i believe authority in iraq should be split up, but not iraq itself. we need to have -- which will have a double effect. i mentioned she is sunni and kurds -- shia sunni and kurds and also protect minorities. i believe this will transcend the unity of iraq, first geographically in ninewah province. the geographic autonomy will be at least will have at least three effects. this will give the sunni community its own autonomy when with its own special prosecution. this autonomy will protect minorities within ninewah province. and autonomy will help of baghdad with the rights of the people of ninewah province. we tried in the past to follow up the constitution steps but unfortunately, prime minister maliki adopted his position. the second stage i envisioned navy ninewah province with saddam. with the krg and other sunni provinces about their own relation under the umbrella of the iraqi constitution. in conclusion, i want the people of mosul first be involved in the creation of their city. second, to have a chance to choose their own representatives. third,

we are not doing it in iraq. what i saw on the ground is american advisors out with the troops tent to make it better. >> the obama announced they'd send advisors to iraq. they are on root. u.s. boots on the ground is not the answer to the problem, and hasn't been an announcement for the last six years. special operations command is working to involve qatari's, emrarties actors in providing their people and local people themselves. >> they would disagree. i would put boots on the ground. >> you heard a former u.s. ambassador to iraq suggesting that the united states may be needed to get involved in order to address the threat. what do you think. we agree that the united states has expertise, which is why the obama administration sent advisors, we've been involved since the larger troop drawdown in advising the capacity and support for the local troops. the united states population have vehemently supported a president in the last two elections, and his commitment to drawing out of two wars, long wars, that were p

from desert storm the invasion of iraq march 2003 with the invasion of iraq was the worst foreign policy mistakes made by the united states in the nation's great history for those of you who like steve for our students of that it says something. i think the assessment is correct and with as a military failure at that extraordinary level with the failures and with that decision to unnecessarily invade iraq. with that occupation of iraq with the unbelievably bad decision to disband the iraqi army of march-april 2003 but was ready to provide security on the streets of iraq after that invasion in a decision made in the bush administration. that army was disbanned and all of its soldiers given no pensions and told they could never again work for the iraqi government. a really extraordinary decision that put literally tens of thousands of armed proud experts in warfare on the streets, and led i believe directly to the insurgency that my friends and then i fought in iraq and i fought in el anbar in 2003 and 2004. i came back from that year in el anbar as a tank battalion operations officer figh

iraq split apart. the security environment deteriorated and everything we fought for, everything that was sacrificed on behalf of the american taxpayer and american soldier, was just squandered by president obama. president bush made plenty of mistakes. smart enough to adjust in 2006 but president obama's decision to withdraw all forces in the face of sound military advice has come back to haunt us in iraq and syria, and if he doesn't ate just his policy this problem's going to get worse over there and eventually come here. >> you don't accept the notion nuri al maliki was the prime minister of iraq at the time rejected u.s. requests. >> no. >> that any u.s. troops who remained would have immunity from iraqi prosecution? once he rejeshgtsed that the u.s. got out? >> that was a complete absolute lie. i was on the ground talking to maliki and every political leader in iraq, they were willing to have a follow-on force but the administration got the answer they wanted. the president wanted to keep a politi

that was -- the invasion of iraq in march 2003. my former colleague argues that the invasion of iraq in march of 2003 was the worst foreign policy mistake made by the united states in this nation's great history. for those who like steve are stunts of the subject that's really saying something. i think that the assessment, however, is correct. so the invasion of iraq and 2003 certainly not just intelligence failure, also a policy failure of the first order. and the military failure at an extraordinary level and the failures of the war in iraq, which is largely not exclusively the subject of my new book, "night fights" began early with the decision to unnecessarily invade iraq with the failure to properly plan for the occupation of iraq that followed, with the unbelievably bad decision to completely disband the iraqi army a force which had frankly melted away, had not been destroyed in the invasion in 2003 but was ready to provide security on the streets of iraq after that invasion, and a decision made in the bush administration tha

