tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 24, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with this evening, the supreme court justice supreme court deadlocked. the 4-4 ruling leaves in place of the lower court decision the president exceeded his authority. the program would have shielded millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. this is considered a blow to president obama's legacy on immigration. he expressed disappointment from the white house earlier today. president obama: here's the bottom line. we have a very real choice. we will continue to implement
programs already in place. we cannot forward with expanded programs we wanted to move forward on because the supreme court was not able to issue a ruling of this stage. and now we have got a choice about where we are going to be as a country, what we want to teach our kids, how we want to be represented in congress and the white house. charlie: an important decision, the supreme court also ruled on affirmative action, upholding a race-conscious program used by the university of texas at austin. joining me now from washington, adam liptak. he the supreme court correspondent for the new york times. but talk about immigration first. adam: it is a big blow to overhaul the immigration program, to spare as many as five million people from deportation and allow them to work. the effect of this 4-4 tie was to leave in place a federal appeals court decision that blocks the program and
effectively ends any chances of reviving the program while president obama is in office and raises real question about whether this will come into being. even if they did nothing, and had enormous consequences. charlie: for his legacy, it is what? adam: it is a blow. after health care, this might be his second most ambitious domestic agenda item. so it is a real setback for him, something that the administration felt confident was lawful. it ended with a 4-4 deadlock. charlie: what can they do now? adam: the case will go on in lower courts and sooner or later, it may end up in the supreme court, but that will take a year or two. a lot can happen in the meantime, but eventually, a nine-member supreme court with either hillary clinton or donald trump appointee on there, they will look at it again. charlie: is this one reason why he was pushing so hard for judge garland? adam: yes, he said this was a reason why we need nine members. republicans might counter and say this is why they are happy
with an eight member to bring court. charlie: so scalia would've had the same or would garland -- adam: they don't announce who voted how, but the chance of this being ideological split with four liberals on one side and for conservatives on the other, very, very high. charlie: what else to do read into what the president said? adam: a level of frustration, as level of sympathy for the unauthorized immigrants whose lives this will affect, and some frustration with congress he cannot get anything forward on immigration. charlie: the question then becomes obviously it is the
people question, as you said at the beginning. it is the people who will not have a certain consequence they thought they might have. adam: right, and there are two different legal issues here. the president has substantial authority to decide whom to deport him about there were some authentic questions in this case. most people would prefer to have a reasoned decision from a full spring court than to have three judges on the united states court of appeals 10th circuit deciding this with the nation. that sort of nationwide action we usually expect from the supreme court, not from a lower court. charlie: let me turn to affirmative action, what is the historical impact? adam: this is big. this is a 4-3 decision upholding an affirmative action plan at the university of texas, written by justice kennedy, who has been
a skeptic of affirmative action, never before voted to uphold affirmative action plans. while this language and decision on that both sides more like this -- might like this, the basic language is that it is ok. universities can take account of race as one factor among many in deciding whom to admit to their colleges and universities. and that is a big move. it looked like in this case that the constitutionality of affirmative action programs would be cut back some. to have them endorse is a sign that this is over, it will be with us for a long time, some things that university officials say they really need and want. the supreme court says they can now do it. charlie: what exactly was the university's program? what did they say? adam: the university's program is a little odd.
