Cups. Youre always hanging around and looking at them. Roger is right, theres another lad that will factor into these players. Renaldo from portugal and uruguay player is another to watch. They can score goals an put on a real show if theyre on their day. But i think the cam of the italians, they always start slowly. I think its a stonewall bet italy will draw with england in the first game and then after that i think italy will go through and win the competition. Charlie we conclude this evening with Elizabeth Lecompte, kate valk and Frances Mcdormand of the Wooster Group. I do it for joy. Thats what this project came from was the desire to sing the songs, hear these songs and investigate ecstatic dancing, a theater of joy. Charlie iraq, the world cup and the Wooster Group when we continue. Theres a saying around here you stand behind what you say. Around here, we dont make excuses, we make commitments. And when you cant live up to them, you own up and make it right. Some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where its needed most. But i know youll still find it, when you know where to look. Additional funding provided by and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Charlie we begin this evening with a crisis in iraq. Earlier this week, radical sunni militants of the sunni state of iraq and syria seized mosul and tikrit, amid mass desertions from the iraqi army its clear the insurgents may move on baghdad. Iraqs Prime MinisterNouri Almaliki has declared a state of emergency. The senior cleric has called for iraqis to take up arms against the terrorists and kurdish fighters have taken control of the northern oil city of kirkuk. President obama addressed the crisis earlier today. We will not be sending u. S. Troops back into combat in iraq but i have asked my National Security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraq Security forces and i will be reviewing those options in the days ahead. Charlie joining me from washington, Michael Gordon of the New York Times, Dexter Filkins of the new yorker and Richard Haass president of the council on foreign relations, i am pleased of all of them and begin with Richard Haass for a quick History Lesson as to how we got from, lets say, the surge in iraq to the end of the american participation to where we are today. Thank you. Its the car itself which obviously removed the Old Authority in saddam husseins hand and then afterwards we essentially dismantled many of the institutions that provided for security in iraq. Thats one thing. Then the Obama Administration came in after the surge, and the critique will be not so much what it did but didnt do, not pushing harder to have a socalled residual force to remain in iraq to dampen the political rivalries, to train out the iraqis better than they are, perhaps not press as hard as we could have or should have to get the iraqis to make a Genuine National government and, thirdly, the iraqis had their share of the blame. Mr. Maliki has run a largely sectarian, narrowly based largely corrupt government so when people dont fight for it, that should tell you something. They dont feel a national identity. Thats not their government. Its essentially malikis largely for iran and the shia. So theres blame to go around for the Iraqi Administration and our administration. Charlie who are the military that have been successful on the ground . Its an amazing story in and of itself. Isis, the Islamic State of iraq in syria, the leadership at least was al quaida and iraq, and they essentially have moved into the syria first they moved into syria when the rebellion there started. They a bunch of guys who were part of al quaida in iraq also formed one of the big fronts, a crazy group also fighting in syria, but they span the border and the border between syria and iraq is basically gone. Its 300 miles, open desert, nobodys policing it, so theyre working both sides of it. So if you take there was a twitter feed, isis has a twitter feed. Yesterday they had a photograph of a chechen fighter who was opening the door to one of the americanmade captured humvees that they had taken from the iraqi army and he had driven it back into syria. So that kind of says it all. And theres a collection of you know, its iraqis and syrians but theres lots of the foreigners fighting there. Charlie and who are they . Theyre coming from all over the world. Charlie from iran . No. Charlie i mean coming in now. Thats another problem. Charlie its a question in terms of who else is on the ground. I mean, whats enabled this whole conflict in iraq is, first, i think malikis sectarian policies, but secondly the war on syria. Its a black hole in the war of the middle east. Among the many things its done, its brought in attracted foreigners from around the globe to fight there and, so, you have probably Something Like 11,000 foreigners fighting in syria right now. A lot are Iraqi Shiites fighting for assad but probably 7,000 of them are from the United States, germany, from the u. K. , from france and all these people have passports and all are going to come home one day but this is whats happening. Charlie Michael Gordon from washington, coauthoring the end game, the inside story, the story of iraq from george w. Bush to barack obama. Having said that, michael, what is at stake here, the consequences and the significance of coming history in. Well, i do think the United States is clear security interests and how this turns out. This is not one of those situationsy you can say theres a civil war, let them fight it out. Charlie i think thats what the president said, though. Thats what he says now. Charlie yeah. And the iraqis have been raising the issue of air strikes for