Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On Strategic Failure

The downsize agos armed forces has put the country at risk. [inaudible conversations] good morning or afternoon. However you decide to parse this time of day. Im arthur herrmann, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and thank you for coming, audience, to this book event, and thank you audience on cspan for watching us in what i think will be an absolutely fascinating hour and a half. Discussing mark moyars new Book Strategic failure to. A book is a book that every republican president ial candidate ought to be reading, and whose staff ought to be examining, chapter by chapter to figure out how it is that we got into this terrible fix that were in right now around the world, the United States position there, and also some key ideas how to get ourselves out. Mark moyar has written a book which i think in terms to terms of timeliness for understanding what is happening around the world, couldnt have been more in tune with where the American Public is today. Poll after poll shows the American Public is deeply disquieted with the way in which the United States is viewed around the world, with our position as visavis other powers, including russia and china, and our allies, and are also worried about the increasing instability, increasing violence around the world, particularly with the rise of the radical terrorist organization isis, and a lot of people are thinking that when we elected barack obama in 2008, this is not where we were supposed to be. This is a position, by the way, which the Obama Administration has come to as well. Todays paper, online wall street journal, big front, page article why obama just doesnt seem to be getting a break. Here he was, came into office hoping to promote more stability and peace around the world, wanting to built a new relationship with iran as a partner in the middle east, wanting to deal with climb change, wantings to restore normalizees relations with cuba and also to diem fa sites the role of americas military power and military presence around the world, and emphasizing instead diplomatic and Economic Engagement with the powers great and small that encompass the globe. Yet, son of a gun, the article explains, despite obamas great hopes for this future, this bright new future around the world, instead what he has been hit with is the rise of russia, of china, as aggressive powers, in their respective regioned. The rise of isis this, disintegration of iraq, and the possible disintegration of afghanistan and what a shame it is and how frustrating it my be. Our author today may figure that this is not such coincidence. And his black are book, as youll find out, strategic failure to really deals with the root causes of the relationship between those two areas. Mark moyar, im welcoming to his session at Hudson Institute is, i think, really remarkable military historian, scholar, in that he brings both an understanding of military history and also a keen grasp of how it applies to actual policy and the actual shaping of policy. It in marks picker particular case bought in iraq and afghanistan. Mark moyar, prefer at the Marine Corps University with a chair on counterinsurgency and terrorism, also formerly from the joint special Operations University in which he was teaching, worked as a consultant to both Central Command and also to the to isap, the International Security Assistance Forces in afghanistan, author of several becomes, the most remarkable, i think, and one i recommend to everyone, a book that really rewrites the history of the vietnam war, the early part of the vietnam war, triumph for saken has hand a enorm morse impact on the way those of is interest in the role of america in relationship to the our past ventures in asia, in security, and military presence, and future our future role in asia also closely relates. So im really delighted to have a chance now to ask mark about not just his book but also how he sees it fitting into the role of the United States in the world and the ways in which we deal with this. So, mark, let me ask you. As i mentioned talking about the wall street journal article, that fence that we have that is the relationship between the Obama Administrations diminution of americas military presence, including of course, military spending, and also that the relationship to the sudden growing instability around the world, that these things arent quite a coincidence. Do you agree . I agree with that. We have some competing impulses within the Obama Administration which together have led to us this point. One thing that i think you always have to keep in mind with this administration is that from the beginning it has been focused more on domestic issues than international issues. I feel a parallel between this administration and the Johnson Administration and vietnam, which i spent a lot of time looking at. Early on in obamas president si we see him getting into afghanistan because its a popular political issue for a him, and he, like lyndon johnson, has very ambitious domestic agenda so his policies are intended to keep International Affairs off of the front page, and we see as also occurred with lyndon johnson, that over time the Foreign Policy issues keep creeping in more and more, and one of the reasons for that is that with the crisis management, keep the foreign news off of the front page, puts you in a reactive Foreign Policy, and so youre not proactively pew centurying some kind of pursue something kind of strategy which eventually over time will come back to bite you. We also have certainly within the Obama Administration impulse that says, we dont need to spend as much on the military. We can use civilian power, soft power, which is where the term smart power comes in. Use less of the hard power. Thats been a big part of this administrations policies. Also, the idea we could use drones and special operations raids as the heard hardpower instrument we use to cut down conventional forces has been central to this approach, and we have seen certainly in the case of iraq, for example, were now coming around to recognize that may not have worked so well so were now scrambling to get back into the game. And this is unfortunately a pattern we have seen repeat through u. S. History where theyre a view that if we reduce our military spending, that we can reduce the risk of future wars. After world war ii we cut defense, thinking, okay, we dont need this, and then we have the korean war five years later. So, what i think also is at work is that our adversaries are seeing that we, by cutting our defense spending, are actually reducing our deterrent capability so to some extent were inviting further aggression by cutting back as nation we cannot afford to go through the cycle, we cut our until the next war comes and then bee latedly catch up. Unfortunately that usually results in death of a lot of americans who are not sufficiently well prepared for the next war. So i think we owe it to those people within our armed forces to maintain that preparedness in addition to have something kind of deterrent power. Host lets talk about military spending and the oObama Administrations cuts, which not just the Obama Administration, but also the impact of sequestration, of imposing rather arbitrary reductions in spending year after year when obama and congress could not reach an agreement on deficit reduction. Now, of course, critics will say , whats to worry . Were still the biggest military in the worlds. Theres studies out there that show eight out of every ten dollars the world spends on military is spent by the pentagon. We still have a military that is covers the globe and has enormous global reach. We have technology such as stealth and other kinds of military advantages and capabilities that no other country can match. Why should we really be worried about reducing military spending and military presence, not just in one place or another, lets say, like iraq or whether its in europe, but why should we worry about this as an ongoing part of hour we do business and how the pentagon is going to be able to sustain our forces . Guest good question. One thing certainly is that we in recent decades have enjoyed a technological edge but we have seen that slipping partly through espionage but certainly see a risings threat from china and russia. So looking in the long term we certainly want to keep investing and with sequestration especially we hurt our roe d spending, the uncertainty in the environment has undermind a lot of the r d on defense. I also think in terms of Ground Forces there is a real concern we dont have enough so we are the worlds only global power and part of the administrations approach, their view, was that we were going to get a lot of other countries to pick up the slack for us. Unfortunately, if you look, the record is pretty poor. Nato, we tried to get them involved in afghanistan. They let us down. Natos defense spending is paltry, and even though we then them and cut our own spending they still are not actingment we cant get the middle Eastern Countries to do the kinds of things we would like. So there isnt really a viable substitute for american power. If you look at what is going on today, iran, there is a lot for us to be concerned about there. Our land forces are so relevant. Theyre relevant as a deterrent. I think to iran to some extent. If we actually have to deal