Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140618

Think is very interesting study, john f. Kennedy and the missile gap also in 2004. And finally we have Michael Cohen who is a fellow at the century foundation. He has been a columnist at the guardian. A blogger for the new york daily news. Hes the author of life on the campaign trail which is about notable 20th Century Campaign speeches of consequence and he is also published widely in wall street journal, new york times, l. A. Times, politico, et cetera. So john, over to you, sir. Good. Im supposed to speak here. You can all hear me. I thought the subject of this panel and of this conference had something to do with realism so im going to playoff that theme and ill get around to pl ticks at the very end. Theres a narrow version of realism. Im not talking about the academic theory of realism or the diplomatic theory that resinate with Public Opinion. Thats the idea that america should only deal with threats that directly concern us but in places like syria, the middle east and ukraine we should keep hands off . I want to begin by saying why i think that that view which i think is prevalent and is reflected in a recent wall street journal nbc poll about the opinion about Foreign Policy, why thats not a good approach for the country to take and then ill come back to it at the end. We could say its good because it will balance the israelis and there will be less chance of war in the middle east. The obama people could say its bad and it will start an arms race. Even though its very, very unlikely that the iranians will launch a Nuclear Weapon at new york, its still of vital interest to us because a nuclear war could most likely, i would say, begin in the middle east, if i had to choose a place in the world. Oil, the World Economy. So theres lots of reasons. And i think you can make similar arguments for a lot of the conflicts that we have engaged in that dont on the surface seem to directly threaten us. Second reason is more controversial. Theres a guy, a famous economic historian that had a theory about the World Economy, that the World Economy works best when theres one big, big dog on top of it and when the currency itself reflects the currency of that country. And, you know, if you look at the history of the World Economy, that theory works pretty well. I would make a similar comment about geo politics. About the world system. Maybe a bipolar as well as a uni polar world. Britain in the 19th century and the United States and soviet union in 1945, theres a certain advantage to the world. If there is a country, a big dog that exercises leadership in the world. Now, the question is how . And thats where we get to questions about Foreign Policy and theres two kinds of obvious choices that are under debate. One i would associate with neo conservatives, liberal interventionists, people that think in some respect that the way in which we can make ourselves most secure and the world most peaceful is to, in effect, create the world in our imagine. To spread democracy. To build, to help build nations that have institutions similar to our own or those of western europe. I think that there are a lot of reasons now to question that approach and i wrote a book called folley of empire that was about that because one of the first examples is Woodrow Wilson in mexico. But weve had a lot of them since and most recently we have iraq and even more and more recently is the example of libya where if you look at the news reports now, that intervention may turn out to have been a disaster and mistake and to have left the country and the region in worst shape than before. So i think theres the neo conservative and interventional approach. Theres Something Like the strategy that the british employed in the 19th century. And i think that in general, that is a wiser strategy even though it gets us in trouble to the event that we have to support bad people and bad regimes and to have reasoned for instance in 2003 that we were better off in the middle east with saddam than without him. A position that would have been very hard to sell in the United States. Foreign policy making is ze patched for the most part from the public. It only intersects at certain points partly because its complicated and partly because it deals with long range and the United States is an island nation, a nation most of which is internal and doesnt have a view of Foreign Policy similar to the one i sketched out at the beginning. So Foreign Policy is at these two levels. An elite level and mass level. For the most part, thats okay. Where its not okay is when we get into questions of war and peace and armed intervention and in those cases, the public has to be brought in and its often done in a most deceitful or dishonest way and im thinking of george w. Bush and the iraq war. In doing them we should pursue an option thats less likely to involve us in armed intervention. So thats my pitch for today. Thank you, john. Chris. Thank you, bob. Thank you to the organizers for putting on this even. I think picking up on some of that john said, i think its typical or the norm in Foreign Policy is for the public to have a relative indifference to what is going on in Foreign Affairs relatively speaking and certainly relative to their domestic policy issues. This isnt all that strange because after all it has been imp si emphasized a couple of times today already because the United States is secure relative to other countries around the world. Unlike in the past, other countries when they had Foreign Policy disasters the country ceased to exist and you think back to the war and the men were all put to the sword and killed and women and children are sold into slavery. Thats not what we worry about in the United States. So i think the publics relative difference to Foreign Policy can be explained by that to a large extent. But i think what we started to see over the last few years is not indifference but actual outward hostility and opposition to armed intervention and, again, theres a difference between kind of boiling down Foreign Policy to armed intervention but i also agree with john that on the issues of war and peace the public has to be engaged. That was not the case. One of the books i use as a jumping off point from my own book, the power problem, he said in 2005 that the american role in the world may depend in part on americans not scrutinizing it too closely. I think that was a fair statement. I think it was an honest statement. But i just want to focus, briefly, on what we saw in late august and Early September of last year. We had an incident in syria, obviously the Syrian Civil War was going on for some time. President obama earlier said that the use of chemical weapons would constitute a red line, what crossing that red line would result in he didnt stipulate. And at the time, in late august, there was a widespread expectation in this city that he would follow through on that, that pledge by some sort of military action. That was the all the reportings suggest that thats where the Obama Administration was leading. What did we actually see . It was i have to admit, i was a little embarrassed that i was caught off guard by this. Its my job to study Foreign Policy and particularly interested in the politics of Foreign Policy and i could never have predicted the level of public opposition, bipartisan that rose up to stop what in secretary kerrys own words, im going to get this wrong. This was an unbelievably small or incredibly small a smaller than small military intervention. I didnt get the adverb exactly right but smaller than small and yet even a smaller than small intervention mobilized the public in a way that i havent seen in studying 11 years here in washington and studying Foreign Policy frankly going back a couple of decades now. These sorts of instances are rare and the question is whether or not that will be a one off sort of thing theres even the military intervention that will influence u. S. Foreign policy going to waforward. A couple of months ago i reviewed bob gates book and he refers in the book several times to the con trant contract on him. Its always about ensuring the public we werent going to stay. We werent in there forever that we were planning for the exit sort of thing. Which if you know anything really cuts against the strategy because if youre trying to convince the people youre protecting in these countries, they want to believe youre sticking around and he had to worry about the public at home that was worried about us staying too long. So that is a constraint. Now, the neo conservatives and the liberal hawks both have an answer to this problem and whether you look at it as a problem or not, its a fact. The public is strongly opposed to military intervention. Even the smaller than small ones. Now the simple response is that this could be solved by leadership. You hear this all the time. Leadership. Strong leadership. If only the president or if only the National Security team were committed to a particular mission they could bring the public along so its solely a function of the lack of leadership, will, et cetera, political courage, pick your term on the part of the president and his advisors. If we remember back to what Franklin Roosevelt was trying to do in what i think was a war worth fighting, his efforts failed. Failed quite spectacularly. I recommend a great article on this subject several years ago called the deception dividend. So this is not a new phenomenon. What the public is strongly opposed to intervening militarily, theres very little that the politicians can do to turn it around, i think but people will continue to envolkswagen that because they could never prove the alternative. They could say the leaders didnt try hard enough. They didnt care enough. So you cant prove what happened. Were going to continue to debate whether or not public will is a constraint or not. I think it is and its a stronger constraint than it was five or eight or ten years ago. One last point theres one other constraint related to public will and thats the willingness on the part of the public to spend lots of money to support ambitious Foreign Policy. One that is not dedicated solely or even primarily to defending the United States in our National Security interests but that is also postured to defend them around the world. Thats been our posture for a long time. Contrary to what you might have heard, i have a visual aid here. Two new info graphics that cato produced are out there in the lobby that show that contrary to what you have heard, the u. S. Military spending has not been gutted. The u. S. Military is not on the verge of obsolescence. Were not at risk of being swamped over by our adversaries. What you do see, however, is a consistent lack of will and not surprisingly on the part of our allies to spend much on defense. Why would you . I would do the same thing. Youre not inclined to pay for things that other people will pay for you but its also true that in real dollar terms were spending more today than we did on average during the cold war. More today than during the cold war. That is increasing pressure on the Defense Budget and military spending. And crowding out expenditures on equipment and on operations and maintenance. Thats