I talked about the ability to actually work together, and i talked about healthcare. Rose and there was so many people that it resonated with and people started saying you should run for president , which i thought, i said, cmon, give me a break. I said, this will all die down, but it never did. It kept building. Rose finish finis philip god dr. Ben carson when we continue. Rose funding for charlie rose has been provided by american express. Rose additional funding provided by and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Rose russia and syria continue to. They have initiated a joint ground offensive with the syrian regime. Shattering the facade that theyre there to fight i. S. I. L. This will have consequences for russia itself. Which is rightfully fearful of attack upon russia. And i also expect that, in coming days, the russians will begin to suffer casualties in syria. Rose joining me from washington is philip gordon, senior fellow at council on Foreign Relations from 2013 to 2015, white house coordinator for the middle east, and the gulf region. Welcome. Thank you. Rose let me read from something youve said on september 25, 2015, politico said for years i have advised president obama on syria. It is now clearer than ever that a new strategy is need. What is the new strategy . First, the within its clearer than ever is what has become clear in the past several weeks is that the stated objective of u. S. Policy and western policy and our allies in the gulf which is to bring about a political transition by supporting the opposition is not working and unlikely to work. And by that, i mean has failed. Sure, i mean, i think we have to say that. We had a program totain and equip the to train and equip the opposition, to make it Strong Enough to get rid of the regime or pressure the regime to make meaningful changes. We hoped and expected that thete russian deployment, one needs to conclude they are not likely to a. P. Happen soon. When youre in a situation like that, you have to ask do i double down on a strategy that is not working . In my view, in this case, that would mean perpetuating conflict that we have seen tragically for so many years, or do you ask yourself if there is another objective that you might be able to reach that is more realistic and that could help bring the war to an end. Rose lets assume you ask that question. What would be your answer . My answer would be that we need to rethink the political objective, which is not to say we dont need to see a transition in syria and not to say we dont want to see assad go. It is to say, however, there might be steps that we could achieve along the way before dealing with this question of when assad leaves, which has really been the stalemate. Thats what we disagree on not obviously just with the regime but with the russians and the iranians. So long as we are focused on bringing about that as step one or even a commitment to seeing that happen on a very near timetable, its just not going to happen, and that means fueling an opposition that is increasingly dominated by extremists and see ago war go on with all the tragic consequencous see. So i think the question now is, especially after the russian deployment, this is not going to be pleasant for russia. I agree what secretary carter said about its clear what the russians are doing, theyre backing assad and not just fighting i. S. I. S. And theyve bought some real estate in syria that might not be cheap for them. So we say to russian we agree with you on the assad question and youre going to agree not push him out immediately. Can we not talk about steps toward deescalation that might include regional safe zones that the russian would agree with assad and he have jees could go back, cease fires that weve seen in minor cases but you could build on that, beginnings of dilog and political reform that would enable some change in the governmental structures moving toward ultimately what we want to see which is a political transition that gets rid of assad but steps that would deescalate the conflict and have meaningful, positive steps for the Syrian People in the meantime rather than just insisting on a goal that, frankly, we are just not in a position to achieve now and wont be for some time to come, if ever. Rose how far do you think the russians are prepared to go and will they do everything they can to defeat all enemies of assad . I think its pretty clear, look, theyre going pretty far, already. This is a very significat military deployment of significant means, naval and air assets and russianons the ground and theyre undertake ago serious military operation and theyre doing that because they really are committed. They feel they have strategic reasons for backing this regime. Again, i think its something we have failed to fully appreciate and even those earlier on calling for more escalation on our part, i think they failed to understand that more escalation on our part would lead to more escalation on their part. Why is that . The russians putin made it clear from the start, for years, that he hates the concept of regime change anywhere, the idea that if people arent happy with the leader, they get rid of the leader. He especially hates it when its backed by the west, and thats what we sees happening in syria. He hated it in ukraine, georgia, central asia, he hated it in libya where he would argue it led ultimately to n. A. T. O. Intervening, getting rid of a dictator and having civil war and chaos and he certainly doesnt want any hint of that in russia, so hes absolutely committed to prevent ago pattern whereby people rise up against a dictator, we come in, there is war and then chaos. Hes also afraid, russia is, putin is, that if somehow we got rid of assad, the extremists, the jihadists, the islamists that threaten russia would be empowered by that. And there he has a more legitimate point. Rose hes right about that, isnt he . Hes right that if the ousting of assad comes in the form of violent overthrow led by extremists, then it will not lead to the stable syria that were trying to accomplish and that would