with Iranian Nuclear weapons. If you look at eastern europe, the situation is very troubling now, we have now very belated hely seen the Obama Administration send token forces to eastern europe. Theres clearly now recognition we need more forces in eastern europe, and afghanistan, not clear what well do there but we need forces there. So given how small our Ground Forces are i think we do need more of them to do the sorts of things that need to be done today. Host the last really extensive ground operation the United States conducted was, of course, iraq. And one of the most significant changes that has happened during the Obama Administration has been a shift in policy and how to deal with iraq, with the role of american presence there, and the question of, what you see debated in the media, which is who is really to blame for the growing mess and instability not just in iraq but in that entire region, and with it all the role of isis. How do you assess those issues . Guest i think in iraq, certainly you can question the wisdom of going in 2003. I think now, given what we know about wmd and the intelligence problems that theres a strong case to be made that if we had it to do again we would have left Saddam Hussein in power, but that is 20 torn hindsight. When president obama comes to office in 2009, thats long past and he is faced with a situation where we have expended a great deal of american blood and treasure to pacify iraq, and this is after president obama during the 2007 surge was saying this wasnt going to work, but by 2009 he agrees that iraq has gone pretty well. We have a democracy. We have sunni, shiites, kurds living together, and we have, i think, at that point in time, iraq was on the road to potentially becoming a really groundbreaking development in the arab world. You had a democracy that was functioning. You had different groups getting largely getting along. And so whatever else you may have thought about what happened before that, we really had an opportunity in iraq at relatively low cost to see this through, and the military at the time was arguing, the situation is still fragile in iraq. We need american troops here in the long term to help preserve this. If you look at what is going on in iraq 2009, 2010, you can see pretty clearly the value of the american footprint, military footprint in iraq, because you have lingering tensions between shiites and sunnis, between arabs and kurds, and American Forces are there sometimes actually on the ground, preventing to the forces from actually coming to blows. We also have the u. S. Military presence allowing us to influence the Iraqi Government, Prime Minister maliki. He certainly had his shiite pred lex pred deck shuns early on but because we had troops theren and wadetake mace the work we were able to tell him to back off on the provocative actions youre taking. Host this was in 20092010. Guest yes in 2010 theres a disputed parliamentary election host as i recall, to remind everybody, that was about the final in which thed Obama Administration was touting the peace and stability in iraq as one it leading Foreign Policy accomplishmented. Guest thats correct. Thats absolutely right. So, you get to this election 2010 where you have a party that has the slight major over malikis party, and neither side can get a majority, and the u. S. Had certainly in its power the ability to decide who is going to be the Prime Minister, and you have a dispute within the administration, you have Vice President biden, who is the president s point man, pushing for maliki. You have people like general matties on the centcom commander saying we think maliki is not the best candidate. He seems to be moving too close to iran. He too sectarianbut biden and his camp win the day. They keep maliki and ensure he become this Prime Minister and stays on. I think you now hear the administration blaming everything on malkin its a little disingenuous because theyre responsible for keeping him in there then gets to 2011, debate of what the u. S. Future will be like. For most part biden and others think well have some presence. Most hoff the debate is over howl big of a presence after 2011 the u. S. Will have, and the Obama Administration, late in the day, bring ups claims we need parliament the Iraqi Parliament to approve our presence and we need them to give us immunity, give our troops immunity from prosecution, and this will later be used by the administration to say, well, hey, we were forced out of iraq because the iraqis put these conditions on us. This was 2013 when things are going rather well. Fastfood to 2014, once we decide we want 0 to be there we send troops back without getting the grants of approval from parliament. So that was a pretext. I think obama himself did not want to keep troops there. Partly just because he didnt think it was necessary, partly he was going around telling everyone that ive ended the war in iraq, the iraq war is over. But he wanted to be able to claim were out, and as soon as we get the last troops out at the end of 2011, maliki is unleashed. He arrests issues arrest warrant hoise own Vice President , who is the leading sunni politician, all sorts sorf other sunny sunnies and then maliki starts arresting more sunni oppositionists, kicks sunnis out of the armed forces which americans are wondering, why this iraqi army so bad . Because we let maliki pull kick out the sunni officers and to sunnis went over to isis. So, i think it was clearly avoidable host a great recruiting tool for isis. Guest that was perhaps the biggest single blunder of the presidency, which theres been quite a few. But the decision not to keep american troops in iraq. Host lets probe just a little bit at why we didnt. And why the Obama Administration was reluctant to push on a status of forces agreement. I know some people even arguing they never had any intention of having a status of forces agreement. They wanted all american troops out. Didnt it really rest on a fundamental assumption, which you see very often in certain Foreign Policy circles, and that is that a u. S. Military presence is almost always a provocative presence, that it tends to either foment confrontation, to stir up animosity, to stir up antiamerican feeling, destabilize countries and regions, when we have a robust u. S. Military presence, and that on the converse, that when you pull back American Forces, people talk about the obama retreat. American retreat. When you pull back American Military presence, keep a as the terminology goes, small footprint, maybe even an invisible footprint, then in fact you are actually doing well in terms of Foreign Policy and in terms of an American Security policy that encourages stability and discourages conflict. Is your thesis in this book really that what wear seeing unfolding is just the opposite . Guest thats right. Thats a point the own Administration Made in several key places. Iraq certainly was a pig part of you dont need to look back very far in iraq to see that argument is false. It was actually the basis of early u. S. Occupation policy in iraq under general casey from 2004 to 2006, general casey and others arguing that the biggest cause of conflict within iraq is this reaction against the american presence, and so let try to pull our troops back. Theres a conscious effort, pull american troops into bases where theyre abe away from the population on the premise on we do that the iraqis will calm down ones we by that they started attacking the Iraqi Government and the Hudson Institute<\/a>, and thank you for coming, audience, to this book event, and thank you audience on cspan for watching us in what i think will be an absolutely fascinating hour and a half. Discussing mark moyars new Book Strategic<\/a> failure to. A book is a book that every republican president ial candidate ought to be reading, and whose staff ought to be examining, chapter by chapter to figure out how it is that we got into this terrible fix that were in right now around the world, the United States<\/a> position there, and also some key ideas how to get ourselves out. Mark moyar has written a book which i think in terms to terms of timeliness for understanding what is happening around the world, couldnt have been more in tune with where the American Public<\/a> is today. Poll after poll shows the American Public<\/a> is deeply disquieted with the way in which the United States<\/a> is viewed around the world, with our position as visavis other powers, including russia and china, and our allies, and are also worried about the increasing instability, increasing violence around the world, particularly with the rise of the radical terrorist organization isis, and a lot of people are thinking that when we elected barack obama in 2008, this is not where we were supposed to be. This is a position, by the way, which the Obama Administration<\/a> has come to as well. Todays paper, online wall street journal, big front, page article why obama just doesnt seem to be getting a break. Here he was, came into office hoping to promote more stability and peace around the world, wanting to built a new relationship with iran as a partner in the middle east, wanting to deal with climb change, wantings to restore normalizees relations with cuba and also to diem fa sites the role of americas military power and military presence around the world, and emphasizing instead diplomatic and Economic Engagement<\/a> with the