in engagement in the kind of countries that phyllis bennis mentions? and should we be thinking of a ditch approach? is that what the white house is doing now? >> absolute, she's absolutely right, and i've been involved in some of those bad approaches. but that doesn't mean you simply sit back and walk this thing. secretary hagel said today there is no purely military approach. i would add a corollary to that-- there is no political approach at this point with a foe like isis that doesn't have a military opponent. >> ifill: and a foe like assad? >> and a foe like assad you also need a military component but somewhat differently. the president's mission is to destroy isis. he hasn't given the same mission to destroy assad. we need to provide credible support toon opposition which is not some people in syria. it's basically the entire sunni population with a few exceptions, to stop assad from winning this thing. if you can generate a stalemate, then we can get back to geneva where we failed twice and get some kind of political resolution. i think that's g