series, "america in turmoil." nixon, here is barbara perry. former staffer, author, and columnist pat buchanan. we first want to take you back of 1960 81ric moment president lyndon johnson stunned the country when he announced he would not be seeking another term as president. you will have behind-the-scenes footage as well as -- for what that moment was like from the oval office fifth is ago. -- 50 years ago. last evening in march, 1968, the stage was set. shortly before 9:00 p.m. washington time, in the mists of last-minute electronic reparations, president johnson put the finishing touches on his address to the nation. finally, with a reassuring presence of his family seated nearby, the president was ready to deliver one of the most important speeches of his entire life, a speech that would alter the course of world history. >> good evening, my fellow americans. i want to speak to you tonight of peace in vietnam and southeast asia. so preoccupieson our people, no other dream so absorbed the 250 million human beings who live in that part of the world. motivates american policy and s

campaign. and remarks by the director of presidential studies at the university of virginia's miller center. barbara perry.

who worked on richard nixon's campaign. and the director of presidential studies, barbara perry. american history tv in primetime, wednesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. >>> for nearly 20 years in depth on book tv has featured the nation's best known non-fiction writers for live conversations about their books. well, this year as a special project we're featuring best-selling fiction writers for our monthly program in depth fiction edition. join us live sunday at noon eastern with walter moseley, down the river unto the sea, "devil in a blue dress," "gone fishen," and "fearless jones." our special series, in depth fiction edition with author walter mosley, sunday live at noon p.m. eastern. >>> sunday night on q&a, high school students from around the country were in washington, d.c. for the annual united states senate youth program. we met with them at the historic may flower hotel where they shared their thoughts about government and politics. >> i'm really passionate about daca. it is unfair that 700,000 men, women and children's lives hang in the balance because our congress c

nixon's 1968 campaign and barbara perry, director ever presidential studies at the university of virginia's miller center. that's tomorrow night on american history tv starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span3. >>> on c-span, this week in primetime. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, perspectives on gun control, from the march for our lives rally. wednesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, former white house communications director anthony scaramucci is interviewed by democratic political consultant bob shrum. >> when he got the job, just like building a condominium or just like building a golf course or just like developing a television show, he said, okay, i have got this job, i have got to go down to the swamp, i have to drain the swamp, i have got to hire people who understand the swamp. i think what he has learned is that you're not going to drain the swamp hiring swamp monsters. >> thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, embedded journalists on their experiences in mosul, iraq, documenting the fight against isis. trying to get you to care about someone speaking a different language. different color

humphrey facing nixon zbloop commentator pat buchanan and barbara perry director of presidential studies at the university of virginia miller center. this is 90 minutes. >> on the last evening in march, 1968, the stage was set. shortly before 9:00 p.m. washington time in the midst of last minute electronic preparations, president johnson put the finishing touches on his address to the nation. finally with the reassuring presence of his family seated nearby, the president was ready to deliver one of the most important speeches of his entire life, a speech that would alter the course of world history. >> good evening, my fellow americans. tonight i want to speak to you of peace in vietnam and southeast asia. no other question so preoccupies our people. no other dream so absorbs the 250 million human beings who live in that part of the world. no other goal motivates american policy in southeast asia. >> first addressing himself to the kinning problem of vietnam, the president outlined plans for a uni lateral american deescalation of that conflict. >> tonight i order our aircraft and naval v

lessons from 1968, barbara perry, what are they? >> i think we have touched on some of them already and they are this increasing polarization. i think it's kicked off the -- the polarization that we see today in the parties and in today's culture. pat's made reference to culture wars. we still see those today. and i also think that's a linkage between 1964 and barry goldwater. his brand of right wing populism and through the reagan years and nixon, but reagan with movement, conservatism, all the way up to donald trump. i think we see the seeds of both the democratic left and the republican right and democratic populism and republican populism to this day. >> pat buchanan, final word. >> i think that's very true. what you see is the goldwater laid this foundation with this powerful conservative movement which captured the party but couldn't capture the country and nixon picked up that movement and brought that republican party together. picked up the two pieces of the democratic party. the northern catholics and the southern baptists and one for republicans, five out of six presidential

that year. richard nixon is elected president in 1958. we want to welcome barbara perry. thank you for joining us. >> nixon campaign. >> let me begin by asking you about the announcement of lyndon johnson, march 31st. where were you? >> on the saturday before that sunday i was at nixon's apartment. he was going to give the speech that afternoon. we were having an argument. we got word from cbs that lyndon johnson asked for time sunday night. what nixon was going to wisconsin the next day and told me, pat, i want you to be out at la guardia, the private terminal when i come back from wisconsin. he was making an appearance for the primary. to brief me on what johnson said before the press gets to me. i'm sitting in a limousine on the tarmac at la guardia. had nixon's african-american driver was there. he starts yelling i knew it was going to happen. i knew it was going to happen when lbj announced he wasn't going to run again. i got out and ran on the jet that nixon was on. i got on the plane and i said johnson is out. he's not going to run again. nixon stepped out to the top of the

candidate george wallace. andguests are pat buchanan barbara perry, presidential studies director of the university of virginias center. first a look at the lyndon b. johnson's televised oval office whenss on march 31, 1968, he surprised the nation with his announcement that he would not run for reelection. >> on the last evening of march 1968, the stage was set. shortly before 9 p.m. washington , in the midst of last-minute electronic preparations, president johnson put the finishing touches on his address to the nation. reassuringh the presence of his family seated nearby, the president was ready to deliver one of the most important speeches of his entire life. -- that wouldwent alter the course of world history. >> good evening, my fellow americans. tonight i want to speak to you of peace in vietnam. and so preoccupies our people. -- the 250r dream million human beings who live in our part of that world. motivates american policy in southeast asia. >> first addressing himself to the continuing problem of vietnam, the president outlined plans for unilateral de-escalation of that confli

,ction of richard here is barbara perry. former staffer, author, and columnist pat buchanan. we first want to take you back of 1960 81ric moment president lyndon johnson stunned the country when he announced he would not be seeking another term as president. you will have behind-the-scenes footage as well as -- for what that moment was like from the oval office fifth is ago. -- 50 years ago. last evening in march, 1968, the stage was set. shortly before 9:00 p.m. washington time, in the mists of last-minute electronic reparations, president johnson put the finishing touches on his address to the nation. finally, with a reassuring presence of his family seated nearby, the president was ready to deliver one of the most important speeches of his entire life, a speech that would alter the course of world history. >> good evening, my fellow americans. i want to speak to you tonight of peace in vietnam and southeast asia. so preoccupieson our people, no other dream so absorbed the 250 million human beings who live in that part of the world. motivates american policy and southeast asia. >> f

, barbara perry buchanan will be here at the table. m for those of you watching on american history tv, real america begins right now. this is an excerpt we showed a moment ago. in 1970 academy award-winning documentary recounting the events of march 16, 1968 in the village of my lai from the perspective of five army veterans that were there. thanks for joining us on washington journal. we are back with a live simulcast on c-span radio and washington journal 7:00 a.m. eastern time. bothmascaro, mike liles, on the congressional beat. a busy week for lawmakers including a funding agreement slaughteres to louise . anandater

center, professor barbara perry, who will anchor the panel. barbara is herself a noted scholar of the '60s and kennedy era and kennedy clan. she's also the director of presidential studies here at the miller center. she is a very seasoned expert oral historian as well as a written historian. for many years she helped lead the history program here at the miller center, one of the significants that we do interviewing the leading members of presidential administrations from the four years on up until the present. or at least i should say the recent past. we have completed oral histories under her leadership and russell riley's leadership and through the george w. bush administration and planning to lay siege to the obama administration and will find out what the trump administration, what their attitude is towards being interviewed for oral history when we get to that place. barbara will take us forward and i will turn things over to her see. thanks so much, will, to mel and stephanie, for conceptualizing and organizing and executing such a timely yet history-based battle conference this

was hubert humphrey who faced richard nixon. a conversation with pat buchanan and barbara perry director of presidential studies at the university of virginia's miller center. this is 90 minutes. >>> on the last evening in march 1968 the stage was set. shortly before 9:00 p.m. washington time in theid

