Substantial forces in europe. After world war ii we were prepared to fight in east asia and have fought before 1980 pretty substantial wars in asia one in korea and one in vietnam. We havent been fighting that we are prepared to fight in the islamic world since 1990 strikingly virtually every american soldier whos been killed in combat has been killed in that part of the world and i believe its something americans should be more attentive to what the geographical specificity. The numbers are on the screen if you want to chat with the retired army officer. For those in the mountain and pacific time zones we will get to those calls right away. Oil is always defined the race for the war on the greater middle east. Lution on is the iranian revolution that perceived to be a great threat to u. S. Interests in the region. The second events occurring in 1979 was the soviet invasion of afghanistan and the perception that washington is together those threatened our access to the persian gulf at the time when the american way of life seemed to bseems to be increasiy dependent on access to foreignd oil. From the outset it wasnt explicitly stated a larger set of stakes and i think the larger was this had been a war intended to demonstrate we are a people to whom limits do not apply. We are a people who need not take into account theeci circumstances such as theresi resistance we face in the region and that defies the underlining purpose because when you think about it today, 2016, we dont neeneed oil from the region, we dont needhe natural gas from the regionnd yet the war continues as if on autopilot. O code that policy change . Theoretically it could. At with anticipating what the next administration is going to do, the president elect comments on the campaign trail and all over. The map. He has said things that would favor a less restrained policy that would say other things that suggest he is going to bite more deeply into his supposed secret plan to bring upon the destruction of isis. One of the reasons many of us are watching with fascination the rollout of appointments we imagine, maybe we are not right for these appointments give a clear understanding of what the Trump Administration will do looking beyond what he said while a candidate. Ook auth what is your background prior to being a book offer . I was a professional soldier my undergraduate degree is from west point. From the latter part of the cold war that when i got out of the army i became an academic historian by academic training and i think not so much as an academic but as a citizen had become increasingly concernedgur about what strikes me in the misguided direction of u. S. Policy in a mean the misuse of excessive reliance on military power and if the way that weve used our military were making the world a better place if it were promoting the values we believe in and were enhancing American Security i might say lets go for it my own reading is the use of military power is doing none of those things and instead its costing us tremendously lives lost and shattered, trillions of dollars expended and to what end. It seems our military engagement in the world has not succeeded. And indeed it has failed and its incumbent upon americans to begin thinking about a different course. The purpose of my book is to try to promote an awareness of the failure of our military efforts and therefore to encourage americans to begin to think about the different course. Heres the cover of the book americas war for the greater middle east as we listen to jim in erie pennsylvania. Thank you for taking my question. He stayed the quandary in terms of what we are looking at. How do we disengage from the openly hostile Islamic Culture that seems to be intent on murdering as many people as possible and cares nothing about human rights and inspires terrorists all over the world to murder innocent people and if disengagement sounds nice in this type of culture clash i am a retired coast guard guy myself and i dont understand how we can sit here and say we need toe disengage we got the point. Lets hear from andrew. If we saw evidence that military engagement that the presence of u. S. Versus in the region and us bombing and engaging them if that made the situation better than i would say let us continue that course. I dont see that evidence. It begins with the threat and i dont believe for a second that even isis poses an existential threat to the United States of america. I think the threat is relatively modest and the respons responsee differences here rather than to send u. S. Forces around the region because the presence of the forces makes the problem worse. Furthermore, i would argue strongly that those countries pose an and a substantial threae are talking about iraq, iran, saudi arabia, egypt. Le they need to own this problem and were they to do so and take ownership and se to set aside tr differences on other matters to collaborate against the threat posed by isis i think they could handle that threat. Lets think about isis probably 25 or 30,000 fighters, no weapons of mass destruction, no significant resources, no allies to speak of. Were the countries in the region to focus their collective efforts on defeating isis and restoring the assemblies they could do so. Our diplomatic task is to promote their understanding of the competitive. Call from catskill new york. My reading suggests that began in 1954 when we helped the british and i would like to know if you agree with that and where you see us and where di a scener stakes begin. S a mi the