happening. Thats very hard to stop. The American People will more likely to cut it deeply to fund a larger military budget. We will choose because we cant do everything and we cant do everywhere. We can choose well or we can choose poorly and i worry that if we wait too long and figuring out what it is and we dont choose a grand strategy or Something Like it, if we dont make a conscious decision to adapt our Foreign Policy to these real constraints, then we will choose poorly. Thank you. Thank you, chris. Michael. First of all i want to thank them for putting this event together. Its really been a great day of conversation. So i want to pick up a little bit on what chris was saying and i think first of all the focus on syria is an interesting Inflection Point in american support for military intervention. Its actually an interesting one that i think not enough people have talked about it. Such a rare occurrence that it occurred and it has a huge impact at least on this conversation about the future of american Foreign Policy. But i want to get a little bit of what chris was saying and talk not just about american support or lack of support for military intervention but the interest in Foreign Policy which if you look at the polls is historically low levels. Its not just the opposition of force. Theres a broader sense that america spent too much. Its resources, too much time and energy overseas. I was looking at some of the poll numbers before came here today and i was struck by this from the fall of last year which shows that more than half agree the u. S. Should allow them to get along the best they can. In addition, 80 agree with the statement that we should think not so much in internationally terms but concentrate on our National Problems and building up our strength and prosperity here at home. Now 80 . In this country today when 80 of americans agree on anything it is a notable occurrence. Considering the Political Polarization we have. Its a broad base. It isnt just democrats or republicans or one party saying this. These are views widely shared across political spectrums. Theres not a huge partisan gap here. So i think, you know, the indication i think you should draw from this is that people are a little tired from Foreign Policy. They want america to focus on issues at home. I think its interesting by the way that 80 , the last time it was that high was the early 1990s. The obvious pair lrallel is its end of the cold war. They want to come home and the early 1990s were a pretty bad economy this in this country. Akined to what we have seen over the past several years. Not as bad but on par and i think thats also driving that. Ill talk more about that in a second. We should share burdens and this isnt a new view. People long thought that we should share global burdens. Just seems to be at a much higher level than in the past. What i sympathy the most interesting about these numbers is the divide that you see between the public and the elites. So for example, half of the public, 51 says the u. S. Does too much in terms of solving World Problems and 17 says that we do too little. If you ask them and these are cfr, Council Foreign relations members, 41 say we do too little and 21 say we do too much. Thats a huge divide between elites and the public. And if you look at Public Priorities where people think our foreign policies should be directed, the divide is even larger. This was fascinating to me. The number one concern among americans and also generally among elites is terrorism. So theres a broad conception that we should focus on preventing another terrorist attack. For the public, the number two concern, they want to protect american jobs. 81 say this should be a priority in american Foreign Policy. Among elites, its 29 . That is a huge divide. Its the largest divide, by the way in this poll. The only one close is Climate Change which elites think is more important an issue than ordinary americans and the odd element i think of this is if you look at american Foreign Policy, particularly in the last 12 years or so, theres very little focus on our Foreign Policy on jobs and the economy, right . Im reminded of in the first gulf war no blood for oil. You heard this in 2003 in the iraq war. I think of that now and i dont mean to be overly flippant but i wish we thought this was about oil because then you could justify all the blood. But its not. We havent fought them for economic reasons. And i could argue that, in fact, wars have undermined our economy dramatically. There isnt a real connection between our Foreign Policy agenda and the economy which is what you would traditionally think your Foreign Policy should be focused on aside from security. Thats something that americans are responding to. So, you know, if you think about why we have gotten to this point, why americans are so fed up part of it is the military interventions, certainly hang over from iraq and afghanistan. And i am actually struck by, i was reading, maybe youre familiar with the recent cover story in the new republic about why america must continue to be a forceful leader around the world. And of course he warns against isolationism. The irony of course is the individuals most responsible in some ways for isolationism are people like robert kagan. The ones saying we should fight stupid wars and get involved in iraq again today, they are, promoting, in a sense, this isolationism on americans. If you look at the polling today, this came out about an hour or so i saw a recent poll polling this on iraq. 74 of americans oppose intervention in iraq. 16 support. Im surprised they found 16 . But maybe theyre all related to john mccain. I dont know. But it was surprising. But if you look at those numbers, imagine what would happen if the u. S. Were to get involved in iraq. There would be a significant backlash. Youve seen this by the way already on the left. With groups like move on and other folks warning president obama not to intervene or theres going to be a backlash and its going to effect the midterm elections and youve also seen, ill talk more about this in a second but Hilary Clinton, Hilary Clinton who never found war she didnt want to support. I cant think of anyone in the last 12 years she hasnt supported and she saying we shouldnt get involved in iraq and thats a big deal that i dont think enough people are talking about. The second element of this, besides the hang over from iraq and afghanistan, you know, is that americans think we should focus on problems at home. And if you look around this country today, if you look at the inequality and our really underperforming economy, poor job growth and wage growth, our crumbling infrastructure, the levels of organization are utterly dysfunctional. You know, to put it candidly, as the kids would say, America Today is a bit of a hot mess. We have all kinds of economic and Health Related problems in this country that need to be addressed and are not being addressed. So i think for americans they would rather address these issues than further immerse ourselves in global conflicts. Now having said all of that, all the poll numbers also indicate that Americans Still want us to be globally engaged. They want us to be a super power. They want to have their cake and they want to eat it too. This has consistently been american Foreign Policy. We want to be a super power but we dont want to do all the things to be a super power. But i think the support is fragile and i think that its going to be more of a folly than the past 13 or 14 years. If you believe the u. S. Has a global role to play and needs to be involved around the world, fine but you also have to recognize theres elements to that and that some of the things that you want to do to enhance American Leadership are going to blow back against you and harm the things that. I said people like kagan are hurting their own argument by recommending use of military force and said they dont care about those issues. They care about going to war. Thats their main concern but for the rest of us that do care about america having, you know, having an important global role and dealing with Irans Nuclear program or pushing for, you know, trade talks in the far east, you know, these kinds of adventures are going to hurt that argument and that liberal internationalism that progressives have long supported and again i go back to the hilary example i mentioned earlier. I think that there is a sense, maybe, that this ideas are penetrating a little bit. I mentioned it earlier but i think the fact that Hilary Clinton again who is somebody that consistently worried about not appearing to be too dovish. He supported the iraq war. She supported the surge. Behind the closed doors she supported syria. She supported libya. She has been a regular supporter of intervention and i think she is sort oppenhef a certain mind that said we cant look weak on Foreign Policy. That she is now saying, no, wait a minute, lets step back is indicating to me that someone is getting that. I think president obama gets that. I think he understands it better than probably 99 of the people in this town that if you end up, if you continue to push Foreign Policy americans dont like, they dont support, that they dont want to see us do, then youre going to lose that critical support for the things that are important and i think, you know, if, for example, we move forward on something with iraq. If we use force against iraq, its only going to give energy. Not just to the opponents in our Democratic Party for use of force but also in the Republican Party as well. I think someone like rand paul, if i was rand pauls political advisors i would be this sounds crass but i would almost be cheering for us to do something because it would give real energy to his critique on american Foreign Policy. On that note ill end. Do you think that rand paul and his people are that crass. I probably shouldnt say it. He is a politician. Thank you, michael. If you have questions we would be more than happy to take them and we would ask you to step to the microphone. I have a question to start off for everyone and we can go down the line here. So lets say that the Public Opinion which clearly has brought about a shift in the last year and a half or so, it operates at such a constraint and bear in mind that the elites havent come around. They may be coming around because they have their arm twisted around their back but not in terms of their own thinking and were not seeing anything in congress that is attempting to put constraints on the administration. Nothing like our neutrality act of 1935 which was a very powerful thing. I think Franklin Roosevelt actually violated it. It was probably an Impeachable Offense if anybody wanted to pursue it. It was a major constraint. Were not seeing anything like that. So what might we see or should we see in terms of a Foreign Policy that reflects what michael is saying, the Public Opinion added to that we need to be a country in the world and diplomatically backed up by power but we dont need to go off and do these foolish things and you mention balancing and balance of power seems to have been in the last 20 years since the end of the cold war. What role might that possibly play . Lets start with you here. Pick whatever you want. Let me see