powers great and small that encompass the globe. Yet, son of a gun, the article explains, despite obamas great hopes for this future, this bright new future around the world, instead what he has been hit with is the rise of russia, of china, as aggressive powers, in their respective regioned. The rise of isis this, disintegration of iraq, and the possible disintegration of afghanistan and what a shame it is and how frustrating it my be. Our author today may figure that this is not such coincidence. And his black are book, as youll find out, strategic failure to really deals with the root causes of the relationship between those two areas. Mark moyar, im welcoming to his session at Hudson Institute<\/a> is, i think, really remarkable military historian, scholar, in that he brings both an understanding of military history and also a keen grasp of how it applies to actual policy and the actual shaping of policy. It in marks picker particular case bought in iraq and afghanistan. Mark moyar, prefer at the Marine Corps University<\/a> with a chair on counterinsurgency and terrorism, also formerly from the joint special Operations University<\/a> in which he was teaching, worked as a consultant to both Central Command<\/a> and also to the to isap, the International Security<\/a> Assistance Forces<\/a> in afghanistan, author of several becomes, the most remarkable, i think, and one i recommend to everyone, a book that really rewrites the history of the vietnam war, the early part of the vietnam war, triumph for saken has hand a enorm morse impact on the way those of is interest in the role of america in relationship to the our past ventures in asia, in security, and military presence, and future our future role in asia also closely relates. So im really delighted to have a chance now to ask mark about not just his book but also how he sees it fitting into the role of the United States<\/a> in the world and the ways in which we deal with this. So, mark, let me ask you. As i mentioned talking about the wall street journal article, that fence that we have that is the relationship between the Obama Administration<\/a>s diminution of americas military presence, including of course, military spending, and also that the relationship to the sudden growing instability around the world, that these things arent quite a coincidence. Do you agree . I agree with that. We have some competing impulses within the Obama Administration<\/a> which together have led to us this point. One thing that i think you always have to keep in mind with this administration is that from the beginning it has been focused more on domestic issues than international issues. I feel a parallel between this administration and the Johnson Administration<\/a> and vietnam, which i spent a lot of time looking at. Early on in obamas president si we see him getting into afghanistan because its a popular political issue for a him, and he, like lyndon johnson, has very ambitious domestic agenda so his policies are intended to keep International Affairs<\/a> off of the front page, and we see as also occurred with lyndon johnson, that over time the Foreign Policy<\/a> issues keep creeping in more and more, and one of the reasons for that is that with the crisis management, keep the foreign news off of the front page, puts you in a reactive Foreign Policy<\/a>, and so youre not proactively pew centurying some kind of pursue something kind of strategy which eventually over time will come back to bite you. We also have certainly within the Obama Administration<\/a> impulse that says, we dont need to spend as much on the military. We can use civilian power, soft power, which is where the term smart power comes in. Use less of the hard power. Thats been a big part of this administrations policies. Also, the idea we could use drones and special operations raids as the heard hardpower instrument we use to cut down conventional forces has been central to this approach, and we have seen certainly in the case of iraq, for example, were now coming around to recognize that may not have worked so well so were now scrambling to get back into the game. And this is unfortunately a pattern we have seen repeat through u. S. History where theyre a view that if we reduce our military spending, that we can reduce the risk of future wars. After world war ii we cut defense, thinking, okay, we dont need this, and then we have the korean war five years later. So, what i think also is at work is that our adversaries are seeing that we, by cutting our defense spending, are actually reducing our deterrent capability so to some extent were inviting further aggression by cutting back as nation we cannot afford to go through the cycle, we cut our until the next war comes and then bee latedly catch up. Unfortunately that usually results in death of a lot of americans who are not sufficiently well prepared for the next war. So i think we owe it to those people within our armed forces to maintain that preparedness in addition to have something kind of deterrent power. Host lets talk about military spending and the oObama Administration<\/a>s cuts, which not just the Obama Administration<\/a>, but also the impact of sequestration, of imposing rather arbitrary reductions in spending year after year when obama and congress could not reach an agreement on deficit reduction. Now, of course, critics will say , whats to worry . Were still the biggest military in the worlds. Theres studies out there that show eight out of every ten dollars the world spends on military is spent by the pentagon. We still have a military that is covers the globe and has enormous global reach. We have technology such as stealth and other kinds of military advantages and capabilities that no other country can match. Why should we really be worried about reducing military spending and military presence, not just in one place or another, lets say, like iraq or whether its in europe, but why should we worry about this as an ongoing part of hour we do business and how the pentagon is going to be able to sustain our forces . Guest good question. One thing certainly is that we in recent decades have enjoyed a technological edge but we have seen that slipping partly through espionage but certainly see a risings threat from china and russia. So looking in the long term we certainly want to keep investing and with sequestration especially we hurt our roe d spending, the uncertainty in the environment has undermind a lot of the r d on defense. I also think in terms of Ground Forces<\/a> there is a real concern we dont have enough so we are the worlds only global power and part of the administrations approach, their view, was that we were going to get a lot of other countries to pick up the slack for us. Unfortunately, if you look, the record is pretty poor. Nato, we tried to get them involved in afghanistan. They let us down. Natos defense spending is paltry, and even though we then them and cut our own spending they still are not actingment we cant get the middle Eastern Countries<\/a> to do the kinds of things we would like. So there isnt really a viable substitute for american power. If you look at what is going on today, iran, there is a lot for us to be concerned about there. Our land forces are so relevant. Theyre relevant as a deterrent. I think to iran to some extent. If we actually have to deal with Iranian Nuclear<\/a> weapons. If you look at eastern europe, the situation is very troubling now, we have now very belated hely seen the Obama Administration<\/a> send token forces to eastern europe. Theres clearly now recognition we need more forces in eastern europe, and afghanistan, not clear what well do there but we need forces there. So given how small our Ground Forces<\/a> are i think we do need more of them to do the sorts of things that need to be done today. Host the last really extensive ground operation the United States<\/a> conducted was, of course, iraq. And one of the most significant changes that has happened during the Obama Administration<\/a> has been a shift in policy and how to deal with iraq, with the role of american presence there, and the question of, what you see debated in the media, which is who is really to blame for the growing mess and instability not just in iraq but in that entire region, and with it all the role of isis. How do you assess those issues . Guest i think in iraq, certainly you can question the wisdom of going in 2003. I think now, given what we know about wmd and the intelligence problems that theres a strong case to be made that if we had it to do again we would have left Saddam Hussein<\/a> in power, but that is 20 torn hindsight. When president obama comes to office in 2009, thats long past and he is faced with a situation where we have expended a great deal of american blood and treasure to pacify iraq, and this is after president obama during the 2007 surge was saying this wasnt going to work, but by 2009 he agrees that iraq has gone pretty well. We have a democracy. We have sunni, shiites, kurds living together, and we have, i think, at that point in time, iraq was on the road to potentially becoming a really groundbreaking development in the arab world. You had a democracy that was functioning. You had different groups getting largely getting along. And so whatever else you may have thought about what happened before that, we really had an opportunity in iraq at relatively low cost to see this