tv Future of Syria CSPAN March 20, 2018 5:12am-6:15am EDT
this morning. join the discussion. live tuesday on the c-span networks, the house returns for general speeches at 10:00. at noon, members take up legislation regarding banks and financial regulations. work on a bill to stop online sex trafficking and go to a debate calling a resolution calling for the president to remove u.s. armed forces from the conflict in yemen. at 10:00, betsy devos testifies before the house appropriation subcommittee on her budget request. our podcast, c-span's of the weekly takes you behind the headlines to explain in depth significant news stories giving the conversation in washington and around the country. hear from leading
journalists and policymakers providing context. find the weekly on the free c-span radio app as well as itunes, it are, and google play, and online anytime at c-span.org .the commander of the air force next, former government officials on the syrian civil war. institute of peace host of this event and why the u.s. and other countries should stay engaged. it also address security challenges in that country. joshua johnson hosts the event and moderates. >> shell we? >> hi everybody. welcome to foreign policy in america abroad. i am joshua johnson, i am the which is heard on
npr where this conversation will be heard soon and we welcome those of you who are following us on c-span and watching on various networks around the globe. let me introduce the panel today before we dive in. , the, joining us is nancy president of the u.s. institute of peace. she spent most of her career working in fragile conflict. she served as the bureau for humanitarian assistance. welcome. >> thank you, good to be here. [applause] >> to your right is elon goldenberg, director of middle east security programs at the center for a new american security. previously he worked in the state department and the senate foreign relations committee for john kerry on issues like the israeli-palestinian negotiations
and ending the conflict in syria. welcome. [applause] to my left is kimberly, the founder and president of the institute for the study of war. she is a military historian and the author of numerous books and essays on foreign policy and coproducer of the surge, and hour-long order and documentary film of the campaign in iraq. [applause] we will have time to get to your questions in a little bit. i want to start with a few questions from our guests. and then we will get to you. that gives us about 56 minutes but i work in radio. i can do a lot with that time. what is a fragile state? stateragile state is a that either lacks the capacity
to take care of its innocence, unable to provide basic security and/or it can also be a state not considered legitimate by its own citizens. often repression is part of the problem. a state that is fragile is less able to manage the inevitable from the natural disaster or a conflict that can't be managed. that is the heart of what we are seeing with a lot of the increased unrest and crisis throughout the world. states that can't manage of the shocks of disaster and conflict. broadly speaking, what are some of the way essays become a fragile? are there certain last straws? a continuous characteristic
of fragile states is governments that are not inclusive of all parts of their citizenry. whole groups are excluded from economic, political security of theirties because ethnicity, religion, race, etc.. that is probably the number one characteristic of a fragile state. goldenberg, how did syria become a fragile state? is it what nancy described or are there more factors? there did need to be a spark. the sparke of syria, that took us over the edge started in what you might call the arab spring, now i think we call it the air of of people or protests across the middle east that were not just to stay collapsed but also yemen come in iraq.
libya, even egypt to some extent. what you saw happen there was a few things. you saw the collapse of state authority because institutions were so fragile and you saw the conflict exacerbated primarily because of external actors coming in and making the situation worse. one of the things that happens when you have these fragile states is that you create security vacuums and everybody else around them is worried about losing influence disease opportunity. have anians suddenly ally and they want to protect the situation so they start investing in that. the saudis are trying to counter the iranians so they dump money into weapons. now you have a fragile state that was already on fire and you dumped a bunch of gasoline on it.
