Most striking thing to me when i talk, sit in rooms in lebanon or turkey or jordan and talk to refugees, sit in Community Centers and meet, you know, ive got in my mind 35 women who are in one of our health centers, they will tell you unbelievable stories of horror and loss. And the only time they will smile is when you ask them do you ever think youll go back . And extraordinarily strikingly, their face changes s and they say, yes. And thats someone who 30 seconds before was talking about her house being bombed and her husband being lost and her son being lost. But that, none of them expect to go back anytime soon. I think thats the other side of the coin. And i dont its a very technologicallyenabled and connected population. Theyre reading the ruins in the same way that we are. They see the news reports. They know that president assad is not going to be toppled tomorrow. They can see the war lengthening. They go backwards and forwards, by the way, a point that hasnt come up very much. Theres a lot of traffic back and forth. People go back and check out whats the situation with their house or with their family, and then they come out again. Theres more of that than i would have guessed. But i think that if to one is expecting i think that no one is expecting a quick resolution. And the question of what it means to reform the state has not even started. Just in terms of the next what weve been so good at predicting the last three years that were, obviously, in an excellent position to predict the next three. I think that a couple of things that i can reflect. One is that the dangers of communicable disease, obviously, rise in the length of time that you have a crisis like this. There was an article by a Public Health researcher which explained i think she was from Umass Amherst or Something Like that, she was estimating there were 90,000 polio carriers. This was in a february article. So although only the official figure was that 15 had presented to the who, she estimated there were 90,000 carriers. That is a i dont know the right metaphor, sort of a tinderbox really. And frankly, when i looked at some of the conditions in lebanon of these tented settlements where people talked openly about the rats who are around, this is within shouting distance of towns, the Public Health risks are massive even if you can manage to get Food Supplies and other 130r9. I also support. I also think its worth pointing out to people this is a different refugee population not just because its connected. The thing about a middle class refugee population is it has savings to draw on, and over the last three years Syrian Refugees outside the country and also inside the country, theyve been drawing on those savings. Those savings run out. And so you can see the obvious dangers of humanitarian explosion. I mean, the second thing is, obviously, the dangers of a political explosion even greater than has happened. And thats, obviously, something that people follow very carefully in the neighboring countries. I mean, what is if you ask yourself whats the capacity of lebanon to hold more and more refugees, its now got a million, and its being added to by, i cant remember the figures, 750 to a day or something. And so lebanese are asking themselves the question what gives. And i think that in the billions of dollars figures that are inevitably thrown around, its important to remember the world banks estimate is the hit on the lebanese economy is 75 billion. The hit on the jordanian economy is 6 billion. So when we talk about the aid thats going in, its got to have a sense of whats the magnitude of the hit. My final point, i dont see any incentive either for the regime with the upper hand or the opposition in a struggle at the moment to make the compromises that are necessary. And that is a very, very bleak situation, and it speaks to the necessary debate that the ambassador has talked about, about whats the role of regional and global powers. Robert . Let me run through a couple, let me run through a couple of points real quick. Yes, we did think the days of the regime were numbered, absolutely true. In 2012 the regime was in retreat, lost control of turkish border, and what changed that was a big increase in hezbollah assistance. Frankly, i did not imagine hezbollah was going to send 57,000 soldiers. And then now tear all the way up to aleppo and into damascus. This is just not something we expected, and that has certainly bolstered the regime. Iraqi militia are going in in larger numbers from shia communities in iraq, and russia has increased its assistance as well. So what that has done from my point of view is it has given the regime a longer lease to hold the space between damascus up to homs and over to last kia. And i cant see circumstances in the short or medium term where the armed opposition is going to be able to change that. In the short to medium term. And what that means, what were seeing is the country is little by little being cantonized. The armed groups that hold control of most of the northwest are the armed groups that control aleppo are not necessarily the same groups and so we are getting a situation where different factions hold different territories. That also applies to the east. I was just reading about a city on the iraqi border, and there are six opposition factions that divide control. So i cannot foresee circumstances where hezbollah is going to march hundreds of miles across the Syrian Desert to go fight. And so the de facto result is were seeing a cantonization already. But at the same time, if you think long term about this,you zoom way up, this is still a war of attrition. Its a war of attrition inside syria between, basically, minority and majority. And its a war of attrition regionally between sunni and shia states. And i dont think that Bashar Al Assad is on the majority side in either of