i think he could have been even more aggressive with respect to some of the reforms but the bottom line is they get debt down to 60 percent of gdp by twenty20 four, and it is a two-to-one spending cuts for every dollar of revenue increase, and i think it is a good framework .. to start the debate. >> rose: the most important thing is they do have to come in tandem, i assume because people come at this from different political places and they also come at it from different sort of political needs, and risks. >> when you say they have to come in tandem you mean spending and revenue side? >> rose: exactly. >> one of the most exciting and to me positive things about this plan is that they spend a lot of attention on the so-called tax expenditures, the spending that is built into the tax code, and

they indicate just how much potential there is for deficit reduction in reforming those tax expenditures. >> rose: david? >> i would agree very much. i mean, we lose a trillion dollars a year in revenues in deductions, exemptions, credits and exclusions that are not in the budget and not appropriated not in the financial statements and not looked at periodically and clearly they need to be on the table, by broadening the tax base you can keep rates low and in the case of corporate taxes you can reduce them. bottom line is, this plan tries to achieve stability overtime, 21 percent of gdp for both revenues and expenditures at the federal level over the long-term. >> rose: characterize how essential it is for us to do, for the country, to do something like this, to get it on the way. >> absolutely. i think the fact is it is amazing how much controversy there has been, especially from the left with regard to the social security reform

proposals, because they are not dramatic or draconian, you know, i have been in 40 states in the last two and a half years and had 400 plus engagements with the public, the framework that has been put on the table for social security reform is clearly something that could get broad base support among the american people you get the far right and far left that are out of touch with reality, we need to come up with sensible center solutions. >> i think what they have done about social security has a a lot of good building blocks but what is missing is my kind of universal individual accounts to supplement social security, and i think a lot of the criticism that comes from people who say, well there is not going to be enough social security benefit in the end if we adopt these reforms, i think that could be answered by a a system of universal personal retirement accounts. >> rose: i want to agree 100 percent with that. >> i mean the fact is i was disappointed that there was not a supplemental, automatic

savings account on top of a solvent sustainable and secured defined benefit program i think that is very important to get our savings rate up, to provide a meaningful preretirement benefit and a supplemental retirement benefit i would agree fully with that. >> rose: did both of you have an opportunity to wade in on this commission to make your views clear? >> i did have a chance to talk with some of the commission innocence about my views on this. >> rose: david? >> i had a chance as well, plus it is my understanding that most if not all of them read my book come back america. >> rose: so they clearly had all of the ideas that are out there, most of them to consider. i mean, explain to me what you think went on in this commission and allen simpson and irrelevant kin bowls, what they had to do to face what is coming. >> they had to provide leadership. you know, the biggest deficit that this country has is not

enough leadership to help people understand what the real situation is, and i think they demonstrated that leadership. now, the tough part starts. it is going to be very difficult for them to get 14 out of 18 votes from the commission members as they stand, but you know, whether they do or not, you have these recommendations around the table, you are going to have the bipartisan policy recommendations on the table, the peterson pew recommendations from yesterday and others and ultimately the president is going to have to lead. >> rose: do you think the president is prepared to lead? >> i do. the question is will he? i mean he clearly has got to change course, based upon the midterm election result he has the ability to lead, but there are no easy choices here. , you know, there is only one person in the country that can take the lead on that, and that's the president of the united states, only the president has the bully pulpit, only president -- only the president has the ability to lead on this, and he has got to work on a bipartisan basis to try to be able to get a few

things done next year like budget controls, social security reform, and some type of special process to bring government into the 21st century. >> you know, in an early speech to the congress that president obama pointed out how much trouble social security was in, and also pointed out that we do not have a universal savings account, and it didn't take a lot of imagination to link those two together and to think that he would support a reform of the sort that david and i have just been talking about, where you gradually slow the growth of social security benefits, but you supplement it with the annuities that could be financed from a universal ira type program, but more recently the president has been very critical of any attempt to change social security, so i hope that he will take this commission recommendation, go back to his earlier statements amount