months. But it is what the president said. The reason we have stakes in there is the point dexter just made which is the group, the isis group which spans both sides of the border, has created a sanctuary in a part of the world that could be a platform for terrorist attacks against western interests. Plus lets not forget that if iraq was to become a collapsed state, iraq is a Major Oil Producer and its picked up a lot of the slack in terms of the falloff of production from iran because of the sanctions, libya because to have the turmoil. And already youve seen the oil markets affected by this. So this is a country, notwithstanding the fact also 4400 american lives to build what iraq is today, so i do think there is an american stake in how this turns out. Charlie has this become the biggest crisis in the world today . I agree with dexter that the iraq situation and the syrian situation have merged together because the antagonists, they dont recognize the border. I think american policy is compartmentalized and you have people working syria and iraq and theyre not the same people and its not a common strategy, but the problem itself is an endemic problem which embraces these two countries and threatens stabilities in all the countries in the region jordan, turkey and countries to the south. Charlie you bring y me where we want to be. Where are we in terms of what the United States can do maybe having a common strategy in syria and iraq is one idea but expand on that and others. One reason this came about is because of what the United States has not been doing in syria. We essentially left it to the jihaddest opposition to constitute the real only alternative to the assad government. One thing we might want to do is reverse that policy. The president hinted he might be willing to do it, but its been three years we have been thinking but not acting on it. One thing would be to start providing syria help to the opposition they could live with and we would work with them that their target would not primarily be the assad regime but this group, the isis group that is so dangerous within syria and there. Secondly, we probably would want to do more to then the kurds. The kurds in some ways are the big ben fisheriethebig benefici. You have independent kurdistan who wants to see the area safe and secure. Theres oil there and maybe for political reasons we want to help them so they dont want to expand their reach beyond the borders of iraq because we dont want to bring in turkey. Jordan is struggling with millions of ref juice and we may want to help them. Also we might want to rethink our policy toward afghanistan. What happens when theres no u. S. Presence in a country thats under stress . The president said well get all troops out of afghanistan by 2016. I say this is the example of the risk you run if you do that and might want to think the longterm u. S. Presence. Charlie the middle east crossing borders and exploding people talk about, this is it. This is it. If you stand back and look at the map you basically have a sectarian war running from the Iranian Border to the mediterranean. Isis has carried out car bombings in beirut. In lebanon, 25 of the population is now refugees. Syria imploded. Iraq is breaking up. The monarchy in jordan is getting more unstable ba by the day. The iranians are helping to mobilize the shiite militias in iraq to fight the sunnies. The saudis and the turks are already in syria. I think, for president obama, he has tried for both his terms to get out of that region and not to Pay Attention to it, and i think hes going to have to reengage in a really big way because its all coming apart. Charlie michael, do you agree with that, the president has to get reengaged or else . Well, the my understanding from american and iraqi officials is the administration belatedly but at this point is engaged at least there. The question seems to have become their priority and theyre focusing on it and promising some sort of policy in the upcoming days. So i believe theyre reengaged. The question is, you know, we need to see what they are actually prepared to do. And what are their options, in your judgment . Youre a military affairs reporter. Well, you know, just looking at it analytically, im not advocating a position. No, no, analytically. I have been there before with michael. I think theres a military side and a political side. On the military side, as richard points out and this is a policy our former ambassador to syria advocated. Charlie robert ford. Robert ford. We could arm in a sirrous way which were not going the Syrian Opposition with an eye toward increasing pressure on the al quaidalinked group from that side. Two, i do think we need a steppedup from a military perspective advisory effort in iraq to help the iraqi forces. An argument can be made that air power could be helpful within concern constraints. Obviously, if theyre bringing american arms from iraq into syria as dexter pointed out, appeared in a video, we could stop that if we wanted to, that sort of thing. But its a complicated thing. You have to distinguish between mixedup forces on the ground. Its not a simple proposition, but it could be an element of military strategy, but i very much agree with richard that there has to be a political component to it, which is that if maliki cannot be encouraged to form a more inclusive government with prominent sunnis youre not going to have stability in iraq. Where i might slightly disagree with richard is i dont know theres a lot of time to try to sort this out, and i think that its imperative to have some sort of strategy to act fast because the Iraqi Foreign minister first raised the option of American Drones last august. Its