So kind, being so civil. Thank you for staying very close to timing and i want to thank you. Lets give them another round of applause. [applause] [inaudible conversations] heres a look at the debate courtesy of Oklahoma State university. Moderator in light of recent natural disasters how did each of you plan on updating emergency plans for oklahomas Public School system . Fallin thats a great question. We certainly want to make sure that all facilities in the state of oklahoma but especially Public Schools are safe. I just recently this week received the nra endorsement which im very proud of. Thems the support of the Second Amendment in the state of oklahoma and certainly not to make sure we do everything we can to create safe rooms are safe facilities at our schools. That is why propose School Districts to look at their local needs to be able to decide if they need to enhance their School Safety facilities and to be able to make those decisions, what they need to do in the schools. Thats something thats very important. I certainly work with our highway patrol, our Homeland Security making sure we keep the public aware of any potential threats. We certainly had a very tragic episode that happened in the state of oklahoma this week that shook us down to her very foundation. We want to do a thing we can to make sure that oklahoma is aware that whenever theres a threat that we address those concerns very quickly and they keep the public informed. I guess to get back to say we are doing everything we can to make sure we have an emergency plan in place and we certainly have initiated that. I was actually attend the governor when we had our Federal Building that was bombed back many years ago. I was there during the very difficult time in oklahomas history. I want to do everything we can to make sure we are safe as citizens to protect our Second Amendment rights. Moderator representative dorman you have 90 seconds. Dorman thank you very much. Sometimes talk is cheap on this. We need action that correspond to this. Four years ago when janet bracey took over in the state department of Education One of the programs that she eliminated right off the bat was the emergency hotline to call in for issues that might be facing your school. We saw when the council met a couple of years ago that was one of the first suggestions. Now the board and my opponent appointed has backed up all of these policies that we have seen go through the School Policies that have hurt our schools. We must see real action and real leadership that will sit down. I championed that after the School Shootings a year ago. We had a meeting in my hometown. I invited School Superintendents and School Professionals and teachers and parents from all over the state to discuss what would you do better. We almost saw a tragedy similar to what we saw in sandy hook but that was averted because students add to the right way. They reported the situation. We must encourage the students to look for these situations and work with her school administrators. I search i want to seek more resource officers in the schools. Partnerships between his abilities in the School Districts to have that mentor position, that Law Enforcement officer and schools to provide that safety and security. We must work to make sure our teachers have the right resources. We cannot continue these cuts. That was one of more than 100 debates cspan is bringing you as part of our campaign 2014 coverage. Tomorrow be continue with the montana congressional race between Democrat John lewis and republican ryan zink e. They are running for the states only seat in the house of representatives. The debate airs live tomorrow at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Cspans 2015 studentcam competition is underway. This nationwide competition will award 150 prizes totaling 100,000. Creative five to seven and back matter in the topic the three branches and you. Videos need to include cspan programming, show varying points of view and must be submitted by january 20, 2015. Go to studentcam. Org for more information. Grab a camera and get started today. In this book, before the first shots are fired retired general tony subfourteen rick argues the u. S. Should rethink its role as the worlds police and be more skeptical about using force to solve problems. This is an hour. [applause] thank you, thank you. I wanted to talk a little bit first about how the book came about. I often get accused of maybe setting the stage for events today and i guess for an author watching whats going on now having a book like this seems like perfect timing, unfortunately. I started out to write a very different book than this. I was really thinking about the way conflict goes today compared to wars and military interventions of the past. I think all of us know we talk about the greatest generation, world war ii, the good war. We were attacked and we as a nation came together. We had clear objectives. They were men like marshall and fdr and others that were in the leadership positions. And we manage to handle it in a way that seemed very satisfying and. It was the first time in our history that the winner paid reparations when you think about it. Up until that point it was unheard of. The loser had to pay for the war but when you think about the Marshall Plan in everything we did it was the winner that took our adversaries and raise them up. Germany and japan and i think in many ways that has always been our motto. When we think about committing our military thats the good work. No worse a good of course but isnt that good war in good war in the sense that it seems just. Everything we did seem to be from the perspective of the moral high ground. The leadership was