 Good morning, and welcome to the morning session on the future of US engagement in the Middle East My name is Chaim Malka. I'm the deputy director and a senior fellow at the Middle East program at CSIS I'm delighted to be here this morning as you can see I'm stepping in for my boss John Alterman who was supposed to be moderating this panel unfortunately, John Got delayed His flight got delayed this morning by the volcanic ash cloud Let me tell you I've never been so excited about volcanic ash in my life So this is a wonderful to be here Sharing the stage with with two very distinguished speakers What we're trying to do this morning. What we're going to be looking at is a Few years down the road looking at the inevitable changes that are going to be going on in the Middle East with the drawdown of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and how that's going to affect the future of US engagement in the Middle East I can't think of two better strategic thinkers to work through some of these issues with us today, and I'm delighted That they're here with us General Brent Scowcroft is former national security adviser Someone who really guided US foreign policy through a time of great uncertainty and change in the world and in the Middle East After the collapse of the Soviet Union I think he's really one of the great strategic thinkers of our time and I'm delighted that you're here with us Mr. David Ignatius, who many of you know as a novelist and Hollywood screenwriter is Is also a columnist with the Washington Post and I think someone who one of the most informed and Insightful commentators on US foreign policy today and especially US foreign policy in the Middle East today So I'm delighted to see so many people here delighted that our distinguished speakers are with us We'll start off with General Scowcroft, then we'll turn to Mr. Ignatius I'll ask a few questions, and then we'll turn it over to the audience. So General Scowcroft, please. Well, thank you very much for that kind introduction and I'm glad to be here with Screenwriter David Ignatius Among his many other accomplishments He wrote a book that's big Brzezinski and I put our names on So we're very close colleagues the Middle East topic that we're focusing on that is what happens down the road After we've left Iraq and Afghanistan to me is a fascinating one because our our approach toward Iraq has been Unusual from the very beginning, but now it's unusual in the sense that It almost seems that when our last troops are out of Iraq Iraq just disappears There there's no particular thought what happens down the line How does it fit in with the rest of the region or anything? We're there When we're there Iraq's important when we're gone We don't even we don't even think about it We we may be in the most critical aspect of Iraq right now and That is that while the security situation Besides all the horrors you read in the daily paper about suicide bombings and so on the security situation is getting better and the Iraqi military is Now increasingly able to handle the security situation The political situation is different. However, there are still sharp divisions among the groups and within some of the groups and They are now following election in the process of trying to accommodate to Divide and share power and that is a very difficult process Even in even in our own country But if it takes place within what I would call a general embrace of a US presence It seems to me it's more likely to take place in the process of accommodation and political discourse But if it hasn't happened by the time the US troops leave then it's more likely to turn into a zero-sum game with Brutality and force Determining the outcome That would be that would be unfortunate after all of the sacrifices made to produce a better Iraq Now one of the things that is permanent about Iraq is that it is one of the fracture zones in the region The fracture zones are both ethnic cultural and religious and To its east is Iran a Shiite country Many of whose principal shrines are in Iraq to its west is the Arab world Sunni Versus Persian and they meet in Iraq so Iraq is going to be a cockpit for the evolution of These contending influences Last but not least of course is the Kurdish situation a Large portion of Kurdish people live in Iraq Some live in Syria a number live in in Turkey and a number in Iran The Kurds have always thought That there are large enough culture that they deserve a state of their own a Situation not desired by any of the countries which harbor Turkish populations There which are Kurdish populations, so this is a very complex difficult region. It needs nurturing and That nurturing I think can best take place in the context of a general security resolution of the problems which beset both Sunni versus Shia and Persian versus Arab Afghanistan is a little different if we weren't in Afghanistan right now We almost certainly would not be going in we're in Afghanistan in part because President Obama campaigned About getting forces out of Iraq But so he wasn't accused of being a weakling He said the place we need to be is Afghanistan. That's where That's where our interests are without perhaps understanding the nature of those