that has made the situation in syria exceptionally bad. the proxy conversation constantly comes up about this. we have some clips to play from the people who are very close to the conflict in one of them has to do with the proxy aspect that we will get to it just a second. the trump administration has been advocating more hard power than soft power. very sharp cuts in the state usa iv.nt, cuts to step back from syria, how similar or different is this from what americans typically does? in a fragile state, how does america usually deal with the balance between hard power and soft power. they are both necessary in many circumstances. in order to help a fragile state and in order to
set conditions whereby governance and civil society can return. the solutions that one might hope to see in syria can neither be exclusively military or exclusively soft power. role and it is vitally important that the united states has a robust for its institutions like the state department, like foreign aid, which are critical components for us to achieve our mission of helping keep the people in the world secure and free. it is incredibly important to recognize the conditions when we see in syria, the underlying
violence of oppression, of human beings is not part and parcel of regime, and therefore before we degree begin trying to stabilize syria. >> it sounds like you're saying , maybes a place for both the trump administration balance tends to be a bit harder than the past but there is a rule for hard power and soft power in the right balance. >> i think there is a role for hard and soft power but i would not say the trump administration is pursuing a hard power strategy. if you look of the trump administration policy in syria, with president obama's policy in syria -- mainly the effort to expel isis from its territorial syria, an eastern
backing of syrian groups that because -- with us against isis. international diplomacy that begun under president obama. in fact, i see and extraordinary amount of continuity between president trump and president neither had ahink robust enough humanitarian or civil society or military -- question tot that you. the balance between hard power and soft power. today, under the trump administration compared to see in how america deals with fragile states. >> i think the most important answer to that with a lot of our military personnel -- as you hear from retired four-star therals, what happens after
fight is as important as what happens during the fight. we need to be sure that the balance remains such that we can continue to have the development and diplomacy tools fully available, especially with syria's neighbor iraq, where we just included yet another campaign. now is when some of the really important hard work happens for which you need those so-called i would saybut there is nothing soft about it in terms of the importance of rebuilding not just of the physical infrastructure, but human infrastructure. as kim said, the ways in which societies need to heal so that they do not fall back into violence. unfortunately, we end up citing these words in cycles otherwise. of clips we number would like to add to the conversation including this one from a syrian refugee now living
in istanbul. that we look like we are not organized and we don't leadership, but in the end, we have a very educated majority of people who are ready to come back and help the community. we are being pushed away by all to actuallyas -- give the help that we need. maybe support a group that .nifies all the groups >> a syrian refugee now living in istanbul. there is an entire class, and educated majority, as he puts it that are ready to come back. you mentioned the trustee more aspect. all of these competing views of
what they want to see emerge from this war. talk about the way that comes together. this large class of syrians who say stop all of this and all of these proxies who would stop, but under different terms. how would that work? it,he way i would describe if syria is essentially divided into four or five regions, they are held by different actors. you have the southwest, the israeli border, some a militia groups that the u.s. has supported for a long time. the central part of the country is really where the majority of the population resources are along with russia and iran. area,ou have a turkish where they north
have physically hold territory on their border and then you have this whole large spot that is controlled by americans supporting british groups. fighting, but a lot of the fighting at this point is happening where these different tectonic plates meet. the places where these different -- if you are trying to get to a piece at this point, i am not for splitting syria apart, i don't think anybody wants to redraw maps because that comes with its own set of islands and problems. but at least coming to short-term and eventually long-term political arrangements to stop the fighting at these scenes and then in trying to see if you can get a natural arrangement is sort of how you would have to try to go about this. it is going to take years, i am not sure if we are really up for it, but is the best option i see right now. >> i saw you perk up. >> that underscores one critical point, that ultimately, these
needs to happen through locally led actions. what we heard very powerfully -- they will ultimately be necessarily leading the future of their own country. >> that gets right into the next clip that we wanted to play from a gentleman from damascus who works at a cell phone store in istanbul, and he talked about that very thing, how not everybody is looking for help from another nation. >> we want our country to be clean of all foreign agents and keep the mouse. to take our country back without --oreign power >> speaking through a translator from damascus and works in a cell phone store in istanbul.