. and barbara perry, director of presidential studies and co-director of the presidential oral history program at the university of virginia. watch 1968, america in turmoil, live sunday, at 8:30 a.m. on c-span's washington journal. and on american history tv on -span 3. >> i'm asked what are your favorite items? in the museum? and with 3,100 on exhibit, and an inventory of almost 100,000 to pick from that we curate, it's really hard to say what that is. but there is one. and it's this one right here. this is julia howl -- howell ward who wrote a poem at 2:00 in the morning at the willard hotel. and as she says in her own words, she took a stub of a pencil by the candlelight that was available to her and she wrote down what she says god gave her to write down. she showed it to her daughter the next morning. and it was all scripture that she had written down. but it formed a poem. and her daughter said mom, you should have this published. this is really good. so they did. they took it to a publisher. and he published it. she created what we call today the battle hymn of the republic. wel

welcome our guest, barbara perry from the university of virginia's miller center. and pat buchanan who for the purposes of this discussion was a nixon aide. you aboutrt by asking that date. guest: we were at nixon's apartment having a debate about his speech he was going to give that afternoon. we were having an argument. nixon was moving toward a more dovish position or war or in about two -- were about to. we got word that johnson was asking for more time. nixon told me i want you to be at laguardia, the private terminal, when i come back from wisconsin. he was make an appearance there for the primary. to brief me on what johnson says before the press gets to me. i was sitting on the tarmac at laguardia. nixon's african american driver starts yelling, "i knew it was going to happen when l.b.j. announced he was not going to run again." i ran down to the jet nixon had come in on. the press was walking to the jet. i got on the plane and told nixon that johnson is out, he's not going to run again. nixon stepped out of the plane and said i guess it is the year of the dropout. george romney ha

center, barbara perry. american history tv in primetime begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. >>> the c-span bus is traveling across the country on the 50 capitals tour. we recently stopped in phoenix, arizona, asking folks who's the most important issue in their state? >> i stand here in support of more public school funding. arizona's last for teacher pay and 48th for per pupil funding. and it's hurting the state's economic competitiveness. companies like amazon are passing arizona by. so it's a very important issue that needs to be fixed so that the state can be healthy and grow strong. >> hi, i'm the arizona state senator and an important issue here is k-12 education. we ranked 49th in the country in per pupil funding for the schools and we need to make fund the schools and helping the teachers a priority. we're wearing red in support of the teachers around trying to get them the is up -- and trying to get them the support and respect they need. >> hello, time president of yactc. we are advocating for peer advocacy and student leadership. we think what the most important

barbara perry director of presidential studies at the university of virginia miller center. this is 90 minutes. >> on the last evening in march,