through, and the military at the time was arguing, the situation is still fragile in iraq. We need american troops here in the long term to help preserve this. If you look at what is going on in iraq 2009, 2010, you can see pretty clearly the value of the american footprint, military footprint in iraq, because you have lingering tensions between shiites and sunnis, between arabs and kurds, and American Forces<\/a> are there sometimes actually on the ground, preventing to the forces from actually coming to blows. We also have the u. S. Military presence allowing us to influence the Iraqi Government<\/a>, Prime Minister<\/a> maliki. He certainly had his shiite pred lex pred deck shuns early on but because we had troops theren and wadetake mace the work we were able to tell him to back off on the provocative actions youre taking. Host this was in 20092010. Guest yes in 2010 theres a disputed parliamentary election host as i recall, to remind everybody, that was about the final in which thed Obama Administration<\/a> was touting the peace and stability in iraq as one it leading Foreign Policy<\/a> accomplishmented. Guest thats correct. Thats absolutely right. So, you get to this election 2010 where you have a party that has the slight major over malikis party, and neither side can get a majority, and the u. S. Had certainly in its power the ability to decide who is going to be the Prime Minister<\/a>, and you have a dispute within the administration, you have Vice President<\/a> biden, who is the president s point man, pushing for maliki. You have people like general matties on the centcom commander saying we think maliki is not the best candidate. He seems to be moving too close to iran. He too sectarianbut biden and his camp win the day. They keep maliki and ensure he become this Prime Minister<\/a> and stays on. I think you now hear the administration blaming everything on malkin its a little disingenuous because theyre responsible for keeping him in there then gets to 2011, debate of what the u. S. Future will be like. For most part biden and others think well have some presence. Most hoff the debate is over howl big of a presence after 2011 the u. S. Will have, and the Obama Administration<\/a>, late in the day, bring ups claims we need parliament the Iraqi Parliament<\/a> to approve our presence and we need them to give us immunity, give our troops immunity from prosecution, and this will later be used by the administration to say, well, hey, we were forced out of iraq because the iraqis put these conditions on us. This was 2013 when things are going rather well. Fastfood to 2014, once we decide we want 0 to be there we send troops back without getting the grants of approval from parliament. So that was a pretext. I think obama himself did not want to keep troops there. Partly just because he didnt think it was necessary, partly he was going around telling everyone that ive ended the war in iraq, the iraq war is over. But he wanted to be able to claim were out, and as soon as we get the last troops out at the end of 2011, maliki is unleashed. He arrests issues arrest warrant hoise own Vice President<\/a> , who is the leading sunni politician, all sorts sorf other sunny sunnies and then maliki starts arresting more sunni oppositionists, kicks sunnis out of the armed forces which americans are wondering, why this iraqi army so bad . Because we let maliki pull kick out the sunni officers and to sunnis went over to isis. So, i think it was clearly avoidable host a great recruiting tool for isis. Guest that was perhaps the biggest single blunder of the presidency, which theres been quite a few. But the decision not to keep american troops in iraq. Host lets probe just a little bit at why we didnt. And why the Obama Administration<\/a> was reluctant to push on a status of forces agreement. I know some people even arguing they never had any intention of having a status of forces agreement. They wanted all american troops out. Didnt it really rest on a fundamental assumption, which you see very often in certain Foreign Policy<\/a> circles, and that is that a u. S. Military presence is almost always a provocative presence, that it tends to either foment confrontation, to stir up animosity, to stir up antiamerican feeling, destabilize countries and regions, when we have a robust u. S. Military presence, and that on the converse, that when you pull back American Forces<\/a>, people talk about the obama retreat. American retreat. When you pull back American Military<\/a> presence, keep a as the terminology goes, small footprint, maybe even an invisible footprint, then in fact you are actually doing well in terms of Foreign Policy<\/a> and in terms of an American Security<\/a> policy that encourages stability and discourages conflict. Is your thesis in this book really that what wear seeing unfolding is just the opposite . Guest thats right. Thats a point the own Administration Made<\/a> in several key places. Iraq certainly was a pig part of you dont need to look back very far in iraq to see that argument is false. It was actually the basis of early u. S. Occupation policy in iraq under general casey from 2004 to 2006, general casey and others arguing that the biggest cause of conflict within iraq is this reaction against the american presence, and so let try to pull our troops back. Theres a conscious effort, pull american troops into bases where theyre abe away from the population on the premise on we do that the iraqis will calm down ones we by that they started attacking the Iraqi Government<\/a> and the Iraqi Government<\/a> kept failing. So finally general petraeus comes in 2007 and we realize that the actually the answer to these problems are americans because the iraqis cant do it. We see americans come in, and senator obama in 2007 was saying, americans we send more troops, just going to stir up the hornets nest. That turns out not be the case. So, if certainly proved false in iraq and there was a sense of, we pull out in 2011, things will be better in iraq. We then saul the rise of isis. Afghanistan, the Administration Made<\/a> the same argue. When we pull out of afghanistan, things will get better but in afghanistan, as the americans pull out, the violence levels have increased. Afghans news just fork cussing on the Afghan Government<\/a> in libya the administration said were not going to send troops into libya after we destroy their government because that will stu stir it up. So if we dont put our troops into libya there wont be an insurgencies, and of course we see libyans also each others throats, massive violence, chaos so its an unfortunate theory that there my be certain cases where, yes, the people dont like americans and that may incite violation violence but this should bei think most of he enemies are not driven by the american presence and that youre better off in some cases using americans because our allies knock do what we would like them to do. Host lets talk about afghanistan. Some of hoe most fascinating parts of your book deal with afghanistan. That is a war, an operation, with which you have been intimately familiar. Been advisor on that. Give us your assessment about both the trajectory of the obama policiesstarting from 2009, when they put together their strategy and dealing with afghanistan, to where we are now, and then maybe give us some idea about where you think things are going to go if Current Trends<\/a> continue. Guest afghanistan has a lot to do with how i came to write the book. I spent fair amount of time in afghanistan working on afghan issues, and president obama came in 2009. He prompt missing he was going to ramp up what he called the smart war in iraq he called the dumb war. Afghanistan was seen as being the war that was popular, the 9 11 attackers came from there. So he was going to get tough and this was partly to show he was tough on National Security<\/a>. So he agrees to increase troop chez thought was good idea. Most of the military applauded that. But at the same time he was doing that, he put very short time frame on their participation, against the advice of the military, and the effect of that has proved to be quite devastating. I saw and many others saw that a lot of the afghans were hedging their bets, they were not siding with the United States<\/a> in 20102011 because they were afraid we were going to sell them out, just as we had in the 1990s, and so i and a lot of others were very dissatisfied with this timeline that the president obama put on, which clearly seemed to be motivated by politics, and the more we know about, the more thats true, and obama and many of his aides admitted the decision to go in was driven by this political selfinterest rather than the merits of the situation. So thats been very troubling. I think even more trouble for me and others was how the decision was made then no 2011 that were going to pull out halfway through the counterinsurgencies campaign which general peat trace and the joint chiefs were saying we pacified southernas. Now we need to do the other hot bed which is eastern afghanistan, and the Obama Administration<\/a> decided its been kind of costly and expensive, and we dont think we really need to do that, and people like Vice President<\/a> biden are saying, well, counterinsurgency has not worked that well so well pull out halfway through. We arent going to do what the military says and were now saying that the all these people who got