united states is the willingness and the capacity to confront error and correction it. both domestically, internallie where we have made henley mistakes and in foreign areas. >> how does the united states correct iraq if you see it as a problem that the united states needs to correct and arise? some would say -- not some type of most would agree with the statement, the idea that the rise in the us lamest movement in the middle east is supposed -- can be directly related, attributed to the war in iraq? >> i strongly disagree with that. >> i thought you might. i thought you might. >> go back and read history. the history of iraq didn't begin with the american invasion. >> right. >> there have been conflict for hundreds of years. for 425 years, prior to the versailles peace conference in 1919, there was no iraq. so the notion that conflict began with the united states is plainly faults and contrat i couldn't. we do have a problem. we should help. but ultimately the people of iraq who would decide. the people of syria who will decide the future of syria, egyptians who will decide the future of egypt. we should encourage, insist, especially those and there are many who want more open, tolerant rege-mail

. >> how does the united states correct iraq if you see it as a problem that united states needs to correctand the rise, some would say, not some, most would agree with the statement the statement that the idea of the rise in the islamist movement in the middle east can be directly related, attributed to the war in iraq. >> well, i strongly disagree with that. >> i thought you might. >> go back and read history. the history of iraq didn't begin with the american invasion. there has been conflict for 425 years prior to the versailles peace conference, there was no iraq. the notion that conflict began with the united states i think is plainly false, and cricketed. now, we do have a problem. we should help, but ultimately, it is the people of iraq who will decide the future of iraq. the people of syria who will decide the future of syria. egyptians will decide the future of egypt. we can help, we should encourage, we should assess especially those and there are many who want more open, tolerant rejeeps, government that give the people opportunity, jobs, health care, that's what people want. we

iraq war for many years. your concern as you see the latest developments of the past few weeks of what this might mean for united states involvement in the iraq? >> you are correcti have opposed the iraq war since 2002 and also the presidents intervention into serious when he said he would do the limited airstrikes. the problem that i think we all have is why? why are we doing this? we do know and the fact that the president has invoked the war powers resolution and then simply doing the unauthorized use of military force which is specific for iraq and afghanistan, that says to me that he realizes it is dealing from 9/11. what we are doing now is intervening into a sectarian civil war and the question i believe that most of us have is why and how did that link to national interest, and what is our national security interest in this, and in addition, will this be construed as taking a with one of the three sectarian related groups in your rack, and will that exasperate the situation, and then how do we get out of it? the real question we have always had from the time we intervene the first time in your rack and went in under the guise of weapons of mass destructi

united states. >> he said this a couple times, the most important thing i can do is not screw it up. i think he perceives iraq and afghanistan as serious mistakes that drained the united states. is that correct? >> i would not put it that way. the president affirmed yesterday his view that what we have been doing in afghanistan has been absolutely essential to our national security. it was necessary after 9/11. the surge in 2009 was necessary. we also think it is serving our interests to bring the war in afghanistan to an end. there are times when we must do what we must do. >> what worries me is getting involved in a war that will suck the united states into it. those are words he has used with respect to other flash points like syria. >> he said two things. he outlined the circumstances in which it may be necessary for the united states to act unilaterally to defend our core interests. even in those circumstances, we have to ask ourselves questions. we have to be mindful of international opinion, but we will not ask permission to do what we must do to defend our interests. he also outlined at some length in his view as to when we ought to use force or not to address issues of global concer

iran is on the march in the region and whether that impression is correct or not cooperation between iran and the united states and iraq could complicate nuclear negotiations. while it is theoretically possible i'm not sure it's the best time. >> what sort of working relationships do you think the two will have? >> the united states and iran on iraq? >> yes. >> right now i don't think they're going to work together very closely. we've heard reports there have been some discussions but i think the united states has been very careful to separate the nuclear issue from other regional issues in the fear of making negotiations very complicated. and i think that has been smart. the problem though is if i.s.i.l. captures more iraqi territory and is poised on marching towards baghdad and taking the capitol then the united states might have to consider working with iran more closely. >> in looking at the region i spoke about israel. what role does israel play? >> israel is certainly worried by developments in iraq and the broader region in general in terms of instability in syria and certainly what they term as iran's increasin

correct. they were holding a press conference, and said that iraq has requested help from the united states tonch air strikes against rebels in the country. now there were reports in -- in the last week or so that their -- iraq has requested quietly, unofficially help from the americans. now the unofficial request has turned into an official one. this is not the first time iraq has asked for help, in fact since january when the military launched a big campaign to root out fighters from the islamic state in iraq and the levant as well as other tribal fighters in western iran, those fighters were coming from syria, the americans stepped up help and provided iraq with hell fire missiles and some gun ships, so this is not the first time. now it remains to be seen if the americans will answer the call, because president obama has made it clear that iraqi leaders need to take police call steps to reach out to opponents to try to solve this crisis politically before the americans decide to do anything. >> thank you. >>> now ukraine's president outlined a peace plan to stop the ongoing crisis in the e

statement on friday a week ago the interest the united states has in not allowing the isis terrorist group to gain foothold in iraq. i think that is a correct assessment of our immediate interest. my own view is that that will require military action by the united states. wlp t whether the president will come down on that or not is an open question because, as you point out, the papers are somewhat contradictory but i think it will require limited american military involvement which could have two military objectives -- one is to first stop the southward movement of the isis toward baghdad and the holy cities of karbala and najaf, which are south of baghdad. the second is then to help iraqi forces recover the territory that's been lost, particularly the cities of fallujah, tikrit, mosul and tal afar. if you think about it from a military point of view, air strike cans matter. air strikes by the french basically changed the battlefield balance of forces in libya. it can work. not, obviously, without effective ground forces but it can work. i'm not talking about putting american combat forces in, by the way. i'm talking about a need for intel

