Theres a huge muslim fundamentalist population in pakistan and the reason that the pakistanis never said anything publicly about having them is when they told us, he came in, it could be earlier. The pakistanis kept them secretly because the public will go nuts. The public loved bin laden. 450 of the country saw him as a hero and so as long as they had bin laden they can privately tell alqaeda groups and both pakistan and afghanistan, we have your guy, pay more attention to us, keep us informed, they had more control. That was their argument, the second argument they made is explanation for keeping them is the saudis paid him a lot of money. The Saudi Arabian came from big construction family, not royal family but major constructionists in building and very wealthy and the assumption we make and i make is that nobody wanted an american Interrogation Team to talk to him. You can watch this and other programs online at booktv. Org. Book tvs Live Programming from the Miami Book Fair continues this evening. We are now joined by andrew who is the author of this book, americas war for the greater middle east. Professor, when you say greater middle east, what do you mean . Well, im talking about a very large swath of the islamic world. I could have called it americas war in the middle east but it seems to me to use that narrower term really understates the expanse over which we have been involved, certainly includes places like afghanistan which doesnt fall in what we think of as the middle east. Frankly now includes very large parts of central and western africa which again doesnt fall within the typical definition middle east. Why was the year 1990 so significant . The year significant is 1980. Basically said the persian gulf is National Security interest and more to the point in place that the United States is worth fighting for. We have been involved milt militarily and prior to 1980s the greater middle east wasnt on our map. We hadnt made all the arrangements for basements or overflight rides. Is now prepared for what then becomes interventions in the regions. Prior to that, very few lives lost, military lives lost. I do. Sadly i think to some degree, since the end of world war ii the American Military has been pretty darn busy, certainly since world war ii weve been prepared to fight for europe, even today we still have substantial u. S. Forces in europe. After world war ii, we are prepared to fight in east asia and indeed, had fought before 1980 had fought two substantial wars in korea and one in vietnam and we werent fighting and werent prepare today fight in the islamic world since 1990 strikingly. Something that americans should be more attentive to. Now, the numbers are up on the screen if you want to chat with professor andrew, retired army officer as well, his book americas war for the greater middle east. 202 is the area. 7488200, 7488201 in Mountain Time zones. We will get to those calls right away. Professor, you write that oil has always defined the war in the greater middle east. The initial. The events that prompted president carter to promulgate the Carter Doctrine were two, one was the iranian revolution which has been revolution and the second soviet invasion in afghanistan. That said, there really was not explicitly stated a larger set of stakes. And the larger stake was that this has a war intended to demonstrate that we are a people to whom limits do not apply, that we are a people who need not take into account circumstances such as the resistance we face in that region and that that really defines the underlying purpose because when you think about it today 2016, and yet this war continues as if on autopilot. With a President Trump coming into the office could the policy change . Theoretically it could. The problem with anticipating what the next administration is going to do is that the president elects comments with regard to Foreign Policy on the campaign trail have been all over the map. He has said things at times that suggest that he would favor a less militaristic more retrain but on other days he said other things that suggest that hes going to dive more deeply into region with supposed secret plan or bring construction deconstruction of isis. Give us a clearer understanding of what a Trump Administration actually will do looking beyond what trump himself said while a candidate. Now, youve written several books, whats your background prior to being a book author . Well, i was a professional soldier for 23 years, my undergraduate agree is was from west point and served in vietnam. I spent a lot of time serving in europe during the latter part of the cold war but but when i got out of the army, i became academic, im a historian by academic training and i think not so much as academic but as a citizen had become increasingly concerned about what strikes me as the misguided direction of u. S. Policy and when i say misguided direction, i mean, the misuse and excessive reliance on military power and, you know, if the way weve used our military were making the world a better place, if it were promoting the values we believe in, if we were enhancing american security, then i might say, well, lets go for it, but my own reading of the situation is that our use of military power is doing none of those things. Instead it is costing us tremendously lives lost, lives shattered, trillions of dollars expended and and to what end . It seems to me that particularly our military engagement in the islamic world has not has not succeeded, indeed, it has failed and therefore its incumbent upon americans to begin thinking about a different course and the purpose of my book is to try to promote an awareness of the failure of military and encouraging americans to begin to think about that different course. Here is the cover of the book, americas war for the greater middle east as we listen to jim in eary, pennsylvania. Go ahead, jim. Caller thank you for taking my question. I guess that the general state it is quandary in terms of what we are looking at. How do we disengage from a blatantly