The question. They can imagine scenarios that from their perspective are much worse. And certainly i think with the military success they seem to be having, theyre feeling more confident in backing their guy. My guess is that were not going to see a lot of convergence between washington and moscow last to what comes out of this geneva to conference even if they cooperate fairly successfully on the narrow piece we are going to turn all of you. Are there microphones around . Microphones about. Raise your hand when you get the microphone. Please tell us who you are. Please actually put a question marked the end of a question. It will start with this june than right here. Right here. Hi. Have a question. Youre talking about u. S. Giving incentives. Could you elaborate of what you think the incentive would be . In the other, what you think would be the new approach for political rebalance in the new year church. Obviously the criticism. End very optimistic about the rebalancing strategy well received, but at your competing organizations, 37 to commit far more correctly, said that the plan was well designed to a poorly implemented. 39 percent said poorly designed. So obviously very different from what you describe. Look to be concluded as soon as expected in especially in the congress. I think it is fair to say that in retrospect in the early years of the rebalance policy it was significantly over sold by some of the proponents that advocated. That said, the essence of it, i think, as jeff and i tried to argue in our paper makes sense. It makes sense because it is a framework Political Economic and security that the United States would wish to operate in this most dynamic region. The problems, of course, are ones, number one, of dynamics in the region that have undermined the overall context within which states interact. Many of the u. S. Problems in terms of the dysfunctional our own government process, preoccupations that among other things constrained in prevented president obama from traveling to the region not so long ago, although no he has reschedule the trip for asia. So the issue of the end of the day is whether the policy can be based on the return of zero broad principles or whether you need a sense of on going, sustain the engagement and movement to get where you want to go. I dont think that the mood is all that here. Even if you take Something Like the transpacific partnership. Probably the targets that were laid out or overly ambitious in terms of the filling of the agreement. And the other hand, i think that chinas government looks at this in a much more measured way no. The initial instinct was this is , if you will, anti china, but i dont think that is what it was intended to do. So really the longer term proof of the policy will not be a kind of a oneshot deal. As to be something more fundamental that will it be revealed in time rather than some kind of bold, dramatic gesture. Because really what is the alternative for the United States or anyone else to record a you find a framework within which states can both compete but also cooperate or you have a far this year region with all kinds of dangers and risks that i dont think anyone seriously would wish to contemplate. This puts the United States obviously in a very complicated position as it tries to move ahead, but we can see that a lot of the practical changes and challenges are much more manifest now and then it has to be demonstrated that through words, not only three speeches, but also through a capacity to really solve critical problems. On that i think the verdict is still out. The zillow a right back here. Caught theft. There is no chapter about europe in there. I was wondering. Everything is drab and boring. With the European Parliament elections, we could have for the first of the majority right wing of leftwing. The parliament which would turn the parliament and to an even more dysfunctional organization which would it stop here american ambitions to consider to initiation deals. More generally speaking, what do you think that the president s use to the bigger opportunity of engaging with europe . You was that popular. Heat is really, really very unpopular now in europe. Some short comments on that. Who was to handle the european issue. With the gritty look at the biggest question for your the sorts of issues you talk about the then the easy ones were an american presidency. I can use these levers to impact on. Even if he were to say that the 110 cluster rickrack election in an allied air partners state. I think there really was nothing that you could write that would fit in with the context of the recommendations. To the extent to make does appear in number of cases, for example, when we talk about how you deal with russia as a partner, you need to work with russia and in some cases in knowledge and that the success of leverage will be greatly increased if you can be of the same page with your. Bruce wanted to speak on that. That may build on that question. It struck me ifs that the biggest outflow of the snow and revelations when traveling in europe have been more economic than double back. Yakima theyre unhappy with the bush administration, the Obama Administration just as they were unhappy before for very different reasons. But it strikes me that all this discussion of segmenting the internet to watch your whether you want to buy American Products because the intelligence agencies may have builtin back doors, that could have a longerterm impact on less than whatever the diplomatic of los. Sure. I think that the snowdon affair illustrates something very important about presidencies. You dont control the world. You dont control events. In this case president obama found the first year of his second term in maybe the entire four years have been to a certain degree hijacked by a very young contract employee of booz allen decided to spill the beans on american as the nuys activities around the world. And there is not much that the president can do to pull it back. It is all out there, and morris dahlia all the time. He can try to present his point of view of who edwards