universal personal retirement accounts, put the two together and come forward with that as a proposal. >> rose: what do you think of the recommendations as they concern medicare? >> well, again, i think it misses the point. it talks about finding ways to reduce spending on health. the real issue not to reduce spending but to reduce tax financed spending on health, we can't finance the programs to take advantage of all of the things that medical science is going to offer us through the tax system, so we need to do for medicare what we have just been talking about for social security, to move to a mixed system where you have a tax finance core, medicare, but then on top of that you have some kind of universal, personal health retirement accounts that people can use to supplement what they get from the medicare program. >> rose: they have a number of proposals, charlie, as you know to try to be able to reduce

costs, some of them are specific, many of them are general and they don't have -- they are not actionable, they have a number of proposals to be able to reduce subsidies with regard to medicare, but in the final analysis, we are going to have to establish a budgeas to how much in tax employer resources we allocate to medicare and health programs, they haven't done that and we will have to recognize the difference between how much universal healthcare is appropriate, affordable and sustainable that might be financed valley through the government versus how much people might want to achieve on their own and have to end up paying for either through their wages and their employer or otherwise individually, that is going to be a big issue we are going to have to get to in 2013. >> what is the debate that has to take place between now and the time this might go to congress? >> well, now they have to -- the debate within themselves? >> rose: right. >> now the commission members have to come together and decide what are they willing to support, how many of these recommendations can they get 14

of 18 votes for, which will make it an official commission recommendation, how many might they they be able to get a majority vote for and whether or not they can get a majority vote or even 14 out of 18, i think as we said before, in the final analysis, the president of the united states has to look at all different options around the table and decide what he is going to embrace in the 2012 budget, he has to lead and the republicans and democrats in congress have to work with him, because we can't afford to wait another two years to start addressing this problem. >> rose: and you you believe that if the president is prepared to lead he can get 14 votes? >> no. i don't think he can necessarily get 14 votes. i am talking about irrespective of whether he gets 14 votes. he is going to have to lead in deciding of all of the recommendations, whether they got 14 votes or not, recommendations coming from the bipartisan policy center commend addition, from the pew

commission, from marty and from myself and others, what is he going to embrace as president of the united states? what is he going to make as part of his 2012 sghujt what will he make as part of the legislative agenda and go to the american people with the facts, the truth and tough choices, use the bully pulpit and lead. >> rose: at the same time -- run for reelection? >> if you look at his budget that he submitted last february, the budget he submitted last february points to ever increasing fiscal deficits, bringing the debt to gdp ratio up to 100 percent of gdp by the end of the decade. so he would have to say, well we really can't afford that and the commission has persuaded me we can't afford that and the economy has slowed down and we can't afford that, and so i am prepared to take off the table some of the spending proposals, some of the permanent tax cut proposals unless i can finance them in other ways. >> rose: charlie, it is very clear the american people know

we are living beyond our means and looking for leadership, that is what the president needs to provide. >> rose: last word. thank you both. >> thank you very much, charlie. >> rose: from economics to war, we continue tonight with a story about afghanistan, in recent weeks american and hey toe air strikes have intensified, the u.s. voiced its support for talks between the afghan government and the taliban, this week top u.s. officials started to speak about 2014 as the date when afghan security forces will be able to take over the defense of their country. the obama administration continues to say that it will be begin to draw down troops in 2011. joining me now is dexter fill kins, he covers the war in afghanistan for the new york times and he is in new york for 48 hours so i am very pleased to have him at this table, welcome. >> thanks. >> rose: so here is what you said. october 17, after nine years of war, the end game has finally

begun. >> i think it is true. i think it is likely to be a pretty long end game. yeah. i mean, i think this is the beginning of the beginning. >> rose: and the end game because of what? >> well, i think, frankly, mainly, because we, the united states, have signaled that we want to leave. i mean, you know, president obama has made that clear. he hasn't, you know, he hasn't made it clear how many and when exactly, but july 11th, next year is when the date starts to -- that is when the withdrawal starts to begin, probably very, very slowly. >> rose: and so i assume that the american strategy is on the, we tenant to intensify so they want to talk, because in the end, we want to talk and figure out a way to get out of this? >> i think so.

