tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 14, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
ii. all of that getting under way at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> here are some of the highlights for this weekend. friday at 8:00 a history tour looking at the civil war. saturday at 6:30 the communicators. sit the technology fair on capitol hill. on c-span 2 friday night books on hillary clinton, barack obama and edward snowden. sunday morning at 10030 we tour the literary sites of wyoming. let us know what you think about
the programs you are watching. call us or e-mail us. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> here on c-span we take you live to the heritage foundation in washington, d.c. for an assessment of president obama's strategy in iraq. among those participating former national security advisor for george w. bush. we'll hear from other foreign security policy experts this. is the president saying today that the humanitarian crisis is over eliminating the need for a risky u.s. rescue mission. but the dire threat from an advancing islamic army. the president speaking to reporters. he said that the u.s. will work with other governments to provide humanitarian relief wherever we have capabilities. on that issue "the new york
prepare to begin. reminding our internet viewers and viewers on c-span questions are welcome by e-mail. we will post the program later today for your future reference on our website. and our host for today is peter brooks who serves heritage as a .enior fellow mr. brooks is also in his fourth term as a member of the congressional u.s. china economic and security review commission. he has been appointed to that commission by two different speakers of the house. prioring to coming to heritage he served as secretary of defense for asian and pacific affairs. he has served on republican staff on the committee on international relations. severalt the c.i.a. and
defense firms and on active duty in the u.s. navy. he is a graduate of georgetown university, johns hopkins and the u.s. naval academy. join me in welcoming peter brooks. >> thank you. good afternoon. thank you for coming. as you know from the news iraq is in crisis and has been for some time now. the islamic state of iraq and syria, isis has scored victories against iraq forces, taken and held territory, captured vital infrastructure and left a wake of death and destruction across iraq. not to mention that it has eclared the establishment of a fit that spans both iraq and syria. there are questions about the government of the country and
the handle the threat it poses to peace and stability. in addition it's my view that the rise of isis poses a direct threat to the national interest of the united states and abroad. some of the reports and videos are chilling and deeply disturbing. as a consequence a discussion of the president's strategy in iraq is timely and necessary. for instance, has the u.s. response been sufficient in addressing the isis threat thus far? what interest does the united states have in iraq and do they merit increased u.s. involvement? what should the president's strategy in iraq and isis be going forward? these are some of the pressing issues we need to answer in this evolving and i would argue worsening crisis. just an hour ago the president spoke on iraq in an address. we've been able to assemble a terrific panel even in the middle of august to get at the
matter of iraq, isis and other related issues today. joining me is steave who say former assistant @ national security advisor to president george w. bush. dr. mary hey back. she's a senior fellow at fpri. and steve at the center for foreign and national security policy here at the heritage foundation. we have a lot to cover so let's get started. teve, you want to lead us off. >> it's an honor to is it next and to be on anel the panel with steve as well who tid pleasure of watching do his
work at the lofty heights to which he did it during the bush administration. i'm the light entertainment before they get up and i'm not going to talk to you so much as doctor as retired united states army special forces where i spent about 28 years of my life. looking at what we're doing in iraq right now to try and combat isis, first kudos to the president he's doing something, that we are taking some action, the humanitarian effort to help relieve the refugees on the mountain was the right thing to do as were the air strikes that have occurred. but to be honest with you, i don't think it's enough. i'm not advocating we suddenly redeploy marine divisions to iraq. i don't think we need to do that and i don't think there is any appetite for it. however there is middle ground
between those two positions and what i would like to advocate is taking an action that i would call sort of a combination of gulf war one and the beginning of the afghan campaign where we leverage allies in the region, both the curds, the iraqi military, some of the various militias and hopefully folks from other countries, jordan, turkey, maybe saudi arabia. not thrilled about iran getting involved in it. then embed with those forces some of our special operations forces to control american or in a bigger sets way than we're doing right now. similar to what we did against he taliban with a very small
american foot proint using precision mue in additions we took the taliban apart and drove them out of power in afghanistan. i believe isis is a big enough threat that we need to take a little more string gent measures than we have. we need to have a goal of the destruction of isis. they are that dangerous in my opinion and we need to send a message to the world that yes, america may be war we'rey but we're not totally sitting it out with our feet up in the air. if a situation warrants it, and i believe this one does, we do ake some action. >> i'd like to add the justification for the fears that many have expressed about isis. i think that one of the maybe
miscommunications might be that we're just dealing with the humanitarian crisis when in fact we're dealing with a humanitarian crisis and a direct threat to the united states. so the humanitarian crisis is of course bad enough on its own. we're talk about hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, we don't even know the full scope of the tragedy we're facing. a lot of this has to do with the fact isis was thrown out of al qaeda for being too extreme. we're dealing with people that even al qaeda found distasteful and whose actions have lived up to this reputation once they found themselves in control of territory. i don't want to minimize the humanitarian crisis or the fate of the people of iraq who have found themselves under their unkind and ungentle rule. but at the same time there is also a direct threat to the united states that's been expressed by isis itself. they have threatened to carry
out attacks against the u.s. and u.s. interests. in addition, they have threatened to carry out attacks against nearly all of their neighbors. in fact, one of the if you want to put it this way, beefs they ad with al quadeda was they -- named iran andey kuwait as the targets of their attacks. a couple of months ago a huge cell of more than 50, 60 men were picked up in saudi arabia plotting attacks. there have been other hints of plots they've had going forward in other countries. it's not just the united states that's threatened. it's not just i rook that's threatened. it's the region as well that is hreatened.
the short answer is not just the humanitarian crisis but our safety and security. but there is a second piece to this and that is there is no one else to do this. even though our allies have expressed willingness to be involved. even though the u.n. has expressed horror what is going on in iraq, no one else has the capabilities to do anything meaningful in this situation. we need to be involved for our own security and safety because we are the only ones that can do it. the big question is what precisely should we be doing? we heard steve give an answer that is elegant about the need to be doing more. is an unfortunately imprecise solution to this particular problem and it will only be a temporary one.
so there is no way to stabilize even the situation with simply bombing. and by the way, as steve also mentioned, what is our ultimate goal for being there? if our ultimate goal is to prevent a humanitarian crisis then maybe one could make an argument that helping the curds or aiding them so they can deal with this problem or carrying out a bombing campaign will alleviate the immediate humanitarian crisis. if the problem is that these extremist pose a direct threat to the united states, a bombing campaign useful as it is to temporarily stabilize the situation will not in fact defeat isis or secure the safety of the united states. i have some proposals here but i would prefer to perhaps leave them for a more lengthy discussion in just a little bit.
