So im not going to say much. I would like to say, however, that, while journalists are supposed to be the ones with the nose for news, that i must congratulate the council and senator for superb timing for this discussion and look at American Foreign and defense policy. It is, of course, the 13th anniversary of the terrible events of september 11, 2001. Its a week since the senator returned from a trip to iraq and ukraine. And its just hours since president obama spoke to the nation on the challenges now confronting us. So senator levin, you have the floor, sir. Thank you. Michael, thanks, first of all for all your good work, for your introduction. Its great to be back at the council on foreign relations. Again i think this is three years in a row, perhaps, came up on the elevator, i was reminded that we are also here as michael mentioned on the anniversary of the horrific events of september 11, 2001. So this is a very appropriate time to talk about these issues. I just returned from a trip to ukraine, iraq, and jordan. Thats the type of trip, by the way, that does not make it into the Washington Post series on congressional junkets to choice travel destinations. [laughter] Current Events in these countries are a direct consequence of two of the most dramatic transformations in International Environment that i have seen in my 36 years in the senate. First, the end of the cold war, and second the rise of a virulent strain of islamic extremism. Russias actions in ukraine are a direct challenge to the post cold war hopes for europe. In effect, putin has assert add new sphere of influence, or reasserted an old one, in which he believes he can act with impunity to impose russias will, much as the soviet union did in Eastern Europe during the cold war. In many ways, putins actions in ukraine have been a wakeup call to which the western democracies are beginning to respond in a way in which we did not do in the case of Russian Occupation of territory in georgia and moldova. In light of ukraines proximity to russia, russias overwhelming military advantages in the area and putins apparent willingness to violate the norms of international conduct, theres little that ukraine would be able to do to stop a direct large scale Russian Military action should russia choose to invade openly. Nato will not go to war with russia over ukraine. Nor should we lead the ukrainians to believe that we will. As we tragically did with the hungarians in 1956. So what should the United States and our allies do in ukraine . First, we should continue to find ways to make it clear to the russians that they cannot reject the post cold war order in europe while continuing to participate in the european economy at the same time. Thats why sanctions are important and must stay in place even if a ceasefire is effective until russia conforms its actions to the norms of international behavior. Second, we should do more to help ukrainians defend themselves. Ukrainians emphasized to me on my visit that they are willing to fight for themselves. And as long as they understand that we will not be sending our own men and women to fight for them, i believe we should provide them with the military equipment that they need. That means both lethal and nonlethal equipment, including m wraps and other equipment that would otherwise be shredded or abandoned as we leave afghanistan. We should do this because assisting people who are willing to fight to defend their own country and their own freedom reflects our values. Providing such equipment would enable the ukrainians to raise the price the russians have to pay for their aggression, and hopefully make putin think twice about continuing or furthering aggression. Russias violation of International Law in ukraine has already drawn nato closer together. Reinvigorating the alliance by providing a new challenge and a strong common interest. Putin could, as he boasted, occupy eastern ukraine. But in the long run he would be acting against russias own interest because he cannot prevail against a united europe. My iraq visit focused on isis and the eminent threat it poses to iraq, the region, and international community. Our military leaders and Intelligence Experts have uniformly told us that air strikes alone will not be sufficient to defeat isis. Isiss rapid spread has been possible in large part because it exploited sunni discontent with the maliki government which insisted on ruling iraq on a narrow sectarian basis. If the new Prime Minister shows that iraq will now be governed inclusively, isis will find fewer sunni leaders willing either to aid and abet their terror, or to look the other way. President obama has been cautious about resorting to military force in iraq and elsewhere. In the middle east, the use of military force by western nations without arab support can be counterproductive. Providing fuel for the hateful propaganda used by extremists who attacked a western presence as occupation. For instance, neither isis nor its predecessor, al qaeda and in iraq, existed before the u. S. Invasion in 2003. Instead, al qaeda in iraq was created in response to the american presence in that country and fed off the resulting conflict. So what should the United States do about isis . The president laid out a forceful strategy last night. It deserves bipartisan support. First, just as isis poses a threat to the international security, the response needs to be international. President obama has begun building an International Coalition to respond to isis. U. N. Resolution endorsing the use of force against isis while not necessary would help rally international support. The participation of key arab states in the region will be critical to the effectiveness of any International Coalition. If western countries act in iraq and syria without visible participation and leadership by arab nations, it will play into the propaganda pitch of extreme