>>> james jones and lyndon johnson's appointment secretary from 1960 to 1965 surprised the nation in an announcement to the nation that he would not run for president in 1968. he also told the back story which began in 1967. james jones is a former member of the house of representatives in oklahoma and former ambassador the mexico. the interview was recorded for the c-span's "the weekly podcast." >> i shall not seek, and i will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president. but let men everywhere know however that a strong and confident and a vigilant stands ready tonight to seek an honorable peace and stands ready tonight to defend an honored call. >> march 31st, 1968, 50 years ago and james jones, no aide was closer to president johnson than you serving four years as his appointment secretary according to the white house chief of staff. walk us through the process that president johnson undertook in deciding not the seek re-election. >> well, it actually started about seven months previous in september of 1967. the president said -- told me he wanted to go to the ranch that weekend. and he'd like to have john connolly who was then the texas governor to come to the ranch and just lady bird johnson, the president, john connolly, governor connolly, myself and the president's top secretary, marie famer were at the ranch that whole weekend. as the president really relaxed at the ranch by riding around the ranch, looking at the deer and the cattle, et cetera, particularly the three of them ms. ms. johnson and mr. connolly and mr. johnson rode around and discussed whether he should or should not run for re-election. then at meal times we would all discuss it. the president asked connolly what he should do. he said he was not going to run for governor again in '68 and he thought the president should not run for re-election. that discussion went on. nothing was concluded and then we went back to washington in the white house. periodically the president would ask me to come in at the end of the day and have a drink or talk about issues and the issue of whether he should run or not came up a few times. we -- if you go fast forward then to december of 1967, christmas season, we all went back to the ranch. well, we had had an around the world trip and then went to the ranch. and again the decision was being discussed. the president asked me to get horace busby one of his long time speechwriters ant draft a statement that he was not going to run for re-election but not to tell anybody about it. less than half a dozen who had any inkling that this was even being seriously considered. we had the speech drafted. i mean, what he called the final announcement that he wouldn't run. and in the meantime, i was coordinating the development of the state of the union speech for january 1968. we kept the speechwriters for the state of the union separate from horace busby, so the president was planning to announce at the end of the state of the union speech in january '68 that he was not going to run. we had everything ready. we did not have any of this on teleprompter and we had a separate little piece of paper, with the i shall not run. we drive up to the capitol, and the president gives his state of the union speech. and he did not -- he did not have the pararation, and he did not declare he was going to run. we're writing back to the capital -- and i'm 28 years old, you know everything when you're 28 years old, so i basically asked, you know, he didn't use this periation, i left it on my night table, i forgot to bring it up. to my way of thinking, i thought he had decided not to run. i mean, he decided to run and not to give this speech. so we went on in the first three months of 1968. and he started asking for different issue -- different questions, different information. for example, he asked us to have a study done as to when harry truman announced that he was not going to run for re-election in 1952. turned out it was march 30th. he had some special polls made, holly coyle was our pollster in that year. and we asked ollie to run the president on a head to head oll that year. and we asked ollie to run the president on a head to head y c that year. and we asked ollie to run the president on a head to heaiy co that year. and we asked ollie to run the president on a head to head ey that year. and we asked ollie to run the president on a head to head co that year. and we asked ollie to run the president on a head to head co that year. and we asked ollie to run the president on a head to hea coyl that year. and we asked ollie to run the president on a head to heathat . and we asked ollie to run the president on a head to head against all the possible democratic and republican candidates which would be mccarthy, bobby kennedy, nelson rockefeller and richard nixon, et cetera. and the president beat all of them in those polls. this is about ten days before his march 31st announcement. i think he did that because he wanted to have in his own mind that he was not being run out of office, if he did run as he thought he would win that he could win. so he had asked for information like that. so we get to friday, march 29, and the president called a minipress conference in the rose garden and basically he'll make a nationwide televised speech on the 31st. and it was going to be an important speech. well, we spent the rest of that weekend working on that speech and again taking horace busby back and putting him in the indian treaty room, separate from the other speechwriters. he was in the mansion -- not the indian treaty room, but the lincoln bedroom. which was adjacent to the president's bedroom. and so horace was looking -- was working on the end of the speech. nobody else knew about it. and even before we got to that on the 29th, after the little minipress conference, he asked me to get george christian who was then the press secretary and marvin watson who had been my predecessor as appointment secretary and who is now running the punitive campaign for re-election, asked the three of us to come in for a drink in the little office over the oval office. at that point we again talked about whether he should or should not run. at the end, he said, well, what do you think? we split, 2-1. two of us thought he should run. one, george christian, thought he should not run. we had no decisions at that point. so we continued to work on the speech. on saturday, i was at the white house. we went through several revisions of the speech. sunday morning, he called me at my apartment in southwest washington and asked me to come down to the white house, that he and lucy were going to go to church that morning at st. dominic's church over in southwest washington. he asked me to go with him, and so while we were in church he said -- ask the secret service to get the periation i will not run part off his night table and bring it to him and then also call hubert humphrey who was the vice president and ask him to delay his departure for mexico city that day. because he wanted to come over and see him. and so in those days the vice president didn't have a home. so he was living in the apartment in the same complex where i was living in southwest washington. so after church, we went over to the humphrey apartment. lucy went in with mrs. humphrey into another room and the president and the vice president and i went into the little study. president asked him to read the speech and the vice president humphrey read the speech and he got to the end and he started really just palpitating. he could hardly get his breath. and president johnson said to him, if you're going to run you need to start tomorrow. but i have not finally decided whether i'm going to run or not. i will have jim call you in mexico city tonight and with my final decision. and so we left it at that. interesting -- one of the interesting things as you know vice president humphrey ran for president in 1960. and he was defeated in west virginia in a very big surprise by the kennedys -- by jack kennedy. and so when the president said if you're going to run you need to get started right away, tears welled up in his eyes and he said, that's no way i could beat the kennedys which is an interesting observation of him going into the campaign with that. so we went through the day on sunday. he had some personal friends, arthur krem who had been a major fund-raiser for him, and the head of the united artists at the time, and mrs. krem. they came to the white house. they were part of the discussion through sunday. and then we went back and forth and then i think the speech was around 8:00 -- around 6:00, the president asked me to come over to the mansion and we went over the speech one last time. and he said, now you can put it on the teleprompter. and this was -- this had been such a tightly guarded secret that nobody really knew about it. i was telling one of your colleagues here that bob fleming who was an assistant press secretary, i asked bob to sit to the side of the desk in the oval office when the president made the speech and watch the teleprompter. if it happened to go blank on him to put the right page in front of the president so he could read from that. so bob knew something was up, but he didn't know what. and so i was back in my office which is next door to the oval office and bob comes racing in. he had flipped through the pages to see what was new and different about it. he got to the end of the speech and he started just -- not being able to get his breath and he left the oval office, because he afraid it was going to be a ruckus. well, the president was speaking so it was an interesting evening, but when the speech was over, the president -- it was like a great load had been lifted off his back. it was like he had free -- he was free at last. and that he -- he could see the end and so he really thought that he was going to be able to get a peace agreement in vietnam. that was the real reason that we started talking about not running. he had -- he had mentioned several times different reasons why he shouldn't run. which i thought were bogus. but for example, he said that his father and grandfather had both died at age 64 and that he was going to die at age 64 and he would be president and he didn't want to die in office. turned out he did die at age 64, but he did not take care of his health as he should have and i never verified whether his father and grandfather died at that age. but that was one of the excuses. another excuse was that he never appreciated and knew his daughters while they were growing up as much because he was always on the run. always doing things political and he really wanted to know his grandson -- grandchildren who at that time he had one and he doted over that little boy. that was another reason he said he didn't want to run. but in the final analysis, he thought that very much if he were a candidate for re-election, he might pull the punches if he had and a opportunity to get a peace settlement in vietnam, and he did not want to be put in that kind of position. he that thought if he were free of politics that he could do whatever he needed to reach a peace agreement, and that is the real reason that he did not run. >> along those lines, this is from october of 1968. a conversation between president johnson and everett dirksen, republican from illinois. i mention of richard nixon, the issue of vietnam. let's listen. >> now, i have told nixon and i repeat to you that i'm trying as hard as i know how to get the peace in vietnam as quickly as i can. for that reason i am not running. now, when i have anything that i believe justifies or warrants a consultation, i will initiate it. >> as you hear that conversation your reaction, james jones. >> well, in october, maybe ten days, two weeks before the election, we were pursuing or the president was pursuing a peace agreement in paris and we had the north vietnamese, south vietnamese, et cetera, and the president really thought he was going to reach an agreement. along about that time, our intelligence sources intercepted a phone call from president -- vice president agnew's campaign stop in albuquerque, new mexico, to madam chinault in washington and she had a phone call to president chu of south vietnam who said hold off, nixon will give you a better deal. then all of a sudden, the negotiations just came to a halt. >> so basically undercutting president johnson. >> yes. of course the president was furious at this. i had talked to bryce harlow who was very close to the president -- to mr. nixon. and basically tell him that this is going -- if this happens again, it's going to be totally publicized. president johnson decided not to leak this or tell this to anyone. >> why? >> he said that if nixon were elected anyway, he would be impeached right off the bat because this is a treasonable offense and he did not want to see the presidency or that institution disrupted that way. that was the main reason. so he didn't tell anybody. very few people even knew about this. but it did -- in my judgment had that not happened we would have had