>> charlie: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a look at the crisis in iraq with dexter filkins, richard haass and michael gordon. >> syria's imploded. iraq is breaking up. the monarchy in jordan is getting more unstable by the day. the iranians are helping to mobilize the shiite militias in iraq to fight the sunnies. the saudis and turks are already in sir. i can't you know, i think for president obama, he has tried for both his terms to get out of that region and not to pay attention to it and i think he's going to have to reengage in a big way because it's all coming apart. >> charlie: we turn to the world cup in brazil with franklin foer, jeff agoos and tom smyth. >> there are only so many world cups. you're always hanging around and looking at them. roger is right, there's another

lad that will factor into these players. renaldo from portugal and uruguay player is another to watch. they can score goals an put on a real show if they're on their day. but i think the cam of the italians, they always start slowly. i think it's a stonewall bet italy will draw with england in the first game and then after that i think italy will go through and win the competition. >> charlie: we conclude this evening with elizabeth lecompte, kate valk and frances mcdormand of the wooster group. >> i do it for joy. that's what this project came from was the desire to sing the songs, hear these songs and investigate ecstatic dancing, a theater of joy. >> charlie: iraq, the world cup and the wooster group when we continue.

>> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. additional funding provided by: 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.

>> charlie: we begin this evening with a crisis in iraq. earlier this week, radical sunni militants of the sunni state of iraq and syria seized mosul and tikrit, amid mass desertions from the iraqi army it's clear the insurgents may move on baghdad. iraq's prime minister nouri al-maliki has declared a state of emergency. the senior cleric has called for iraqis to take up arms against the terrorists and kurdish fighters have taken control of the northern oil city of kirkuk. president obama addressed the crisis earlier today. >> we will not be sending u.s. troops back into combat in iraq but i have asked my national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support iraq security forces and i will be reviewing those options in the days ahead. >> charlie: joining me from washington, michael gordon of the "new york times," dexter filkins of the "new yorker" and richard haass president of the

council on foreign relations, i am pleased of all of them and begin with richard haass for a quick history lesson as to how we got from, let's say, the surge in iraq to the end of the american participation to where we are today. >> thank you. it's the car itself which obviously removed the old authority in saddam hussein's hand and then afterwards we essentially dismantled many of the institutions that provided for security in iraq. that's one thing. then the obama administration came in after the surge, and the critique will be not so much what it did but didn't do, not pushing harder to have a so-called residual force to remain in iraq to dampen the political rivalries, to train out the iraqis better than they are, perhaps not press as hard as we could have or should have to get the iraqis to make a genuine national government and, thirdly, the iraqis had their share of the blame. mr. maliki has run a largely sectarian, narrowly based largely corrupt government so

when people don't fight for it, that should tell you something. they don't feel a national identity. that's not their government. it's essentially maliki's largely for iran and the shia. so there's blame to go around for the iraqi administration and our administration. >> charlie: who are the military that have been successful on the ground? >> it's an amazing story in and of itself. isis, the islamic state of iraq in syria, the leadership at least was al quaida and iraq, and they essentially have moved into the syria -- first they moved into syria when the rebellion there started. they -- a bunch of guys who were part of al quaida in iraq also formed one of the big fronts, a crazy group also fighting in syria, but they span the border and the border between syria and iraq is basically gone.

it's 300 miles, open desert, nobody's policing it, so they're working both sides of it. so if you take -- there was a twitter feed, isis has a twitter feed. yesterday they had a photograph of a chechen fighter who was opening the door to one of the american-made captured humvees that they had taken from the iraqi army and he had driven it back into syria. so that kind of says it all. and there's a collection of -- you know, it's iraqis and syrians but there's lots of the foreigners fighting there. >> charlie: and who are they? they're coming from all over the world. >> charlie: from iran? no. >> charlie: i mean coming in now. >> that's another problem. >> charlie: it's a question in terms of who else is on the ground. >> i mean, what's enabled this whole conflict in iraq is, first, i think maliki's sectarian policies, but secondly the war on syria. it's a black hole in the war of the middle east. among the many things it's done,