interests our Interests are in Afghanistan but I think That they are there For two reasons first of all it was the proximate source of the trade center Bombings because it was a haven for al Qaeda for training equipping so on It is also Neighbor to Pakistan Which is a key country in the region for us and for everyone else Pakistan has a very difficult history When India split up Pakistan became One of the two one of the then three portions a More difficult portion more tribal in nature Terrain facilitating separatism making unity difficult and And Pakistan has had enormous difficulties With democracy India inherited the Congress Party, which was the glue that helped India evolve into a more homogenous country Pakistan didn't enjoy that and they've had a series of of Civilian democratic governments, which for one reason or another have failed the military has taken over four times Sort of straightened things out turned it back to civilian. It's a very troubled history And it continues on that course the relationship between India and Pakistan is Tense to say the least It is improving again now, but another Mumbai incident Could be a catastrophe for everyone and Pakistan is not just another little Isolated state. It's a hundred and eighty million people Having nuclear weapons has been a focus of Conflict with India For influence between India and China and a Catastrophe there could be one that would involve many of the great powers of of the world Pakistan and the tribal areas Where we're focusing much of our attention in Afghanistan Also have a unique history because many of those tribal areas were used by the Pakistani military as Irregulars to Foment trouble In Kashmir Against the Indians. So this is a this is a very complex situation and right now We're trying to unravel it by solving the Afghan part of that Border region, which is largely Ungoverned, I think we've made one great development in in Afghanistan and that is we've changed our Tactics from counter-terrorism to counter insurgency Now that may sound pretty esoteric but it basically means that Counter-terrorism if you see a bad guy You go after him and you take him out and if you kill some civilians It's too bad, but it's collateral damage if your goal is counter insurgency And you have the same situation you don't take out the bad guy because the trouble you create by killing the civilians Is greater than the benefits you get by taking out the bad guy So we have changed that and that is basically our objective in Afghanistan and that is to give the Afghan people a sense of Relative stability and security we don't need an Afghan State which is a modern nation state We'd be delighted if we could go back to the old days 30 or 40 years ago when there was a King of Afghanistan who presided over a loose collection of Political and economic entities so that's basically our goal We're on the I think we're on the right track. Is it enough? our job really is to provide a The locals a sense of security Because previously what we would do is go in and clean out villages and then leave well as soon as we left the Taliban al-Qaeda would come back in kill all the people who supported us and preside over a reign of terror so we're clearing out areas and we're holding them But we don't have the troops to hold them forever We have to turn them over to the Afghan military, which is now Insufficient in in size and training to do it. So we have to train the Afghan military to do it The other aspect of it is the political influence from Kabul in many of these areas Kabul is seen as As bad in many ways as the Taliban Not terrorizing necessarily but corrupt so on so we need Kabul To appear to be helping not a part of the oppression of the locals that takes a Kabul government Karzai is in Washington even as we speak We've had a troubled history with him But he is the president of Afghanistan And I think that is what we're trying to put together if it all comes out, right? Afghanistan will be a Tolerable situation and a tolerable situation is all that we need in the region It won't end our problems with Pakistan, but that's not of our part of our subject today Thank you for that Very clear overview of the complexities of the region Mr. Ignatius First I want to thank Heim for his introduction after 30 years of writing about foreign policy. It's so nice To be lumped in with Hollywood, you know to have people ask you David What's Leonardo DiCaprio really like? And if you want to know the answer that you'll have to see me afterwards To to talk about foreign policy and our subjects like Brent I'm gonna talk a little bit about Iraq a little bit about Afghanistan Watching the the process in Iraq through these painful Seven years now Has taught me many lessons, but I think the Number one lesson is that there's an enormous difference between a really bad outcome and a just sort of bad outcome and Acceptably tolerably bad outcome And I'd say that's what we've we've ended up with we have still a weak Iraqi state Internal division risk of sectarian violence But it's not the total flaming Disaster that it would have been had we left in 2006 When the country really was pitching toward a civil war. I think historians 50 years from now will note Two people