clearly, he wants the rest of the world to leave syria alone. doabler if that is even and if it is, what would that look like? is there a pass to getting all of these proxies out of syria and let it solve its issues by the will of the syrian people alone? the quotation in this temple really illustrates how what had been a democratic revolution at the beginning of the conflict great had evolved into a power and small power conflict inside of syria. objectives that we in the united states and the international community at large should have is to ensure that dissociateder time,
with the extraordinary global and regional conflict in which it finds itself. or perhaps i should say that syria has become a black hole into which regional and global powers of fall. it is absolutely essential to disconnect syria from most conflicts, but realistically, that is not going to happen anytime soon. revolution,hed that we have had those civilian democratic aims of replacing the assad regime and bringing reform. changing into a violent and existential conflict, and we have to work with the fact that we have such a conflict underway inside of syria. what do we do? the first thing we need to recognize is that different a great powers have different objectives. we in the united states tend to want to find a common objective among all of the different
we strike on something we would think would be common like fighting isis. but we all put that on a different point in our prioritization list. it is more important in the united states of than it is to turkey. it is more important to turkey been to the aside regime. the aside regime is not fighting regime -- aod it regime. therefore, i think we really need to be eyes wide open about a different objectives, and we also need to recognize that we can't justify phthisis alone, we actually need to start working isis- we can't just fight alone.
over time, there is hope for stabilization, a generation. >> the founder and president of the institute study of war. nancy, the institute of peace. goldenberg, this is america panel on foreign policy and foreign states. i am joshua johnson from npr. nancy, let me come back to you. let's play one more clip. this is from two people in damascus. something onessing the minds of a lot of syrians right now which is the violence that has been going on for years. hundreds of thousands of lives lost, most recently in a place just east of damascus.
>> hungry -- that children have done. [inaudible] asking people to take care of victims. the roads are blocked and nobody can get in or out of the area. >> they were speaking from a translator, both of them from damascus, istanbul. is the moral obligation of the u.s. to help a fragile state? the united nations is basically throwing of hands up and saying apparently, you don't care about them, because nothing we have said has made a cease-fire stick. the world seems to be content with letting these people die and preventing anything from being done just on a humanitarian level.
the u.s. certainly have the resources to make anything happen. but what should the u.s. be doing with a state like syria, especially in a clear humanitarian disaster like this where all people need was a little aid. what should the u.s. do? >> what the u.s. has been a doing is providing packages of humanitarian assistance including efforts to get across the border. and tragically, what is going on there right now it's similar to what has been going on for the past seven years over and over. the issue is less about the amount of humanitarian assistance but rather what are the mechanisms for stopping the source of the need? actually much better at responding to crises and providing assistance after atses has hit than we are either preventing it or, in the case of syria, the ability to stop it.
speaks both to the set of bad options that are available for stopping it but also to the weakest of the international system here in the usual tools and levers that we have to really enforce what everybody what has been flagrantly and repeatedly ignored. i wonder also what for the average american we see in terms of our responsibility to do more in fragile states. has said of syria but he does not want to engage in it nationbuilding but he thinks the u.s. should be creating conditions for stability. the trump administration has taken a much more isolation policy when it comes to foreign aid, that is a sentiment at the heart of america first. i wonder where you see the human
conversation and a developed nation like the u.s. when looking at a fragile state like and figuring out what the populace believes is the right way to health. i think we can do as the united states is lease. where the most powerful country in the world. tot means if you are going youurage others to rebuild, have to throw money at the problem. that is a problem with the current administration, the general desire to pull back on funding across the board. not just pulling back and others will chip in. often going doing middle east as we assume the gulf states can paper everything. they watch what we do and they will invest based on what we best because they care about as much as they care about helping care a lothat they
about influence in the united states. that happens internationally. , others will do the same. syria in terms of our own population. this is the trump administration and the obama administration. but we don't want to get deeply engaged because we are afraid of a repeat of the iraq war or vietnam. to make do just enough the situation worse without doing enough to make it better -- we had the option of just letting them away and manner eunice: as quickly as possible or merrick -- aggressively push them out. if we had gone with one of them early on, i think we would be in a better position than doing just enough to support opposition without doing enough justally have it win which ends up perpetuating and making us another party to the conflict of him money and weapons and
support to try to reshape the situation. a tough spot for anybody to being, the president wants to do but knows that their population does not want to get stuck in a major conflict. syria,t, and the case of we have the opportunity to make a moral case and an interest-based case and they'll line. -- of the victims of a brutal, violent campaign of oppression perpetrated by the regime and abetted by iran and russia. what we are seeing in eastern something we have
seen elsewhere in the war of a deliberate targeting of achieves in order to war aims. that is of the russians are doing, that is what iran is doing. therefore, we are watching them commit more crimes to the -- watching them create wartime. we have syria that has transformed itself into a for violentnd for extremists and violent extremists from all around the world. from the united states all the way out to east asia. what we need to do is recognize that the reason why the recruitment of the foreign
fighters is so effective is not because we have a narrative problem but because we have a reality problem. namely, there is no one actually protecting the population of syria and therefore, the rallying cries that extremist organizations are launching to try to get people to mobilize for justice are falling on it are, unfortunately, a perceptive by the abandonment of the international community area . >> shifting gears just slightly to properly diagnosing the problem. generation change memos told us from south sudan, here is what one person had to say.
