The u. S. And under the obama, you know, under president obama, we reached this monumental agreement, this Bilateral Agreement between the u. S. And china to make dramatic cuts in our carbon emissions. That sort of set the stage for the very successful paris summit where nearly 200 nations from around the world made significant commitments to loring their carbon lowering their carbon emissions. If we now unilaterally back out, its going to send, obviously, the wrong message to the rest of the world. Its going to say that the u. S. Is a country that goes back on its agreement. And its really, to me, its loftier than the issue of climate change, are we willing to be a constructive and good faith partner in this larger effort to make sure that we leave behind a has habitable wod for our children and grandchildren. Ter 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 incl it seems to me to use that narrow where term understates the expanse over which we have been involved, including places like afghanistan which doesnt fall in what we think of as the middle east and now includes large parts of central and western africa which again doesnt fall within the typical definition of middle east. Host why was the year 1990 so significant . Guest the year that is significant is 1980, the year when jimmy carter promulgated the Carter Doctrine, a statement that basically said the persian gulf is Vital National security interest and more to the point a place the United States considers worth fighting for. We have been involved militarily now so long that most americans, the greater middle east wasnt on our military map. And made all the arrangements and over flights. And reorient its priorities, and was now prepared for what becomes an almost endless series of armed interventions in the region. Host you talk about the fact that 1990 prior to that very few lives lost, American Military lives lost in the United States after 1990, nearly all. I do. Sadly i think to some degree since the end of world war zero make the American Military has been pretty busy. Certainly since world war ii we have been prepared to fight for europe. Even today we had substantial us forces in europe. After world war ii we were prepared to fight in east asia, we thought before 1980, we fought two substantial wars, when in korea, when in vietnam, we were not prepared to fight in the islamic world since 1990, strikingly, virtually every american soldier killed in combat has been killed in that part of the world and i believe something americans should be more attentive to, the specificity, geographical specificity, something to be more attentive to than most of us have been. Host the numbers are up on the screen if you want his chat with retired army officer Andrew Bacevich, his book americas war for the greater middle east a military history, 20 numtwo7488200. East and central time zone, 7488201, in the mountain and pacific time zone, we will get to those calls right away. Andrew bacevich, you write that oil has always defined the raison detre of the war in the greater middle east. Guest that was the initial raison detre. The offense that prompted president carter to promulgate the Carter Doctrine where two. One of them was the iranian revolution which was perceived to be a great threat to us interests in the region. The second occurring in 1979 was the soviet invasion of afghanistan and the perception in washington, those events together in the persian gulf, crucially at a time when the american way of life seemed to be increasingly dependent on access to foreign oil. That said, from the outset there really was not explicitly stated, a larger set of steaks and the larger steak was this has been a war intended to demonstrate that we are a people to whom limits do not apply. We are a people who need not take into account circumstances such as the resistance we face in that region and that defined the underlying purpose, when you think about it, today, 2016 we dont need the oil from the region, we dont need the natural gas from the region and this war continues as if on autopilot. Host with President Trump in office could that change . Guest theoretically it could. The thing the next administration will do, the president elects comments with regard to foreignpolicy on the campaign trail have been all over the map. He has said things at times that suggests he would favor a less militaristic, more restrained approach to foreignpolicy but on other days he said other things that suggest that he is going to dive more deeply into the region. For example the supposedly good plan to bring about the destruction of isis was one of the reasons many of us are watching with fascination the role of appointments is we imagine, maybe we are not right, that these appointments give us a clearer understanding of what a Trump Administration actually will do, looking beyond what trump himself said while a candidate. Host what is your background prior to being a book author . Guest i was a professional soldier for 23 years. My undergraduate degree is from west point. I served in vietnam, spent a lot of time serving in europe in the latter part of the cold war. When i got out of the army i became an academic historian by academic training, and not so much as an academic but as a citizen, have become increasingly concerned about what strikes me as the misguided direction of us policy was when i say misguided direction, i mean the misuse and excessive reliance on American Military power. The way we used our military, we are making the world a better place, if it were promoting the values we believe in, enhancing american security, i would say lets go for it but my own reading of the situation is our use of military power is doing none of those. Instead it is costing us tremendously, lives lost, lives shattered, trillions