Other reactions whether its with our allies or whether its in the streets that are hard to contain. Rose we conclude this evening with lisa monaco. She was the former chief Homeland Security and quownt terrorism advisor to president obama. We left yemen some years ago, given the conflict there. And the threat to our personnel there. So any time you are undertaking operation, theres got to be consideration of the risk to the force. So the risk has to be worth the reward. And so those e the types of things you are considering. What is the next step in trying to go to raqqa. What is e force . We assess the only capable force is the Kurdish Military that we have been working with and providing assistance to. The provide with that, of course, is the reaction of the turks. Rose right. Our nato ally. But were really on the horns of the dilemma here if we do not arm the kurds in order to go towards raqqa to take raqqa and dislodge isil and its external operations there. If we do not do that, theres no other, weve assessed, capable force of going into raqqa. Rose dan balz of the Washington Post and lisa monaco when we continue. Funding for charlie rose has been provided by the following 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. Rose we begin this evening with a look at politics. Less than two weeks into his presidency President Donald Trump continues to ignite controversy. Earlier this week he abruptly fired sally yaits after she announced that the scrus tis department would not defend the administrations imtbraition ban in court. Yesterday President Trump engaged in a heated debate on twitter with the iranian government, accusing the iranians of ingratitude for the nuclear deal negotiated with the west. Today President Trump vowed to overturn a law of political speech for tax exempt churches. The Washington Post dan balz writes that trumps presidency has done more than pom arize the country, it has established terms of battle likely to persist indefinitely. He joins me now from washington. Welcome. Thank you. Rose lets begin there, terms of battle that are likely to continue indefinitely. Size up those terms of battle. Well, its an extension of the campaign that we went through, charlie. And i think that everything that has happened since the election through the transition and particularly in the opening weeks of the Trump Presidency have reinforced the divisions that we saw in the election. Donald trump has come to washington determined to shake it up. He promised that he would do that in the campaign. Im not sure everybody took him as seriously as they should have. But its determined to do that in his opening weeks. All of his moves in part are designed to send the signals that hes going to keep the promises that he made in the campaign. That hes going to offend the establishment without worrying about it. That hes going to be true to the people that he knows put him in office. And that he is going to alarm a lot of people not just in this country but around the world. And one of the things weve seen in the wake of everything he has done and he has moved at such a rapid pace and moved in so pean different directions, that its kind of hard to think about what is the center of gravity of all of this, but it has created an enormous backlash. It has created alarm around the world it has put people in the treat streets here in this country and elsewhere. And i think that it is as i said set the terms of battle for how you respond to donald trump over the next weeks, months, this year, next year, heading toward the 2018 and ultimately the 2020 election. Rose so tell me what, on the one hand, you could argue in some cases, you know, that there comes a time in which someone needs to come in and shake things up and create some ideas that are not simply what has been done in the past. On the other hand, you can say that you can come in and shake things up so that you create circumstances that will lead to a far worse situation in the end and you create circumstances in which you cant do anything, that you even intended to do over the long run in terms of betterment for the pop louse. I think thats the real risk, charlie. Shaking up washington in and of itself is not a bad thing. As we know, this has not been a town that has worked particularly well over the last eight years or 16 years or for quite a long time. So the idea of doing business in a different way is show wrong, i think that a lot of people would say its exactly what needs to be done. But as you suggest, the question is do you create so much chaos . Do you create so much disorder, do you create so much distrust or uncertainty smrks do you literally create so much exhaustion and on the part of both your allies and your friends in congress that people dont know exactly where this is heading, and as a result it sets off other reactions, whether its with our allies or whether its in the streets, that are hard that are hard to contain. And i think, you know, were so early in this administration that i think that we all have to be a little bit cautious in kind of extrapolating in a linear way where this is all heading and what it is going to do. But theres no doubt that what hes done so far has created much more turmoil, i think, than most people would have expected he would have been able to do in this short amount of time. Rose and some also argue that if you speak to everything, you speak to nothing. People do not have a real understanding of your values and your priorities. Thats correct. Although i think that with donald trump there are still some some core convictions. One certainly has to do with trade and jobs and his view of what has happened to the United States of america over a long period of time. Whether through globalization or trade deals or whatever it