i mean, again, that is kind of the -- that is exactly right but at the same time it is a bit of, you know, they are going in different directions there, because on the one hand we are saying, yeah, we are going to pound the taliban as we are doing now, we are going to bleed the taliban, we are going to diminish them as much as we can, an force them to the table. but at the very same time, the white house is saying, we are going to do all of that, but then we are going to start leaving. so they are kind of at cross purposes those two things as you can see. it might work but it might not. you know, and so the next year, of course is going to be very interesting. >> rose: so what about the other side? wha what are the taliban saying? >> you know, i think they are trying to run the clock out. as you can manage. it is a waiting game for them. the leadership is in hiding in pakistan. there has been these very, very preliminary, super interesting

discussions, and as everybody says, these are not talks, these are talks about talks. super preliminary, you know, like they are sitting across the table and saying who are you? >> rose: and nato sort of flies them into kabul? >> yes. that is pretty dramatic, you literally have the taliban, some of the -- a small handful, a small number of the taliban leadership is coming out, you know, literally coming out of their caves and the tribal areas in pakistan or from qatar and their movement is being facilitated by nato, by the british -- by the americans and these same people are on the kill and capture list, so they are giving them safe passage in and out. >> rose: tell me what the generals and the men and women on the ground tell you about how it is going on the ground. where is the kandahar offensive? >> well, i mean, i think there are two ways to look at that. i mean, one is from the ground and one is from kind of higher

up. you know, i think on the ground, it is really, really hard, it is really bloody, i mean, this is the bloodiest year so far since 2001. it is intense, it is -- i mean the stories that you hear of how intense it is, you know, the 30,000 additional troops are now on the ground, they are all in place and they are fighting their way into places where they haven't been before. >> rose: and are they making a difference? >> yeah. they are making a difference. they are killing and capturing a ton of taliban. >> rose: are they holding when they kill and capture? >> yeah. they are holding. the americans are holding. are the afghans hold something no. you know, and so, you know, that is the biggest question of all. you know, it is pretty clear the americans can do this. you send a a marine division into the province they are going to get the job done. you know. they will find the taliban. but at some point they have to hand that off, you know, and that is the part -- that is the

part that is kind of never worked. and there isn't a lot of evidence that it is really working yet either and that is the biggest problem. you know, is afghan government, afghan security forces. >> rose: pakistan, any change on the ground over there in terms of what they might do about safe haifnls for the taliban? you know, it is like pakistan, it is like a science fiction movie, it is so complicated, you know, everything that you see is actually something else. no. i think -- i think it is still -- you know, it is still a double game. the pakastani government basically on one hand, you know, very publicly says we support the united states, thank you very much for the billion dollars a year that we are getting from the united states, thanks very much for that, but at the same time, i think the evidence is pretty convincing that elements of, pretty substantial elements of the military and intelligence

services there are supporting the taliban. so -- >> and how do they support them? >> in lots of different ways. i mean, first, the most obvious one is, the entire leadership of the taliban live in pakistan, and so -- and i had a fascinating conversation with one of the american generals. this is some time ago but he said, you know, we used to go in there and we would sit across the table from the pakastani generals and say let's talk about this province and say the pakastani generals would all look at each other and say qatashura a, what is that? and the americans are just throwing their hands up, what do you mean what is that, so they have gotten beyond that but i mean just for starter, you have basically the whole leadership. and i think it is pretty clear the pakastanis have made it clear that if they wanted to pick those guys up they could do it. because they have done it. she c picked people up and

released them so -- >> rose: why don't do why don't they do it? >> why what is in their interest not to do it. >> it comes to self-interest, national interest and i think the best reason is, in this case, is that -- they think they are not convinced yet the united states is going to prevail, and that the united states is going to stick it out. and so if we leave, which is what they expect,. >> rose: they want a horse in the game. >> they want a horse in the game. that's absolutely right. >> rose:. >> the taliban is their horse. so that is the core of the whole problem. >> rose: and where is karzai now? >> he is difficult to -- i mean, pakistan is one sort of fundamental contradiction in the whole war. the other one is, the afghan government. and president karzai sits at the top of that. it is not -- it is not -- i don't think you can say whose side is he on, i don't think it

is quite that far. but i think what is troubling, certainly troubling to me as an american, but i think it is definitely troubling to the american military, the diplomats there, they ask themselves increasingly, do we want this thing more than he does? you know. is this more important to us, to prevail here? than it is to him? and, you know, afghans will laugh, i mean they will tell you, you know, if the americans announce they are leaving on monday, president karzai will leave on sunday and be gone before the americans leave, you know, and so i think, you know, karzai is very difficult, you know, and he has his own reasons, of course, but and he is in a very difficult -- >> what is his game then? >> survival. >> rose: yes i know but how does he survive? by making a deal with the taliban or not? >> i think that is a good question. i think what -- i think what