in place. We had a strategy. We havent end state so these sorts of things were said and concrete as the way we would commit our military. I think what has happened since then, the korean war, the vietnam, the vietnam war iraq afghanistan somalia and other smaller. They didnt have those sorts of clean lines. The reason we went and are difficult to understand. The way the wars were handled in the decisions were made just didnt seem to fit that model. It isnt an american way of war which basically is relatively straightforward but the kinds of complex we are into now seem not to fit that. The book i started out to right write this basically oriented to the battlefield. What do the troops go through having to adjust to this click they are trained for that good war model but they find themselves now in murky commitments, no clear political objectives. They are on the ground trying to rebuild nations in strange environments. I started it from the point of view of a soldier, marine on the ground. Something im very familiar with. As i went along and did the research and the book a couple of things struck me. One was that the troops when you are out there and with him on the ground they get it. If you go down to the village level they understand whats happening on the ground. Most of them, not all of them, adjust, adapt. Its the decisions that get made somewhere else that caused the problems. The more i started to look at this somewhere else i found how far removed from the battlefield that was. All the political decisions that are made and analyses that are made before we put boots on the ground is all the decisions and political machinations that go on while the chips are out there in the midst of these kinds of conflicts. That is why i wrote the books before the first shots are fired how america can win or lose off the battlefield. Oftentimes we get our troops in a position where they are at a disadvantage before me in a military term crossed the line of departure. So i sort of switch my focus to all these things that go on and off the battlefield and before the commitment of troops, the political pieces of this, the decisions about strategy, the setting or nonsetting objectives and right now you can see whats happening in terms of what seems to be in decision, reluctance, trying to get a grasp on whats happening. We have become a nation that is transactional and reactive to crisis as opposed to having some sort of strategic design and understanding where we want to go, how we want to employ force. Secretary clinton and secretary gates has said that our Foreign Policy is over militarized. Something that might strike you made the odd that vast majority of people feel the same way. Our nation gets commit to nationbuilding emissions that are unclear. We get bogged down in mired down. We find our military personnel trying to rebuild nice entry societies into jeffersonian democracies and free market economies. We dont have the whole of government approach and this just seems to get worse and worse as we go along. The moment i decided to to shift the half that battlefield and into this part of what goes into dealing with conflicts is a statement made by then secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld. We were into iraq and things were not going well. A reporter asked rumsfeld, doesnt this look like vietnam and he bristled at that statement. He said no wars are like the last wars, no wars are like the next wars. Every war is its own in three different. I said you know i have been in the military 40 years. I see similarities. I see patterns. So that sort of triggered me to look at the patterns. What is it that you can use as a framework to examine this and look at this . First of all you can look at the reasons we intervened. We would like to thank us americans we intervened for our interests that are threatened in some way. Not so clear. The gulf of tonkin incident that didnt happen they didnt have the manufactured reasons for going to war. Back in the 20s and 30s the banana wars in the caribbean were to promote her business interests. So there are times we have gone to war for territorial Expansion Pack when we were filling out the United States so the reasons are very clear. The first part of the book talks about what i call triggering events. What are the offense . Sometimes our leadership actually creates the reason to go to war. Remember the red line in serious . We have had president s that have drawn red lines and they have had president s better articulated president ial doctrines that basically say we will fight here. Thats all well and good when you say it publicly but there are sort of the nuance of this. You sort of tell your adversary under what conditions he would fight. That adversary is the advantage is to him can create that situation to call your bluff or to force you to do something. President s need to be much more careful about red lines. I think our current president has probably learned that lesson. Sometimes we have created this situation are set the condition under which we have fought so the first part of the book deals with these areas. Its not as cut and dried. The the president our Political Leadership then says okay we have a crisis, we have a triggering event. Help me understand it. We are watching our president go do that now. Tell me about what i need to know. What are my options . Here its critically important to look at where does the advice come from . Its not as clean as the intelligence guys coming in and laying it out. I talk in the book about how different president s have handled this. Eisenhower with the solarium group. President s that have had key advisers to kissingers the brzezinskis the cheneys that