>> thank you. >> steve. >> i think this starts out with iraq and i think if we start there, we miss some soft explanation of why we're in the situation we're in which we need to understand if we're going to actually deal with it. iraq in 2008, the al qaeda in iraq had largely to thank surge and efforts of our men and women in uniform. al qaeda da was largely defeated. the country was stable and continued to be so until 2011. lot of problems with the government and what was going on but stable it was. the change of course became syria. it began the initially peaceful uprising against the syrian government which turned violent and has been raging for over three years. a number of us said from the beginning, republicans and democrats that the longer syria
goes, the more people will die, the more extremist it will become, the more it will destabilize its neighbors and the more you will open the door for al qaeda da and sadly that is what has now happened. syria is in flames. iraq has been destabilized. jordan is under a lot of pressure because of refugees. lebanon is barely holding together. in the midst of this has emerged his isil group which is both larger and it's hard to say this but it is more vicious i think al he only word than even quad -- al qaeda.
thousands with european passports which allows them to go home and come to the united states without the need of a visa. so we have now stratling syria and iraq a terrorist threat more fears than the al qaeda we were able to defeat in iraq and one that we will at some point get to attacks on the united states. that is the one thing we know about these groups. we can count on it. and the question is do we want to take them on now or do we want to take them on later. my preference would be now. what does it require? this is not about americans returning to iraq and going into syria with the tens of thousands of troops. that's not what is on the table. i was at a thing called the aspen strategy group and we heard from three senior leaders and all of them said the same
thing. we can handle isil. we don't need and aren't requesting boots on the ground from america. but we need air support. we do need intelligence. we do need equipment, modern equipment comparable to what the bad guys have and we'd like advisors and trainers. if you give us that, we will take the fight to isil and we can defeat thefment that is the opportunity that is available to us. i think it's a good thing that the administration has started to provide equipment to them. the paper today says that the french, the germans and maybe the british are going to join that effort. that is good nufmentse i believe the administration's intention is once there is a unity government in baghdad that is not headed by malachi, they will begin a process of requipping,
retraining and resetting the iraqi military. and finally there will be a difficult choice about whether we will also begin to have a similar relationship with the curds with the soonny militia who are are going to take time before they reconcile themselves to the presence of the iraqi army. there is a way forward to hand this will threat. we need to get after it. this is not going to get easier the longer it takes. and i think despite the leluctens, my own view is events are going to drive the administration there. it's just a matter of time. and i hope it's sooner rather than later. >> i want to ask the pannle a few questions before we open it up to the floor. what do we do about syria? if you are -- assume these were iraq kiss were talking about or the curds doing something in
iraq. the origin is in syria. the capital is there. and syria say complicated issue for us to deal with as well. i'm not asking you but feel free to take that and i'm interested in what the panel thinks about that. >> you can't handle isil just in iraq. their base is still in syria. in addition to the things i talked about in terms of iraq, we have to do what the press reports we are doing now with the cri in the lead which is tting, arming and training non-extremist elements in syria. for the moment those elements exist. they have a two front war. they are being attacked by the syrians and being attacked by the extremist. they need to be strengthened and enhance their ability to take the fight to both groups.
and at some point, if we make some progress, i think the assad regime will begin to split apart. and the only thing i see as a next step is putting together a unity government of the elements we've armed and trained and almosts of the assad administration that are willing to break from assad into a unitty government that will bring down the violence and begin to stabilize the situation and take the fight against isil and syria. stabilizing syria is going to be a long prospect. that's where we have to start. >> i couldn't agree more in the argument we have to take this seriously as one system that is all the way across the border from syria to iraq. first of all, that's how isis thinks abet. they spent time bulldozing the
natural barrier between between iraq and syria and proclaiming in their public videos they had no intention of respecting borders all the way across the middle east. and the unification of iraq and syria into one battlefield has already happened. this is not something we are doing. it's something that has already occurred and we have to deal with. i agree completely. we must see this as one system. the biggest problem i see with dealing with the problems in syria are the fact that there has been a radicalization of a large percentage of the fighters in syria. i don't want to minimize the problems we'd have in seeking to find those that have an interest in creating not just a stable syria after ward but one that is non-extremist. however we do have one potential ally that also stretches all the
way across and that is the curds who are flent syria as much as they are in iraq or almost as much as they are in iraq. so the proposal i would have is begin with arming and training them in iraq to act as the sort of partners in this fight. but then consider doing the same syria with g in their brother tribes just across the border. other than that, again, this is a very tough situation in syria and i think we'd have to have very careful vetting to make sure our weapons don't end up in the hands of al qaeda who i just i amis not as bad as isis, by no means giving them the stamp of approval and arming
them. it's not the right thing to do. if we can do that careful vetting, i think this is the only sort of solution for what is going on in this entire system. >> and just we also need not forget about iran. ome of our allies have supported some of the more extreme elements in resistance against the assad regime because to be more assad of a threat to them than the radical soon anies. think think they are rethinking that support now that isis has pivotted back coming into iraq and looking at the rest of the region as well. at least i hope they are. we have to get those people on board too. this has to be a true regional
response to this kind of threat and it's got to include some of .hose soony led countries because otherwise their fear of iran is going to drive them to do things that are counter to our interest and counter to the regional interest. but they have to look at that. they are worried and they are feeling unsure about their own future and that is causing them to make some bad decisions. so that's going to take some igh diplomacy more than finger wagging. it's going to take that hard work behind closed doors that countries are supposed to do with one other another to try and get people to make the right call. >> i forgot one of our natural lies in iraq are are those
tribal members who worked with us during the so called awakenings. by understanding is they are still eager to work with us, i'm not quite certain why given the way we've been treating them over the past few years. but it would be not amiss for us to pick up those relationships we built over the course of 2006 to 2011 in particular and consider working with them. and might i also point out that isis has gone after specific tribes that have risen against them in syria as well. so that there are specific ibes that might be open to working with us and given our previous experience in working with these particular tribes in iraq, we might find that transfers over to syrian tribal
structures as well, although they are significantly different from those in iraq. >> where is isis heading? are they going to try to consolidate syria and iraq or does it go beyond that? where do we think they are heading strategyically in terms of the region or are they going to talk about jordan, saudi arabia? anybody have any thoughts on that? >> we made a mistake prior to 9/11 in not believing al qaeda when they said we're at war with you. we blew it off. we did not think they were serious. i hope to he can we're not going to -- i hope to heck we're not going to blow off what isis is saying. i get it if you want to disagree about the analysis of things. but when the organization themselves say this is our plan. it's to take over this part of the world and by the way, we really want to put the flag of
islam over the white house. that's bold talk i realize. i'm not expecting them to come over the beaches down there on the east coast anytime soon. but they are going to try and expand their ability. they've shown an ability to erate on multiple fronts simultaneously. they try to do operations near jordan, fighting in sir yarks fighting in iraq. they have a lot of capacity to do which i have. they are not going to stick to the one area. they are going to try to expand themselves and if we let them get away with it, they will keep pushing. so we need to stop them on all those fronts. >> mary is the expert here. we'll let her go last. >> i've had this conversation with people in the administration. they have a war
and they have extended their war to everybody that isn't their particular brand of islam. but i think you're going to see that move for a couple of reasons. isil was thrown out of al qaeda. but they are now out shining al qaeda because they are doing better than al qaeda for example in pakistan. we are now beginning to see, at least per press reports that the qaeda in the islamic and on the arabian peinnocence la are thinking of moving their filiation from al qaeda core to isil. i also think that what we know about baghdad is he's good and
an ambitious man and he will try to absorb all of al qaeda. as he does this, i think he will be affected by the al qaeda that is why people who i know il isimes are saying is i focused on the region, let's not push them too hard because we do not want them to turn attention to the united states. i think the history is they will get to the united states at some point and you want to try, and i would argue to hit with them and deal with them early because they stronger -- the stronger, the more entrenched and more when itt it will be finally turn on the united states. >> can you talk about the threat the united states?