about the choices you made. How does the administration perceive when theres such a public intervention. Drones, cia, all of that stuff. Thats where its lead for obama. Thats the thats the alternative if you want to be active in the world and then theres obviously problems with that. I want to go back to the syria thing because i have see, being a leader in the world also involves credibility. I know this is a bad word because henry always used to use it as an excuse for not leaving whatever conflict we were involved in. Part of the problem that obama got into both with syria and now with iran is this idea about red lines where he said were establishing red lines and there was an odd political valince to that we should consider. On one hand the public is not for any kind of intervention but on the other hand, there is support for knocking off the evil guys. And part of i believe that part of the reason that palm balm got involved with the syria red line was in response to romney and mccain attacking him in the summer of 2012 during the campaign and in august he says theres a red line and when the sere juans do it he does nothing and i thought that was a very damaging thing. So the politics are funny. I guess thats my comment. On the one hand, dont intervene but there is a kind of inclination where there is a real bad guy to support our doing something and we get into trouble that way and i think that obama has gotten into trouble that way. I think there is an inclination but its mainly here in washington to do those sorts of things and the lesson, if youre concerned about credibility john is dont issue warnings or red lines that you dont have the backing of the public to back you up. Now, in his defense, maybe he didnt realize just how much the public strayed away. But michael cited the scientific statistics on the gap between elites and the public and this is not a new phenomenon. This existed for a long time. I did a very unscientific survey in late august, Early September of the five sunday morning shows and counted 18 people favor intervention. Three oppose. 183. In what context . And a year ago it was a reminder, a very vivid reminder of just how disconnected the political leads are in this town from the rest of the country that pays the bills. And again, in the past, that public opposition didnt manifest itself. For whatever reason, the public did rise up and stop what i think i think obama would have gone forward, he would have had sufficient support in congress had the public not risen up in the way it did to enforce that red line in an incredibly unbelievably smaller than small way and he would have checked off your box john that i keep my promises because i launched a military strike that checked that credibility box. He would have done that had the public not risen up the way he did. I agree that politics plays a role here. This was a main argument but it seems to me that the one thing obama is passionate about in Foreign Policy is what . Nonproliferation and thats iran and you can see it some what on the issue as well. That may also explain the position he took but the public was against the intervention in syria but it was Congress Opposition that pushed them away from use of force. If you remember that, theres republicans that support use of force but become miles apart were opposed to syria but democrats were even more opposed to it. Or even as opposed to it and that is what convinced obama to not use force and for the record, i think he deserves enormous credit for that actually. He made a series of one after the other and not seeing what that meant. And then getting caught behind Public Opinion but i have a hard time thinking of any other recent example or historical example. If you can name one ill be great of a president saying im going to use force to maintain my credibility both domestically and internationally and then saying, you know what, im not going to do this because i dont have support for it. Thats unprecedented and is a reflection, i think of a, how badly they misread Public Opinion but how savvy a politician he is to realize this is a disastrous decision. And maybe whats driving this is i think poll situations are waking up to where americans are on this. In a sense, voting for use of force against as sad would seem like a political slam dunk. Okay, fine, its a pin prick. Smaller than small. Its not a huge political not like use of force against iraq for example and yet you had i mean, broad majority in congress and that tells you about where the conversation is shifting and that some poll situations are catching up to this reality. Step to the microphone. Yes, absolutely. Hi, im Michael Brandon daugherty and michael you mentioned congresss opposition being key in preventing smaller than small intervention in syria. Does anyone have a clue how the Foreign Policy preferences of the elector could be expressed in an election involving the exe branch, which actually has this. In 2008, it was two years after the thumping for republicans over iraq and yet they nominated john mccain. In 2012, there was a candidate, kind of announcing a Foreign Policy that was about jobs and everything. John huntsman, he said that our future was in the trade routes of asia, he got zero response. It was a flat line as far as electoral politics is concerned. And hes nott an outsider. This was an insider, ambassador to china, someone deep in the Foreign Policy establishment. But there was no traction on that. So is there any political veiliance, or is the executive branch in its nature, the interventionist branch of government and has antibodies for that . Go ahead. Thats a great question. Democrats have won a majority of votes in the last five. The one they didnt win, 2004, in which Foreign Policy played a major role. One of the things that i think is not appreciated enough, at the end of the cold war, it was a boon for democrats. They were seen as a more hawkish party, to be able to stand up to the communists, after the fall of the berlin wall and the soviet union, that argument faded. So republicans came up with a new boogeyman and they gained some political advantage from Foreign Policy. But in general, Foreign Policy doesnt play a huge role unless youre in the midst of a conflict. Who knows what will happen in the next two and a half years . I hope were not in a war. But i dont think its going to play a huge factor. Where i think it could make a difference and where youve seen it make a difference is on the between the two parties. Within the parties. So in 2008, no question barack obama won the democratic nomination, in large part because of his opposition to the iraq war. Theres no question about that. Thats what gave him a political opening. Opening, right. It was a vulnerability hillary never dealt with properly. What i think is interesting to think about is whether or not in 2016, whether this plays out, how this plays out in the Republican Party. Im loathe to sort of suggest that republicans are going to go for somebody who is an isolationist like rand paul, because it goes against how republicans think on Foreign Policy. But when you have john mccain, dominant in the Foreign Policy and thats driving where republicans are on Foreign Policy, i wonder whether it creates a backlash in the party and allows someone like paul to gain political advantage. Who knows . I think the next election will be about the economy, as most elections are. I just add one thing to what michael just said. First of all, Foreign Policy doesnt usually factor in elections. There are a few rare exceptions, 2006 being one and 2008 because of what happened to barack obama. I think youre wrong in 2004. The iraq war was a drag on george bush. He underperformed where he should have been given the state of the economy in 2004. The other reason why it didnt matter as much, he was running against a guy who voted for the iraq war. There was not a clear distinction between the two major candidates. And in some respects, kerry, the whole, i was for it before i was against it, which republicans seized upon with gusto. So if there is a real choice, within either of the two parties, or mainly i presume within the Republican Party, or a clear choice in Foreign Policy between the leading democrat and the leading republican, then Foreign Policy might be a bigger factor than you would otherwise expect. Yes. Could i ask you to go to the microphone. Im moving with difficulty. Im sorry about that, but the audience on tv is going to want to hear your every nuance. Im norman birn balm from the nation. Before the syrian decision by the president , something happened in a small archaic country across the atlantic which we mostly know from masterpiece theater. The British Parliament acted out a scene from masterpiece theater and took a majority vote after quite an interesting debate, not to intervene in syria. I dont know very no very large pro portion of the American Public looks at cspan, but somehow the news must have gotten to people. And it must certainly have come to the president s desk in his morning intelligence briefing and had some influence on his decision. But it was quite a a remarkable sequence of events, because it did seem to turn obama around. Obviously it meant that he couldnt count on much european support on that. The germans certainly werent going to go in if the british didnt. Was not convincing, this was [ inaudible ] to napoleon. So what did happen . Gents . John . What did happen . I mean, i agreed with the point in the first place. I think the british not going along was the single most important thing. And i think that without that, the french were ready. The planes were on the runway. I think they would have done something. Then he decided he would submit the whole thing to the public and it blew up in his face. So i agree with you, norman. Yeah, i agree. Thank you, norm. Let me pose this thought, because were talking about a sense of political reality and a sense of Political Sentiment as it exists in the country, but were living through very dramatic events in the middle east right now. The president has suggested, hes being wary in terms of timing, but hes suggested hes going to take some action regarding the emergence of isis in iraq and what that bodes for iraq and syria. To what extent do you see any change as a result of these developments, either in terms of the elite and how they feel about what needs to be done, and in terms of popular sentiment in the country . Well, i would say quickly, bob, that the elites havent changed. They were in favor of intervention before and are now, generally speaking, and the public remains overwhelmingly opposed. In the little polling there has been done confirms that. Now, thats not to say that there might be kind of opportunities or circumstances in the iraq case where the precise use of force might actually be useful for degrading isiss capability or blunting their progress. And i think that was that was also part of the problem with the syrian cases. There wasnt a clear military solution. What exactly were these pin prick strikes supposed to do . So i think it is possible they could make a case for military action, but of a particular character and very, very small in a good sort of way. To come up with a different term besides