justice? >> this was interesting. obama has gotten attention for his comments on court cases particularly before they're decided, as well as after where i think it's perhaps a bit more typical for president to speak after decisions are made. but it did seem interesting that -- i mean he actually went as far to criticize the cert stage when he said the court shouldn't have even taken the case. so it was interesting. and just by coincidence i happen to have sitting in my inbox a study of presidential comments on pending supreme court cases since 1954. looking at this study and seeing how really rare it was, although not completely unheard of for president to comment when they had cases of which they took some interest before the supreme court, i don't think it is going to be a very typical thing. i think this -- as one factor that the study itself observed, presidents most likely to comment on pending cases tend to be lawyering who think they know a lot about the law and are in a position to discuss it. and so you know, president clinton actually commented on a pending case where he predicted that the court would side with him in the census statistical citing case. i don't think it's going to be very common. i think this president believes he knows a lot about the law and is in a good position to explain it not so much to the justices. i don't think he has illusions about that. i think he's more trying to explain or lay out his legal position to the public. and to either assure them that his legal position is wise or sustainable or sort of lay the groundwork for a response should he lose. so i don't think it's going to be that common. i don't think that obama has actually planned most of these remarks when he has made them. as they did in that case, it came up at a press conference where he was directly asked a question and he immediately responded because i think it was on his mind. my guess is that it won't be something we see very typically, although he's had more, i think, significant pieces of legislation or, you know, before the court than the typical president does. >> any comment? this is for any of the panelists. as we enter the presidential election cycle how prominent do you think the supreme court will be b? senator ted cruz is proposing an administration to retire retention limits for the judges. >> every four years we have this conversation and it always ends up being -- the answer ends up being no. expect the only time or in recent times when the court was at all an issue was when richard nixon ran in 1968 because it fit into the law and order campaign that he ran more generally. but i think to think that the court -- i can't remember what the statistics are, but, you know, more people can identify the three stooges than members of the supreme court. the idea that it's going to become a salient issue in the presidential campaign is unlikely. >> the supreme court, it is the unusual public office in which the holder becomes less well known the longer he or she serves than any other office. and you know, they're known when they're on tv for their confirmation and then they disappear. we found that chief justice roberts is known by fewer americans today than he was ten years ago. in a recent poll that we had. i think that the court's importance is going to be right now it's important for donors. and in this sort of invisible part of the election there are hard core people on both the left and right who are super concerned about the direction of the court, probably there's a disproportionate number of those watching today. they will be making their preferences known not so much at the ballot box but which candidates they support and how they support them. i think it's important to some constituency and individuals, small number. had the court ruled differently in some f these cases such as the marriage case or the health care case it might have been a bigger political issue. but in terms of becoming a major popular issue, that would only happen if we end up for some reason with a vacancy close to election day where it kris crystallizes the stakes immediately. >> i completely agree. but as a normative matter, it ought to. the next president will probably get to appoint more than one, maybe three supreme court justices. i don't know why people don't pay more attention to that. >> maybe it's our fault. if we just covered it better. >> so look agent the flip side of that question, do you think any of the justices who fear looking political will shy away from taking up any particularly controversial issues in the next term because of the upcoming election? >> we've seen no evidence of that. >> okay. so this question is for all three of you. but it's based on something mark wrote. he wrote that's virtually impossible to get anything done without roberts or kennedy on your side. though kennedy was in the majority of more 5-4 decisions do you think that roberts is going to increasingly become the pivotal vote? >> i think i wrote that to point out the oddity. there was one decision this term where both kennedy's roberts was in dissent. i think it's only happened one other time on the court. there was a forgettable case a faux years ago where the five junior justices were the majority. that said, you know, the chief justices is, you know, he seems like he's going to play that role where you know questions are present about the court's -- you know the institutional integrity of the court or the court's reputation. i think he's more likely a vote to perhaps you know when those cases are otherwise i'd logically split, hen hewhen a decision would damage the court's reputation, perhaps in those cases he finds a way to the other side. >> unless i'm mistaken, there are exactly two decisions in which the chief joins the four liberals. congratulations, guys. >> one final question then we'll open it up for questions from the audience. is there a particular concurrence or dissent that you found particularly striking this term that you commend? we'll start with you unless someone has one at the tip of their tongue. >> there were many long dissents about the administrative state which i'll read this summer. but i like, maybe against my better judgment, that after justice kennedy called for a look at solitary confinement, justice thomas wrote back in a separate concurrence right, that he thought that the death row inmate in particular had much more spacious quarters than the ones occupied by his victims. >> i would agree that those two concurrences are a great state. >> mark, any? >> just the, just the one phrase after another in the scalia end of term dissents. it's sort of like a greatest hits of dissents. >> yeah. >> you really have to put yourself -- >> with that we'll open it up to the audience. i have a few rules. wait for the microphone please identify yourself and ask a brief question. with that -- >> hi, paul cammon. on the criminal docket you talked about the patel case in yates. could you care to comment on the alonis case and how that might impact lower courts and prosecutors requiring a high mens rea and specific intent in. >> anyone want to take that in. >> we had a good discussion of that from john. and as he pointed out, you know the court said very little other than not negligence. not clear whether recklessness work ors not. i imagine people will try to make sense of that across a whole spectrum of criminal laws and where mens rea fits in. >> my name is arnold zitlan. it's a possibility that the 2016 will continue the divided government that exists today with the executive being from a different party of the legislature. what impact would this have on the president's ability to fill vacancies under that kind of a situation? >> hard to know up front except that it obviously suggests that the nominees would be more to the center rath than the right or left depending on who wins the white house. part of that will depend on the you know, the mandate the new president has, if there's a sort of a first nature to this next appointment, all sorts of questions like that. >> any additional questions? right here. >> thanks very much. ian williams. can i take you up on your offer when you said you might look ahead at some of the case to come and the thoughts from the panel about what some of the blockbusters might be for the next term. >> there are three of them. this last term will be hard to beat. i remember a couple of years ago we had the first health care case. and then we had a first go at marriage. the court ended up not answering. we thought that was the term of the century. and then when you had health care and marriage together we certainly did have a term of the century. we have a second look at fisher the affirmative action case and that sure makes you think that there are at least four votes and an attempt to put kennedy on the spot. kennedy never voted to uphold an affirmative action program about whether the university of texas is hybrid affirmative action program satisfies strict scrutiny again. here again we'll have a look at what the court means by strict scrutiny. a second case just granted brought by mike represents a very serious challenge to the way public unions are run, whether nonmembers of public union can be forced nonetheless to pay for fees that the unions use for collective bargaining activities that may be said to violate the first amendment rights of the union members. that's both very interesting and substantial question and a quite consequential case. and then there's an interesting case that you might have thought we would know the answer to already but we don't. what does one person one vote mean. whom do you count to draw districts. do you count every single person or do you count the people who are eligible to vote. and this too matters a lot. at the moment most centers count every person. but that means you get a lot of children, people who are here illegally from abroad but not entitled to vote. you have undocumented people. you have people whose right to vote has been stripped from them because they're felons. you have vastly different voting power in different districts if by voting power you mean eligible voters. here again you have great political consequences