it admitted most people to texas, the university of texas, by taking the top 10% of anybody who graduated in high schools. if you did well in your high school, whether good or bad, they let you in. that part of the program was uncontested, everyone agreed that was fine. the generated very substantial diversity, but largely because texas high schools are fairly segregated. at the university of texas did, and this was the controversial part, a layer on top of that, the holistic admissions program where they do take account of race directly as one factor among many. that is how almost every college and university in america admits people, that is how they generate diversity by making race a plus factor. whether that is constitutionally permissible has been the subject of decades of legal wrangling. the bottom line of the decision today was that it is ok, you can do that. diversity is important, compelling interest, and we will largely defer to universities if they say the need to take account of race director they
have the critical mass of a diverse student body. so it is a big decision from a seven-member court. we did not have scalia, we also did not have elena kagan because she worked on the case as solicitor general. you have this truncated port making a big decision. charlie: and why did kennedy change his mind? adam: it is hard to know. i would have predicted he goes the other way. he does like to be in control. he does like to be the hero. this gave him an opportunity again, as with same-sex marriage, to be someone who delivered a major social impact decision to the american people. charlie: you quoted larry tribe again, who said no decisions in
the brown versus board of education has been as important as fisher will prove to be in the long history of racial inclusion and diversity areas adam: that is probably a stronger statement that many observers would sign on to, but the direction is quite right. although this involved the idiosyncratic program we were talking about in texas, the general outcome of it is a big boost for supporters of affirmative action. charlie: and unexpected, would you say, or not? adam: surprised the hell out of me. charlie: when you look at this court ending its terms soon, how many days -- adam: we have one more decision day on monday, three decisions to go. charlie: what are the three? adam: one is a case from texas involving restrictive abortion laws. the second is a minor guns case, and the third looks at the corruption conviction of virginia's former governor. charlie: he may get out then if the court would rule in his favor? adam: as wrong as i was about affirmative action, i think i am right and he will have a good day on monday. charlie: you say that because? adam: lots of justices, including liberal and noted justice stephen breyer seemed to have a lot of sympathy for the former governor's legal position.
♪ charlie: tonight, we look at america's ongoing battle against extremism. it has been 11 days since the largest shooting took place in orlando florida. in the aftermath, questions of homegrown terrorism and gun control have come to a head. how can this be tracked and stopped? is gun control a security issue? there was a sit in in the house to mending control on the this ended with paul ryan and fellow republicans reclaiming control through a spending bill. the u.s. political and military strategy in the fight against extremism has come under fire last friday. 51 state department officials signed an internal memo protesting u.s. policy in syria very they urged president obama to carry out strikes against the syrian government to stop the persistent violations of the
cease-fire and to gain some leverage in negotiations. in iraq, when iraqi government forces took fallujah, it had been controlled by isis militants. yet, there still seems to be no end in site for the long war with isis and its you miss him. joining me now is mike morrell, and james would have felt. he served as the ninth vice-chairman of joint chiefs of staff, the number two man in the armed services in america. during the time he had that position. i am pleased to have you join, mike morrell, who has been a frequent guest, and has become a kind of rockstar for my fans. [laughter] mike: we all think the world of us. charlie: let's talk about orlando and what does it need in terms of the ongoing battle against extremism? and arabism? mike: the first thing to say is we still don't have a perfect
understanding of what exactly orlando was. there are indications that it was terrorism. there are indications of his, his being radicalized. certainly last minute indications of him claiming he was isis, acting on isis' behalf. pledging allegiance, there is also indications this was a hate crime. there are indications this was some sort of revenge crime, because he was gay. he had an attraction to gay latinos. there is some evidence he was spurned by them, he was acting out of revenge. so we don't know what the massive motivation is here. but it does seem there was something in the isis narrative that attracted him that may have pushed him over the edge, may have just been an excuse at the end of the day. i think orlando is very complicated, but it is true
there is a large number of young people in the united states who are attracted to the ideology, being radicalized by the message, and we need to worry about those guys. charlie: are we doing enough? obviously, no. mike: it is dealing with lone wolves, very difficult. because the way you catch terrorists is through, either through the communications from the center to the terrorist, you pick up that communication and you discover this guy over here, and you disrupt. or, you have a small group of individuals who are planning a plot, and you get a small -- you get inside their communications. that is the way you catch terrorists. with a lone wolf, it is a single individual not connected to the center, so it is very difficult
to find them. it is a real challenge for intelligence, for law enforcement, to discover them. if it happens in their home, their basement, their bedroom, they are not posting things on social media, it is very difficult to find them before they happen. charlie: so what do we need to do? as for the effort to stop the lone wolf, to know more about them, have a greater connection to the community, do they have a sense that people who care about these kinds of issues for all range of reasons, because of protecting lives, it leads to an unfair characterization of the religion, whatever it might be? james: stopping lone wolf attacks goes to the whole question about terrorism. it will take a generation or two for the muslims who do not believe in violence, before they can actually take control of this themselves, raises two questions. one is how to protect yourself
in the meantime, the other is, how can we help them? were extremism no longer has creditability? the first question domestically is not about the military, more about law enforcement. we need to do everything we can in a responsible way to help them with their job. there is a big debate about privacy. we believe in strong privacy laws, but there are some responsible things we can do to help these things get found. mike: on the narrow question, of what is the best way of learning about these guys before they attack, right? on that narrow question, the evidence is absolutely clear that the best way to do it is not through raw surveillance,
which alienates these communities. the best way is to do community policing. the best way is through encouraging muslim communities, muslim leaders, muslim teachers, muslim parents, right, friends, family, to come forward when they see red flags and to inform law enforcement. that is the way it works very effectively in the united kingdom. it does not work that way in europe where those communities are disenfranchised. that is how you deal with lone wolf terrorism at the end of the day. charlie: it is not a new idea to say, we have to have some capacity to combat isis and their ideology, that is throughout social media. they try to create programs or do that, but my impression is they have not got to where they want to be in that kind of social media counterattack, saying we have a better idea. mike: there is a point, right?
