It is rolling along in the tk is dependent end on it. It seems to me bundling as we saw with the program produced for a long time more efficiency and hospital. Any way you can force the institution to think about how to be efficient at lower cost should be productive. In the long run i would be optimistic. I think Accountable Care organizations the latest study i saw yesterday said that the Accountable Care organizations were management to hit the quality indexes but they werent getting any shared savings in. So hasnt proofed out yet to be a move in term of the particular model of efficiency. I think it will be. Thank you. I think with that we will draw that to a close. It is time eat, drink, and look at hard copies of the book. Thank you for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] book tv is on facebook. Like us to interact with book tv guests and viewers. Watch videos, and get uptodate information on events. Facebook. Com book tv. [applause] [applause] well, good evening, everybody. Thank you for both the warm hand and your presence here on a cold evening. I was to introduce the three of us as the brothers. [laughter] this being chicago we figured its not a good idea. Somebody might take it seriously. [laughter] but job likes it. [laughter] its nice to begin with a little bit of a lighthearted comment, and i hope to remember at the end to make another lighthearted comment, maybe. But because Everything Else in between is not lighthearted at all. Weve all been following the syria crisis from three years ago when it started out as a peaceful uprising to a civil war, to a regional war, and finally, i think, to a fullblown genocide. The i dont know, i dont use that word lightly. But i dont know what else to call it. When a Government Armed to the teeth is throwing everything it has at most of its population. The civilian population primarily. Yes, there are groups fighting the government now, and that is primarily due to the way the government dealt with the unarmed protesters at the beginning. Three years ago. The u. N. Has stopped counting dead bodies at 125,000, and it is partly because there is t not an easy task when youre not on the ground and highrise buildings are falling to count how many are dying. So and partly, im sure, because it is after a certain number to keep counting. By my own estimate, i think were probably at 150,000 deaths right now. By way of comparison, it took the lebanese 15 years of bloody civil war to get to that number of dead people. Its taken his killing machine three years. Now, not just my estimate, but many other analysts who look at this project if nothing happens, no super power intervenes to do something serious about stopping this war. It could easily go on for another ten years. So take this 150,000 and multiply it and you dot math and tell me is it genocide or this is not genocide. Now, i am stunned, personally, im tired of writing about the u. S. National interest. I started three years ago in government and now out of government saying it is in the u. S. National interest to do something in syria. I put aside the humanitarian argument because you cant convince people to dot right thing. You can convince them to do what is in their interest to do. Apparently, i failed and others have failed on both counts. But the humanitarian one, it gets to a point where you cant ignore it anymore. , i mean, what does it say about us when we have seen we have looked a the the holocaust. We have study the holocaust. There are all kinds of programs to make sure it doesnt happen again. You have 9 11, all of us remember it. You know, two buildings dropped to the ground and 3,000 people died. Imagine if what happened in 9 11 is happening every day, not just that once. It happens once in the u and none of us can forget it. The bombs that are being dropped by the Syrian Government on highrise buildings on homes right now and other places in syria. Imagine if you are sitting in chicago in the nice highrise building and the bombs are dropping on them every day, every day. This is what the citizens of syria are living through. What kind of a world do we live in that we dont the world doesnt fall over itself to stop the mas consider from continuing . I think ive said enough, but i need to get this off my chest, and i hope this stimulates the discussion here and one thing i would like to start with when something is in the National Interest to be done. It is do able without a huge inestment, by the way, it is the right thing to do. It still doesnt get done. What is the problem . This is exactly why our book is tighted the syria dilemma. We dont see a clearcut, blackandwhite answer to the nightmare. It really is a nightmare along the lines youve described. Were talking about suffering on such a mass scale in syria that is only getting worse. One of the irony of the impasse at the end of august and Early September in the after math of the chemical weapons. Com. Much stronger from what seems like a crisis. He emerged as a much more formidable player on the agree yo political stage. The killing has actually increased the violence has deepened. Since late august, Early September, with no end insighted. Were now in a situation where i would only add to the list that you shared. The mass starvation going on in sir