I also expect that in coming days, the russians will begin to suffer casualties in syria. Charlie joining me is philip gordon, senior officer of the council of foreign relations. I am pleased to have him back on this program. Let me read from something you have said on september 25, 2015. Politico said for years i have 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 and 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. We had a program to train and 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 . In my view, in this case, that 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. As long as we are focused on 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 aside assad 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 about steps toward the 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 than just 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. Again, 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. He especially hates it when it is backed by the west. Thats what he sees happening in syria. He hated it in ukraine, georgia, 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. He is absolutely committed to preventing this pattern whereby people rise up against a dictator, we come in, there is a war, and then there is chaos. He is also afraid, russia is, that if somehow we got rid of a ssad, the islamist that threaten russia would be empowered by that. There he has a more legitimate point. He is right that if the ousting of assad 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 the russians, i did this for the 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 in syria, and stepping on the United States. Charlie 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 . Philip its not impossible. 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 that assad, that is a reality, 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 on the assad question, it would 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. Charlie i tend to agree with you could have a genuine transition. 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. Charlie why have they not attacked isis with Larger Forces . Philip i think primarily they 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 not actually fighting or 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. Charlie where do you think this president s head is and why has he been so resistant to doing more . Philip throughout the crisis, he consistently and appropriately asks the question of what comes next . And he was very much we have 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. And decided the way to deal with 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 passive or did not respect the lines, 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 power in iraq, 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. Russia has every right to support assad but any repetition of what happened should prompt retaliation. Philip i am all for 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 military conflict with casualties and implications elsewhere. Who knows if 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 military force, 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. Maybe iranian militias in iraq respond by going after our troops there. Then you have a need to bigger problem on your hand in iraq. Its a slippery slope. 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 the regime and then isis became the major 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 start fleeing isis and then they 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. We would 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. Charlie 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 States. 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. Philip harley, there is a proxy war already and there has been for years, and that is the problem. For years, 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. That proxy war has escalated. 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 come to the table and see if 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. We recognized 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. It was unsatisfying and it was not what we ideally would have liked to see, which is a unified country where everyone is living together. But after four years proxy war, 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. Its not a risk of a proxy war, 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. Charlie dr. Ben carson is here. 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. Im pleased to welcome dr. Ben carson back to this table. You. Arson thank charlie 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 notion of, tell me about how you define yourself. What matters to you in terms of ideals . Ben 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 made me 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 . Ben i started 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. Because i began to realize that i had control over that. That i could make decisions and put Energy Behind them and i could pretty much control my own life. That was something that was constantly reinforced by my mother. So i 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 refused to listen to it. I was ostracized, called names, uncle tom, trying to be white, all these things. But it didnt bother me. I would tell people, lets see 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. Like when i joined rotc. 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. But i decided my path would be 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 black neurosurgeons in the world at that time. It seemed to me l