unbelievably small, but targeted. One of the things about this thats interesting, theres an argument to be made for use of force in iraq. Im not going to make t but i think theres useful argument for it. There was a useful argument for syria as well. I did make it, although im not sure i still agree with it. The problem is, the bad cases for war, and the good cases for war, are not going to have any popular support. The syria thing is fascinating. You saw such opposition to what was basically cruise missiles and air strikes. No one talked about americans on the ground. Nobody. Nonetheless, the fear of this spiraling into some bigger conflict clearly inflamed a lot of americans. And i think on iraq, this is, again, i go back to my earlier argument, the internationalists who want the u. S. To be active around the world, they are shooting themselves in the foot by thats how bad their argument is. Theyre taking a crowbar and hitting themselves too. [ laughter ] the reasonable cases for use of force are not going to be heard by americans who do not want to get involved in another stupid war. And every single time that something bad happens around the world, like crimea, your response is, we have to use force. Its like the little boy who cried wolf. At some point, people just tune you out. We talked about this with the elites. Somebody who is not an elite, maybe i just dont realize it, but its not a Foreign Policy elite. Im just sort of stupified by the disconnect between the way the elites talk about Foreign Policy and the reality of how americans feel about it. This has always been the case, but i have never seen anything like it right now. [ indiscernible ] and the reality of where americans see this. And i think the elitists need to catch up to the American People on this issue. I see we have a question. My names abraham, editor with an indian magazine. I had a question on the impact of the alternative media because i closely follow the debate regarding syria and my opinion, the mainstream western coverage was superficial. So to understand the situation, i turned to russian and syrian sources. What i was so surprised by, was to see ordinary americans who had no ethnic ties to syria, posting links to russia today, or syrian perspective, and as far as i know, this is something fairly new. So i was wondering if you could talk about that. Go ahead, john. I dont have anything very interesting ill just tell you, on syria, i, like joshuas website, hes a professor from the university of oklahoma, there are available sources if you dont want to have to rely on the russians to find out whats going on in syria. Thats the i mean thats a fair point. And its not entirely new phenomena, maybe its just the first time syria was able to manifest where the phenomenon of the Mainstream Media losing his strangle hold on information, again, a longterm process, but it may be that the syria case is one of the first times its resulted in something that you can grab a hold of. And watching some of the iraq coverage and some of the people, paul bremer was on yesterday. [ all speak at once ] hes on television. Thats like interviewing the captain of the hinden berg. I cant imagine how anybody could think but these people end up being leaned on in these situations. So i understand why people would to find alternative sources. We are at the end of our time. Thank you, michael, chris, john, american conservative, and thank you all for coming. [ applause ] former iraq administrator paul bremer wrote the wall street journal recently about the possibility of sending more u. S. Troops to iraq. Hell join us on the next washington journal. Well talk to congresswoman Loretta Sanchez about u. S. Options in iraq. She serves on the House Homeland Security and Armed Services committees. Later as part of our spotlight on magazine series. Steven levy on the health care website. You can join the conversation on facebook, by twitter and by phone. Washington journal each morning at 7 00 eastern on cspan. British Prime Minister David Cameron appears before members of the house of commons during Prime Ministers questions times live coverage at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on our companion network, cspan 2. The thesis of the book is that theres a whole group of people in america, a big swath of america, that is being ignored, left behind, not included in the discussion, i think, for either party. Particularly, though, i would argue the Republican Party. I call them blue collar conservatives, the folks out there that are working people, most of whom dont have college degrees. Folks that really still understand the value of work and the importance of work and responsibility. People who understand the importance of family and faith, believe in freedom and limited government. So you say, well, those are conservative republican voters. In many cases theyre not. A lot of them arent voting at all, because they dont really see either party talking to them about the concerns they have, and trying to create an opportunity for them to live the American Dream. Former pennsylvania senator and president ial candidate Rick Santorum argues that working americans have been abandoned by both Political Parties and offers conservative answers to their problems, saturday night at 10 00 p. M. Eastern. And this month in our online book club, were discussing the forgotten man. A new history of the great depression. Join others at book tv. Org. Television for serious readers. , john negroponte, former National Intelligence director discusses the situation in iraq and options for a u. S. Response. From washington journal, this 45 minutes. John negroponte is a former u. S. Ambassador to iraq, he joins us now as we continue our discussion on the militant uprising in that country. You started your service in iraq a decade ago as insurgents were trying to destibl az the country. How does the threat today compare to what you saw first hand back in 2004 and 2005 . Well, i think things have really changed a lot. Probably the most important thing is that we withdrew our troops at the end of 2011, so theres no u. S. Military presence, nor is there the kind of diplomatic presence that we had previously. So were no longer, say, an honest broker in the situation, and i think that was very important both militarily and politically. And the other thing is that the situation in syria has gotten so bad since 2011. And i think part of what were seeing happening in iraq today is really the spillover of the situation that has been developing with isis in syria over the past several years. This is the Islamic State of iraq and syria, also known as the isil on this map, here from the wall street journal from over the weekend, the black section there is this approximate area that isis wants to make into one continuous threat one continuous state. There was a threat that you werent dealing with back in well, we were dealing with it in a national form. It was inside of iraq, in the form of al qaeda in iraq, and we certainly had difficulties with al qaeda in iraq, particularly, youll remember they took control of fallujah during that time, there was a big battle in late 2004, when the United States marines regained control of fallujah. Then years later, general mccrystal and his Operations Forces succeeded in eliminating altsar kay, the leader in iraq, and as many have said over the recent years, al qaeda was decimated or dealt a serious blow during that time, but i think now the sunni extremists, if you will, the extremist phenomenon has gotten a second wind because of whats happening in syria. And for folks who are less familiar with isis, can you tell us from how we went from the attack that killed alzachary and what we have today . I think whats happened is, they went down to very low numbers, and the situation in syria started brewing and these same extremists took up arms against the government of syria, then they started moving back and becoming more active in the sunni triangle of northern iraq, opposed to the government in baghdad, and they took a foothold, you may recall, earlier this year and last year, back in fallujah again and in ramadi, in the western part of the country, which is a predominantly sunni area of the country, and now most recently youve seen these rather spectacular attacks, starting with mosul, which was also a troublesome area, even during the time i was there. It was kind of a divided city. On one side of the river was the hardline Saddamists Sunni extremists, the other side was kurdish control, because it was closer to the border with kurdistan. So mosul has always been a problematic area, but its a tremendous development for a government of iraq to lose one of the most important cities in the country. Is the threat that youre seeing today, to the Central Government in baghdad, is it greater than it was when you were there . Well, first i think its greater because the government has actually lost control of some of these towns. Fallujah and ramadi and the Anbar Province have been under the control of the extremists for quite some time now, now you see this prosecution of their activities from mosul southward. So id say yes. We would have been very disturbed during the time i was in iraq had so many cities fallen under some kind of enemy control. And i think that we did a interpretee with the presence that we had and the work we were doing with the iraqi forces, we did a pretty good job of keeping control of pretty much the entire country. And you said the Current Situation is creating strange bedfellows in the region. Your thoughts on the u. S. Cooperating with iran as they try to stabilize iraq . Yeah, well, i said strange bedfellows in the sense that obviously the government in iran, being a shiadominated society, and a shiadominated government, run by shia clerics, has a certain degree of sympathy with the shia predominant government in iraq. So in that sense, politics makes strange bedfellows. Should we be pinning much hope on coming to some kind of negotiated understanding with iran . I have some questions about that. Because i think their interests diverge from ours, and im not sure what they can add to the mix. I dont think baghdad has a problem with iran. The problem baghdad has is with sunni extremists and other sunnidominated countries. So im not entirely certain what could come of all that. Now, one way i could see involving iran, and this is something we did visavis afghanistan, was to form a Regional Group of countries. In afghanistan it was called the sixplustwo, a group of regional countries, plus the United States and russia, in this case, i believe, who consulted periodically about the situation in afghanistan. I think it would be good to have some kind of Regional Grouping which involved the neighboring states of iraq, to get some regional involvement in what is going on. That way you get some of the other big stakeholders, turkey, saudi arabia, jordan, in addition to iran, involved in talking a little bit about what everybodys vision is for iraq going forward. It wouldnt be an immediate solution. Would the sunni and shiite split, with that split, would that cooperation work among these Different Countries . This map shows sort of the split in the middle east, the shiite populations, the countries with