of dollars expended and to what end . Seems to me particularly our military engagement in the islamic world has not succeeded. It has failed and therefore it is incumbent on americans to begin thinking about a different course. The purpose of my book is to promote an awareness, the failure of military efforts to encourage americans to think about that different course. Host the cover of the book, americas war for the greater middle east a military history. As we listen to gym in erie, pennsylvania. Go ahead. Caller thank you for taking my question. The general states the quandary in terms of what we are looking at. How do we get from a blatantly, flagrant, openly hostile Islamic Culture that seems to be intent on murdering as many innocent people as possible, cares nothing about human rights and dispatches terrorists and inspires terrorists all over the world to murder innocent people, this engagement sounds nice but in this type of culture clash, clash of values. I am a retired coast guard guy myself. I dont understand how we can sit here and say we to disengage when we are dealing with people who wants to murder us. Host we at the point. Lets hear from Andrew Bacevich. Guest if we saw evidence that military engagement, the presence of us forces in the region, us bombing, us invading, us working, if there is evidence that was making the situation at her, i would say let us continue that course, i dont see that evidence. My prescription begins with what may be a disagreement from the threat the extremists pose. I dont believe for a second even isis poses an existential threat to the United States of america. That threat is relatively modest and the appropriate response to the threat is to erect offensive defenses here rather than send us forces across the region. Because the presence of us forces makes the problem worse, furthermore i would argue strongly, those countries for which isis does pose an existential threat, talking about iraq, iran, saudi arabia, turkey, egypt, they need to own this problem. Were they to take ownership, where they to set aside their differences and collaborate against the threat posed by isis i believe they could handle that threat. Think about isis. It is probably 25, 30,000 fighters, no air force, no navy, no weapons of mass destruction, no significant resources, no allies to speak of. For the countries in the region to focus their collective effort on defeating isis and restoring semblance of stability, they could do so. Our diplomatic task is to promote their understanding of their imperative. Host kim calling in from new york. Go ahead. Caller thank you so much. My victory suggests it began in 1954. And how did those mistakes begin . Guest the subtitle of the book is a military history. Im trying to explain what the United States has done with its military. Prior to 1980 our military presence and involvement in the region, i am not arguing and one should not argue prior to 1980 the us had no policy in the region. We did have a policy, we had interest in the examples you cite of the cias involvement in the overthrow in iran, very good example of how misguided our policy was even before 1980. Host next call comes from daniel in california. Go ahead. Caller dont know whether to direct my question to professor, doctor or colonel. Did the concept, does the concept of radical islamic terrorism have any relevance in political discussion . It was made quite a big deal of, what is russias policy . Let me focus on the first one. I am hesitant to get bogged down in this debate about terms that can be used or cannot be used. There certainly is a strain, i would say, relatively small in the larger scheme of things, a strain of islam as an ideology to which some people adhere and finds expression in violence directed against the west, violence directed against muslim and antistate institutions in that part of the world but i would hasten to add the problem more complex than that, that the sources of dysfunction we see are multiple. What do we have going on here . Who we have is a historic antagonism between islamic civilization and the west that probably can be traced to the crusades. What we have here is a legacy of european imperialism particularly british imperialism. The results of a reckless dismantling of the Ottoman Empire at the end of world war i, we have endemic, economic underdevelopment of local leaders who are corrupt and unenlightened and we also have shortsighted us policies that contributed to making matters worse. My point would be i urge people to push back against the notion that there is a single explanation for the turmoil in the region and indeed to embrace the notion there are multiplicity of causes, further caution against the notion that further us military action is somehow going to fix matters. There is no evidence to support the expectation. Host Andrew Bacevich, donald trump will be the 13th president since harry truman, 1946, to deal with the middle east. How does that work for you . Nobody has fully gotten it right and despite the fact that Dwight Eisenhower was the president when we overthrew most of that, i think eisenhower came closer to getting it right than any other president. Eisenhower believed that we needed to find some way to have a modicum of relations with the arab world. Eisenhower was quite reticent about a commitment to israel that would undermine the possibility of having decent relations with the arab world and 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 war really should be a last resort, that has tended not to be the case with more recent president s. Host hanukkah in pennsylvania, you are on booktv. We are listening. Caller good evening as the largest arms dealer in the world how can you direct our military support to three large entities . Without imposing our interests