though ms. Cohen that he is a thief to the that he may be a trader in may be a defector, but he is a will to push back. He will be on tv again tomorrow. It is an illustration of the fundamental points you made it the beginning about the limits of power, not just in the United States but of the american presidency in general. It may come back and look at the second Obama Administration and say that it was undermined by an event by an individual entirely out of his control which reminders of the Second Russian ministration which was in many ways destroyed by error came that the president no control over. His response to the hurricane was inept, what booktv did not comptroller cain. On the broader question, youre absolutely right. It is the perception in europe that the National Security agency is listening to every phone conversation, watching every twit, reading every text message. All of that is ridiculous. The nsa would have to have maybe two or 3 million employees to be able to read all that stuff. That would be a monumental waste of american tax dollars. That is the perception that is out there it is hard to push it back and it creates a dynamic in european politics that is now working guest this in a very serious way about things like the u. S. Eu economic trade agreement. There is the perception that hightech American Companies cooperate. Is potentially damaging to overseas countries to now say, welcome the man who we do want to deal with those. And some of them have clearly exactly. In one of we dont have the authors on the stage, all of the big steps year was can the president get out in front of this in a way that would position them both to try to menace the damage suits but also protect American Companies are working to preserve the internet that so far has been a very successful prefer American Economic interests. And one more. Could you imagine a situation in which the president comes to the conclusion hosting mr. Snowden is no longer in his deep interest of his gun lobby once and someone shows up at his door until some this plan is ready . No, i dont think so. Remember, he said is to force that is for reviews and the intelligence services. For whatever reason the russians turned snowdon back to the u. S. Or boot him out, what lessons does that send to any potential defector that the russians might help to look in the future . Will they give him back, maybe they would give me back. I think that would be a sort of measure that he would not want to take to make the right more complicated for his intelligence folks. Right back here. I have a question related to afghanistan and metastasizing. I think americans are perplexed because they see al qaeda in syria, yemen. They see the concentration in pakistan. What is our real interest in maintaining a large force in afghanistan with respect to these other policies . You touched on this a little bit before. First of all, youre talking about Something Like 10,000. Or not talking about maintaining a force afghanistan anywhere is to defeat significantly deteriorated in the chances are hard to have hardly negligible. I think theres. This will enable the return of terrorist activity in two ways. There is first of physical possibility of safe haven for terrorist groups with global reach an international ambitions. U. S. Three in the did not answer but negotiations with the taliban. To what extent is that tell a ban separable from al qaeda . Is it purely domestic reoriented or is it inevitably linked to al qaeda in ways that it cannot break the chains . My view is that it is domestically oriented. Nonetheless it owes a lot of debts. And so for it to completely sever relationships would be difficult. At the same time they clearly realize that it was booted out of afghanistan because of al qaeda. Senior leaders have said that al qaeda was the play that they brought on to their rule. It would try to play a game of providing support for al qaeda but that is now being that they would really limit all engagement. So there is the issue of physical security, but the other issue is the imagery, the psychological boost that this would give to other federalist groups. This would be the second time six when the great power was defeated. And there might not be any physical cooperation, but there might still be a sense that sufficient violence may lend cruelty and that the support groups, that does not mean we should fight every terrorist group bear river and the world. Certainly does not mean we should deploy grows everywhere, but it does mean we need to calculate very carefully were dangerously overextended. At the end the leverage will be critically about us being selective about commitments but also the delivery on commitments in the molding the threats and promises that we have made. Okay. Just to expand the question because i think some of the issues that were raised with respect to al qaeda have parallels in the broader and released. You and your question noted we see al qaeda popping out. And certainly there are affiliates president and a number of sponsoring the middle east. There are also a lot of localized violent extremists in for one reason or another may see an advantage in embracing the al qaeda brand. But whose concerns, sources of support, and targets are primarily localized. It is important that the United States, as it parses these threats continued to carefully make the distinctions and differentiation is. As i look at where the trajectory of u. S. Policy is headed in our merrilies across north africa syria, an error or and down into human cut where we dont have a clear orientation toward the broad transformation that is occurring in the arab middle east, but we have all lot of worries about specific things that we see, including violent extremism. There is danger that in responding daybyday to those urgent security imperatives, we in debris creating special to the process of the paradigm that president obama came into office wanting to dismantle the of the sort of broad scale war on terrorism that drives our policy and drives the way we are perceived in the region in terms of where restructure