there is one question about how you deal with terrorists that already exist. stop them from attacking you. and how do you prevent the integration in the first place? that as for this is coming from. james: if you look at a young muslim male who doesn't have much economic opportunity, doesn't get a lot of respect, doesn't maybe feel a sense of justice, who is only being reached out to educationally or religiously by extremists, and who has this social media view of what we called jihadi cool, the kid with a black bandanna and the ak-47, looks sexy or cool. figuring out what we as a society can do, not necessarily ourselves, but to incorporate muslim communities. charlie: we doing enough to communicate and have serious and important conversations out of respect for the religion, get them to do more? james: that is an area we need to explore much more deeply. the first question is, how do we
protect ourselves voter the lion share could shift over to answering that question. mike: i agree 100% for every, not exaggerating here, for every 1000 hours we spend in situation rooms talking about how to deal with the terrorists who are trying to kill us come up we spent an hour trying to stop potential terrorists in the first place. the weight needs to shift. charlie: it is primarily that was possibility of homeland security -- mike: no, no. this is an issue the whole world needs to get their arms around. there is not a lot the united states can do directly. the united states has no credit ability talking to a young muslim men about their faith. that conversation needs to come from their leadership, their
clerics, their teachers, their family, right? we can lead him a get people to talk about this, get resources to make it happen, and that is just one piece of this, right? there is economic opportunity, social issues, all of these needs to be dealt with. charlie: understanding fundamentalists and all of that? james: it is a whole society. mike: the whole point i want to make of the u.s. government emphasis on dealing with the guys who are the bad guys that already exist, that existing since 9/11 is understandable. it is the equivalent of when gang members try to break into your home and kill your family, you are focused on stopping them. the last thing you are thinking about is the socioeconomic conditions that created gangs in the first place. charlie: looking at the larger picture, the president talked
about winning and doing better, looking how many people we have killed, all of that. what is your assessment, both of you, of where we are in this june day with respect to the battle against isis? mike: i thought the most important is from last week, was the director of cia, john brennan,'s testimony, open to the public. it was where are we with isis? what director brennan said was yes, it made a tremendous amount of progress in iraq and syria. we have taken 50% of their territory. we have shut their finances essentially down. we have taken a number of the leaders off of the battlefield. but then he contrasted that with, with four very powerful points, i thought. one was, one was, despite all the success, we have not yet
dented, not degraded at all their overseas capabilities. number two, it will get worse, overseas will get worse before it gets better. why? as we squeeze them more in iraq and syria, western europeans, americans, canadians that went to fight for isis and iraq and syria are going to leave and come home and become a threat. three, if defeating isis is no longer just reading them in iraq and syria, it is now beating them in all the other places where they have spread. libya, there are now 6000 of these guys. charlie: lots more going there. mike: more than going to iraq and syria. and the punchline of all of that was, you are going to see a lot more attacks both directed and inspired in the future. very powerful message. charlie: i read it carefully and talked to the vice president about it. if anything the director of the cia said inconsistent with what the president has been saying about the battle against isis? mike: no. charlie: there is no contradiction, between the cia director and the president, who
you would expect to be -- mike: there was no conflict, we were talking about this earlier today. this has become, this issue of how we are doing against isis, has become a political issue in this country. when the white house talks about it, they put the emphasis on, here is the success we are having. when the republicans in congress talk about it, they talk about the remaining threat, the threat we are still facing. john put both of them together. charlie: he spoke about the success and the failure, where the white house doesn't talk much about failure. let me talk about all of this, libya. how are we responding to the growing mess in libya? they still have a lot of oil. james: we got a late start. we effectively removed qadhafi from the equation. there is a lot more we could have done in that moment of opportunity to help the libyan country stabilize.