>> failed to diagnose what the issues are and in the process also failed to come up with the right policy tool. if we want to engage constructively, i think that they need important -- need a portent for them to understand otherwise you will have a --uation of a protracted the u.s. i.t. generation change fellow from sudan. we want to get some questions. is there anybody who thinks they have a good question they want -- anybody else? one smart man with one good question? ok, two. i think we will have the microphone moving around, we will get that moving. before we get the questions, i
have one more question for you, nancy. my one role for q&a when i do an event is to be generous with our time. are all far smarter than me on issues of syria and fragile states and i would like to learn as much as possible. the more generosity we can show it with one another time, the more we can learn from each other. please, i would urge you to be concise and public and ice so that we and our audience around the world can learn as much from you as possible. a report you co-authored, you wrote the following. hunker downon to and wait for this moment of disorder to pass is understandable but shortsighted. we simply do not have that luxury. there is too much at stake for american interests, the interests of our allies and partners, and for mobile fees and security. that yourom a report co-authored.
explain what you mean by that, particularly in light of what i thatiscussing with ilan say it is nice that we are the world police, but what about us? i assume if we don't step up, somebody else will. but a lot of americans are tired. we have been playing world police for generations and there are some americans who are living pretty third world as it is. may, whatmes out for hungering down would actually mean practically speaking? a couple of issues are blended together there. the kind ofe in world where we can get in bed and pull the sheets over our heads and expect to solve the issues. threats that many come up from places that we are not watching, think about ebola isis, from west africa,
from a security interest, we can't afford to hunker down. it is also not who we are as a people. people are very engaged and care deeply about what happens, but they want the burden to be shared. we areer point is that very reactive and seducing -- byponding to crises escalating our humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance of the last five years at a very great rate. nobody has cracked the code on how to prevent conflict from becoming so violent, but we can certainly do a better job on it. the last four administrations have identified the state fragility as a key security threat and yet we have not invested or organized in a way to do that kind of work more effectively. what you see is when states ilane a very fragile as
said earlier, they become more vulnerable to national powers messing it up. we are going to see a greater disorder the more that we don't pay attention to that and american leadership is key. do you think we are not paying attention because we do not have the resources, information, or just don't care? think we have not organize ourselves effectively to crack the code. >> why not? does america actually care a citizenry, as a nation come as a government, to do that? we have the knowledge but do we care? >> i think we care enough that we are putting a lot of on the into treating the crisis, the humanitarian crisis. what it is much harder to convince people to take action before something happens.
it is the dog that did not bark. that is where we need to turn our attention and investment. human nature is to be preoccupied with the thing that blew up. but we need to think more about getting extreme with those problems. it is an organization and a funding challenge. ilan make alet comment, let's get to the gentleman who rose's hand. i just want to echo exactly what nancy said on how the study's localized problems and up affecting us and getting the specific example in syria. public has had to massive extremist flow in europe and less of a unit of its, but it has impacted the politics in the united states with attacks in paris and flows into germany, directly tied to things like brexit, right-wingers across europe, these populist movements and quite frankly the election
of trump. all of these things are starting to weaken, really court things are basic american security that have been the basis of how we govern the world order since 1945. andas kept the world stable samples from world wars, kept us from a major conflict. all of this to some extent can be tied back to what is happening in syria. having a very direct affect -- honestly, about how we are governing ourselves on a daily basis. you can draw that line very directly to trump's immigration policy and all kinds of things. >> let's dive in with audience questions. when you ask your question, tell us your name and where you are from, if you are with an organization or if you are a student, and get your question. thank you. my name is conor clarke, i am currently a counterterrorism's collar.