iraq. we'll get hit in the wallet. but isis they're about to attack the united states, is that correct? >> although a regional threat, they do have aspirations to attack western interests. >> if they have a safe haven in syria or iraq, that's a bad scenario for us, is that true? >> that is a high risk scenario. >> yeah, to our homeland being attacked by this group. >> over time, not at this time, but over time. >> i would say that the -- baghdaddy, the director, the head of this group was a former gitmo -- a camp bucca detainny, is that correct? >> correct. >> i know the colonel, people did a very good job on the ground. he's reported that when they turned baghdaddy back over, when they let him out of camp bucca, he travelled to baghdad with them and turned to colonel collins and others and said, i will see you in new york, does that -- >> i hadn't heard that. >> i'm just telling the american people, it is in our national security interest not to give these guys safe haven in syria or eye ago. is that an overstatement or in the area of possibility? >> as i've said in other settings, ther

united states seemed to be taking in these two countries? >> yeah, you know, look, he is 100% correct, the u.s. has not approached the middle east. with the frame work, i think the withdraw from iraq, and the unwillington seriously negotiate with the government, in late 2011, this is what has put us in this situation. first and foremost, the u.s. needs to step back. and rethink what is our strategy, what is your goals the ever the middle east. i do think in the case of iraq, the u.s. needs to rethink it's complete disengangment. even if that is thinking on a tactical level, or below the level of strategy, they have to absolutely have to step the tide of i.s.i.l., in iraq, as well as is in syria, because these groups are present a direct threat to the united states. but one thing, if the u.s. is kept malachi at arms length, and that has pushed the malachi government into the arms of iran. if iran getted involved overtly, fist of all, it's going to be the beginning of the real civil war. i think that's where we see the tensions. but secondly, the u.s. will have an option or have no other option other than to not help iraq. because they cannot back iraq -- >> let me throw that to bri

reality, the invasion of the united states and a briton appears haslly created instability still unresolved. >> correct. in addition to that, the u.s. is still interfering in iraq. although the last few soldiers left the country at the end of 2011, the u.s. continues to supply the iraqi central government with weapons, training, and other military assistance. this year alone, the u.s. is sending billions of dollars worth of jet fighters and other weapons. we just included $150 million in the appropriations bill for training iraqi forces. although many human rights organizations, including human rights watch, have flagged a number of iraqi security forces and militias as human rights u.s. shouldt the stop funding. so in addition to the military funding, of course, there is a lot of support to legitimize the iraq central government. this week's narrative from the u.s. side is a good example of how the u.s. has been taking one side in this conflict all along. it has been arming and supporting one side of the conflict, and the side happens to be the iraqi central government and the militias affiliated with it. >> rear admiral john kirby confirmed over the weekend t

correction when irrelevant comes to iraq. you heard the president say he does not see it in the interest of the united states to allow these militantsoothold. australia one of the coalition of the willing in the iraq war. he said, aussies know how to fight, i like to have them in a foxhole. the frpresident, at least from rhetorical standpoint getting on a much more muscular footing. >> but awesome american allies like canada turned their noses up at iraq. there were plenty of people who weren't so interested in the coalition of the pipsqueak willing some called them. whether he can put any coalition now to get what the iraqis need. i expect there will be more words from the white house and you will give them to us when you get them. thank you, sir. >>> there's a lot of stories on our menu, too. a lot of breaking news and we'll be back and get you caught up. means keeping seven billion ctransactions flowing.g, and when weather hits, it's data mayhem. but airlines running hp end-to-end solutions are always calm during a storm. so if your business deals with the unexpected, hp big data and cloud solutions make sure you always know what

correct, general. so why haven't we? why hasn't the united states been confronting the al qaeda army in the isis people, they control parts of syria and northern iraq. and we have known that for a long time. so why, general, haven't we done anything about it? the president and others say we must first deal with the iraqi government in baghdad before we can strike the al qaeda army. that is pure bull. it is al qaeda versus us. we, the american people. we don't need to involve ourselves with iraqi politics to defend ourselves against terrorists on the march. are we all clear about that? president obama's most effective war on terror strategy has been using drones to kill al qaeda all over the world. we don't get government's permission to do that. why have we stopped offensive actions in the face of al qaeda army that's seizing vast amounts of tear -- territory in the middle east? why? the hallmark of an effective government is having solutions at the ready. the obama administration is caught by surprise nearly every time something bad happens. is our cia that lame? we spend billions of dollars every year on intelligence. and these people don't know

correct. it's a lot of semantic conversation about this in the face of a very dire and existential threat to the united states as well as to iraqly has to try to do all it can to stop isis. what we've seen, which is very interesting, is isis has not moved further than baiji where they are fiercely contesting the power plant. they did have a lightning-fast movement towards that, but they're stopped, and they're not moving on baghdad, as you heard from anderson. but what is really a problem is that there's a core of isis surrounded by a coalition with former baathists, former sunni forces, former tribal leaders. and clearly what the united states thinks it can do is put in some advisers who, after all, trained these troops in the first place to help them with intelligence, to help them stiffen their spine, to help them get their forces and logistics and operation in order, if they possibly can, for them to then go out and fight a harder fight. because otherwise what you have is the fighters being taken over by shiite militias and potentially even ground troops from iran, if it gets so bad that baghdad or the rest of the country m