as we often find in situations like this, we don't have a plan for day two. we did not have a strong plan for the libyan people, libyan state in the wake of qaddafi blown away. charlie: i ended up ruled by tribes. james: and we run the same risk if we are not careful, like syria. charlie: we don't know what happens if you go after assad. james: you can weaken him and have him pulled from power, but it until someone can show me what is the plan after that for the stability of the syrian state, the syrian government to look out after all of the syrian people not just a certain sect, i will not necessarily be terribly wild about it. charlie: that will happen in
negotiations, where the russians will be a big player as well as ukraine. what am i missing here? mike: those people who are pulling for ukraine, including the 50's some state department who are calling for a much greater military application in the military -- charlie: in order to give leverage to the negotiating track. mike: but i think, i think that, that, the goal, the focus, what we are doing in iraq and syria is on isis. that is the threat to us. i know the humanitarian toll in syria is huge, and it is heartbreaking. but the threat to u.s. interests is isis, and the power in iraq,
the power in iraq that is doing the most damage to isis is a side -- is assad's military. a little more encouraging in the north, territory taken back from isis and syria has been taken back from assad. my concern is that, if you significantly weaken assad, not knowing what comes next, back to the same question, you may create more instability. you may create, reduce the effectiveness in the fight against isis. you may give them more running room in syria. charlie: i let me make sure i understand you. one of the arguments made in iraq was the fact that argument -- the fact that the army was gone. it was almost a wide giant swap. people joined the political party because they had no job and did not have political ideology against it. then you are left, when he fell,
with no strong internal structure. you were saying, it is in our interest to make sure those syrians, even in the syrian army and other syrians, are not necessarily killed by throwing out assad. mike: yes, so -- charlie: they are left to build their state. mike: what we want, is we want a transition from assad to a new government, but we want assad to go in a way that leaves institutions of power, namely, the military, security services, intelligence services, in tact. in iraq, it was the u.s. government that made the decision to destroy those. in libya, it happened under its own weight. it was so institutionalized, so personalized with qaddafi, that when he and his senior guys went
away, the military went away. i am concerned that if assad just goes away with no transition, the same thing happens to the syrian military. u.s. airstrikes could potentially weaken them to the point where you have instability once assad goes. charlie: and the question is, are the turks, the saudis, other people in the arab world, the sunnis, prepared to accept, we got to let him stick around for a while until we get rid of isis? james: i don't know if him staying around until we get rid of isis is in the equation. they are interested in what syria looks like if this ever happens. where michael is, i want to see the plan for what syria is going to be like at the end of this negotiation. if you scan the blogosphere, i
want to see the letter that says when assad leaves, this is how syria will be governed, and it will be governed fairly for the syrian people. there will not be bloodshed, score settling, that i have not seen. charlie: that's a come from the white house, where? james: it should be led by the united states, because we have a lot of diplomatic power to do that sort of thing, but there
has to be a buy-in from this used up supposed group of conflicting people of interests in syria. kurds, sunnis, turks, it is a difficult, and to come up with that. i don't think we have done the hard work to make that happen. charlie: i want to know why we have not done it and whose responsibility it is to do it. my impression is that part of what the negotiation is about is trying to figure some of that out. you are trying to get directions to find some third party, not assad, not wedded to him, we have made that clear. james: it wasn't my responsibility, but i did in fact at many times. charlie: do we have a plan? james: where is the assad plan? mike: i believe that just as sandy said, at the end of the day, it is all the parties to this conflict sitting down and figuring out, but it will only work if the united states walks in the room with a plan. it will only work that way. i have an idea what the plan is. i'm running it by people. charlie: in your own minds from your own experience what it ought to be. tell us what it is. mike: don't laugh, seriously. i think in both syria and iraq, the fundamental problem is that you have got this multitude of growth. nobody, nobody trusts anybody else, right coder the shia don't trust the shiites, sunnis -- so the solution in both places is lebanon-style political
solution. so this means -- charlie: lots of parties. mike: the different sectarian groups, they all have a guaranteed, they all have a guaranteed set of authorities inside the government, guaranteed jobs they will get it will not be taken away by the vote. what happened in iraq was it was straight up democracy. not surprising to anyone, it was shia controlled, took advantage of the state. they were in the majority.
