In comingect that days, the russians will begin to suffer casualties in syria. Charlie joining me is philip officer of am pleased to have him back on this program. Let me read from something you have said on september 25, 2015. Haveico said for years i advised president obama on syria. It is now clearer than ever that a new strategy is needed. What is the new strategy . Philip what has become clear in the past several weeks is that the stated objective of u. S. Policy in western policy and our allies in the gulf, which is to bring about a political transition by supporting the opposition, is not working and unlikely to work. By that i mean it has failed. We have to say that. Train androgram to equip the opposition, to make it Strong Enough to either get rid of the regime or pressure the regime to make meaningful changes. We hoped and expected that the russians and iranians who were mainly backing the regime would ultimately see the light and realize they had to come to the table and negotiate seriously, and those things have not happened. With this russian deployment, one needs to conclude they are not likely to happen soon. When youre in a situation like that, you have to ask yourself, do i double down on the strategy that is not working . That view, in this case, would mean just perpetuating the conflict we have seen tragically for so many years. Or do you ask yourself if there is another objective that is more realistic and that could help bring the war to an end . Charlie what would be your answer to that question . Philip my answer would be that we need to rethink the political objective. Its not to say we dont need a transition in syria and that we dont need to see assad go. There might be steps we can achieve along the way. Thats what we disagree with the russians and the iranians on. Onlong as we are focused bringing that about as step one, or even a commitment to seeing it happen in a near timetable, its not going to happen. That means fueling an opposition that is increasingly dominated by extremists and seeing the work along with all the tragic consequences you see. I think the question now is, especially after the rush and appointment, this is not going to be pleasant for russia. I agree with secretary carter, its clear what they are doing. They have bought some responsibility in syria that may not be cheap or easy for them. I would say to the russians, we are going to disagree on the sad question, but you need to see a political transition as much as we do. Can we not Start Talking with all the key actors at the table thet steps toward installation that would include regional safety . Regional and local ceasefires, as weve seen a couple of minor cases, and you could Start Building on that. The beginning of dialogue and political reform that would enable some change in the governmental structures, moving ultimately toward political transition that gets rid of assad and deescalate the conflict and have meaningful, positive steps for the Syrian People in the meantime, rather insisting on a goal that frankly we are not in a position to achieve and will not be for some time to come. Charlie how far are the russians prepared to go . Will they do everything they can to defeat all enemies of assad . Philip they are going pretty far already. This is a significant military deployment. They are undertaking a serious military operation. They are doing that because they really are committed, they feel they have strategic reasons for backing this regime. I think its something we have failed to fully appreciate. Even those earlier on calling for more escalation on our part, i think they failed to understand that more escalation on our part would lead to more escalation on their part. Why is that . Vladimir putin has made it clear for years that he hates the concept of regime change anywhere. It when itly hates is backed by the west. Thats what he sees happening in syria. Georgia,it in ukraine, central asia, in libya, where has he would argue it led to nato intervening and having civil war and chaos. He does not want any hint of that in russia. Tois absolutely committed preventing this pattern whereby people rise up against a dictator, we come in, there is a war, and then there is chaos. , russia is,fraid that if somehow we got rid of a the islamist that threaten russia would be empowered by that. There he has a more legitimate point. He is right that if the ousting sad comes in the form of violent overthrow led by extremists, then it will not lead to the stable syria we are trying to accomplish. In all the dealings we had with therussians, i did this for u. S. Government earlier from the state department and from the white house. All along, it was clear that until we could answer the question of what followed assad, they would be determined to back assad. Scioscia and your question, theyre willing to go pretty far to avoid what they fear would be regime change and more violence stepping on the United States. They clearly want to be a player in the region and that is clear from what he says and does. Is it possible that it seems less likely today that the United States and russia and other parties could agree on some kind of interim government to replace assad . Could the russians find someone that would be acceptable to them that would recognize what their investment was, and at the same time, be acceptable to the United States and those syrians that the United States supports . Impossible. Not i dont want to overstate the prospects of an agreement on that. That is precisely what we should be talking to them about. Saying fine, if you come into is a reality,at but its not going to be easy for you to continue to take the military risks, fight a war, they have experience in afghanistan. They know what it is like to back an unpopular government. They will be looking for a way out, too. So it is worth having that conversation with the russians. It would start with, why dont you agree to get rid of assad . Weve never been able to answer the question of what comes next, but if we could find some way of fulfilling that goal, now that they have protected their interests, the regime itself is not going to collapse because they are there. Their naval bases protected. They have less to lose by getting