there is a sense it is over there, not here. do you think the threat is here and now? isn't coming what may consolidate themselves? what is the threat to the homeland and how they might do that? >> two responses. vision andlogical theyecond would be what have done and said. the ideological vision against with the fact the the islamic state is caliphate. not meanof us does precisely what it once did so their- so i will explain version and not precisely what most ordinary muslims think the term means. in their vision, there can be only one caliphate, which is traditionally actually not true.
ruler of be only one the entire muslim majority world or community as sometimes it is put. so that is their vision. beyond that cow if it is supposed to expand until the word of god is asked -- the highest. highest.liphate is the readyir vision they are begin with a concept that is global. it are united states would be of particular target or not is a separate question. fact is they have expressed a desire to attack the united states and kill americans. will that displace their immediate desire to take on the or shiite inran
general? that is a good question. what we can see if they are are ready putting out feelers to a lot of other countries to carry out attacks, not just the populations but on majority populations. and they also have had members expressed to carry out attacks against the united states and have made threatening moves toward the united states. i pickeds alone jihad up in new york a couple of days ago and then many of you saw the twitter threat carried out against the white house a couple of days ago. threat i would imagine immediately without a lot of planning and court a nation, the immediate threat would be the hundred or so americans or possibly the of europeans and
people with european passports who might carry out loan attacks against the united states. would resume that unlike al qaeda, which has shown an ability to think long-term, shown an ability to be patient and wait for the right opportunity, that we would get immediate attempts to do things without waiting for some sort of long-term process. the immediate threat could be weeks, months away rather than waiting as al qaeda did to carefully put in place the right building blocks for some sort of huge attack. but i do not write out the fact that they would carry out those attacks later on. >> do you give any credence to
the training camps where they were supposedly training foreign fighters to return to the native land? >> i do not know anything specifically about it? >> i would be very surprised if they were not doing it. lex thing that surprised me -- >> the thing that surprised me is they have horrible organizational security. doing videos of themselves carrying out atrocities without their faces covered. suggests this kind of theirnal way they run organization rather than more rational way al qaeda has run the organization, and the fact that therefore we will have a great deal of difficulty predicting what they are likely to do. if they simply want to go off and kill people without going planning lengthy process where we might catch
them during that process, i think we will have trouble because we might be counting on a lengthy process and might not get that. do notproblem is they need training camps because they are getting on-the-job training in syria and ira. they are in combat. -- syria and iraq. their training is coming by killing people every day. makes it much more immediate and dangerous. >> keep in mind we made a lot of points about the american equipment that isis has captured from the iraqis military but when they showed up, they have a lot of equipment already. if you salt the early pictures of them operating they have armored commercial vehicles, not just stuff taped on the sides. they were manufactured that they
got in serious, either from patrons of that end of the resistance or whether they captured it from this. army. foreign fighters from all over the world, guys in the local arena came to join the fight there, and now they are staying and attracting more to continue the fight. so these guys are actually pretty good. they are doing mobile maneuver warfare. they have made the step up him straight terrorism. they are operating as military units so a lot more of an insurgent army been just a terrorist group. >> i have been watching sure that shark week with my four-year-old. editors, theabout food chain and you have to think about national security as well
as mother nature. the pro-russian rebels, ukrainian army and the russian army. so when we are talking about , what are the vulnerabilities? do they have predators? could save the threat and eventually by other al qaeda groups? a core rally present ore sort of threat to that some sort of force against him. i just thought i would throw that out there. the best thing we can do is to turn their tactics and brutality against them. why in 2007 and 2008 the sunni tribes in and are problems iraqbar province in turned toward us.
these guys are even worse. you are beginning -- there is nesistance and mobile -- io destroying historical sites and turning the population against them. the trick is to enable the local population to turn against them and throw them out. these guys are brutal and vicious. it will take enormous courage for people to stand up against them, and they will only do it if they believe they win and they only believe they win if they have the united states support. that is why what we do is so important. to add to that because i think there may be a misconception for how the throughg work in 2006 2011. did not simply
self arm, self trained and then withoutdefeat al qaeda any help. in fact, there had been other tribal uprisings brutally crushed by al qaeda. so it is not enough to simply have the population turn against you. data says all an insurgency needs is five percent-10% of the population on your site to carry a successful turnaround. even if a very large of the percentage of the population turns against you, if you are brutal enough and these guys have shown themselves capable of doing that, you terrorize the population into submission, and therefore, people who turned around -- against them were forced to carry out attacks at night, do minor things and when al qaeda figured out who they were in came after them, it was
only the intervention of the troops on the ground that prevented them from being slaughtered. maybe we can work with them. that is really what turned a group of vigilantes take and tired of al qaeda into the awakening. without the support and help of the united states, however, no one would have been willing to risk their lives. and it would not have had support behind them necessary to take on and defeat these guys. when i say we should be working with the folks we have previously worked with and perhaps find similar partners in serious, it will take more than simply arming people at this stage. there has to be more support than that. i am not saying we need to be there in force doing something but we probably need guys on the
ground helping them and showing them we really support them and ringing and airpower, a deciding hours.in the early >> to take the analogy, i do not see any big predators right now. we can create some. that is what we need to do. >> why don't we open it up to questions right now? if you have a question, please raise your hand. we have someone with the microphone. if you could please identify yourself and let us know if it is a specific individual or to the panel in general. >> to questions for the panel generally. first, if we start supplying heavy weapons to the kurds, at some point does this lead to into twog divided
--ntries with critics than separate country for each. this was planned after world war i and never happened. .> let's just take one question can anyone direct that an particular? >> there is a risk. one thing i asked when we have is is it conference too late to unify and his answer was interesting. he said we support it and have supported an independent inclusive democratic iraq from the beginning and not what we got from 2010 and 2011 in particular. he said basically this will be the last chance.
i think it is a risk worth running and the risk we have to to deal withgoing it. interestingly enough, my understanding from the press is baghdad has approved the provision of military assistance to the kurds. that gives you an idea of how desperate baghdad views the situation. >> when the sunni awakening succeeded the u.s. have the kinds of boots on the ground that are now being rolled off the table by the panel. there was also a government the u.s. could influence because it was a huge player rather than a supplicant as obama almost is. given all of that, is it realistic to think under the current situations the sunnis
will take the risk of uprising regional-called experts correct saying it will take years, if ever, before they are prepared to commit themselves against a struggle against isis? i have two reactions to that. it looks from the news report was a member of a coalition that included a lot of so-called sunni tribal members. one cannot help but wonder if their experience working with the government had already radicalized them in the past. so when i and others are talking i think wel members, are considering those specifically those we work with in the past who are members of the awakening and no -- new what
they were doing when they looked at al qaeda in general. so i would think it would be very targeted at those people who we know have rejected isis and do not want to work with them. the second thing has to do with will they be capable of taking them on without more serious boots on the ground? that is a serious question. know they are willing to give it a try. there is signs of resistance and a couple of different places. i think that with -- if we are capable of arming them and can bring in airpower to support them, they at least will be able to take on and defeat the isis regular army that might confront them. if we destroy the capability to
carry out of regular fight and revert to an insurgency, that gets trickier because airpower alone will do nothing. this is why i believe at sun -- some point we will have to have some sort of people on the ground to support the partners we do find. lex i do not think any of us said we don't need boots on the ground. we just said we do not necessarily need american forces on the ground other than soft forces. when i save troops on the ground and talking italian and infantry infantry. -- together with the confessional militia they are talented amateurs. you have to get the other forces in there. the iraqi military. maybe military from other regional partners.