yap. The unh unh is nowest mating that possibly as many as 800,000 syrians are currently living in the starvation seeings nap is to say the bee besieged areas. Humanitarian aid workers cannot get in to deliver food and medicine that are needed. People are on the brink of starvation. Children are dying of malnutrition. People are literally eating grass, weeds, and roots. The New York Times today quoted one gentleman in, i believe, in one of the bee be sieged areas is saying on a good day we might have a few olives or a spoon full of bulgur. Many people have already died under these sieges starved to death. As many as 800,000 could be on the brink of starvation. They cant get out. And humanitarian aid workers cant get in with food and medicine. In addition to the starvation you have the outbreak of polio. After polio was essentially eradicated. It changed civilized war. What is happening. And what is to be done . These areas are besieged. They are sound surrounded mostly by asads forces. My own view is we might not be able, after three years of this agree db tries to do. If you look at the one crisis where civilian civilians are unarmed noncombatant and dying. They are starving to death. What can be done to get food and medicine in to those . The big news is the first buses that left had oil people on them. And then the next ones had maybe 2 to 300 people being let out. Its from several thousand inspect is just the tip of the iceberg, isnt it . It is the worst part in a way, because of the starvation and the way these people are under siege. Again the u. N. Figures 6 million internally they are living sometimes in other areas. Sometimes under shelter. Sometimes out in the open. And thats the bigger problem in a humanitarian way. That is still coming down the plank. Back to the original question. Mentioned a bit that he emerged stronger after it began and the u. S. First called up and pulled it back. Is asad a factor here in why the u. S. Doesnt do anything by way of a bold action to get it [inaudible] no, i would argue. I think the main reason why the united has not gotten involved is because of iraq. We are a warweary country after iraq, after afghanistan, anyone who thinks of another u. S. Military engagement in the middle east sort of looks at that possible scenario through the prism of iraq. Thats completely understandable. Weve had debate in this country primarily at the end of august or Early September what should be done about syria after the chemical weapons attack. It looked like obama wanted to get involved. There are many people who argue that, look, you know, syria as tragic as the human rights scats catastrophe feeforservice our heart bleeds for human suffering. I have news. Syria is a matter of u. S. National security. Its not my assessment. Leaving aside the fact its destablizing lebanon, jordon, iraq, the europeans are deeply concerned about syria. Because syria now is a National Security, you know, crisis for the europeans. According to some report about 1200 angry marginalized muslim men who have traveled to syria to join various malicious groups. What happens they return. James clapper released a statement saying there are 7,000 foreign fighters in syria. 50 different countries. He stated that syria now is National Security crisis for the country. The secretary of Homeland Security made a statement on friday. Those people who argued that syria is really a conflict over there. It doesnt affect us. The syrian conflict had ripple effects all the way to Southeast Asia and indonesia. In the New York Times saying a similar processes sort of leading to huge security concerns. Its a lesson we, you know, should have learned. As a result of 9 11 fop sort of ignore countries far away. Thinking they dont affect us and we can just, you know, turn away. Im referring to afghanistan back then. Thats wishful thinking. Syria, today, is the new afghanistan. Dont take my word for it. Listen to what James Clapper is saying. Syria now is becoming a crisis for the word. U. S. Interests are definitely implicated in term of the impact, the spillover of syria on regional friends and allies of the u. S. It is also been determined by president obama early on that helping the transition toward the democracy in the region is in the u. S. National interest. Its not just the right thing to do. So that also is there. But danny, when people say it doesnt reach u. S. Shores in any way is that correct . When we talk about the region of friend and allies. Thats incorrect. When we talk about the democracy its debatable. People will tell you its not democracy. Is it true that this doesnt reach u. S. Shores at all . Thats debatable and being debated. But i think what is interesting is what conclusions is one to dpraw from the picture that he drew. This picture that our intelligence agencies are paying more and more attention to the alqaeda. For example, ambassador ryan crocker draws the conclusion that precisely because of this whats he forgetting when he says that . No one knows more than you do, bill. I think you wrote very effective takedown of the statement in the los angeles times. The during war when still had troops in iraq. Bashar had his own wing of alqaeda inside syria. That were facilitating foreign fighters going in to iraq. These foreign fighters