larger shiite populations like iran here in more darker red. More sunni populations, the lighter colors over here. So could there be Regional Cooperation on this issue, or would there be too much sectarian tension. A very good question. And up until now, that has not been easy, but thats the point. And the point of diplomacy. You dont negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with people who have a different point of view from you. So it seems to me, it would be good to get the various stakeholders around the table. I dont believe thats the immediate solution to the Current Crisis in iraq. Thats a much more pressing situation they think requires immediate measures to respond to the security situation that the Iraqi Government is facing. A tweet from the president of iran on this topic as this has developed over the last week or so, the situation in iraq. Hassan rouhani writes, where did isis come from . Whos funding them . We warned everyone, especially the west, about the dangers of supporting such violent and reckless groups. Do you remember these warnings . I dont recall the specific warnings, but certainly they have no interest in seeing the isis get strong. Now youve seen from whats happened in iraq in the last few days, soon theyll be able to selffund. Theyre not going to need outside help if theyre roping banks that theyve said to be doing. They already have millions, if not billions of dollars. Were talking about John Negro Ponty this morning on the washington journal as we continue to talk about the situation in iraq. Republicans can call in. Democrats can call in. Independents as well. If youre outside the u. S. , you can call too. Richard writes in on our twitter page, does iraqs neighbors have no stakes as to what isis is doing . Oh, i think they do. And we already talked about iran. I think theyre concerned about that. Certainly turkey. Who are the big stakeholders outside of you know, on the borders of iraq . Turkey, for one. And i think they have a strong interest. Theyre already very involved in curt st kurdistan and the northern parts of iraq. Jordan, if iraq experiences a catastrophe, they might be the ones who are affected next. So theyre certainly very involved. Saudi arabia is a stakeholder. And theres some concern that at least some saudi elements have been providing support to these isis forces. And i think that if there are saudis who are doing that, i think thats a serious mistake on their part. But, yeah, everybody in the region has a stake, because if iraq comes under some kind of isis control, i think thats going to have repercussions way, way beyond the borders of iraq itself. Lets go to john on the phone from florida. Good morning. Caller good morning. Go ahead. Caller my comment is, you told a woman that youre nonbiased a few calls back, but this guys a show for the Oil Companies and the bush administration. They could google mosul deck and find out a little history of whats going on over there. You have this guy, and now youre going to have some clown from the American Enterprise institute which is a cokefunded rightwing group. Were talking about the ambassador about his time in iraq to give us perspective on whats going on now. Can you talk about what your work has been since you left since you were ambassador. Well, i retired from the state department in 2009, and ive been a consultant with mccarty associates, a company that advises American Companies doing business abroad. And also im on the faculty at Yale University where i teach courses on diplomacy and National Security. But to the point about oil, and this is something that the caller might be interested in knowing, i discussed the issue of oil a number of times with president bush when he was president , and i think he bent over backwards to try and demonstrate that oil was not the factor driving our policy towards iraq. And it isnt to this very day. This has to do with the makeup of the middle east. Of the political coloration of the middle east. The stability of the middle east. But certainly ive never felt particularly like i was a shield for the Oil Companies. Lets go to jonathan in winter park, florida, for republicans. Good morning. Caller good morning. Go ahead, jonathan. Caller i think that iraq presents a greater threat to the United States security today than it did when we went in originally. And if thats the case, then shouldnt we be going back there in greater numbers than we originally went in with . I think certainly if isis succeeds in taking over iraq, that would represent a very serious threat indeed. I think it would be it would be a good chance where the next 9 11 or the next serious terrorist attack on either the United States or on our interests abroad might come from. But should we go back after having spent so many years there and spent so much blood and treasure . I certainly dont think we should go back with boots on the ground and combat forces. I would favor i would have favored leaving a residual force behind in iraq to provide some intelligence and logistics and other kinds of advisory support. Unfortunately, we werent able to arrange that, as our last troops left at the end of 2011. And i think in part, were paying a little bit of the price of that. But i do believe, while we shouldnt go back in, in large numbers, with boots on the ground, that it would be appropriate to provide selective, military advice and assistance to the Iraqi Government right now, in its moment of dire need, to help it deal with the critical situation that it faces. And what would that look like . Well, it could be drone strikes. It could be air strikes. It could be intelligence support. All of the above. And whats your opinion of the Prime Minister and how hes handled the situation . I never knew program malachi very well myself, because he was Prime Minister after i left iraq, but hes been a survivor and hes been a survivor within an elected political system. Hes the product of an elected congress that has chosen him. And he has been quite effective politically. I think theres a criticism which has some merit to it, which is that hes not necessarily been inclusive enough in his approach to forming a government, and his approach to politics, and that may have been a contributing factor to some of the violence that is occurring now. But i dont think isis in iraq and syria was created simply because Nouri Al Maliki wasnt inclusive about his government in baghdad. I think it developed for reasons independent of that. Were talking about john negroponte, the former ambassador of iraq. Going to richard in florida, on our line for democrats. Good evening. Caller good evening. Turn down your tv and go ahead with your question. Caller okay, yes, my question is, back in shock and awe era, there was no such thing as al qaeda. That was coined after the war was started. So why are they keeping going, trying to make us believe theres something called al qaeda in iraq, when there was never such a thing . Plus, the fact, shock and awe, you said that the iraqi people would be waiting with open arms. They was afraid of Saddam Hussein. That turned out not to be true. This war was a fake war, and its still going fake. And it was definitely oilrelated. Thank you. Yeah, i mean, i think you raise a number of points that have been made over the years. I think the question now is, though, do we want to really litigate what happened before . I think theres some merit to some of your points. But in diplomacy and policy and politics, you have to deal with the hear and now and the going forward. And the issue, it seems to me, for the United States and for the region, is what does one do at a time like this when a legitimate government, a member state of the United Nations that has been a friend of the United States for the past decade, what do you do when it faces a critical threat of this kind, that threatens to undermine, or is undermining the very existence of the iraqi state . We do not have an interest in isis succeeding and in chaos reigning in the country of iraq. Nor do we have an interest in seeing a group that a terrorist group that straddles the border between iraq and syria, govern in that part of the world. So, yeah, theres some history there thats going to have to be sorted out. But in the meanwhile, theres a very specific dire situation being confronted by the government and the people of iraq at this very moment. And how should the United States respond to that . Is there a role here for the United Nations to take the lead . Does it have to be the United States . Well, i dont think it has to be exclusively the United States. Weve already talked about the regional players. I think some kind of Regional Grouping, even if only to consult diplomatically about this situation would be a good idea. There could be a role for the u. N. In various elements of the situation, perhaps in legit mating certain actions that are taken, monitoring the human rights situation. You already see that the u. N. United Nations Human Rights Council and watching very carefully what this isis is doing because there have been reports of atrocities and massacres of iraqi soldiers. Would there be place for iraqi for u. S. Peacekeepers . Im not sure. Theres still a residual bad taste about the United Nations in iraq. And im not sure they would welcome United Nations involvement in the form of peacekeepers at this point in time. Sherry in ft. Worth texas, good morning. Caller good evening. Go ahead, sherry. Caller i was just calling because i was kind of concerned about the weapons and the monies in baghdad if isis is headed towards there. Nobody has discussed that. Could you comment. Thats all i have to say. Thank you. Right. Well, as you mentioned, weapons and money. Theyve already captured quite a lot, it would seem in mosul and some of the other towns, as theyve been heading southwards, but im not sure its going to be as easy for them to attack baghdad. Theyll get pushback. In fact, i think youre already watching some kind of real mobilization against these attacks on the part of the Iraqi Government and their supporters. So, i do not fear at this point in time for the security of baghdad. Although i do think theres a heightened risk of some sectarian violence in that city, not unlike what happened back in 2006, 2007. But as far as some kind of takeover of baghdad, which is, afterall, a huge city, i think that would be very difficult for isis. Theyre not ten feet tall. And i think after all, a sunni extremist group, fighting in a country that is majority shia. Do you think that these tensions between sunni and shia in iraq, after so much bloodshed, after not just whats been happening in recent weeks and months, but years ago, can they ever form a cooperative government. Well, i think that was where we played i mean, its a challenge. Its very difficult. Particularly with the overthrow of saddam, these Political Forces were unleashed that had been repressed for decades. So i think they surfaced in very ugly ways. But the United States played an important moderating role. And one of my successors in iraq, mr. Ambassador ryan crocker, just the other day was saying, america was sort of the indispensable balancing element in this whole situation. And i think that we could play an Important Role in brokering some