same thing in syria today where the alawites run everything to the disadvantage of everyone else. if there was democracy, real democracy, the sunnis would win. charlie: they would have a portion. james: michael's idea -- mike: they would get the defense ministry the time, or the presidency, the -- you said it out in the constitution ahead of time so that straight up democracy, straight up votes will not disenfranchise anybody as they have in iraq. charlie: what do you think of this plan? james: i think it will be interesting. where is russia? russia has a famous greek philosopher that once said all philosophy comes from fear mongering. fear, honor, and interest. the fear is quite honestly something can all agree with, terrorists, terrorism emanating from that part of the region will end up in russia, which it has.
i can be sympathetic to that. the honor peace is russia wanting to reassert itself on the world stage, seen as a coequal partner to the united statesnd have that shtick in the world. and they want a foothold in the mediterranean. so all of those on top of each other, potential for conflict is right. charlie: so giving them that kind of interest they have had -- james: they will have to if we have successful negotiation in syria. charlie: how do you include that? james: we have to have russians there, but include a lot of people's interests as well. sunni arabs, turks on the
northern border have their own interest, the kurd piece in the northeast. there is an awful lot of parties who bitterly mistrust each other, so we have got to come up with a solution. charlie: could i listen to what you are saying, this administration does not have a strategy for what comes, regardless of whether assad goes are not? mike: after paris, i came on your show and said, the strategy is not working. what i should have said was, the execution and the strategy is not working. so i actually think there is a strategy, and i think it is the right strategy. the strategy, as simply as i can is, militarily, takeback territory from isis using local forces, right coder
not putting hundreds of thousands on the ground to do it. and the other thing is give the sunnis a stake in the future of iraq and give the sunnis a future in the stake of syria. so that you don't just get rid of isis and something else comes in place. we started with al qaeda and then drove al qaeda out, then isis comes in because we did not deal with the fundamental political problems. i think the strategy is fine. my question is, the execution of the strategy. my question is, why weren't we more aggressive, why were we more, why weren't we willing to take more risks? one of the things that struck me, charlie, is that every time there is a terrorist attack, whether it is paris, san bernardino, brussels, the united states has done more. we have taken advisers -- charlie: we ratchet people. mike: we ratchet things up. we take them closer to the
fight. we take special forces and put them on the ground to conduct operations themselves, conduct intelligence and operations against senior leaders. we take special forces and put them in syria. every time some thing that happens, we ratchet it up. i say, why weren't we already doing this? charlie: are the rules of engagement for iraq, for americans in syria different? yes, we have special forces in iraq going on search and destroy. when i said to the president in hanover, what are the rules of engagement for the syrian soldiers, the special forces in syria? he said, they added like 200, he said i can't really tell you that.