it's brought in -- attracted foreigners from around the globe to fight there and, so, you have probably something like 11,000 foreigners fighting in syria right now. a lot are iraqi shiites fighting for assad but probably 7,000 of them are from the united states, germany, from the u.k., from france and all these people have passports and all are going to come home one day but this is what's happening. >> charlie: michael gordon from washington, co-authoring the end game, the inside story, the story of iraq from george w. bush to barack obama. having said that, michael, what is at stake here, the consequences and the significance of coming history in. >> well, i do think the united states is clear security interests and how this turns out. this is not one of those situationsy you can say there's a civil war, let them fight it out. >> charlie: i think that's

what the president said, though. >> that's what he says now. >> charlie: yeah. and the iraqis have been raising the issue of air strikes for months. but it is what the president said. the reason we have stakes in there is the point dexter just made which is the group, the isis group which spans both sides of the border, has created a sanctuary in a part of the world that could be a platform for terrorist attacks against western interests. plus let's not forget that if iraq was to become a collapsed state, iraq is a major oil producer and it's picked up a lot of the slack in terms of the falloff of production from iran because of the sanctions, libya because to have the turmoil. and already you've seen the oil markets affected by this. so this is a country, notwithstanding the fact also 4400 american lives to build what iraq is today, so i do

think there is an american stake in how this turns out. >> charlie: has this become the biggest crisis in the world today? >> i agree with dexter that the iraq situation and the syrian situation have merged together because the antagonists, they don't recognize the border. i think american policy is compartmentalized and you have people working syria and iraq and they're not the same people and it's not a common strategy, but the problem itself is an endemic problem which embraces these two countries and threatens stabilities in all the countries in the region -- jordan, turkey and countries to the south. >> charlie: you bring y me where we want to be. where are we in terms of what the united states can do maybe having a common strategy in syria and iraq is one idea but expand on that and others. >> one reason this came about is

because of what the united states has not been doing in syria. we essentially left it to the jihaddest opposition to constitute the real only alternative to the assad government. one thing we might want to do is reverse that policy. the president hinted he might be willing to do it, but it's been three years we have been thinking but not acting on it. one thing would be to start providing syria help to the opposition they could live with and we would work with them that their target would not primarily be the assad regime but this group, the isis group that is so dangerous within syria and there. secondly, we probably would want to do more to then the kurds. the kurds in some ways are the big ben fisheriethebig benefici. you have independent kurdistan who wants to see the area safe and secure.

there's oil there and maybe for political reasons we want to help them so they don't want to expand their reach beyond the borders of iraq because we don't want to bring in turkey. jordan is struggling with millions of ref juice and we may want to help them. also we might want to re-think our policy toward afghanistan. what happens when there's no u.s. presence in a country that's under stress? the president said we'll get all troops out of afghanistan by 2016. i say this is the example of the risk you run if you do that and might want to think the long-term u.s. presence. >> charlie: the middle east crossing borders and exploding people talk about, this is it. >> this is it. if you stand back and look at the map you basically have a sectarian war running from the iranian border to the mediterranean. isis has carried out car bombings in beirut. in lebanon, 25% of the

population is now refugees. syria imploded. iraq is breaking up. the monarchy in jordan is getting more unstable ba by the day. the iranians are helping to mobilize the shiite militias in iraq to fight the sunnies. the saudis and the turks are already in syria. i think, for president obama, he has tried for both his terms to get out of that region and not to pay attention to it, and i think he's going to have to reengage in a really big way because it's all coming apart. >> charlie: michael, do you agree with that, the president has to get reengaged or else? >> well, the -- my understanding from american and iraqi officials is the administration belatedly but at this point is engaged at least there. the question seems to have become their priority and they're focusing on it and promising some sort of policy in the upcoming days.

so i believe they're reengaged. the question is, you know, we need to see what they are actually prepared to do. >> and what are their options, in your judgment? you're a military affairs reporter. >> well, you know, just looking at it analytically, i'm not advocating a position. >> no, no, analytically. i have been there before with michael. >> i think there's a military side and a political side. on the military side, as richard points out -- and this is a policy our former ambassador to syria advocated. >> charlie: robert ford. robert ford. we could arm in a sirrous way which we're not going the syrian opposition with an eye toward increasing pressure on the al quaida-linked group from that side. two, i do think we need a stepped-up from a military perspective advisory effort in iraq to help the iraqi forces. an argument can be made that air power could be helpful within