coming from yemen, from pakistan, from afghanistan were going from syria in to iraq and killing u. S. Soldiers. When we told the Syrian Government this is happening, and we named names and say arrest these people. They said dont worry its our way of infiltrating and keeping them under control. When we knew of certain certain things that were going to happen. Attack of the as a result of the people that supposedly the Syrian Government controlled and they wouldnt do anything about it at one point secret raid in to syria now all over the media. Got all over the media right after, in fact. It was a raid by u. S. Forces in to syria to kill this guy. You can find it in wikipedia and places like that. That is because we knee exactly what he was up to. We told the syrians and the syrians wouldnt do anything about it. So this was a case where american lives were districtly touched by bashar links to alqaeda and sponsoring certain branches of alqaeda. There are now reports that the regime is coordinating directly with alqaeda forces in syria in their battles against the Free Syrian Army. Rein a situation where theres a threeway war. Its no long aerotwosided con thrict between the asad regime and the rebel. Theres no such thing as the rebels as such anymore. It is now a threeway war in effect. With asad and his killing machine in one corner the Free Syrian Army loosely speaking in another and now the third force, which is the forces and there are many shades of the alqaeda and various mill who sometimes fight each other. Its not just a distinction to be drawn on paper. There are shooting battles between Free Syrian Army maliciouses and the alqaeda forces. Now we dont know theres no smoking gun im aware of pointing to district coordination. We might discover soon there is. Those are the claims that they are making. What we know is objectively whether its a dream scenario to have alqaeda rising in influence fighting battling it out with the original democratically minded forces within the syrian opposition. It is actually more than just ak accusation by the when you had your own deeply embedded and it workedf years. It doesnt go away just like that. It has to still be there operating. Smoking gun or not depends on who is looking and where theyre looking. Theres a deeper political point that has been lost in the conversation about the rise of political extremism in syria manifested in alqaeda. And thats the point that, you know, alqaeda didnt e america from a vacuum in syria. There is a deep and intimate connection between the failure political democratization process and the rise of political extremism. The relationship is inverse of proportion. Theres a case study in the first year which was peaceful and nonviolent. There was no alqaeda or presence. But as a result of, you know, policy choices that were made by the International Community to effectively abandoned Syrian People and leave them at the mercy of the asad regime this conflict has gotten out of hand. Theres no opportunity, theres no hope, prospect for meaningful political change. And so were predictably seeing the rise of various islamist groups. Some moderate. Some extremists. It was completely predictable from the beginning this would happen. Had there been a serious chance to shift the conflict in the direction of a political resolution. A transition to political power. I would argue that the prospect of alqaeda coming if. Wouldnt destroy it. It would be diminished. The relationship has to be, i think, remembered by people. We shouldnt simply have a conversation about alqaeda. As something in the dna of people of syria. It is happening because of political circumstances and choices made by the factors. The saying okay its not just alqaeda. There are different groups. Different shades, et. Cetera, of extremism. What is the situation on the ground . , i mean, who is fighting whom there . And how is the fight going . Well, it is extremely complex, and it is a mess. But i think, actually, the increasingly confrontational nature of this double sort of battle going on. The fact you have actual shooting battles between ultra islamists factions. Some associated with alqaeda and the Free Syrian Army brings enormous clarity and give the lie to the claims that you hear rather cavalierly these days. The common view emerging nap well, you know, the International Community cant do anything because if asad falls al qaeda takes over. Its the ryancrocker view. Its the regime view. Its been the asad regime narrative from day one. It was entirely false. It was a nonviolent, non nonsectarian, broadly democratic uprising that represented a real Cross Section of syrian society. I mean, you look at those original seven to eight months of the uprising. There were many christians involved in the protests. There were al wits, there were curds, there were secularists. That has now asad, at that time was saying from day one this is an extremist, alqaeda foreign conspiracy. It was wrong then, but he intentionally made it less wrong every day. Partly by opening his jails and letting some of the islamists he had behind bars out on to the streets. Who arent all in jail either. Thats right. But the vacuum that he described. The blood bath, okay, it was a completely oneway. Now were in a threeway war. For awhile it was a