who got it right about Iraq The first is sitting on my right Brent Scowcroft warned very clearly About the dangers of invading Iraq in 2002 Primarily focusing on the question of what would fill the vacuum that we would create and he was prescient and courageous in Stating the dilemmas that we ended up seeing I'm gonna say something that a lot of people disagree with now, but I think another person who will get credit from historians Not for having gotten it right in the first instance about invading Iraq Is George Bush who saw that if he Pulled out as virtually everyone was urging him to do in this very painful 2006 2007 a time frame when we would have left behind a country just spinning apart Had he done that? We would we would be looking at a much worse situation and I have to say I do admire Bush for a Finding an alternative policy for finding in general Petraeus somebody who could carry it out And so I think we end up With a situation in Iraq that for all the difficulties Is is a lot better than the really terrible outcome that we would have been looking at so that that's my starting point As I look at Iraq following their March elections. I'm struck by the good sense of Iraqi voters so often betting on on the good sense of people Around the around the world is you know doesn't pay off, but in this case We saw Iraqis who in the first set of elections in 2005 had basically voted a sectarian ticket There had been big Shiite parties formed together in the alliance that was Back by Iran explicitly religious People Americans who ought to have known better talked back then about the 80% solution You know if we got the Shiites with us if we've got the Kurds with us You know basically forget about the rest that was part of the the arrogance of our policy back then that got us into so much trouble but in these elections in in March 2010 Iraqis voted in surprising numbers for Cross sectarian tickets the most striking example is the Iraq KIA Coalition headed by Ayatollah. We the former interim prime minister Which won the largest number of seats to the surprise of everyone most of all to the surprise of the Iranians who had Waged a major basically all out campaign. We would call it political covert action Pumping money into the parties candidates that they favored Vice president Biden told me in an interview on the record that I published in my column that He estimated our government estimates that the Iranian spending in support of its political allies in this election Was over a hundred million dollars So that's the kind of money that the Iranians spent to try to shape this election and guess what? It backfired, you know, but they basically got clobbered The the people they supported ended up doing far worse than was expected Iraqis ended up resenting the fact that some of these candidates had Iranian support So the Iranians have been trying ever since to repair their their situation It does look as if Have to be careful about making predictions, but this long period of political jockeying It prior to formation of a new government is Beginning to bend I think towards some Agreement I think the Iranians and their and their allies are exceeding to the The need to get a government that Iraqis are really demanding And so they're backing off of what was another push to disqualify a whole set of Of candidates I'd say one thing about the US role in this Iraq that we are leaving pulling out most of our troops were pulling out this enormous amount of Military equipment that we that we brought in but we shouldn't think that That investment that we made in the future of Iraq in a stable Iraq doesn't give us the right and really the Obligation to speak up about what we see as Proper course in Iraq. I sometimes worry that you know, we're so as Brent said we're so happy To be on our way out of there that we basically you know the line in Washington is zip it, you know That's it. I don't want to talk about it. Don't want to think about it. Don't want to deal with it, you know Farewell Iraq It's understandable given the all of the difficulties our country has faced all the problems that we've caused to be honest for Iraq and for Iraqis But I think you know that really gives us even more of an obligation to speak up when we see things Going wrong, and I think I think what that means is Senior US officials vice president of Biden's been given responsibility for this need to make clear what we see as red lines of going forward thing, you know outcomes that we think are appropriate given Iraq's constitution it's it's regional interests. It's security interests and things we think are unacceptable That that doesn't mean jumping back in and waging new military offenses It just means Understanding that we have a lot of power to shape outcomes there and that we shouldn't be afraid to speak out I think general Odeiro Has done a magnificent job in subtly Quietly using his power and the confidence that Iraqis have in him To shape shape outcomes in this period immediately after the election There are a lot of things that still are kind of murky, but I think the record will show the general Odeiro And I was really smart in what he did He his replacement general Austin is coming in he's a Experienced a