elements within the Sunni Community that they, isis, is the only force willing to stand up against foreign domination. Active participation by arab states is key because the fight against isis is a struggle for the hearts and minds of sunni muslims as well as a military struggle. The vast majority of muslims oppose the brutality of isis, whose horrific actions may be a turning point in persuading mainstream islam of the need to expunge this poisonous offshoot. If mainstream muslims fail to conflict could be successfully portrayed as one of the west against islam, the poison is likely to reappear in new and different forms as it has in the past. Second, within the context of a Broad International alliance, i believe that congress will support air strikes against isis, taking on the groups leadership and infrastructure in both iraq and syria. The president s hand will be strengthened by congressional support, and he was wise to welcome it last night. But he already has the authority he needs under both domestic and International Law to conduct such a campaign. Under domestic law the president has authority to act under article 2 of the constitution when necessary to defend the United States. The beheading of two american journalists, coupled with isis threats against the United States and its training of americans, provides sufficient basis for such action. Under International Law, the president has authority to act in iraq in accordance with the request of the government of iraq. He has authority to act in syria because the Syrian Government has proven unwilling or unable to address the isis threat from its ungoverned territories. Third, we should train, equip, and assist those iraqis and syrians who are willing to fight isis. Their boots are on the ground already. And their own countrys future is at stake. This effort should start with the kurds, while limited in their military capabilities, the kurdish have proven willing to fight in their own defense and even to take the fight to isis in key strategic areas near kurdistan. Moreover, kurds have provided some defense for nearby areas occupied by religious minorities and have taken in refugees fleeing from isis assaults, providing a haven of religious tolerance that has too often been absent in that part of the world. We should do all that we can to ensure that the peshmerga has the equipment that they need and to help train them in the tactics that will succeed against isis. Training and equipping the peshmerga will not be sufficient to counter the isis threat outside the areas under kurdish control. We should provide training and assistance to the iraq armed forces as the new Iraqi Government hopefully demonstrates that it is prepared to govern in an inclusive manner. If anything, should bring the iraqis together in a common cause, the threat posed by the barbaric tactics of isis should do it. As baghdad addresses the grievances of iraqs sunni communities, western nations should increase the level of military assistance provided. Finally, we and our allies should take additional steps to openly train and assist vetted moderate opposition in syria as the president is requesting and has requested. Even if isis is pushed out of iraq, the organization will survive unless it is also defeated in syria. In syria, as in iraq, isis can be set back by airpower, but cannot be defeated without an opposing force to take the fight to it on the ground. That force needs to be a well vetted, moderate, Syrian Opposition force that is trained, equipped, and supported by the United States and its allies, again including partners among the arab states. In iraq and syria and ukraine, the fight is for their people to win. We can and should provide robust assistance to those who are prepared to fight for themselves against terror and aggression. It is the right thing to do. It reflects our values. And it is in our national interest. U. S. Military force is not always the answer. But it can be and often is an essential part of the answer to terror and aggression. Equally important is an effective political and Economic Strategy which in the case of isis must include both a broad International Coalition with active participation by arab nations, and the establishment of a moderate, inclusive alternative in both iraq and syria. Michael . Thanks very much. Well get started by asking what roles do you see actually being played by saudi arabia, turkey, jordan, arab allies, if theres to be a coalition, and if arab muslim participation is crucial to some ultimate success. Is a public role possible for them . And if so what might that be for those countries . The public role is not only possible, its essential. If we are going to turn the momentum against the extremists and the terrorists and the fanatics and violence users inside of that strand of islam, its got to be led by mainstream islamists. Theres no alternative. I believe it is possible now for two reasons. One is because of isis and who they threaten. That is very clear that they threaten those same countries. Existence of the governments in those countries. The second reason is that what the president is doing and asking for us to openly Fund Training and equipment under , title 10, is asking for 500 million for training and equipping, and asking for specific support and authority to train and equip. He already has the authority, by the way. The reason for asking for that ultimate authority under title 10, which means the Defense Department personnel and not other personnel, doing it covertly, is to show the arab world that we are openly doing something, which we have only done covertly, which i believe they will which will help them to do the same thing. A number of those countries have provided support in the effort for instance, against assad, but , they have not done it openly. But for this effort against isis to work militarily in the short term, but in