dominate the advice in one way or another. President s have used again and rely on the National Security council or a handful of trusted advisers so the advice in the analysis, the intelligence which sometimes has been good and sometimes its been catastrophic in misjudging offense and how that has led us to a decision. I talk about president ial decisions in the book. Was going to the president s mind . Is there a degree of emotion . Is there Something Else that is happening in . Did this catch them by surprise or is there something beyond just the cool and cold analysis that leads to that decision and . Also a strategy that is created. Before you can decide to step onto a battlefield i can tell you this from a military generals point of view, tell me what you want me to do. I was a student at the National War College as a Lieutenant Colonel and we had a representative from Congress Come to speak to us by the name of newt gingrich. Newt said to us someday some of you will rise to higher ranks. He will be generals and your political masters are going to tell you go to this. Attacked us and intervene here. He said its critical for you to ask this question and then what . About iraq. We went and end the mission was to take out saddam. We did in three weeks. We stayed there for 10 years. Okay mr. President saddam is gone and then what . The same thing in afghanistan. Get al qaeda. We didnt Pay Attention to the mission and now ill qaeda is gone and we are standing there in the middle of afghanistan. And then what . We are still there. If you dont see this clearly through, if the political objectives are not clear, given to mission creep, the military doesnt understand what theyre supposed to do. They get bogged down in missions like nationbuilding that may be unintended in some way. Theres another part of this now that its become more critically important as we have gone on. Its what i call in the book the battle of the narrative. The nl, the enemy now has become very sophisticated. Look at isis. Look at how they handle social media, how they dominate the media. These horrific scenes of beheadings and the atrocities and genocide. A place genocide. That place a certain audience. They are recruiting just fine. There is a battle that goes on to make the case that you are right and just. Its a battle of the narrative that goes on it says to the American People i want you behind me. I call this in the book my fellow americans speech, the bully pulpit. Some of us may be old enough to remember the fireside chats. Im not, its way before my time but my father told me about them. We have had great communicators as president , people who could make the case of president s that were willing to make that decision and explain it to the American People as best he can to gain their confidence. In doing the research for the book i talk to a number of president ial advisers and i just want to talk about one example. I have had talks to us in a cabinet member that was close to president reagan during the reagan administration. Reagan with this decision to go into granada if you remember that. The beirut bombing had just occurred and of course the president was getting slammed and the Administration Administration said that or we doing in beirut with troops just sitting there . 240 summer rains and others that we lost there. The stomach and the political pressure going into a place like grenada just wasnt there. This cabinet member or the cabinet had told me the president was giving me advice. Mr. President did not go into granada. This is the worst thing you could do right now. You will never sell it to the American People and its going to be politically damaging. He told me the president turned around and said his very potential for american lives to be endangered in the Intelligence Officer that was briefing said sir there are american medical students that could be at risk. He said the decision is clear, we go in. No ifs, ands or buts of my job is to explain it to the American People. He had clear purpose in mind. However politically difficult it might be there was a higher order that went into his decisionmaking. In this case it was the rest of americans. American interest but not more than that american lives that might be a risk. This battle of the narrative now has become significant. I was doing an assessment in iraq and afghanistan for the generals out there, this is after i retired several years ago. I was amazed to see something i didnt see in my time on active duty. There were staff sections that did nothing but work the meredith, the message. We ran a communications battle now and is not just there at the operational level but at the strategic level. Its not only you versus your potential adversary. Its you versus the political opposition in your own country. Thats constantly goes on to that communication becomes extremely necessary. Now when the balloon goes up and we have to commit our military its not like you suddenly turn around and create a military. You have a military thats fair. We have a military structure. What goes into making that structure . During the cold war we pretty much could make some judgments. We know what the enemy was doing. We were an arms race. It was very expensive. Remember eisenhowers warning about the militaryindustrial complex that was growing . People often quote that speech in the first part where he said our arms must be mighty. We were in this very expensive arms race. President eisenhower was looking at a federal budget that over 50 went to defense and to National Security, over 50 which means the rest have to be split up of most other programs that were vital to our nations wellbeing. Right now its less than 15 and its actually