iraq can wantnot be iraq without muslim. that would be like the united states without chicago or without san francisco. there are key points i want to discuss with you. these points mean success or failure for the liberation of mosul and the world's fight against isis. success in the battle and just as important, what comes after this, is good. this in addition to the importance of fighting isis are con frequent steps towards national reconciliation in iraq. after 11 years of just talking about reconciliation, but no actual steps taken, the sunni and iraq will no longer be interested in more talk. the sunni need to see actual and concrete steps. i will agree with him most of the time, and outline only these points so we can have your question and a good discussion. i'm talking about mosul as a model, but i think what i'm talking can be for all the sunni areas. first, the people of mosul are the key to liberate mosul. the mosul people must be shown why. liberation is better for them than the regime of isis. history shows that

is banking on iraq's military to hold its own and keep iraq from imploding. the security vacuum left in iraq since they left in 2011, since the u.s. troops invaded in 2003, make that a pipe dream. al jazeera america national security course dents jamie mcintyre joins me from the pentagon. ash carter said over the weekend that iraqi fighters have lost their will to fight. >> ali, to say that the u.s. is disappointed in the performance of those iraqi fighters in ramadi would be to risk serious understatement. the iraqi forces have a lot of things they blame for the loss of ramadi including ineffective u.s. air strikes and lack of support from the shia government in baghdad. slightly different story. sources tell me, by the way, that the iraqi forces in ramadi had a 10-1 numerical advantage over the advancing isil fighters. there were about 10,000 iraqi forces including 7,000 iraqi security forces and then another 3,000 federal police and special operations. the pentagon believes they should have nefr been overrun by this much smaller force of 1,000 isil fighter

. >> khanki [han-kee] refugee camp northern iraq. a family is burying a young woman they say was killed while escaping the group calling itself the islamic state. her father told us what happened. >> they are part of the yazidi religion one of the groups targeted by the islamic state of iraq and the levant also known as isil. no one knows exactly how many yazidis were killed because isil-held territory is off limits to journalists and human rights workers. but tens of thousands had to flee their homes after isil fighters captured their towns and villages in june. isil now controls as much as one-third of iraq's territory, including the second-largest city mosul. though its power and influence expanded in syria, it's here where isil was born. during the nearly nine-year long u.s. occupation. fault lines travelled 600 miles across iraq to look at the consequences of the fight against isil -- and how u.s. allies are also helping to divide iraq more than ever. >> when isil advanced this summer people across the country's northern provinc

when we went into iraq, they did not attack, it was the saudis. why did we go into iraq? the only way we were attacked is when we let them into our country. no one does anything about that. they common and you say we were attacked. we should pull out completely. let them fight their own war. the only reason they attacked in the first place was because we were in their countries. can you answer that? guest: i did not bring up 9/11 or anything earlier on, but the ideology of osama bin laden and the jihadists is not just about our presence over there. they were not have struck at us in my judgment -- i have studied their writings and strategy -- they would have struck at us in the west in any event. it is part of what they are and what they believe in. it is easy to say it is because we were there or because of bases in saudi arabia or because we support israel. if israel was removed tomorrow, it would not change them under vision for a good number of these hard-core extremists driving this kind of fight. there is a threat to the homeland. we have to make judgments about how

bush to overthrow saddam hussein in iraq. >> i know there are a lot of questions about iraq over the last week. i've made it very clear that i made a mistake, plain and simple. >> reporter: yet it's far from simple. the former secretary of state has elsewhere suggested she was, in effect duped into approving the use of force. >> it was not used as i had expected it to be used and the entire implementation strategy was flawed. >> on my orders coalition forces have begun striking selective targets of military importance. >> reporter: at the time of shock and awe, clinton was new york's democratic senator and now calls it a major test of her own decision-making abilities. >> this is probably the hardest decision i've ever had to make. >> reporter: further clouding the issue is the troop surge president bush ordered in 2007 widely regarded as a successful campaign that left iraq at the dawn of the presidency far more stable than it is today. >> reporter: the question we need to ask hillary clinton now is would you have supported precipitous withdraw from iraq? >> reporter: secretary robe