of the seen debates appropriate scale and nature of u.s. support for what our to oversimplify in perfect governments and powerful proxies. these will range from the measuring effectiveness of was a mentor should be, what are the results of the appearance or reality of imposing our standards on other countries, and of course, often in the context of saying that the alternative would be worse. and i think this fits well meshed well into the earlier a vacuum.t the most brutal dictatorship the u.s. ever supported was solid during world war ii. how is this paradigm of decision-making and public discourse and the elite debates theashington shifting from
end of the cold war, 9/11, the arab spring, and so on. what are you seeing now that might change is how policymakers see things? >> who is that question directed to? n specifically. everybody. benefit of our listeners, i want to make sure i understand the question. you are way smarter than me, i went to miami and spend my time on the beach. [laughter] >> it sounds like you are asking about global threats, which ones are worth their time and which ones we will deal with when it becomes a forest fire and how that has changed over time. the way we think through threats in today's world. is that what you are getting at? >> exactly.
i am more curious about the elite level, but interested in popular discourse as well. >> we have a jekyll and hyde where we have to support these countries we have always supported even if they are a dictatorship. the policymaking level, and even comes down to just having three relationships. you work with these people for years, from 30 years on negotiating various israeli-palestinian segments. and then democracy comes. what do we do? as americans is and to intervene positively to encourage democracy certainly when the opportunity presents itself. that is a really hard blum of policymakers.
it is really hard to do, but it was just really hard -- events moving so quickly -- if i thought against the state share -- will i deal with them for the next decade or will he be gone tomorrow? this is a challenging problem set for our leaders and in a series is the perfect example, sads removal ando wondered if we are going to follow through militarily and they decided no, we are not. it is a challenging question and i don't think there is a great answer to it. kimberly, what is the military historical perspective? >> part of the subject of the
panel discussion -- physical security is in part about helping to establish government and legitimacy. are at rest we right now as we look at syria of thinking that backing asad as a dictator is to end the violence, somehow going to be stable thanore thinking about what we actually need to do over the long-term to for secure,nditions stable governance to return to syria and that governance needs to be legitimate in the eyes of the people of syria. -- theot about us, it is
reason i bring that up is that i think we are at a moment that we are at a risk of embracing dictatorship in favor of order. it will not actually be backed up the syrian people. it will be enforced by coercion thisway that actually insurgency against the regime. >> rather than prioritizing stability just as an end in itself. it's not stabilization. thank you very much, great discussion. joshua, i am going to be as
concise as i can. i was wondering if i could take the panels syria to libya. you mentioned moral obligation and nancy made a very strong point about planning for the aftermath. role and the fact that compared to syria, libya is displacednt and less actinghave fewer actors -- you don't have the proxy factor that you do in syria. does the panel believe that there is a place for obligation
as well for greater u.s. engagement? currently, we basically subtracted that there is a plan -- i am very keen on hearing the panels response. a moral obligation. >> compared to syria, it is not as hopeless a country -- >> thank you for your question. i am. to take a poll, by a show of hands, a greater role for the u.s. in libya? all three. what about the audience? for libya, hans yes. no? not sure?
>> thank you for being honest. i think it goes well beyond a moral obligation, there is a security rationale for playing a more prominent role to be more engaged in trying to bring libya to greater peace and stability. -- meltdown in libya has had a very long border. illicit goods and terrorists are shipped through that territory, there are many good reasons. at the same time, it also underscores the importance as a partnerships and alliances, so i think we can and should be engaged and we can and should do so. for what the pathway might look like for libya.