twoway war. In the first eight months it was a oneway war. It was a nonviolent protest movement being fired upon with live ammunition, with bombing of sniper fierl. It was a one way of violence that, i think, lead toot arming of the revolution. I think to get back to your question. It is a complicated situation on the ground. The only silver lining, perhaps, theres more clarity now. I dont think you can say that the entire Rebel Movement has been islamized or taken over by alqaeda when you have have shooting balings going on between nonislammists, nonalqaeda forces and the other forces. Its very clear that there is a major war of position taking place between these factions. Ic it matters who wins and who has the upper hand. Is there any credibility to saying oh my god, al qaeda could take over syria and you have a syria ruled by alqaeda. There any credibility at all . I think thats exaggerated. We have to realize theyre still on the extreme end. They are getting a lot of funding. They are sort of fierceless fighters. They may be able to hold a particular town. But of course they can do that. Theres no force opposing them to quick them out. The scenario danny mentioned. It happen today in the syrian town theres a rival clashes a group of militia organized against alqaeda organized and pushed them out of town. Thats without any support. Manage who could happen if there was serious credible backing of the more mod rate element of the in the Free Syrian Army. I think they could sort of turn this war around. And not overnight but i think the recent event i referenced suggest theres room for optimism. Because they [inaudible] they dont have the infrastructure to form a government so the way they control the streets is through brut force and harsh values. Absolutely. They are unrepresentativive of the syrian struggle. They are influential. Because theyre better funded, frankly with their private foundations sources in the gulf. Which is a huge issue. I think it needs more attention. And they get more attention because they have an ability to produce spectacular events on the ground. But i think at the end of the day, the number of people who support alqaeda factions in syria versus the number of people who would support a, you know, the Free Syrian Army right now or a democratic transition in syria that does not involve alqaeda is enormous. But that is, you know, it remains this leaves a very big practical problem. Which is what if, lets say, asad were toppled either from within or without. If assad to go without tomorrow and the nonalqaeda affiliated factions. It could going on for a long time. You have all the syrian activists talk about having a program to get rid of the foreign fighters. How does one dislodge them . They have set up shop in a way that is rather more formidable. The longer it drags on the more complicated it is to bring about a solution and, you know, patch it back together. At least promote stable disaition planning. It gets more complicated. If there is an agreement on the transition of government that represents the different factions in syria its a good quo. I think one of the qee elements in a peace plan not a Transitional Government. There has to be a security plan in place as well. We dont want to see, you know, further chaos. Particularly one of the legitimate concerns. There are minority groups that deserve protection. That has to be built in to. Thats why i personally as much as i support the intervention to turn the tide of the war. Weve been talking about. Its not simply enough. Its not a question of launching missile strike and taking out the air force. I welcome. There has to be a package deal in place that is partly military nap also calls for, you know, respect and protection of minority rights but a stable disaition plan and plan for economic reconstruction. Then it started to get out of control. There are people who know the story better than i do. Finally after three years, you know, clinton decided to get involved and to his credit, you know, no one is dying in bosnia today. Its far from a perfect situation. One can look back and i personally have a lot of criticism of the plan. One of the good things that happened because of u. S. Leadership was that part of the world was turned around. The plan put in place was a political solution involved military but a political arrangement none will happen unless there is leadership. Leadership that can only come from the country. The worse part the worse group among the extremist is the isis an this is more than 90 come composed of foreign fighters. If at least you get the syrians to agree on a Transitional Government and steps toward, they can deal with the foreigners among them. Its a big security challenge, but then once they are unified and agreed on a move forward, they can take care of isis. The latest news is already that it is falling back from some of the areas which the yeah. They benefit from the chaos and the insecurity that is, you know, characterizing syria. Once theres an alternative in place. I think they will be isolated. We have covered a lot of humanitarian and political issues here. Why dont we use the rest of our time so the audience can entrepreneur in and tell us what is on their mind. As for usual. Wait for me to recognize you. My colleagues