hostile Islamic Culture that seems to be intent on murdering as many innocent people as possible, cares nothing about human rights and dispatches terrorists all over the world to murder innocent people . But in this type of culture clash, clashes i use, im a retired coast guard myself, exmilitary. I dont understand how we can disengage when we are dealing with a bunch of people who want to murder us. U. S. Forces makes the problem worse, further more, i would argue strongly that those countries for which isis does pose an exosensual threat, iraq, iran, saudi arabia, arguably turkey, arguably, jipght. They need to own this problem and were they to do so and take ownership, were they to set aside their differences on other matters, and to collaborate dpens the threat posed by isis, i believe they could handle that threat. Lets think about isis probably what 25, 30,000 spiders. No air force, no navy. No weapon of mass disruption. No significant resources. No allies to speak of. Were the countries in the region to focus their collective efforts on defeating isis and restoring assemblance of stability they could do so. Our diplomatic task is to promote their understanding of that imperative. Calling from new york. Ken. Thank you so much. My readings suggest to me that together many 1954 when we helped the british get rid i like to agree with that and where you see us, and to get. Thank you. You know, the sub title of the book is a military history, and what im trying to explain is what the United States has been doing with its military. And i would argue strongly that prior to 19 80 our military presence and involvement in a region was minimal. But the point you are making is very good one. Im not arguing and one should not argue that priority 1980 just had no policy in the region. We did have a policy. We have interest. And the example you cite of cias involvement in the overthrow of the deck in iran, is a very good example of how misguided our policy was even before 1980. Next call comes from daniel in yucaipa, california, daniel go ahead. So yes i dont know whether to address my question to professor, doctor, or colonel but anyway, professor did the concept or does the concept of radical islamic terrorism have any relevance in our political discussion . It was made to be quite a big deal of the election here recently. And also what is you think russias policy towards isis . Well, let me focus on the first one and im hesitant to get bogged down in this debate about terms that can be used and cannot be used. Theres certainly is a strain i would say really teffly small into larger scheme of things a a strain of islam as an i had ideology to find expression then in violence directed some of the violence directed against the west, violence directed against muslims and state institutions in that part of the world but hasten to add that problem is a lot more complex than that. That these sources of dysfunction that we see are multiple. What do we got going on here. That what we have is a historic antagonism between islamic civilization and the west that probably can be traced back to the crusade. But what we have here is the legacy of european imperialism. Particularly british imperialism. What we have here is the result of a reckless dismantling of the autumn empire at the end of world war i. What we have here is pandemic economic underdevelopment of local leaders who are corrupt and unenlightened and we also have shortsighted u. S. Policies that i think have contributed to making matters worse. So my point here would be that i i urge people to push back against the notion that theres a single explanation for the turmoil in the region and indeed to embracing the notion of a multiplicity of causes provides a further caution against the notion that further u. S. Military action is somehow going to, going to mix matters because theres noafd to support that to support that expectation. Andrew, donald trump will be the 13th president since harry truman 1946 to deal with the middle east who has gotten it right in the past for you . Well, nobody has fully gotten it right. And despite the fact that Dwight Eisenhower was president when we overthrew, i think that eisenhower came closer to getting it right than any other president. Eisenhower believed that we needed to find some way to have have a modicum of relations with the arab world. Eisenhower was quite red about a commitment to israel that would undermine the possibility of having decent relations with the arab world. And certainly eisenhower as a matter of principle was exceedingly hesitant about using American Military power not simply in the middle east but anywhere else. Eisenhower believed that war with really should be a last resort that has tended not took the case. With more recent presence. Hanukkah in pennsylvania, hanukkah youre on booktv. Were listening. Hi, good evening as largest arm dealers in the world how can we direct our military support that influences three large entities [inaudible] without imposing our own interest and helping to create a potential collapse of the entire middle east . Well, its a great question. And i i think i agree with the premise of that question. That is to say for too long now, success of administration have acted on the assumption that selling arms to our socalled friends in the region ultimately promotes, wins friends inthriewnses poem and promotes stability. And i think that in particular of late, we see that that assumption is utterly false. Saudi arabia is involved in a war with in yemen. Their aircraft to being refueled by american planes. Aircraft theyre flying are u. S. Manufactured. And drop in american weapon i dont see that being good for anybody and good for the United States so there really needs to be a reexamination of our arm sales policies. And were talking with retired Boston University professor andrew, about his most recent book americas war for the greater middle east. A military history here is the cover and lets listen next to paul in san diego. Paul, go ahead with your question or