>> thank you for coming along. i am joined by linda gasparello as i said. i am always defending the right for women to wear hats in a hatless age.nice to see you. she does have, by the way, a wonderful head of hair. she is not having medical peoplent.or what some think when they see you wearing a hat these days. and we are joined by amitai etzioni, a frequent guest on this program. and vali nasr, from johns hopkins university. what is the thrust of the book and i will use the television familiar form of first name. vali. llewellyn, too. >> the main argument of the book is where focusing on problems of crises, front.budget domestic agenda by the

president. we have decided as we focus at home we're going to reduce our attention on the war. --is is the most obvious where in the case of the middle east where, as it turns out, there is a need for greater american attention and global leadership because of the arab spring. we are at an interesting time in our global presence, where the signal we are sending to the world is that we do not want to lead frontally. we do not want to be the one that comes in and shows the direction and global challenges. we actually actively would like to reduce the importance of the middle east in our global thinking and reduce its importance in global politics. >> that is a bad thing. >> largely because i do not think the world is ready for the united states unilaterally deciding to withdraw.and the shape of the crises, the opportunities in the middle east are too momentous and historic

to assume that we can just wash our hands of it. whathis raises the question, do we do? syria is the case in point. what do we do? how would we intervene and how would we intervene in a part of the world where there are long memories and past interventions have been fairly chaotic and not successful. >> they would be more successful at different points than not. i think it is easy to hide behind this issue. >> give me an example of a successful middle east intervention by the u.s. >> you could look at the madrid conference, the peace, even the stabilizing role the u.s. has played in the persian gulf even during the height of the it ran- iraq war. war. the iran-iraq

there might not be spectacular successes but had we not been there, had we not intervened, had we let immense in the region go their own way, things could have been much more catastrophic. i think we cannot afford to say that because in the past we made a mistake because it is too difficult, somehow we could just be insouciant about this. >> will come back and bite us. amitai, what do you think? >> first of all, i hope everyone who is following you in the program will read this book. it is a courageous book.after this book, he will not be invited anymore for dinner at the white house. >> i have not had an invitation since clinton so do not worry about it. >> it takes someone who is ictive in foreign-policy to say

am going to call them the way i see them, and it deserves some recognition. i happen to agree with him, as he spelled out in "the hotspot." on one major issue and quite a bit on another one. i agree that you cannot leave the middle east at this point. we need one or the other to decide what to do about iran's nuclear weapons. the region is in turmoil and side ofand on the other the ocean, china will wait. and the notion that this is the time we have to suit up and it was china, there is just no evidence. china has a huge amount of difficulties and such, but let me go back to the middle east.

where we differ and it is good to differ with him. he is such a sweet -- such an optimist. so when it comes to what he wants in the middle east, he basically wants to apply economic means instead of military means.he talks about a marshall plan. it is there on page 170. we should do for the middle east what they did in europe.>> all of these solutions, including an essay of yours i just read about syria, suggesting very complex things. a lot of moving parts that nations do not implement things with a lot of moving parts well. what do you think, linda? you are an old middle eastern hat.did you have a bigger in the middle east? >> yes, i did. i think the obama administration

has been a disappointment. it started off with the idea at least diplomatically that we were going to extend his hand -- --is hand and the fist was not if the fist was unclenched. i do not think we kept with that very much. we started halfheartedly and we with through it immediately.-- and then we withdrew it immediately. a lot more could have been done with iran, for instance. i think we had an opportunity where there was a period of goodwill to extend that had more to iran. we might have had somewhat more of a different outcome than we have right now had we done that. thinkhink am a tie -- i amitai's point is very important, that a lot more could have been done, a lot more could have been done with iran. we had an opportunity where

there was a time of goodwill to extend that hand more to.. you might have a somewhat different outcome than we have right now had we done that. >> this is a very complex region. which is why we cannot just assume that we can withdraw from it and not be impacted i it said come. our economic engagement or marshall plan is not in every country. looking at it the other way around is that we do not have any case of successful democratization, the recent wave we have seen in latin america and southeast asia and eastern europe that has not included economic reform and american leadership and engagement. there are many things and i agree, there are many things that differentiate eastern europe and the middle east. from the promise of nato or the history of communism. also one big factor when we look at at this period is going to be the degree of american enthusiasm and presence and the degree of particularly economic effort to change the economic reality of the region quickly. that is going to be a factor. among many other factors orcluding anti-americanism. legacy, israel. >> you are asking a lot of

different things here. you're asking a certainfortitude in the american electorate. you're asking us to fix economies.>> i am not asking us to fix economies. we do not need to invent the was negotiating with the imf just weeks ago over a 5.8 billion dollar package, as a result of egypt agreeing to do certain economic reforms that are vital to turn the economy around. is our final between -- these are vital because between 2011 today,barak left and there are a million more egyptians that are unemployed. egypt needs to come up with economic growth from somewhere. just when the imf team was in cairo, or about to arrive in cairo,