are here with mics. Well try to get as many as can. Let take the other hypothetical. The successful mediation. Its address to the three of you. If each of you were in a position to do something to prevent the humanitarian disaster happening. What would you do at this point . Okay. Danny. Why dont you take that . Its the topic of the awe bet we center in the New York Times. My own view those were the hope of the early days. It is receding from hishessen. It wasnt discussed in agree knee have a. I think this is why my own focus has shifted now to maybe a more manageable peace of piece of the nightmare. Our own proposal we lay out. The resolution would stipulate that the besieged area. The sieges that are now starving hundred of thousand of syrians to death must be lifted. Would be districted not only to the forces but any armed actors who interfere with the delivery of humanitarian aid, block food and medicine from getting to the starving civilians. And very unwilling to push the syrians to agree to any of it. They blocked it might have to happen and what happens and we argue it is time to rethink the responsibility to protect doctrine. Which is technically illegal but ethically and in the eye of the world. We cant think of a good counter argument to this, i mean, tactically as one thing. But ethically what is the argument against allowing them in with food and medicine. Should it have the sovereign right to starve people to death . We argue no. Even if you cant get the legal architecture together for a u. N. Security counsel resolution. Theres a higher principle at stake here. And that asad should not be allowed. For that matter any rebel malicious who stops them from going in. We are arguing for the use of force. We believe the mere threat of force, by the way, could be enough to make asad back off as we saw in late august, Early September. Obamas proposed strike he scrambled quickly. He was too eager when the russians proposed the deal to hand over the chemicals weapons he claimed he didnt have. I dont have them. Here they are. Right there. You are raising the hope that something will happen and how great syrian cause it is. But nothing will happen. Excuse me, it is not an irony to see aside taken the chemical weapon. Hes empowered to do [inaudible] the chemical weapons. So really it was a trap we fell in. We dont want to do anything. Aside let me ask you to get to the question. The question is asad assad is the man who is doing all the killing. Assad is behind assad is russia and the United Nation. You dont want to do anything to stop the russian then go to the United Nation and bomb him. If i understood it correctly that eventually we are going go and bomb syria the way we are planning. I think you raise an important issue. Just to bring back we have written its coming out tomorrow. Its deal with the symptom of the conflict not the cause. As you correctly pointed out. The the root cause of the conflict is the fact that it is syria. One family has been empowered for 44 years presiding over a police state. People rose up he crushed them brutally. The world stood aside and the conflict shifted to a military direction. You have to deal with root causes. Im skeptical of the process. One of the good things about the process at the core, the key element in the communique is the core of the process has to discuss and resolve around a transition to a post asad syria. A Transitional Government with executive authority. Theres, you know, other element to the that are problematic. Focusing the cfght how do we get to a Transitional Government is a right way to go. The problem is assad is has no incentive to come and negotiate anything. Why would he come and negotiate it unless hes forced and pressured to do so. Which is why i think we have to change the bailgt field condition. What we should have done a long time ago is still on the table and matters. We need to a send a message that we have a stake in conflict. We need to put our cards on the table and back the moderate element of the syrian opposition. We need to provide with greater support to change the equation on the ground. I think assad will be more willing to negotiate. As long as he stays in power, we are going have a scenario where the conflict is going to continue. And assad is not someone who is able or willing, in my view, to negotiate anything. Because basically, you know, presiding over a criminal surprise. Speaking of negotiating. We have failed and the russians have failed to convince the assad regime of these humanitarian minimal steps you have been talking about. Get the people out of dangerous. Get foods, et. Cetera. One problem, if you look at the diplomatic end. We are using the russians the key player with syria and bashar. We are talking to iran but talking about Nuclear Weapons. We should be talking about changing their behavior and bashars behavior on the ground. Thats the problem with our democracy with our negotiation. Iran wasnt even invited. Theyre not being talked to about things they can influence. Let me go right here. The guy in the striped sweater there. Hes been patient. Right there. Right there. Right to the right. You mentioned the use of force may have to be necessary in the syrian conflict. Why would you say here at home theres this what i think, is an