of these differences between iraqis. We could still do that. I hope that we will be continuing to play an active role. Ambassador crocker suggested that secretary kerry ought to give some thought to going out there and lead a diplomatic effort to help bring together the different political factions. Weve been able to broker those kind of arrangements in the past and i think we could probably be helpful now. Heres how the piece put it in newsweek. The american plan was for iraq to be ruled by a cooperative government. But this idea of cooperative leadership between the hatfields and mccoys was always destined to collapse. Hundreds of years of war were not going to set were not going to be set aside just because the west demanded it. Right. So thats a description of the problem. But whats the solution . It seems to me the solution is elected democratic institutions, like the legislature they have. They have to develop a culture and experience of working together in some kind of a democratic environment. And since this government and this political process is so new, i think they can use some outside help in brokering the differences between them. But i think the author has got a point when he says, this is an enormous challenge indeed. Lets go to susan, waiting in vernon, rockville, connecticut. Good morning. Caller good morning, cspan and thank you for letting me be part of the conversation. Good morning, proffessor negropon negroponte. You said we dont have a vested interest in chaos in the region. But according to Samuel Huntingtons theer, thats in the best interest of the u. S. , to make chaos in the region. Cspan had a speaker yesterday that talked about the conflict in the north of iraq, but the Oil Production is still going on. So thats really in our best interest. Because were able to get the oil, we got them fighting among themselves, which was our plan, by the way. And i would advise everyone thats listening and maybe even everyone on the program, this seems like a timely time to watch the movie no end in sight if you want to understand what our did and what our longrange goal is. Our longrange goal is happening. Would you like to respond . I think i would simply say, as i mentioned earlier, the overthrow of saddam unleashed a lot of Political Forces, and its been a challenge to corral those. Our notion was to try and encourage it in a democratic pluralistic direction. That has proven harder than we would have liked. But believe me, when i was serving in iraq, and when my successors were, i dont think there were never any instructions to encourage violence and instability. We wanted to help ensure a stable, prosperous, and a democratic iraq. I dont think that goal is impossible. Although right now, it is under great stress indeed. And it remains to be seen what exactly is going to happen in the weeks and months ahead. But im pretty confident was one thing, that if we dont make some gesture of strong support for the government and people of iraq, i think theres a greater chance of further chaos than if we were to come to their assistance at this particular time of need. Youve mentioned the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a couple times now. Was it a mistake to dismantle the Iraqi Military in the wake of the military action there . Well, i can tell you that when i arrived in iraq in july june, july of 2004, there was only one battalion in the iraqi army, which was a really very dire situation for the Iraqi Security forces. And there were hardly any police. And we embarked on a Major Program to train and equip both army and police forces. I think if a way could have been found to maintain the structure of the army, at the time that saddam was overthrown, that might have been helpful to the situation. But thats water over the dam, and what we did in the face of the complete dismantlement of the iraqi army was to make a major effort to rebuild it. Bill wants to know more about the u. S. Embassy in iraq. Says by all accounts the u. S. Embassy in iraq is called the biggest facility in the world. 5,000 people work there. What do they do . Well, you have the regular embassy complement of political and economic officers. Youve got a large military assistance mission. We sell a lot of military equipment to iraq. And then, i would suspect, although i havent looked at the table of organization in recent years, but a lot of that number are security personnel who are protecting the embassy facility and our people, particularly when they go out on missions outside of the embassy. So theres a very heavy quotient of security people in that 5,000 figure. And we found that security is getting beefed up by about 275 military personnel in the coming days and weeks. Lets go to ron waiting in eagle river, wisconsin, on our line for democrats. Good morning. Caller good morning. I guess now we see the true legacy of george bush and its one we should never, ever forget and let us get talked into going for a war that was not needed. And if it wasnt for the oil, we wouldnt be there. Sir, they dont export sand. So why arent we figuring the cost of this mess into the price of gas . Maybe then wed have a selfsufficient Energy System that would provide us with all the energy we need without even looking at the middle east and let these people just fight their way through this whole thing . Maybe one way of answering you, some people, when they react to the notion of giving more help to the Iraqi Government, they sort of are afraid that what were suggesting is that we go back in there in large numbers, like we were there before. And whatever help we provide, i think, ought to be very discreet and not on a large scale, and certainly not in a way that involves boots on the ground. The second point id make to you about the legacy of the iraq war, i dont think, in light of what has happened in iraq and afghanistan, that youre going to see large numbers of United States forces deployed in some kind of expeditionary form, to situations around the world in the future. At least not for a long time to come. I think our efforts are going to be more selective, maybe more focused on special operations, when military force might be under consideration. So i dont think theres any fear. It happened in iraq, and it happened in afghanistan. But i dont think theres much to fear about us sending 100, 150,000 troops to . Faraway country in pursuit of another effort of this kind. James in alexandria, virginia, is concerned about the difference between boots on the ground and the troops that were hearing being sent, the military personnel being sent. Writes, last week the white house ashurds us they would not send troops into iraq. Now theyve sent 170 and more on the way. Will the president ever be honest with the American People . I think hes being honest. And the troops that are being sent are on the very specific mission of protecting the United States embassy and related institutions out there, and that is not a combat mission, in the sense of the word that most of us understand it. Lets go to joann in our last ten minutes or so with john negroponte, former u. S. Ambassador to iraq. Joann is in san diego, california, on our line for republicans. Joann, good morning. Caller good morning, mr. Ambassador. I agree that with the United States presence in iraq, it was a moderating factor. We forget that malicky even went after the shia militias, so i think he was trying to balance things. My concern, i dont think iran should be invited in. I think this antibush that weve heard from some callers in the Current Administration has butt blinders on them in the war on terror. Theyre not just antibush, theyre antitruman. After world war ii, people said bring the troops back, do this, do that. The truman doctrine was, we have to have a presence throughout the world to maintain democracy. Unfortunately, president obama, in his speech in cairo in 2009, undermined that doctrine. I think now that we see the polls, that people want us to help iraq, and weve got to face the truth about our position in the world, its unfortunate that there is packs americana, look at the last 60 years or so, and i think weve got to continue. I couldnt agree more with what you just said. We are still a country to which others look to lead. They always want to know, what is america going to do . What position are we going to take. So i think we have a continued role to play, a leadership role to play in International Relations around the world. Its important we do it with others. Were not, after all were only about 4 or 5 of the worlds population, and about 20 of the worlds gdp. So we need to do this with others. And of course we have allies, both in europe and in the asiapacific region. We need to nurture those alliances and work closely with our allies, and we need to work with our friends, friendly countries, in the different regions of the world. But i agree with the caller, that we do have a responsibility to lead. We should do it in consultation with others, where possible, and multilaterally where possible, but theres also a requirement, i think, to act on our own when we see a Compelling National Interest to do so. Weve talked about other countries in the region. Lydia has a question about syria. How much is syria benefitting from the iraq situation . Well, its certainly taken syria a little bit off the front pages. Im not sure that the government of syria is benefitting, particularly. Because i think isis has gained strength as a result of these attacks in recent weeks. Gained money, equipment so that to the extent that theyre successful in iraq, i think it also strengthens their position in syria. Basically, syria, i think, has been bogged down in a terrible, violent, horrifying stalemate during the past two or three years, without any clear ending in sight. Is isis looking to expand further west, even as theres been recent push to the east . Well, i think just like al qaeda, they have this asseparation to rate a caliphate, it would start with this area that you showed before on the map, straddling the northern part of iraq and that part of syria, but ultimately, i think they have an interest in spreading as far as they can throughout the remember, jordan might be, the leader was quiet in iraq was jordanian. Whats the lavant . Its that part of the middle east thats comprised by leba n lebanon, syria, iraq, jordan. Thats the levanteen area. Lets go to dan on your line for independents. Good morning. Caller good morning, thanks for having me on. Just a couple little points. First one, i think we can all put to rest now what president clinton meant when he was trying to define what is is. Sorry, just a little bit of humor there to lighten things up there. But to say that the United States isnt involved with causing unrest in other countries is just i mean, that just goes counter into facts, but it seems like, this is whats happening in the United States. You know, the facts are completely counter to the story line we get from the government and the media. Its glaring. So, so youre saying that we didnt have a hand in the unrest in syria. We didnt have a hand in the unrest in libya. We didnt have a hand in the unrest in egypt. And now were not having a hand in whats going on now with all these huge gains these people are