concern constraints. obviously, if they're bringing american arms from iraq into syria as dexter pointed out, appeared in a video, we could stop that if we wanted to, that sort of thing. but it's a complicated thing. you have to distinguish between mixed-up forces on the ground. it's not a simple proposition, but it could be an element of military strategy, but i very much agree with richard that there has to be a political component to it, which is that if maliki cannot be encouraged to form a more inclusive government with prominent sunnis you're not going to have stability in iraq. where i might slightly disagree with richard is i don't know there's a lot of time to try to sort this out, and i think that it's imperative to have some sort of strategy to act fast because the iraqi foreign minister first raised the option of american drones last august. it's been almost a year that

iraqis have been raising this. in august by the foreign minister and many march privately and maliki in may, chickens are coming home to roost and something has to be done. >> charlie: maliki came here looking for support months ago. >> we sent him off with hardware which is now often in the wrong hands. he's not creating a serious government in a couple of days. you don't change political culture overnight. if that's the prerequisite for serious american help, it won't happen. i think quite honestly things may be moving faster on the ground than in terms of u.s. policy. this government in iraq will survive only if it gets massive iranian help in the short run. >> charlie: we wait for that? this is where it gets in the land of the unbelievable. basically right now we'll be essentially on the same side as

iran helping the iraqi government on one side of the non-existing border, whereas on the other side of the non-existing border in shia we'll be opposing iron. >> charlie: and there's this, by supporting iran and being in a war together with iran, we're doing what our good friends the saudis fear the most, the continued influence of iran in the region, right? >> yeah, absolutely. i think what's going to happen in syria is probably -- look, isis is the best thing that ever happened to bashar assad. he's loving it. we're not going to try to knock down assad if the strongest force in the region is isis because they would roll right in. so i think -- >> charlie: should we say this publicly? >> i think that's an interesting moment in diplomacy. as crazy as it sounds the moment may have come for meetings with russia and iran to basically say

we have to change the priorities. we all have a common priority that isis doesn't win out or dominate in syria. >> charlie: use it as a base. use it as a base not only against syria but in iraq. why can't we find a way to take the heat off assad, we'll do that, in exchange of focusing against isis? this may be a bridge too far but that's the conversation we have to start thinking about. >> they would have to hold their nose. >> exactly. foreign policy is about tradeoffs. >> charlie: what's worse? doing that with the butcher in damascus or watching isis in power in baghdad? >> well -- >> charlie: access to oil and all that. >> this isn't a good answer, but i think, when this is all over ten years from now and we look back on this, lrp a lot of missed opportunities, and i

think -- look, if the united states whowf done all these things -- would have done all these things a year and a half to two years ago, there's a good chance we wouldn't be here today, and the same could be said when we pulled out of iraq rather in a hurry before i think the political system in iraq was ready -- >> charlie: we could have been better negotiators, if that's your point. >> we didn't engage when we should have. >> charlie: michael, speak to the same point. the whole idea of do we have to look at syria differently now because isis is a bigger threat than anything we have and if we have to get in bed with assad, we get in bed with assad. if we get in bed with iran, we get in bed with iran. >> i don't share that perspective. i think that iran is the foremost supporter of assad.

they have been flying arms through iraqi airspace, they have their personnel there, and i think that's unlikely to change. i think given the atrocities in syria i don't think the americans will find they can make an accommodation with assad that's constant with their values and we're either supportive of the moderate position or not. i'm more supportive of the administration's declarative policy. i'm for support offof working with iran than iraq. iran will mobilize shiite militias, they did it before against american troops. i think the dangerous is the sectarian militias iran is mobilizing, instead of a conflict between insurnlt organization and the government of iraq, it may very well become what dexter covered when he was at the "new york times" the sectarian war between the shia militias and sunni insurgents,

and iran's intervention could lead things very much down that path. the question is can the united states come in with a political and security package that is sufficiently robust that it could dissuade the iraqi government from cooperating too extensively with iran and going down the wrong path? >> charlie: michael, what would that package look like? >> not for me to say, but the president has made it clear that -- >> charlie: i know, but i mean from -- >> well, he says he's considering air strikes and a pumped-up advisory effort, they say it can't be purely military but has to have a political component, clearly some degree would involve replenishing the stocks. it would have to be somebody helping the iraqis plan better operations and they pull together so far and we need to reclaim some of our -- in return for doing any of these things or all of these things, we need to have sufficient influence with the government of iraq that the

