seriously defined the goals. what sort of afghanistan will he accept? that's number one. i think there is a policy for the first time after eight and a half years of applying military force, development assistance and political pressure but as i indicated earlier, it may be too little, too late. my own view of our president is that he's a wonderful family man he's got a lot of emotion and a lot of love for his family. i don't think that extends to his business relationships. i'm not saying he has to be in love with his colleagues but i think he has to be interested in them as people. >> rose: yes. >> if only because it's in our self-interest to try to draw them out a little bit. so if i had a criticism of our president, it would be i wish he'd be a little more open in relationships than i've seen from the outside. >> rose: also this evening lynnist it zach perlman on his own career as a performer, a teacher and a conductor and the question is how do you spot musical talent? >> i think to the kids i said if it helps you imagine there's this phrase represents a character in a play and what is the character like? is this character debonair? is this character shy? introvertd? extrovertd? and the minute you think about, that all of a sudden everything about the music changes. the notice 6-notes take away the notes. they are vehicles to express something. >> rose: armitage and perlman next. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: richard armitage is with not guilty washington. he was deputy secretary of state in the first term of the bush administration. he left office in early 2005, as did his close friend and confidante, secretary of state colin powell. he's a founding partner of a consulting firm called armitage international. he's also chairman of the american turkish council group that supports ties between the united states and turkey. his unvarnished views on u.s. foreign policy and diplomacy are widely sought out around the world. i am pleased to have him with me here with this conversation about how he sees the world two years after this administration came to power. welcome. >> good evening. thank you. >> rose: tell me how you see the way the world is shaping up? what does that mean? >> i think in the first instance it means the relative decline of the united states, although we're still the... and will remain the strongest power economically, militarily, etc., for well over 20 years into the future. there's been a relatively klein. second of all, there's been a relative rise in china which has brought forth a real competition in asia for influence, for economic growth. and finally in the other part of the globe we've had a real change in russian relationships recently where they're actually out courting old enemies such as the turks. so i think you're seeing a fundamental reordering. i don't like the term "new world order," either, but fundamental reordering of the traditional relationships. europe means a little less than it did in the past, south asia is a little bit more given the rise of india and the difficulties of pakistan. so they're in a great state of flux. >> rose: what does the united states do? how does it put together an effective foreign policy for the future? >> my own view is that we have to fundamentally go back to our principles and the values that we hold. these generally held in high regard throughout the world and when we're consistent with our values, i think that we are the-- to use a hackneyed phrase-- the shining city on the hill. it's when we disregard those values, when we put forth an angry, snarling face like we did after 9/11 when we export fear and anger than we have great difficulty getting people to march to the same objectives with us. >> rose: but has the president been successful in doing that? he certainly sounded that tone from the beginning. >> well i think certainly it's a more benign face to the world and i think having the first african american president says a lot about our country, a lot of positive. in some areas, the president's done masterfully. for instance the sanctions on iraq. he's gotten, i think four successive sanctions and he's gotten pretty good international buy-ins, which eluded george bush to some extent. but beyond that i think this is very much a work there progress. >> rose: he hasn't gotten sdmin. >> i think's a little schizophrenia in the administration on china. i think started trying to coddle favor with china, not moving our sales to taiwan, not seeing the dalai lama and things of that nature. these were terrible mistakes because our chinese friends don't do gratitude. >> rose: (laughs) what do they do? >> they do cold calculations of what they view as national security and we should as well. >> rose: staying with the iran question, will sanctions work? >> well, i think the fact that the president the other day reiterated his call for dialogue with iran is indicative of the fact that the administration believes sanctions are biting, sanctions are starting to take major effect in iran. i think the jury is still out myself. i think the iranians have had plenty of time to work around the sanctions so it's a work in progress. you mentioned the speeches the president gave. he gave one in cairo, you're quite right. it was well received. he gave a wonderful speech in turkey calling for a model partnership but there's been no follow-up to either speech. and there's a vacuum and some dissatisfaction may eventually grow. >> rose: okay. tell me how you assess overall the obama foreign policy. >> i gave it very high marks generally in asia. i think they've gotten the north korean policy correct, i think both the secretary of state and the secretary of defense have spent a lot of quality time in asia trying to prove that we are going to be part of the asian century. i think, however, in the main, that this is a sort of kinder gentler george w. bush policy that we're seeing without major departures from the administration. >> rose: in asia? >> generally across the board. >> rose: it's a kinder gentler george w. bush foreign policy? >> well, it's a kinder gentler george w. bush foreign policy without trade policy which actually puts us in a whole. there aren't major deviations from where mr. bush was going. the bush surge in iraq i think led us to a position where the president would announce last week in atlanta that we're going to end our combat mission. i think mr. bush was active in pakistan and pakistan. so in the main you see a continuation of george bush's policies. >> you said to me in a previous conversation the thing you hear-- this was