they announced a $5 billion assistance package to egypt with no strings attached about economic reform and it killedthe imf deal. that is the kind of american leadership. someone calling the libyans and saying make your money conditional on their signing. something of that sort does not require the american taxpayer to be putting up money. >> >> let's look at the number one industry which egypt has, tourism. why is tourism falling down? there is not elementary security. they will not secure the streetsecond, because tourists -- been told unmarried couples will not be able to stay in the same room, they are told, and that is not true. you have to have segregated

ages, you cannot drink alcohol. these are the kinds of issues in other countries in which development succeeded. there were no insurgencies, no demonstrations and such in any, not in germany after occupation, not in japan or poland or the other country you mentioned, argentina. evenrity is the first thing. there the question is, how can we help them? second, the question is when you pour money into countries, the countries that you invest, the so-called asian tigers, china, have kong, singapore, taiwan had extremely little foreign aid. they did it largely on their own. but let me ask you a question which i know you particularly have important things to say. some people argue, from max weber on, that not all cultures

are equally hospitable to modernization. the argument is not that something is wrong with them -- orically, or i they that they are in neatly unable. some are more hostile than others. is the middle east not different? >> it could be. even if we do not look at it culturally. even historically in terms of political development, security. it may not be ready to be ultimately it is a force for modernization and stability. i believe it has to come from economic reform. you have to put these countries into this category of getting integrated into the global economy. i take all your point about egypt. the reality of egypt is for egypt to avoid up they like that to stand or much worse. it has to be growing at double-digit numbers over a decade. this has to come from somewhere. tourism is important but you

have to create an environment that reduces public debt. all these are much more engaged. >> you are listening to "white house chronicle."coming to you from washington, d.c., with myself, llewellyn king, linda gasparello, my cohost. and my frequent guest, amitai etzioni of the george washington university, and today a very special guest, vali nasr, the dean of the school of international studies at johns hopkins university. this program can be seen around the globe on english-language stations and on the voice of america and 200 u.s. television stations, public and educational government stations. linda? >> back to amitai's point.one of

the perennial problems in the middle east is, can you modernize without being westernized? the middle east has struggled with that and it is struggling now with islamic regimes. i think the brotherhood wants modernization but they do not want westernization. can you separate the two? >> we can get into a negative a -- but i think we can get into an academic debate whether this is done or not, but in practice you have to see what is the force outside of the debate that would push them in that direction? if you look at prime minister erdogan, when he was the mayor -- he wasl, his first a hotheaded fundamentalist.

i remember when he first became the mayor of istanbul. his first talk was about segregating the buses, building a huge mosque in the middle of istanbul and opening a mosque and they look at him today. either he had a moment when he slept one night and dreaming of webel. it was actually business. when you go to the small business towns that world -- opened up after economic restructuring, these businessmen much like middletown america are conservative, religious, and capitalist. they figured out that if you're selling directly and the government is no longer in the middle, if you are selling --ather to mill land, junot is to ferragamo in milan, g hot is not good for business. the point is that, how did these businessmen begin to sort of self correct? that is not a choice between modernization and -- >> i want to ask the question

always implicit in these discussions of both of you, and that is, if you were sitting with the president of the united states, just the two of you today, what would you tell him to do? amitai? what would you tell the president? >> i would say, mr. president, from your first acceptance speech -- low expectations. don't make the world think you will send them a check, or overnighturs, which they will get the life they see on television. they need to be told that in general. is, i am sad to report it, but we squander the limited resources we have when we

oversell to ourselves. tocannot bring them switzerland. a lot of people say we don't mean switzerland, but nobody tells us what is a good life. praynot sure that if you five times a day and appreciate modesty and dignity but not necessarily flat tv sets and another car is the path, the definition of a good life. some of that lesson, too. we also need to scale back. so you're telling the president don't raise expectations,, but you have these problems. what do you suggest the president do? >> i would tell him that you have to be very clear about what

our our interests in different countries in different ways. what are our interests. we have a deficit to deal with here. you have to be clear and make clear to the american public why does syria matter or not matter, why does egypt to matter or not matter, and then think about what is the outcome we want? it is nothing close to capitalism. maybe stopping the fighting. i why is that important? finally, i would tell him remember what we do and say in the middle east has an implication for how the

rest of the world judges our foreign policy. it is not an insular conversation in washington among ourselves. >> there is an interesting back story to what you said earlier. the syrians and the lebanese have been the entrepreneurs of the middle east. they have shown much more sense than business others. >> some countries have more aptitude and bases for that. you can go to a country like pakistan. despite terrorism, there is a lot more capitalism among its middle class than you might have thinkingrab world area. linda, you are not going to get off. what are you going to tell him? >> the basic idea that countries that trade together are less likely to make war against each other. >> some of the issues we were talking about is important to one set of countries.

