General, thanks for your time this morning. I was hoping you could clarify how air strikes are being conducted without any jtax on the ground in most cases and also how you assess civilian casualties in most cases, if at all . Let me start with civilian casualty piece. You know, the coalition is really very deliberate about how it conducts strikes out there. And we have some great capability in terms of precision. Whats in the balance here if youre not careful is you can be precisely wrong. You could strike, you know, tribe, you could strike Iraqi Security forces and you could create a very bad situation. To date weve got a very good record. Im tracking no civilian casualties where we just if we even suspected civilian casualties, we would immediately direct investigation, determine the cause and then seek to understand the lessons is learned from that and apply those lessons learned. So thats the civilian casualty piece of this. And again, a very deliberate process. And the second que
Americans not scrutinizing it too closely. Happened inwhat 2005 in 2006. The financial crisis in 2008 has really caused a lot of people to the fundamental propositions of the u. S. Foreignpolicy. And the onese approach is to continue to count on this disconnect. It is not a new phenomenon and frankly it hasnt really it plays out that way and a minute. I think that is a reasonable approach. There is a couple different ways this manifests itself. During the cold war, this of course, it was a bipartisan problem. Is. Is how vital it and to not resort to the sort of that characterizes u. S. Foreignpolicy. Dean achesons book. The senator advise dean to scare the hell out of the american i will paint said a picture clearer than the truth. In long history of american in agnpolicy, speaking way that it doesnt expect them to respond well enough or urgently enough unless things are painted to them clearer than the truth. Out three aspects that will bring the American People into the discussion. W
Prosperity agenda and runs our mideast program but thinks broadly about how america functions on the global stage. He argued against disengagement in a recent article in the journal of democracy. So we look forward to a very robust discussion today. The panel is going to be moderated by our own larry korb, our senior fellow and former assistant secretary of defense who needs no introduction and who is a frequent and prolific contributor on the debate. Im really pleased that all of you all are here today, to have what i think will be the first of many debates on the u. S. Role in the world, as we start entering a new political season. Were really thrilled that all of these very thoughtful leaders in National Security and defense and Foreign Policy have joined us. Please welcome our guests. Thank you. [applause] let me join in welcoming you all here today, which given the folks that we have, its going to be, i think, a very vigorous, and enlightening debate, given all the challenges that
Are acting except those who are clearly incompetent. The only thing in your brief i did not follow is the importance in getting this question solved. Here is the question, what is the rule, one light or two lights. Yet in this case the evidence that came and had nothing at all to do with the Traffic Violation. So the court would not need to decide the Traffic Violation case. I think the North Carolina immediate Appellate Court said there was consent. There was consent, and we never have to deal with what the traffic regulation was. That is correct, and this comes up into context. Sometimes it will be litigated because the officer issued a citation. Our concern is if the court takes the position that whenever an officer is wrong about the law he violated the Fourth Amendment. Its going to deter officers from making stops when their arguments on both sides. Do you agree if there is any legal stop, the consent is the fruit of a poison tree . That is a difficult question. We dont necessari
Stakeholders. This is ultimately a matter for Security Council to decide. That being said, i would certainly welcome the Councils Engagement and guidance to advance the middle east peace process. I have been personally meeting and engaging with the leaders of palestine and israel and leaders in the region and Global Leadership as a member of the quartet and as the secretarygeneral of the United Nations. We are strongly urging again that the israelis and palestinians, the leadership, they should sit down together and resolve all this. The Security Council can take their actions, but it is ultimately up to two parties, two leaders, so that they can discuss all the pending issues. I believe that they have identified all the issues. They know what are the fundamental issues to resolve. I have been urging, and im as urging again, that those two leaders should discuss this matter so they can realise a twostate solution, twostate vision where israeli and Palestinian People can live side by si