unfortunate held perception that it will just become another iraq. The it is not iraq. He said in his conversations with diplomats in washington with policymakers he finds that there is a sort of shadow boxing going on in the room. The shadows of rwanda and bosnia on one side boxing with the shadows of afghanistan and iraq on the other hand i think we quote back in the introduction to the book. I think thats an evocative image and i think its exactly whats going on with respect to syria today. I would just say that the differences between iraq and syria are vast. Incorporated of it this way and im sure there are people in this room with very different positions on the iraq war and whether it should have happened but lets put it this way. In the case of iraq, as rural as Saddam Hussein was, mass murder, at the time the invasion was proposed in late 2002, 2003 there was no ongoing realtime unfolding genocide or mass atrocities in iraq. There was a brutal state but it was not a and unfolding humanitarian crisis and the case was engineered and fabricatefabricated and in some would argue rather deceptively. We dont need to relitigatrelitigat e what happened that got us into iraq but just compare that to syria. In syria you have exactly the opposite. You have the worst humanitarian catastrophe in recent history. You have over 100,000 people dead and more dying every day and yet there is no intervention. Some would argue that we have actually over learned the lessons of iraq. I would argue the people of syria are paying dearly and tragically for the catastrophe that was the iraq war. Very quickly because this is an important point that comes up all the time. Its a fundamental analytical error to say we have two options. There are dozens of other options that can be used i can make a qualitative difference in shifting the tide of this war. One of them as we can armed the moderate Syrian Rebels with air cover or we can simply use our diplomatic skills and a much more meaningful way. If obama were example tomorrow to appoint a highlevel ambassadors sent him to the highlevel capitals and use the threat of force to say we are not going to stand aside and to this conflict unravel and were going to do it by mobilizing the war that would start things rolling. This argument that iraq is a thing completely distorting. If we get involved in syria means we have to go in with 200,000 troops and go through it we just experienced in the middle east. There are many other options we need to discuss. There is a gentleman right in the middle of the room there. Hi good evening. I am from harvard college. My question was just could you go a little bit more into the sect carrion elements. If it is perhaps genocidal or at least a lot of mass killings what might be the goal. Is the goal to eliminate or remove from the country and not for the sunnis and other folks of the owl weeds alawites become a bargaining chip for peace or i would love to hear your views . With a sense of history minority groups and majority groups in the middle middle east have gotten along broadly speaking quite well. They havent always been at each others throats. Its happening at a particular point in time for political reasons. I think we need to focus on the political political reasons have went want to understand the sectarianism and minority rights. Any solution i think to a future syria has do you know has to revolve around some accommodation where minority rights are protected and effectively protected by a sustained Security System and the only way, the only lesson in history i think that we learned is syria is not the first country that the struggle with this question of how the minorities gain protection in a Majority Society . Roughly speaking the lesson in history that it is through a serious process of democratization and constitutional process that protects minority rights that minorities finally are able to gain protection. They have to be part of the conversation and sit at the table but if this is what youre suggesting to create some kind of alawites date or removing people are population transfer i dont think thats going to work with the political problems. Assad to his credit has been seriously manipulating sectarian sentiment. There was this great line that i read that assad is performing the role of both the arsonist and the firemen. When its to his advantage he is manipulating sentiment and then he is acting as the protector. There is no longterm solution for syria and particularly for the minorities and the alawites wall that regime is in power. It has to go away. It has to be removed. Of course theres a lot of complicated legal questions that have to be answered in terms of what do you do with the fall of that when the regime falls in the interim process do you get someone better . That is a difficult period am minorities have a lot of legitimate stress but that has to be part of the negotiation in the conversation. Danny or nader what do you make of the argument of those who are saying that there may have been a time very early on where u. S. Involvement could have made a difference and maybe there was a window where we could have shifted it but for all the reasons you talk about this has gotten into no good outcomes. The u. S. Has a particularly good track record of