after you were out of power-- people would talk about america's competency. >> well, i think i told you about the story about in the wake of the middle east during cat "there was real questions about america's competency. and in the wake of the deep disaster, all of our citizens, ourselves, were talking about whether we were competent, whether government should accomplish these lofty and weighty issues. so i think there is a real question of competency in the minds of our own citizens regarding u.s. government. >> rose: so b.p. added the same idea that katrina added for the bush administration? >> i would say so. >> rose: how about the middle east? >> middle east no one's made much progress in a lot of years. kept the violence down somewhat. mr. obama is alternating pressure on mr. netanyahu and pressure on mr. abbas trying to get them to face-to-face talks. i think it's a work in progress, we'll have to see. >> rose: should we have a plan on the table for the israelis and the palestinianss? >> this has always been a criticism of people saying you've got to have a plan. burr when we've had the plan, neither of the two parties to the dispute have fully signed up. it's much better to let them work it out in my view. so i am confident that in the... in the direction that the obama foreign policy is going. i'm not confident of the outcome but they've got the right direction. >> rose: should they be talking to hamas? >> probably. >> rose: notwithstanding israeli objects? >> i understand israel's objections. i also understand that much to the surprise of the bush 2 administration, hamas was elected. i myself always believe you should talk to your enemies if only as an intelligence gathering mechanism. >> rose: everything's on the table with respect to iran? >> i think iran knows very well they have to make it crystal clear that they're not into the weapons procurement program. >> rose: and if they don't accept it, our options are? >> well, one, we have the option of accepting it. >> rose: right. >> we have always military options. and we have further sanctions and things of that nature. you know, it seems to me that iran often says that she's a country surrounded by six nuclear powers: china, india, russia, u.s., israel and who else, i forget? pakistan. >> rose: pakistan, a big one. >> a big one. six nuclear powers. and i fail to see how iran's security is going to be guaranteed by bringing about two more nuclear powers, saudi arabia and turkey, if iran actually procures a nuclear weapon. >> rose: have we lacked the ability to convince them of that point? >> well, clearly if they continue to try to have a program, we have failed in convincing them. >> rose: you think there's aningment that would be made that can convince them >> the argument i just put forward to you is the only arguement where i even got a flutter of the eyelids from iranians that oh, wow, maybe there's something there. but beyond a flutter of the eyelids, not much. >> rose: all right. when you were deputy secretary of state there was the famous notion that after 2003 there was an initiative by iran. for history's sake, would you please straighten that out for me? >> yes. we received what was allegedly a missive from iran pushed through swiss ambassador. >> rose: right. >> our history with iran and with the swiss ambassador who was our protective power had been that the ambassador was a little bit too positive of things, with putting his own spin on some of these missives and the paper we got from the iranians was so out of context and out of sync with all the discussions we had with the iranians up to that point that we didn't buy it as genuine. >> rose: do you think they appreciate the possibility of a military action or have they simply operated on the basis that it will not happen? >> no, i think they do feel certain a certain amount of threat and this is one of the reasons they spent enormous amounts of time getting hezbollah well equipped in lebanon so we have an option there against israel. it's why hezbollah is so active in south america and other places so they can hit interests if they are hit militarily. >> rose: should we sit down with them one to one and have a conversation at the highest... not at the presidential level but at the highest level within the state department? >> i would argue yes that we should. >> rose: and everything is on the table? >> no, no, no, everything's not on the table. >> rose: you can talk about it, though. >> you can talk about everything. but the nuclear program has to come off the table. >> rose: and it's a precondition of any agreement? we can agree on everything but if we don't agree on nuclear... >> we're not agreeing. >> rose: and you think we could get if we... >> i know we won't get there if we don't try. >> rose: what about those people who say containment will work? >> rose: they may be right. but containment historically hasn't worked. north korea was contained, they developed a nuclear weapon. pakistan's contained, they developed a nuclear weapon. so i think that if you're talking about stopping a nuclear program, containment won't work. >> rose: where do you think we are with pakistan today and what do we accept in the light of all these new documents about where the i sigh is and what is their intent and how do we get at this question of their fear of india? i.s.i.. >> well, that's several different questions, let me parse them. first, it's quite clear that under democratically elected government or under martial law government the people of pakistan have not gotten the governance they deserve. that's one thing. second, the question of i.s.i.'s involvement, i know when i was deputy secretary i looked almost everyday from the time we invaded afghanistan until i left in february of 2005 for evidence of any assistance from i.s.i.. we didn't see it. we saw some liaison, but not equipment or weapons and things of that nature. i believe at that time, first of all, we had disperse it had taliban to a very high degree and i.s.i. were thinking that the coalition was going to prevail. well, that muddled down from from 2005 to 2008 or so. i think pakistan and the i.s.i. changed their mind and they wanted to have a vote at the pashtun table in afghanistan and they started... >> rose: so therefore they had to have a relationship with the taliban. >> that's right. >> rose: and it is true the haqqani family... >> well, haqqani is one of the leading mujahadeen... what used to be formerly mujahadeen commanders, now taliban leading. >> rose: he was a big one. >> he was, all of these characters were together. a couple