united states did what it did when it was there, which was say to maliki, you can't appoint this guy, he's too sectarian or incompetent, this is the right guy to be the head of the national police or this is the best general for the formation in northern iraq. we used to have a lot of that influence. we can't get it all back but we need to have some of it back or else this projects is not going to work. >> two things, in syria, nobody's talking about getting into bed with assad. what we're talking about is dropping the demand that he go as the first step in any diplomatic process. seems to me that is not possible. >> charlie: but it is dramatically changing what has been your stayed position, assad has to go. >> yes, and one of the problems with that position is we were never able to or willing to make good on it. this is rhetorical, not real foreign policy, and we paid a real price for that gap over the last three years in syria. secondly, i'm not real confident that the kind of big deal with

maliki that michael is talking about would ever work. i'm not sure it would work fast enough. i'm not sure he would keep it. my hunch is as soon as the pressure is off he would go back to his old sectarian ways. so we can think about ways of heading things off, but i also think we better have plan b, and plan b is dealing for essentially a try apartheid iraq. someone on the policy planning staff had better be thinking not how we prevent the worst from happening but work with the next phase. >> charlie: jooe biden's talked about that. >> but this is not a federated iraq. this is redrawing the maps in the middle east. this is 100 years after world war i. this is a very different map of the middle east. >> this is not a pretty process. it's not. it wasn't 100 years ago and won't be now. >> if president obama sin cleaned to reengage in a big

way -- >> charlie: which goes against his every instinct. >> everything. i mean, the level of engagement michael is talking about is essentially the level of engagement we had during the war when basically we were the honest broker between the kurds and the sunnis and the shia, we were the only people holding together and quoting ryan crocker the former american ambassador said the problem was we built ourselves into the hard drive into that system. the system doesn't work without us, and then we left. and is president obama willing to reengage at that level? let me just mention one thing, if he is, iraq just had an election, and there is no -- you know, maliki technically is a caretaker prime minister. there needs to be a new government and there's lots of political jockeying going on. if we wanted to push now, yeah, we could probably do it. >> charlie: to be replaced by? there's lots of people there who any american official who was there during the war would tell you they favor much more

over maliki and people who are less sectarian, less close to iran than maliki. >> charlie: obviously, the president has not decided what he's going to do. he said friday that over the coming days, in the weekend, he would be reviewing options presented by his national security team for military action to deal with the situation though he stressed he would not be sending u.s. troops back into combat in iraq and said the current situation could pose a dangerous to iraq and its people and america and its interest as well, laying out the american interest which demands action. >> it does and the most likely way will be when these veterans of this experience decide to return home. we are sowing the seeds of returnees here and in europe which is going to be -- in some ways is a frightening prospect, which is not only for the borders and the middle east, but essentially these people -- they've had one, two, three

years of experience, they've learned a lot, become more radicalized and want to bring it home. >> charlie: as we learn more, is this going to make what happened in syria or did not happen one significant test of the success of barack obama's foreign policy? >> absolutely. i mean, look, obama came in in 2008 saying i'm going to get us out of those places, and he's dining that and certainly -- and he's doing that and certainly did it in iraq. look what's happening. >> charlie: michael, what's your assessment of syria and what did not happen as you reflected on earlier might very well turn out to be in terms of history a turningpoint in one of the worst decisions by the obama administration? >> well, i mean, the obama administration, even the united states can't control all the events in the world, so let's put it in that context. so i think, i agree with richard's point that there's been an overcorrection. i think one can make the case

that overcompensation, i mean president bush had two wars going at once. there was a desire to get out of it all together in the process, a security vacuum was created not only in iraq, and i interviewed maliki in the summer of 2011, and it was clear to me that he would have accepted some sort of limited american presence, limited, as long as he didn't have to get it approved by the iraqi parliament because he anticipated it would kick up a fuss. but the white house made it a requirement he would take it to parliament and it was a political price he didn't want to pay. in retro suspect, it was a a guess president bush didn't have parliamentary approval, so a vacuum was created in iraq, syria became a conflict that we addressed very late on, at least if you accept the analysis of the foremost american expert on

syria robert ford who said he left because he could no longer support his own policy. so i think those two scenarios have combined and created a very -- a much more difficult situation than i think we would have had if we had had a very modest force in iraq to assist the iraqis and if we had maybe played a more active role in finding, identifying and supporting syrian moderates a couple years back when hillary clinton and david david first proposed it a couple of years ago. >> charlie: thank you, michael and all of you. let me close with a couple of points. i invited robert ford to come with you guys today and i hope to get him to the table soon. you interviewed hillary clinton. what did she say about all of this this week, or yesterday? >> to me, the most interesting thing was she thinks the president may well have learned the lessons of iraq.