getting involved in these conflicts and solving them to our liking if you will. And especially given where we are now after iraq and afghanistan. Their lessons from libya and lessons from iraq that goes back to where it started as long as the u. S. Is there so what do you make of we are where we are now. There are many who are looking for a fight against the u. S. And looking for this opportunity for the u. S. To get involved. What are these kind of interim solutions that you are advocating that will allow us to extricate ourselves and the Syrian People from this horror that they are and . Well those are good questions i would argue that we are in this situation because we havent gotten involved in the right way. Its not a question of getting involved are not getting involved. Its a question of whether we get involved. The syrians were asking for a nofly zone. We wouldnt be here today. There are risks. There is no guarantee here that if the United States gets in in a serious way by providing arms that its all going to work out the way that we want it to to. There will be challenges but i would argue all Things Considered the current policy of sitting back watching syria burned and not doing anything seriously as having huge consequences obviously for the Syrian People and now for our own National Security. I think the conversation needs to change. There was a report leaked last week and its off the record. Apparently senator kerry will is one of the architects of the syrian policy in a conversation with some of his colleagues in the senate readily admitted that the policies basically failed. The chemical weapons have not been moved out in any significant way and al qaeda is getting stronger. According to this private recorded conversation written about in the New York Times he is arguing for arming the moderate opposition and not allowing this process to take a different track and that is from one of the architects of the current policy himself. So i mean you know id knowledge there are big challenges here at there are also challenges and risks of not getting involved. I would add to that very quickly rachel i basically agree that the time for a big intervention to topple the regime is gone. That would have been in the first, in that first nine months of the uprising when it was peaceful and democratic. In the first few months of the Armed Conflict before the jihadis came in before al qaeda was so pervasive on the ground. I think that was a much riper moment and certainly it would have been the time to intervene. Thats why my own arguments have gone from the big picture to the much more microinterventions focused on specifically helping civilians. The First Six Months when it was peaceful and the next six months when it was primarily the Free Syria Army that was operating and there were options on the table, no boots on the ground clever ways of doing things but we wasted a lot of time debunking the opposition saying they are disorganized, they are not good, they are thie minimal options we failed to take when we could have taken them. After that it gets much more complicated. Lisa harris right up here please. Wait for the mic. Here it comes. Thank you. One of the lessons of the administrations handling of the syrian issue last august and september certainly must be that if you threaten the use of force you have to be prepared to then carry out that threat. You are talking about using the threat of force to try and bring assad back, to bring assad to the negotiating table in a serious way. You were talking about using the threat of force to try and get not only the Assad Government but the other players on the ground to see joan these areas so humanitarian assistance can be broadband but which country or countries have you identified that will step forward and make that threat and prepared to carry it out in order to further the negotiating process as well as trying make progress on the humanitarian issue . Its clear the United States is not going to do this. Its clear nato is not going to do this so where is the stick that you repeatedly call for . Wheres it going to come from . Very quickly if the United States doesnt agree to do it no one is going to do it. If the United States agrees to do it than many countries will sign on for it. Its a lesson here because of libya. Nothing would have happened in toppling qadhafi unless the United States got on board. It wouldnt have happened without the coordination from the United States. I think that is why the debate in this country so critical. I think we are all making the case that the u. S. Should do something and i still say that there has to be some kind of use of force to degrade the capability of the regime that we could also lead with diplomacy and what we are doing right now in geneva is not exact lee leading. We are just not being clever and our diplomacy either. I do think there are signs that france and the u. K. Are prepared to move forward with Something Like the plan of action that nader and i have outlined. The French Foreign minister said when asked specific lee how this resolution of france seems to be poised to introduce, would it involve invoking chapter 7 of the u. N. Charter which would mean the threat of force to enforce this resolution and he was a bit cagey about it. So