james: so i better understand the question now. rules of engagement are combat -- the authority for military action is how i interpret that. for the longest time, they were different. we had more soldiers on the ground, more authority in the air. very early in iraq, and gradually, it was expanded. one of the key events was the president said, i need a political partner in iraq i can work with before i do more. and the prime minister abadi came in, he expanded the military in iraq and syria. we were try to get coalition powers to come in and use air power because we could do it legally under international law, against isil, because isil presented a threat to us. not so with the assad government, there was not an international basis to go after assad himself. as michael has alluded, those
authorities have expanded over time, so we do have more special forces. yes, they have expanded, they can go more, but i am mindful of the fact the president, in my opinion, is trying to be very careful about having a slippery slope where nobody is advocating except a very few, getting 100,000 people in there. so let's do more. the american people want to see -- charlie: six months. what can you do in six months? i ask that to vice president biden and david petraeus, can they have [indiscernible] and the shiite militia, taking fallujah, can they take mosul? will they be able to in the next six months take raqqa back? or is that even a reasonable question? james: i think raqqa might be a bridge too far in the next six
months because we do not have grounds to do it. expect in the kurds to take raqqa back is a bridge too far. it was not a powerful enough sunni force to go all the way to raqqa and take it unless it is assad's armie, and i don't think they will get out there. the next target is mosul, and there are questions if that can be done. there will be a lot of questions in fallujah. they are not done. they declared victory, but they have not finished it. charlie: it is a humanitarian crisis. james: there are several things to watch for, and they have done a good job so far. we have got to watch out for the shia militias. it will not surprise me if there were atrocities going on with the shia militias hurting people. and we really need to watch carefully to see what the iraqi
central government does in the wake of liberation of, let's say, fallujah, to know demonstrate it will be a good political partner, it will include sunnis, take care of refugees, put resources in there so people go back to their homes and fallujah becomes successful again. if they don't, it goes back to what it was. mike: this is exactly one of the areas where i think we need to be more aggressive. it is the area of the sunnis in iraq and the shiite of iraq. the shia want three things. they want autonomy. the kurds want the same thing. they want an end to demarcation. sunnis can work in the iraqi government, be in the iraqi military.
if they are a member of the baath party. that would include pensions, those who worked in the government and the military under assad. those are the three main things they want. we have gotten absolutely nowhere in negotiations between the a body government and the sunnis away forward on that relationship. that will only happen if we and the iranians put intense pressure on abadi, and we and the sunni gulf partners, the uae, put pressure on the sunnis. but we have not made progress on the political side. james: so, if you are a sunni in iraq, you are more afraid of a shia militia than you are of isis today. today. james: when you see photos of -- that does not do nothing to help us. charlie: so what about the iranians? what role would they play in iraq and in syria?
i mean, they have -- they have vladimir putin acting on their behalf. mike: they came to, they came to bashar al-assad's assistance for the first time in 2012 when he was tottering. they came to his assistance with shia militia that they trained in iran and funded and equipped. they brought hezbollah in lebanon. they put secret service people on the ground. they are still doing not all of that in syria anymore, but still some of it. the second time, assad was tottering, the russians came in to support him with airstrikes. in iraq, they are probably the most effective fighting force. the shia militias they trained and they equipped, because the iranians are good at this,
right? they are good at training young men and providing them weapons and money to fight. with a lot of guidance from senior cuts but officers, including [indiscernible] charlie: there is also change in terms of, where are we in terms of the saudis and the morales, being so very much mesmerized by a conflict in iran, which is a very different view of who want to have primacy in the region? james: i would say the sunni gulf arab partners are deeply concerned about what they view as existential threats during the first is what we have been talking about, that is the extremists that very much their regimes and their way of life.
and iran, they are afraid of iranian hegemony over the region. they have seen the iranian advance after the war in iraq, where they have gained, turned iraq into a weak partner that they can dominate. that worries over arab partners a great deal. it is hard to understand how deeply they feel threatened by iran. mike: it is not an overstatement to say that, that the sunni gulf states see iran as their soviet union, that they see it as a next essential threat to their states. charlie: and do they see us as not really appreciating that, and secondly, urging them to be more open-minded about iran? i mean the president has said just that. mike: they see us not fully understanding the threat they are facing, and they see us as not providing enough leadership pushing back against the iranians.