strong figure, but I hope he does some of the some of the same just a brief word about Afghanistan As I tried to say with Iraq I think that we need to understand that our goal there President Obama's goal is to escape a really terrible outcome and Understand that that doesn't mean we're gonna have a really good outcome. I don't think that we are we're gonna have an Acceptably bad outcome. We're gonna have a country that's ragged. We're gonna have Afghan security forces that aren't really ready to do the job But we will have made it a lot better than it would have been had we had we bailed out of this project And I think I think President Obama's decision will be will be judged to have been a to have been a sound one As I look at the situation this week. I'm struck by a couple of things first you would have thought that US government officials would have learned by now something that General Scowcroft Always exhibited when he was in government, which is that it's wise when you're dealing with other countries Especially with your allies to make your criticisms in private you know especially in parts of the world where where public Dignity and and the and and the humiliation that comes from being criticized in public are such important things and I think that US officials are Talented special envoy for Afghanistan Pakistan Richard Holbrook our Defense Secretary one of the best Secretary's defense we've had in a long time most recently our smart experience national security advisor have all made a big boo boo in publicly criticizing Karzai and And in some instances all doing the same thing with Pakistani officials in ways that virtually guarantee a bad outcome I mean, you know it's just people are going to have to show that they're independent if you take them down in public They're gonna they're gonna bite you back And so I think this piece of theater we've been watching in Washington this week I'll be cynical and describe it as that in which we've had this public embrace of President Obama and President Karzai Is an elaborate attempt to repair damage that was Self-inflicted by us. We didn't need to to make the criticism so so emphatic in public It created a problem. We're now having to repair. I hope it's it's repaired. We don't have effectively an alternative to Karzai He knows that we know that let's get on with it A final thought about Afghanistan I Have to be honest and say that I think so far This strategy of President Obama's which I said I thought was a good one Is having difficulties in the field the first big test of it in Hulman province in a in a rural area called Marjah where I was at the end of March Initially look pretty successful. You know Marines went in bang bang. They cleared the area. They had a fabulous Brigadier General The Nicholson who just you know gives the best interview you ever saw and you know everybody's going you know there Well, that's just shows we can get to get the job done 90 days later Marjah is still Insecure the Taliban has not been cleared from all areas of Marjah despite this enormous Offensive by US Marines and what what looked like success and worse the Whole point of this exercise was to get local governance in Marjah That would be part of a process of transition to Afghan control and that's really not working From what I hear the officials haven't gotten there for the most part when they do get there They can't travel around because it's not secure they just The pieces of that have not come together. So we need to be honest about that and try to fix it while there's still time and The second thing that I'm struck by looking at Kandahar But also looking at dealing with President Karzai in Cobble is that when it comes to the political side of this, which is the most important We still aren't sure what to do I was I was in Kandahar at the end of March I sat in a Shura in which all the local big shots who were resented by a lot of the ordinary folks in Kandahar Sat around it basically said, you know over our dead bodies. Are you gonna change things? These aren't Taliban these are our friends, you know And they're basically saying the way we're dividing up the spoils where our tribe and our friends get all the goodies You know, that's the way we're gonna do it And if you try to mess with that you got and I think we've looked at that and we've realized if you knock that Whole power structure over as much as it's resented by people in Kandahar city and Kandahar district You're gonna create a vacuum into which will flow. You don't know and So I think people are being very very careful about upsetting the apple cart, you know, and that's you know I think they're they're they're trying to be prudent Appropriately so I don't think Kandahar is gonna work out smoothly or easily So you know the two key tests that we're gonna happen this year for our Afghanistan policy I have to be honest and say I don't think they're going very well So I think we're gonna end up next July with a ragged situation and my hope will be and I'll close here that it will be Just a little bad, you know, it will be acceptably bad. It won't be flaming all out terrible Because you know, I've learned to think that's that's gonna be my metric So I'm I'll leave it