Comparison was to compare enough in iraq, there was a huge stabilization of the situation. Refugees came back from turkey. Lets imagine now that the u. S. Did not intervene in 91, what would have happened to this refugee camp in turkey . Trust me. You have the same scenario inside turkey would have been an extremely bad civil war. It shows entered sbr at the right moment, in syria, the idea was not to send troops. The idea it was going against the strategy of beshar in a very efficient way. Thats one thing. The second thing is and this is crucial. This is the most difficult. There is no clear thought on what im going to say. But the tradeoff between shortterm and longterm, lets take two examples. The drones in yemen and the drones in afghanistan. In both cases the drones are in a way useful because theyre killing enemies. From time to time, they are not enemies, they are mistakes but basically you can say that its useful. But at the same time, you know that drones are very, very, very destabilizing effect on local societies. And im not sure its working actually. Drones are working in yemen . They are working in eastern part of afghanistan . What i think is that you have a trend in the u. S. Policy to make the tools the end the beginning the end of everything. Its a drone, its working so we are going to use drones until the end of the time. No, drones can be useful for six months but then you have to stop because it can be extremely dangerous. And the idea now we have in afghanistan is that all we can do is shock them and we dont have really the leverage and the resources to change the game. So honestly, i dont see very clearly a solution. Negotiation would be perfect and im sure frederic would agree with me, but im not sure its going to happen. But im trying to answer your question, jessica. If i may interfere in that debate. Let me just say one thing. We can always this is not about an initial decision that was wrong, right. There is also ways of conducting the war. And, of course, there was a period when Something Like the power doctrine existed which precisely you are referring to with clear said objective, exit strategy which i think made a lot of sense. Now, in the way things are conducted, im referring particularly to afghanistan, i mean, there are a number of things that could have been done totally differently. And of course, its much easier to be smarter afterwards because we have the luxury of the experience, failed or successful, but there are things we could have worked differently. Among the things which we have observed for example in afghanistan, even the political process has been at the very beginning of it framed in a way so as to facilitate the military intervention . Well, then you introduce a problem within the local dynamic that will make you impossible to solve later on. And in many ways what were facing now is also paying for that mistake as well. And you can say, well, but now that they have been done, what should we do . Well, again, i mean, this is a whole and we cannot ignore that. And there are lessons that can be drawn from it. And im not sure that they all have been drawn. Any way, sir, you wanted to Say Something . Stanley cope. Im wondering if were not being too focussed on our own experience. Let me refer to two experiences in foreign countries, one that ended badly, one that was successful. The one that ended badly, israel lebanon. They went in there, stayed for years, tried to create a proxy army, they failed, badly. How long did the South Lebanon army last . The success, vietnam in cambodia. They went in there, they cleaned out the rouge. They were destroyed. Vietnamese went back across the border. What did the cam bodians do what did the vietnamese do right . What did the israelis do wrong . Maybe we should look beyond our own experience and gain some lessons from what other countries have done . Yes, sir. And well come back to the panel later. I have a more fundamental question on whats wrong with the arab world that it cant govern itself. My son says that obama if he can carry it out the right thing to do. Any other question at this stage . Yes. Madame over there. Hi. Im just responding thanks. Madeline stokes, ive been in lebanon for the last three years. Comment on frederics comment about u. S. Coming out on january 2014. Isis coming out. I was on the ground for the last three years and it was very clear what was happening for the last three years. We knew what was happening. We were screaming at the top of our lungs to all of our contacts, all of us. So, i mean, my comment is that there are plenty of people who are willing on the ground there are plenty of potential allies on the ground, i just think the u. S. Has been really selective. So my question is this a lack of will to get involved period . Or is this a lack of competence in the American Government and its affiliates to communicate with the ground and use all of its resources to make small changes happen . Thank you. Who would like to answer first . I should go with whats wrong with the arab world . Thats a big one. You take that. Come on, i took the last one. Perhaps we could save the debate for later on. But at least i think there is something in your comparisons, sir. What went wrong in lebanon for israel. Could you elaborate a bit on your own question because the fact that you asked you asked the question this way sukts that you have some answers. I dont actually. To be honest, ive tried to look at what the vietnamese did right. I dont speak vietnamese. I would love to see a study on it. That one seems the most successful. They totally crushed them. They went back across the border. Cambodia has survived. Theyve had trials recently and i would love to know how they did it. I have absolutely nothing to say on cambodia, but what i think is that the obama framed the situation in syria is exactly the thing you should not do. I mean, it seems obvious. You take syria as a new iraq. And syria is not a new iraq because the structure is different. So, we should stop the idea that all interventions are going to fail, its not a good idea. Right . I would most of the time i say do not send troops on the groun ground. Ed the problem in washington is that when youre saying i want to intervene