and helping to create a potential collapse of the entire middle east you guest that is a great question. I think i agree with the premise of that question. That is to say, for too long now successive administrations have acted on the assumption that selling arms to our socalled friends in the region ultimately the most ability, win friends and promote stability, i think in particular of late, we see that assumption is utterly false, saudi arabia is involved in a war in yemen. Their aircraft are being refueled by american planes, flying us manufactured and dropping american weapons and i dont see that as being good for anybody, not good for the United States so there needs to be a reexamination of our arms sales policies. Host tired Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich about his most recent book americas war for the greater middle east a military history. Here is the cover. Lets listen next to paul in san diego. Go ahead with your question or comment. Caller thank you so very much for taking my call, thank you for cspan for watching your guest, Andrew Bacevich. My question is this. What type of ripple effects would happen if there was a solution to the palestinian issue. Is it Mission Impossible and if it isnt, what you see happening in the region . Thank you so much and i will take my question off air. Guest i think it is Mission Impossible because neither of the two sides, the palestinians or the government of israel are seriously committed to that and the expansion of settlements in the west bank which the government of israel routinely applies makes the prospect of a two state solution ever more distant. We are at the point we should acknowledge it is a complete fiction. Sadly, i say that. To your point i think the point is a very good one. There was a longstanding argument tends to hear from arabs and that is that were the International Community to respond effectively to the grievances of the palestinians, that they could have the effect of reducing the antagonism in the islamic world directed to the United States. Supporters of israel say that is nonsense but i would argue we have a very strong interest, our interest in testing the proposition. We have a strong interest in seeing the creation of a sovereign palestinian state in order to find out if that could possibly be a way to alleviate the antagonism directly at the United States. Host Andrew Bacevich, if someone is in favor of a two state solution, are they antiisrael . Guest i dont believe so. Im not the only one who makes this argument that the two state solution is in the longterm interests of the state of israel, that absent between 2 state solution, the prospects of israel continuation in the jewish state and democracy, are pretty slim. And with the passage of time and the expansion of the Israeli Jewish presence into the west bank, the government of israel, was creating barriers or obstacles to that longterm stated goal of the Israeli Government to assure that israel is a jewish state and a democratic state. I would very much like to see israel continue to be a jewish state and democratic state. The policies of the government of israel, exceedingly shortsighted in that regard and proved counterproductive in the long term. Host next call, gregory, sherman oaks, california, you are on booktv. Caller hello, cspan. I really love this program. In the middle of the iraq war, a proposal appeared for a us program that would provide millions of solar panels to the cities and villages and neighborhoods of iraq which would have provided thousands, tens of thousands of jobs for iraqis who otherwise became combatants and would have provided something the iraqis in the region really needed, their electricity is very spotty and that is part of the conflict, turning power on and off to different neighborhoods. It could have been done for a fraction of the multibilliondollar cost of the iraq war at no risk to american lives and would be a template for something the us and the rich nations could and still should do, i think, across the middle east in the global sunbelt as i wonder, is there any realistic possibility that a program of Massive Solar Energy in the middle east, the worlds other literally hot and bothered and conflicted regions could supplant a major part of this endless war that serves no purpose . Host i think we got the point. Lets hear from Andrew Bacevich. Guest i am not able to comment on the feasibility of that kind of project. The premise of the question deserves our attention. That is to say the result of our expectations that military power can provide a solution to the problem, will ultimately cost us trillions of dollars. If we go back to 2003 with the george w. Bush administration invaded iraq, they did not anticipate what the full cost would be and part of the judgment of that administration is their failure to understand what was going to ensue. The need to consider alternatives to simply further expenditures of military power, whether it is solar panels or irrigation or some other program of economic development, ultimately nurturing, functioning, stable societies, he is going to require something other than simply dropping bombs and conducting military campaigns on the grounds. I think your question makes that point very nicely. Host colonel, is there a tendency toward groupthink in the pentagon in military circles . Or is there a pretty robust debate that goes on before policies are implement it . Guest i dont have great insight to 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 there is groupthink with any institution. The older the institution, probably the tighter the grip of groupthink. Certainly the United States military, understandably the united dates military wishes to sustain its status in our society, wishes to sustain its prerogatives which i