there. Thanks. Thank you for that difficult yet honest assessment of the situation. I want to Pose a question to you general scorecroft to start off with you mentioned that the region needs a lot of nurturing right now There's a lot of fault lines Sony Shia occurred Arab Arab-Israeli is the US in a position To give the nurturing to nurture the region and in a way in an effective way. Are we capable of that now? I Think we are I think we're in a unique position to do it and that brings in State which is not a part of our discussion Iran Iran has borders on both of the areas that we've been talking about where we have troops Are we discussing with Iran the nature of the region? No Iran's gonna be there long after we're gone and It seems to me however profound our differences a discussion with Iran on Iraq and the future of Iraq and the future of Afghanistan is Critical to any kind of a resolution of the region now in the early days of Afghanistan. We did have dialogue With Iran on the borders of the Afghan conflict and then with acts and evil other things that that broke down So it seems to me one of the things we need to do In dealing with the Iranian problem is to recognize that Iran itself is in a difficult region be set by these different kinds of fracture lines and That we ought to seek a Solution which accommodates as best one can in a very turbulent region Those problems can you give us some examples of how we might include Iran in that kind of a framework that you suggest? well The future of Iraq for example What should be the future of Iraq how do how do we want Iraq to secure its place in the region we We've been so concentrated on a Saddam Hussein in the region that it's sort of Distorted that but you you go back 20 years or so Iran and Iraq fought a seven-year war here our original policy after we replaced the British In that whole area was to build strength in Iran as the Cassifier for the region when the Shah left it was a balance between Iran and Iraq So we didn't have to keep forces there. Those are the kinds of things we need to start thinking about again How can we produce a region? which Tends towards stability rather than toward chaos and I don't have all the answers But we need to start focusing on that rather than on the residual problems of the past Let me ask you David Ignatius. You mentioned that Iran was surprised by the outcome of the Iraqi elections Are we in the US having an honest debate about Iran's role in the region and Iran's influence the region? especially in light of drawdowns Expected drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan Well, I think Mr.. Rani and regime and it's it's president a many nijad do everything they can to make themselves toxic to Detour anybody who'd like to do what? Brent describes and what I agree in principle makes sense I said a nice thing about the Bush administration in 2006 a moment ago now I'm gonna make a very critical comment One of the biggest mistakes that they made was that in March of 2006 after a lot of internal debate in Tehran the Supreme Leader Hemeny decided to send His most trusted representative really Ali Larajani to Iraq for high-level strategic dialogue with the United States about Stabilizing Iraq where in fact Iranian and US interests At that time and arguably still are pretty similar. We want to stabilize Iraq under the existing Shiite-led government The US that invited these talks we had been you know Sending signals that we we'd loved Iranian help in stabilizing Iraq So the Iranians decided to take us up on it and sent Proposed to send large on me. I happened to be in Baghdad on the day that that was announced. It was orchestrated with our friends in the Shiite Alliance Ablaziz Hakeem and others and no sooner the Iranians announced that they were doing this then the US Basically said no, we're not playing We panicked and the reason we panic was that large on he was so high level We were afraid that our the nuclear issue would get swallowed up in a discussion about Iraq I Was in Tehran in in October in in August and September of that year And I want to see one of the hardliners who runs a newspaper there called Kehan and he said you know I tried to warn Ayatollah Hemeny not to send his representative to Baghdad. I said this is an American trick They're not serious about working with us about Iraq and I was right and we'll never make that mistake again, and I thought boy. What a missed opportunity that was So I you know so it is the opportunity still there to have a dialogue with Iran about stabilizing the region Yes, is is the long-run goal for wise us policy in the broadest strategic sense a new security architecture for the Gulf and The adjacent regions that draws in Iran as a rising power The reality of whose whose power cultural weight Historical importance can't be shouldn't be ignored is is that what we should be trying to do in the long run? Absolutely Does this White House understand this this yes? I mean that was the whole point that President Obama made and talking really from his first day about engagement with Iran that was not popular Universally, but he said we're gonna make every effort we can to engage this country draw it into strategic dialogue with this Goal that I