it is. But that in one way or another the United States has gotten the wrong end of the stick on this and he wants to send a signal that he wants to reverse that. Hes been consistent about that in all his meetings with creest or with labor, in the way hes talked about what he wants to do. Now talking about it is one thing. Beginning to act on it is another. Accomplishing it is of course the biggest question mark of all. And hes got, you know, hes got very little done other than a kind of a few small successes that he can point to with this company or that company. But nothing on the kind of macro scale that hes talking about. So theres theres that issue. On immigration and in a sense National Identity he was very clear in the campaign. And a number of the things that he has done have moved in that direction. Building the wall and most controversially, the steps he took with the executive order on immigration and refugees over the weekend, which created, again, a huge backlash. In other areas its not clear what he wants to do. Were not quite clear. He wants better relations with the russians. But today the u. N. Ambassador nikki hailey made a very strong statement saying that the sanctions will stay in place as long as the russians are in crimea. And she was very tough about the activity in the eastern ukraine. So were still wondering how this all shakes out, whether he has a firm idea of kind of where he wants to get to. How about the issue of veracity. Looked at from two separate angles. One angle is here is a man who said what he was going to do on the campaign trail and has begun to do that. So he has been true to his word. On the other hand there are constant questions about even including the iranian deal, when he talked about 150 billion in a regime that was ready to collapse. And other examples that question among many people and many Foreign Policy people, cred allity. I think there is probably sprairable issues here, one is where he says things that arent true. You know, the issue of three and a half to five million Illegal Immigrants who voted in the election, no evidence for that at all. Thats one thing. On Foreign Policy, i think the question is how much does he know. What does he know about the world . What does he know about the complexity of the relationships that exist or the history of the relationships that exist. And so when he says certain this something that he wassay told, is this something that hes studied . Has he digested this or is this something that he heard or saw somewhere that wasnt particularly reliable. So i think we have to wait a little long tore judge him. But every time he does one of these things, certainly within the Foreign Policy establishment its going to rattle some cages. Is one of the tests were going to see in the first 100 days of this administration, whether its people that have a larger respect among lots of people, not only in the United States but around the world, meet people like general mattis, people like rex tillerson, whether they will find themselves in a very difficult place where they feel like either they have to pushback very hard and insist on a different direction or insist on not participating in it. Or resign. Well, you know, lets put the resignation issue at abeyance for a little bit and let them at least find their. Rose im not suggesting there is an issue there. But im suggesting that you do hear, and we have seen in which the president has said things and theyre on record as disagrees. They absolutely are. And i think that the question as we watch them operate and particularly secretary tillerson but to some extent secretary mattist mattis as well who has been very outspoken on some of these things. To what extent do they feel obliged to reinforce, at least in part, the messages that the president is sending on some of these controversial issues, and to what extent do they feel obliged to either fight back internally and or externally, send conflicting signals so that at least there is a sense around the world that there is a different view and that there is a debate going on and that these are not necessarily set e8ed policies at this point. Rose steve bannon t is reported, at every turn when donald trump was being urged by other people to become more president ial, to be more inclusive, urged him to drill down with his with his known core constituency. And it is now assumed that that went a long way to helping him win the presidency. And i assume by doing that, earned a special place for steve bannon. Well, we can already see that hes earned a special place, in the role that hes been given in the new administration. He is, if not the most important one, one of the two or three most important people in the white house at this point. And therefore in the administration. He also has a worldview that may be more complete and well shaped than donald trumps. Donald trump has viseral instincts, and i think those mesh nicely with Stephen Bannons view of the world. But bannon, we had a very good piece in the post a couple of days ago about things that bannon has said over the years in interviews, on radio programs, in discussions, you know, on radio interryus with donald trump, speeches and things like that. They add up to something that is is coherent. Its radically different than sort of the conventional view that a lot of people accept. Its certainly different than a lot of our major allies have embraced over the years it is antiglobalization, antiglobalist t is pop lism, it is a view that the biggest single crisis that we and the world face is radical islamism. And that that needs to be the focus of creating and making alliances to focus on that as opposed to some of the other things. There is a nationalist element about it, very clearly. And he said that he is