making, and we havent done anything yet . That just defies logic, sir. I think the subject we were discussing was iraq when this question was put to me about how we have an interest in the instability in iraq, and i was saying we didnt. I cannot challenge your statement that we took on the existing order in libya during the time of the arab spring, and we have also been supportive of the opposition in syria, because of the repressive very repressive nature of the Bashar Alasad regime. So you do have to make distinctions from country to country and every one of them have their own unique circumstances. I would not make as a general statement, that we did not, at times, take on a role of supporting the opposition, which had the effect of creating a bit of turmoil. Lets go to patrick in chicago, illinois, on our line for independents. Patrick, good morning. Caller s why, hi, good morning. Good morning to you and your guest. My question is, why did we believe that these countries, the shiites and the sunnis thats been fighting for centuries, why did we believe that we could go in and stabilize a civil war between these two factions thats happened for so long . I believe the greatest beneficiary of the iraq war was Saddam Hussein. He was irans greatest enemy, yet we removed him and iran will ruin that area. Its a question of sunni and shiites. Its true there was great animosity between saddam and the iranians, and we gave some assistance to the saddam regime back in the 1980s when they were fighting their war against iran. But again, if you look at the Current Situation, it seems to me one of the ways of avoiding that iran have a dispro portionate role in the affairs of iraq, is for us to come, be responsive to their requests for assistance. Do we want to help them protect baghdad and help them retake other parts of the country that theyve lost . Or do we want iran to take the credit, which would only strengthen their hand in baghdad . So, again, i think one way of dealing with the issue and the problem you describe is for us to come to the assistance of the government of iraq in this time of need. Afterall, we befriended them. We worked with them for the past ten years. What kind of signal would it send if we just keep our arms folded and not come to them in this time of dire need . Weve showed this map several times now, but the more red areas, the more shiite areas in the middle east. The more pink, lighter areas, more sunni areas. With the ongoing tension between sunni and shiite in iraq, would you ever consider or favor allowing iraq to be split along sectarian lines, to redraw the borders . Well, i think the answer to that is to try to make the democratic, the political system that theyve set up work better, to the extend theres democracy, that theres elections in the different provinces, that their federal system works well. Thats the way of protecting the interest of the different minority groups in the country. But i think the argument that you should set up a new country every time a minority clamors for it, you have to ask yourself the question of whether these new states, if you divided the country in three or Something Like that, would really be viable. So i think thats a very dangerous and difficult path to go down. And the third area would be the kurdish area . Exactly. And people are talking about that, but i dont see how, for example, the sunni triangle, if it were to become a nation state, would be viable. Perhaps down in basra, because they have all that oil, and if they were linked to baghdad somehow, they could. But these are hypotheses that i think should only be considered in the most extreme circumstances. And i think they need to be reflected upon very carefully. This is redrawing the map, so to speak. And i think when everyone starts thinking about redrawing the map, one has to be very, very careful indeed. Just a minute or two left with ambassador negroponte. Well go to barry waiting in michigan on our line for democrats. Good morning. Caller good morning. Yeah, id like to rebut a little bit of what you said on the second caller. You mentioned that you didnt have any conversations with bush over oil. Bush was on national tv and he said that somebody was complaining about this war was for oil. He said in his words, yes, of course this is for oil. I dont understand how our intelligence wouldnt that have sort of i cant remember that particular quote. Caller especially when you guys had countries divided up of countries who was going to get that oil. Lets let the ambassador respond. I dont remember that particular quote, but i can give you other quotes where some of the oil people came to me, like t. Boone pickens asked me in a conference once, why didnt you, when you were out there, get a better deal for american Oil Companies . I mean, its the russians and the chinese and others, the european Oil Companies that are there in a big way. Were there, but not nearly so big a way. And i can remember numerous occasions when the president bent over backwards to try and assure people that oil was not the reason that we had gone into iraq. As difficult as that may be for some people to believe. And last call from charlie in indianapolis, indiana, on our line for independents. Charlie, good morning. Caller yeah, good morning. I just wanted to make a couple quick comments about obama. Just got a minute left. Caller okay, his whole apology tour. I mean, how can an Administration Leave misseiles behind when we withdrew from iraq . I think hes lost. I think biden was right when he said its sectarian and its ancient. Theres little or nothing we can do. Like when he drew a red line in syria, they see right through us. Ambassador negroponte on how the Obama Administration has handled this. Well, were waiting for their decision. Theyve been meeting about this. Theyve been deliberating. I think well have to wait and see. The hope the decision is to send a signal, a strong signal of support for the government of Nouri Al Maliki and the iraqi p. Ambassador served . 2004 and 2005. Currently here, thanks so much for joining us this morning. Thank you. President obama travelled to pennsylvania tuesday to talk about boosting the economy through investments in manufacturing and entrepreneurship. At the very top of his remarks, mr. Obama talks about the capture of the one of the individuals responsible for the attack in benghazi. Le here is a look. When the press here, i just want to make a quick comment some news of the day that some of you may have heard. Were all aware of the tragedy that happened in ben bazi kanani where four americans including our ambassador was killed in an attack on a consolute office there. I said at the time that my absolute kmiment was to make sure that we brought to justice tho those who have been responsible and yesterday, our special forces showing incredible courage and precision were able to capture an individual, abdul katalla who is alleged to have been one of the master minds of the attack. He is now being transported back to the United States. I say that first of all because we continue to think about and pray for the families of those who were killed during that terrible attack more importantly, its important for us to send a message to the world that when americans are attacked, no matter how long it takes, we will find those responsible and we will bring them to justice. Thats a message i sent the day after it happened. Regardless of how long it takes, we will find you. I want to make sure that everybody around the world hears that message very clearly because my first and most solemn duty as president and commander in chief is to keep the American People safe. There are a lot of dangers out there and a lot of challenges and our diplomats serve with incredible courage and valor in some very difficult situations. They need to know that this country has their back and will always go after anybody who goes after us. Former iraq administrator paul bremmer wrote in the wall street journal recently about the possibility of sending more u. S. Troops to iraq. He will join us on the next washington journal. We will also talk to congressman Loreta Sanchez about u. S. Options in iraq. They he serves on the house home Land Services committee. Later, stephen leery on his pierce about recent changes on the health cacare. Gov website. You can join the conversation about twitter or by phone at 7 00 eastern on cspan. Two house subcommittees examine the bowberg d berberg p exchange on capitol hill. Live coverage of 2 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan 3. Let idea between 215 and 250, instead of trying to tell the entire of history of st. Louis as a time line or era by era we would absolutely miss vitally important things. Instead of trying to do that and failing we decided what if we just gave snap shots of st. Louiss history that would give people a glipmpse of all the diverse things that happened here so we chose 50 people, 50 places, 50 moments, 50 images and 50 objects and tries to choose the most divorce selection we possibly could. Were standing in the 50 object section of the 250 and 250 exhibit right now. This is what most people would call the real history. This is where the object is right in front of you. Brewing is such a huge part of st. Louiss history. Its an amazing story with lots of different breweries and of course the most famous became anheuserbusch when we were the largest in the world. In the era of anheuserbusch talking about millions of barrels produced each year. We think they are producing so much beer. This is from an era when things were a little bit simpler. Its fun to show people this object and kind of cage their response in the days before they had cans or bottle caps, they put corks in the cops of bottles and somebody had to sit on this thing and do it by hand. You can see its got foot pedals where the operator would push down with his feet to put enough pours down on the bottle. This weekend the history and literary life of st. Louis. The gate way to the wext on cspan 2s book tv and cpsan threes American History t. V. Coming up, San Antonio Texas mayor castro, president obamas choice to head the ushance housing development. This is an hour and ten minutes. I called this hearing to order. Today we will consider the n nominations of castro to be secretary of the department of housing and ushan anurban urban. As mayor of san antonio, mayor the castro has been in the front lines of helping his Community Reach his housing and Economic Development goals. In his tenure as mayor, he has focused on attracting well paying jobs in 21st century industries, raising the educational attainlet and revitalizing the citiess urban core. The department of housing and urban development is a critical partner this these efforts nation wide. Mayor castro will bring both direct experience with and appreciation of the Important Role that these programs play for families, communities, and taxpayers to the role of secretary. Ms. Wertheimer is a partner in the Secretaries Department of wormer, cutler, park esh, hill, and dor to the position of Inspector General. She brings her experience representing audit committees and awaiting procedures in appliance standards for financial institutions. It is essential that fhfa had an ig providing