be a victory for us as well. In all the dealings we had with the russians and i did this for the u. S. Government earlier from the state department and then from the white house all along, it was clear that until we could answer their question of what followed assad, theyd be determined to back assad. So to answer your question, charlie, yes, they are prepared to go pretty far to avoid what they fear would be precedent of regime change and possible chaos and more violence in syria and obviously, frankly, stepping on the United States and they want to show sthair still a player in the region. Rose they clearly want to be a player in the region and thats clear from what he says and as well what he does. Is it possible that it seems less likely today that the United States and russia an other parties could agree on some kind of interim government to replace assad . Would the russians find someone that will be acceptable to them that would recognize what their investment was and, at the same time, be acceptable to the United States and those syrians that the United States supports . Look, i think its not impossible. I dont want to overstate the prospect of an agreement on that but thats precisely what we should be talking to them about and say, all right, fine, youve come in to back assad, thats a reality, but its not going to be easy for you to continue to take the military risks, fight a war, back this. You know, they have their experience in afghanistan. They know what its like to try to back an unpopular government being foughtly islamists and other rebels, so they will be looking for a way out, too, so i think its worth having the conversation with the russianser and start with why dont you agree to get rid of assad. It would be in your interest. Weve never been able to answer the question of what comes next, but if together with the russians we could find a way of fulfilling that goal, now that theyve protected their interests, the regime itself wont collapse because theyre there, their naval base is protected, they have maybe less to lose by getting rid of assad, so if we could find some way to agree on assad and his cronies go out and we agree on some interim government that preserves the regime and even security forces, that would be the best outcome. If theyre unable to budge on the assad question, i think theyre a step short on that we could agree on, i think it would still be in our interests of working toward ultimate goal of getting rid of assad so you could have a genuine transition. Rose i agree its not so much a commitment to assad as to some Central Authority because thats in glad glad thats r putins dna. Yes. Theyve told us from the start were not assads backers and dont care about him personally. I think thats true. I think it was misinterpreted here and elsewhere to say oh the russians will help us with the transition. While theyre not committed to assad the person, they are committed to the regime and its institutions an and avoiding violent regime change driven by extremists, so i think there is space to agree on a political outcome and we need to explore it. Rose why do you think they have not attacked i. S. I. S. With Larger Forces and more often . I think primarily they are focused on the wolf at the door. I mean, they felt like these other groups were really starting to threaten tom regime strongholds to threaten some regime strongholds. Yietsz is further to the east and not fighting or targeting the regime as some of these other groups. Its not that theyre comfortable with i. S. I. S. , theyd like to eliminate i. S. I. S. But their urgent priority is to prevent regime collapse so theyre hitting groups targeting the regime. Rose you know this president. Where do you think his head is and why do you think hes been so resistant to doing more in syria . I think throughout the crisis he always consistently and i think appropriately asked the question of what comes next, and he was very much you know, we do have a tendency in this country to avoid the mistakes of the Previous Administration because these are hard problems and everyone grapples with them in a different way, and the Previous Administration looked at a very hard problem in the region which was a genuine and legitimate problem, Saddam Hussein and all the problems he was creating just through his very existence, and decided it was going to be strong and the way to deal with problems like that was to be decisive, use American Military power, be confident and solve the problem. Well, that approach to solving that problem, and no one can say it was passive or it let the russians in or didnt respect red lines, but what it did was cost 2 trilliondollar, 5,000 american lives and an overworked military with consequences for soldiers and wounded veterans and unintended consequences like empowering iran in iraq which, in a way, is part of the problem were seeing today because, by getting rid of saddam and letting iran become the main power in iraq, you made the sunnis in iraq feel they were slighted and in a government that came to power essentially drove them into the arms of i. S. I. S. Rose let me read a couple of quotes and get your impression. Brzezinski, in these rapidly unfolding circumstances the u. S. Has only one real option if its to protect wider stakes in the region to convey to moscow the demand it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect american assets. Russia has every right to support mr. Assad if it so wish bus any repetition of what has just transpired should prompt u. S. Retaliation. I am all for tough messages to moscow and making clear we have interests, too, and if they persist in what theyre doing there will be consequences to moscow, but you have to be careful with that sort of red line. If by that you mean again, it comes back to the question are you objectives realistic or maximalistic . The maximal version of that which sounded like you just read was just telling the russians they cant defend the regime, if theyre using force and flying planes we will stop them and that means shooting russian planes out of the