karzai has shown himself to be a master of is kind of tactical day to day survival. and one day that may mean making a speech in which you criticize the americans for killing civilians, you know, and in an air strike by accident, the next day it may mean, yeah saying i am going to join the taliban and the next day it is going i am going to make a deal with the taliban and that explains, i think, that kind of instinct he has to always maximize his own advantage. it explains the kind of zigzag nature, he is just very unpredictable, you just never know when he comes out what he is going to say or what he is going to do. >> rose: i am convinced mcchrystal had a relationship with karzai and with -- does petraeus have the same kind of relationship? >> that's a really good question. i think you are right about the first part of that. i think that general mcchrystal and president karzai i think they had a reasonably good working relationship and i think

at a time when karzai didn't have a relationship with anybody else, you know, so basically mcchrystal was -- and a lot of people will tell you, that is the way karzai works. you know, he would sort of divide and rule, you know, and so he looks at general mcchrystal and says zero okay you are going to be the one that i will deal with, you know. >> rose: not the ambassador, not richard holbrook, not him, not him, not him. >> rose: you? >> you. >> rose:. >> and you can see how he is the master of tactician. >> rose: on the face that may make it sound like mcchrystal and the others are dupes. >> of course not. >> rose: it is sophisticated on the part of mcchrystal or anybody else to be able to -- why do you deal with karzai? answer. he is the president. >> she the president. of course he is the president of a sovereign country and you have to have relationships with him, of course, and, you know, demands on, you know, whether it is general ms. mcchrystal or petraeus are kind of impossible to imagine. >> rose: but is it different

because petraeus is there rather than mcchrystal or is it a -- has petraeus with all of his enormous talent, the fact that, you know, the president desperately needed him and has had to in a sense say if you do this i will give you this? >> yeah. well, i think -- my understanding is the relationship is much more intense, tense, it is more difficult between general petraeus and president karzai. that is my understanding. there was a meeting the other day -- and this happened to be -- i think i am able to say i contribuour mood that morning, because with one of my stories,. >> rose: it wouldn't be the first time. >> yes. and i think -- and there was a morning meeting, i think it was president karzai and i think general petraeus and a number of the american ambassador was there and a british ambassador and it was a very, it started badly the meeting and this is just like a week ago. started badly, and karzai kind

of, you know, slammed his hand down on the table and said i am done. got up, walked out, slammed the door. that, i think that is the relationship, that makes the relationship much more difficult. much more difficult. >> rose: so what is the story? >> well, i think the story right now is, you know, as we approach the july 2011 date, when president obama said that is when we are going start pulling these guys out, i think, you know, he has got a a big decision to make, you know,. >> rose: he, obama. >> yes. i mean, how many troops he is going to pull out, how fast, you know, if any, what is he going to do? so the next several months, are really, really crucial because all of that is going to be based, his decision was based on the kbls on the ground, on the conditions on the ground, so right now, the military, you know, very, very

aggressively is trying to change those conditions on the ground. you know, they are trying to change the facts. >> rose: you hear coming out of the military some indication they believe they are changing it on the ground. now i don't know whether that is a triumph of hope over reality. or whether they believe that that has to be the storyline that will help them prevail. >> well, i mean, you know, it is probably a little of both but i think, you know, in a war every -- everything is uncertain and foggy and all information is incomplete. so it is hard to draw a conclusion. but if you just take one statistic, one set of statistics that they throw around a lot, they are killing and capturing just an extraordinary number of taliban fighters and what they would describe as kind of mid level leaders, so, you know, taliban commander that is in charge of 50 guys. i mean, they really, really have

stepped up the tempo of the special operations, these are kind of night raids they go out and grab these guys or kill them, and they have been really, really successful in doing that. now, these leaders get replaced very, very quickly, you know. so on one hand, you know, the military i think is correct, you know, they have been really taking it to the taliban pa. is that going to work in is the network going to collapse and the hierarchy going to clams? i don't know. you know, there are a lot of people, somebody said to me the other day they said look, the taliban have -- they have demonstrated over the years that they have an infinite capacity to regenerate. that we are basically at war with their birthrate. which is a pretty sobering thing to contemplate. >> rose: and they have money to recruit? >> yeah, yeah. i think they have all the money they need. >> yeah. and, you know, the madrasas in pakistan are kind of coming over