strong oversight of the fhfas work relating to conserve toreship of fannie mae and fannie mac. He also has an important roll monitoring the fhfas oversight of the federal home loan banks. Ms. Wertheimer will bring extensive experience to the position of sector general to ensure that fhfa has fulfilled its mandates set forth by congress. I now turn to Ranking Member tore his Opening Statement. Thank you mr. Chairman. Before us today are two nominees to two very important positions. Mayor castro to be secretary of housing and urban develop emt and ms. Laura wertheimer to be the Inspector General of the federaled financial agency. Both positions will have strong impact on housing and Housing Finance in this country. I look forward to learning what the nominees will bring to each of those issues. Mayor castro, two of the Critical Issues that this committee has spent expensive time agreysing in this congress are among those i want to bring to your attention today. The future of Housing Finance reform and the fiscal solvency of the Housing Administration. We need to knee what your approach will be on both of these issues and whether youll be advocating on behalf of them. Within the debate of Housing Finance reform, current hud secretary shawn den on donovan worked very activity. We must continue to move forward on Housing Finance reform, especially as we approach the sixth anniversary of fannie mae and fannie mac being put into place. The committee has also addressed bilateral legislation to address the copping in the fund. In this matter it would be important to hear from mr. Cast row that he is 100 committed to getting the cap levels to their required levels as soon as possible. Miss wertheimer facing a different but equally Different Task as shes confirmed to be the Inspector General of the fhfa. The fhfa not only oversees those oversees these company but is also responsible for regulating the home loan banks and the various different model thats they represent. The director of fhfa simultaneously acts as regulator, executive and shareholder of those companies. All of this means that the fhfa Inspector General has a very unique oversight responsibility as compared to an ig who is not operating under those circumstances. Miss wertheimer has the opportunity today to inform us how she will handle these exceptional challenges. I look forward to hearing from each of ou nominees on these important issues and more. Thank you, senator. There is an 11 00 vote scheduled for them. Its the law of sufficient time to allow questions. We have agreed to limit Opening Statements to the chair and Ranking Member. All senators will welcomed to submit an Opening Statement for the record. Senator curnan will now introduce mayor castro. Thank you mr. Chairman and Ranking Member crapo. Its my pleasure to be with you here today to introduce a fellow san antonioian and texan mr. Castro. He has told me that hes glad to be here and looked forward to your question buzz he especially looks forward to being back in san antonio to help celebrate the victory of the San Antonio Spurs which that celebration is still going on and will for a long time. I know he will take the opportunity to introduce his wife erica and i understand his brother joaquin castro. A member of the United Statess congress in route. I hope he will have an opportunity to do that. But my comments are that mayor castro has taken quite a road to get to where he is today one thats uniquely texan. I would say uniquely american. I know you will here more about his biography which is compelling but i will point out that mr. Castro and his brother were raised by a single mom in san antonios west side. Both graduated from Thomas Jefferson high school then. He went to stanford and to harvard law school. Quite an impressive accomplishment. When he returned to his hometown at age 26, he became the youngest member ever to serve to be elected to serve on the San Antonio City Council and then one of the youngest mayors in the country. I know many texans are reassured by mayor castros example that the American Dream is still very much alive. I know if confirmed, he will have a lot of tough things to do. Senator crapo mentioned some of those as members of the Community Know hud faces a number of challenges of the last year for the first time the federal Housing Administration received a 1. 7 billion infusion of taxpayer cash to cover a short fall in its Insurance Fund brought by many of the loans that it backed that went south. Hud also continues to struggle with its performance and oversight challenges as identified by the Inspector General. As weve seen with the recent scandal at the veterans administration, the American People need leaders who will hold folks accountable and restore transparency to government. While the issue doesnt fall squarely within huds jurisdiction, i also look forward to learning more about the mayors views on the future roll of freddie and fannie because we know that federal housing policy is not sustainable. Mr. Clair man, after meeting with mayor castro im encouraged that he would employ the same energetic vision that has characterized his tenure leading texass second largest city. I look forward soo to seeing how he would approach the specific challenges that ive identified and those by the committee. I want to thank you and the members of the committee for the opportunity to introduce the mayor and to address you today. Thank you. Senator, please be free to excuse yourself at your convenience. I will introduce miss wertheimer. In addition to aboutibeing the r in the securities department, ms. Wertheimer is a member of the firms Securities Litigation and enforcement practice group. She has advised clients in Securities Law enforcement investigations, regulatory, and criminal nonpublic inquiries and proceedings. From 1981 to 1983, she was a law clerk for judge sputtswood robinson for the u. S. Court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit. She received a degree from yale college and a jd from Columbia University school of law. We will need swear in the nominees. Please raise and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god . Do you agree to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the senate . Please be seated. Each of your written statements will be made part of the record. Before you begin your statement, i invite each of you to introduce your family and friends in attendance. Mayor castro, please proceed. Thank you. I am fortunate to be here today with my wife, erica, and i know that my brother joaquin is i think on his way. You will have to forgive him. He was the second borp twin so sometimes hes late. Im also very fortunate to be here with some of the hud staff that has helped with briefings and so forth. Very appreciative of their work. Thank you for having me. I look forward to the hearing. Thank you chairman johnson. Ranking member crapo and members of the committee for welcoming me here today. I im deeply honored to peer before you as president obamas nominee for housing and urban development. I want to thank you president obama for his confidence in me. Allow me also to thank you senator cornyn. Hes a dedicated public servant. A distinguished senator from texas who also happened to hale from the great city of san antonio. Im incredibly grateful for his support and his generous introduction. As i miks mentioned, i want to express my gratitude to my family and friends, especially my wife erica and brother walk joaquin both of whom join me today. Without their support, i wouldnt be here in front of you. I want to commend this committee which has a well earned represent uation for working in a bipartisan fashion on behalf of the American People. It has been a pleasure to meet with you and your staff. If confirmed i look forward to advancing issues critical to our nations future. Mr. Chairman, i appear before you today with more than experience, i also bring any own personal experience. I grew up on the west side of san antonio in a neighborhood of hard working families of very modest means. My father at two different times in his life lived this public housing. My mother worked for the San Antonio Housing authority. Ive seen with my own eyes how talented and driven americans who just want a fair shot are weighed down by the conditions in which they live. This simply isnt right. All americans deserve the same opportunities that i had and ive dedicated my career to giving back to the country that has given so much to me. As mayor, i made it my mission to help create a vibrant, economically core that expands housing for all san antonioians. In 2010 we launched investment downtown. This effort has atracked 350 million in private Sector Investment which will produce more than 2,400 Housing Units pi the end of 2014. Looking ahead, during my recent visits with committee members, many of you asked about my priorities if im confirmed. Allow me to share two of them with you. First, im a strong believer in cross agency collaboration. San antonios east side is the only neighborhood in america to receive a promise neighborhoods grant, a burned criminal justice grant, and a promise zone designation. We accomplished this by getting beyond the silos and working across agencies to improve housing, educational achievement, and over all quality of life. This is the kind of collaborately approach i would like to enhance at hud. Second as a local elected official,ite also keenly aware of the value of measuring results. In san antonio, we initiated a process of unprecedented Public Engagement called sa 2020. Through a series of community meetings, residents spoke clearly about with a city they wanted it to be in 2020. We set precise numeric goals for achieving our vision. We promised the community that we would come back every year and report back on how we were doing good or bad. With the help of the state demo grafrer, we accepted a report for anyone to see to give san antonios a real name snap shot of our were doing. Similarly, i would like hud to focus on outcomes, not ohm inputs. We shouldnt just track projects and dollars spent. We need to measure investments by the impact they make. If confirmed, i will work hard to make this the norm at hud. Huds role is one of the most critical in government because it directly impacts American Families from enforcing fair housing rights, from assisting veterans and finding permanent housing to helping communities rebuild after a Natural Disaster hits. The department is making april impact in small towns, big cities, Rural Communities and Tribal Community as cross the country. The 21st century is shaping up to be the century of cities. In americas local communities, partnerships and pragmatism are the key drivers to success. That perspective has decided my efforts. If confirmed, i will look forward to working with you to strengthen opportunities through huds efforts. Thank you members of the committee for consideration for my nomination. Its an honor to appear before you and i look forward to answering any questions. Thank you. Ms. Wertheimer, please proceed. Chairman, johnson. Ranking member crapo, members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to be president obamas nominee for Inspector General of the federal Housing Finance agency. Before i