she clearly favored of selective arming of opposition elements in syria and she questions the decision to tie the presence of american forces in afghanistan to a fixed calendar date. her view is if and when there's a few weeks a new president in afghanistan, we should have a conversation with him and quite possibly work out terms under which american forces could stay in afghanistan. >> charlie: thank you richard, michael and dexter. we'll be back. stay with us. >> charlie: 32 nations in brazil this week in pursuit of soccer's biggest prize. the world cup. the matches kicked off yesterday. a champion will be crowned july 13 in roy daijnaryo. the united states places monday in ghana. joining me is franklin foer editor of the new republic and oversees the publication's world cup blog called goalpost. jeff agoos is a former national

player, demen's man in 2008 and 2002. from bristol, connecticut, tommy smyth, espn analyst since 1993 and roger bennett. roger, lay out the land for us. we're so envious of you for being there. >> it's always a wonderful place to be, charlie, but a very surreal place right now. this world cup is kind of caught between two narratives, the narrative of fuútbol coming back to brazil and brazilian society that started last year during the warmup of the confederation's cup where brazilians decided to protest about the labor conditions, economy, health, education, almost like a wes craven horror

story which is waiting in the wings and the narratives are conflicting. how brazil does in the world cup. they are somewhat the favorites, may determine whether the country ends up in a gigantic party or whether it truly goes up in flames. >> charlie: tommy, size up the field. >> well, i think it's a very, very good feel this time, charlie. remember some time ago i give you a lot of winners. the winners are hard to pick. you have to look at germany, argentina. brazil, on a very dubious call yesterday got themselves a victory. you've got to look at italy. so this could come down to argentina, italy. i'm already on record as saying i think brazil can take another world cup but it's going to take a lot of winning. as we saw in yesterday's game, so much will depend on what kind of referee you can get. every referee can make a bad call or have a bad day. my big question is how the

referee from japan got the game yesterday. the croatia player said he was talking to them in japanese. that would be like me talking to you in irish. it doesn't make any sense. >> charlie: what did you guys think of the call yesterday? >> 60,000 braying fans. tough weight of this entire country falling on this one japanese referee and he made an extremely dubious call. like any human in his place, he was probably influenced by these external factors and this time he points out maybe he wasn't the best guy to be put in these circumstances in the beginning to have the cup but that's part of the whole story. i think going to the broader context which is you have this inflamed brazilian public which roger is talking about, which is you have the result of the workers party in brazil. there were millions of poor brazilians moved into the middle class and now they have very middle class concerns about

where their money is being spent and they're upset that $11 billion are being spent on these games and not wrongly so. and they're upset at the governing body of world soccer for imposing various requirements on them and forcing hem into this direction. so it's a success story because you have this m new middle clas, but it's combustible. and roger says it will influence what happens on the field. >> charlie: sports and politics. what are you looking for? you have been there, done that. what is it about this world cup that has your interest? >> i think you're looking at -- you have the sports and politics side of it as well, but i think what you're looking for is a real party. i think there's a lot of teams that come together, a lot of different styles that you see at one time, and what you're really looking for is the beautiful game, and i think we didn't see the beautiful game from brazil yesterday, but brazil seemed to

build it as they go through the tournament and i think they will be one of the favorites. >> charlie: people haven't turned into soccer or if you fús they call it. what's the beauty of the game they watch and see? >> people come to see the goals. they want to see as many goals as possible. you know, we talk about the play yesterday that happened in major league soccer. we're a little provocative. we want to talk about video review. we don't want to change the flow of the game but we want to make sure we get the calls right. there was a minute and 40 seconds between the call and the penalty kick. three reviews on those type of play where there are natural stoppages. can we look at video review to help a referee? he has the least amount of information going to these games than anybody in the field or the stadium. the fans have more information than he has. but we're looking for the gifted players and those guys to score a lot of goals. >> charlie: including those, roger, who are you looking at in terms of providing the star