that you can just keep killing and capturing forever as general mcchrystal says you can't kill and capture your way out. >> rose: so here we are. the story that you own, and you go back to it, by the way, i mean, you have had a reminder of what it means to be a a reporter in war because a a camera man stemmed on -- >> yeah, yeah. close friend of mine. joel silva just a few days ago. >> rose: what happened? >> he is a wonderful guy, i mean, he has been doing this for a long time, iraq for years. afghanistan a, before that, south after a a, balance canals and he has a remarkable -- i mean he is a a very careful guys he goes into these incredibly dangerous places but sea careful guy, he was in kandahar with another the colleague of mine, and they were on a foot patrol and they were kind of walking down a dirt road and mine sweep in other words front of them had

cleared the way, dogs, had cleared the way, but, you know, these minds are, mines, whether mines or ied's very minute bits of metal so extremely difficult to detect, he stepped on a mine, very, very seriously injured, nearly killed. but he is alive and going to make it. they got him out of there and now at walter reed. but, yeah, i mean, it is rough down there. it is real rough. >> rose: did he stay on the story because -- >> well, you know, you don't imagine that could really happen to you. i mean, you think it could certainly, but, you know, if i thought it was going to happen i guess i wouldn't do it. >> rose: it happens to other people and not happen to me and i have a story to tell here. >> yeah. >> rose: so here is the summary you have these factors at play, one, clock.

>> yeah. >> rose: political reality clock. >> right. >> rose: two, an afghan police and military that is slower than they expected or not in terms of being able to take up responsibility of providing security. >> yes. right. >> rose: taliban have continue not to be discouraged, notwithstanding of an onslaught from additional troops and whatever. karzai government that seems ambivalent abou about what it is going to do. >> yeah. >> rose: and who it is going to play with. >> yep. >> rose: so those are all the things that are at play now. >> pretty hard. >> rose: and it makes it very difficult to see that there is a good ending to this. >> that's right. yeah. i mean, i guess the one thing that you can -- the one thing you can take away from that is, yes, it is unbelievably difficult. and there is not a lot of --,

you know, there are not a lot of bright lights on the horizon but i think particularly being in iraq for four years and here even the future is so hard to predict. just because you don't ultimately know all that much. you know, you kind of get the information you can get and you draw the conclusions that you can with pretty big dose of humility. but we really don't know, you know, what is really going on out there, particularly, say, in the hearts of the taliban, say, you know, 21-year-old illiterate guy with a a kalishnikov that is fighting. we could be surprised in the next career. we could be. i mean it is totally possible, but at the moment, i mean, everything you say is true. i mean, everything is hard. everything. you know, it is just a a really difficult place. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thanks a a lot. >> rose: let us know when you are in town.

next, thanassis cambanis of the new york times. stay with us. next, dexter filkins with the new york times. >> thanassis cambanis is here and writes about the arab world for the new york times, boston globe and other publications in 2006 he covered the lebanon war between hezbollah and as the bureau chief, he met some hezbollah fighters who would give him rare in sight into the organization and how it works. his new book is a a privilege to die, inside hezbollah's legions and their war against israel. welcome. >> great to be here. >> tell us what status lebanon is today as you look at it. >> today, sadly, lebanon is on the verge of another war and in fact i would say it is on the verge of two wars, one is the war between hezbollah supporters opponents inside lebanon, which is a country more polarized than at any time since i have been following it, and the second war is the much

anticipated war between israel and hezbollah, which people expected this past summer and both hezbollah and israel seemed to be talking about like it is just a question of timing really and not of whether they will have another war. >> rose: why do you say that? >> hezbollah, there are a lot of reasons -- the central one from hezbollah's viewpoint is that hezbollah is an organization that has built its appeal, it built a million or more followers around a gospel of perpetual war, so it needs, it needs war, it needs the cleansing power of another war to retain or restore its legitimacy among its partisans, then secondly, both israel and lebanon, story, israel and hezbollah feel since 2006 war that they could do better, and it is sort of a disturbing set of structural factors that both sides think in a rematch they will emerge even stronger than they are now.