going down. What kind of military can you afford. [inaudible question] kind of military should you have in an environment like this were like this were the threats are vague and hard to understand and difficult to protect in our intelligence community, what do you need . Where do you accept the risk . This is a difficult decision for pentagon and others. Im very critical of the process of making this decision in the book. I talk about that is not based on strategy. Its usually based on political decisions. When it goes to congress to decide on which programs to fund her not to fund its usually made on the basis of my district. The process of deciding where to take the risk and not to take the risk and what kind of military to step up and be rea ready, round number that image of Donald Rumsfeld out there in kuwait when that soldier asked him by god we have equipment here that can stand up against ieds, explosive devices. We are having to go to the junkyard and put pieces on an rumsfeld made that insensitive statement that you go to the war with the army you have which was an unsatisfactory answer. Unfortunately its true. We can adjust quickly sometimes with the natives but you have to have some structure. President , when the cold war really began at the end of world war ii we decided we need an military who could fight two wars, two major conflicts. Very expensive and engage in High Technology arms race with the russians and the soviet union and red china. The two wars were potentially red china and the soviet union. It means that we are going to rebuild afghanistan and iraq and rebuilding is very expensive and time consuming and takes a lot of research. And you can have is attempting to do something on the ground that the political well in the numbers of troops and the resources provided are not sufficient to do it. That is what happened to us in iraq and afghanistan and that operational design has to fit the strategy. If there is no strategy, then we are going to get into what is commonly called mission creep. And, you know, wars do not end the way that they would like us to end. Where we go and see is the nations capital, defeat the military forces, plant our flag and there is a clear winner. It doesnt happen that way anymore. So how does that work . You can declare victory and find yourself still mired down in the Mission Accomplished that didnt get quite accomplished. So the metrics that are used, how do we decide whether we are winning or losing or succeeding or failing that if you dont have a strategy or an operational design for strategy, thats very unclear. And how the wars end enact up another part of the book. Wars and sometimes because they create more problems. So Charlie Wilsons war, many of you many decided we will fix the soviet union and we went into afghanistan and we supported what became al qaeda and said that they will punish the soviet union and the soviet union will be thrown out of afghanistan. What can be worse than that . Well, we ended up with the taliban and al qaeda after doing that and i said to the committee when we were going into iraq but this is a wrong war in wrong place and wrong time and we have a mission for al qaeda that did us harm on 9 11 and they said i dont understand you, general, what can be worse than Saddam Hussein to well, look at what we have in iraq now. What do we have in iraq now . Saddam hussein was evil and bad and can something be more evil and wars . We are learning that lesson. So sometimes be careful what you wish for because the outcome could leave open ending up in a worse situation. In the military we are certainly not perfect but we study every single battle in every fight that we have been in and everywhere that we have been thrust into and we spent a lot of time some Lessons Learned and we want to understand what we did wrong or right and where the threat is. We spent a lot of time trying to get it right the next time. The commitment of the military comes in two parts. And there is a second process after the maneuver. Its what this will is about. Its about all of the political decisions that get wrapped around that. Now, we hold dear a principal that i subscribe to and that i would fight and die to protect. Civilians in the military. That is what we need and should have in any democracy and the decision to go into war and the decision to use the military, the authority on military should be resting with our people and expressed through our elective representatives and that is a principal that we hold dear and its critical to democracy. But there is not legation goes with that. Just like the military men and women who have to study and learn those lessons, build a career, go to school, be educated on how to prosecute on their level what goes on, where is that at the political level . Wordy president s and secretaries and congressmen and women understand what they need to do and where is the education and the Lessons Learned and less and less military experience exists at the military level and so we have a mismatch in the policy and the politics, they are not as steeped in the lessons we can learn as the military is on the ground and im informing the American People about this part of it. You can go to the bookstore and you can see the military history or you can pick up those books and you can see all that is written in all of the studies and the analysis and the history on how the fighting has gone off. You dont see many books on how the political decisionmaking process went. And its a flawed strategy. Where we have not understood the people and the culture under which we could understand what the political objectives are. Which i see from every sign all the way to the oval office come as a