and, yes, he was in american custody during the iraq war. al baghdadi has shown his face publicly only once. last year when he gave a sermon to his followers. but back when the u.s. had him under lock and key, he was seen as, believe it or not, a man who could be trusted. >> the americans seem to see abu bakr as someone who could keep the prison quiet. there are 24 caps within the sunni side of camp bucca, he was allowed open access to all of them. >> he wasn't considered from everything that we know now a high-level detainee, and he was allowed to, you know, lead prayers, he was allowed to give religious lessons. >> the future leader of isis was giving other inmates lessons on islam. those inmates were jihadists or former ba'athists, henchmen of saddam, or simply common criminals. >> it most assuredly was a jihadist university. unquestionably. >> put them all together in the baking heat of southern iraq, with al baghdadi, a man who dreamed of a new kind of terror, it was a recipe for isis. >> they were meeting, they were playing soccer toge

invaded iraq. jeb bush said he would have invaded iraq, and would not have invaded iraq and then said he didn't under the question. somebody else said to him said maybe he misheard the question. marco rubio said at one point not understanding the question. over the past week he changed his statements whether or not the iraq war was a mistake and he had this awkward interview on sunday yesterday when chris wallace confronted marco rubio and his evolution on this issue. the problem is not whether they are good about talking about this. whether they figured out how to make sure they sound consistent as they answer it in different contexts talking to different people about it. the problem is not skill. the problem is not whether they are good answering the question. the larger problem is what is seen as the correct answer to this question. because, while jeb bush and marco rubio have been getting in trouble on style points for not exactly knowing what to say and supposedly flubbing this answer. these a

why did they take to us iraq? that's the same reason they want to take us into damascus and why they want to have permanent war with iran. my concern continues. thank you both. >>> coming up, as the republicans shift right. hillary clinton is tacking left. that are the democrats trying bait progressives against hillary clinton. some trouble making. that's coming up. plus, character. who has got it today? dade brooks will be with us. and everyone has something to say about the fin at of madd men. a couple of stars from the show. ♪ i'll stand by you ♪ yeaaaah! yeah. so that's our loyalty program. you're automatically enrolled, and the longer you stay, the more rewards you get. great! oh! ♪ i'll stand by you ♪ ♪ won't let nobody hurt you ♪ isn't there a simpler way to explain the loyalty program? yes. standing by you from day one. now, that's progressive. >>> jeb bush is looking out for his right flank. he said he doesn't believe same sex marriage is a right. and he said marriage between a man and a woman

>> republicans have criticized president obama for not leaving troops in iraq. some have said if american forces had stayed, there would be no isis. but one believes that was never in the cards. iraq's prime minister al malaki, had a new set of patrons, his fellow shiites in tehran, and they made him an offer he couldn't refuse. >> that was part of iran's deal with him, we'll give you a third term, but the conditions are, no american soldier. that was what tehran had demanded there was no way it would have gone through the parliament. >> one thing is clear, it was only iraq's army that could have stopped isis, instead the iraqi soldiers threw down their weapons and ran. [ phone ringing ] >> hello -- >> next on "blindsided." what drives these people, what makes them tick. you'll go inside the mind of a radical. meet a man who was prepared to die for a fantasy. the idea of an islamic califate. ♪ ♪ at chase, we celebrate small businesses every day through programs like mission main street grants. last years' grant recipients are achieving amazing things. carvin

had started with the gop gopher with iraq. -- with the gulf war with iraq. i think ghost were haunting the -- ghosts were haunting the bush presidency, but maybe in a different way. bush headed to respond in a more muscular way to get in there and show the world what america was all about. maybe i will let you answer the first question. guest: i think world war ii was going in such a way that the u.s. victory was inevitable. the use of the atomic bomb shorten the war and made it directly obvious to the japanese that the war cannot continue and they would not win. sensible heads looking at the devastation of hiroshima and not as agasaki said, let's get out. host: that comes up in your book, about pakistan and reactions from russia to vietnam. what russia was doing in afghanistan in 1980. guest: it is very interesting. for several years, we have not heard about uses of atomic power. president putin of russia has said in the last six-eight months, has started to talk about a funny way of the use of atomic power, as if he is threatening the rest of the world --