because at the moment urban centers which tend to be blue, get more voting power than rural places which tend to be red. and the court at least conceivably will recast that map. that's three pretty good cases . >> and that doesn't include the case of abortion based on the texas clinic restrictions. >> would be quite surprising having stayed the texas case that they not take it. so there we're going to have a real look at what casey means. >> jess, any others? >> those are the big ones that are here right now. i think the lesson that we saw from this term is just because a court is willing to look at these very carefully doesn't mean that outcome is afaye that come plea. that's the listen we get from the texas versus inclusive communities case. the housing case. i mean there we saw the court going out of its way to really lack at that issue twice granting cert on the issue twice having the chance to have it swiped from their grasp by the litigants who dismissed or settled their cases. and then finally getting the chance to look at it and saying looks like all of the appeals courts that have considered this issue for the past four years were right. never mind. so yeah, we're going to see those cases. keep in mind that we're going to see the results of those cases no later than june of presidential election year. so the kinds of institutional concerns about rocking the boat and being a disruptive force in society and in the political system may be even more hely on the justices' minds than they are right now. for instance a one man one vote ruling depending on what they say coming right before a big election, you know might be the kind of thing that you know, slightly increases from 0.1 to 0.11 of a police call issue. >> with that we've come to the owned of ur time. please join any in thanking our panelists. [ applause ] today on c-span3, a discussion about terrorism in the middle east and south asia. military and foreign policy analysts will discuss efforts to fight isis in iraq and syria and the threat al qaeda poses in afghanistan and pakistan. live coverage begins noon eastern time on c-span3. here's some of the featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. with the upcoming release of harper lee's novel, starting saturday night, we talk about the impact of lee's book "to kill a mockingbird" and the event that led to the publication of her new level. we'll reair the programs sunday evening at 6:30. sunday night at 10:00, radio talk show host hugh hewitt on hillary clinton's run for president. >> saturday night at 8:00 eastern 50th anniversary of the vietnam war. and on sunday visiting with the new hampshire voter rs. american history tv on c-span3, saturday 8:00 p.m. eastern, factors that led to the great depression and president roosevelt's actions to help the american people and the economy. and sunday evening at 6:30, best selling historical novelist on the burn of atlanta georgia and columbia south carolina and why sherman is not the villain of popular ledge. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org. on wednesday the head of the international monetary fund christine lagarde talked about the greek debt crisis and how the imf is trying to provide assistance. he discussed initiatives on global development, promoting financial stability and climate change. her remarks at the brookings institute in washington, d.c. are just over an hour. good afternoon, everyone. we have the great pleasure to have christine lagarde managing director of the imf with us and a panel that i'll introduce in a few moments. thank you to all of you to come. and also you just made i before the major storm. i think excellent timing. the topic today will be financing for development, financing for the post-2015 development agenda. and we'll stick to that because, you know otherwise the world is so full of problems. of course, christine can talk about what he wants. but i think we should stick to that. it's a big enough, important enough topic. everybody knows of course christine lagarde. but let me remind you she also was, before her her tenure as minister of trade and finance in france, leading a major low practice international law practice with baker and mckenzie. and at the fund i think what we've seen is the fund despite all of the criticisms and debates is crucial to the world economy and to the world. and at the same time the fund has opened itself up much more. i know christine lagarde is very tough but she also engages with everybody and discusses things and you know, never is close to reasonable debate. and i think that's so important in this field. because as we know in economics there are many view many perspectives and not one is necessarily correct. i would like to thank her to be with us, financing of the post-2015 development goals is a key issue. it goes together with the big summit that will take place in new york in september and of course the climate summit in paris. but there has been huge progress in the world, there's in question about that. but not for everyone. and even for those where there has been progress, i think expectations have exploded also. modern communications modern closeness in some sense, in the virtual space at least -- and that's good for the economy. strong expectations mean strong demands. but at the same time one has to deliver and delivery is the big issue, of course. so christine to you and then we'll have a panel and some discussion. [ applause ] >> well good afternoon to all of you. and thank you very much for hosting me and for those kind words of swrointroduction. well what i thought i would do i know that some of you have other concerns on their mind than financing for development which is the key reason why most of us are here i thought i would get -- not out of the way, but i would say a few words about greece. i don't know whether the new york stock exchange trading as resumed yet. i'm not going to comment on that but i thought on greece i would say a few words. because clearly significant and rapid developments and the imf has been adopting a line of not silence. but we try to be mindful of developments and not be excessive in our positions. but i would like to say that if the imf is involved in this situation, it is because the imf was asked by greece to be involved in trying to resolve itself economic issues. whenever the imf is involved it is certainly my view that the imf has to follow its rules should not bend the rules, and should always be even handed. there cannot be any special treatment. third point i would like to make is that our loans to countries experiencing difficulties, our loans are conditional upon various requirements but all of them aim at restoring stability restoring growth and debt sustainability. in the context of greece we have always advised that that program walk on two legs, if you will. one leg is about significant reforms and fiscal consolidation as we have advised in the case of island, portugal cyprus and outside the euro zone, ice land. and it has worked. and the other leg is debt restructuring which we believe is needed in the particular case of greece for it to have debt sustainability. that analysis has not changed. it may well be that numbers will have took revisited but our analysis has not changed. what has changed is clearly that greece is in a situation of acute crisis which needs to be addressed seriously and promptly. greece is now in areas vis-a-vis the fund. and the greek people have rejected by their referendum response the latest proposal that was made by the institutions and the europeans. so in that situation, clearly we remain fully engaged in order to help find the solution that will be most conducive to what i said is our mission, which is to try to help with restoring stability, growth and debt sustainability. those will continue to be the guiding principles of how we have to operate in order to help the country. i think i'll leave it like that. there clearly are developments that are ongoing today tomorrow and in the next few days. we will be working as much as we can. and i will not take any other questions, concerns in relation to greece. i think aye said as much as i could say. and we're now going to move into the topic of today which is bringing everybody in the room, which is the financing for development. and i would like to thank you and thank through you to brookings institution and say how honored i am to be on a panel with nancy from the center for global development, michael elliott from the campaign and omi caress. i would like to thanks members of the if who are in the room as well. i know we have some of our executive directors who are here with us and who will be in a few days to discuss all together the financing for development. which as you indicated one of the key three summits in 2015. back a few days ago i gave a speech and inequality and about what i called lifting the small boats. and at the end of the speech i mentioned to the audience that we might in 2015 have a once-in-a-generation occasion to actually change the music. because we have the summit where we will focus on financing for development. we know that it's not a pledging summit. lit's one where we have to collectively explore areas for financing. then there would be the september general assembly of the united nation which will redefine the sus stable goal and after that in the summer of paris will be the one that focuses on climate change and how the international community can come together to address those issues. so these three combined can actually help us change the music. now why do i say swre to change the music? because there is an african saying which says that, don't want to make any mistake. it says when the music changes, so does the dance. and i think that we have a chance to collectively take a new approach. and it starts with next week, how we focus on different financing. how we allocate responsibilities amongst ourselves. and to grasp at this window of opportunity, which as i say is rare, we need to take those steps carefully consider them, and then act. what i would like to do this afternoon with you, in that spirit is to explore in this very different and changing global landscape who