they see us as not doing as much as we could directly to push back on the iranians. charlie: which is? james: as far as pushing back photo that is were you get interesting questions with international law. there is the un security council resolution that says iran cannot export weapons to anybody. they do it all the time. they put them on board dowse, they sail out of iran, they go to places like yemen and sudan and other places where the weapons go to hezbollah or yemen itself. the problem with that un security consul is it has no resolution. you can see an iranian buy and you cannot stop it. one thing you can do is give more liberal interpretation of
international laws. those present a threat to a partner who has asked for our help, and there is a possibility we could do more say to prevent iranian export of weapons. there are callous other examples, some of which would be classified, others not. we could probably do more. charlie: why are we doing more? does it have to do with the mindset of the white house? james: the deep respect this administration has for international law, they are very reluctant to push hard against international law. it is possible to do that under
legitimacy arguments, but there are strict limitations when and how to use force, and they abide by those. part of the reason for abiding by those restrictions is because the more you get in, the more you encourage others to do the same, like the russians in crimea or the chinese in the south china sea. it is something to be used judiciously. and another reason, canada, if you don't want to do something, and international law reason is a good reason. charlie: what do you think of the law defined by jeffrey goldberg? mike: it was a very interesting interview. i think the president was expressing some pent-up frustrations. charlie: about saudis and others. mike: about saudis and others. she understands the importance, otherwise you would not be meeting with them. there was a lot of off blowing of steam there. he would like to see more from the gulf partners in terms of a partnership. charlie: is that a difficult request? james: they are good partners on the counterterrorism front. they have been externally helpful. michael can describe to you what our gulf arab partners have done in that regard, preventing attacks on the united states.
the relationship is without its challenges, but this partnership is incredibly important to us. charlie: what have they done? mike: the saudis, armenians, egyptians, these have been extraordinary counterterrorism partners. that allows us to stop and disrupt plots. there were a number of plots they cannot of yemen by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, aimed at the united states. the saudis helped us to disrupt. there are americans alive today because the partnerships between saudi arabia and the united states with counterterrorism. charlie: as far as you know, does hillary clinton, and her worldview, differ from barack obama and his worldview? mike: yeah, i think it does.
charlie: it is said that she is, how would you describe it? i was thinking of words like, she is more of a hawk than he is. mike: i think, i think she has a broad definition of national security interests. i think she is open to doing more and some of these cases. i have known her the table to argue for more. i think she would be more willing to try to find an accommodation in this whole international law question, to try to do some of these things like, let's stop iranian boats from taking weapons all over the place. she would be very pragmatic, very pragmatic in dealing with these issues. and she listens. one of the, one of the big complaints of our arab partners,
and many of our other partners around the world, is that nobody is listening to us. she is a great listener. james: i agree 100% with what michael just said. the one thing i would add to that is, having observed two administrations, the bush and the obama administration, great people working inside, patriots, hard-working people, is the world looks a lot different when you are sitting in the chair at the end of the table, at the white house sit when that it does -- the white house sit room than it does anywhere else. it is easy to snipe and say whatever, but that person, man, woman, whatever, has got a lot on their shoulders. charlie: in a sense, a perfect place to close, because both of you have been in the situation room, where questions are tough, you know. and there is no easy way to answer. and every answer has consequences.
and some of them may be unintended. mike: the complexity of these issues cannot be overstated. they are not simple. i smile when i read one-paragraph op-ed articles that tell you how to solve syria or how to russia or china, right? these are complicated issues. charlie: i hope you come back. i hope you will join us again. we will be right back. ♪
♪ charlie: anja manuel is here, she is a lecturer at stanford university. she recently served in the state department from 2005 to 2007. she was responsible for south asia policy. choose a partner in the consulting firm life, hadley, gates. her book is called "the brave new world." it addresses the rise of india and china. i am pleased to have her here for the first time. welcome. anja: thank you very much, charlie. charlie: all of us know there has been the signal, what has been in the last 20 years is the rise of china, india, vietnam and other places. we also note the united states was recently visited by the prime minister of india, mr. modi, and we also know there is
an ongoing battle with china, which has problems, having to do with the south china sea, which has to do with cyberspace, and which has to do with other issues. how come we bring the three of them together? anja: this is the core question in the book. it is not going to be easy. china and india will have as dramatic and impact on the united states as any two other countries on earth, just to give you an example. by 2030, they will be the worlds largest market for our companies, with three billion people between them, and the world's fastest growing middle class. we thought we could solve the biggest problems like climate change with just the u.s. and europe getting along. unfortunately, that is no longer the case. china is the largest carbon emitter, and india is the fastest-growing, so we need them
to tackle the world's biggest problems. what i argue for in the book is that we need to be clear where the lines are if we are going to have interests that are separate from theirs, especially with china, would we have all of the issues you have pointed out. we need to be clear and consistent and keep the burn low. charlie: thank you for coming. anja: thank you very much. charlie: the book is called "the brave new world, india, china, and the united states." thank you for joining us, see you next time. ♪