rid of assad. If we could find some way to agree that assad and his cronies go out and we agree on some interim government and security forces, that would be the best outcome. If they are unwilling to budge it wouldsad question, still be in our interest while working toward that ultimate goal of getting rid of assad so you could have a genuine transition. Its exactly what we should be working for. To agree withd you that is not so much a commitment to assad, as a commitment to a central authority. That is in Vladimir Putins dna. Philip they have always said, we dont care about assad personally. I think that is actually true. Sometimes that is misinterpreted to mean the russians are going to help us with the transition. While they are not committed to assad the person, they know he is part of the problem, but they are committed to the regime and its institutions and avoiding violent regime change driven by extremists. So there is some space in there to agree on a political outcome that needs to be explored. Why have they not attacked isis with Larger Forces . Theyp i think primarily are focused on the wolf at the door. They felt like these other groups were starting to threaten some regime strongholds. Isis is further to the east and areactually fighting directly targeting the regime as much as these other groups. They are not comparable with isis, they would like to eliminate them, but their urgent and immediate priority is preventing regime collapse so they are hitting the groups that are targeting the regime. Where do you think this president s head is and why has he been so resistant to doing more . Crisis,throughout the he consistently and appropriately asks the question of what comes next . We havevery much a tendency in this country to avoid the mistakes of the Previous Administration. Everyone grapples with these problems in a different way. The Previous Administration looked at a legitimate problem, to stop hussein and all the problems he was creating just through his very existence. To deal withhe way problems like that is to be decisive, use American Military power, be confident, and solve the problem. That approach to solving that problem, no one can say it was respect theid not it had unintended consequences like empowering iran in iraq, which in a way is part of the problem we are seeing today. By getting rid of saddam and letting iran become the main you made the, sunnis in iraq feel like they were slighted, and the government that came to power essentially drove them into the arms of isis. Charlie let me get your impression on a couple of quotes. To convey to moscow the demand that it cease and military actions that directly affect american assets. Philip i am all far to messages to moscow and making clear that we have interest and if they persist with what theyre doing, there will be consequences to moscow. You have to be careful with that sort of redline. If by that you mean its the question of are your objectives realistic . The maximal version that you just read is telling the russians they cannot defend the regime. We will stop them. That means shooting russian planes out of the sky, but you cannot just do that. It means taking out their naval assets at the same time and essentially killing russians and going to war. That is something the United States could do. There is no doubt if it came to a confrontation like that, our military would win it, but it would be a very significant withary conflict casualties and implications elsewhere. The russians would not just take that lightly and say, you called our bluff, we have been defeated, we will go home. They would presumably respond in disproportionate way. Even if we succeeded, russia did not back down and we use even if we took out their assets after a significant conflict, the iranians and the regime would not just go away. They would presumably respond in ways that we might not be able to predict. Militias in iraq respond by going after our troops there. Then you have a need to bigger problem on your hand in iraq. Slope. Slippery you have to be really careful. You can establish your credibility but you better be prepared to go pretty far in terms of the cost you are willing to bear. And lets say it succeeded and we knocked out the russians and becameime and then isis they succeeded in taking the threat in damascus. Then all the minorities and others backing the regime would have to get out of dodge. Then another million refugees then theying isis and have another battle for who will be in charge as well as the other elements of the hundreds of different opposition groups until you have a total free for all for who is in charge of syria. Have succeeded, so to speak i would not use that word in what i am describing, in staring down the russians and maybe getting rid of assad, but we would be facing a situation on the ground that would not only be more horrible for the poor people of syria but more horrible for our credibility. People would say what now, powerful america . And there would not be a clear answer to that question. So we can confront the russians and get something out of them, but if youre going to say they have to cease and desist and basically leave, you better be prepared to do everything i just talked about. This is from josh earnest, the president s press secretary. He says syria is not going to turn into a proxy war between russia and the united dates. That certainly would not be consistent with our interests. But is there a risk here is some kind of proxy war developing between on the one hand, russia and the United States . On the other hand, saudi arabia and the arab states and iran . And on the other hand, some overlapping between shia and sunni. All of that could somehow explode into a wider war and sucking in too many people. Harley, there is a proxy war already and there has been for years, and that is the problem. The sunni states of the region and turkey and we and the europeans have been on one side, providing support to certain elements in syria who are at war with the regime that is backed by russia and iran and has the law hezbollah. There determined to apply their proxies in a battle for the future of the country. Escalated. War has as always in these things, the outside sponsors are