power and the athletic genius that will lead to not only increasing their stardom but increasing the fate of their team? >> i mean, there's a couple of gentlemen who stand out. the first is neymar, the brazilian wonder kid who plays at bar barcelona. had a slightly dodgy season. looks like a cartoon character struck to life. it compares to hiroshima in terms of tragedy. incredible pressure. he has to lead the team knows he has to hail 1950, lead the team on turf and the wrong move could lead to a nation rising in the streets. that's a lot of pressure for any athlete. the other is argentina's lionel massey, the tiny gentleman who's

been the best player in the world in the last decade but with an averagetyian coach he underperformance. his coach was rob ford before there was a rob ford and that excused his performance. he needs to deliver. if argentina wins in brazil, it may well be the end of history. >> charlie: tommy, you're high on lit this year? >> yes, very high on italy. there are only so many games to win in the world cup and italy happened to be one of them. you always hang around and are looking at them. but roger is right, there's another lad that will factor into these players, renaldo from portugal and louie from uruguay are other players to watch. they can score goals and put on a real show for you if they're on their day. but i think the cam of the italians, they always start very slowly. i think it's a stonewall bet italy will draw with england in

the first game and then after that i think italy will go through and i think they'll win the competition. >> charlie: you think argentina? >> i do, which we've talked about how -- and this dichotomy between the beautiful game and fuútbol is oriented between result that depends on hardness, tough necessary, defense. the italians historically embody the defensive mindsets. the brazillians who invented the beautiful game but shifted towards the fuútbol results. for me argentina plays the most romantic style, have the three wonderful players up front. massey, who's been described. there's sergio who plays in manchester city, and a very strange-looking fellow called demaria who's a brilliant winger and play maker. i love the way they play.

despite the romance of brazil aspires for them to -- >> charlie: your mind says one thing, your heart says the other. >> exactly. >> charlie: all right. is soccer growing in terms of americans who have gotten an interest -- not in terms of soccer taking hold in america, but americans interested in the world cup? >> without a doubt. you just have to walk down the street or walk into a bar yesterday as these games are being played. i was riding the washington metro which granted is not real america, but i saw it stuffed with people wearing yellow jerseys. the bararound the street from our office where we went to watch the game was packed, and i don't think there was an uncommon occurrence, at least not in metropolitan america. and you look at the viewership numbers, you look at the way espn has gotten behind the cup and markets the hell out of it and markets it very brilliantly, i think, and you can see it. you can see it i've wrote. >everywhere.>> charlie: talk abe americans and their coach. >> they have a difficult group

with ghana up first, portugal and germany, they call group of death, so a very difficult group, but we've always played well as underdogs. so i think the first game against ghana is going to be absolutely critical, getting three points out of that first game will put us in a great position. you know, the coach is interesting. i've known yergin for quite some times and he shares this dicottic character of german and american at the same time. >> charlie: what about when he said it was unrealistic for his own team to win the world cup. should a coach say that or is it reverse psychology in some way? >> i think he could be using reverse psychology. but americans neverrent tore lose, they enter to win, so i know all 23 players will be committed to winning that tournament. you know, jergin is a motivator and this could be a tactic in the way he motivates, but i know the american psyche and culture

and the american sportsmen, they want to win. >> charlie: roger, you want to jump in on america's team? >> i've had a recurring dream for the past six months in which july 13 and clem dwremps the american walks up as the canons go off. i was told it's good to dream big dreamsics roger. ghana as you said in the last two world cups, no one will be more motivated. i believe he will have his team incredibly up for that game. i've made a movie about the team for the past 100 days as they prepare for the world cup through espn, and jergin's take is he got rid of london, and he

said what he wants to do is prove this team can go on the field unlike the 1990s when they take the field against a big team and know they lost before they stepped onto the grass. he wants this team to believe they can take on portugal, believe they can take on germany, his own home team. >> charlie: go ahead, tommy. i think there's a possibility because there's a saying in my country nothing lasts forever and maybe the third time is the charm. maybe ghana will go out to the united states this time. i think it's key, like roger said, you've got to get something out of the game, then you went to the portugal game. everybody talked a couple of years ago how portugal was going to roll the u.s. out and the u.s. beat them. and you could end up the last day, the coaches may need to draw for the u.s. to go through. germany may go through. romantic things may happen. there might be a share of the spoils and the united states may go through.