a nationalist. Rose tell me what america is going to look like if donald trump succeeds in all of his objectives. Well, i mean, were going to be a much more inward looking nation. Were going to be as he says taking care of america first. At the extension of things we have done, alliances we have had. We are going to be very muscular at least in the way we look and talk about certain parts of the world, particularly isis. I dont know what that means in terms of military action. But it could certainly lead to that. We know that. We are going to be a very, very divided country because as weve seen, the anger on the left, the anger in the progressive movement, the anger among people who did not vote for donald trump has escalated, really, since the election. People were upset and unhappy the morning after the election. I think as a result of what has happened since then, theyre more alarmed than they were and theyre making their views known. So were going to be even more divided than we were. Rose dan, its always great to have you here, i hope you will be here many times to help us understand this. It it is a remarkable time. Im glad you are there covering itment and were having an opportunity to understand it as it explains it self. Thank you, charlie. Rose thank you. Right back. Stay with us. Lisa monaco is here. She served as president obamas chief Homeland Security and counterterrorism advisor for four years. That role put her at the next us of many pivotal National Security issues. Her portfolio included the fight against isis, hostages, sanctions, cybersecurity, disease outbreaks and natural disasters. She also chaired both deputies and principals meetings of the National Security council. Im pleased to have her back at this table. Welcome. Thanks, charlie, good to be back. Rose we talked about this the other day. Who was on your Principals Committee . So what i did, charlie, as the president s Homeland Security advisor was chair meetings of the principals meeght, that is the cabinet level, members of the cabinet addressing Homeland Security issues. Things like ebola, zika, border questions. The attack on the Boston Marathon. The Boston Marathon bombings. We didnt know what the origin of that was. Was it international, terrorism related or not. I convened the principals so the secretary of Homeland Security, the attorney general, the secretary of the treasury, the cia director, you name it, on down the line. Rose fbi director. Fbi directer, depending what the issue is, the attorney general as i mentioned, the secretary of state. You know, so the whole, the relevant members of the president s cabinet who have expertise, knowledge, interest, equity, perspective on the Homeland Security issue. Rose and were there other principals meetings that did not include those issues that were chaired by someone else, by the National Security advisor or by someone else. Sure, susan rice chairs the Principals Committee of the National Security council. Rose right. And that would involve depending on what the issue was, all of the people i just mentioned and maybe others. Rose when you look at this incident in yemen, it it is said to have been thought about, considered, planned in your administration administration, correct . So here is the thing, have i been seeing some of the reporting on this today, first, let me say, operations like the one that have been reported are always going to be inherently risky. And i certainly wouldnt second guess those who planned and certainly not the operators from putting their lives on the line to undertake these types of operations, so the risk is considerable, always, if are you putting peoples in harm away. And there will also be risk in inaction. I dont know what was presented to President Trump, what process was undertaken to approve that operation. And im not going to get into internal, im out of the government now quite obviously but im still not going to talk about internal delib rations in the Obama Administration and im not going to talk about classified information. But the white house was presented in the wanting weeks of the waning weeks of the Obama Administration, a broad proposal. So not a single raid, a single operation on a single target, a broad proposal for increased military operations in yemen. It was of such a nature and of such scope to include a request for broader authorities that had significant policy implications, risk to force implications, and it was going to be undertaken in large part if not exclusively after january 20th. So. Rose so it was being considered to be implemented after a new president takes office. The view was that this has, it is of such significants and it was such a broad proposal that would extend well past january 20th. And pose significant policy issues that it ought to be deliberately considered by the new team, considered by the new president , with the benefit of input from his advisors, his National Security team. So there was interagency discussion about the proposal, but for the purpose of basically enabling the text team to come in and undertake some careful consideration of what to do. Rose let me just understand what you are saying. Really understanding all the parameters what you could say and not say, was it not to be carried out because you wanted to leave something, that was an Ongoing Mission in the hands of the new administration, was that the reason to wait . The reason to not undertake a decision in the Obama Administration is that the actual operation was going to be undertaken after january 20th. It, so it it would pose policy issues, risks that the new administration would have to deal with. And its not appropriate for the Obama Administration to kind of get in front of that, right. And to undertake, take a decision for something t