>> one of my colleagues at the critical threats project at the american enterprise actually did -- iy substantial study highly commend her work on this project,. thee are speaking to founder and president for the institute for the study of war. nancy, the institute of peace. i am joshua johnson from npr. continue with audience questions. >> i worked at the washington we have- i feel like not spent enough time talking and ifailed statehood want to get your opinion on what lessons we learned from our
intervention -- >> nancy, why don't you take that? we got a question about columbia -- i am glad that we will follow after we get your answer. >> i think we learned some very important lessons. -- first is that these resolution of these kinds of conflicts takes a long time. columbia had a 50 year civil war that was just recently drawn partly to a close last year. and wes very inclusive know that when you have more than just the guys with guns at the table, that you actually have a victims of the conflict, women, people who were displaced, that you have a better chance of forging a deal that will be more enduring. --also learned that the u.s.
-- goingnt investment back to what we need to do differently, that is the kind of work we need to do differently, where there is a clear goal aligned. having a shared goal of where it , finally, weded had a partner. we had a partner in the government of colombia in their administrations. >> before we get to the next question, i want to stick with you. we had a question sent into us from the president of an organization in columbia that is working to enrich local communities by increasing access to education. following off of this question, here is what damon wants to know.
[indiscernible] >> an organization in columbia asking about creating a structural piece and how the u.s. can help columbia do so. i was particularly taken by his use of the word coexistence that promote aspects of coexistence. what should or could the u.s. be doing in that regard? >> one important aspect is continuing our engagement because what we know is the conclusion of the peace , in columbia, we need to implement what was agreed upon and that includes things like the land reform, the rebels,g of the armed
enabling them to reintegrate into community to coexist. this is a time to think about what will happen in order to a peace.xist and reach >> i wanted to talk about legitimacy, but the government themselves. what about the legitimacy of the borders themselves? looking back at sort of great power actors after world war i between the united kingdom and france and how much we are seeing today is just a result of
the fact we made some terrible decisions in the early 20th century? >> who you want the question to go to? ryan zinke ago go to this table, i guess. firstill start by saying and foremost, it is important to recognize our international order is based on the understanding that orders should not be revised by force, but rather by instruments of the international community. so, oh whatever they are, that united states and international community actually have a very firm interest in making sure byse borders are not moved force. and, we can go back to early days of isis and remember them
up the remnants of the border. howevergnized that important it was to them ambolically, it was never recognize border between two states. -- it was nevertheless a recognized border between two states. we actually have the syrian regime and the syrian opposition to the iraqi state trying to reestablish the map as it was, not as they would like it to be. concernedays been when i spent time on the ground in iraq and afghanistan that we tend to think states like iraq or gap afghanistan are fictional but people today have a very defined nation -- notion of what
definedate is and it is by what they see on their flag. >> let's get the next question. >> i totally agree with kim, i think yes, if the borders were drawn differently you could look at a different middle east but have.s the middle east we not only do the iraqis and syrians want to try to re-drop borders but none of the outside actors are trying to redraw borders. probably because syria relates process so as my late things have been, once we decide where that line is, they will fight over it. militarily, for example, he if they have to. the way to try to address this agreement is going to essentially ae
very weak syrian state, i think with a lot of different local actors playing a role in negotiating that outcome because the local actors actually control a lot of what is going on in the ground whether it is people at the guns with a local governing council and those have to be reflective of the population in those areas but that is sort of like having to put humpty dumpty back together again. through a decentralization while keeping the map of syria -- questions before we have to go. >> to eye for putting on this great panel. i'm a research consultant from the university of denver. we have the benefit of hindsight to see regime trends over the last several decades. so we've seen regimes such as a paneranefit from this nationalist movement. we have also seen that movement come to schismatic collapse of
people under these leaders. so tying into that clip and falling from it on the separated are we seeingia, any indicators of a common ground new development that ties any of these separate combative groups together to the point we can see in a generation of fully unified movement? >> how about nick, can you take question? >> absolutely. unified movement across different groups? >> it sounds like you are asking in these states whose fertility have caused the fractures. happily we ever seen circumstances where the fractures up mended somehow? where shared interests and common bonds help bring people back together? is that what you are asking? >> with each group pursuing a slightly varied idealized internal movement, having that he find that differences even