or i dont want to intervene, actually theres a political sub text. Are you liberal, are you neutral . Are you whatever, whatever, whatever . Nobody is looking at whats going on on the ground is the problem. Everybody is playing politics. And i would argue at least just looking at the problem not the political undertone of the solution is the key to answer things. And the lady was perfectly right. Everybody interested in syria was very clear, there are two years that we are going to it was clear. It was written. We wrote it. Other people wrote it. The strategy was very easy to understand. International sorry, i should not say that. You dont need necessarily to have opinions or understand the crisis. Its quite simple actually. What we wrote in spring, 2013, was easy. It was predicting the next six months. No big deal. Yes. In a sense it also comes back to question of what we mean when we say what we say. I think that elaborates on what gilles is saying. We are doing comparisons in afghanistan, syria here. The situations are very different. The situations are different and they should require discriminated policies. In a sense, it looks like if after well, it started before. Theres always a debate about should the u. S. Be isolationist and not intervene or should they intervene . I think the two positions only make sense in university courses. It does not make sense in policy. Intervention can work and intervention in the context of which you are going i mean, at least one difference that you have between cambodia and lebanon i would not elaborate on the cases. Rouge were hated when vietnam intervened. And not liked when intervened in lebanon among those populations. You know, if we look at the Islamic State and the taliban, we have two very different movements. And you dont engage with the taliban the way you engage with the Islamic State. The Islamic State is a movement that die bollically refuses any intergregs is someone acceptable to them. The borders do not make any sense. The taliban you should engage them. On the contrary, they have tried to uphold Afghan Border to take a very precise example in 2009. Youve got the movement which whose dream is to integrate International Order as the afghan state. So you should not look at them in the same way. Thank you. Other questions . Yes, please, sir, over there. Lauren heresy. I was a scholar in 1968 in india and i continue to read the india story. Its hard to formulate a good question for a panel like this because youre brilliant and thats a compliment. I want to ask you to give me a scenario for the retaking of the large city of mosul in northern ra iraq. Vietnam, lebanon, cambodia, israel, et cetera, we had a civil war in the United States that lasted four years. This is civil war territory. Mosul is an iraqi city but its in the hands of another self declared state authority. So, each of the four of you or five, if you will, mr. Moderator, give us a scenario how long will it take before mosul is maybe like the city of atlanta, georgia, part of a union again . Somebody want to answer that . Yeah, please, please. Loogs k, as this new york ti article brilliantly highlighted, were dealing with a military in iraq the most effective combat forces on the ground are for mosul to be liberated it has to come from the sunnis themselves. I think the u. S. Strategy is empowering a provincial movement, a provincial armed wing under this national guard. There will probably be some sort of effort to split sort of the prague thattists twn isis ranks who can be bought over. The question is not so much the liberation but what comes next . Terms of the government structures that will replace it and are you going to have enough confidence being conveyed to the sunnis that theyre part of the national project, that they have representation . I mean, this is the real longterm struggle. You could argue that weve done this before where we have air power, we have indigenous forces, probably some use of ground advisers on the ground to coordinate air strikes. We have these tribal para militaries that come in. But then what comes next . I was in iraq in 2008 in baghdad working on this surge. As we heard, aqi was declared dead. The tables had turned, but we know that these movements can reemerge, like a cancer coming back. And so the question is what kind of government is going to replace isis in mosul . Yeah. Mosul, i was not far from mosul when isis attacked. Of course, i left with a lot of people from around the city. But what to do with moes . Youre right. Its a strategic city. You cannot break isis in iraq without taking back mosul. The problem is the way of our u. S. Are dealing with mosul right now with the iraqi army. Booming isis, its not the solution. The program is political. You have to deal with the sunni arabs but also on the field with the different groups. I mean, when you bomb mosul, when you try to kill them in this way, of mass bombing, you know, you kill off a lot of civilian. You destroy mosul, the local elite. Its impossible to dream about to stabilize the situation by then the second point is which forces do we have on the field . Kurdish are not effective. Theyre very dividing among them. You need maybe to train them for two, three years and then what will happen probably is that they will try to make a competition between them to know which one could increase they are not convinced at all that they have to go back to mosul. Then you have the iraqi army. Will try to slaughter, you know, different arabs and try to secure baghdad. The center of iraq showed that its really difficult for the iraqi army to progress itself and they have to go through different militia which is a really bad sign for the arabs. And the last point, i spoke i was in iraq two weeks ago and i spoke with a lot of arab people who are still living in mosul. And for them, they have more fear that the iraqi army come back to the city than isis stay. I mean, they know that if the iraqi army come back, it will be slaughtering to the people. It will be a lot of mass killing. Really for the moment they are not really for that, of course. So right now, to take back mosul will take time and i think the solution is a political solution. We have to negotiate. Thank you. Gilles, you