a peace agreement before the president left office. >> we get the impression through history that it was a tortured last year for lyndon johnson, but you were with him. what was his mood, what was he like, what was going through his mind with regard to vietnam, the election of '68 and of course at that same time the assassination of dr. king and later senator robert kennedy? >> well, it was a very, very tough year. first of all, in january right off the bat, you had two instances that caused real problems. one was the capture of the pueblo -- the sort of spy ship we had off of north korea. and the other was the tet offensive. which was in military terms the north vietnamese were defeated but in political terms it was such a shock that back here it was considered as a win for north vietnam. so those two started off the year. and then when you get to april 1, april 2, dr. king was assassinated. then the robert kennedy assassination june 4th or 6th, right in that period. so it was a very disruptive year and that -- those events caused more demonstrations and more disruptive demonstrations where property and what have you was destroyed. and so there was nothing -- there was nothing settled about that particular year. >> what were his personal feelings towards bobby kennedy? >> he never expressed them to me or to those around us. but we knew what his feelings were. he felt that bobby kennedy would not have been elected in '64 in new york had johnson not had such a landslide victory up there. he felt that bobby kennedy was constantly undermining him and disrespecting him. and he felt that bobby kennedy was different from either jack kennedy or ted kennedy whom he liked each of those brothers. so what all went into that and that feeling -- those bad feelings happened before i worked for the president and i can't comment on that, i don't know. but it was a very strained relationship. i know that -- i think it was early april, because after the president announced he was not going to run for re-election we had bobby kennedy -- and ted sorensen down to the white house and the president met with them in the cabinet room. and he was very stern with him. basically lecturing -- the president lecturing bobby kennedy on not doing things that's going to interrupt or disrupt the peace settlement in vietnam. you can tell then that the two people did not have the warmest of relationships. >> of course, that settlement did not take place in 1968. >> right. >> take us back to the evening of march 31st. the speech is over. you're in the white house. paint a picture. what was it like? what was lady bird johnson saying to president johnson, what was the interactions with president johnson, what are you seeing and hearing? >> well, after the speech the president went into the little office off the oval office and received and made phone calls. one of the interesting phone calls was to nelson rockefeller, because -- or rockefeller to him, because he was the governor of new york. johnson had developed a warm relationship with governor rockefeller and had encouraged him on this night to run for election. that -- i suspect of all the people who are running the one that president johnson thought might be the best successor to him was nelson rockefeller which is an interesting observation. lady bird johnson was absolutely elated because she felt he should not run. she had felt that for quite a while. and so she and the daughters were both just congratulating and feeling very warm. the president having wrestled with this decision for months felt really relieved that the decision was made. his step was much lighter. his attitude was much brighter. and so i think he was relieved. i was handling phone calls mostly to -- lulu bank was first who called and she was distraught. i had to talk to vice president humphrey. i had called -- we had several cabinet secretaries on the same airplane going to asia. i think it was to jappen for some sort of a conference. i called dean rusk the secretary of state and i told him what the president had done and his response was thank you very much. so he just took it in stride. he was a person of few words anyway. so i was taking those calls and to different members of the congress, to let them know. so it was -- it was a happy feeling. and as i say it was almost as though president johnson was on his way out of jail because he always felt in that particular year, he always felt very confined by the white house. and so it was a feeling of freedom. >> one other conversation on to the evening of march 31st. this is with willard werts who served as the labor secretary. let's listen. >> mr. president -- >> yes, bill, how are you? glad to hear you. >> that was the greatest contribution to peace in all of history. >> well, i hope so. we sure have been working it. >> and it's magnificent. beyond that, i only want to tell you that at the right time i'll be doing everything in my power to reverse that decision. i think i'm smart enough to know that the right -- today is not the time. i don't want you to say anything, but i want you to know how i feel. >> it's not reversible, but god bless you. i'm grateful to you. >> it puts you in a position to waste what woodrow wilson did and you're a great man. >> thank you, you're a wonderful colleague. you have been a great source of strength to me in every way. >> you're a great man. >> thank you. >> president johnson with the labor secretary. again, it's important to underscore this was a shock to the nation. it stunned the world. >> right. and to his cabinet and to most of the people who were in government. it was really a well kept secret and bill was a wonderful person. he was president kennedy brought him in as labor secretary and he stayed on with president johnson for the whole kennedy/johnson eight years. and he was just a very wise person and a very decent person. and very smart. >> james jones, i have to ask you about these recordings because we air them every saturday on c-span radio. >> right. >> and it is often the most commented part of the programming is people listen to the inner workings of the johnson white house. as you listen to the tapes, what are your thoughts? >> well, president johnson wanted the tapes and he wanted them for several reasons. probably his own self-protection, number one. but he was -- interesting thing about president johnson, his motivation was history. how would history record his administration and his presidency and he wanted that for history. and when we left office, he said at the appropriate time he wants these released because he wants -- he wants the american people to see his administration as he said with the hide off, both the warts and the good things that the administration did so that they could really assess his administration. and these tapes were -- one of the things that i find wonderful about them, lyndon johnson was not a good television person. he never warmed up to a camera. he would warm up like wonder fly very much so with people, face-to-face. he was very much a people person. but on camera, he was very stiff and did not come across well. and when people would say you know they have their negative opinion of him after he had made an address on television or what have you, i would say i wish you could see the johnson that we see privately. he is warm, he's funny. he's smart. he is very committed and -- but you don't see that on television because he's too intimidated by the camera and how people might perceive him. he did not want to be perceived as some corn pone politician. he wanted to be perceived equal to what he believed the office of the presidency should be. and what those tapes have done is to be able to show the lyndon johnson that we got to know privately in a way that would not have been able without the tapes. >> and finally, at the time you were 28 years old in march of 1968, as you reflect 50 years later that moment where johnson announced that he was not seeking re-election and the events that followed in the days after, what were you thinking? >> well, i did not -- it's interesting because i grew up in a town in oklahoma. muskogee, oklahoma. my dad was a rural postal carrier, rural mail carrier. it's the kind of thing that just happens. i had no preordained reason to be at the white house, but i was so busy and there were so many things that could go wrong that i never really got to think about what it was like to be there. the only one time it was is one time in that year, actually, that we -- i was called from the situation room and there were some sort of -- i don't remember the issue now but there was a situation report on the foreign activities that i felt i had to wake up the president. it was about 2:00 in the morning. i felt i had to come down and wake up the president and give him this message. as i was walking through the mansion in the family corridors upstairs, i looked at some of the portraits up there on the walls and i thought -- that was the only time i was able to say, what are you doing here? aren't you a lucky, lucky guy? and so i really didn't try to analyze what am -- what's this all about. i was just scrambling to get everything done. >> james jones served as president john's appointment secretary, equivalent today to white house chief of staff and went on to serve in the u.s. house of representatives and the u.s. ambassador to mexico. thank you for stopping by the studios. >> thank you. >>> tonight american history tv continues with our series, 1968, america in turmoil. focusing on the 1968 presidential campaign. we'll hear from former white house special assistant and communications director of the nixon administration pat buchanan who worked on richard nixon's 1968 campaign and presidential studies director at the university of virginia's miller center, barbara perry. american history tv in primetime begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. >>> the c-span bus is traveling across the country on the 50 capitals tour. we recently stopped in phoenix,e with the commission starting at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> for nearly 20 years in-depth on book tv has featured the nation's best known nonfiction writers, the live conversations about their books. this year as a special project we're featuring best selling fiction writers for a monthly program on in-depth, fiction edition. join us live sunday noon eastern with walter mosely. his other books include gone fishing, and fearless jones, plus over 40 critically acclaimed books and mystery series. our special series in-depth fiction edition sunday live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span 2. >> the c-span bus is traveling across the country on our 50 capitols tour. we recently stopped in phoenix, arizona asking folks what's the most important issue in their state. >> i stand here in support of more public school funding. arizona is last for teacher pay and 48th for per pupil funding. and it's hurting the state's economic competitiveness. companies like amazon are passing arizona wii, so it's an important issue that needs to be fixed so the state can be healthy and grow strong. >> an important issue here in arizona is k-12 education. we rank 49th in the country in per people funding for our schools. we're all wearing red today at the capitol in support of our teachers and trying to get them the support and respect they deserve. >> we are here today at the state capitol to advocate for student engagement, pure advocacy and student leadership. there's a lack of public education funding, so today we are here to combat that through advocating through the repeal of the esa vouchers, advocating for more prison and school funding, and we are also here to address the issues with teacher retention. >> i'm from phoenix, arizona, and an issue that's very important to me is funding public education. i don't feel like we do that enough in arizona. it's time we pay teachers what they deserve and support the classrooms that especially focus on empowering minority students in the state. >> the most important issue going on in the state and nation wide-is actually two things. one, the love for public education and the funding that's necessary to meet all the objectives we have in public education, and of course that starts with providing the best academic opportunities for our students. secondly it's filling all the positions that are necessary to provide our students the best classroom environment and the most qualified teachers, highly qualified teachers especially in the areas of math and science and even technology. >> voices from the states on c-span. >> in a televised speech from the oval office president linden johnson announced steps to overrun vietnam and his decision to run for re-election in 1968. >> good evening my fellow americans. tonight i want to speak to you of peace in vietnam and southeast asia. no other question so preoccupies our people. no other dream so absorbs the 250 million human beings who live in that part of the world. no other goal motivates american policy in southeast asia. for years