cousin the book. And well how we build strategies we can understand it, much of this is a lost art herriot i say, where are thou marshal is and where are the strategic thinkers that we used to have a map we find a reactive transactional society. We dont understand how to look as to what threatens us and where our interests are and where we should invest in and how we should react. So in summary, that is the book and right now, you know, i wrote this book a while back and i certainly didnt understand wed be in the situation right now where would be glaringly right in front of us but it is timely enough for us to look at this and see this process pretty clearly in front of us. And so thank you. [inaudible question] [inaudible question] well, absolutely. It used to be that that sort of thing stopped at our water line. That when our nation was threatened, we came together. And we finally found a way to Work Together and we saw this in the world wars and we saw this when we may have had, you know, a Democratic Administration and a Republican Congress as we did in world war ii. We brought together, truman, vandenberg, maybe different political perspectives, but certainly saw the need to defend the United States and promote our interests and they are able to come together. It adds to the problems that we have and its another element that we have in sort of these strategic holds. Might you consider leavening the political establishment by throwing your hat in the ring as a Vice President ial candidate. [applause] [laughter] and then second question is spoken seriously from the heart in terms of the need out there. And we all remember 2006 and the initiative to create free semieponymous regions in iraq and then all of a sudden it was plowed under. In retrospect, might we not be heading that way . And how did you see that proposal at the time and how does it look today . The first part of your question, since my parents are married, im not eligible for Political Office and i choose not to run. To be serious, i hate politics and im a political. Ive given up on both political parties. Id dont like either one and that is where i come from. On the second one, you know, this is a very important question that you can bring up. When i was a young lieutenant, my first assignment in vietnam was an advisor to the vietnamese marines. I wore the uniform and i spoke their language. I rarely saw another american. They operated well and when we were in areas in villages we moved in with the people. So i really got to the war from the start of the people. And i mentioned this vignette in the book. I was in one village and i was living with the village chief and his wife kindly prepared a meal. She came to me and said that, what do you want me to die for . What you want us to die for. And i thought it was such a strange question and she said why are you here and she asked about this. And we said we are going to have market economy and this is going to be great. And she pointed to saigon and said, how can i believe that when i look at what is in saigon . If you can remember, if you are old enough, rotating generals, where they are fighting and dying. One corrupt general is taking over the government and so and why dont we accept a hamid karzai in afghanistan. That becomes us and that identifies us. So to kind of get to your point, and we walked walk in and tell you how its going to be and then give you something you cant live and die for. And so this dictates how a country can be structured. Saying that you need to split it up. Well, do you . Do we know enough about that two what does he know about iraq . They may end up that the country does get split up, but eventually that has to be something where we empower the people to make those decisions and we ought not stand for corrupt governments, not if we are going to give our treasure the men and women in uniform out there to protect them and we sort of lost that standard, that is what bothers me and i think that you can offer creative alternatives to government. It may be that iraq looks like the United Arab Emirates and theres an emirate in the south and one that is that the sunni area and they come together in some looseleaf pitted federal system. But i think that they can create options to live with. But to dictate from washington that our solutions are the problem and to accept corruption, it is not the way to go without it. Putting it into perspective today, for us to understand that our friends seem to be somewhat of our enemies, like we are now aligning with the sheer lack and the rebels. And we are now changing with iran and iraq than our enemies seem to be somewhat our friends, if you were sitting and if you were obama, how would you explain this . Let me give you something in principle and then go to those specific points because i do not think that we should be cooperating with Bashar Alassad and we may have a common enemy, but that doesnt mean that we necessarily need to be in bed together. Thats part of the complexity of the situation we find ourselves in. But let me Say Something about enemies. He had a lot of enemies that are now our closest allies the first hundred years of art existence, our greatest enemy was Great Britain and now they are our greatest ally. And although i do not think that that will happen with the example for Bashar Alassad in iran because these other potential enemies have transformed them into something that is more in tune to our government style and concept of government. So its made it easier for us to cooperate. You will find yourself in this position now, look at this position . I will tell you that i was with a couple of friends from the middle east, when we were about to go into iraq after 