sebastian junger, the author of the important book "war." sebastian, you wrote a very provocative, important article in the "washington post." let me read a sentence or two from it. referring to syria, at some point passivism becomes part of the machinery of death and isolationist becomes a form of genocide. it's not a matter of how we're going to explain this to the syrians. it's a matter of how we're going to explain this to our kids. you're saying that war actually may be the answer to what's going on in syria right now. explain. >> my first war was in bosnia and every war i've covered since then has been ended or drastically reduced by u.s. military action, by nato military action. i think a true anti-war position doesn't just mean ignoring a civil war like we did in rwanda. it means eventually after all diplomatic efforts have failed to use military threat and eventually military action. in bosnia, a two-week nato campaign ended a genocide. amazingly, in the united states, the only people i knew who are against that were my fellow liberals who thought there was never a reason to use violence, and i think that's wrong. certainly looking back on world war ii, imagine had we not entered that war what the results would have been for the world. >> you speak as a war correspondent. fareed, what do you think about that? >> well, i think the question really is it's not enough to be outraged by what's happening in syria because there's all the reason in the world to be outraged, but how would an american military intervention stop the suffering? as i can see it, american military intervention, even if it is successful, would depose assad. we know what would happen, assad and the alawites and supporters of that regime would fight back as insurgents, there would be phase two of the civil war in which the sunni militias that are currently opposed to assad will go on a rampage and slaughter the alawites and their supporters, then there would be infighting among them. we have seen this movie before. this is exactly what happened in iraq. so i'm perplexed by sebastian'sy intervention has always stopped and solved wars. i'm thinking of iraq and afghanistan, i'm thinking of vietnam, you can think of lots of cases. we can always pick one's history to prove one's point but let's stick with this particular case. if the united states deposes assad, if anyone could explain to me how the civil war in syria which is really a deep sectarian struggle, would end, i would be much more comfortable with it. i think what is more likely to happen is frankly, it would escalate and you would then have a blood bath between the two sides with the assad regime fighting back as insurgents, the militias each trying to take power and simultaneously rid the country of the alawites. it strikes me as a fairly messy situation. >> go ahead, sebastian. >> well, i was speaking very specifically about civil wars that we intervened in. i was completely against invading iraq. these humanitarian crises started in the '90s after the fall of the berlin wall. and we did end war after war,