actions developing countries need to take to support sustainable growth and how the international community, including the imf, can contribute. let's turn first of all to the changing international landscape. how have circumstances changed since the millennium development goals were adopted 15 years ago. you alluded to that. what trends have emerged? for me, three trends that i will summarize for ease of memory by the three vs. my first v is velocity. over the past 15 years most systematically important emerging markets have prospered. many developing countries have become more integrated and as a result there has been a rapid expansion of growth and trade as well as capital flows. i'll give you a few examples. since 2009 developing countries gdp and trade have expanded at annual average rate of 10%. since the early 2000 capital flows to developing economies have increased three folds. now this is good news. what is not such good news is that it has not been shared equitable equitably. that's my second v were variance. velocity it went about quite fast. more than 10% for trade and growth. three times the capital inflows. but variance is my second v. what do i mean by that? well, the better performing economies often underpinned by robust policies have forged ahead. sadly, the poorest and most fragile have been left behind. in fact over the last 15 years real per capita gdp in nonfragile low income countries has increased by 70%. in the fragile country that same increase has only been 15%. one-five. another important dimension of this variance is a high level of income and equality that we find within countries, within countries. because by the same token, there has been less inequality between countries. that's largely due to the emergence of some of the very large emerging countries such as china. but within countries there's been a rise of inequality. my third v is volatility. as well as the great recession itself conflicts, natural disasters have also set many countries back. climate change, for instance, represents an increasing problem with poor countries hit especially hard. since 1990, for example, almost three-quarters of all natural disasters have occurred in developing countries. the gee yol fi, their reliance on agriculture, low infrastructure and other bottlenecks can make the poorest countries particularly vulnerable. another factor with implications for volatility is of course demographics. countries with aging populations face rising dependency ratios that could strain government finance and low down growth. equally, other countries can have the benefit of fast growing populations with a large number of young people if they can reap the benefits of that population called the demographic dividends. but there are conditions for that, of course. so these three trends together velocity, variance volatility have marked the last 15 years. some votes have built up speed while others struggled to make headways headways. they all remain at risk for storms and the unchartered waters that lie ahead. each trend has importance for global development and each of the trends should be taken into account when we actually look at how we deal with the challenges ahead of us. making the right choice in 2015 is also going to rely on collective commitments. from all partners. and as i've often heard with some of our developing country members, it begins at home. and whenever we talk about domestic rev mobilization for instance, we are precisely pointing to that. when we look back over the last 15 years one lesson is that the countries that have for formed best have generally been those that assumed the greatest ownership of their policies. what does that entail? well, coming from the imf, you would be surprised if i did not mention microeconomic stability. in our view, this is a prior to stabilization. it includes keeping public debt sustainable and implementing policies that help maintain resilience in the face of external shocks. that also has to do with keeping buffers. think about africa for instance. the region demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of the global financial crisis. most countries did have buffers and uses at least a portion of it. actually nearly two-thirds of sub saryan countries have recorded two years of uninterrupted growth during that period. those countries applied prudent policies and it paid off. now of course strong economic policies will remained of paramount portion as the region confronts new challenges and risks. that that is why at the imf we place so much emphasis on microeconomic policies. why is that? because stability help people and generally helps the poor people most. because instability victimizes the boor and the most vulnerable first. high inflation, for instance is deeply regressive. and instability is the death nil of large scale private investment which as we know is one of the key drivers of growth over time. so in our view it is only with stable foundation, an even kill if you will use the analogies, that we can raise the mast, hoist the sail and chart our course toward inclusive and sustainable growth. so much for microeconomic stability. what are the priorities if those foundations are solid. i mentioned it briefly. mobilizing revenues is a first order of priority. it's imperative. in about half of all developing countries countries, the tax ratios are below 15%. if you compare that with the average oecd countries 34%. the situation is worse in fragile states. and it can be fixed. it has been demonstrated by some countries. by implementing simple broad-based and fair tax system that situation can be turned around. a recent imf study examined a 136 low and middle income countries between 1993 and 2013. and it found that fund supported programs with revenue conditionality helped them increase their tax rev by one percentage point of gdp. if those same ones having to do with the increasing revenues were consistently applied for three consecutive years tax revenues increased by 3.5 percentage points. is this something to be proud of? well, it is important. it is important because revenue generated in that fashion can actually be spent on matters that will actually make a difference. it can be spent on the health. it can be spent on education. it has to be spent on the right policies of course. and that's another point i would like to make. those revenues raised must be spent efficiently in support of growth. strong public institutions to that effect are essential. another imf research study has shown, for example, that well-managed public investment has a key role to play in improving infrastructure and supporting inclusive growth. so money raised in that simple, fair, broad-based system, well spent on the right policies can actually be a game changer. that's not always the case. and unfortunately we've found that around 30% of the potential gains from public investment are lost, lost due to the inefficiencies of public investment processes. you can think of all sorts of things. but the bottom line is 30% of it is left -- is lost. we're a country in the lowest efficiency able to increase its efficiency to the highest level, it would dental the economic bang that it gets for the investment buck. so mobilizing revenue efficiency is key. third critical priority in our view is the development of the financial sector in a way that supports growth and tackles poverty. not even financial sector. a financial sector that is targeted to those two imperatives. imf estimated that the annual growth rate of developing economies with more efficient banking sectors exceeds that of economies with less open and developed banking standards by about 1 percentage point. we also know that the percentage of people living on less than $1 or $2 a day can fall more rapidly with higher levels of financial development. and government can play an integral role by setting the rules of the game at an early stage, applying supervision, protecting legal rights and strengthening financial infrastructure. we've done research on that basis. it was alleged for a period of time that having too much f that would um pair the development of the financial services in the developing world. not true. they can work in parallel and one can actually proceed the other. and obviously having a strong financial sector that is well hf well-supervised, well managed is consistent to a more business friendly environment that is eventually going to be conducive to growth as well. now that takes me to the next very important point. what kind of growth are we talking about in we're talking about sustainable growth yes. we're also talking about inclusive growth. but growth to be sustainable, it's essential that the fruits of growth be actually shared by promoting economic inclusion and environmental sustainability. and that includes providing access to finance, strengthening social protection and empowering women and girls including by giving them full access unrestricted opportunities for both education and professional life. it's estimated that if women -- that's another study that we have conducted. it's estimated that if women participated in the labor force in the same proportion as men, per capita income would rise by 27% in the middle east and north africa, 23% in south asia 17% in latin america, 14% in europe and central asia and 12% in africa. in short empowering women and giving them the same access without restrictions -- and there are restrictions everywhere -- is an economic game changer. i'm saying the restrictions are everywhere because we've done a study on that and we've borrowed from excellent data provided by the bank and there's clear evidence that those discriminations are not a factor of the developing world. they're just about everywhere. more generally imf research shows that income share in the bottom 20% is associated with higher gdp growth. you know the coefficient that measurings inequality. if inequality increases by one point wib it's associated with 56% higher risk that a growth spell will come to an end in the coming year. interesting. so growth that is more inclusive is also higher and more durable. to put it another way, as i said that empowering women is good