killed in southern afghanistan, we didnt need to do that theft with a that was presented to the public was very misleading. So a lot of that is what led me to write this book, along with the pullout in iraq in 2011. I think theres a lot of us who in the early years of afghan were war willing to do the best we could to support things, and by 2012, theres such a sense that the administration is more focused on its own political gains and not really concerned about what is going on in these countries, and we have seen as mentioned before, there were this view, at least ostensibly, if we pull out of afghanistan the afghans were going to stop fighting so much against us, that the central bland could be reconciled because they were there more because america was there, once it was just afghans they would get together. We have seen intensified violence. This year we had leading u. S. Generals say the Afghan Forces<\/a> are taking casualties at a rate that is unsustainable. And we have clearly also mismanaged relations with pakistan, who they have continued to spokeswoman support the taliban. This is another problem with the rapid pullout. The pakistanis came to view that america was not in the region for the long haul. So, they wanted to back the taliban to come back and they continued to back them, and india will fill the void there and they canned sustain that. So, do think once looked like we were not going to have troops in afghanistan. Right now we backed up a bit on that partly because we saw how bad it was in iraq. But i think we certainly if we continue to deask late there deask late afghanistan is going to fall apart and that will affect pakistan. Its not just the best policy, its the best worst policy dealing with countries and situations like that. Given your experiences in afghanistan, do you think this would have had a completely different outcome viewed in a very different point now then we are is a different strategy and different policy had been followed . Thereve been a lot of mistakes made. We struggled because we isolated between the policy of trying to turn to afghanistan one of than they are really focused interest in the early days to rebuild afghanistan we outsourced a lot of to the europeans. Police for example they let the germans handled and assigned few resources to it. It would be great if we could get the french and the germans to take the burden on us but the off us but the reality is they have not been able to do a lot of things wed like to wake up the curve in afghanistan and we were sending a lot of the resources to iraq. It was a longterm process to nation build and i think too often we neglected that its a generational project. The American People<\/a> have the patience for this. I personally think it has become a dirty word in politics you cant go on capitol hill and talk about nationbuilding without being shown the door. Part of it is the hasty approach in iraq and afghanistan and we sometimes think we can dump huge amounts of resources and its going to solve the problem in the short period and it is a longterm process. I think this really gets into the debate in the Obama Administration<\/a> about what to do in afghanistan because now you have a a vote of the figures saying we are going to nation build if we arent going to call it that we are going to view counterinsurgency and pass by this place, then you have the Vice President<\/a> and another individual saying thats too ambitious. We should just focus on the drones in the a special Operation Forces<\/a> to do that. And 2009, people like petraeus, general and the secretary of defense argued that the strategies were trying to just focus that and it isnt going to work in the context of afghanistan. So fastforward to 2011 by eight and was continuing to make these arguments and is coming up with arguments that counterinsurgency hasnt worked in afghanistan so he is able to gain new supporters for the strategy thanks to the fact that petraeus, gates and you now have political supporters moving into the senior positions in so you do get the president to finally buy off on the strategy of organizing. We are going to do is the drones into special Operation Forces<\/a> to kill any enemies that happened to be here and by the way this becomes a strategy not just for afghanistan but for the u. S. Presence at large which conveniently allowed the administration to say we dont need big Ground Forces<\/a> because we can use special operations and drones. When we talk about the hands of small footprint approach to the american conflict and power the power everywhere but particularly the war on terror this has become a hallmark of the Obama Administration<\/a>. The numbers of predator drone attacks if you chart a them on a graft from the lethal force administered by amanda unmanned vehicles and now it has become the principal language debate co. By which they deal with the terrorist threat that they dare not name. This is a reliance which the administration justifies are the grounds that it has been highly successful in crippling al qaeda with just a couple of weeks ago there was a senior al qaeda official in libya was killed by predator drone strike and the Obama Administration<\/a> is able to point to these numbers of highprofile leadership positions that had been vacated thanks to the strikes and the body count if i can use that term for the war on terror thanks to the strikes as a measure of success. But i find interesting about the book and im going to ask about that in particular that i wanted it this way, but i find this interesting about your book is that while most of us are focused on the threat from isis you remind is that its very much alive and very much part of the Terror Networks<\/a> and the growing threats we have to deal with. What is the relationship between the much touted drone strike counter to her wrist strategy and the continuing growth and continuing viability of al qaeda not to mention isis. They had successes. The problem in the administration is that they turned them into a strategy in many cases that need to be done and this is also driven by domestic politics and early on they saw this as a way to show the president talk about National Security<\/a>. I think a lot of the administration that has been heard with drones is an accurate and they touted the numbers in pakistan and it turns out that the vast majority of the people were killed in pakistan were not imported terrorists. A lot of them were enemies of the pakistani government and they wanted to get rid of the number of innocent civilians killed. And most countries dont let us use the drones. We have been able to do a lot. Yemen was a stark case of the limitations. So many of these strikes in highprofile happened in yemen and pakistan isnt because thats where they are hanging out. Its because those are the countries that have the most liberal policy about letting america conduct the strikes. Spaghetti have seen over time and both of the cases they diminish because of the fact that we were killing the wrong people because of the following for other people and it led them to interfere in the cia which is collecting the information. They have the subway bomber and fighter soul shows sisal in the same time. Its most troubling that the extremists have been able to find ways to beat the germans. Al qaeda moved into the big cities where we cant use the drones and theres too much of a risk of civilian casualties so the impact has been declined and we are starting to see value in the surveillance capabilities. Gammon has gone to pieces. The military is actually pushing president obama to use counterinsurgency as well as the strikes and the administration said no. The insurgents took over the country earlier this year and now we had out all of the special operators and the cia so we cant do much at all in terms of drone strikes but it turned out that was the signature strike based on suspicious behavior that we didnt know that was a senior al qaeda leader and we may know that we havent been able to get them so i very much worry about al qaeda and pakistan. Its been quiet recently from most indications they seem to be rebuilding and pakistan cities if we fear that would further involve al qaeda and pakistan. If the drone strategy isnt working, my last question i will be getting to these in a broad sense but for now looking at the broad strategy what is the alternative to the United States<\/a> . Certainly a lot of the good alternatives we have made some decisions where we put ourselves in a holder for yemen. A year ago we could have been talking about how we were going to build up the governments counterinsurgency capabilities. We now dont have the government to work with something to be hard to work with. We do at some point try to build up larger military forces in the case to get the countries to do that i dont them if they are doing a very good job. Pakistan, the relationship now has been in pretty sorry shape. We can to some extent eased some of the pakistani concerns about afghanistan by maintaining the u. S. Presence in a think we need to increase the presence there. The small footprint isnt with the military recommended us we need more troops for the longterm and even if we are asking to keep them there forever, we need to make it clear that we are going to keep them as long as it needs to and if its going to be 100 years, we can talk people that and convey the message. Dont we still