we do not need -- we need boots on the ground but not necessarily american ones. i think that can be our contributions and a lot of logistical help as well and can see them have success. let's make this a little harder than already is. the other elephants in the room beside syria is iran. going to do when we talk about these things? an air campaign and such. us --at they have affection for isis but how does iran play into this? >> i think you will see they will want to get involved.
they do not want americans around them. so there could be a situation where they will not take that's -- help that situation with us. it will be tough. they won't want to get their foot in the door. we are are ready negotiating, it will be hard to keep at arms length. i think that is dangerous and a real risk about some of the others we are ready talked about. to be honest with you, it will be tough to keep them out if it goes as regionally as i painted it. it is interesting. decided they would tell maliki he had to step down. he has been in some sense closer to the iranians into us in the past few years. name and group whose
armed by the iranians and a key supporter went through the support and put it to the new prime minister designate. understands and next-door.ble iraq i think and hope they have learned the next shiite agenda agenda won't work. the facilitative process in iraq . they have thrown support to the new prime minister designate, unity government. i am hopeful that will constrain a little bit their role because they know if they become too prominent, they become the issue and then will lead to the fracture of the unity, which i think understand you will need if it is going to be stable.
that is what we ought to be conversation.the >> pots? >> no. thoughts? >> no. thad cochran. i have a question for the panel. how much of the brutality and ambition of isis is centered around this and showed the strategy, in addition to supporting the other factions that are not friendly to isis, how much of that should be on decapitations -- on the onetegies and airpower? >> of the interesting things about the documents released a couple a small visions into al qaeda's organizational thinking. one thing they seem to have done
post-9/11his must be after the capture of the invasion of afghanistan. there is a lot of deputies running around. i think this may be one of the explanations for why they have been so resilient even though we spent a lot of times trying to take cap kate -- decapitate the organization. recently there were a couple of news articles that came out that talked about the struck meon, and what in reading that was how flat the organization was in the sense that you do not have all of the deputies and one guy who seems to be the center and in charge of everything, and i think this goes back.
i think it goes back to the vision of what it was supposed to look like. simply obeys the orders. i almost see this -- this is the analogy i use for thinking about isis. he has a vision for the world. if we had been capable of taking out hitler back in the day i'm a we might have seen a collapse of the organization there as well. use the nazi don't analogy lightly because i know how much it is abused but they actually quote them. whichg this article in they talk about the groups they have set out -- set up to carry out mass slaughter. they sound exactly like what the not to set up in order to kill jewish people in poland and
ukraine. >> i would say worthwhile to take a shot because specifically he portrays himself as a prophet. that puts him -- i do not think too many deputies can say the same. so it would be worth taking him out to see what happens. >> a question over here. >> yes. speaking of regional partners we might look to to help confront isis, as i understand it, there is a group centered in mogul, .ormer ambassador leaders since they were able to control the country formally and we worked with them formally, maybe that is the group we should support. on a more serious note, how
significant is that group, and what is the relationship to isis? >> i do not know of any relationship they have with isis. it is secular so i cannot believe they would get along all that well with them. if they could regroup some -- recruit some of those guys, a lot of them form the major leadership of the former iraq he army and may be useful to get them to help. i am not sure they will get big leadership positions because people are still suspicious -- suspicious of the group. >> i think we will take another question or two but the last question of the day will be from me. if you had the president year -- ear, what would you tell him to do about iraq? right now we will go to another question from the audience, if
we have one. then i will let you give us your thoughts on that. thank you. >> the question i have is there has been quite a lot of focus on .rming militia the sunni tribal leaders as well as the kurds. what should be done to help out the iraqi army stabilization re-sure confidence in the term,ry and the medium but what should be done. >> there is a huge agenda there. i think the administration will do it. they have been slow to do it because they have not wanted to look like they were shoring up malik key so they were holding back until they get the unity government until and -- under a new prime minister. i think once that happens you will see if every engagement of the iraqi security forces, which obviously ought to be the main focus of what we do.
>> thank you very much. just following up on the importance of the saudi see theip, how do you radicalization a limit in terms of strategy. steve mentioned the westerners that are with western passports .here in terms of the longer-term picture of those individuals getting battle experience entrenching the radical views. i think the discussion has not been as strong as it once was. how do you see that as a priority in terms of the long-term or quite important to the strategy in dealing with things on the ground. because wemiling
spend a lot of time on this and the bush administration. it is something we all knew was a priority. we never figured out how to do it effectively. still a priority and still not sure we know how to do it. >> i agree. the things we have learned from the extremist group is nearly always they discredit themselves. so what they actually promise people i met they promise people justice, morality and a better way of life than the one they currently have. what they actually deliver is such a contrast with what they promise that i think the only thing we need to do is take advantage of the contrast between what they say and what they actually deliver, especially when it comes to isis because the difference between them has been a men's any to be taken advantage of. i think you are also asking about the people who have artie
--ght into the ideology already bought into the ideology in carrying out the atrocities. we have seen all sorts of things attempted and lots of different countries. works withiend who people -- she used to work with people who have a dual diagnosis. they have an addiction and mental illness. also work with people who have personality disorders. for one we have treatment. lots of things to help people with mental problems. but when you have a person they -- personality disorder the only care is present. so i feel what has happened here is you are dealing with people who have been radicalized and participating in massacres. unclear to me there is any solution other than prison.
oris isis gaining steam losing steam? getting more for soldiers? gaining more money other than what they have stolen the terms are they gaining support? where is that at? >> where is it going. they are getting small bits and pieces of established groups to swear the oath of fealty to them. but if you take a look at the established groups they are not .inning over the majority so just a co of days ago the big and established group in went through a huge upheaval when the head, a guy i
think it still in prison swore to isis.f fealty there was a huge upper about this and split the group but it looks like the majority may have left him and formed another group. some percentage, includes his own son. me they areto getting geithner -- tiny splinter pieces to join up with them but are getting enough people to migrate. replace it. so that is disturbing. at least it looks like that. they have carried out a couple of minor victories. at the same town the kurds managed to carry out a successful offensive as well. so it looks like stabilization.