comment. Hi, thank you so very much for taking my call and thank you for cspan and guest, my question is this what type of rip the effects would happen if there was a solution to the palestinian issue is there really Mission Impossible and if it isnt, if we could get it done, what do you see happening in the region . And thank you so much and ill take any question with out there. Thank you, sir. Sadly i think it is Mission Impossible because neither of the two sides palestinians or government of israel are seriously committed to that. And i think that the expansion of settlements in the the west bank which a government of israel routinely applies makes the prospect of two state solution more distant. I think frankly were at the point where we should acknowledge thats a complete fiction. Sadly i say that because to your point, i think that point is a very good one. There was a long stand argument that we tend to hear from the from arab and that is that that were were the International Community to defectively to the grievances of the palestinians that that could have the effect of reducing the antagonism in the islamic world directed to the United States. Now, in particular supporters of israel say that thats nonsense. But i would argue that we have a very strong interest, our interest in testing the proposition. So we have a strong interest in in seeing the creation of a sovereign palestinian state thord to find the if that could possibly be a way to again to alleviating tag nism directed at United States. Andrew if somebody is in favor of a twostate solution, are they antiisrael . I dont believe so, i would argue and certainly not on one who make this is argument that the two state solution is in the longterm interest of the state of israel that really absent two state solution. The prospects of israel continuing to be both a jewish state and a democracy are are a pretty slim and indeed with the passage of time, and with the expansion of the israeli u jewish presence into the west bank, that that the government of israel is simply creating barrier or obstacles to that longterm stated goal of the Israeli Government to ensure that israel is both a jewish state and a democratic state. I would very much like to see israel continue to be a jewish state and a democratic state. I believe that the policies of the government of israel are exceedingly short sited in that regard and may prove to be counterproductive in the longterm. Next call Gregory Sherman oaks california, youre on booktv. Hello, andrew and hello cspan i really love this program. A year ago in the middle of the iraq war, a proposal appeared in solar today magazine for a u. S. Program that would have provided millions of sol solar panels to the cities and villages and neighborhoods of iraq which would have provided thousands of tens of thousands of jobs for iraqis otherwise became combatant and would have provided something that iraqis and the region really needed. Their electricity is very spotty and is, in fact, a part of the conflict turning power on and off to different neighborhoods. It could have been done for a fraction of the multitrillion dollar cost of the iraq war and with low risk to american lives and it would be a template for something that the u. S. And rich nations could and still should do i think across the middle east and global sun belt. And so i wonder is this still any realistic possibility that a program of mass and solar energy aid to the middle east and worlds other literally hot and bothered and conflicted regions could be could plant at least a major part of this endless war and that serves no problem and instead something i think we got the point gregory. Lets hear from andrew. Im not able to comment on the feasibility of that kind of a project. But the premise of the question deserves our attention and that is to say that the result of our expectation, that military power can provide a solution to the problem. Will ultimately cost us trillions of dollars. Now, if we go back to 2003 when george w. Bush administration invaded iraq they did did not anticipate what the full cost would be, and indeed part of the judgment of that administration is their failure to understand what was had actually going to ensue. But the real point would be that the need to consider alternatives to simply further accident pendture of military power whether its solar panels or irrigation or some other program of economic development, ultimately the nurtureing, functioning, Stable Society is going to require something other than simply dropping bombs and conducting military campaigns on the ground. And i think your question makes that point very nicely. , is there a tendency towards group thinking in the pentagon in a military circle or is there a pretty robust debate that goes on before policy or implement . I dont have great insight into what they talk about in the pentagon these days because ive been out of the army for quite some period of time. But i think, i think theres group think within any institution. And as a matter of fact the older the institution probably the tighter the grip of group think. Certainly the United States military understandably the United States military wishes to sustain its status in our society. Which is to sustain its prerogative in simple terms wishes to sustain the exceedingly high level of defense spending that has come to be routine. That doesnt preclude the possibility, however, of members of the officer corps. Particularly those who have served in the greater middle east over these recent decades of coming to some thoughtful, critical conclusions about whether or not what were doing is working. I dont know. What happened in these internal conversations . My hope is indeed my bed bet is that there may be serious thinking going on within military circles, you know now that were facing this new Trump Administration i think one of the questions is, will our next president , is he the kind of guy who was willing to sit down with our fourstar military leadership and to and to be open to what they may hav