the excessive heat in iraq. so if you're doing this, you're probably going to have to cut the inspector short. if you're really intent on going to war, you're going to have to do it even without. that's the second point. third point, my boss got put out for the united states secure council to give the most species presentation on iraqi m.d. that anyone has ever been called on on in american government to rendure on the american council to the american public and to international community. and powell showed afterwards it was very effective. why was i very effective in because it was colonel powell which had mother teresa poll ratings. he was 77% on the polls an she was about 80%. you're looking at the individual who went out to the c.i.a. and prepared colin powell for that presentation in terms of orchestrating all the analysts from 16 different intelligence agencies working daily and nightly with george tenet and frankly on three pillars of that presentation, mobile biological laboratories, existing stocks of c

policy in iraq and syria. i want to thank each of our expert witnesses for appearing before us today on this critical and complex topic. senator mccain: before i go any further, the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs were invited to appear admittedly very short notice, and we will be asking them to appear after the recess is over depending on whether the bill is on the floor or not, but we certainly would like to hear from the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs. today we have general jack keane, former vice chief of staff for the army and chairman of the institute for the study of war, and general keane, we are pleased you could take time from your duties on fox news to being with us today. dr. fred kagen, who is -- that's a joke. dr. fred kagen, -- kagan director of the critical threats project at the american enterprise institutes. colonel derek harvey, u.s. army retired, director of the global initiative for civil society and conflict at the university of south flor

we have a chance at a democratic iraq. >> we have a chance at a democratic iraq on a day when isis is making huge gains. >> this is why the vast majority of the republican party you'll notice last week took that opportunity to say no it was a mistake to go into iraq. marco rubio didn't go that far, or he tried to, but he had a lot of problems, because a, he's trying to be the most hawkish candidate in the republican field. >> nothing matters unless you're safe. >> this is where a lot of the republican donor class is. still a lot of republican voters, i think 76% of americans say the iraq war will be judged by history to be a mistake the elite donor class still wants to litigate those issues. >> can you have a two-part answer on this question? >> sure you can. it opens up a whole other series of questions. if you ask them was a mistake to go in initially and they say yes, but we're better off anyway, then the follow-up question, which is a lot tougher than the initial question is, well, why do you think we went in initially? why was the intelligence wrong? was the bush administration r

in iraq." the united nations says it's rushing tied nearly 25,000 people fleeing ramadi for the second in the meantime a month. the u.n. reported 115,000 people fled a ramadi in april. the u.n. says it has helped more than 130,000 people over the past. bodies some burned, literatered the streets as local officials reported mass killings of iraqi security forces and civilians. it goes on and on. i just want to, before i turn to my friend from south carolina, i just want to point out my friends, this did not have to happen. this is a result of a failed, feckless policy that called for against all reason the total and complete withdrawal from iraq after we had won with an enormous expenditure of american blood and treasure, including 187 of them in the battle of ramadi. in 2011, senator lieberman and graham and i argued that the completely pullout from iraq would, -- quote -- "needlessly put at risk all of the hard-won gains that the united states has achieved there at enormous cost in blood and t

policy in iraq and syria. i want to thank each of our expert witnesses for appearing before us today on this critical and complex topic. before i go any further, the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs were invited to appear admittedly very short notice and we will be asking them to appear after the recess is over depending on whether the bill is on the floor or not, but we certainly would like to hear from the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs. today we have general jack keane, former vice chief of staff for the army and chairman of the institute for the study of war, and general keane, we are pleased you could take time from your duties on fox news to being with us today. dr. fred kagan, who is -- that's a joke. dr. fred kagan, director of the critical threats project at the american enterprise institutes. colonel derek harvey, u.s. army retired, director of the global initiative for civil society and conflict at the university of south florida. and bryant who is the

occupation of iraq created al qaeda in iraq. and had al qaeda the organization kind of throw all of its resources into iraq to take on another u.s. occupation in the region. no doubt about that. but we also beat them back. and one of the things i try to do in this book is not judge previous decisions as right or wrong. so i don't say president bush's decision to invade iraq was the right thing with the wrong thing. i don't. i don't say that enhanced interrogation was the right thing with the wrong thing. what i try to do in both those cases is, and a lot of detail in the great war of our time is to paint the context of the times. to paint the context in which president bush made the decision on iraq, to paint the context in which george tenant, condi rice and the president made the decision on it has to interrogation techniques. to really important for people to understand the context. it's very easy to look back with 2020 hindsight is of a good thing or bad thing. this is the information base that we have, some of its right for