of months ago i had the opportunity to go to afghanistan and pakistan and i actually met general big, a former i.s.i. director and he's written... a former counterpart of mine 20 years ago, he's written terrible things about the united states. he had with him a fellow by the name of colonel' man, the father of the taliban. and colonel imam proceeded to give me an hour-long treatise on why the united states would fail in afghanistan and the relationship with pakistan and afghanistan. >> rose: so what did he say in >> basically these are graduates of the university of the chrish that kov, they're fighting for their country, you're not. kalashnikov. >> rose: do you believe him? >> i don't believe him necessarily. but we've given karl ikeen beret terrible low hand. the president hasn't defined what he wants. he says we want to eliminate the ability of al qaeda to work in afghanistan. we're pretty much there. >> rose: but he also says he wants to make sure that the taliban don't control all of afghanistan. >> so what does that mean? they control a third of it? a fifth of it? is that acceptable to him? what i'm saying is general petraeus and ambassador eikenberry have been given a very difficult task. i accept the fact that now we're on the right track. but term words from mark twain who said "even though you're on the right track, you can get run over if you're not going fast enough." >> rose: (laughs) >> now he's speaking about railroads and not insurgencies but it's true. >> rose: tell me what the president needs to do and what does general petraeus need to do and is petraeus... will his policy be any different from from mcchrystals's? >> i think it already is. he's loosened up the coalition forces to support the troops of the field. >> rose: rules of engagement type thing? >> yes, to make it more able to support our troops in the field. he's really put a huge effort-- which general mcchrystal had as well-- into the training of the afghan forces. he's trying to bring the development into being so it's visible to the people of afghanistan. but the long... there are two long poles in the tent. the first long pole is human capital. how do you develop sufficient human capital to be able to lead that country when you've got such a low literacy rate and such a tribal makeup. and number two, the question of president sar cy and his willingness to be a good partner with us. about two weeks ago at a hearing on capitol hill, u.s. officials were touting the fact that we have anti-corruption units that are being supported by the government of afghanistan and isn't this a great thing? now we're seeing president karzai is criticizing those anti-corruption units and wanting to bring them under his control. so it raises real questions. >> rose: as to whether he's prepared to go the distance in terms of anti-corruption. >> precisely. >> rose: and how much influence do we have over him other than simply saying "we're out of here"? >> i think actually that's a pretty big stick. if you remember the picture of former president najibullah hanging from a lamp post after the russians left, that can be a pretty strong reminder that we do have some influence. >> rose: or you say i remember that image and therefore i'm going to make sure i have that a pretty good relationship with the taliban. >> well, he was the taliban at one time. >> rose: and they all come from this pashtun... >> pashtun, right. >> rose: so why should bein afghanistan today? >> well, i think the fact that president karzai raised this question with the anti-corruption units makes he wonder if we ought to have young men and women dying there. >> rose: okay, but say more about "it makes me wonder." i mean, do you think we need to have an agonizing reappraisal under the circumstances that have evolved as to whether we should have young men... >> i think what we need do is decide what sort of afghanistan we will accept. if you ask this citizen, i would accept a contained afghanistan which would have many, many, many fewer u.s. troops, a lot of use of technology to take out insurgent groups where i could find them. >> rose: but... >> you asked me what i'd do. so i told you what i'd do. i would have a contained afghanistan. it wouldn't be a nation built. >> rose: do you think we're engaged in nation building? >> i think there's some confusion about it. >> rose: really. i mean it sounds like you think the policy over there is rather confused. >> i... >> rose: haven't they defined the goals? >> i think the president has not sufficiently defined the goal. what sort of afghanistan will he accept? that's number one. i think there is a policy for the first time after eight years eight and a half years of applying military force, development assistance and political pressure but it may be too little, too late. >> rose: you just said al qaeda's pretty much been taken out of afghanistan. >> i saw a c.i.a. director say there's only 100 of them. >> rose: but joe biden, the vice president, said later "our goal there is to eliminate al qaeda from afghanistan." >> well it sounds like we're close to fit there's only a hundred or so. i noticed the u.s. state department report on terrorism says the home of al qaeda and the core of al qaeda is in pakistan. >> rose: sure. and as long as they're in pakistan they can be in afghanistan. >> they can indeed. >> rose: why can't we get to the north waziristan to go there. >> well, he's got six division of troops there. he's lost 2,500 to,000 soldiers. it's not as if they've just been sitting on the bus the whole time. >> rose: they've gotten better? >> apparently they've gotten better. the problem in waziristan as i understand it, it's very similar to the problem in afghanistan. it's the lack of human capital to fill in behind. that is you can clear insurgents out, you can do all these other things but if you can't govern effectively... >> rose: they'll come back in. >> they'll come back in. and right now these terrible floods that pakistan is suffering, we noticed it's the islamic charities providing goods and services, not the government of pakistan. >> rose: how about the government of the united states? wasn't that a perfect opportunity for us to pour in there? >> my understanding is we sent hilo after hilo of assistance but the weather got bad again and we can't get in. >> rose: so the idea was not... >> we were delivering assistance. >> rose: trying throb with a visible presence, we know there's flooding here and we're here rather than islamic charities getting the publicity among the people. >> rose: but i say the weather came in and we were unable to