Now on bbc news its hardtalk raid. The close cooperation with the Kurdish People on the ground, the with stephen sackur. American in intelligence on the ground, that has all now been ended donald trump wants americans to bask oi in the afterglow of the killing ground, that has all now been ended or removed. So while we are now safer in the long run, the real of the worlds most wanted austin is whether we have made some terrorist, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi. But many are focused on the daily developments of our counterterrorism efforts more of the impeachment investigation. Difficult at a time when isis is likely to reconstitute itself. But this is where donald trump and his supporters get frustrated with people like you who, i am sure you both Say Something important about the way donald trump conducts would acknowledge, you are doyen is National Security of Foreign Policy making establishments to the elite. You are and Foreign Policy. Thoroughly and consistently churlish my about donald trump s Foreign Policy my guest is former senior us but here we are, a guy who has just diplomat richard haass. Developed that might delivered a big trump horrifies the Foreign Policy establishment, 00 01 47,564 2147483051 37 38,497 but does that matter 2147483051 37 38,497 4294966103 13 29,430 to American Voters . Win for the United States, and he has done by cooperating with eve ryo ne has done by cooperating with everyone on the ground today, not last week or last year, but today. He thanked the russians and the kurds all of whom he said played a role a few days ago. Let me push back ever so slightly. I would not like to think of myself as thoroughly and consistently churlish, i think that was your language, in my reaction to the president. I said language, in my reaction to the president. Isaid it language, in my reaction to the president. I said it was a good thing that we got Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi. Problem is that we have weakened our ability to go after terrorist in syria down the road. The kurds were keeping isis in prison and the turks are clearly not nearly as dedicated to that task. And for the turkish people the Principal Task is to take on the kurds who have been our partners. That is not churlish, that is intellectually honest. Returning to your take on what is happening in syria in a momentjust to stick a little bit longer with Islamic State. Is it your contention that the killing of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi will really not make a great deal of difference to the potency of Islamic State in the coming days weeks and yea rs 7 state in the coming days weeks and years . It will be short run disruptive in the long run it does not make a fundamental difference because of the nature of terrorism stop it is best not to think of it as organisational full of it is networked and movement in character. When you get rid of an individual at the top, the organisation morphs and split, it decentralises, new people emerge. The concept of decapitation is probably the wrong way to think about it and just like al qaeda did just fine in the after month aftermath of bin laden, so too will isis or spin offs of them, will fine down the road. Let me ask you a question less about analysis are more about impression. It is fascinating to look at the way donald trump delivered the news to the American People of the killing of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi and comparing contrasted to how the us public were told about the killing of osama bin laden. Jimmy kimmel mash up the two and it was very striking indeed. Critics of donald trump have said it is a mistake to use the language he used, that of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi dying like a dog, caught trying whimpering and screaming. Others have said, you know what . It is a way of both reaching out to the American People to tell them something important has happened and a way of sending a seed normal to iss that they will receive the harshest punishment and retribution come what may. What is your take . You are right in the sense that the two approaches could not have been more different in character. Whatever else mr trump learned as a young man it was not less is more stop it was a highly personal statement, particularly once he began taking questions from the journalists that day. This question of whether it will lead to more recruitment, ifear question of whether it will lead to more recruitment, i fear that question of whether it will lead to more recruitment, ifear that is question of whether it will lead to more recruitment, i fear that is a possibility. It was insulting. I would have let the raid speaks for itself but i am Old Fashioned and establishment. I am always nervous about giving material to others i also think the president may have stretched the truth a little. No one has disc corroborated his description of what has happened, the talk of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi cowering whimpering and pleading. None of the military people involved have supported that contention. So you do not want the credibility of the american president to become an issue here. And i am afraid that mr trump has done just that. Returning now to the street it a strategic overview what is happening in syria. It reaches out to a wider point about what donald trump strategics vision for us military power is. He has said recently that in regard to both afghanistan and Northern Syria that he is not interested in continuing to engage in endless war, as he puts