what is the right question to be asking about iraq. you have other ideas. >> going forward, we decapitated iraq to a disastrous effect. we did libya, also. the syrian people decapitated their own government and the yemeni people decapitated theirs. the problem for the next president is going to be the fact that we are in a post imperial era. no one wants to go in control of it. we are in a post colonial period and a post athor tear yan era. unless they learn how to live together this region is going to be a human development disaster area for the next president. >> what is the right question for the next president? >> basically i mean you heard lindsey graham say i'm going to drone them. good luck with that. frankly, i think we are at the cusp of an incredibly new problem. post imperial, post colonial. i haven't heard anybody who's got an answer for that one. >> can't buy diplomacy anymore. >> the thing we should think about iraq is, why didn't people ask the question what next. if you remove it barack obama said before the war, we are

the problem really is not that iraq's army has collapsed. it's that iraq has collapsed. isis is at heart an insurgency against the governments of iraq and syria. and no insurgency can thrive without some support from the local population. isis gets that support from the discontent of sunnis in both countries who feel they're being persecuted by the shiite and alawite governments. wunith al dagar runs a polling firm in iraq that has conducted more than a million interviews in the country over the last decade. they point out that the vast majority of sunnis in iraq despise isis. more than 90% of iraqis in sunni predominant areas regard it as a terrorist organization. but al dagher writes "isis has been able to capitalize on the deep profound discontent sunnis felt with the central iraqi government." the sectarian partitioning of iraq with shiites move to shiite areas and kurds and sunnis doing the same began with the civil war in 2006, but it has accelerated dramatically. today sunnis cannot find towns in iraq where they can resettle. we need to face the facts. iraq today

isis is much more than iraq. our forces should be what the -- our focus should be what the president started out with defeating isis. that will take political will, and war is a test of will. it will take accepting risk. it will take accepting casualties. it will take focus and it will take increased u.s. resources -- and it will take honest evaluations and assessments. what i fear is this -- i hear a disturbing and frightening echo of the summer of 2006, when administration -- when a different administration, senior government officials, and military senior generals came before this committee and in the face of compelling evidence that our strategy in iraq was failing, these officials looked at you and defended that strategy and told you that overall the strategy was succeeding. you and your predecessors took a strong bipartisan exception to those opinions. many as a result of it wanted to give up on iraq. others wanted to do something about fixing the problem. i hope you choose the latter and get on with helpin

iraq. two iraqi leaders, including a deputy prime minister and a governor and his -- of a majority city province discussed their status in a post-saddam iraq. ken: good morning. welcome to the brookings institution. i am ken pollack. i am a senior to the center for middle east policy here at the brookings institution, and i'm absolutely delighted to bring this program to you this morning. all of you know in the last few months washington has seen two extremely distinguished visitors from iraq, prime minister al-badi was here in march, and just recently, in april, and just recently we had the president of the krg. as you all know there are many different communities in iraq. all of them in great tension at the moment. some of them virtue and more with one another. and as we all know at the heart of iraq's communal differences like it's sunni community. we all now know that it was the alienation of the sunni community that began after the 2003 american invasion which drove the sunnis of iraq

the excessive heat in iraq. so if you're doing this, you're probably going to have to cut the inspector short. if you're really intent on going to war, you're going to have to do it even without. that's the second point. third point, my boss got put out for the united states secure council to give the most species presentation on iraqi m.d. that anyone has ever been called on on in american government to rendure on the american council to the american public and to international community. and powell showed afterwards it was very effective. why was i very effective in because it was colonel powell which had mother teresa poll ratings. he was 77% on the polls an she was about 80%. you're looking at the individual who went out to the c.i.a. and prepared colin powell for that presentation in terms of orchestrating all the analysts from 16 different intelligence agencies working daily and nightly with george tenet and frankly on three pillars of that presentation, mobile biological laboratories, existing stocks of c