have troops in germany and in south korea clicks debate co. . Cynic thats right. And it doesnt include the size is in the one hundreds of thousands. Its not requiring that size but it is the commitment to a specific kind of strategy. The other book that i should mention here as well in addition to the book on vietnam is a book on the history of counterinsurgency and the evolution of it. And i think that for a lot of people that has happened is the war on iraq and the surge has its success and did something to poison the well because counterinsurgency became first of all associated with state building. There is a bipartisan consensus right now that we do not want to engage in state building and it also became identified with long processes which the iraq war unfolded from its hopeful beginnings in 2003 until finally the petraeus surge paid off almost on the eve of the 20 of eight election. So, as an advocate of counterinsurgency and saying that this is an important strategy the United States<\/a> needs to and onto and to be aware how do you deal with those that are critics of counterinsurgency and say that it is either getting so involved in other countries affairs in which it is a hopeless task and a fools errand or that it takes so long they wont have the patience for it and its a strategy that in the long term is one of diminishing returns. I think it is a good point. Unfortunately theres a lot of people that think counterinsurgency in itself does not work and we reveal the work in the wall street journal called how to lose a war the right way. And thats what makes the argument that they are inherently intractable and my point is that counterinsurgency part of the problem that that yielded to it that counterinsurgency kind of believed that you have to pull out these things and counterinsurgency is going to work great and thats why weve seen the disillusionment and part of the Obama Administration<\/a> s frustration is that it wasnt as easy as some suggested. So what i believe is counterinsurgency depends heavily on the leadership into the Human Capital<\/a> and the Human Capital<\/a> that is brought to bear on both sides. So come if you have a strong pool of readers on the counterinsurgency side chances are good you will succeed and in the history we have seen quite a few that worked well. Weve seen the philippines, colombia, el salvador, success in afghanistan and iraq so we need to try to move people away from the view that counterinsurgency is either a cureall or that it depends on who is involved. Cant you say that one of the reasons the evolution of success with the strategy of iraq took so long is because after vietnam and was failed to be the strategy was sort of put on the shelf and allowed to gather dust and forgotten even in the marine corps which is of course the great generator of counterinsurgency warfare and that this is one of the problems when you dont treat it as an important tool of the box, you find yourself in situations in which you have to go back to the old toolbox and go dig it out again and try to get back to work in the last decade or so. This pic spec thats one of the problems we face right now they wont do the prolonged stay with the operations and basically there is a sense that what weve done is messy and we didnt like it so unfortunately what we have seen historically as we get surprised by these kind of wars in iraq and afghanistan if you recall how much we didnt want to do counterinsurgency in either of those places. And we are not going to do those kind of things. But we ended up being in iraq and and all the sudden things of the sudden things go south and we decide we cant afford to pull out of afghanistan. We went in and turned things over to the europeans. They couldnt handle it. They make a resurgence and we decide its in our interest to go back and do counterinsurgency. So i think its important to understand and predict when it is going to be and the idea that we can know we are not contacted any of these things again i think is dangerous and if we are not prepared the people that will pay the most are the armed forces who are opting to be prepared for that war. The Obama Administration<\/a> now has come to the advance of other powers with russia, china, iran. You cant make the argument that the strategic failure is the result of the withdrawal of the american troops from those regions how do you attribute this and how these aggressor nations are taking full opportunity but how is it related directly to the way that the Obama Administration<\/a> policies have rebounded to create a new strategic threats in other parts of the world . Certainly cutting the Defense Budget<\/a>, which was driven to the large extent by what was going on in the middle east has had a global impact. I think our enemies have been encouraged by god and perhaps our friends have become more concerned and they doubt our credibility but i think also added to that is they look at the decisions that the United States<\/a> has made in the redline backing away from the reluctance to stand up for things where we have agreed to protect them if they give up their Nuclear Weapons<\/a> but then they are under attack and we dont really do anything. It is disconcerting and weve done in the case of china we kind of provoke them by saying we are going to pivot to asia which i think that kind of stimulated the defense spending that we ended up not executing repetitive because we cut the Defense Budget<\/a> and we didnt have the resources to send their so theres been a lot of missteps and the public messaging because we have seen the secretary tried to mitigate some of the problems in his tenure but ultimately they Pay Attention<\/a> to what the white house is saying and its below 3 of gdp and its created a lot of worry and a lot of them want to end up being on the side of the power is going to be the most powerful and its not going to be in the United States<\/a>. And in the conclusion of the book you have this statement you say by the time he vacates the white house he could go down in history as a president that forfeited americas global captaincy and ushered in the global strife and instability. The next president as obama vacates into the new one moves in, lets assume that he or she wants to reverse that process. Now is your process to tell us about how you would prescribe in what advice he would be giving. Start with a specific how would you handle the situation in afghanistan to bring that victory. I would first commit the u. S. To presence beyond 2016 and we need to increase the number of troops publicly to at least 20,000. I think for iraq we need at least 20,000 troops and we are keeping the troops behind in iraq in the short term we are going to have to send people out. Theres not a quick fix in iraq because of what weve done so far so we cant just have the courage to do everything. We cant do the end of our awakening anytime soon because weve alienated the sunnis. They are taking things over and putting them into the orbit so that is going to be a longerterm process i think in the case of iraq. But broadly we need to increase defense spending at least 4 of gdp which historically is relatively low but i think the next president has to do is to reengage the public and the have done little to explain why we need to oversee the commitment. And the public support a lot of that is the fault. They came into office in 2009 saying he was going to get tough in afghanistan and felt he had to do that to show that he was serious on National Security<\/a>. And at the time people supported that and he got elected on this public supported as they did because theyve seen the president not committed in the goes after them as the more effective president s have done. They need to explain to people why do we need to see 4 of gdp on defense, why do we still need to be engaged in the wool and i think i will go a long way. The other thing with the messaging there has to be a new tone. This administration has to react to the crisis by saying first no american boots on the ground. And while certainly we do not want to send them in wherever they are needed, this administration is ready to rule out options and i think that really has encouraged other countries and they feel they are not going to be there for them. So talking about and thinking about what we are going to do should we open it up to questions that the for the audience . That would be great. When you have a microphone come around to you if you give us your name or any institutional affiliation that you care to divulge. Starting an accidental man. At George Washington<\/a> university i have a question. Would be the anniversary in kuwait and a lot of people say that the war ended badly in february, march of 1990. How did this contribute to what we are missing now . Thank you. That is a good question which could take a lot of time to go into all of the ramifications. In the short answer i would say that it might have made sense to go in at that point. But i think that at that time we would have made the mistake of estimating what it could have taken to stabilize the country. It was an argument that you could have pursued them and could have done again in 2003 which is a sickly decapitate the regime and then put the rest of the population or the leadership, you know what the military keep it as an authoritarian government. And have you done that things would have played out differently. Its