our relationships in the region that is undergoing tremendous change. While there are real threats commit is important for us to be able to distinguish what is local, what is transnational, is targetting the estimate was not. I would live to hear the views on that. I want to come back to the metamorphosis of al qaeda. We have seen as a result of the arab awakening in what as, on that al qaeda had a rebirth. Erotically it came exactly at the moment that the Obama Administration policy against al qaeda corporation was out al qaeda produced its greatest success. I am fully in agreement with everything that was said about the importance of keeping an american presence and ask him to afghanistan. The administration is unable to make the real case to the American People which is the reason we need to and does the american troops is to continue the drone war in pakistan. That is the vital nationalsecurity interest. We dont want to see al qaeda court in pakistan rebuild like we saw al qaeda rebuild. The drones are not the answer to the problem. There are surely have very good weapon to having your hand. My concern is that the United States gives up the weapon by having no basis for operation after 2014. We will see al qaeda in pakistan rebuild and regenerate as fast as we saw every generate. Is there an alternative out here . Lets say we did lose the main base in afghanistan. Is there an alternative either firm ship or elsewhere in the region given the extended reach that you would necessarily need to launch them . The short answer is no. The technology is not there. Does your roofie does not change. You can launch from operations of the northern part of pakistan where al qaeda operates from afghanistan to mayor ron, india. U. S. And from the arabian sea theyre likely to be as unsuccessful as desert one was. The irony here is it is a covert operation. Its a covert operation that everyone talked about that you can go websites and see every attack played out. But because its a covert operations, the administration has its hands tied that it will lead to run a public and say the real reason we wanted thousand guys is to work al qaeda in pakistan. Okay. Right here. Up front. Charlie devonshire from brookings. Since we have our middle east and asian experts here, id like to ask the following question which relates to our geopolitical posture in the gulf and elsewhere. To you feel that the states and the oilproducing states to as the middle east specialists to have dealt with what is implied by the fact that increasingly the a wall of and demand for oil and gas in the gulf is going to be in danger in not europe and then they began to think about how that is going to choose their strategic posture with the asian nations that will be the bulk of the revenues . Likewise, for those of you are asian experts to do you think that south korea, for example, japan a concern that come in yet, others have come to terms that as they become more and more import dependent that they have to assume a strategic posture to protect the sea lanes in their access and that they cannot count on americans to do it. And i went, this is why i did not necessarily agree with that kind of a continuation of american policy in the region because our Strategic Interests will lie elsewhere. I will kick it off briefly because i just came back from the gulf. And so of had a chance to hear from folks about this directly. I guess i was a couple things. Some of this piece over the talks and so on the bridge was to febris was talking about, theres an underlying anxiety there which is about exactly the point youre making. What are u. S. And dress in our region where we are used to having the security guarantor in an error or you dont need our energy anymore. The rest of the world is free riding on the american investment. So that underlying anxiety is to and from the recognition of this brought shift in their recognition in the most honest moments that they dont actually have a mechanism for maintaining regional order themselves without an extra great power. They have never done it. They dont have the capacity themselves. We have tried in various ways to help build up that capacity, but it is nowhere near there. I think theyd knowledge also that from their perspective, the chinese are the indians are other rising powers the release to couple decades away for having the capability to take on any kind of role like that, even if theyre interested in doing so. So they feel deepseated anxiety that maybe the u. S. Is turning away then there is no alternative. Nerco my own view is that i dont think we are turning away. In many ways because of the crises in the region but also because our enduring interest were kind of bail to the ground the broader trend that you were describing is one that i think will continue to raise questions one of the concerns you hear in the region is it really is a deal then theyre free to go often become the kind of power in the region that it imagines itself to be bob. First door to the gulf state posture. Deprenyl in insecure which reflects both their capacity but also the world you there is in great from centuries of relationships with outside greater powers. And starting this sort of this course is always existing. The free rider issue has always existed. We have never been more dependent than most of our primary allies our economic partners. We have a major security commitment at a time when europe was far more dependent on bel fact was that we were. I believe that it is central to the American Vision of itself as a superpower to maintain an investment in the free and reasonable, reliable flow of energy from the major producers of Energy Around the world which will endorse a long as we maintain our commitment to being a world superpower. Terms of the question of how broad factors in, it is an important issue because the negotiations tighten all of these insecurities and fears, but ultimately there really is the outcome that will lead to the revival as either regional Strategic Power or Regional Economic power checks. The Nuclear Negotiations are wholly on likely under which the