are pat buchanan who work on richard nixon's presidential campaign in 1968 and barbara perry, presidential studies director at the university of virginia miller center. first, a look at the televised 1968, whenmarch 1, he surprised the nation with his announcement he would not run for reelection. ♪

hospital in harlow who can ensure the hospital is out of special measures today and will she support our campaign for a new hospital to ensure that the staff have a hospital that is fit for the 21st century? >> can i congratulate the local hospital in harlow that my honorable friend has referred to for coming out of special measures. think that's very important and i know will give added confidence to his constituents. he tempts me to support a new hospital in his area. i'm sure as he will know the secretary of state has heard his request in relation to that, but what we do know i we're putting more money into the national health service to ensure that we do get the best possible services provided to people through our national health service. >> thank you. order. >>> the march for our lives rally against mass shootings takes place in washington, d.c. watch live saturday beginning at noon eastern on c-span. >>> next on c-span3, former u.s. government officials talk about syria's civil war. and why the u.s. and other syria countries should stay engaged and address security challenges in that country. this panel discussion runs one hour. >>> shall we? >> yeah, think so. >> are you good? all right. yep, we're good. >> well, hi, everybody. welcome to foreign policy and fragile states and america abroad town hall discussion here at the u.s. institute of peace in washington. i'm joshua johnson. i am the host of 1a from wmau which is heard on npr where this conversation will be heard soon and we welcome those of you following us on c-span and watching on various networks around the globe. let me introduce the panel before we dive in. we'll get to some of your questions in a bit. joining us on the panel today is nancy, the president of the u.s. institute of peace, which is hosting us today. nancy spent most of her career working in fragile and conflicted regions. prior to joining the institute, she served as the assistant administrator for the bureau for democracy conflict and humanitarian assistance at usain. nancy, welcome. >> thank you. good to be here. >> let's hear it from nancy please. to your right is elon goldenberg, at the center for 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. elon, welcome. and to my left is kimberly kagan, the founder and president of the institute for the study of war. she's a military historian who has taught at yale, georgetown and west point. she's the author of numerous books and essays on foreign policy and is co-producer of "the surge: the whole story" an hour-long oral history and documentary film on the campaign in iraq from 2007 to 2008. welcome, kimberly. >> thank you. >> let's welcome all of our panelists. we'll have time to get to some of your questions in a little bit. i want to start with a few minutes of questions from our guests. a little over half the hour and then we'll get to you. it is just after 4 past the hour by my clock, which gives us about 56 minutes. i work in radio, i can do a lot with 56 minutes. nancy, let's start with you, what is a fragile state? >> so a fragile state is say state that either lacks the capacity to take care of its citizens, it's unable to provide basic security services and/or it can also be a state that is not considered legitimate by its own citizens. often is repressive, often is part of the problem. and a state that's strategy less able to manage the inevitable shocks that come either a natural disaster or a conflict that can't be managed. so it spirals into violent conflict. and this is the heart of what we're seeing with a lot of the increased unrest and crisis around the world. fragile states that can't manage the shocks of disaster and conflict. >> we definitely are going to talk more about syria specifically, but broadly speaking, what are some of the main ways that states become fragile? are there certain last straws that tend to recur over and over in fragile states? >> well, i would say a continuous characteristic of fragile states is governments that are not inclusive of all parts of their citizenry. so whole groups are excluded from economic, political, security opportunities because of their ethnicity, religion, race, et cetera. that's probably the number one characteristic of a fragile state. >> elon goldenberg, how did syria become a fragile state? would you say that it's what nancy describes, certain kinds of inclusion of certain groups with the syrian society or were there more factors? >> i think a lot of what nancy talks about set the conditions, but there did need to be a spark. in the case of syria, the particular spark that then took us over the edge started in really what you might called, i guess at the time it was optimistically called the arab spring. now i think we'd call it the arab upheaval, basically these protests across the middle east that led not just to state collapse in a place like syria, but also yemen, iraq, which had already been having struggling since the american invasion in 2003. libya, even egypt to some extent. and what you saw happen there was a few things. one is, you saw this 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. so you have one of the things that happens when you have these fragile states is you create security vacuums then everybody else that is around them is worried about losing influence or sees an opportunity. so the iranians suddenly have a close syrian ally that is looking like they're tetering and they want to protect the situation so they start investing in various militias and dumping weapons and money. the saudis are trying to counter the iranians, so they're dumping money and weapons. the turks are worried about what's going on on the border. you've taken a fragile state that was already on fire and dumped gasoline on it. i think that's been one of the factors, at least in the case of syria, that has really made the situation exceptionally bad. >> the proxy aspect of this cons by comes up in every conversation we have about syria. we have clips to play about some people very, very close to the flex, and one of them has to do with the proxy aspect of that. well we'll get to that in just a second, but kimberly kagan, let me bring you in. the trump administration has been advocating more hard power than say soft power, things like aid, assistance, diplomacy. it's advocated to very sharp cuts to the state department, 37% in the president's first version of his first budget, and cuts to usaid. step back from syria for just a second. how similar or different is this from what america typically does? in a fragile state, how does america usually deal with a balance between using hard power and soft power? >> hard power and soft power are both necessary in many circumstances. in order to help a fragile state recover itself and in order to set conditions whereby governance and civil society can return. and unfortunately the solutions that one might hope to see in syria can neither be exclusively military or exclusively soft wat power led. each has its role and it is vitally important that the united states have a robust budget 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. but it is also actually incredibly important to recognize that in conditions on the ground such as those that we see in syria, the underlying violence and oppression of human beings is not part and parcel of a stable regime, and therefore there is a degree of human security that we must attain before we actually begin trying to stabilize syria. >> so just to make sure i follow where you're going, it sounds like you're saying that there is a place for both, maybe that the trump administration's balance tends to be a little harder in the past but there is a role for hard power and soft power if they're in the right balance? >> i think there a role for hard and soft power, but i wouldn't say that the trump administration is actually powersing a hard power strategy in syria. in fact, if we look at the trump administration's policy in syria, we see extraordinary continuity with president obama's policy in syria. namely an effort to expel isis from its territorial control raqqa and eastern syria. a backing of the syrian kurdish groups that have fought with us against isis. an effort at international diplomacy that was actually begun under president obama. and so, in fact, i see an extraordinary amount of continuity between president trump and president obama and i think neither had a robust enough humanitarian or civil society or military approach. >> nancy lindborg, let me put that question for you, the balance between hard power and soft power today under the trump administration compared to what we tend to see in how america deals with fragile states. how do you see it? >> well, i think the most important answer to that lies actually with a lot of our military personnel. and as you hear from retired four-stars, what happens after the fight is as important as what happens during the fight, and we need to be sure that the balance remains such that we can continue to have the development and diplomacy tools fully available, especially take syria's neighbor iraq, where we just concluded yet another campaign. the temptation will be now we should leave, but now is when some of the really, really important hard work happens, for which you need those so-called soft tools. but i would say there is nothing soft about it in terms of the importance of rebuilding not just the physical infrastructure but the human infrastructure, as kim said, the ways in which societies need to heal so they don't fall back into violence. unfortunately, we just end up fighting these wars in cycles otherwise. >> we have a number of clips that we'd like to add to the conversation, including this one from a syrian refugee from aleppo, now living in istanbul. let's listen. >> i know that we look like we are not organized and we don't have an organized leadership, but in the end we have a very educated majority of people who are ready to come back and help the community, but we are being pushed away by all of these militias, basically any side that you can think of. we need our organized side to actually give us the help that we need. we don't need them to just support one group and throw out the others. maybe support a group that unifies all the groups. this is what we need. >> that was a syrian refugee from aleppo now living in istanbul. elon goldenberg, baha wants peace in syria. says there is an entire class and educated majority, as he puts it, that are ready to come back. you earlier mentioned the proxy war as pecpect of it, all 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 does that work? >> at this point where we are, the way i would describe it, i might have advocated for something different three or four years ago, but i think at this point where we are is syria is essentially divided into four or five different regions that are held by different actors. you have in the southwest, the jordanian-israeli border, groups the u.s. has supported a long time. where the majority of the population and resources are held by assad, along with support from russia and iran. you have what i'd call an al qaeda safe haven in the southwest in the idlib province. and then you have a turkish area, also in the north, where the turks have basically a whole territory on their border. then you have this whole large swath that is really supported -- or controlled by american-supported kurdish groups. and all the fighting -- not all the fighting, but a lot of the fighting at this point is happening where these different tectonic plates meet, like where there are seams. the places -- on these borders. so if you're trying to to get to a peace at this point, i'm not for splitting syria splitting syria apart. i don't think anybody wants to redraw maps. at least coming to short term and long term political arrangements to stop the fighting at the seams and then try to see if we can get a national arrangement is sort of how you would have to try to go about this at this point. it is going to take years and i'm not sure if we are really up for it. it's the best option i see right now. >> before i come back to you, i saw you perk up. >> that clip under scores one critical point is that ultimately peace needs to happen through locally led action. what we heard is the desire, motivation and ability as he noted for the syrian people to do that with the right kind of help. they will ultimately be necessarily leading the future of their own country. >> that gets to the next clip we wanted to play. this is from a gentleman from damascus. he works at a cell phone store and he talked about how not everybody is looking for help from another nation. >> we want our country to be cleaned of all foreign agents. my only request is to get our country back without forn powers. why do we have these foreign powers inside syria. the people can -- >> speaking through a translator from damascus and works in a cell phone store in istanbul. clearly he wants the rest of the world to kind of leave syria alone. i wonder if that's even doable and if it is what that would look like. is there a path to getting all of these proxys out of syria and let it solve its issues of fragility by the will of the syrian people alone? >> the quotation really illustrates how what had been a democratic revolution at the beginning of the conflict period has evolved into a great power and small power conflict inside of syria. one of the key objectives that we the united states and the international community at large should have is to ensure that syria is over time dissociated from the extraordinary global and regional conflict in which it finds itself or perhaps i should say syria has become a black hole into which regional and global powers fall. so it is absolutely essential to disconnect syria from those conflicts but realistically that is not going to happen anytime soon. we have watched that revolution which had those civilian democratic aims of replacing the assad regime and bringing reform change into a violent conflict and we have to work with the fact that they have such a conflict underway inside of syria. what do we do? the first thing we need to recognize is that different great powers have different objectives. we the united states tend to want to find a common objective among all of the different powers and we strike on something that we would think would be common like fight isis. we all put that at a different point in our priorization list. it is more important to turkey than it is to the assad regime. the assad regime is not fighting is isis. the assad regime has every incentive to make sure that extremist groups perpetuate themselves so that outside powers can't come in and strengthen the opposition and make it legitimate and democratic. therefore, i think we really have to be eyes wide open about different actors' objectives and we also need to recognize that we can't just fight isis alone. we actually need to start working now on creating conditions of stability in different areas of syria so that over time there is hope for stabilization, a generation, not a year. >> you are listening to kimberly kagen. nancy lindborg and elon goldenburg. this is panel on foreign policy in fragile states. i'm joshua johnson from 1 a on npr. nancy, let me come back to you. let's play one more clip from istanbul, both from damascus addressing something on the minds of a lot of syrians which is the violence going on for seven years. hundreds of thousands of lives lost, most recently in a place located just east of damascus. >> you know, nowadays we