when the regional goals are identical, are we seeing a development of a new common ground ideology that could eventually become a unified all of themt unites or at least have a majority to come to a few from -- a fruitful resolution? >> i would love to tell you yes but i think the answer is no. i think what you are asking is, is there a sort of pan-era nationalism or sweeping movement or sweeping set of ideas or even like the little granule other idea that could be a sweeping idea that gets all of these groups together and i have to say i do not see it. think weefore i actually need to take each group on its own terms, which makes the requirements for
negotiating, for delivering aid, for supporting covenants, for effortsng humanitarian really, really tailored. it you know what? we are the united states of america and if we need to tailor our assistance to different groups, we can do that. >> at want to go back to the beginning about what causes thats to become fragile, lack of inclusiveness where things fall apart. this comes back to your original thet where a country like united states could be, at 30,000 feet, either yes, find a way to articulate that, we are at the same place but deal with them individually and not for some to walk side-by-side but play the chess game in a smarter way to understanding what the divisions are and not forcing them to come up with that themselves. >> i think there is a good example next or two syria and iraq, which is just gone through
its third military campaign in 14 years.3, i was just there a few weeks ago and in fact, what you find is that for the first time probably is that iraqis are feeling a sense that they, this time, were able to win the battle. that they, with iraqi-led fighting one of her isis. i think after a lot of fragmentation, you have the kurds, the sunnis, the shias, a lot of different minority groups, there is a sense that they will move forward within arestate confines into they the mandy moore accountable, more inclusive government. that is the shared ideology. it is true for those under the age of 35. what you have in these conflicts countries are disproportionately young populations. what we're seeing is increasingly, it is young members of these countries who are demanding less corruption,
more accountability, more services, better governance. if you want call that an ideology, that is what i see emerging in iraq and that is what i see as a potential to emerge down the road in syria. >> one mark question. yes. go ahead. >> to love. i'm from george mason university is a graduate student. so from a 30,000 feet level down to her the rubber meets the road, what are some of the unique program said u.s. ip has been doing on the ground and how can we incorporate more young more positive contribution because as younger generations, we will be inheriting the problems? >> i wonder if we can ask all three of you to answer that. first of all, what is usip doing and what are ways to engage younger people who will inherit
these problems from their parents, to help them do so successfully. nancy? nancy: we have a program that he gages youth leaders and conflict countries around the world ."lled "generation change which is fundamentally equipping skills, andy tools, knowledge bases that allows them to mediate and facilitate conflict in their communities and states. we believe strongly that these, how to build peace, can be learned and it is essentially very practical. with skills that are often lost, especially in countries that dropped in countries that are often going through sometimes generations of conflict. you lose all the ways that basic disagreements can be managed before they erupt into violence. we have a program whereby we trained young
scholars here in washington, d.c., so that they understand what war is and how the it needst works, how to be subordinated to a political objective and how to ensure that there is strong civilian control over the military. i know that is small but we are only 15 people so we're pretty proud of it. >> you are doing pretty well with 15 people. don't have anything specific but we have a next-generation future leaders program which tries to educate sort of policy leaders on how to be more effective as they move forward and people will see that is sort of part of what we do as an institution. i will finish by saying from a u.s. perspective, we spent less time talking about this come i do think we also -- it is a lot about the tools nancy and kim talked about, that we all talked
about, doing things on the ground -- but there does have to be a long-term political willingness in this country to actually support doing with these problems. that includes military. if there's one thing we have in particular,aq it is that 150,000 troops do not work because there is just not political support for them to like that here long-term. it is not worth the cost and the effort. but, zero seems to also put us in some pretty bad places. maybe we need to be thinking about long-term, a few thousand troops in syria. a few thousand troops in or out for the next 20 years to help great conditions and also a big this.f the solution for you can't be just about the u.s. military but we are not going to be able to do it without the military. >> senior fellow for the center for new american security, the founder of the institute for the
♪ >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, new york republican congresswoman will be with us to discuss the future of the mueller investigation. also, look at the shakeup among trumps national security team. joining us will be pennsylvania democratic congressman brenden boyle who is a member of the house foreign affairs committee. we will discuss the trump campaign that took and kept data on facebook users. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at some :00 this morning. join the discussion. >> president trump spoke about the opioid epidemic airing a to manchester, new hampshir