wanted to intervene . No, thats okay. All right, we have time for one last question and then ill give two minutes to the panelists to conclude. Yes, madame, please. Thank you. I have a really simple question. The u. S. Is retaining some combat troops in afghanistan and also increasing Training Forces in iraq. Does this signify some changes in National Security . Thank you. Well, i dont know who wants to answer that. What was the question . Is there a change in National Security i mean, thats the decision to maintain troops in iraq and afghanistan signify a change in the u. S. Strategy of those two countries . Well, i could speak for iraq. I dont see that as a major shift from this prohibition or actual front line troops. But youve heard general dempsey say at some point it may become necessary. I think they want to leave that option open, but i dont see at least in iraq, significant shift from what obama articulated in his earlier speech. I dont know if you yeah. In afghanistan, no, you cannot speak at the moment of a change. What could we see in the future maybe next few months is that probably the u. S. Government is going to be afraid by the deterioration of the security in afghanistan. And then they could decide to give more air support, medevak or things like this and probably to leave more troops in afghanistan. Thats a possibility. Because if we dont do anything probably two, three years, its likely that the taliban will take control of afghanistan now. So, probably at some point somebody is going to say, maybe we should do something. But right now, no, its not very clear. On that note, let me ask each of our panelists to conclude for no more than two minutes. Please. Yes. Well, in the sense if we look at what weve been saying in the discussion, what were trying to argue here is that, you know, in how the u. S. Act in the middle east, there is a genuine interest for the u. S. , for the west, to have a stable region with states. And in that sense, one of the failures of u. S. Policy here has not consider enough institutions, not to consider what is happening not just in kabul but on the borders of afghanistan. Not to look enough at what were doing. Not to look enough at how the iraqi state was disinstitutionalizing itself in the last year of its withdraw. Not to look at how the army was building their own institution and how important it is in the interest of europe or in the interest of United States to have actually state in this regime. In the moment, you have boulders in such a turmoil. The border might be contested. Thinking of having not stabled policies of huge intervention but supporting movement that have already entered strategy is at least something to consider. Gilles . Yeah. Actually sorry. Actually i dont have a great conclusion, sorry. Maybe i would say that we have three differentiated polices. The police recommendation would be first in afghanistan to sustain the current government to the point where its possible to deal with the taliban. I dont think that the idea that you can let it go in afghanistan after the taliban is dead and if the taliban take back afghanistan, its not a big problem. I think this idea could be wrong. At least we should try to play the negotiation card which means to long enough for him to be able to negotiate with the taliban, if possible. The second recommendation would be in syria. So we should absolutely do something if the Islamic State because they are going to reconsider. If these two movements are taking syria, we will have a huge major security problem and its almost done. And my third recommendation would be that probably we should find or try to find a way to open washington to the real crisis, whats happening on the ground, and probably to change the debate. And i think probably its possible to make it a little better and to be sure that people are speaking about outside world and not totally focussing on all washington world. That would be great. Arthur . Well, only two points. Isis tried to do a new revolution in syria. The only way to stop it is they are weakened. Especially because of the u. S. Bombing. We have huge critical situation chgs. Maybe they will fall in the next months. Fall because of isis. In syria, continue to progress. And they have to know that cleaning the territory and institutions, Judicial Court system and that is still working there. The second point is i want to warn about the especially in iraq. Gilles and adam were saying that this is a big it shall its also the way Bashar Al Assad is acting against sunni insurgents. His army is not able anymore to do any large scale, so he tried to send some different militia. Is playing with this very dangerous tools. Especially to focus which people are training on the ground and to which people are going the weapons and support that were sending to iraq. Thank you. Thank you. Fred, please, youll have the last word. Yeah. Maybe this is ending for a plae on what the u. S. Can accomplish. Having served in iraq and this theme of exhaustion. Just because we have awareness doesnt necessarily mean we have we are equipped with the policy tools to effect a very complex situation. Certainly there are mistakes made. I want to point out one thing to end with or gilles point about a nofly zone. I like to call nofly zones, gateway drugs to regime change. I cant think of a place, iraq, libya, where we didnt end up in going into regime change after that. I just dont think u. S. Policy given the end state was prepared to do that if we set up a nofly zone. Well, thank you very much, fred, for those very sobering last words. Its time now to bring this session to a close. Thank you all of you for being with us this afternoon. Thank you to our panelists. I think you will join me to give them a big hand for their contributions. [ applause ]. And to all of you, a very happy thanksgiving. On the next washington journal steve king of iowa talks about his attempts to stop the president s executive order on immigration. Then we hear from congressman Jim Mcdermott of Washington State on negotiation to fund the federal government amid the tensions over immigration. Washington journal is live every morning on 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. The cspan citie