terms of elliptically, to turn this strand of islam into a minority that has no political power, theres got to be open support of this effort. Its got to be part of an open coalition which will show the muslim world and the sunni world, which is part of it, that this is an effort which reflects the mainstream values of islam. It is for them to purge this poison that the strand has produced. Why havent Muslim Leaders in this country, especially and elsewhere, spoken out more publicly against isis . I think they have spoken out publicly. I dont know its been covered adequately. I think in other countries they have not. A number of imams in other countries, as a matter ever fact, aided and abetted the extremists, put it that way. They could either flow from an ideological agreement or monetary support. Theres all kinds of motivation that can be there. It needs to be done more because, again, this poisons got to be purged by islam. Its totally antiislam. I will always i wont go into that anecdote, takes too long, but a conversation i had with sadat reinforced my belief that totallyam islam is inconsistent with what the fanatics are doing. To get back to those three countries. Do you believe that their role in the coalition thats saudi arabia, turkey, jordan for example will be visible to the American Public and visible to everybody in terms of actual contribution to a coalition . The hope is that it will be. Thats what the effort is of secretary kerry and the president right now is that it be open. It needs to be for it to be for this effort to be successful long term. Its obvious that isis is a threat to them. And i think now that they can do it openly without fear of retaliation in their own countries by a minority that will take to the streets. I noticed the president actually didnt call the ouster of assad again, how do you weaken and attack isis without strengthening assad . Because you go after both of the problems by various ways. Inside of syria, but mainly by training and equipping the forces that oppose those two alternatives, which are now in iraq, holding open a third alternative. The two alternatives syria, i misspoke. The two alternatives now in syria are either assad or isis. Moderates have been weakened. So you got two alternatives. The goal of the president is to have a third alternative that is offered in iraq. And it may be complicated to have both of these efforts going on in the same country, but for the most part they will be focused in different parts of the country. Most of the reporting has suggested that people are cautious about this whole approach of find it hard to imagine it working or at least recommendations that there had to be some kind of larger American Military on the ground presence, not a lot of troops, but certainly a larger or some force of special forces or Something Like that in order to give this a greater chance of success, this overall strategy. Is that suggest would agree something you would agree with . Not combat forces on the ground, no. Number one, it is not necessary. Number two, it works against us politically. It doesnt delay the responsibility where it must fall, which is on the people in iraq. And syria, to achieve these goals by themselves. A unified iraq, less sectarian than under maliki. And a syria which purges itself hopefully of both assad and of isis. The facts on the ground about the iraqi army after all these years are not encouraging. And is there any reason to believe that that armys going to perform better . The hope is that a new government, which is not sectarian, the way maliki was, will have the support of an army unlike the previous army, which was not willing to support a sectarian government in baghdad. Senator, do you believe that theres that the president is actually being drawn into another conflict or is intentionally being drawn into this conflict by isis and related groups . Its something that sort of they want for their strategy . They might want it, but they wont want it after what they are going to face. Its hard to psychoanalyze people whose mentality is on a different planet from my perspective. They may want it. They may want death. A lot of people who say that these folks want death. They want to be killed. They want to get to heaven faster. If thats their wish, we should try to help them achieve it. Achieve it. Speaking of psychoanalysis, could you give us could you give us your overall sense of the president s ability i dont mean his personal ability, but his ability to pull all this together, to pull together a congress, coalition, public . Hes taken a terrible beating among the chattering classes and the pontificators in the last several months. His poll ratings may have dropped. They may have gone up somewhat after these beheadings that have galvanized people. But he would appear to be at a stage where his Foreign Policy presence has been weakened. Yet hes got this huge challenge. How among congress and your sense, how well is he able to pull this together at this time of his presidency . Hes able to do it. I predict hell succeed in doing this for a number of reasons. Number one, the American People want to respond to this threat. Its clear from the nature of the threat. Its clear from those the beheading events that the American People want a strong response. They will support the strong response which we saw yesterday from the president. Secondly, the World Community is going to galvanize here. Thats essential. This president really has had a number of kind of strains in his thinking, which i think the American People support. Number one is, force is a last resort. Secondly, they want i think they agree with this president in saying that we cannot achieve for others what they are unwilling to achieve for themselves. The people of iraq and syria have got to basically make the decision and fight for their own countries and their own freedoms. We can