are we part of iraq? if the answer is yes, we should include a government for all iraqis and you have to be accepted and security forces. even when you come to fight against isis. so what sort of partnership the government can do if the government failed to make a partnership with those who are fighting a global threat. now something around 2012. everyone knows that the western part of iraq some signals is from the governor and buyer to prime minister to have to deal with them. the question who laughed isis. so the central government and the central security forces which control the security to deal with the control of isis. the question we keep saying that iraqi security forces were not built on that model and this is the added. many are being defeated and mostly a few hot arid of isis. isis presented itself putting in their mind the dealing of the government. so they will protect you and discover more than anyone else because millions of people are sunni and are killed now by criminals of isis. assuming

in iraq. the provenÇal capital of the anbar province has fallen to isis fighters. u.s.-led coalition air strikes were certainly not enough to keep the iraqi military from being forced to flee the city. joining us now from the pentagon is our own correspondent barbara starr, and from beirut lebanon, senior international correspondent, nick paton walsh. the deputy white house press secretary downplaying the situation in ramadi saying he's confident the tide will turn back. he says very soon in ramadi. he says the air strikes the u.s. led air strikes will continue. are you getting that same sort of upbeat assessment what some are calling spin coming in from pentagon officials? >> absolutely wolf yes. this is the line that you're hearing this morning across washington from the administration. secretary of state john kerry already saying he thinks ramadi could be retaken very soon by the iraqi forces the pentagon saying it's a setback, but it's only a setback for today. that iraqi forces will move

iraq. in fact what has happened since then is the other way around. i am large iran has rejected ideological influence particularly in the last year or two in two iraq that was unanticipated. pass, in ways that demonstrate that the arab identity trumped their unit affiliation. the most common example of this was during the iran-iraq war the iraqi army consisted largely of shiite personnel and suffered relatively few desertion or no faction to the other side during the war. likewise interview polling data that was collected during the course of the u.s. occupation of iraq in the last decade also confirmed that there was a great deal of distance, psychological distance between the overwhelming majority of iraqi shiites in iran. yet we are seeing the change we see perhaps as a partner in response to the emergence of groups like i says in the transnational sunni jihadist identity. voicing out the emergence of the encouragement of iran are they transnational shiite jihadist identity and has a bi

was the iraq war a disaster? you know, saddam's gone. >> was it a mistake to go to war in iraq. >> i don't believe it was. the world is a better place because saddam hussein doesn't run iraq. >> was it a mistake to go to war with iraq. >> it was not a mistake given what the president knew at the time. >> she just said was it a mistake. >> the question i was asked is what you know now. based on what we know now. >> was it a mistake to go to war with iraq. >> i'm asking. >> you yeah, i understand. it's not the same question. >> that's the question i'm asking you. was it a mistake. >> it was not a mistake for the president to decide to go into iraq because at the time. >> i'm asking you. >> in hindsight. world is a better place because saddam hussein is not there. >> was it a mistake or not. >> i don't understand the question you're asking. whether we should have started -- but saddam's gone. that's good, right? presidential candidates marco rubio and be soon to be presidential candidate jeb bush have been getting d

help iraq at the end of the day. what iraqis need are more weapons. i repeat myself. they don't need more weapons to get their house in order. what they really need is to make sure that their army can stand on its two feet. there are rumors that say that during the day the iraqi army serves whatever government in baghdad and that arms and at night provides the arms to the isis group and islamic state groups and others. we have a much bigger problem than whatever guns are thrown on baghdad will solve. at this point, al abadi could use normally russian help, but iranian help, arab help and western help to make sure everybody lowers the tensions in the region instead of adding fire to the fuel. >> all right thanks so much, joseph. >> ethiopians held to the polls sunday in parliamentary and region ales. the democratic front is widely expected to retain power. we explain why. >> apart from the occasional campaign truck with songs blaring, there is little to show this is an election week in ethiopia. weak opposition partie

people want to talk about benghazi and iraq. here is a very real thing that happened, the woman who is running actually participated in and as far as i can tell is not getting litigated anywhere. >> she did get a question today on the trail about sydney blumenthal and the kind of advice she was getting as libya unfolded. it's bubbling you up but it's not a central debate. >> the sydney blumenthal is an adviser who had freelance e-mails, that is the perfect point, right? everything is getting debated in this technical sense as opposed to the deep reckoning that amazingly to me in 2015 it seems we haven't had what iraq meant, what foreign policy has meant to the region which is a flame. there's no reckoning to be as large as the problems that have been created. >> it's a conversation about syntax. the bush struggle to answer the question, who is next in line for momentum is senator rubio is an advocate for muscular foreign policy. he's getting mired in the weeds. there's no real debate about the big picture about the u.s. role in