hard to know all the steps that would have come into the interim. I certainly think that now, looking back in hindsight a lot of people think it would have been great if Saddam Hussein<\/a> was still there because we wouldnt have had to deal with that messy conflict and now iran has become a dominant force. I think that theres a fair amount of truth to that. Again, we could have prevented iran from gaining its dominant position had we not pulled out in 2011 because that really opened the door and thats going to be very hard for us to get away from because now you have 100,000 troops that have been trained by the arabians iranians into the small number we trained that you think in the longterm there is still the hope that we can keep this completely proiranian because that is the only way i still think you can have a unified iraq he government trying to do three separate governments dealing with the problem with the kurds now in that turkey is saying they are going to go militarily because they dont want a kurdish nation. And having the sunni state is also it may be workable but right now theres not a good way for us to engage them because we let them down repeatedly. So trying to rehabilitate them is going to be problematic. So i think again, we have to be in iraq for a long period of time unfortunately. Deck just behind you. I was wondering what your attitude is towards the democracy in the middle east has advanced in the political interest with selfinterest. Do you have any opinions on a . There is some merit to it. How we got to the position in 2009 is not probably help we would have liked to have gotten there but there was an opportunity created that it would have made sense. And i do think that in 2003, there were a lot of people who underestimated what it would take to democratize iraq. And i think there is a belief that you just introduced the institutions and you can quickly democratize the country. I think what experience has shown us that culture is a big part of democracy. You have to have a culture of tolerance going to embrace democracy. And you dont have that typically in the authoritarian states to sue it is a longterm process. I think 20 years or more often times its going to be required. I think in hindsight doesnt make sense to invade the countries and to try to impose the democracy militarily we have seen from iraq and afghanistan its a lot harder than we thought so i think that in terms of doing it militarily we have a reason to be more pessimistic. There is still debate over whether the countries can really be made into democracies. We had an opportunity to show that it was working and now tunisia is an opportunity as well and we saw the attack on friday that they are in a very fragile place and there are certainly people there that want democracy but thats another place we need to keep our eye on. Im going to say to click words. Its part and partly in disagreement with mark on those planes. One is important to realize and this goes back to the professors question that one of the factors that perhaps would have made the drive to baghdad in the first gulf war a more successful outcome would have been we wouldnt have been in the awkward position a year later having betrayed the revolt that we encouraged against saddam but poisoned relations in the majority in the country and opened up the door to a great degree to iran to cultivate it. And its also important to remember that the push for the idea that it was the Perfect Laboratory<\/a> for creating a democratic regime goes way back to the 1980s 1970s, 1980s. It was the state department fixture in the idea that iraq was the one country in which there was even under saddam survival of other societies that make cultivating much easier and could also lead to the democratic iraq in that process. And one of the factors that helped undermine them if you read the recent book on the outcome in the war in iraq one of the things that would undermine that society are the sanctions. The un sanctions that were imposed after the first gulf war but deeply impoverished iraq destabilized society as people are talking about professors wondering the streets begging for money because there was none. So to the degree that he said Saddam Hussein<\/a> in power and holding the sanctions regime did go a long way to create conditions that made the u. S. Mission pacifying the country and then establishing the new government that much more difficult. But when they go on we could hear all afternoon. Lets move onto the next question. Here weve got three in the front and then we will come over to this side. Thank you for holding this event. Yesterday two major things happened. The first one is a black monday for the stock market. Second is the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank<\/a> launch. They were still both able to launch and they signed agreements in and his Foreign Policy<\/a>. Is it hard to see they still have a japan compared to 50. And how we gain the trust from the International Society<\/a> especially the asiapacific region and the other. Also for the taiwan policy, they wanted to play a bigger role especially during the crisis they would push away although they want to be part of it. So if i remember correctly, he said that this isnt so wise for politics. So how did you think about the policy this is a very interesting question and we havent talked about china at all surveying it takes a long time right now. So you have to be selective about where you target. Lets talk about china as another example of the obama strategic failure you talk about in the book. I think the Development Bank<\/a> is very telling where most of the allies in the region ended up going along with china despite the fact that they very much encouraged them not to sign onto this bank and i think that is a reflection of declining confidence in the United States<\/a>. I think part of it is specifically with the what the u. S. Is doing in asiapacific and china appears to be pursuing a policy of gaining the control over the waters through the sword of small publications that are going to drive the United States<\/a> to the brink of the war. So scarborough for example is a warning trend in the case where the u. S. Could have taken a harder line we backed off and said when other countries see the United States<\/a> Standing Firm<\/a> against china, that causes them to change their outlook. Having covered vietnam if you look back to the 1960s some somethings arent the different than what you had been in the u. S. And china competing for the prestige and i think sometimes the United States<\/a> overestimate the value of its democracy and we think a lot of these countries wont side with us because they may be closer to us then politically with china but most are certainly very conscious of who is stronger and china and the Defense Budget<\/a> is getting bigger and building artificial islands and building more ships they are talking about the dream that they are green to become a great power where the United States<\/a> we have a declining budget and we are not talking about how we want to be this great power very much showing another person for the gold, but we are in retreat so there was a great fear of isolationism in the United States<\/a> which isnt just a problem with the administration but also the Republican Party<\/a> there is an isolationist talking and note about how the millennial generation in the United States<\/a> seems to be more inclined towards isolationism and they dont seem to understand why there is the need or believe theres the need there is the need for the u. S. Presence overseas and thats where i think the National Leadership<\/a> can be important in terms of explaining to people why we need to be concerned about whats going on in the south china sea. Because i think right now certainly america is in decline. It doesnt have to be that if we keep looking at the Defense Budget<\/a>s it is great being fewer, Smaller Naval<\/a> presence. The intent was correct in that we need more military forces to strengthen the confidence in us but mass but it hasnt actually delivered the forces because of the sequestration and how the budget cuts have done. Its is the next question to the gentle man and then you are next and the lady in the second row. The ambassador from the u. S. Naval academy. You mentioned two things in your response in the millennial generation and the fact to a large extent that i think the American Public<\/a> doesnt really understand or even discuss geopolitics especially in regards to the great power politics and so we misinterpret. But what i want to pose to you is how do we deal with the next generation of advisors because this generation as you included to their comedy have no experience in the cold war. They have no experience in that cold war took a and a lot of what youre talking about regarding counterinsurgency and so forth as a result of the failures so the American People<\/a> take a view of that. But how do we get the advisors and their staffers and the National Security<\/a> council to talk about this mostly polar threat environment that we are involved in todays blacks and i would say generation x. Has a very good understanding of the problems and dangers of getting disengaged certainly not universally true but i do think that the experience in iraq and afghanistan probably have jaded a lot of people because in both cases we could have maintained the