funding?g? anything on >> a lot of money. they suck up a lot of money as they moved down the euphrates and tigris. so money in the short room -- short run i'm afraid not the problem but a real opportunity for us now is to target different groups because we know at the end of the day, particularly when you are running large military operations they run on money. was to gost shot after terrorist financing. >> one more question. >> robert moore from the senator's office. you spoke a couple of times about the u.s. acting or things started to come together once
there was a unity government in baghdad. seems like that is still a long way from happening both in terms of malik he stepping out of the way and then something forming behind that. can you speak to the reality of community government that encompasses all three parts theyaq in a reasonable way can agree on, and if that is not able to happen, what does that do to the strategy that i think all three of you agree with in regards to a regional forced to take on isis with the iraqi defense force. >> they have said the loyalty is to the country, not to malik hi. intelligence people are pessimist. they tell you what is going wrong and why it is going to get
worse. policy people are optimist and so iyou what to fix wrong have made a life of being a policy person so that means i am an optimist. take what i say with that in mind. the press reports from two days ministernew prime actually is very close. he is beginning to collect sunni bloc. he probably has the votes he needs. 30 days to do so. probably four days or five days. my guess is he will get together a government. iraqis have a way of getting it 11th hour at the 13th hour. they do have a tendency to get it done. here is my hope. when i lasthasized saw him in washington.
guy. a big constitution his view is if you let go of the constitution, iraq has lost its future. i am hoping what he does is when he gets the ruling from the constitutional court saying the president was within his rights to ask to form a government that as anl use that opportunity to step down. to say i disagree but the constitutional court has now said it is constitutional and therefore relent. his problem is the day after he leaves office he does not want to be killed, prosecuted and does not want to be humiliated. the question really i think is can they work out a deal that gives him satisfaction on those points? i do not think it is a case of him leaving the country. i do not know where we go. my reading of the man is that is not who he is.
i think the last piece of this if he is going to step down is they will have to assure him on security, pride and that he will not be prosecuted. that will be hard to cut there are a lot of people who have been crackdown and prosecuted and thrown in jail under the maliki regime. >> all right. you have the president here, what would you tell them. ? >> i would say we need to take action more than what we're doing now. potential --ntinue look at the groups with true regional coalition to go after these guys, including turks, jordanians, ricks, french, checks.
embed them with u.s. special operation forces. maybe the bricks where they could provide this as well. they would have more percent -- advance precisions. they are precision. >> so from on the ground too high of 30,000 feet, my proposal would be that we stop reacting to events and develop a strategy to the region. like we areel constantly saying wow, that
happened, now what do we do? i would like to see a real strategy for dealing not just qaeda in but also, al serious and elsewhere, so i would like to have a real strategy. as you say, the objective should as i think the strategy is currently to avoid entanglements, foreign entanglements as one might say to defeat the extremists. i would like to see a strategy with that goal. with what mary and steve have said. i think that is exactly right. theink the trick is given history and instincts, how do you get the president to embrace the suggestions? -- try what i would cry
on him is you have decried the that has severed relations in washington. you are right, it is terrible. we need to find an issue that unifies the country, and isil is that issue. it is a threat to the homeland, a threat every american can understand, something you can democratsublicans and behind. both republicans and democrats in the congress and those in the country. majority ofvast american people will. this is an opportunity, mr. president, for you to help hold the country together. this is an opportunity for it .ou to show real leadership to explain it to the american people and lay out a program for dealing with it. this is an opportunity to step
or word. the criticsy, rebut who unfairly criticized you for not showing leadership. for you.n issue it is important to do because i think there is a good chance that how you react to the crisis will have a major impact. i would try it. >> we have had a bridge and informative discussion today on a very informative topic. please join me in thanking them. [laughter] [applause] [applause]
>> coming up and about 50 minutes from now, we will have -- hear from the governor of nixon, with the latest surrounding what is happening in ferguson, missouri, with 18 euro being shot down. we will have that live here on c-span. reporterbilly at posted a photograph on his twitter account, which we see there, of claire mccaskill meeting with demonstrators in ferguson today. the senator issued a statement, saying we need to demilitarize the situation. this kind of response at the police has become the problem instead of the solution. the police need to respect the rights and protect that right. today will be a new start. we can and need to do better. also, reactions from the house
and democratic leaders. john boehner putting out a statement, in the wake of the terrible tragedy, my thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of michael brown. i strongly support a euro investigation surrounding his death and subsequent actions, including the detention of covering the heartbreaking situation. house democratic leader nancy pelosi singing in part it is justicee department of should examine every aspect of the past few days, including whether there were federal civil rights violations. isomprehensive investigation necessary to secure justice for michael brown's family and the community. of the conference coming up at 4:00 eastern on c-span. is a great read. c-span's latest book. a collection of stories from some of the nation's most
influential people over the past 25 years. risko is knew there was a in the bohemian lifestyle and decided to take it because whether it is delusional or not, i do not think it is. it held my concentration. other people from being boring to some extent. it would prolong the conversation. if i was asked what i do it again? the answer is probably yes. i would quit to get away with the whole thing. easy for me to say because they're not very nice to my children. because i didn't know. everyone knows. >> soviet union and the soviet system in eastern europe contains the seeds of its own
destruction. many of the problems we saw at the end began at the very beginning. i spoke already about the attempt to control all institutions and all parts of the economy. one of the problems is when you do that, when you try to control everything, you create opposition and potential dissidents everywhere. if you tell all artist you have to paint the same way and the one artist says i want to paint another, you make him into a political dissident. if you want to subsidize housing and the populist agrees, then put it on the balance sheet and make it clear and evident and make everyone aware of how much it is costing. but when you deliver it through the third-party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, and deliver the subsidies through a public company with private shareholders and executives that can extract a lot of the
subsidies for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. lex christopher hitchens and gretchen mortenson are a few of the 41 engaging stories on c-span sunday at 8:00 now available at your a brave book seller. we wait for live coverage of the missouri governor, a look at what is being called by some the obama doctrine when it comes to u.s. foreign-policy. >> return to u.s. foreign policies and the principles embodied in the doctrine in joining us now is brian could to list from the center for american progress and robert of the foreign policy initiative. version of the obama doctrine has been described as don't do stupid stuff. how would you describe the obama doctrine when it comes to u.s. intervention abroad? >> the phrase i would use is
minimalist foreign policy. what i mean by that, president obama came into office really wanting to put at the forefront diplomacy. and also sort of engagement with rivals, that sort of thing. and he really wanted to in general diem in a size the military instrument. the problem is that in focusing so much on the means, i think sometimes the actual outcomes weren't always the focus. i think the most clear example of that is the russia, which despite the best of intentions yielded what we see now. in addition we're seeing it play out with iran. yesterday supreme leader talked about how these talks with united states are useless, and so the doctrine is a sharp contrast to the bush doctrine to