have mass care, hundreds of people die and hundreds of children have died. >> translator: they are asking people to take care of the victims. it's been reported that aide has been delivered but it is not true because roads are blocked and no one can get in or out of the area. please feel mercy and take care of them. >> both of whom are from damascus. both spoke to us from istanbul. what is the moral obligation of the u.s. to help in a fragile state? the united nations has basically thrown its hands up and said apparently you don't care 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. the u.s. certainly has the resources to make anything happen. but what should the u.s. be doing with a fragile state like syria especially in a clear humanitarian disaster where all people need is a little aid. >> what the u.s. has been doing has been providing ever-escalating packages of humanitarian assistance including efforts to get it across the border. unfortunately and just tragically what is going on right now is similar to what has been going on for the past seven years over and over again. the issue is less about the amount of humanitarian assistance but rather what are the mechanisms for stopping the source of the need. we're actually much better at responding to crisis and providing assistance after a crisis has hit than we are at either preventing it or in the case of syria the ability to stop it. and it speaks both to the set of bad options that are available for stopping it, but also to the weakness of the international system. the usual tools and levers that we have through the u.n. to really enforce what everybody agreed on at the u.n. security council but has been repeatedly ignored. >> i wonder also what just for the average american we see in terms of our responsibility to do more in fragile states. secretary of state rex tillerson has said of syria that he doesn't want to engage in nation building but he thinks the u.s. should be creating conditions for stability. the trump administration has taken a much more isolationist policy when it comes to foreign aid. that is kind of the sentiment at the heart of america first. i wonder where you see the human conversation in a developed nation like the u.s. when looking at a fragile state like syria and figuring out what the populous believes is the right way to help. >> one thing i think we can do as the united states is lead. the world listens to us more than anyone else because we are the most powerful country in the world still. that means if you encourage others to rebuild you have to be at the forefront. you ask others to throw a lot of money at the problem you have to throw money at the problem. this is one problem we have had with the current administration is the desire to pull back on programs. we will just get the gulf states to do a lot more which is often what we do in the middle east that we assume they have a lot of money. they invest based on what we invest. what they care about as much as they care about helping people in a place like syria they care about wielding influence in the united states so they can see what our priorities are and try to mirror those. when we pull back and do little others will do the same. more broadly i think there is a challenge with the question like syria in terms of our own population which is what we have done and this isn't just trump administration, we want to do something. we feel terrible about what is going on. we don't want to get deeply engaged because we are afraid of a repeat of the iraq war or vietnam. we do just enough to make the situation worse without doing enough to make it better. if we had an option of just let assad win and make this go as quickly as possible or very aggressively push him out, if we had chosen one of those pathways early on i think we would have been in a better position than doing just enough to support opposition without doing enough to really have it win in which it ends up making us another party to the conflict of dumping money and weapons and support trying to reshape the situation. so that's a really tough spot for any president to be in because american president wants to help and do the right thing. also knows his or her population does not want to get stuck in a major conflict. >> you wanted to jump in. >> i sure do. first here in the case of syria we have the opportunity to make a moral-based case and an interest-based case and they align. the cases that there are extraordinary human beings within syria who are the victims of a brutal, violent campaign of oppression perpetrated by the assad regime, abetted by iran and by russia. what we are seeing is something that we have seen elsewhere during the war of a deliberate targeting of civilians in order to achieve more aims. that is what the russians are doing. that is what assad is doing. that is what iran is doing. therefore, we are watching those regimes commit war crimes, break international laws, the law of armed conflict and they are doing so in a way that we have populations that are displaced through the middle east through the global and we have syria that has transformed itself snootinto a fertile ground for recruitment for sunni violent extremists and shi'a violent extremists from all around the world from the united states all the way to east asia. what we need to do is recognize that the reason why the recruitment of these foreign fighters is so effective is not because we have a narrative problem but because we have a reality problem. there is no one that is actually protecting the population of syria and therefore the rallying cries of that extremist organizations are launching to try to get people to mobilize for justice. our falling on ears that are unfortunately made receptive by the abandonment of the international community. >> i do want to shift gears slightly. elon, what you were talking about in terms of properly diagnosing a problem reflects something that the united states institute of peace's generation change fellows told us earlier. comes from south sedan. here is what he had to say. >> the international community has not only failed to diagnose what the issues are but in the process it has also failed to come up with the right tools. so if they want to engage constructively i think it is important for them to understand what the real root causes are otherwise you will have a situation of a protracted conflict. >> she is a usip change fellow. we are at about halftime. is there anyone who might think they have a good question percolating? one smart man with one good question and then we are done? two. anyone else? before we get to questions -- four. i think we will have a mic moving around. before we get to questions i do have one more question for you, nancy. my one rule for q&a whenever i do an event is to be generous with our time. you all far smarter than me on issues of syria and fragile states. the more generosity we can show with one another's time the more we can learn from each other. i urge you to be concise as you phrase your questions so that we and our audience around the world can learn as much from you as possible. cool? nancy, in your report on fragile ate you wrote the temptation to hunker down and wait for the moment of disorder to pass is understandable but short sighted. we simply do not have that luxury. there is too much at stake for the interest of our allies and partners and for bloeglobal pea and security. explain what you mean by that particularly in light of what i was discussing with elon that a lot of americans have said it is nice that we have been known as the world policeman but what about us? and the fact that -- i assume if we don't step up someone else will but a lot of americans are just tired. we have been playing world police for generations. there are americans who are living pretty third world as it is. can you just game this out for me what hunkering down would mean practically speaking? >> sure. a couple of issues are blended together there. we don't live in the kind of world where we can just get in bed and pull the sheets over our heads and expect that that will solve the issues. way too interconnected, too many threats that come up from places that we're not watching. clearly isis as it emerged. so from a security interest we can't afford to hunker down. it's also not who we are as a people. i think the american people are very engaged and care deeply about what happens. they want the burden to be shared. the other point, though, is we are very reactive. so we are responding to crisis after they become far more complicated and so much more suffering. we have actually been escalating our humanitarian and peace keeping assistance over 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 of it. the last four administrations have identified state fragility as a key security threat. yet we haven't invested and haven't organized in a way to do that kind of work more effectively. and what you see is when states become very fragile as elon said earlier they become far more vulnerable to regional and international powers getting involved and messing it up. so 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 haven't been paying enough attention because we don't have the resources and intelligence or we don't care? >> i think we haven't organized ourselves effectively to crack the code. >> why haven't we organized ourselves? does america as a government as a body politic actually care enough as a citizenry, as a nation, as a government to do that? we have the knowledge but do we care enough? >> i think we do care enough. we care enough that we are putting a lot of funding into treating the crisis, the humanitarian crisis. but, you know, it's much harder to convince people to take action before something happens. it's the dog that didn't bark. but that is where we need to turn our attention and our investment. human nature is to be preoccupied with the thing that blew up. we need to think more about getting upstream of the problems. it's an organization and a funding challenge. >> before i let elon make a comment, let's get the mic to this gentleman who rose his hand. we'll get to you for the first audience question. >> i want to echo what nancy said on how these localized problems end up effecting us and give you a specific example in syria. the conflict in syria has led to massive refugee flow into europe and into the -- less to the united states but impacted the politics in the united states certainly. you have had attacks in paris. you can directly tie it to things like brexit and to the election of right wingers across europe, sort of these populist movements and to the election of donald trump. all of these things in my opinion are starting to weaken core things for basic american security that has been the basis of how we have governed the world order since 1945 that has kept the world stable and kept us from new world wars and from major conflicts. all of this to some extent can be tied back to what has been happening in syria. it is having a very direct effect on how we are governing ourselves on a daily basis. you can draw that line very directly to donald trump's immigration policy and all kinds of things like that. >> let's dive in with audience questions for panelists. when you ask a question tell us your name, where you are from, if you are from an organization or student with a university. let's go to you and someone here had a question and then we will get to you, sir. >> thank you all very much. my name is connor clark. i am currently a counter terrorism scholar at the university of maryland. we have seen debates on the ethical and practical and strategic implications of the appropriate scale and nature of u.s. support for what are two imperfect governments. these range from the measuring effectiveness, what those metrics should be, what are the results of the appearance or reality of imposing our standards on other countries and, of course, this is often in the context of saying the alternative would be worse. i think this fits well into the earlier point about how nature is a vacuum. how some miss the most brutal dictatorship the u.s. ever supported would be stalin during world war ii. how is this paradigm of this decision making and public discourse and elite debates in washington shifted from more recent turning points such as the end of the cold war, 9/11 and soen. what trends are you seeing now that might be changing how policy makers see these decisions? >> who do you want to direct that question to? >> perhaps elon specifically. >> for the benefit of our listeners i want to make sure i understand the mainstream of your question. i went to miami. i spent my time on the beach. sounds like you are asking about the way that we think through global threats which are biggest and which are worth our time and which we'll 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 talking about? >> exactly. i'm personally more curious about the elite level. i am very interested in the popular discourse, as well. >> i think part of the problem is we have this sort of jekyll and hide issue at the elite level where we say we have to support the countries we have always supported even if they are dictatorships. at the policy level it even comes down to just history of relationships. you work with these people for years and years. you work with egypt and hosni mubarak for 30 years on negotiating various palestinian peace efforts and then democracy comes and we are like what do we do about the situation. our instinct as americans is to intervene and encourage democracy when an opportunity like that presents itself. i think maybe the best thing we can do is make up our minds and have clarity of thought. often times we found this a lot during arab spring in particular where it was just really hard and and you are trying to make a bet of if i come out against this dictator am i dealing with him for the next ten years and have i burned my relationship or is he -- this is a challenging sort of problem set for our leaders. syria is a perfect example. we came out and called for assad's removal in the summer of 2011. then we realized it is not actually going to happen. are we going to follow through to do this? we are not going to. where do you find yourself? it's a challenging question. i don't think there is any great answers to it. >> kimberly, i would like your perspective on this. >> look, stabilization which is part of the subject of this panel discussion, is in part about establishing physical security. it's in part about helping to establish governance and legitimacy. and i think that we are at risk right now as we look at syria of thinking that backing assad as a dictator is to end the violence is somehow going to be better and more stable than thinking about what we actually need to do over the long term to establish conditions for secure stable governance to return to syria and that needs to be legitimate in the eyes of the people of syria. it's not about us. it's about them. the reason i bring that up is that i think that we're at a moment where we are at risk of embracing dictatorship in favor of order when the order that a dictator like assad will create will be very temporary and it will not actually be backed by institutions that are accepted by the syrian people and will be enforced by coercion in a way that actually continues the rise of extremist insurgency against the regime. so we actually have to take the longview rather than prioritizing stability just as an end in itself. if it is only stability in a year it is not stabilization. >> let's keep going with the next question. >> thank you very much. great discussion. edward joseph national council on u.s./libya relations. i don't speak as fast as you. i was wondering if i can take the panel's view from syria to libya. joshua used a very important phrase. he