but they will have to play ver hard. i am surprised klinsman keeps saying it's unrealistic to win. even if i couldn't win, they would say, yes, tommy, you could win, go out and do it! >> charlie: you said klinsman will take his mediocre players and provide them with a system to play with sufficient confidence to break america's soccer ghanaian curse. >> the promise of klinsman is he would change the culture of american soccer and the way we've played on the wheel which historically we have been well organized and confident but lacking the creativity and spark and individuality that helps the team go beyond being just a mediocre team. what he's done is set up a system built around his players. he doesn't have a raft of

extraordinarily creative players and, so, he's created a system that's very much like a refined version of the old system at the the americans have played which is it's well structured, it's built around protecting the defense, and the counterattacks well. it could perform efficiently. >> charlie: what does the history of the world cup tell us about what it takes to win? >> a lot of luck to begin with. i think jergin put it succinctly, we have to play our best for seven games in the row to think that we're going to get to the final. i don't think they're thinking past the ghana game. the ghana game is the knockout game. when they're inroup play, they have to get points out of the ghana game. they have to play the best game of their life. this is not about putting 11 individuals out there. a team can always beat individuals. we've always had a very good

group and team spirit. >> charlie: great to have you. thank you all. >> thank you, charlie. >> charlie: we'll be watching. back in a moment. >> charlie: the wooster group is an influential experimental theater group for almost 40 years they have created works for theater, dance and other media from their home on wooster street in new york city. their current production is interpretation of l.p. album by descendents of a religious sect from the 18th century called the shakers, it is called early shaker spirituals. ben brantley from the "new york times" calls it auster and moving. we have kate valk, elizabeth lecompte and frances mcdormand, who is an associate member of the wooster group and performance in the production, don't you my dear?

>> yes, i do, with great pride. >> charlie: tell me about the shakers. >> when i first started working with liz 36 years ago, she was researching the shakers, and i'm not sure why, but we went on our first field trip. the whole company was loaded into her van and we drove around to the shaker communities and i think liz already had this album in her possession, and we just started listening to it, and i fell in love with the music and i read one of the books that was had, and it just always stayed with us and it was in the company's collection all this time. and then we reached a point where we had finished making a very big production with a collaboration with the royal shakespeare company for the cultural olympiad, and it's a mammoth undertaking and we were

doing a reworking of it back here in new york it's called cry trojans. and as a little break we decided to return to a form we had done before, a record album interpretation where we take the album and use the structure, the liner notes, all the cut descriptions, as the structure for the evening, and we had been working with fuzzy roach and cry trojans, and fran mcdormand and i have worked together several times in wooster group productions, and she expressed to me a desire to play a shaker. and, so, it was just like, eureka. all the women were together -- liz, fuzzy, fran, myself, and we added cynthia headstrom who's a long-time company member, and we just started singing the songs, and the fun part for me was making up the dances that go along with it. so we had the album, the liner

notes and we discovered a document rithat was made the same time the album was recorded, so that opened up a whole visual world. and in the documentary, there are some jess chiewrl language that the shakers still were practicing called motioning where there are certain hand gestures that go to the song. i knew that just from the little bit of research that ecstatic dancing was the major part of their services early on. so it was that desire that brought us to do this. then, of course, a lot of information has come to us, people have been in touch with us, sending us books, we're in contact with the shaker community, so it's like a whole world is opening up for us. >> once it starts to ripple, it ripples wide. >> charlie: i wonder why. because they had something going on right.

>> charlie: what was that? it was the simplicity and the purity of a lifestyle that was connected to the early agriculture focus of their life. you know, when they kim to america, they were -- when they came to america, they were escaping religious persecution, but they were also looking for a real place to land and begin a utopian community, and i think it was agriculture-based. and that kind of dictates a certain life and a certain pace of life and a certain community. >> charlie: do you think it's connected to music. >> yeah, i think it's connected to the oral tradition of music, appalachian. >> i think we're not really being straight. it was also formed by a woman. >> charlie: yes. and she wanted it to be a celibate sect and it would be

extremely rare she would be able to move an entire sect to new york city and that it was equal, that the male and female hits were equal in their influence in the group, and they also were the first sect of that kind that were integrated. they were integrated i believe in the mid west and in the philadelphia community. >> and new york and new lebanon. that's right. equality was very important to the shakers. >> gender and racial. >> charlie: here's a look at moments from the current production of early shaker spiritual. ♪ we will all go home with you. ♪ home to worlds of glory ♪ where an eternal is pure and holy ♪ ♪ we will all go home with you ♪ home to worlds of glory