determined, getting back to the credibility point, to win and to show they will not be deterred by the others. They fuel it by escalating. It turns out the other side escalates as well. There is a good piece by my former colleague jeremy shapiro. The problem is that as long as each side is determined to fuel the proxy war until it wins, it just gets worse and worse, and thats precisely what weve been seeing. Thats why the only way out is for the outside powers to all ife to the table and see there is a political solution they can agree on that would be messy and ugly and unfortunate, and not achieve either sides goals, but would be far better for everybodys interest than what we are seeing. That is how these things ultimately have to end. I mentioned the way bosnia ended. Bosnia was four years of approval, terrible civil war, with outside actors fueling genocidal nationals. Ultimately we ended up having to deal with the russians, deal with the extreme nationalists. It was built on ethnic cleansing, which we said we would never accept. Ultimately, to end that war had to recognize that part of the country would be run by the bosnian serbs. Unsatisfying and it was not what we ideally would have liked to see, which is a unified country where everyone is living together. Proxy war,our years that was the best we could do, and it was also the moral thing to do. It ended a war, and if we could have an outcome in syria that may syria look like bosnia today, i think we would all be thrilled. Its not just us and the ruffians not just us and the russians. They need to understand that they are buying many more years or decades of increased sectarianism which is ripping apart every other country in the region along sectarian lines. A proxy war,sk of we are in a proxy war and we have to find a way out of it. Charlie thank you so much, a pleasure to have you here. We will be right back. Stay with us. Here. E dr. Ben carson is earlier this year he announced his candidacy for the republican nomination for president of the United States. He has since surged to second place, trailing only donald trump. He continues to rise in the gop primaries. He has written over a half dozen bestselling books. His latest is called a more perfect union, what we do people can do to reclaim our constitutional liberties. What i would like to do in the time we have together is find out who you are. And what you are about. Because there are interesting things, and it seems to me that perhaps you have changed some in your views and i would like to understand your basic philosophy , if that is true. Let me just begin with the about how youl me define yourself. What matters to you in terms of ideals . First of all, i feel extraordinarily fortunate to have been born in the United States of america, and to have had a mother who had an even rougher life than i did, but refused to be a victim, and wouldnt let me be a victim. And maybe read when i didnt want to read. As i began to read about things, about people and great accomplishments, a metamorphosis occurred. Charlie and you were how old . When i was 10. For instance, i used to hate poverty. I thought i was born into the wrong family. But as a read about people of accomplishment, it didnt bother me as much. Thatse i began to realize i had control over that. That i could make decisions and put Energy Behind them and i could pretty much control my own life. Something that was constantly reinforced by my mother. Became a little bit of an outsider in the sense that i was not listening to a lot of people who were saying you cannot do this, nobody can do that. Charlie because you were poor, or because you were black . Ben both. I refuse to listen to it. I was ostracized, called names, uncle tom, trying to be white, all these things. But it didnt bother me. , lets seel people what im doing in 20 years and lets see what you are doing in 20 years. I guess ultimately they believed me. They voted me most likely to succeed. When i came back for a 25th high school reunion, i was shocked to see that the cool guys were pretty much all dead. Everyone else was coming up to me and saying how proud they were, and dont i remember how they used to encourage me . Interesting how it changes over the course of time. But i did hear a lot of what you cant do. Rotc. Hen i joined i would only have five semesters. I had a goal of achieving the office of city executive officer when no one had ever done that. Everybody told me, you cant do that. Long story short, it worked. I did it. I was offered a full scholarship to west point and met general westmoreland. Path would bemy medicine. I decided that when i was eight years old. I listened to the Mission Stories and they frequently featured missionary doctors who at great personal sacrifice travel throughout the world to bring physical, mental, and spiritual healing. They seemed like the most noble people on earth. It was always medicine of some type. When i got to medical school, i started analyzing my gifts and talents. I think god gives everybody special gifts and talents. I realized i had a lot of handeye coordination. The ability to think in three dimensions. Great characteristics for a neurosurgeon. So i started moving in that direction. A lot of people said that was a strange thing to go into because there had only been eight lakh neurosurgeons in the world at that time. A naturalto me like fit, and it was. I took to it like a duck to water. Charlie and became everything you wanted to be as a neurosurgeon . Ben i like to get a big return on my investment, and it worked out extremely well. I heard the same thing in medicine. You cant do this. No one has ever been able to do that before. But by that time i had already developed the mindset. It wasnt so much about showing belief and perhaps something higher than them. Charlie god . Ben absolutely. I grew up believing, but when i was 14 years old was when i had my real damascus road experience. I tried to stab another youngster. He had a belt buckle under his clothing and i struck it with such force that it broke it. I started contemplating my life, realizing i would not be successful, i locked myself in the bathroom and prayed. There was a bible there. I picked it up and open it to the book of proverbs. There were all