mentioned moral obligation. nancy, you made a strong point about the importance of planning for the aftermath of conflict. my question for the panel about libya is -- it is for all of you. given the u.s. role in removing gadhafi and given the fact that compared to syria, libya is less violent, it is less displaced, you don't have half the country displaced and you have fewer actors acting as proxys. there are some and not the same proxy factor that you have in syria. does the panel believe that there is a place, again, moral obligation, as well, for greater u.s. engagement in libya if not leadership? currently we basically subcontracted it all to the u.n. there was a plan in place, a lot of skepticism about the plan. very interested in hearing the panel's response. >> is there a role for greater u.s. engagement. >> if not leadership. and the fact that compared to syria it is not as destroyed and perhaps hopeless a country. >> thank you for your question. while we get the mic to whoever has next question. show of hands, a greater role for the u.s. in libya? all three. what about in the audience? greater role for the u.s. in libya? hands yes? no? okay. not sure? thank you for being honest. much appreciated. nancy, why don't you go ahead? >> i think it goes well beyond moral obligation. i think there is security rationale for playing a more prominent role or to be more engaged in trying to bring libya to greater peace and stability. the melt down libya has had profound impact across in places like tunisia that share a long border, illicit goods and terrorists are shipped through the territory. there are many good reasons. it also under scores the importances of partnerships and alliances. i think we can and should be engaged but i think we can and should do so with strong partners who share our views, our values and our vision for what the pathway might look like for libya. >> i would love to jump in and just recommend a study that i had the privilege of taking place in. one of my colleagues emily estelat the critical threats project at the american enterprise institute did a very substantial study of planning for libya. and i highly commend her work on this project. it's very thorough and nuanced. you can find it at critic criticalthreats.org. >> we are speaking to kimberly kagan, elon goldenburg and nancy lindbergh. this is an american discussion on fragile states. i'm joshua johnson from 1 a on npr. >> i work at the washington office. i am a student at gw. i feel like we haven't spent enough time talking about states coming from the brink of failed statehood. i would like to get your opinion on lessons learned from intervention in colombia. >> i'm glad you asked that. we will follow with this question after we get yours answered. >> i think we have learned some very important lessons. the first is that these resolution of these kinds of conflicts take a long time. colombia had a 50-year civil war that was just recently drawn partly to a close with the peace accord of last year. that peace accord was very, very inclusive. we know that when you have more than just the guys with the guns at the table but you actually have victims of the conflict, women, people who were displaced that you have a better chance of forging a deal that will be more enduring. we also learned that the u.s. stayed engaged in colombia across three administrations with significant investment across development, diplomacy and defense which going back to the what do we need to do differently question about the u.s. government, that's the kind of work we need to do differently. where there is a clear goal aligned across the various functions of government with people, the military, diplomats and development people having a shared goal of where it is we are heading. we had greater impact. finally we had a partner. we had a partner in the government of colombia across two of their administrations. >> before we get to the next question on this side of the room from this gentleman right here, nancy, i will stick with you. we have a question sent in from president of organization in colombia working to enrich local communities by increasing access to education following off of this question here is what david wants to know. >> how can we promote greater cooperation between the united states and colombia to generate peace that considers aspects of coexistence, culture and socioeconomic factors. >> asking about creating a structural peace and how the u.s. can help colombia do so. i was particularly taken by the use of the word coexistence. what could the u.s. be doing in that regard? >> well, one of the important aspects is continuing our engagement because what we know is conclusion of peace agreement often means that a lot of work still has to follow. and in colombia we now need to implement what was agreed upon and that includes things like the land reform, the disarming of the armed rebels and enabling them to reintegrate into community, to co exist. this is a time for the u.s. to continue to stay involved and not only think about the security threat narrowly in terms of cocoa production but rather understanding that we'll be better served with our security if they fully reach a more inclusive peace. >> let's get the next question. >> my name is wes noles. i'm an associate at meridian international center. there was a discussion about borders from elon and then a talk about legitimacy of the government themselves and from ms. kagan. what about the legitimacy of the borders themselves looking back at great power actors after world war i between the united kingdom and france? how much of what we are seeing today in syria or iraq and so on and so forth is just a result of the fact that we have made some really terrible decisions in the early 20th century? >> who did you want to put that question to? >> it can go to the table, i guess. >> how about kimberly? >> i will start by saying first and foremost it's really important to recognize that our international order is based on the understanding that borders should not be revised by force but rather by instruments of the international community. and so whatever they are the united states and the international community actually have an interest, a very firm interest in making sure that those borders are not moved by force and we can go back to isis's early days operating in cross border and iraq and remember them trying to plow up the remnants of that sandy border. and recognize that however important it was to them symbolically it was nevertheless a recognized border between two states and we have an interest in preserving it. the second thing that i want to make sure that we recognize is that other than isis we actually have the syrian regime and syrian opposition trying to reestablish the map as it was, not as they would like it to be. i have always been struck with this when i spent time on the ground in iraq and afghanistan that we can't think that states like iraq or afghanistan are fictional notions but communities today, people today have a very defined notion of what their state is and it is linked to the physical borders that they have seen on their flag. >> let's get the mic for the next question. >> just to say i totally agree with kim. i think this -- if the borders were drawn differently we haven't had -- you can look at different middle east but this is the middle east that we have. not only is it syrians and iraqis, none of the outside actors are trying to redraw borders. probably the reason nobody wants to redraw borders is that it is a violent process. once we force them to show the line they will fight over it. so the way to try to address this and i think nancy brought this up earlier is any peace agreement is going to have to include essentially a very weak syrian state i think with a lot of different local actors playing a role in negotiating that outcome because they actually control a lot of what is going on at ground whether people with the guns or local governing counsels and those will have to be reflective of the views. that is sort of how you try to put humpty dumpty back together again is through decentralization while keeping the actual map of syria basically the same. >> let's see if we can't squeeze in a few more questions. >> thank you for putting on this great panel. i am a research consultant from the university of denver. we have the benefit of hind sight to see the regime trends over the last several decades. we have seen regimes such as assad benefit from this pan arab nationalist movement and now we have seen that movement come to collapse with the people under these leaders. so my question tying into the clip and elon's following comment on the separated regions of syria is are we seeing any indicators of a common grounds new development that ties any of these separate combative groups together to the point where we can see in a generation a fully unified movement? >> how about nancy? can you take that question? >> a fully unified movement across different of the groups? >> it sounds like you are asking in these states whose fragility has caused these fractures, have we seen circumstances where the fractures have mended somehow where shared interests, common bonds help bring people back together? >> in the current situation with each group pursuing a slightly varied idea logical improvement and having that drive differences even when goals happen to be identical are we seeing a movement of new common grounds ideaiology that can unite all of them or a majority to come to a peaceful resolution? >> got you. >> i love to tell you yes but i think the answer is no. i think that what you're asking is is there a sort of pan arab nationalism or other kind of sweeping movement or sweeping set of ideas or even like the little granule of an idea that could be a sweeping idea that gets all of these groups together. and i have to say i don't see it. and therefore i think that we actually need to take each group on its own terms which makes the requirements for negotiating for delivering aid, for supporting governance, for delivering humanitarian assistance really, really, really tailored. we are the united states of america. if we apply thought to how we need to tailor our assistance to different groups we can do that. >> if we go back to some of what you said at the beginning in terms of what causes states to become fragile where people fall apart, this kind of seems to weave back into your point where say a nation like the united states could be at 30,000 feet enough to either figure out a way to articulate that to everybody and say we are after the same thing or deal with them individually and not force them to walk side by side but still think, play the chess game in a smarter way, understanding what the divisions are and not force them to come up. >> i think there is an interesting example in iraq which has just gone through its third military campaign in the last 13, 14 years. and i was just there a few weeks ago. what you find is that for the first time probably is iraqis are feeling a sense that they this time were able to win the battle, that they with iraqi led fight wonover isis. there is after a lot of fragmentation and you have the curds, sunnis, shi'as and a lot of different minority groups there is a sense that they will move forward within the state confines and they are demanding a more accountable, more inclusive government. that is a shared ideology and in particular it's true for those who are under the age of 35. and what you have in these conflict countries are disproportionately young populations. what we are seeing is increasingly it is the young members of these countries who are demanding less corruption, more accountability, better services, better governance. if you want to call that an ideology that is what i see emerging in iraq and i see that as a potential to emerge down the road in syria. >> let's see if we can squeeze in one more question. go ahead. >> hi. i'm from george mason university as a graduate student. to take this to where the rubber meets the road, what are some unique programs that usip has been doing on the ground and what are ways to incorporate more young people to make a positive contribution because as younger generations are going to be the inheritance of the problems we are facing today? >> what is usip doing and what do we see as ways to engage -- any innovative programs you see particularly ways to engage younger people who will inherit these problems from their parents to help them do so successfully. >> first of all, we have a program that engages youth leaders in conflict countries around the world called generation change which is fundamentally equipping them with some of the key tools and skills and knowledge base that allows them to mediate and facilitate conflict in their own communities and states. we believe very strongly here that peace can be -- how to build peace can be learned and it is essentially very practical with skills that are often lost especially in countries that are going through sometimes generations of conflict. you lose all the ways that basic disagreements can be managed before they erupt into violence. >> kimberly? >> isw has a program whereby we train young scholars here in washington, d.c. so that they understand what war is and how the instrument works, how it needs 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 compared to what usip does. we are only 15 people so we are pretty proud of it. >> i don't have any specific programs although we have a next generation future leaders program which tries to educate policy makers on how to be more effective as they move forward. it is a central part of what we do as an institution. we like to say we are mostly about futures and not formers. from a u.s. perspective we spent less time talking about this. i think it is a lot about various tools that nancy talked about and doing things on the ground. there also does have to be a long term political willingness in this country to support dealing with these problems. that includes military. if there is one thing that we have learned from iraq experience in particular is that 150,000 troops doesn't work because there is not political support for something like that here long term in my opinion. it's not worth the cost and the effort. the american public isn't going to support it. zero seems to also put us in pretty bad places as we saw with isis. maybe we need to be thinking about long term a few thousand troops in syria and iraq to help create conditions that help support all these other things is also a big part of the solution for this. you can't be just about u.s. military but we are not able to do it without the u.s. military. i think we need to remember that. >> elon goldenburg senior fellow. kimberly kagan and nancy president of the united states institute of peace. thanks for talking to us. >> thank you. >> thanks everybody for coming. appreciate it. >> thanks, joshua. >> thank you very much. we have refreshments outside. thanks for all of your questions. >>> this sunday on 1968 america in turmoil, the presidential election of 1968 began with eight presidential candidates. by the end the sitting president bowed out. robert kennedy was assassinated. television coverage was dominated by clashes and richard nixon won a decisive victory. joining us on the program, former presidential candidate pat buchanan and barbara perry director of presidential studies at the university of virginia. watch 1968 america in turmoil live sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on washington journal and on america history tv on c-span 3. >>> congressional caucus for women's issues held a hearen ogco -- hearing on combatting sexual harassment in the hotel industries. government officials talked about what was being done at the federal level to combat and