it. He also says he is not interested in laying down american lives to defend thousands of miles of an e sand. On both counts, again, it seems to me that those are concepts that chime with feelings of many of his core supporters in heartland america. Not just with the core supporters and with others. I think he is tapping into a few things. One is intervention fatigue after these long and expensive and not very successful interventions in afghanistan and iraq. There is no sense among Many Americans in this cuts across party lines. A lot of what he says you see echoed by several democrats. I sense that we have done too much overseas and not enough at home. He is tapping into the wellsprings of american isolation all is ice and. America first resonates with Many Americans across the country. But there are a couple of problems. One is what happens thousands of miles away as we learnt on 9 11, can affect us. This gives us no protection in an age of globalisation whether we talk about the fires in california or climate change, global terrorism, we could struggle with disease one day. So this idea that we can somehow protect ourselves if we pull back from the world, i would argue is fundamentally flawed. It is a popular point of view but it happens to be inaccurate. It does not have to be inaccurate. It does not have to be inaccurate. If you are a little more realistic and savvy about who you are prepared to work with. It seems to me that what we are with. It seems to me that what we a re left with. It seems to me that what we are left Northern Syria is donald trump putting a lot of faith in the russians and the turks to ensure that there is no resurgence, for example, of Islamic State. And if we we re example, of Islamic State. And if we were really honest about it, possibly he is even putting some fay in the syrian president to deliver some sort of stability alongside the russian and iranians in that part of syria. Maybe that, while it sticks in the throat of Many Americans, maybe that is just a savvy way of looking at the future of syria. Good luck with it. I dont see anything about the behaviour over the years of the Syrian Government or the turkish government or the russians, for that matter, that leads one to have any confidence that they will be consistent, robust disciplines and protagonists in the effort against groups like isis. The behaviour of the Syrian Government backed by iran and russia that led to the great swell and support for groups like isis what worries me is that we could be returning to that type of situation. One other thing, back at your previous question, the cost of what we have been doing in syria was a minute. Before the tiny number of American Special forces, we we re number of American Special forces, we were working with the kurds were providing infantry against isis. They were the jailers and it was working. So were taking enormous risk for what . For a talking point that you brought americans back. But we had something that was working extraordinarily well at a low cost and if it aint broke dont fix it. I think this president has taken an enormous risk because it is possible, particularly if he is re elected, on his watch American Forces will now have to one day re enter parts of area that they had left. You smiled when i called you a long time player the Foreign Policy making elite but nonetheless, sparing blushes, you are well connected. Answer me this. Who do you think donald trump, the president , is listening to when he makes deeply and profoundly important decisions on Foreign Policy but the one he took to withdraw forces from Northern Syria . My withdraw forces from Northern Syria . My own view is that he is his own expert. He is his own National Security adviser and his own secretary of state. He has tremendous confidence in his views on people have told him all along that he would never get anywhere in politics in the last i saw he was elected president three years ago. I think he has tremendous confidence in his own views. He has not surrounded himself with Foreign Policy, with people with a big Foreign Policy reputation and he has surrounded himself with people who have a diminished reputation. I take that as a sign that the main person he listens to is himself. Brett mcgurk, a big player in the administrations Counter Terrorist strategy until 2018, he said the other day that donald trump is not a commander in chief. He makes impulsive decisions without knowledge or deliberation. Are you of that school of thought . He is commander in chief. Of that school of thought . He is commanderinchief. The point he was making. That he is not fit to be, thatis making. That he is not fit to be, that is what he meant. Again, he is essentially dispensed with process. There is less process in National SecurityDecision Making now than there has been in any other point in there has been in any other point in the post world war ii era. I would not say he is surrounded by people who have great stature in Foreign Policy and those who do have some stature seem unwilling to use it or to put it at risk. So if you ask me, sure, i am worried. He will end up being one of the most consequential president s in american history. Do i think he will hand off to himself in a better year . No and no bya to himself in a better year . No and no by a long shot. So, yes, i am concerned. So if we can, lets get inside the fallout and the implications of the impeachment investigation that the Congressional Democrats are undertaking. That all centres, of course, on donald trump s strategy towards ukraine, a particular phone