those. So with respect to answer your question about whats going to happen to state structures and extremists, with respect to extremists, this cantonization effect that i mentioned is a real problem because it leaves vast areas of the country governed either by no one in particular or by bad guys. And were very happy that elements of the Free Syrian Army have chosen to fight the very worst of the alqaeda groups, the Islamic State of iraq in the levant. But if moderates in the armed opposition do not prevail against them and the regime is basically not fighting them, theyre just letting them go, its a huge headquarters for the state, the regime drops barrel bombs all over aleppo, the damascus suburbs, its never bombed that big headquarters. If Syrian Intelligence needs help finding it, i wish theyd contact me, and i could point them to it. [laughter] so if the moderates dont prevail in that fight, dan, then were going to have a more serious extremism problem such as weve seen in places like afghanistan in the past. So well, hopefully the folks get the message. Youd be surprised who watches these events on live streaming, so perhaps someone from the Syrian Military intelligence is watching. Lets hope. In any case, im sorry, i have to end. Mr. Miliband has another appointment immediately after. I want please, join me in thanking both of our guests, ambassador ford and david miliband. [applause] coming up this evening, booktv in prime time continues with a look at conservative political ideology. At 8 eastern, paul kenninger, author of 11 principles of a reagan conservative. Then amy binder on becoming right, how campuses shape young conservatives, and the book the conservative turn. Lionel trilling, whitaker claimers and the chambers and the lessons of anticommunism here on cspan2. Tonight on cspan, anna navarro and david bender talk about the 2014 midterm elections and the 2016 president ial race. Specifically, the two discuss potential president ial candidates like Hillary Clinton and jeb bush as well as the potential for a power shift in congress. Heres a preview. Jeb bush. You all want to know about. A longtime friend of mine. Hes also my tenant. I saw him yesterday, in fact, at lunch does he live in new hampshire, by any chance . [laughter] no, he doesnt. He lives in coral gables, florida. And i think, you know, i suspect that thats part of what shapes his immigration views. The fact that its an immigrant community, and a lot of times the immigration debate can be about faceless government statistics. How many people cross the border, how many depor tees, how many children of undocumented born here. It can be all about faceless numbers. But when you live in an immigrant community, when you speak spanish fluently, frankly, when you watch spanish tv, you know these story, and you know stories, and you know that theres people, theres mothers who, women who get raped by human smugglers when theyre crossing the border. And risk their lives maybe swimming across a river or taking a raft to the United States. And a lot of times leave children behind that they may not see for a decade. And its in the hope that they can come here and find work and help support those families and loved ones theyve left behind. Have they broken the law . Yes, absolutely. Is it an act of love . I would tell you its hard to argue. When i tell you those circumstances, that its not an act of love for those families. So i think where he is, where he lives, the stories he knows shapes some of that perception. I dont think you have to read many tea leaves when it comes to jeb because with i know its surprising, but, you know, hes pretty much told us what hes thinking and where his head is, and hes a very disciplined guy. And i think hes going to stick to his timeline even when it comes to his own internal Decision Making process. He has said what his criteria is. It needs to be okay with his family, and by that i dont think it means mama bush as much as it means the woman hes been married to for 40 years now and his children. What effect its going to have on them. Running for president today means doing it as a family. Its not just one person. It affects the entire familys life, the entire familys privacy. Hes also said he wants to be able to do it joyfully. He wants to be able to offer a positive vision. He wants to be able to offer solutions. He has said hes going to sit down, think about it over the summer, think about it later this year and make a decision. The guy, i know him, he means what he says, and he says what he means. I dont think hes doing this, you know, weve gotten accustomed in politics to the art of the political teeth. People who are trying to propoet the sale of a book promote the sale of a book or maybe trying to get a gig on cable news which is not a bad gig. [laughter] you know . Get themselves on dancing with the stars, who knows, you know . Trying to find themselves some relevancy. Frankly, i dont think jeb bush needs that, nor its about that for him. Hes a very serious guy whos doing very well business wise whos got a pull filled life fulfilled life. And so i think it is about that vocation to service, and is it the right thing for the family and for the country. Watch the entire event from this years World Affairs conference tonight at 8 eastern over on cspan. This sunday on newsmakers our guest is former minnesota governor tim pawlenty who currently serves as the ceo of the Financial Services round table which represents banks, insurance companies, Credit Card Companies and other financial institutions. Among the topics we discuss, credit card security, banks capital structure and the volcker rule. Newsmakers airs sunday at 10 a. M. And again at 6 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Whether its an award for Good Journalism as a politician, i declare an interest in not wanting to