victory. joining us on the program, former presidential candidate pat buchanan and barbara perry director of presidential studies at the university of virginia. watch 1968 america in turmoil live sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on washington journal and on america history tv on c-span 3. >>> congressional caucus for women's issues held a hearen ogco -- hearing on

nixon 1968 campaign and director at the university miller center barbara perry. american history tv in prime time begins 8:00 p.m. eastern right here c-span3. >> tonight book tv in prime time looks at the environment. >> we'll hear from book wizard and profit. in green tyranny. and manmade causes of earthquakes in her book, quake land. and the water will come. book tv all this week in prime time starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the c-span bus is traveling across the country on our 50 clap tals tour. we recently stopped in phoenix, arizona, asking folks what's the most important issue in their state. >> i stand here in support of more public school funding. arizona is last for teacher pay. and 48th for peer funding. and hurting the state's economic competitiveness. companies like amazon are passing arizona by. so it's a very important issue that needs to be fixed so that the state can be healthy and grow strong. >> hi, shawn, arizona state senator for district 18. important issue in arizona is kates education. we ranked 49th in the country for poor people schools. we need to

studies director at the university of virginia's miller center, barbara perry. american history tv in prime time begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3. >>> this afternoon on c-span is discussion with justice department officials on privacy, the law and government surveillance. it's part of the international association of privacy professionals global privacy summit. you can watch it live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >>> later today a panel on how international crime organizations use the internet and the postal system to get opioids into the u.s. we're live with the u.s. helsinki commission, also known as the commission on security and cooperation in europe starting at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >>> sunday night on q & a, high school students from around the country were in washington, d.c. for the annual united states senate youth program. we met with them at the historic may flower hotel where they shared their thoughts about government and politics. >> and i'm really passionate about daca. it is unfair that 700,000 men, women and children's lives hang in the balance bec