economics and a game changer fairness is also good economics. bottom line, by implementing policies conducive to sustainable growth countries can do a long way to supporting their own development. and they can do that alone. but as another african proverb says if you travel by yourself you go fast but if you travel with others you go far. something along those lines. i know it better in french. so they can do that by themselves themselves. but it's a collective effort and if the international community participates in that effort it's going to go a lot further and for a lot longer. we have to together do it. and that's my third and final point. we share a come upon responsibility in our common fate. so how can international partners help create an environment that is more conducive to sustainable and inclusive development? in other words, how can we make sure that the small boats are lifted too. the challenge is multi. multi-dimensional. it ranges from corporations tax evasion which is not going to be done at the domestic level in one developmental country. it's going to require the cooperation of everyone. it includes constructing an even stronger multi-lateral trading system that benefits all. it includes raising aid levels in rich counties and reducing the cost in poor countries and requires committed and long lasting partnership. and let me emphasize something. i don't think that those partnerships are just about government. they also include civil society at large. the civil society organizations bring to the table a wealth of experience, sometimes money and a unique perspective. along with other networks of influence, civil society plays an essential part in what i have otherwise called this new multi-lateralism. and i make sure that with hear the voice of civil society representatives and i encourage the staff of the imf to pay special attention to them, to their voices and what they have to say. which takes me to the imf. what can we do? because to follow up and pick up on something you said we are not promising, we are delivering. and that's what i have tasked the teams. do not promise me anything. deliver. and that's what i want to be able to say to the membership at large. we are not promising. we are delivering. so we have that global membership and the mandate to promote economy growth and stability. which makes us a committed partner for development. it doesn't mean that we can finance infrastructure task. this is not our task. the other institutions are in that do main. we're not equipped for that. but we can still do things and we can deliver. so we thought of areas where we can actually participate in the process. first and foremost we give policy advice and we offer capacity building. so we're committed to strengthening that. so we will -- and i comment here before you, we will help more countries mobilize domestic revenues and repurpose the resource to tackle poverty and drive sustainable growth. we plan to reallocate additional resource to this area which already accounts for one-fifth of imf capacity building. for example, you know that there is this whole debate about base erosion and profit evasion -- well not -- shift. thank you, nancy. you know that there is this project of automatic exchange of information. well that project is great. and i think the oecd is doing a fantastic job at that. but there are voices that are not plrly well-represented and sometimes not heard at all. that's an area where the imf and the bank for that matter have experienced. so what we want to do is to carry those voices and to make sure that in whatever new scheme of things, whatever new tree tees, the most fragile ones and the most vulnerable ones amongst them are heard as well and their interest taken into account. we will also expand our support to increase that -- excuse me. i'm going to -- so we'll also expand our support to increase the efficiency of public spending, such as by eliminating untargeted subsidies. because those untargeted subsidies benefit everybody without any differentiation. we've done quite a bit of work in that respect and we'll continue to do that work in order to retarget to those who need it most. and eliminate where it's not needed. second, we will support countries seeking to invest in infrastructure and therefore divide up the countries. we'll use a investment management capacity identifying areas where technical assistance to strengthen domestic institutions is needed. that's to avoid that 30% loss that i referred to earlier. but we will not stop there. we will also summarize these assessments. and that may have to do with poor management, noncompliance with procurement rules funding payments going here and there, special purpose vehicles that are not really particularly satisfactory. we will summarize those assessments and put them in our article 4. the article 4s of the imf are the sort of bill of health of each and every country we conduct on an annual basis and we chart public. totally public on the website. and it's helpful to actually share knowledge in the most transparent fashion. third, we will deepen our engagement with countries on issues of raising concern, equity inclusion, climate change. and this will include expanding our analytical work on inequality, gender jobs and financial inclusion. some might argue that it's not directly related to the core mandate of the imf and i contend that it is. because it is macro critical. and because we've now demonstrated that if there is less inequality if there is better access for all, girls included for instance there is better growth more sustainable growth. now we are fully alert to the challenges faced by fragile and conflict conflict-effected states where development lacks and in many cases terrorism breeds. we know that achieving results in fragile states requires engagement in the long haul building economic institutions and the inevitable setbacks on the way, but we are in it for the long haul. and we will stay the course. after this i will travel to monrovia and liberia where we have done exactly that over the course of the last few years. now, beyond that policy advise and capacity building that i just referred to, i'm also pleased to announce several changes in our financing facilities for developing countries. and they have been approved by the executive board of the imf just a few days ago. first, to better protect countries from external shocks we will expand access to all concessional facilities by a full 50%. second, we will target our concessional resources more on the poorest and the more vulnerable countries. and third, we will maintain our interest rate on our rapid credit facility loans, our loans to fragile states and countries hit by natural disasters, for instance, who will maintain that interest rate at zero over the longer term. so 50% more access, focus on the poor and most vulnerable and zero interest rates for the longer term. we believe that the imf constitutes an important safety net for countries confronting external payment imbalances. the expanded safety net will provide an additional level of support to countries pursuing ambitious development. in this concrete way the imf intends to create a more supportive environment for developing countries to prosper in the period ahead. so we will play our part with the means we have with the mandate we've been given. and i would like to finish with that african saying. which i mentioned already. if we want to go fast we go alone. and that is going between many instances. if we want to go far, we will go together. i've mentioned it before. i'm saying it again. there are many areas where countries can just go on their own. but think about those issues tax evasion for instance, you can do anything you want on your own. if it's not a collective drive, it's not going to work. climate change issues, which effect mostly the poor and most vulnerable countries, they can do a lot on their own. removing subsidies for instance can have a great impact. but it's not going to have a massive impact if nobody else around does anything. so it is that collective approach that we certainly want to support and encourage. as i said, it's a once-in-a-generation opportunity that we have. if we take it all seriously, if we are all committed and if each of us is in the business of delivering delivering, we'll try to do that. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, christine. i think this was very comprehensive. and also with some real new substance in it new things such as the 50% increase of access for the worst countries to 0% interest rate for the most vulnerable over the medium term. and i thank you for that. i think that's what this needs. some real actions instead of just general talk. for the sake of time and we're very limited i'm going to turn right to the panelists without introductions. managing director actually helped me by introducing at the beginning and you're well-known any way, but let's start with michael elliot, the leader of the one campaign. you know, one thing that christine emphasized and i think you are embodying in your very successful leadership in civil society is this partnership between the business sector, civil society and government. would you also ask how the imf sees that partnership? >> absolutely. well, thank you for having us all here. i just want to say following on from president lagarde's or christine's extraordinary speech. just five points. just to reiterate five things that were mentioned. the bond fragile states the importance of concentrating on fragile states, the importance of concentrating on inequality, importance of concentrating on girls and women and christine has already used the one campaign slogan. the importance of finding a place at the table for csos. and of course looking forward to paris as well. gives us an opportunity as you say. to those five points this afternoon, christine, really establish for me a sort of comprehensive and coherent position to the imf is taking on key issues to which i'm really, really grateful. i really can't stress my gratitude enough. gives an opportunity imply for a variety of actors to come together to really kind of sed a road map for financing for development