subtitle of the book is a military history and what im trying to explain us with what the United States has been doing with its military and i would argue strongly prior to 1980 d. Involvement in the region was minimal but the point that youre making is a good one by not arguing prior to 1980 the u. S. Had a policy in the region. We did have a policy and interest and the example that you cite is a very good example of how misguided or policy was even before 1980. Next call was from daniel in california. Go ahead. Question i dont know whether to address my question to professor, doctor or colonel. Does the concept of radicalte islamic terrorism have any relevance in our political discussion, it was made to be quite a big deal recently and also what is the policy towards isis . Im hesitant to get bogged down in this debate about the terms that can be used and cannot be used. There certainly is a strain of thought islam as an ideology to which some people adhere to a. By wenstrup acted against muslims and state institutions in that part of the world but i would hasten to add that the problem is more complex than we that. We have a historic antagonism between islamic civilization and the west that probably can be traced back to the crusades but we have here is the legacy of european imperialism particularly british imperialism, we have the result of the reckless dismantling of the ottoman empire. E what we have here is an endemic economic underdevelopment of local leaders who are corrupt and unenlightened and they also have shortsighted u. S. Policiesi that i think have contributed to making matters worse. So, my point here would be that i urge people to push back against the notion that theres a single explanation for the turmoil in the region and indeeg to embrace the notion that there are a multiplicity of causes that really provides a further caution against the notion that further u. S. Military action is somehow going to fix matters. Donald trump will be the 13th president since harry truman in 1946 to deal with the middle east. Whos gotten it right in the past for you . Nobody has gotten it right and despite the fact of the wayy eisenhower was the president when we overthrew, i think that eisenhower came closer to getting it right then then any other president. We eisenhower believed that we needed to find some way to have a modicum of relationships with the arab world. Eisenhower was quite reticent about the commitments to israel that would undermine thewi possibility of having decent relations with the arab worldma coming 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 the war really should be a last resort that has tended not to be the case with more recent president s. Doylestown pennsylvania, and you are on book tv. We are listening. D evenin. 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 have learned as a consequence of our recent wars . I hope he would be open doesnt mean defer. Open doesnt mean do whatever the generals want. But open means a willingness to think anew rather than simple lil continue down the same path. Laura your question or comment for andrew. Oh, hi and thank you for taking my question. I heard you, tuned in earlier are and i heard you talking about foreign oil. And my husband he works offshore, and theres im sure you know oil so low, and theres a lot of people that either has been lated off or, you know, ones that havent been laid off have taken several pay cuts. Anyway, my question for you was do you think that the reason oil is so low here is because were so getting way too much foreign oil . Question was laura oil price clear could you repeat your question im sorry. My question was do you think that reason oil has went so low here in the u. S. Because were were acquiring too much foreign oil . Foreign oil domestic oil and again, i want to add into what she had to say but you said this earlier that the wars in the middle east are kind of on autopilot now. Even though were Energy Independent in this country. I think that price of oil is a function of supply and demand. And for all kind of reasons to include the development of new sources of oil and natural gas in the western hemisphere supplies are up Osama Bin Laden dee who is supplier of last resort wish to have for their own technical reason like to have the price of oil remain low and they have the ability by controlling the bigot to a considerable extent to control price of oil so i think thats for explanation of why the price of oil is what it is, i think we should probably look, look toed saudis but to the point you remember raising im surprised by how little discussion there is of these Strategic Implication of the transformation of the Global Energy environment and the ability that we now know that the oil and gas reserve in north america are far greater than we imagined 20 or 30 years ago. I think that Strategic Implication should be huge and should promote people asking questions about why why do we still consider saudi arabia, for example, this crucial alley. Where do question still assign such importance to the persian gulf . But that discussion hasnt happened. Greg. Think cloud, florida, good evening from booktv, youre on the air. Thank you, sir. Good evening, professor basevich my question to you why does the United States have to get involved in every military action outside of our borders . Why is it that we just cannot protect our borders and be done with it . Great question, i apologize i dont know where this cough kale from. Gave him a cough drop and show you the covert bo