sky, but you cant just do that because you have to take out their air defense assets so that means taking out their naval assets at the same time and means killing russians and going to war. Thats something the United States could coand i dont think theres a doubt if it came to a confrontation like that our military would win it, but it would be a very significant military conflict with costs and casualties and implications elsewhere, who knows, because the russians like the iranians would not just take that lightly and say, well, okay, youve called our bluff, you hav we han defeated and go home. They will respond proportionately. Lets say we succeeded, russia didnt back down, military force, the big conflict with russia, even if we took out their assets after a significant conflict, well, the iranians and the regime would not just go away, theyd presumably respond in ways we might not be able to predict. Maybe iranian militias in iraq respond by going after our troops there, and then you have an even bigger problem on your hands in iraq. So this is the very sort of you know, you asked why we wouldnt done more, its a slippery slope thing. You have to be really careful. You can establish your credibility but you better be prepared to go pretty far in terms of the cost youre willing to bear. Again, lets say it succeeded and we knocked out the russians and we knocked out the regime, and then the alnusra front and i. S. I. S. Became the major they actually succeeded in taking a threat in damascus and then all the minorities and others backing the regime will have to get the hell out of dodge and another million or 2 million refugees on the other side start fleeing i. S. I. S. And nusra, and i. S. I. S. And nusra have a battle for whos going to be in charge as well as the other elements of the hundreds of opposition groups until you have a tote total free for all for who is in charge of syria. We would have succeeded, so to speak. I wouldnt really use that word in what im describing in, you know, staring down the russians and maybe even getting rid of assad, but we would be facing a situation on the ground that would arguably not only be more horrible for the poor people of syria but for our credibility because people would say, all right, what now, powerful america . And im not sure there would be a clear answer to that question. So to go back to the beginning, yes, i think we can confront the russians and get something out of them, but if youre going to say that they have to cease and desist and basically leave, you better mean it and you better be prepared to do everything i just talked about. Rose David Ignatius wrote in the Washington Post september 29, for now putin is certainly winning the perception game. The danger is that regional powers will view recent events as a full low blown u. S. Retreat, like the withdrawal of an exhausted britnan 1971 from its military garrison east of suez seen at the last gasp of the british empire. Without making the analogy too quick with britain, is there a danger of perception in the region of u. S. Commitment . The short answer is yes, i dont think you can deny that there is a perception in the region that, you know, the russians are driving the agenda and the United States is not prepared to stand up to them and there is a cost for that, and i think it is an absolutely legitimate worry, i worry about it and i think we need to smartly look for ways to retore that credibility and restore deterrence and make people understand that we are still the most important power this the region. But i say smartly because, you know, you do have to keep in mind that you can lose credibility by playing cards and having the outcome not be a positive one. I already gave the example of iraq. No one doubted that the Bush Administration and its major figures were no one thought they were retruck taint to use force, that they wouldnt do what they had to do, but look at the result of that, and the result was hardly good for american credibility or power or the feeling of power. So, you know, its easy to sit back and ring your hands about american credibility, but, like i said, if you use American Military force to show how strong or tough we are to stand up to the russians and the result ended up being complete and utter chaos in syria with the extremists taking over,ip not sure what that would do for our credibility. And, you know, again, look at there arent a whole lot of cases where supporting the opposition until it achieved its goals and get rid of a dictatorship turn out successfully, we did that in afghanistan, and the result was not good for the United States and not good for the United States credibility. So you do have to think about the next step before you solely focused on just somehow demonstrating your power to show that youre as tough tas next guy. Rose this is from josh earnest, the president s press secretary, he said syria is not going to turn into a proxy war between russia and the United States, that certainly would not be consistent with our interest, but is there a risk here of some kind of proxy war developing between, on the one hand, russia and the United States, on the other hand saudi arabia and the arab states and iran, and on the other hand some overlapping between shia and sunni . All of that could somehow, through some misadventure explode into a wider war and sucking in too many people. Charlie, there is a proxy war already and there has been for years and thats the problem. For years, the sunni states of the region and turkey and we and the europeans have been, on the one side, providing support to certain elements in syria who are at war with a regime thats backed by russia and iran and hezbollah, and thats almost the definition of a proxy war. We have outside powers, determined to supply their proxies in a battle for the future of the country, and that proxy war has escalated and, as always in these things, the outside sponsors are determined, getting back to the credibility point, to win and to show that theyre not going to be deterred by the others, and they fuel it by escalatin