so unfortunately there is every reason for them to clash again, israel in the homes of restoring its ability to project power and the reason hezbollah because it thinks it will succeed even more at thwarting israel's aims and win more support in the region. >> i think israel's objective is the belief that they might be able to wipe them out somehow. >> and that is a belief that i think miss understands the roots of hezbollah's power, one of the characters .. i talk to in my book is man who moves from manhattan to, he thought it would be a safer and more moral and healthier place to raise his sons and daughters than new york city, and he did this knowing full well that part of the price of joining hezbollah's so called society of islamic resistance would be the cyclical

destruction of his house and perhaps the loss of life and limb of his family members, especially if they were called upon to fight for hezbollah and to him that seemed like an appealing choice. he is signing up for hezbollah for a human reason and that reason is going to endure no matter how many hezbollah fighters are killed or how many of their rockets or other tools of destruction are broken, because the real source of power are these people,. >> rose: they believe in a sense because they survived that they won the war with israel? >> absolutely. by still existing and not only that, not only by still existing but by having resisted for 34 days more than any arab army had ever done until 2006, they believed that they have, in their view, turned back the israeli juggernaut, so victory to them looks very different than it might look to us. >> and how much have they rearmed themselves and how much -- and how much more

sophisticated are the missiles they now have? >> the things we know are alarming and i would say the things we don't know are probably more alarming still. in the last war, hezbollah fired some 4,000 rockets out of an arsenal of 13,000, today, by their own estimates and by israel's they have powrt thousand rockets. >> rose: and they could reach further into israel. >> and they have long range rockets, rockets syria and iran have given them and we can guess, they have revealed a lot of tactics they used for firing short range rockets for hitting israel ships if they revealed that to the public they must have other more powerful tools that they have acquired since. >> rose: will they ever recognize the right of israel to exist and will they ever want to live side by side with israel? >> those are two related, somewhat separate questions. i am not sure hezbollah has in its dna so to speak to recognize

israel's right to exist. i mean, they are -- they were born assort of a delegitimizing force are trjs it is in their founding charter there should be no jewish state in the middle east and they reaffirm that in 2009 when they revised their charter so they have a profound i would say foundational commitment to resisting the existence of a jewish state. from the point of view of israel and the west, the question of course is can they be contained can they, in other words, can they be put in a box where they are unable to pose a security threat to israel, even if they don't recognize israel's right to be -- >> rose: and even if there are palestinians they wish they wouldn't do anything because they want to have a state and they don't want to constantly cause the israelis to react? >> yeah and there is a joke that says the palestinians who want to fight israel down to the last lebanese. >> rose: there is the motion that as you referred, in an

interview i did that you had seen in which she said to me resistance ends when occupation ends. he is obviously a hamas and not hezbollah but the american eyes are sort of considered to be the two terrorist organizations that are supported by iran and syria. >> and there is a very tight relationship between iran, syria, hamas and hezbollah as you well know they are not one and the same, but they are tight strategic parts and share a lot of the same goals and values, where hamas and hezbollah are going to diverge, is in their very practical concerns. hezbollah operates in a territory in lebanon that is independent from israel, it is its own country, presently there are no israelis in lebanon, they are not under occupation and knots resisting an occupation. so they are a defensive -- they -- as long as they are defensive resistant organizations they

maintain as soon as they look like they are invading israel or let's say crossing the border in defense of the palestinians when the palestinians themselves are not fighting they are going to lose a lot of the support they have on the lebanese street from people who today add mire them. >> rose: admire them because? >> the heart of hezbollah's community and the people that really surprised me over the last four years when i kept going back again and again to these border villages, they actually share hezbollah's entire ideology and share a religious conviction and share a end time strain of think a islam and share a desire to fight against israel and share a desire to build a better islamic society inside lebanon, so these folks who are really the rank and file that have given hezbollah its cultural momentum, they are -- they view he hezbollah as the overall framework in their entire life from how to raise their kids and what kinds of jobs to seek, all