and iraq claimed to have the upper hand in the fight against isis. and cnn pentagon correspondent, barbara starr, caught up with defense secretary ash carter and ask about them gaining momentum. >> what apparently happen was the iraqi forces showed no will to fight. they were not out numbered and they vastly outnumbered the opposing force, and they failed to fight and withdrew from the site and that says to me and i think to most of us that we have an issue with the will of the iraqis to fight isil and defend themselves. we can give them training and we can give them equipment and we can't obviously give them the will to fight, but if we give them training and equipment and support and some time i hope they will develop the will to fight because only if they fight can isil remain defeated. >> a lot of people in washington that you deal with on the other side of the aisle are saying look putting ground troops and air ground controllers and air strikes are not working. what do you foresee? what is your view on this? >> air strikes are effective but nei

but a fake united iraq has opened up more space for terror on to consolidate power in iraq. you mentioned the kurds and the crews have been crucial in the battle. but you have an article that shows it is not just kurdish men going into battle. belle: it is kurdish women as well. it is not -- this story tells the story of the scottish women. a journalist of theirs has been to meet the whiz women and they are leading a movement against iaf on a roll that leads to damascus. he says that they are making some serious progress in the fight. they say that it is important for them to fight against i.s. and to join that fight because women are targeted, raped, and used in battle. genie: in neighboring turkey, the president is being lampooned by much of the international press. tell us about that. belle: if we begin with a french paper, it has an article that headlines "offerman folly -- ottoman folly or go it mocks the present upon how, which is 200,000 square meters inside, and it has more than 1000 rooms. the increasingly authoritarian leader is trying to make turkey a leader of th

operations in iraq. in 2004, she served on a task force for a bipartisan coalition for a realistic foreign policy. her articles have appeared in "the journal of american history," "radical history review." she is presently completing a book called "never lose and the illusion of national policy." stephen knott is professor at the u.s. naval war college. he received his degree at boston college and has taught at the university of virginia. he is author of multiple books. one is the example of the use of covert operations by early american presidents. he is the co-author of "the reagan years." dr. knott most recent book, "rush to judgment," was published in 2012. amy goodman is producer and host of "democracy now," a national award-winning news program area and on over 1300 public television and radio stations worldwide. ms. goodman has co-authored five new york times bestsellers. her work has earned her numerous honors and awards. the nieman foundation for journalism at harvard honored goodman with a 2014

iraq. and senator elizabeth warren got a welcome in california this weekend and an introduction that we will have to bleep. >>> iraq's security forces retreating in chaos. >> the key iraqi city of ramadi has fallen to isis. >> this is really serious. >> this is a disaster. >> ramadi, a city where hundreds of american troops gave their lives a decade ago. >> was it a mistake to go to war with iraq? >> this question continues to trip up these presidential candidates. >> all this was on fox news where the anchors are ordered to pre-like you. >> was it a mistake to go to war with iraq. >> that's not the same question. >> that's the question i'm asking you. >> it was not a mistake for the president to decide to go into iraq because at the time he was told. >> i'm not asking you that. >> knowing what we knew then, it was wrong. >> bush was the only one who even thought to link 9/11 to iraq. >> the iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten america. >> it was misrepresented by the bush/chene

excessive heat in iraq. so if you are doing this, you will probably have to cut the inspections short. if you really intend on going to war, you will probably have to do it even without the preparation you should have. that is the second point. third point. my boss got put out to the united nations security council to give the most specious presentation on iraqi wmb that probably anybody has ever been called on the american government to render to not just the security council, the american public, and to the international community. polls showed afterwards it was very effective. why was it very effective? because it was: powell who it that time had mother theresa poll ratings. -- collin powell. you are looking at the individual who are -- who went out to the cia and prepared him for the presentation in terms of orchestrating all of that analysts from 16 different intelligence agencies. working daily and nightly with george tenet and john maclachlan, his deputy. frankly, three pillars of that presentation. m