if we are going to help tunisia or egypt. when you come to syria, it is not the immediate question that the president faces are people in japan or malaysia or brazil are watching us. it is aboutbout that. you have -- some would say that the future is being written in syria.in a very ugly horrible way. and you have everything that we hate coming out of that. humanitarian crisis, mass ,illings, brutality, civil war arianism. al qaeda. the key question f the president is not the longer run thing. what are you going to do about this and if not, then have you considered what is the cost of inaction? >> what would you tell the president? >> i would say as difficult as it is, we should not abandon the hard diplomacy that we always

did in the middle east. it is very difficult, time- consuming, frustrating work. at the same point, it did yield many fantastic things in foreign-policy that would be achieved again.the other thing is, i think we had better figure out what our interest really are. maybe our interests are not with sunni. maybe they are with the shia. because the shia has a more homogeneous population. >> this is the division in islam. shia is a minority.although it is dominant -- >> as we are looking at sectarian violence, maybe it be worth it to look at a much closer relationship with the shia. whether they are the shia in iran that have huge influence in syria, in this crescents that has been formed.

we did not want that to happen but it did as a result of direct. maybe our friends in saudi arabia are not so friendly. maybe this terrorism had its origin in the saudi arabia -- again about syria an example of overreaching. , may behe major reasons the major reason china and russia are not willing to help us to participate is because we forced regime change in libya. libya was a in humanitarian help to the rebels. then there came a point where the rebels were advancing and get off he called for a cease- fire -- and qaddafi called for a cease-fire in in negotiating a settlement. we said no. we want a regime change.

in syria it is exactly the same thing. we should call for the cease- fire for a political settlement and not for regime change. >> i think that is absolutely right. >> i am glad to hear this. this is something positive. you would say call for a cease- fire now, stop beating up on a assad. on makes, oint that amitai what is it that we want out of syria? we have reached the point that we want -- the worst things not to happen.the worst thing about syria happening is there would be no more refugees or al qaeda control. i think that ultimately brings you back. let's get to a cease-fire.

let's stop the destruction of syria. that requires diplomacy.you have to go to the russis and say we are not talking about defeating you policy wise. a cease-fire is good for you, it is good for us. how can we get there? >> i have to ask, where are the traditional middle easternpowers of france and britain in this quest to markwhy is this our moral responsibility?>> it is not altruism, we ought to go with the view of, what is our national interest? if the refugees in syria cause the jordanian collapse, that is bad for us in bed for our allies -- and bad for our allies in the region. it would make the job even more impossible or improbable. we have to say, first admit that this is not a moral intervention. we only should intervene to the extent that it reflects our

interests. that is what i would tell the president. what is it that we want out of syria, what is our interests, and how can we pursue it and we --d to do it in a way that is and we ought to do it in a way that is achievable. >> we are out of time and i would like to remind our viewers that the book we are discussing is vali nasr's "the dispensable nation."you can buy it now on amazon and the usual places. hotspots, by amitai etzioni, dealing with these situations. if i might use the last 30 seconds for myself, i would say, fix america first so it was envied as it was when i was a boy and a lot will come right in the world. untilll see you next week. then, from all of us, cheers.

captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> "white house chronicle" is produced in collaboration with whut, howard university television. from washington, d.c., this has been "white house chronicle," a weekly analysis of the news with insight and a sense of humor,

featuring llewellyn king, linda gasparello, and guests. this program may be seen on pbs stations and cable access channels. to view the program online, visit us at whchronicle.com.

tavis: good evening. from los angeles, i am tavis smiley. tonight, a conversation with dr. carl hart at the forefront of medical research and the war on drugs. it was not only of failure, few would argue that, but it was being fought with the wrong weapon. his text is part memoir and part medical investigation called "high-priced." it challenges everything you know about drugs and society. let you have joined us, a conversation with dr. carl hart, right now. >> there is a saying that dr. king had. he said, there is always the right time to do the right

thing. i just try to live my life every day by doing the right thing. we know that we are only about halfway to completely eliminate hunger and we have a lot of work to do. walmart committed $2 billion to fighting hunger in the u.s. cane work together, we stamp hunger out. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. tavis: by any measure, the war on drugs has been a failure. and also how successfully to intervene.

hart grew up in one of miami's toughest neighborhoods. many of the preconceived -- i was not sure what with the has to do drug war. or whether it had to do with your own life and the price that you have had to pay as a result of choices you have made. am i right about