fact that we hold that suspicion in iraq and its gone to hell as a lot of people will look at that they wont look at the intervening steps they would just look at the outcome and it was a total disaster. The millennial thinking is where we have the biggest challenge because you not only have a lot of recent troubles but there are also the general view that they dont really believe in very much in broader principles and probably you can say a lot of the same things about the baby boomer generation. So maybe it is not irreversible. Some people argue the United States<\/a> would argue the United States<\/a> is going to get over this isolationist spain and weve gone through this before. Its not going to be permanent. On the other hand if you look at europe, the great european powers, britain, france 100 years ago you probably said they would never become isolationists but to a large extent they have lost their interest on the military side. They no longer want to aspire to the great military powers, so i do think it there is a danger at some point of if we could get to the point where this change becomes permanent and that the u. S. Really is going to retreat from World Affairs<\/a> to a large extent in terms of the military intervention which is particularly concerning because there isnt a viable substitute. My question is on the topic of the u. S. Relationships in turkey and iraq its been sort of shaky what you see us interacted see us interacted in the future and do you think that will play a larger role taking back iraq or the broth at or the broad middle east. Should we be getting more because they seem to be pretty good at fighting isis and these made important gains but in a couple of the difficulties, one is not near the kurds and they would want to go into those areas. We have also seen this going in and fighting because of the fear of the kurdish separatism and i dont think that is something the United States<\/a> can ignore. So they will play and we should keep supporting them but i dont see them as the cure for the problems. Part of the problem where we were using air power but we are not going to go and just totally demolish it kill women and children so theres got to be other ways that are problematic because we dont have the couple hundred. I dont think that we have come up with a solution to that problem. I dont think much is good to get resolved for the end of the end of this presidency. Its kind of a token gesture that if you like we are doing something that we are not giving much. I got to play devils advocate before we get to your question real quick. And that is somewhat arguing with the situation in serious, iraq and this goes over to turkey in the eastern part of the kurdish area. This is a fire that you should let burn itself out. Here we are with these conflicts. Weve got isis, the cuts force from iran, kurds. But the fire burn itself out. Why does this in any way to become a major subject for discussion in the american Foreign Policy<\/a> except for the fact of course that we are supposedly responsible for that by the invasion of iraq. And why should we worry about whats happening now . Why shouldnt we just look ahead instead for when the fire is finally out and how we go about rebuilding rebuilding the society from their. I think it is a good question. A lot of americans are asking themselves that question because they havent really had the administration explained to them explain to them why we need to do this. It is telling the Obama Administration<\/a> all along we dont need the troops and i think that indicates that even they understand this is not a problem that we cant just turn our backs on. I think we got lucky and in the number of cases in terms of dodging bullets. We have certainly seen some pretty significant terrorist attacks and the attack on fighting tanisha where they killed dozens of european tourists is a pretty disturbing sign. We have the beheading of a french oil worker. Its harder for isis to get to the United States<\/a> if we dont care at all that happens to anyone outside of the country, you can make a bit of a stronger case. But lets not worry about that. You do have a lot of americans living overseas who i think we do need to be concerned about. You know, we are taking a policy to pay ransom for hostages which i think is opening up the door to more americans being kidnapped. I think we are going to see a rise on that. We also i do think that there is violence between the sunnis and shiites is creating more radicals. Certainly some of them are killing each other off but if you look at the number of extremist fighters out there it seems to be going up and up. So they seem to be producing people at a faster rate than they are getting killed off and that is what the isis control territory they are recruiting people and we are claiming that we have killed very large numbers of isis fighters but the latest indications are that the strength is as high as its been. So i think used to make fun of that strategy cutting them off faster than they can be recruited and it seems to be at the point right now with regards to isis. We are going to be seeing more lovable for tax and the number of cases where people come pretty close. We are pretty good at uncovering some of those ahead of time that you do have people like the brothers that blew up at the Boston Marathon<\/a> and there are clear occasions that people in the United States<\/a> especially disillusioned youth are deciding to join isis or other groups like that because of the success they see and the use of the social media. If we dont care that occasionally somebody comes down 30 americans were a Shopping Mall<\/a> then maybe we can sit back. I think the American People<\/a> probably are not going to stand for that. You could argue more people have been killed in car wrecks. That may be true. But when our security is threatened, the American People<\/a> are not going to sit back and be willing to just take a passive and reactive approach to all of this. Which we might have avoided if we have taken a had taken a more proactive approach in the first place. You have been very patient, so why dont you go ahead. And for the committee on accuracy reporting. I have two questions. One, you outlined how the Vice President<\/a> gave lousy advice to the president that Hillary Clinton<\/a> was secretary of state for much of this. What was her advice . My second question for the new president , assuming that we do know the outlines of the nuclear deal with iran, how would you advise the next president to undo the strategic barrier . Those are good questions. On iraq i dont think theres a lot. I caution and that in the book there is a lot of historical documentation that was still okay and some of that is going to come up 30 years from now. Hillary clintons role in iraq i think that theres still a lot of open questions. Its interesting i think susan rice said the other day when of one of the biggest accomplishments was getting us out of iraq. She was keeping some kind of u. S. Troop presence, so i would say that i would give her some credit for that. I think she didnt want to see maliki taking control having unfettered access to the country. I think if you are the country that i criticize her the most for is libya that was good to be a recent success at something emails that have come out show that this was going to be the Great Success<\/a> that she could count only went in and be opposed the regime without the troops and they used all of the diplomacy to make other things happened and that hasnt worked out. But that also the desire to keep the u. S. Troops out but have been a church in the. In terms of iran, i do think the current deal is a bad deal for the United States<\/a> and its allies. And so, i tend to agree with the advice that republicans had that you shouldnt accept this deal. I think part of it, the other thing that i would say about iran is that they are removing the forces in the region and we have removed the deterrent capability which iran certainly is attention to how many forces are in the region and having it made clear now that we dont have anything like the capability to go in there well and bold and then and say somebody bombed the site how are you going to respond to that . You are an expert on iran so if you have a comment on that. I would love a comment on that but we are going to have to close down. Our time is almost up. Lets thank the author for the far ranging and illuminating discussion. Vazquez [applause] market mark agreed to sign copies of the book, which is available here and i will take full advantage of that offer. Thank you again for coming and thank you to the cspan audience and the audience here at the conference center. Heres the platform that i had given her and i felt really give her what would win, the 70 , not the primary. They were mildly disturbed by james webb and casting the grant to switzerland that is preparing to have a accomplishments to contrast with the accomplishment free tenure in the department of state. She is in fact a dreadful candidate and","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801203.us.archive.org\/31\/items\/CSPAN2_20150908_013000_Book_Discussion_on_Strategic_Failure\/CSPAN2_20150908_013000_Book_Discussion_on_Strategic_Failure.thumbs\/CSPAN2_20150908_013000_Book_Discussion_on_Strategic_Failure_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240622T12:35:10+00:00"}