the extent it is. i'll close by saying that the doctrine in recent days in particular has been experiencing a lot of criticism, surprisingly from some of his -- obama's most senior advisors. secretary clinton in particular, who has criticized some of president obama's decisions on syria, some of his decisions on iraq, and in some ways also providing a sharp contrast to president obama's policies on iran. host: would you agree with that description of the obama doctrine? >> i have a slightly different view, and i think there is three main components. one is getting others to pull their weight around the world. if in the ek did aid after 9/11 under president bush we had this uber sort of fight about shock and awe power and we're going to get around and scare everybody, we got right now a pragmatic administration that says when it comes to ukraine, europe has got to do something here. when it comes to the situation inside iraq, you got iraqi leaders that we have given
billions of dollars of weapons to, and lives. they got to pull their weight. i think that's one component. the second component is bringing in a is tism and what works practically. this is a very deliberate president. he actually thinks through what might be the consequences of actions we take. i think that does have some down sides to it. i agree with that. when you compare it to all of the mistakes made in the previous decade, and the inheritance he got when he came into office, i think on balance that's a good thing. the last thing i would say is i think people in the administration call the long game, you look at what senior officials focus on, and an especially the summer is a great example of this, you look at the africa summit here in washington, you look at the indian engagement and engagement with rising powers, there has been focus on how do you expand
this without getting entrenched with street wars, which are important. and we'll talk about this and won't disagree on much, is how you strike the right balance between having a proactive agenda of building a stronger zone of stability, without diverting so many of our resources like we did under the previous decade, of getting in these sort of in the trenches deep and trying to solve other people's civil wars, and i think that's the fundamental challenge that any leader will have. host: in the wake of the latest action in iraq the white house deputy press secretary was asked about the obama doctrine. here is how he explained it. >> we do have sound fundamental principles that dictate how the president views the role of the united states in the world, confronting any threat to the national security of the united
states. the president said he will not hesitate on that front. and i would also urge you to read further in that speech when he talks about how military action cannot be the only or primary leadership in every instance. just because we have the best hammer doesn't mean we have to hit every nail. i think that the president has taken a thoughtful, deliberate approach to these issues. he laid out his general guidelines for that speech. but our bottom line is the united states will use military force unilaterally if necessary when our core interests demand it. of course,, most recently you heard the president talk about our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity. host: has the president done a good enough job of explaining how the action in iraq fits into that foreign policy principle? >> i think he's tried to explain
it, but to be frank i think he can do better. i think any president who is utilizing u.s. forces can't lead from behind, needs to lead from the front. ideally every day be explaining to the american people why we're doing what we're doing. a couple comments on what the deputy press secretary said. i think it's thoughtful to say my worries that the administration -- either we go to war or we take the present course. and actually i would say that the report in june of 2014 which lays out a range of options for things to do with iraq which went further that the obama administration, i thought that was a constructive thing to do. what can we do? the first thing is we need to move away from this sort of thing. but i think the second thing is that in terms of explaining why we're getting involved with the
yazidi, i think it's a horrible thing that happened yesterday, she was injured in a crash after her emphatic earlier this month calls for iraqi intervention to stop this, at the end of the day how are we explaining to the syrians who have nearly -- 200,000 people died at the hands of the regime, how do we explain to the syrians and others, why we're trying to save them but yet doing frankly very little? and last thing i'll point out in terms of this idea of sound principles, one of the things that bothered me, you seen this in recent days, ambassador hoff, how the white house barred state department from talking to moderate rebels in 2011, 2012. you know, that's not, in my view, effective diplomacy. host: do these actions fit in to
the obama doctrine and have they been explained well enough? >> i think they do fit into the overall obama doctrine. i don't think that they've been explained as clearly enough to the american people, and i agree on that. i think more could be done on a regular basis to do that. let me say one thing about doctrine before we move in on and get into iraq. i think it's very important to have a strategy and explain it to the american people. when you look at what made america grade after world war ii, we had leaders. but you look at the bush doctrine, for instance, and it's unclear what it actually was. there was a strong strand of freedom agenda, and i think that's great. it was really good. when you look at the implementation of that, either in egypt or in other places, you look at the trends towards human rights and freedom in that previous decade, last decade, it wasn't great. if it was a doctrine of
pre-emption, we only really applied it under bush in iraq, not in north korea or in iran, so doctrines are important. but i think more important is what do you do when you implement. and your question on iraq is i think, look, things have moved forward. you got politics in iraq still happening. you got hopefully a new prime minister coming in. you got very limited u.s. engagement in iraq. if you look at that paper from 2014 we were signaling you can't deal with the problem of the islamic state simply ten the borders of iraq. i think the thing that is vexing for all of us, americans, we need to think about this threat, and i think it's a very serious threat. do it in a way that is measured, and clearer. i think what -- i think if i would suggest to the president how he talks about this, and what we're doing, less in terms of limits and things like this and more in terms of what are
the threats and also the opportunities to defeat this threat? and i think he's got the right architecture inside of iraq. let's work with them, work with people who should be fighting for their own country. but let's also clarify that the nature of this new threat that has emerged inside iraq and syria i think is a big problem for us in the medium to longer term. i think right now we're pretty safe. our homeland security officials are working very hard to keep americans safe. and thank heavens. i don't think we're on the verge of another 9/11. the trends inside the region are extremely dangerous. we need to say vigilant on those issues. host: we'll get into some of those trends over the course of the next 45 minutes or so here on the washington journal. we're joined by brian katulis of the center for american progress and robert zarate. here to take our questions and
ill of the president. president obama needs to bring people in. i know he probably does not want to, but condoleezza rice, madeleine albright, people that really worked with all of the countries. the people need to get rid of valerie jarrett. she does nothing. i am sorry. there is no good doctrine. , the callerrate bringing up who the president has surrounded himself with these issues. your thoughts. i am biased as a congressional staffer, but from the first thing i would like to see is the president and gauge on capitol hill. he canceled a it back with lawmakers.
-- picnic with lawmakers. these little things are good to build buy-in. lawmakers do not feel consultant. you saw it when under-secretary wendy sherman came before the committee. one of the biggest complaints where they were being informed, but not consulted on serious foreign-policy issues. i think the president did do more on the congressional side. a fair criticism is this president -- administration is not strong on congressional relations. by saying if you look at reagan and clinton, those are both presidents that dealt with antagonistic and partisan congress, yet they were able to pass serious legislation.
budget -- hadey the budget act. president will have to figure out how to work with congress going forward in a really productive way. host: on the issue of congressional engagement, lawmakers pressing for a war vote on iraq. a vote that could exacerbate tensions between the branches and the present members with a difficult vote just before midterm elections. mr. katulis, do you think that is something the president should be doing? guest: when i hear about this, it conjures up the debate over syria a year ago what many democrats and republicans did not want to have that vote. i will be interested to see how many people actually clamor for this. i think it is important anytime force is used by the united
states that there should be congressional engagement and oversight. bobby is right, this administration could do a better job of building the fabric, and ana, the first caller, mentioned condoleezza rice and madeleine albright. that is an important point. president obama is at a pivotal point in his administration. most americans did not really care about what is going on in foreign policy. the world seems chaotic. we need to stay engaged. to have that, we need a stronger architecture, a bipartisan consensus of what it looks like. we talked about former secretary clinton's criticisms of president obama, the you have multiple worldviews on the right, and i think it is great to look to work with congress, but you look at the disabilities treaty, it has been stalled.