just described in mind of a new regional security architecture And basically he's gotten nothing for it. He said two private letters to the Supreme Leader There have been lots of efforts through many different channels to communicate our interest in a serious dialogue, and it's gone nowhere So what do we do now? And I you know for that I I'm not I'm just a journalist, so I turn to people like General Scowcroft Well general Scowcroft, let's let's pick up on that point. I mean Future Gulf security environment where you have a greater Iranian presence How do you think our Gulf allies and the GCC states view that sort of a structure and and do you think they Worry about the future us commitment to their region. I don't know if they worry about our commitment. I think they worry about the region and In the Gulf area, they're very concerned about Iran and the spreading of Iranian influence both because of the religion and because of the Cultural differences But they're not about to join in alliance with the United States against Iran at the present time Because that would be immensely unpopular in the streets of the region Can we do it I don't I don't know because I think David touched it on a very important point And that is however much we try to have an enlightened policy toward Iran It's very difficult to know who to talk to and From the Iranian perspective, I think there's a great fear in talking to anybody because you can be accused by Other factions in Iran of selling out to the great Satan so we have a huge problem here The structure of the Iranian state is a theocracy and so the mullahs are Titrally the final arbiters. There is a government run by a president Ahmadinejad elected so on so forth but those the laws that they pass can be invalidated by the mullahs and so on so there are those two and then there is the coercive power of the state in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Who control the situation now theoretically they're controlled by the mullahs as well. Are they? In the turmoil since the last Iranian elections, it seems to me and David has a much better vantage point than I look at that The mullahs have lost authority Ahmadinejad Probably the government has lost some authority and the chief beneficiaries of the Situations since then have been the Revolutionary Guard Who more and more are the controllers of? Internal Iran now. What does that mean? I don't know but let's suppose we decide We want to sit down with Iran and have a discussion about the whole region the ideal situation Who do you talk to? Can you talk to anybody? That's not at all clear David Ignatius are there tools that we might have at our disposal that we're not using to try to raise the cost or raise the price For the Iranians to pursue their nuclear program Or is it inevitable that Iran like North Korea like Pakistan and India will become a nuclear power? Well, that's the the toughest question that this administration faces going forward I Often in sessions like this quote a comment by my friend Graham Allison at the Harvard's Kennedy School of Government who has said that the US Iranian nuclear confrontation is the Cuban Missile Crisis in slow motion and I Think we all have a grim sense of what Graham means that that this is you know, it goes forward so slowly But we are on a course for confrontation absent some change absent some diplomatic some solution some way of Increasing pressure to a point that's unacceptable for Iran so Ron changes course thinking of that that analogy that the ships Stop and then turn around and take the missiles back to back to back to Russia You know absent that we we are on a course toward military conflict initiated by us initiated by Israel initiated by Iran Who can say that would be a disastrous outcome the last thing this country needs is another war in that part of the world I think it's really really important that we find an alternative to that so I'm to Speak directly to your to your question. I'm in a mood where I want to look Not at the bright side, but at the at the at the you know Often more likely Negative outcomes, so I want to assume that Somewhat stronger sanctions will be enacted and that they will they will fail They will be no more successful in stopping this program than previous sanctions have been So what lies between the failure of additional sanctions and the opening of military conflict? What are the options in that space and how do we get ready to operate in that space because that's we're gonna We're gonna be pretty soon. I you know, I couldn't say when but that's where we're gonna be I think There are all kinds of things that I can think about there. They're probably you know best expressed in private Because because they're really complicated options But You know, I mean, I'll I'll give you an example just just to think about in In in 2007 Israel became concerned about the discovery that Syria was building a nuclear reactor in secret Contrary to all understandings The US also was aware of this there was disagreement about what the best way to deal with this was One night that reactor was just taken out That there was no public claim of credit. There was no Comment there was no patting on the back and there was a denial