9 11. President bush is making the case for war and he was saying something to the effect that this is a conflict that will be about the forces of read him of democracy and against the forces of authoritarianism and leadership. Saddam hussein. One friend of mine nudged me and said this will be a valid kurz versus era and you are unleashing something that we have tried to keep him down for a long time and this is a double that your going to unleash. The other friend said that this is about sunnis versus shiites and you are about to start a religious war when you do this. Now, all three are right, president bush was right and each of those people on either side was right. So did the president understand those two levels . When we say that we are partnered with assad, the al whites are supposed to align with shia but isis is a radical shiite movement, some of them are sunnis that wouldve opposed the regime in baghdad that would be more aligned and so what you are saying is that when you start peeling the onion back, you now find more complexities and a religious element and an ethnic element and becomes a much tougher effort in this environment. [inaudible question] and what is the deal with isis . I am trying to understand what hes trying to say. He didnt have a strategy. And what bothers me about that as there should be a middle east strategy and a strategy for syria and iraq and isis mightve been a wild target that they didnt expect that they had to fit an overall strategy if it meant that he didnt have a military plan were immediately responding to this, then that is not a strategy. That is an operational plan. So either he didnt have a strategy or he doesnt understand what strategy it is. Either way, im troubled by the comments and it is yet to be explained and the strategy is not just a military action but how you employ diplomacy and your power of information and influence and economic power and it encompasses all of the elements of government in power and the building of coalitions and the forming of helping governance change social problems that might help you succeed. And in addition to a military, that is just one part of it and thats not a strategy in and of itself. Yes, sir . [inaudible] sir, i think that we need more of the people that we need and we need more captain ripleys and cross fries and you are right that for conventional war you can train people in 90 to 180 days and you can get very good soldiers to have a small war and im sure youve read this in the marine corps manual. And it takes the language changing and the training taking about nine months and then about six months of practice and youre talking about four to five years that captain ripley stated to me that he had to fight tooth and nail to get him to train and he said how could he tell without that training or speaking the language and how can he tell the world marines to go in and commit suicide and give them time to blow that bridge . He couldnt have. My question is that we should have essentially a small more and a thousand bands, a million captain hoffmans and we should create this following the small wars manual and so i would like your comments. I have mentioned a lot of things and i know that you were in the same position as captain ripley. What you just said is we are going to confront and of course this is on the cold war, we are going to confront communism in a different way because the unthinkable could lead to a nuclear war and thats not going to be on the table. We sought to keep our power drive, but we have to engage daytoday on these communist inspired insurgencies. So he wanted to create a force that specialized in this and that had Language Training and he did. Special forces grown larger and two special Operations Forces or all of them commit to this and each of them have special operations. And the special forces themselves are organized into groups that specialize on parts of the world where they have the Language Training and they work day today and the specialized in that low intensity conflict that you talk about. In addition to that we created a whole another part to those who go to school to learn about the culture and the language throughout and when we first created them we had a problem. They couldnt get promoted because these were artillery officers and others that chose this as a second course and we found themselves not competitive for promotion. Many of those i commended as Central Command and we really took on the services to say that these are valuable people and we have to have a promotion track. That has changed because they are successful in their own rights and able to rise through the ranks and you are right on with what you say and we have built into our system and psychological operations of special forces and special Operations Forces and all of these commit to this and this reflects the times today but then what we have learned in iraq and afghanistan. Do you and others play chess . If so, are there any strategies that could be applicable in a political military content enact i was asked today what is my proudest achievements and i said i never learned to play golf. And probably a number the mid80s, we began to rise in popularity on many dimensions, things such as tabletop games and terrain models to very sophisticated computerbased games and we have even mixed field exercise in computerbased and others in major ways and we tested our war plans through these systems as well. Each of the services then combined in this capability, its an elaborate computerbased aiming system filled with a lot of data to get in the the capabilities that we have and the potential enemies that we have. And after vietnam we were building the force and