♪ where an i term interview awaits the pure and holy ♪ ♪ let us all connect and bond ♪ we may never meet in time ♪ but a love endureth (singing) >> charlie: you did like this. it's like you just love it. >> i do. >> charlie: you love it. i love it. >> charlie: what is you love? we go into the room, we, as often happens in a community, you get to leave your outside life behind and go into a dark space and give over to something and, in this case, it's a very

specific task that takes all our attention for that amount of time every day and it's pure pleasure. we don't have the conflict that usually comes along in producing something a bit like thi it's been so easy. it's been really easy and a really enjoyable, happy, joyous process. and we look forward to it and not just the four old ladies, but the young guys, too, they come in there and they're ready to work and they're ready to sweat to the core of the project. >> charlie: so there is this unpolished look, yes? >> mm-hmm. >> charlie: it was said on one hand a shaker spiritual is so bare it doesn't feel finished. the quality is what makes it so interesting to watch. it verge us on a weird transcendens as we perceive a gap between the echoes of american puritanism and its remix on a post modern stage.

got a little wordy there, but -- (laughter) >> and they weren't puritans. they believed in joy that music and dance were gifts of pure joy, so they weren't to be suppressed. i think people think of the shakers because to have the sell celebacy that because of a repression of joy, and it couldn't be any different. i think mother thought there was no way men and women would be equal unless celebacy was practiced. >> from some of the research i read, she had a very important and personal reason for thinking that a community could survive without sexual congress, and she also saw in the early 1850s that, you know, there wasn't a

lot of joy in sexual congress for women anyway unless you were trained to find pleasure. it mostly was about a lot of death in childbirth, infant mortality -- >> charlie: all about procreation. >> all about the job and not pleasure. >> right, and she was illiterate from the slums of manchester so she could neither read nor write but she became part of this movement. >> charlie: theater is religion for you, huh? >> it is. >> charlie: you said something similar to that. >> it is. i mean, you know... i should have looked up "religion" before i answered that, but it's my vocation and my dedication. eth what i've -- it's what i've dedicated my life to. >> it's your calling. my calling and my spiritual home has become the wooster group.

i've freelanced more than kate has but we're the same age. >> charlie: your spiritual home for your theatrical experience or your life? >> for the combination of both most successfully. most successfully i've done a lot of commercial theater but what kate and liz specifically have offered me at the wooster group is a place that i could combine with my life. liz raised a son. they both had lives that have incooperated their work and i needed a place like that when i was raising my son and they offered me a place. they developed pieces over to -- we developed this over two years, opene on and off for twos so i was able to drive my son to college, do a film job, do nothing but also incorporate working on the shaker project over the last two years. >> charlie: and gave you security, too. >> gave me complete security knowing i had -- >> charlie: safety. well, it wasn't safety. it was home.

i could go off and do other things, but i could blend here. >> charlie: and for you? oh, for me, i have been with the wooster group for -- >> charlie: over 30 years. yes, 36 years. >> charlie: this is your first directorial thing? >> yes. well, liz had to be in the show, so i'm serving as director. >> charlie: a labor of love? you know it. you know, i don't know. i don't really know. you've gotten too deep for me here. >> charlie: oh, come on. you know what? you're always doing that. you're always doing that. here's what you always do -- you know, people think of you as this very creative, intellectual, and you resist that. you don't want anybody to label you that way. therefore, you say something silly to me like, you're getting too deep for me. >> he's got me. what do you think, liz,

seriously. >> labor of love. >> charlie: labor of love. i'm not sure. i would say that it's -- it's my being. it is. there's no difference between what i do and who i am. >> charlie: me either. same thing. no difference. >> i don't know whether that's love, but it is -- >> charlie: it's being. it is complete. >> charlie: it's being. yeah. and my life is complete in that way. >> charlie: congratulations. thank you. s a lot. >> charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. erer

explore new worlds and new ideas through programs like this, made available for everyone through contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. there are no wrong roads to anywhere. there's no accidents. as we go along there are course corrections that we can make. every experience that we have in our life is there to teach us something. announcer: join spiritual teacher and author dr. wayne dyer for an intimate conversation as he returns to pbs to offer stories of his own life journey and share his deeply held beliefs. dyer: i want to step back from my life because i know that there have been forces or powers or some kind of energy that has been impacting me throughout my entire life. announcer: learn the five key principles that have guided dr. dyer through private challenges and public success