make a judgment on that. [laughter] but an award for Public Service for possibly the greatest betrayal of our National Secrets of all time strikes me as quite bizarre. And i do think that theres a real danger of a very cozy media without fully understanding the consequences for the dangers that we face in a very dangerous world. So i think theres a dangerous disconnect there. As for the Guardian Newspaper itself, my view was that if i as an individual gave the names of operatives outside a u. K. Jurisdiction, that would be in breach of the 2000 terrorism act in the united kingdom. That would apply to me as an individual, why would that not apply to a newspaper . This weekend onc cspan, former British Defense secretary liam fox ond ward Snowden Edward snowden, government surveillance programs and privacy issues, saturday morning at 10 eastern. And on booktv, from texas the san antonio book festival including authors and panels on the stories that shaped san antonio. And the nsa, big brother and democracy saturday starting at 1 p. M. Eastern on cspan2. And on American History tv, tour the Nsas National crypt logic museum and learn about the making and breaking of secret codes and their role in u. S. History, sunday at 6 and 10 p. M. On cspan3. A threejudge panel of the tenth Circuit Court of appeals in denver earlier this month heard a constitutional challenge to utahs samesex marriage ban. In 2004 utah voters passed an amendment to the states constitution recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman. A lower federal court in december ruled the amendment violated the 14th amendments equal protection clause. The arguments in this case run just over an hour. Were here this morning for one case, 134178, kitchen verse herbert. Counsel, you may proceed. Thank you, your honors, and good morning. Im honored to appear on behalf of the state of utah, its governor, its attorney general whos here with us today and its people. And just for the courts information, im going to try to reserve seven minutes for rebuttal. You are the master of your own time. Thank you, your honor. The issue before the court is obviously not how the emotional and difficult issue of samesex marriage should be decided, the issue is really one of authority; that is, whether under the federal constitution the states definitional authority over marriage allows them not only to redefine marriage in genderless terms as the Supreme Court in windsor held that it does, but also to retain the traditional man woman definition of marriage and to do so through democratic means as new york had done in the opposite direction in windsor. So before i discuss the state interests that are served by utahs man woman definition and what we see as the serious risks posed by the District Courts redefinition of marriage, let me first address why this fundamental question of state authority is governed by the rational basis standard. All of the Appellate Court decisions that have addressed the federal question presented here include ling the eighth circuit in bruning, the Supreme Court in baker v. Or nelson which we think is still binding on the lower federal courts by virtue of the Supreme Courts summary affirmance of that decision, all those decisions have applied rational basis scrutiny rather than heightened scrutiny. And theyve done that because rational basis is the standard thats appropriately deferential to democracy. The District Court and the plaintiffs have nevertheless offered four arguments for some form of heightened scrutiny, but none of those is sound. Indeed, as the District Court itself recognized, the plaintiffs argument for heightened scrutiny based on Sexual Orientation is foreclosed by this courts decision in price cornellson. And, in fact, most of the plaintiffs other arguments would imply a right to such things as polygamist marriages which, as the court may know, is a significant issue in utah. Now, one example is the argument that the plaintiff has a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. The Supreme Court has never recognized such a broad fundamental right to marriage despite being urged by the United States in the windsor case to adopt that very position. But they declined to do that in windsor. And, in fact, cotton tear to the contrary, windsor really destroys that argument as to samesex marriage by noting that until recently most people considered a man woman union, quote, essential to the very definition of the term marriage. And that, of course, means under the Supreme Courts decision in gluxberg, that means that the alleged right to samesex marriage is not, in fact, already so embedded in our laws and our traditions as to be required by ordered liberty. Before we get to that, lets focus on loving for a second. Sure. In loving you had a classification that the state argued, they made an argument of equal application in that case as well as it relates to the man and the woman involved, but there is a classification. What barred them from getting married was race. And in this instance, why is that any different . You have a man who wants to marry another man. The only thing that bars him from getting married is sex, gender. So why is that any different than loving when youre drawing a line that is based upon a protected classification . Why shouldnt this be a situation of value waiting the gender evaluating the gender for intermediate scrutiny . Well, a couple of answers to that, your honor. First of all, the Supreme Courts decision in loving did not intrude into the state of virginias definitional authority over marriage. The exclusion of mixed race couples was a regulatory exclusion. In fact, when you look at the statutes that are laid out in the Supreme Courts opinion, they made clear that marriage was defined as union of a man and a woman, and then in a separate provision the court made it or