for the next 15 years. so it's not just governments and it's sadly not just northern governments as we all know the picture of financing for development has changed radically since monterey. it's now not just a donalad business. governments from both sides for both north and south need to have skin in the game and need to produce something to be a success. and we and many others have put our proposals there. but kbovtgovernments need to do one other thing and christine really alluded to that. governments need to put skin in the game developing country governments need to put skin in the game, particularly maybe pick up idea of social compact. corporations sdp governments together need to do something about the fiscal framework. we need to be absolutely serious about wrapping whatever we do in a package that tackles corruption, that tackles illicit financial flows that tackles international tax cooperation that really makes sure automatic cooperation works for those who need it most. that can't just be done by governments or by civil society organizations like ours. it also requires a true commitment from the private sector and corporate sector not just to do investment, that's great. but to look into themselves and recognize that there are real issues of illicit financial flows and corruption they need to help us tackle. >> thanks a lot. christine, one thing you emphasized was this tax avoidance business. but also you put it in the context of the article 4 consultations. following michael's points do you want to elaborate just one or two minutes on how you see the change in the article 4? because it's always been a powerful tool. >> yeah. >> and the leadership is coming from above often but sometimes the weight -- >> you can continue to watch this program online any time at c-span.org. we are going to leave this now and take you live to columbia, south carolina. the state house grounds where shortly the confederate flag that has flown on the state house grounds for many years will be lowered for the final time today. yesterday governor nikki haley signed into law a bill that requires that that flag be taken down and displayed nearby confederate museum. the bill and reaction to the shooting to the shooting of nine people at the emanuel ame church in charleston, south carolina several weeks ago. state senate passing it earlier today -- earlier this week. and the state house also passing it. nikki haley signing that bill yesterday. live coverage from columbia south carolina here on c-span3. >> here on c-span3 we are live from the state house grounds in columbia south carolina. governor nikki haley arriving. she will be joined there according to a tweet from the state newspaper joined by former governors beasley and hodges and mother emanuel for the ceremony which should get under way shortly live here on c-span3. [ cheers and applause ] [ cheers and applause ] [ cheers and applause ] [ cheers and applause ] >> usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! [ cheers and applause ] ♪ [ applause ] [ cheers and applause ] usa! usa! usa! usa! [ cheers and applause ] we want to remind you that you can see all of that event on our video library at c-span.org. just a couple of other notes, the state newspaper in south carolina officially describing the time of the lowering of the flag at 10:09 a.m. eastern this morning. they also tweeted that the flag will be taken by armored vehicle to the confederate museum nearby. president obama moments ago tweeting, south carolina taking down the confederate flag a signal of good will and healing and a meaningful step towards a better future. the confederate flag debate in south carolina by the way is all available on our website at c-span.org. the issue played out yesterday on capitol hill as republican leadership in the house pulled the interior department's spending bill that included an amendment allowing that flag to be sold at battlefield gift shots run by the national parks service. here's more details. >> you set the stage where stories in the paper playing out what happened in congress today, this is the headline from "usa today" deals with spendsing issues being put on hold, dealt with displays of the flag at certain times. could you tell us what happened yesterday? >> yeah. so we started the day there was first of all on wednesday night there was an interior appropriations bill that they were working on the floor. and the story before that is because they always do. democrats had added very noncontroversial basically banned the use of federal funds to display the confederate battle flag on federal land. so you know, cemeteries that are under the national park service control would not be able to display the confederate flag. and that was added you know, in a very quick voice vote. no republican spoke against it. and it seemed like, you know that provision would just get through without any real debate. apparently we had some republicans not satisfied with that. and they asked for a vote on the confederate flag basically on giving that amendment. they were considerable enough size where they said if we don't get a vote on this we're not going to pass this interior appropriations bill. so the chairman of the subcommittee, the interior appropriations subcommittee ken calvert, though he doesn't support the amendment himself he added back in an amendment or basically cued up an amendment for a vote which would have undid that particular democratic amendment. so basically would allow as currently, you know, the provisions allow, it would allow the confederate flag to be displayed on federal lands. that was on wednesday night. and by thursday morning had sort of woken up to what was already a growing you know, public relations fi i can't sayasco for a bunch of republicans. essentially speaker boehner made the decision that they weren't going to have the debate on the house floor and they weren't going to subject a lot of members to that particular vote right now. >> so, mr. fuller so let me put you on pause for a second. we have the speaker's statement from yesterday as part of this debate. let's listen to what he had to say and continue on. >> our members rightly tried to address the concerns yesterday in a way that was consistent with how the obama administration has handled this issue. i frankly supported the goal of trying to work with all the parties to address their concerns, but listen, we all witnessed the people of charleston and the people of south carolina come together in a respectful way to deal with frankly what was a very horrific crime and a difficult issue with the confederate flag. i actually think it's time for some adults here in the congress to actually sit down and have a conversation about how to address this issue. i do not want this to become some political football. it should not. >> mr. fuller, though will this become a political football do you think? >> it already has. you know, even by then. so they pulled the bill but the thing was that obviously under the rules of the house the minority leader can get a vote on a privileged resolution. so pelosi, and i think this was politically add venn teenageous for a lot of democrats because they hijacked the floor and hijacked the news cycle for a day, she just put up a very small resolution of essentially it would only effect one flag on the house side. the resolution would just remove any symbol flag that has a reprint of the confederate flag on it, which the only one that has that obviously is mississippi's state flag. and there's only one flag that's displayed that's not a nonmember office flag. the resolution was sort of tailored to just flags that were not outside of members offices. so it was a very small resolution, but truthfully it was just serving as a proxy for this whole confederate flag debate. what we saw on the floor was republicans looking to avoid that debate absolutely had it yesterday. and, you know, we saw very clearly sort of the division between republicans and democrats on the broad brush level, but a lot of republicans really do insist that if they hadn't voted on this calvert amendment, so-called calvert amendment, first of all the amendment would have gone down. but you would have really seen a lot of republicans who just don't support the confederate flag voting against the amendment. but some republicans insisted. so it was part of a revealing vote instead much more of a party line system though you did have republican from florida who refused to vote with his party. he was the only one who actually broke ranks on that. democrats made an incredible show yesterday with confederate flag resolution where it was a show of force. on the floor they voted with the voting cards rather than voting by electronic device. it was a lot of shouting on the house floor. >> and that's not fuller roll call explaining a little bit of what took place in the confederate flag and house spending bill. he writes for that publication. you can read his story online. mr. fuller, thanks for explaining that to us. >> thanks for having me. >> coming up in just over an hour and a half we'll bring you a discussion on islamic terrorism in the middle east and south asia. we'll be live at the heritage foundation. that's coming up at noon eastern here on c-span3. next up, former cia deputy director steven capps and "the washington post" david ignatius talk about the ongoing efforts and challenges of combatting isis. the center for strategic and international studies hosted this event. good morning everyone. thank you for joining us here at csis. for those who have not made your first visit to the building, i offer you a special welcome. before we get started i want to point out the emergency exits to the main doors in which you came today, also around the corner to the left there's another emergency exit. and in the back left corner near the little lounge area there's an exit there as well. my name is tom sanderson. i'm the director of the transnational threats project here at csis. happy to welcome you here. we are currently as a little bit of background conducting two studys that are ongoing, foreign fighter study looking at turkey tunisia and several other nations and the phenomenon of