july 25 to the new ukrainian president that seemed to suggest that donald trump was looking for the ukrainians to put some resources into investigating the son of his potential political rival, joe biden. You say donald trump has dispensed with many of the norms, the machinery of Foreign Policy making. What specifically are you seeing come out from the ukraine impeachment investigation that feeds into that . Well, a couple of things. One is it is not special or new to use leveraged to get your way in Foreign Policy. Every government does it tries to do it. What is qualitatively different here is using the leverage that derives from, say, office of white house visits from 400 million in aid, using those not to advance Americas National interests, but to advance in this case the president s own political interests by pressuring the government of ukraine to provide that on one of his interval would be opponents. That is something qualitatively different dirt. The way they are going about this is qualitatively different, essentially running around rather than through Foreign Policy professionals, so the ambassador to ukraine gets sidelined. Instead we have the former mayor of new york, mr giuliani, essentially running what would normally be called a rogue operation, except clearly it is an operation, except clearly it is an operation that has been co ordinated with the president. So both what they are doing and how they are doing it is anything but traditional, and the question is is it illegal . And thats ultimately going to be a political and legal question, initially for the house of representatives, and then for the senate to weigh in on. But i guess what i want to get into with you is the impact of what appears to be deep dysfunctionality at the heart of the Decision Making process. Because what we have seen in recent daysis because what we have seen in recent days is two former ambassadors to ukraine, alsoa days is two former ambassadors to ukraine, also a seniorfigure in the National Security council, the point man on ukraine policy, all of them testifying, albeit behind closed doors, but we have a rough idea of what they probably said, all of them testifying about their deep misgivings about what trump was doing with ukraine policy. So for you, as a Foreign Policy expert, how corrosive is all of this going to be to the president and his teams relationship with the officials that actually do the hard graft in terms of National Security and Foreign Policy . Well, its beyond corrosive, and its going to make it hard to recruit, much less retain, talented people. The president already had a terrible relationship with the intelligence community, so i think its bad on that side. It poisons, also, relations between the executive branch in congress. But theres one other set of relationships that worries me, is between the United States and other governments. And i think all this does is raises fundamental questions about how reliable we are, about whether we can you can believe what you hear from american officials. So this is. Foreign is tough enough, stephen, in my experience, without trying to conduct it this way, where people dont know who to take variously and who to believe. We have got to be reliable, we have got to be dependable. People have to think that when we say things, they are to be believed, they are honest, they are backed by facts. And what this president is doing is raising fundamental doubts about whether the United States should be taken seriously. Lets just flip this round for a moment. And i dont want to keep harping on about it, but it seems to me that, you know, you, with your long experience inside government and Foreign Policymaking, are probably typical of many who donald trump would see as, in his phrase, never trumpers, people donald trump would see as, in his phrase, nevertrumpers, people who are prepared tojoin and want phrase, nevertrumpers, people who are prepared to join and want to join this what he calls a lynch mob thatis join this what he calls a lynch mob that is trying to destroy his presidency. And when you have, for example, 90 former diplomats signing a joint letter praising the whistleblower who kicked off this whole investigation, it does feel like theres a bit of a pylon here, that there is a mindset in government, parts of government, particularly state department, and may be intelligence, which is profoundly anti trump pile on. Well, it is. And the reason is that donald trump represents a radical departure from the post world war ii mac, post cold war american policy mainstream. And if you that what we have done over the last 70 or so yea rs was have done over the last 70 or so years was essentially right, it is not surprising that, now that someones come along who thinks that its all essentially wrong, that theres going to be a lot of pushback. Now, i havent signed those letters, and when on occasion i agree with what president does, i will say so. For example, i think you get some points, and this is widely shared, for raising questions about the policy towards china. We had hoped china would get integrated into the international system, according to rules and norms that we had promoted. Clearly it hadnt worked out that way, and the fact that this president has called china on it, a lot of people are saying, 0k, it was about time to do that. Good on you. So i think people are prepared to support him when they think he is right. That on balance, i dont argue your point. Most of the Foreign Policy establishment thinks he is wrong most of the time, andi thinks he is wrong mos