you can blame the obama administration for that, but a lot of this is this strand of internationalism inside the republican party i fear it is dying out. it is not isolationism, but a turn inward, but we cannot afford to stick our head in the sand. host: among the members of congress pressing for that war vote, tim kaine, rand paul. bill on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i do not think mr. obama's has a clear policy on many things at all. that we tell you two points as to why i believe that. this gentleman spent his entire pre-political career in the university academics. the only thing he ever did was
teach students in a classroom. they had to comport to what he said, otherwise they did not get a good grade. the oval office is not a pace -- a place for an academic steeped in theory. you need leadership ability and real world experience. look at the west wing and then ask yourself this question -- where are the george shultzes, jim bakers, dean atkinsons, they do not exist. host: bill in louisville, kentucky. among the criticism of the president's foreign policy are statements from former secretary of state hillary clinton who
said "do not do stupid stuff" is an organizing principle. then they made nice by having a hug at a party. >> guest: i will not read the tea leaves. i will take it at face value that she has differences and is trying to push forward a constructive policy, but to bill's question about the style of leadership, every president lives in a bubble, but staff can do more to help the president reach out and see the intelligence he needs to see. i would like to recommend that viewers look up lieutenant general michael flynn's exit interview. he is the defense intelligence agency director. it was a sobering interview that he had with, i believe, "defense news," and talks about how he had an argument about how al qaeda is not dead.
it is an idealism of jihadist. you and others calling isis a threat to the united states. calling isisohnson a threat to the united states. the fbi director called isis. it really took the metastasizing cancer of isis. a lot of foreign-policy problems are like cancer, and if you spot them early on and do strong, firm, but modest things to try to contain them, you can prevent them from metastasizing. but if you are reluctant and do not do the small things to help
hopefully contain it, you get what you have today, a metastasizing terror threat in syria and iraq that could spill over to jordan, to the united states. host: from twitter -- j. miles says obama's policy is consistent with that founding fathers. what is wrong with helping but not leading in situations when it government should be helping itself. isaac is waiting in the bronx. caller: i am trying to bring to the attention of the american people, have you ever seen any president being disrespected like this before? host: disrespected in terms of foreign-policy decisions? is that what you're talking about, isaac? i think we lost isaac. this criticism, does it border
on disrespect? guest: we are in a democracy. if there is disrespect, i think the president can take it. there was his respect for george w. bush, and i would hope we could rise through that rhetoric and take them criticism, the good with the bad. one phenomenon that has developed as a lowering of the cost of making foreign policy a partisan wedge issue. again, i go back to the 1950's and 1960's, this era, essentially, when my parents were growing up, where you did have a sense of a coherent threat where there was always a fight. there was always a sense of fighting between democrats and republicans. it went down during the vietnam
war, accelerated during the cold war, and got really bad during bush's war on terror. i think we are at a hyper partisan moment. you talk about this on your program on all sorts of policy issues and politics clearly does not stop at the water's edge. overseas, george w. bush was disrespected in many different ways, and i think that was unfortunate. president obama had a vision of engagement to restore american power, and that is incomplete at best. part of it is sniping. when you hear minimizing the actions of our military to deal with a threat, i think it cheapens the value of our engagement. again, criticism is good, but when it becomes so hyper partisan, it does erode the notion of america being a leader. host: brian katulis is with the center of american progress. robert zarate is with the
foreign policy initiative. we are taking your questions and comments for the next half-hour or so here on "washington journal," as we talk about the obama doctrine and what it has meant for foreign policy. bob, virginia. our line for independents. caller: good morning. i am trying to understand why there is not the authority to give every country in the world the authority to go in with these sunni muslims. who can ever change their minds with using brute force? if not, they are going to keep on doing what they are doing, which is unbelievable to me. and by the way, when the gentleman was talking about mr. bush and the disrespect, i think mr. bush earned his disrespect. host: bob in petersburg, virginia.
i want to stay on the question on getting foreign partners, allies to participate in this effort in iraq. can you talk about the efforts, have they been enough? guest: sure. george bush was a unilateralist, but he was respected by some of our antagonists and that is part of the reason why we did not see the provocations that we see today. in terms of allies and partners helping, you look at iraq. britain has provided sas special operators and humanitarian aid. germany and france -- germany is actually on the cusp of reversing a long-standing policy of not providing arms to these sorts of conflicts. france, similarly.
the french foreign minister demanded that foreign ministers give up their vacations in august and come and meet and that has actually happened. a bright note in all of this is we are actually seeing the europeans in particular a forward-leaning posture, not just in iraq, but we have seen it in the ukraine and russia. regretfully, it took the death of 300 people in that malaysia airlines 17 attack. guest: i think what we agree is this long game we were talking about in building partnerships on iraq. what i hoped we would see more of in this is what president obama is trying to do with his oppose counterterrorism action fund, action from the region
itself, and you see it with the fighters on the ground as air operations are being conducted. they are gritty, determined, going after this threat. that is a contrast what we saw in mozul in june. officers actually stripped off their uniforms and dropped the weapons the u.s. provided to them. that is a challenge. having capable and reliable partners -- we were there for more than a decade -- almost a decade and you cannot make people want to fight for their country more than you want to fight for them. it is a serious challenge. when you look at libya, syria, what are people willing to fight for? in our country, we saw it. the civil war, the revolutionary war. we have a national identity that is clear. host: you bring up the counterterrorism partnership fund. can you explain that? guest: it is a proposed idea where instead of u.s. troops going in and occupying these
countries, you build partnerships in multiple countries all the way from pakistan in through northern africa to get people to stand for themselves against the threat. i worked and lived in these places in parts of the middle east, and what we see in our media now are the dregs, the fringes, the extremists. they do not represent the islamic state, ordinary iraqis or syrians. what it intends to do is it signals a sense of support that we will use our unique capabilities. how can we help others develop those capacities and do it in such a way that it is not as costly as, say, the iraqi and afghanistan war. will it work? it is a concept. the test case is iraq and places like syria and libya, which look bad, but these efforts have not
been funded. host: is there any idea how much that might cost? guest: if you want it to endure, it should not be only u.s. taxpayers funding it. even countries like saudi arabia, they have proposed that given money to a u.n. fund. host: about $100 million? guest: yes, and the amount of money that they make when we develop our gas pumps, it should be more, as far as i'm concerned. it is about what others can do to help themselves instead of what we can do to help them. >> you can see the rest of this at www.c-span.org. minutes from now, the missouri governor will speak at what is happening in ferguson, missouri. governor'se the
remarks live on c-span scheduled to begin at 4:00 eastern. president obama said today there is no excuse for the use of excessive force by police in the aftermath of the shooting and no excuse for violence against the police. we will hear the president speak and thenut iraq, we will take your calls about what officials should do in ferguson. >> good afternoon, everybody. to addressld like the american people on two i've been monitoring. we continue to make progress in carrying out our military operations in iraq. last week i authorized two limited missions, particular people and facilities inside of
iraq, and humanitarian operation to help save thousands of iraqi civilians stranded on amount and . a week ago we assessed many thousands of yazidi people had abandoned their positions to take refuge on mount sinjar to avoid slaughter. we knew that isil terrorists were laying siege to the mountain. without food or water, they faced a terrible choice -- starve or be slaughtered. that is when america inc. to help. over the last week, the u.s. military conducted humanitarian air rocks every night, delivering more than 114,000 meals and three 5000 gallons of fresh water. we were joined in that effort i the united kingdom and other allies pledged their support. the military was able to