the way up to when is it appropriate to seek martyrdom or death in pursuit of a war against israel. >> rose: so what is the impact of the inquiry that subjects that hezbollah committed the assassination against hariri. >> this tribunal is pose ago a huge test to hezbollah's credibility and i suspect that it might be the first charter to violence we see in lebanon, there is the widespread belief this tribunal is going to indict members of hezbollah in the 2005 assassination of a irrelevant i are, kariri hezbollah does not recognize the tribunal and anything the government of lebanon does in pursuit of the tribunal's aims. i saw a young man on the streets of south beirut, a young man i have known for years who used to be just a regular hooligan popping wheelies on their motorbikes when i saw them in september of this year they had guns on their belt and they told

me they were now working for his hezbollah his, when i asked their neighbors why they said they are getting ready for the internal clash, they are getting ready to. >> rose: shut down lebanon. >> shut down beirut if and when the government or the tribunal tries to arrest hezbollah members for the assassination of hariri, and this is of course, not only very alarming turn of events if it happens but a very polarizing posture by hezbollah to have these kids strutting around with pistols on the belt to say tonight you try to curtail our activities and don't you try to hold us responsible for anything because we are strong, we are stronger than your laws. >> rose: do you accept the judgment of the inquiry that hezbollah was responsible for the assassination of hariri, absolutely there is every reason to believe that hezbollah and syria were at a minimum complicit by in action in the assassination of hariri, in other words nobody could organize a massive assassination in 2005 in lebanon without at

the very least being noticed by syrian intelligence and hezbollah intel jnls. they are the forces to be reckoned with, they are the people with the real network on the ground. no one can get away with that without attracting their notice and of course it is a reasonable to think who has that expertise in lebanon. >> rose: according to the reports we have had there is no finger pointing towards syria, it is all towards hezbollah. >> well, yeah, in the early reports from the tribunal there was a lot of finger pointing towards syria and there has been a sort of come down to that and of course that does call into question is the tribunal willing to pull punches on its indictments for fear of organizing a more powerful government in syria. >> where is syria and where where is their intention with respect to lebanon and how do they view hezbollah? >> as i said before, there is a tight strategic partnership but it is clear that syria has aims in the region that go far beyond hezbollah. >> rose: and also syria has

aims in the region that would not -- they would not let hezbollah get into -- in the way of? >> absolutely. if hezbollah became an obstacle to them getting what they want, there is a story i mentioned in the book about a time in the eighties when a hezbollah commander refused to dismantle a checkpoint in beirut when a syrian officer asked him to and the syrian officer immediately lined tupman and his soldiers against the wall and executed them. and this was a message to hezbollah that you cannot exceed our writ. we are still stronger than you here. now this was in the late eighties and the relationship has evolved since then. >> rose: do they want to come back into lebanon, the syrian army. >> well i think the syrian government wants to be the dominant force in lebanon and most likely will be, it is -- the way the geography works, the size of their state, their sphere of influence they want to

control what happens in lebanon, if they can do it through proxies they will, if they can do it through a proxy other than hezbollah they might, and i think they probably would rather avoid the headache of directly occupying lebanon again. >> rose: why wouldn't hezbollah cooperate with you? you know, it was one of the funnier chapters of the year that i worked there, i mean, i weathered bombing in communities populated by hezbollah, i spent count less dozens of hours listening to people talk about what -- why they supported this party of god. ultimately, hezbollah said, you know, we have looked at your work, and we have calculated that nothing you write is going to serve our interests and, therefore, it is just a waste of our resources to help you. and on some level i thought, you know, they are right, the book i write is not going to -- is not going to enhance hezbollah's cause but at the same time it was a shocking decision from a

group that prides itself on its propaganda and message discipline and they essentially, they told me, they are addressing the islamic audience, and arab audience and they really don't see any percentage in addressing the west. >> rose: what is your impression of the leadership ability of hasan nasrallah he is a man deeply deeply loved and respected not only by hezbollah a million followers but by a whole lot of lebanese who aren't that fond of hezbollah otherwise. people love his sense of humor, they like his lisp, the jokes he make in speeches, his ability to transfix an audience and they think of him as a man of his word. his son was killed fighting for hezbollah alongside a bunch of other regular hezbollah conscripts and that is something that made a huge impress in lebanon, a nation where all of the other leaders accepted their sons to be educated abroad, in the united states, in the uk and france and would never expose

their children to the dangers of lebanon and meanwhile, this mannas, expected the same sacrifices of himself as he did of his lesion of legion is and how would you compare that. >> nasrallah controlled a lot of the levers of state in lebanon since 1992 and running a party that has its own territory, it has been running for election since 1992, it has had cabinet ministers for nearly two decades, so the comparison, it is hard to make a fair comparison, because hezbolh has essentially evolved in power and with territory, they -- some people describe them as a state within a state, and i like to say that actually they are a state standing in inside the ruins of another state because there really isn't a lebanese state there is hezbollah's structure and then the shambles of what was lebanon.