by the Syrian government that had ever been a reactor in the first place and Indeed it was plowed under some other structure was erected and and so the Syrians are so You know deep into that version of events that they don't want to come so I Mentioned that because it was widely predicted Among the few in the widely it was it was predicted by the few in the government who really were following this carefully that that Bombing that reactor could produce a regional war with devastating consequences That didn't happen Why didn't it happen, you know, what was the combination of factors that led to The desired outcome no more reactor no war. Is that in any way a useful guide to the future? I don't know, but it's one of the things I'm thinking about There are a lot of issues on the table. I think I'll I'll stop monopolizing this conversation and open it up to the audience I'm sure there are a lot of questions. We have two microphones And we also have some Questions that are coming in over the internet that we might Thank you It's on its way. I'm itsy-worth. I'm with the Naval Postgraduate School I want to ask about American attitudes and and the attitude that somehow we have the right to go overseas and tell people What kind of government they ought to be running? Seems to me that's a very hard thing to do today How do you start educating them that perhaps that's not the only alternative to dealing with some of these problems? And I guess the other thing that I think they need to understand is change is slow and We are so accustomed to quick turnover of technology But it takes generally two generations to get change Within a human setting so how do you educate people to understand that so? Their expectations line up with what it is we can deliver and not get forced into doing things because they're impatient Well, let me hi mitzy Let me take the first of your observations, which I think is a really Important one people don't like being told what to do They don't like it if they're Americans We reset it enormously when other people try to tell us what to do and they don't like it if they're Pakistanis Afghans You name it I Think one of the achievements of this president. He has a mixed record in foreign policy But I think one of the real achievements that he's made is that he has Taken us down from the bully pulpit If you look at the polling numbers that register international opinion about the United States it there's a striking Change since Obama became president. I last night had dinner with a Russian businessman who's visiting who knows that regime well, and he said You know your president is pretty popular in Russia today Even though President Bush in many ways was much closer to to Vladimir Putin than than Obama is to Medvedev Russians Like Obama they think he's not trying to push us around they think he respects our Dignity our rights, you know, I was I was fascinated by that the numbers show similar reactions Around the world So I think we have a president who just in terms of his body language the way he speaks Seems less like somebody telling you off telling you what to do I think sometimes president Bush, you know couldn't help it. He didn't mean to sound so Didactic but it came across that way and even people who should have liked it I was all struck by you know, Egyptians president Bush was you know, he was fighting for the Egyptian Man or woman in the street, but it didn't help him in terms of his popularity in Egypt Can I ask you to continue or maybe general scope craft you can jump in on that? I agree with you that there's a lot of Obama is very popular in that sense He's tried to reach out. He's tried to heal relations with the Muslim world But to what extent do you think do you think that that's also seen in some quarters of the world as weakness as American weakness the u.s Is is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan has a lot of security obligations Is is that outreach and engagement the softer side of the u.s? Message viewed as weakness at all. I'd love to know what Brent thinks No, I don't I don't really think so. I think that We have frequently interpreted that way that the United States has been too wishy-washy and We need to get out and we need to lead and you remember some of the slogans from the recent past if you're not with us You're against us You know either followers or get out of the way all of those things and I think that that Contruded to a sense of Huberess that the rest of the world described to the United States. Hi, let me say just one thing In the book that the Brent mentioned which was called America in the world Conversations about the future of foreign policy in which in which General Skowcroft is big near Brzezinski a prominent Republican a prominent Democrat both former National Security Advisors talk with me just basically, you know asking questions in the middle About where about where about where foreign policy was going and both of them made and I think this was the central Analytical point of this book both of them made the point that that the world is in the midst of a kind of revolution In terms of attitudes General Skowcroft spoke about a yearning for dignity around the world people just felt that they they