foreign fighters. just had an interesting conversation with steve about privacy and the foreign fighter issue and our values. i think maybe we'll get to that today. we're also looking at militancy across the sa hall region with our africa program run by jennifer cook. we'll make a couple field visits there in the fall. before i get started i want to recognize a few folks who've joined us. judge william webster former cia and fbi director and director of the transnational threats senior steering committee here. john mcgaffin, senior to the program and over here ambassador from liechtenstein, thank you for joining us. i'd also like to welcome dick o'neil, one of our advisors sitting in the back. let me start off with brief bios on our two guests today. very happy to have such luminaries here to discuss what we're covering with isis and the degrade and defeat exercise we're doing today. david ignatius to my right associate editor and columnist for "the washington post" has an incredible career in journalism long and distinguished including 2003 twice weekly globally distributed column on global politics economics and international affairs. he was executive director of the international -- executive editor of the international herald tribune. foreign editor of the post from 1990 to 1992 and served as a reporter middle east correspondent and chief diplomatic correspondent for "the washington post." he's published frequently "new york times," atlantic monthly and others david also the author of nine others including "body of lies" which was made into a movie starring leonardo dicaprio. his latest novel is about hacking and espionage. certainly a timely topic. a fellow at harvard kennedy and taught as an adjunct lecture. steven capus to my left, he retired from the central intelligence agency as deputy director after 30 years of service. from 2006 to 2010 he was directly involved in the leadership and management of all elements of the agency under two different directors and two presidential administrations. he has served as deputy director of operations for the cia, senior most position in our nation's clandestine services. during that period he led over one-third of the cia's globally deployed personnel and directed the agency's global espionage relations with foreign intelligence partners in the national security councilman daited ed-- counsel mandated. steve has immense experience in the field including service as an operations officer in south asian and middle eastern countries. as deputy chief of an overt seas operational element focused on iran, chief of station in the middle eastern country during the 1991 persian gulf war and was chief of station in the large central eurasian country. steve studied and used russian languages in the course of his assignments assignments. national security medal, national intelligence distinguished service medal, cia distinguished career intelligence medal, two distinguished intelligence medals, three directors medals and donovan award for operational excellence. suffice to say we have here today two of the most distinguished national security and intelligence experts you could possibly want to weigh in on the subject at hand. that subject of course is the islamic state of iraq in greater syria. nearly one year ago upstairs we brought together david, steve and ambassador to discuss the issues surrounding isis soon after the group rolled into mosul, iraq surprising those who were not watching the years long evolution of the former iraqi affiliate of al qaeda and its subsequent transition into an independent sbi callentity. isis has become one of the most critical threats facing iraq middle east and dozens of countries and beyond including the united states. isis has attracted at least 22,000 fighters from more than 100 countries, so half the world have fighters represented in iraq and syria. at some point over the last four years. this represents a tremendous blowback potential against members of the coalition and other countries as well. young men with battlefield experience, confidence, networks and tremendous motivation could return home -- to their home countries and initiate attacks. for certain their exploits on the battlefield transmitted in great detail by some of the 90,000 daily messages coming from isis have radicalized and inspired citizens of several countries to attack in defense of is skpisis and promote. we've seen this in australia, tunisia, france, belgium libya kuwait, yemen, saudi arabia and many others. before we look at the current and future potential challenges posed by isis and the conditions that brought us to where we are today, it is important to look back over the past year at some of the major events that have transpired since we met and since mosul fell on june 10th 2014. some of those are notable. this is not an exhaustive list. but june 29 2014, isis leader a abu al baghdadi invited [ music playing ] limbs to journey to this new islamic state. this declaration and call to service has been a tremendous stimulant and magnet for tens of thousands of people. in early august of last year isis attacked members of iraq's yazidi minority prompting president obama to launch limited air strikes against isis and drop supplies to yazidis. on august 19th and again on september 2nd isis executed american hostages jim foley and steven sotloff. british and japanese hostages would subsequently be murdered by isis. september 8th iraqi prime minister nouri al maliki was replaced by haider al-abadi in the face of tremendous pressure from both inside and outside of iraq. two days later on september 10th president obama announced the international coalition to combat isis. and on september 24th 2014, president obama speaking at the u.n. spoke out against isis. isis supporters began appearing around the region at this time with groups in egypt's sanai and libya declaring allegiance or acting on behalf of isis. in february 2015, isis released a video showing the burning to death of jordanian f-16 pilot who was shot down during an operation over syria. isis also executed christians in libya, destroyed the ancient iraqi city of nimrud secured allegiance from boko haram in nigeria nigeria, and a massive suicide bombing in yemen. in may of this year we saw delta force operators u.s. army delta force operators penetrate syria and kill a senior isis leader during a fire fight. the next day may 17th isis took ramadi and four days later take the an gentcient ruins of palmyra. and last week of course we had the attacks in tunisia and kuwait. that's quite a toll for a year. and the impact goes well beyond the simple body count to include the political, economic social and diplomatic strains inflicted on millions of people. now, as we look forward there are many difficult decisions and considerations for a lot of parties to consider. for the next 45 minutes i'll put a number of those issues before steve and david. after which you all have an opportunity to ask questions of your own. so with that let me begin by asking both of you since we last met in july of 2014 what a surprise do you most about how events have unfolded in iraq and syria, and with the broader anti-isis effort? david. >> let me begin by looking back at what we said in july of last year year. that was both i think steve and i had a pretty -- seen then as an alarmist view warning about the danger that was ahead. the two biggest surprises to me in the year since then have been the resilience strange combination of resilience, brutality and creativity, operational creativity of the islamic state. they are agile. they use -- they concentrate force to achieve their objectives. they send, you know, as in the capture of ramadi five to eight suicide bombs, one after the other, bang, bang bang. and they terrify and intimidate their opponents. so they have been stronger, tougher, smarter than i would have thought. i had the hope a year ago that like al qaeda in iraq zarkawi's group they would burn so hot they would burn themselves out. that hasn't happened yet. the second surprise in this year, to be honest is the lack of effectiveness and clarity of the u.s. policy -- u.s.-led policy in response. i wrote a column around june 11 noting that this week had two manifestos about this conflict. one was isis video called a year after the conquest. i don't invite anybody to look at it online because it's so horrifying. but it shows with that sort of video style that their people have developed the overwhelming force and brutality of their conquest of mosul how they routed the iraqi security forces from mosul, the seeming jubilation of sunnis in the city after their victory. and noted the other manifesto of that week was the obama administration announcing it would send an incremental, careful new force, 450 trained and advise special operations forces to taqqadum in eastern anbar province who would generally, at least as far as we can tell not get outside the wire of that base who would not go with the iraqi forces they were training in the battle they're so far as i can tell sunni tribesmen who want to be trained by these u.s. train and advise forces that are in place now as had been the case, i think, in a base further west. so the u.s. -- the isis assault is you know, at hyperspeed for an insurgency. the u.s. response, i think, is at slow speed as the president kind of rations each additional piece of his response. and if that formula continues without a change, i think a year from now when we come back we'll see an isis taking deeper roots in north africa spreading more deeply still unchecked in iraq and syria. so that's a pessimistic opening but frankly that's what i see in the past year. >> thank you, david. steven, i don't want to say you agree with david by chance, but what else do you see beyond that? >> i would add part of my thinking about possibly low on disappointment than it does on surprise. last year about this time we outlined clearly, at least i did, what i thought was not just an aggressive violent group but true forces of evil. there's no other way to describe people who are doing what they're doing to fellow citizens of the world, people of similar populations both in iraq and syria. i think that i