so nasrallah has a completely different platform, and he is in exile and disconnected from the control and he has never yet had the resources of government, really, under his hands to see whether he would do what hezbollah has done, and adapt about change and evolve and learn from his mistakes. >> rose: and would hezbollah survive without the support of syria and iran? >> i think without the support of their state patrons, they would continue to be a pivotal source of ideas, but i don't think the world would care as much, because they wouldn't have the ability to inflict military harm the way they do today. right now, hezbollah is winning a war of ideas in the middle east, they are also -- >> with whom? >> against secular arabs, secular muslims, so-called moderates who want to find some

accommodation. >> rose: and why is that? >> hezbollah's idea is very compelling, because at its root it is very simple, step one, hollies stick islam that tells you how to raise your kids, how to live your life, how to be a good believer, step two, perpetual war, securing your identity and your dignity by being prepared to fight. and that two step dance appeals not just to testosterone fueled teenage boys, that message appeals to the mothers/narcotics, the soccer moms of hezbollah. >> rose: well but some would argue to the contrary, which would be the following, that it appeals to those teenagers because there is no alternative vision there for them. they don't see a realistic attractive alternative .. and if that was a possibility you might have a a different game. >> well, and we spend a lot of time looking for the compelling moderate ideas. >> rose: however you characterize the ideas but something other than being a warrior for hezbollah or some

other -- >> and i think it is fair to say that nobody has character matically and intelligently .. put forward a alternative framework and lofty argument. i think what we had was hezbollah winning an argument with a lot of corrupt and in effectual warlords whose alternative was, i will give you patronage. >> and why is that? >> i think because the ar nationalists and the moderates and the am, and those who would accommodate has failed. i know this is an old answer they not only failed to deliver prosperity but failed to deliver any kind of success in international politics. >> rose: but on the other hand in rama la, ramallah they are not failing in terms of prosperity under the leadership of fayad. >> i would be eager to see how that evolves, especially as -- i mean, the success story on the west bank that largely is fueled

by western help, u.s. help, israeli help, but politically and financially and that doesn't make it any less real but the question is, it is kind of like the same question you asked me about hezbollah what do they sustain once they don't have the underwriting of an outside power? and that is where i can savely say and hezbollah's case this he have a million people who believe what they the what they believe, i am not sure the palestinian authority has even half the west bank actually believing what they believe they just have the west bank happy to now be functioning the way it functions it doesn't necessarily go deep yet. >> rose: who will win and who will lose and what is the prospects for a two state solution? >> well, the happy ending is .. the islamic side of hezbollah's identity, the constructive islamic prosperity agenda aspect of it getting tapped into by a

force that opposes war, and so the happy ening, some party or even some portion of hezbollah itself emerges and says we want to remain islamist but we don't want to fight. the unhappy ending is they win unending war and we see more violence in the next 20 than the last 20. >> rose: what would happen if the palestinians declared a state? >> well, if the palestinians declared a state. >> rose: and got an international community to recognize them? >> if that happened, with a peaceful resolution with israel i think it would take the sales out of hezbollah, i think hezbollah could not continue to be a standard bearer as a perpetual war. >> but why doesn't, a, why doesn't israel support the creation of that palestinian state? if it would take the tails out of hezbollah and haman force? >> that will be the subject of my next book. >> rose: is it really? >> no. it should be. it it has taken a lot of wleerz to get to the root of that. >> but it is an interesting

question. >> it is one of the main questions, absolutely. >> rose: all right. this book is called a privilege to die, inside hezbollah's lesions and their end less war against israel. thank you. >> thank you.

>> funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. and american express. additional funding provided by these funders. >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. we are