rehabilitating the military, one of the things that we felt strongly about is that we had lost the emphasis on us and we were not measuring success of our leaders and the officers and ncos and we become great administrators and each of the services had created these tests, if you will. You are allowed to make mistakes and you can challenge yourself in this and everyone will be evaluated and that doesnt mean that there are times that you can drive things and we sort of had a renaissance in this and talking about maneuver warfare and more so than we had in the past and it was something that was sort of a regeneration of understanding what our professional wars are all about. So the answer to that question is yes. We did. I left it and it was thrown out by the Political Leadership because they said i will quote Donald Rumsfeld. This was a war plan time and time again, adjusted every year, approved by the joint chiefs of staff, and it required 380,000 troops. Why . Because we knew we had to seal the borders and you had to control the population as he rolled back the regime and if you didnt seal the borders, all kinds of crazies would come over. And you have brilliant civilians with that analysis and intelligence gave us and it will be a liberation. A cakewalk. We can do this with 100 30,000 troops. And those flowers were ak47s. If you were advising president obama about isis, what would that advice be . To give you the strategic framework, you have to drive isis out of a rock. If the airstrikes supported this, i was with them was desert storm and they need military support and military women and we are going to have to change that Security Assistance program because obviously we were devastated by the attacks. But whatever it takes, even if it takes us putting boots on the ground remember the last that desert storm . Where all the troops were on the ground and we have very few casualties . We played to our hand with overwhelming force and it is something that you hit them with a sorcerer hunters. The second thing is build up the Iraqi Military and what it would take in the support that is necessary and the third thing is the new government in iraq. This government, we had to put political pressure on and they have to be more inclusive. And the only way you will get them to stand up and fight is that they feel that they have something to fight for and tell me what im supposed to die for. The next thing you have to do is part of it. Why are we not at the u. N. Getting a resolution for the authorization of the use of voice . This allows us to build coalitions and george bush, before he went to kuwait to knock out Saddam Hussein, which we could have done on our own, james baker bill to support. We work sidebyside and we built another coalition with the british and the french and even the japanese and others he contributed two. All because we have that International Legitimacy of u. N. Resolution and if its necessary to strike into syria, i would do that as well. So these are the pieces that need to come about in the short term. You have to have something to fight for. If you look back at capital one is the a corrupt government that isnt responsive to the needs of their ethnic group or religious group, why are they going to fight despite all the training and equipment that you give them . The key to make this happen, why do they fight for america . Is a constitution and their something that we fight for and a way of life. And they have an ideology however corrupt and distorted. Yes, maam. Im interested in your comments on the war between israelis and the palestinians the just ended for the time being. I think that what has happened here is many ways you can come at it. We have signed on to be the mediator here. And we cant is given nine months as we just saw not long ago. And this requires working groups on the ground. The issues are called the final status issues like the status of jerusalem, and many others and all sorts of issues. Each of these requires extras from both sides and mediators and others to work out the details. The agreements that we have had in principle and the ones that have come about where everybody signed up to them, the people on both sides said what did that look like on the ground and what is now being . Weve never done the details. We have a quartet that works this and there is a big absence on it. The arab league should be involved because theyre going to have to sign up beyond just the russians and the European Union and the u. S. We need to open up multiple channels of communication and a private channel in a formal channel and an unofficial channel to float ideas. When we would offer ideas and think creatively about these situations, i found that that was politically difficult for the political leaders to even explore that in so what we do is you bring in retired academics and government officials and military and people say that that would be accessible. That we could live with that and im talking about a major restructuring over a considerable amount of time in the way that we mediate and bring these parties together. That needs to be done and this pick a big celebrity figure having them go out there and this is too complicated and i cannot mediate for your answer. And you are here and its a fact of life herriot nobodys going anywhere and they try to work it out. I have spent an entire day with them and i was sitting with them if they were sitting in a floor like this and they were asking me questions like this and finally one girl say if we kids can figure it out, why cant the adult map which was really hitting home to me and gave me this sort of focus that the focus is on the future and not on the past. Because of you focus on the