have probably been surprised that they've been able to fight as hard as they have fought and to recover as quickly as they have from some significant poundings by the united states from the air. now, like most of you in this audience i'm a student of history and we all know nothing ends from the air alone. but it is still significant and that sort of lands on top of you and you recover. i think part of it as we in the united states always underestimate the ability of groups like isis to sustain serious injuries and deaths and yet still press on. because the truth of the matter is the central command does not care about the deaths and injuries to the people that work for them. they're only concerned about their small what i call real dedicated radicals and believers in the movement. so i was surprised at their ability to recover so quickly. i also am concerned that we aren't maintain all the lessons we have learned from our own 9/11 experience in terms of the interests and the willingness of these groups to press on against the united states in particular. when we don't take a firm stance, they fill every space of that that they possibly can as quickly as they can. when we're not prepared to lead in an aggressive fashion -- i'm not necessarily talking military fashion, but overall aggressive fashion, they will fill every part of that vacuum they can find. therefore they position themselves particularly with sunnis who now in their ability to move this propaganda is quite interesting, their ability to align us with iran even given what we've gone through in 1979 with iran is startling. and the number of people that actually believe it is even more startling. so the ability of the middle east to build conspiracies and spread them. i don't think their approach and use of violence and use of evil forces that they do use has changed at all as a result i find myself more worried this year than i was 12 months ago when we were here. >> let's move on to the strategy. do we have a strategy, david and steve? and what is missing from that strategy? >> we have declaratory strategy. personally i would say elements of that strategy as declared are pretty much the right ones. the problem is we have not found a way to implement the strategy. so let me unpack that a little bit. what president obama did a year ago through the summer into september was to refuse pleas and treaties that the united states use its military power, use its air power in particular to take out the enemies of the shiite-led government in iraq, take out isis, until there were changes in that government. and it was a high stakes effort by the president insisting that nouri al maliki should leave and that a new prime minister new member representative of his party should take office, as he did with haider al abadi. that policy i thought was correct, handled in a disciplined way. it was necessary to get iran's acceptance of that change of shiite leadership in iraq. and again, i thought that was done well. second thing that was part of the strategy was to build an international coalition. and general john allen went around the world there were meetings, the coalition was assembled. and in terms of working with allies, it's hard for me to fault that in principle. that was the right thing to do. the list is a good list. when, you know, one member of that coalition, jordan, was attacked in such a vicious way the jordanians responded strongly and seem to have popular support. another part of the strategy was to find a way to mobilize the elements in iraq that would have to be part of evicting isis from sunni areas the sunni tribes the sunni leadership, empowering them in this badly sectarian iraq in a way that they would be effective implementers of the strategy when you would ask what's the defeat mechanism, who's going to defeat these people in mosul, in anbar? the answer was you know in part the best iraqi security forces. but aided by the tribes who could immediately come in behind the clearing force. that still hasn't happened adequately. it's amazing to me when you know, many months ago you had the iraqi defense minister visiting ahman talking about the plans, facilities for train training sunni tribal fighters in jordan. you had camps set up. you had all the pieces of that assembled. and yet to this moment so far as i know it really still is embryo. i say the same thing about the regional strategy. we nominally have a coalition that includes jordan, turkey, saudi arabia, go down the list, we have this working with iran and yet those elements i don't think have been mobilized what exactly our strategy is with turkey if anyone in this audience could please inform me i would be very grateful. so you know, i'll close by saying the pieces of the strategy are there, the ability to implement it isn't. maybe in a few minutes i would like to talk about the bureaucratic side of that, the lack of unity of command in this government to make that strategy happen. but i'll leave it there for now. >> steve can the tribal groups be brought to bare here? is this once bitten twice shy? >> i think historically the tribal groups have been bitten more than once. i think it becomes extremely difficult to mobilize the tribal groups if they do not sense from you a commitment that you're prepared to stay through the difficult periods of combat and open aggression and into the political transition so they can have some confidence that they will not lose when someone walks away those things they've earned through their own blood, their own treasure. as a result, i'm afraid that that becomes an even more difficult piece of work than it was when we first did it as a country, a government through the surge earlier in the past decade. i would suggest that it will take someone with extraordinary persuasive skills and someone with extraordinary staying power to remain involved in both movement of the sunni tribes as well as the reintegration into the iraqi government. because it is my understanding that the distrust between the sunni tribes and the current iraqi government is in some ways almost at its highest levels even beyond some of the times dave and i are familiar with prior to 2010. i think they remain part of the solution. but distrust develops very quickly and takes a very long time to dispel. so as a result i would advocate as part of an overall strategy, but i would not have the same confidence once before there would be a successful or effective as once earlier. and quite frankly every time a shia militia stands up shooting they whisper it minute after it happens. becomes a self-propagating propaganda machine in support of isis regardless of what they may think about the methods. at this particular moment i'm a bit pessimistic but still believe ilt should be overtwined with the policy. >> let me recognize ambassador from iraq to the united states. thank you for joining us. that brings us to a question about iraq. what about our iraq first policy? is there a danger in focusing so much in iraq and leaving so much in syria untouch snd and how do we deal with the iraqi government? it's a complicated relationship dealing with the iraqi security forces. there's a lot of complications here. >> let me take the second part of that first. syria is such a complicated subject. i'd almost like to separate that and come back to it. thinking about the slow progress in iraq in many ways the lack of progress in this year and what to do about it, i tried to think about the fundamentals and to talk with people smarter than me about this issue. one of them is sitting in the audience ambassador fily. steve hadly a number of other people in and out of government. trying to think how could you take the elements of our strategy, which seek to keep iraq together in some way, that seek to avoid this idea people have of you know lines in the sand being just scattered to the winds and plunge the whole region into uncertainty and chaos. how would you preserve iraq but also speak to the sunnis in a way that would give them more trust? they're the ones over time who are going to have to eradicate isis in their midst. and what i came to was a sort of, you know, version for 2015 of what jim baker and lee hamilton wrote in 2006. looking at essentially the same problem. the problem hasn't really changed from what they were writing back then nine years ago. there's a bottom-up or inside inside-out part of this which is to find a formula for a generally federal decentralized iraq that keeps the borders of the country as a whole but lets the individual groups really have a kind of local autonomy. sunnis fighting to get isis out of anbar have some confidence that when isis is out they won't be given instructions from the shia militias or anybody else. that it will be their part of iraq as much as kurds feel irbil is their part of iraq. that's part of that strategy. it's bottom-up inside-out. and there's an outside-in part that involves the regional allies. and for each of these conflicts iraq syria, all the other ones, libya, it is going to take a commitment by the united states russia saudi arabia, iran, i mean somehow there's going to have to be a formula, we're going to have to live in a world where those powers can sit around a table and come up with agreements that they're prepared to back up. so i think those are the two elements of how you would make this work in iraq. i think it's going to take discipline and time. it's probably the job of the next president of the united states, but i think that's when it comes that's what it will look like. >> any comments steve? >> i would only add that i've become concerned over the last several years that we as a country have lost our ability to develop what i call a tapestry of policy, a tapestry of strategy. in other words, for all of us who've had children and grandchildren, you know the concept of small children soccer in which there's the ball and everyone goes to it. what i'm talking about is trying to weave together the programs because all these things are related so you have a program which you've connected the syrian question with the iraqi question and with the egypt question and of course talk to russians and chinese and others and iranians are