been almost a year that iraqis have been raising this. In august by the foreign minister and many march privately and maliki in may, chickens are coming home to roost and something has to be done. Charlie maliki came here looking for support months ago. We sent him off with hardware which is now often in the wrong hands. Hes not creating a serious government in a couple of days. You dont change political culture overnight. If thats the prerequisite for serious american help, it wont happen. I think quite honestly things may be moving faster on the ground than in terms of u. S. Policy. This government in iraq will survive only if it gets massive iranian help in the short run. Charlie we wait for that . This is where it gets in the land of the unbelievable. Basically right now well be essentially on the same side as iran helping the Iraqi Government on one side of the nonexisting border, whereas on the other side of the nonexisting border in shia well be opposing iron. Charlie and theres this, by supporting iran and being in a war together with iran, were doing what our good friends the saudis fear the most, the continued influence of iran in the region, right . Yeah, absolutely. I think whats going to happen in syria is probably look, isis is the best thing that ever happened to bashar assad. Hes loving it. Were not going to try to knock down assad if the Strongest Force in the region is isis because they would roll right in. So i think charlie should we say this publicly . I think thats an interesting moment in diplomacy. As crazy as it sounds the moment may have come for meetings with russia and iran to basically say we have to change the priorities. We all have a common priority that isis doesnt win out or dominate in syria. Charlie use it as a base. Use it as a base not only against syria but in iraq. Why cant we find a way to take the heat off assad, well do that, in exchange of focusing against isis . This may be a bridge too far but thats the conversation we have to start thinking about. They would have to hold their nose. Exactly. Foreign policy is about tradeoffs. Charlie whats worse . Doing that with the butcher in damascus or watching isis in power in baghdad . Well charlie access to oil and all that. This isnt a good answer, but i think, when this is all over ten years from now and we look back on this, lrp a lot of missed opportunities, and i think look, if the United States whowf done all these things would have done all these things a year and a half to two years ago, theres a good chance we wouldnt be here today, and the same could be said when we pulled out of iraq rather in a hurry before i think the political system in iraq was ready charlie we could have been better negotiators, if thats your point. We didnt engage when we should have. Charlie michael, speak to the same point. The whole idea of do we have to look at syria differently now because isis is a bigger threat than anything we have and if we have to get in bed with assad, we get in bed with assad. If we get in bed with iran, we get in bed with iran. I dont share that perspective. I think that iran is the foremost supporter of assad. They have been flying arms through iraqi airspace, they have their personnel there, and i think thats unlikely to change. I think given the atrocities in syria i dont think the americans will find they can make an accommodation with assad thats constant with their values and were either supportive of the moderate position or not. Im more supportive of the administrations declarative policy. Im for support offof working with iran than iraq. Iran will mobilize shiite militias, they did it before against american troops. I think the dangerous is the sectarian militias iran is mobilizing, instead of a conflict between insurnlt organization and the government of iraq, it may very well become what dexter covered when he was at the New York Times the sectarian war between the shia militias and sunni insurgents, and irans intervention could lead things very much down that path. The question is can the United States come in with a political and Security Package that is sufficiently robust that it could dissuade the Iraqi Government from cooperating too extensively with iran and going down the wrong path . Charlie michael, what would that package look like . Not for me to say, but the president has made it clear that charlie i know, but i mean from well, he says hes considering air strikes and a pumpedup advisory effort, they say it cant be purely military but has to have a political component, clearly some degree would involve replenishing the stocks. It would have to be somebody helping the iraqis plan better operations and they pull together so far and we need to reclaim some of our in return for doing any of these things or all of these things, we need to have sufficient influence with the government of iraq that the United States did what it did when it was there, which was say to maliki, you cant appoint this guy, hes too sectarian or incompetent, this is the right guy to be the head of the National Police or this is the best general for the formation in northern iraq. We used to have a lot of that influence. We cant get it all back but we need to have some of it back or else this projects is not going to work. Two things, in syria, nobodys talking about getting into bed with assad. What were talking about is dropping the demand that he go as the first step in any diplomatic process. Seems to me that is not possible. Charlie but it is dramatically changing what has been your stayed position, assad has to go. Yes, and one of the problems with that position is we were never able to or willing to make good on it. This is rhetorical, not real