its not clear how far france is willing to go but i think that there are strong signs that france and the u. K. Are almost there and i think thats because its limited to the humanitarian element. If you open up the Bigger Picture of toppling the regime and siding with the rebels engineering at post assad transition you lose lots of political common ground. Youre not going to get consensus on that. If you limit it to this one question of getting food into these besieged areas to starving civilians all of a sudden you will see more countries signing on i believe. There a lot of hands in the audience so i want to move to a speed round here at the end. Mike you have been very patient. What implications do other countries in the region turkey, saudi arabia, it is real seems like there will be an effect to her in action there. The implications were clear early on and they have all seen what happened. First of all the spillover of lebanon is divided practically half and half for and against the regime and there is a proxy war already taking place in lebanon. To the extent that we have been working hard to build a decent politically neutral state, moderate state in lebanon this has already fallen by the wayside and once again coming out of lebanon is dangerous for everybody else. Jordan is already shaking the. The position of the king there is very tenuous and hes holding on and following Good Strategies i think but internally things may break apart. Turkey already has some repercussions. Kurdish related but also islamist related as well. There is a proxy war going on on the border already and it could deteriorate worse than it was a few years ago in oz six and 07. Now israel for the first time has an eye on its borders and this is the result of the continuation of chaos and syria. There is no going back. I have heard bashar can no longer come if you want to call its stability, the kind of arrangement that existed before, he cannot go back to that and as you heard nader say he is responsible for that generation that the israelis have a tenuous situation which they never had before and thats going to continue. The bus waited and this is to reach some kind of compromise and have a transition government we have time for just a few more. Sir right here, you have been very patient. Second row. Just wait for my colleague to bring you the mic. President said two years ago that assad must go. A powerful nation and no action has been taken. President said assad must go. Doesnt him still being there have enormous problems for the United States and their credibility in the region . Yes. That has already happened. That is not an implication. Yes, right there. Thank you. The fact is during the first meeting in january thousands of people were killed in syria. In january thousands were killed in syria. How will geneva ii continue going at this scale . A good question. Asked that of president obama. I have been talking about what should be done. You are right. Assad is happy to go to geneva because he will be talking and obfuscating and making it seem like he is serious trying to deflect serious organization and attention because theirs is processed that he will milk for as long as he can while people suffer on the ground. We are in agreement traits be assad is reported to have described his relations with western countries as the game of tom and jerry. One last question in the middle there. Brazier hand so she knows. Thank you. I think you shortcircuited the discussion of iraq in your analysis. The dominant motif of president obama in the region appears to be a grand bargain even if that frees our allies like saudi arabia. Iran will do every thing in its power as i see it to keep assad in power and if we go and remove assad from power which is an extreme step it undermines what obama is trying to do. Yes i know we didnt have enough time to discuss this but there are lots of indications and they were stronger earlier on that iran was willing to see some kind of a change in syria but what they really wanted was not bashar as a person. They had a certain centrist in syria and at the centrist could be taken into account they might consider it and we are not even talking about them. My problem with the deal with iran on Nuclear Weapons is that a is insufficient on the Nuclear Weapons issue itself and b its not at all comprehensive. The real problem with iran is the behavior in the region, is hezbollah and the confrontation with saudi arabia. We are not even talking to them about these issues. If you were you would at least have a chance. Im not saying we would necessarily succeed that i think there were lots of voices from the region and elsewhere early on saying iran can deal but you need to come to them with a proposition. And we havent been able to do that. I think its a sad situation because in fact my view might be a little bit different on the Iranian Nuclear deal. I think its a good thing and i supported the democratic struggle in iran which was the subject of the book that nader and i did previously. Democratic activists in iran, dissidents support encroachment between iran and the u. S. For the interesting reasons we talked about but on that deal, that process it might actually be working against the
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.