areas aroundtarget the mountain so areas could be evacuated. yesterday a small team of americans, military and civilian, completed their review of conditions on the mountain. they found food and water had been reaching those in need, and that thousands of people have been evacuated safely each and every night. wereivilians who remained aided by kurdish forces. situation line is the on the mountain has greatly improved and americans should be very proud of our efforts because of the skill and professionalism of our military and the generosity of our people. vulnerable people reach safety and we help save many innocent lives. because of these efforts we do not expect there to be an
additional operation to evacuate people off the mountain, and it is unlikely we will need to continue humanitarian air drops on the mountain. the majority of the military personnel to conduct the assessment will leave iraq and the couple days. as commander of chief i cannot be more proud of the men and women of our military who carried out this humanitarian operation almost flawlessly. i am very grateful for them, and i know that those who are trapped on that mountain are extraordinarily grateful as well. the situation remains dire for isil's terror to throughout the company. -- the country. we're going to be working with our international partners to provide assistance to those who are suffering in northern iraq where every we have capabilities and we can carry out effective missions like the one we carried injar. mount sanch
we feel a great urge to provide some humanitarian leave to the situation, and i've been encouraged by the interest of our international partners in helping on these kinds of efforts as well. we will can team you air strikes to protect people and facilities in iraq. we have increased the delivery of military assistance to iraqi and kurdish forces, and perhaps most importantly we are urging iraqis to come together to turn the tide against i still -- isil by forming a new government under the leadership of prime minister designate abadi. i had a chance to speak to him a aboutys ago, and he spoke the need for the kind of inclusive government, a government that speaks to all
the people of iraq that is needed right now. he still has a challenging task in putting a government together, but we are hopeful that the iraqi government situation is moving in the right direction. want to address something that has been in the news over the last couple days, a ferguson, missouri. many americans have been disturbed by the images we have seen in the heartland backcountry as police have crashed with police protesting. today i would like for us to take a step back and think about how we are going to be moving forward. this morning i are easy than update from attorney general eric holder was been following and been in communication with his team. i have already tasked the department of justice and fbi to independently investigate the death of michael brown as long with the officials on the ground -- along with local officials. the justice department is working to find ways where they
can maintain public safety public pressedng -- purchase. i will help determine what exactly happened and to see that the us this is done. i also just spoke with governor jay nixon of missouri. i expressed my concern over the violent turn that events have taken on the ground and underscored that now is the time for us to reflect on what happened and find a way to come together going forward. he is going to be traveling to ferguson. he is a good man and a fine governor, and i am confident that working together he is going to be able to communicate his desire to make sure that just is is done and his desire to make sure that public safety is maintained in an appropriate way. it is important or member how this started. we lost a young man, michael brown, in heartbreaking and
tragic circumstances. he was 18 years old. his family will never hold michael in their arms again. and when something like this happens, the local authorities, including police, have the responsibility to be open and transparent for how they are investigating the death and how they are protecting people in their communities. there is never an excuse for violence against police or those who would use the tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting. there is also no excuse for police to use excessive force in a peaceful protest or to throw protesters in jail for lawfully exercising their first amendment rights. here in the united states of america police should not be bullying or arresting journalists just trying to do their jobs and report to the american people on what they see on the ground. put simply, we all need to hold
ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us positions in authority. i know emotions are raw right now in ferguson, and there are certainly passionate differences about what has happened. there are going to be different account for how this tragedy occurred. there are going to be differences for how this needs to go forward. that is part of the democracy but we are part of one american family, united in common values, and that includes belief in equality under the law, basic respect for public order, and the right to peaceful public protext, a reference for the dignity of every man, woman, and child among us, and the need for accountability when it comes to our government. so now is a time for healing, peace, and calm on the streets of ferguson. now is the time for an open and transparent process to see what justice has done, and i have
asked the attorney general and u.s. attorney on the scene continue to work with local officials to move that process forward. they will be reporting to me in the coming days about what is being done to make sure that happens. thanks very much, everybody. >> that is president obama speaking about four hours ago from martha's vineyard about the situation in ferguson, missouri. the shooting earlier this week of michael round by a police officer in ferguson and the nights of violence to have ensued. the president talking about the investigations going on by the justice department and fbi. as we await to hear from missouri governor jay nixon, we are going to open up, to hear from you. also officials handled the ferguson road test? --
protest? you can join the conversation. you can also send us a tweet, and we have posted a question on our facebook age. we will take you live to missouri. the governor has been in ferguson today, so we will take you live when that starts. we will show you reaction on missouri'sere one of senator said the ferguson tragedy began when a young man lost his life. mike brown's memory is not well served by more violence. claire mccaskill wrote we need to --
that is from claire mccaskill. let's go to georgia, eric, on our democrats' line. hello. when something happens to black summit the african-americans, you hear nothing from the democrats, or these so-called liberal democrat politicians. they say nothing. but if there's something going on with israel, they come out about. what is happening and what the situation is, president obama must come to realize that this is the way of america. hispanics here in the protests here about what has happened. basically, lacks an african-in say nothinghim-
bad about israel. >> how are those issues related? >> the black life is not valued. whenel you all's pain, these kids are killed in all these schools. i feel all your pain. when something is happening to lack kids -- >> we will hear from pennsylvania as we wait to hear from the governor. most of the i think police force should probably have cameras. devolves to completely against a black versus white issue. i recently had a
experience, i went for a nightly bike ride, and a cop pulled right up next to me for no reason. he was asking me where i was from, what i was doing, and where i was going. -- and he said i have never seen you around here before, i have never seen you come and i remember thinking, that is intimidating, a cop pulling up x-unit a big cop car -- >> this is in pennsylvania? >> yes. >> and he was a member of the local force? >> the police force. i was angry, but the next day i went in and talk to another please officer, but ash and other police -- another police officer. he asked me about a robbery, and i asked what did that have to do with me? ido the best i can, and should be able to go pretty much anywhere i want to, whenever i want to. >> let's hear from a president
of st. louis. go ahead, st. louis. caller: i wanted to comment about the incident over in ferguson. that is not far from where i am located. a lot of people are getting backlash of information that is not correct. first thing, the movement caused the march and the candlelight. it was a very peaceful demonstration. >> last night? >> the first night. it was a peaceful demonstration, and ferguson police, they pull back and allowed residents and people that was moruurning to come out and participate. as it started to get more congested with people, a st. louis county police came in and they came in and you have to
realize that the streets were full. people started to disperse so the car could get through. what they did, when they , they kind of brought more negativity to the matter, because what they did is they got out with their dogs and the dogs were on long leashes and a lot of panic, and when they saw panic and they started running, and when they saw running, with the youth involved in this movement, they ran into the store, and a lot of people ran into the stores. they started taking thing and looting. i think if st. louis county police would have just let the people march and mourn, i think this whole incident would have stopped. not it has been got to the point where it is putting light on st. louis to let you know -- things have been going on in
this city for years, and it is nothing that has ever been dealt with on this mass. i think that it is regretful his life,rown lost but it is putting an eye on same louis that there is a lot of racial tension, because been built up from small communities. >> we wait to hear from jay nixon who has been in ferguson throughout the day. today he spoke with residents earlier today and is expected to announce new measures going forward. we are looking live here to hear from governor nixon. saysdline, a congressman that governor is going to take st. louis police out of ferguson. this is from "the hill." save