part of this in a way that allows the united states to view as a tapestry and what is best for us. i worry at times we've lost our ability to do that or we're not interested, i'm not sure what it is. and i'm afraid, too, that if we don't do that actually it could contribute to iraq losing its ability to be unitary state. with all due respect to the good ambassador i'm concerned -- i hope i'm wrong but i'm concerned that the trends headed in the right direction of iraq not being able to remain as a kwraoupb terry state. that would be terrible. so i just think that we have a role here to play and i know that we have been involved for over a decade in a lot of things, but i don't remember who said it, but somebody said, you know, great powers are not allowed to get tired. i am afraid this is one of the instances in which we have to look at our ability to weave this program and tapestry in a way that helps others to find their way to this too. the allies in the middle east were afraid to take it on for a whole variety of reasons. steve, a lot of people discuss the progress or lack of progress against isis and i think americans tend to focus on the military sepb trick side of this, and we have touched on the demographic, and in many discussions we have here with csis, we discuss a lot of those elements and i hope they will come up today. let's do talk specifically about the kinetic effort against isis. how are we doing on the battlefield, do you believe? what needs to be brought to bear apart from all the other elements to be successful in the battle? >> i think that's a difficult one for me to answer because i am not seeing the daily take from the battlefield but on the other hand i would offer that in many ways this is similar to the old discussions of insurgencies where if the larger power is not clearly winning then they are actually losing and in this case we have the ability to bear significant power there are some things not on the ground at the moment, which i think when you talk to those most experienced and those currently involved are quite significant. for example, the absence of forward air controllers reduces the capabilities significance and efficiency of the air strikes and the lack of a logistics capability on the ground in iraq is essential because the iraqis in many cases, they are fine fighters but they do not have the logistic skills and they find themselves in isolated situations too quickly and too often. when you cannot reinforce, if you think getting shot at gets the heart out of the soldier try putting most of them realize they are completely alone and no chance for reinforcement and that takes the heart out of the fighters and let alone if their leaders disappear. many of these people in the room i know you have read the studies of world war ii and realize germany was not finished and the fire bombs were significant, and we did not win the war by 52 bombings but people who are determined to survive will survive. i am not a advocate of cutting loose military forces and all of its impact and force and i have had children in the military, and my point is that there are almost laws of physics at play where if you cannot get close to the target, they will be able to withstand your attack. the japanese would undergo days of bombardment and still be there when the marines stand up. war is a political action and we may have to address it more as a people and the person that can address that is the president of the united states, not a secretary or a senior policy person. if it becomes necessary or the decision is made that we have to be more effective in the military work i am afraid the president has to take that one on. >> do you expect to see large deployments of u.s. forces in iraq and potentially syria? >> no i don't. i don't think as long as barack obama is president we will see large military deployments. it's possible that we could see the additional steps that steve has urged, and that i agree would be valuable allowing our advisers to go forward whether they are sunni tribal fighters or iraqi security forces and bolster them in combat and lays targets for more effective air support, i could see those things happening. i think we have to be honest looking at this. we have a president, but we also have a country that in many ways is allergic to iraq. we lived through such a painful period after the 2003 invasion and i think it's widely shared whatever jeb bush may say when asked about it but it's a widely shared view it was a mistake to do that and there were so many mistakes made and how it was carried out during the period of occupation, so the american people, not unreasonably, are reluctant to get into the kind of large-scale involvement you are asking about, and the president more than most americans, and i think that reluctance comes through in every moment of policy and translates into the military, and the military says we don't have a strategy all in for victory. i don't want to send my guys back home in wooden boxes. military is like decisive wars with popular support, you know, where they can, you know they have a conclusive ending. we don't evened in a period in which that is possible. i do worry sometimes that the military is seeking something that is not possible. let me say one more thing that concerns me, especially in this period where the president is -- i called him allergic to iraq and maybe that over states it but certainly is reluctant here and he made a commitment in his words to degrade and destroy this adversary, and what he needs above all, more than anything else, more than any particular decision to send advisers forward or lays this, he needs some -- one person that will take responsibility for this campaign and every day, every morning when he asks the question, how are we doing in the battle against isis, mr. president, this is what we need, and this is what i ask you to focus on today. john allen thought he had been given that job when he was made special representative for the president to build the coalition to fight isis, and that job despite generous arguments to obama was not put at the white house, as many people thought it would be but was put at the state department. from that moment, that was, what roughly september october of last year, you had a series of interagency fights, confusion, false starts where you have the commander lloyd austin asking the president, mr. president, am i running this war? and the answer is yes you are. but then you have a former four-star general who has been given the job by the president of running the coalition and the strategy and so it's not surprising that you just with these competing authorities have a kind of policy confusion that hurts our effort and confuses our allies. if there is one thing in the next year, and you ask where would we be in a year, i think the president is not going to put tens of thousands of u.s. troops in. he doesn't have to. if he will put one person in as a decisive commander of this effort, the military pieces and the strategic pieces and the diplomatic and political pieces and so i think that is doable, even for this administration. >> steve? >> i am a gate believer in ambassadors. i have had an opportunity in my career to work with people that are brilliant ambassadors, ryan crocker, and anne patterson and others designated by law and the confirmation to be the president's representative in these particular countries. when they worked effectively with the senior military presence in the countries david petraeus is one example and that's an extraordinarily effective team that answers to the president. we have all the tools in place to do the things that we need to do and have used them before effectively, and i am always amazed in our ability to create new things that don't work as well as the things that we just left behind. as a result, i think we can return to the ambassador that says he or she is the president's representative and the president of the united states can speak to them directly and say, what is going on? what do you recommend? it focuses the energy and ability and makes it easier for the president to have responses in a way he is not getting because agencies are agencies and departments are departments, and they will compete, and some you may know, men and women and they are extraordinary representatives, and they can manage the tools on the ground. nobody can manage the tools in the united states, i understand that, and i am talking about on the forward end of all this so the president has the ability to know as best as possible what is happening and make decisions that is in the best interests of the united states and its people. >> thank you. >> david you are one of our nations leading journalists and involved in social media, and you see how robust that field is and you understand messaging and how can you counter 90,000 messages a day, that are disseminated by supporters and stimulate the worldwide movement? >> part of the puzzle in your

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Charleston , South Carolina , United States , Australia , Turkey , China , Portugal , Syria , Russia , Anbar , Al Ma Wit , Yemen , Washington , District Of Columbia , Yazidi , Abyan , Nigeria , Egypt , Belgium , Libya , Greece , New York , Japan , Monrovia , Montserrado , Liberia , New Hampshire , Germany , Texas , Iran , Afghanistan , Florida , Georgia , Ramadi , Al Anbar , Iraq , Jordan , Mississippi , Pakistan , United Kingdom , Tunisia , Monterey , Saudi Arabia , Paris , Rhôalpes , France , Liechtenstein , Kuwait , Americans , America , Chinese , Russian , Iraqis , Greek , Iranians , Jordanians , French , Iraqi , British , Syrian , Jordanian , Russians , Japanese , American , Jim Foley , Harper Lee , Steven Capus , Haider Al Abadi , Tom Sanderson , Jennifer Cook , Jim Baker , Nouri Al Maliki , Abu Al Baghdadi , Michael Elliott , David Ignatius , David Petraeus , Nikki Haley , Leonardo Dicaprio , Ian Williams , Barack Obama , Lloyd Austin , Al Qaeda , Michael Elliot , Harvard Kennedy , John Allen , Kennedy Roberts , Steven Capps , Ryan Crocker , Ken Calvert , Anne Patterson , Richard Nixon , William Webster , Christine Lagarde , Hillary Clinton , Ted Cruz ,