it was a kind of New wave is like the post-colonial period, but it kind of coming back and and this this great ferment And somehow the US had to get our policy aligned with that reality of the world So we were going in the same direction as that rather than seeming to try to stop it and check it And I thought it was a really powerful point. I think that book was carefully read General Skowcroft's and Biggs arguments were carefully followed by this White House And I think that they've had some success in that and that's not you know, I mean, you know We always talk about smart power smart power is aligning your interests with you know The way the world is going so that you know You're on the same train and you're kind of going to get to the same place together and not fighting wars all Away, and I think that that's been a smart thing. They've tried to do not a weak thing I think one of the differences is you know, we pride ourselves on solving problems And so we go into an area of whether it's whether it's Vietnam whether it's Iraq wherever it is We want to straighten it out and if it doesn't straighten out It's got to be because the local leaders are wrong Well, we have a fantastically bad record of changing leaders and improving the situation and I think Historically, I think that really goes back to the post-World War two period when we picked up a devastated Europe and Put it back together again, and we think that's us. We can do that the difference is Europe was just fractured and all you had to do was let it reconstruct itself The people were there. They knew how to do it so on we're dealing with cultures now that are fundamentally different and We have to recognize that this is as David said this is a very different and slow Process and we can't appear to direct it. We have to encourage it and that's sort of Non-American I see another question over there Hi, Mary Louise Kelly long with NPR and now shifting over to Georgetown University Question as we're talking about fault lines in the Middle East. There's of course no greater one than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I wonder how the two of you rate the Obama administration's efforts so far in that arena Do you expect to see should we expect to see greater engagement or? They've got obviously got a lot of foreign policy problems on their plate Are they going to leave it at the current level of engagement? Do you think? Well, thank you, David I Personally think we have a Historic opportunity in the Palestinian issue at the present time Which we have yet to seize I Believe that if you look around this troubled world With all the problems it faces That the US faces in the world that there's no single issue that this president could take hold of and produced greater effect Than the Palestinian peace process because it psychologically infects the entire region and Iran Plays on it not only through Hezbollah and Hamas who's very raison d'etre It's a Palestinian process But this sense of injustice that they turn into hatred against the great saint So psychologically it would be a tremendous step and I think that if President Obama would fought would follow up on his Cairo speech Which almost instilled a sense of euphoria in the region? Here's a guy who understands us who wants to help us To say it is time now The end of the Clinton administration Had set forth the parameters of a settlement in the Middle East it didn't happen because Clinton left office Arafat was reluctant the Arabs weren't there to support for a variety of reasons It collapsed, but it represents a kind of consensus on what the solution is and If president Obama would say we believe that these Taba Accords of 2000 Represent the right framework for a discussion of a settlement and we support them We would certainly get support from the Europeans Probably from the Russians and the UN thus the quartet supporting and I think it could dramatically Change the situation in the whole region Instead the administration started out with What I would call a repetition of confidence building measures the Israelis Stopped settlements and the Arabs Provide some steps toward normalization Well to me that's going after the capillaries not the jugular And it was almost doomed to fail because why would the Israelis? Stopped settlements and what would that do for the Arabs because they thought the Israelis had agreed to stop settlements 30 years ago So that has bogged down and now we're on proximity talks, which is a step away from where we started out and So I guess I would say that a dramatic step by the president who said This is what the United States believes is a fair and equitable solution And we think it ought to be the basis for negotiations by the parties would be a dramatically positive step I think Brent said it just right. I think that that's right. I think that We'll see they're trying to make a Last effort with the incremental proximity talks approach with you could say the Veiled threat that if you don't if you don't do this, we are prepared, you know We might listen to that General Skokroft and we might you know We might come to the table with our own set of principles So you better get moving and we'll see if that produces any progress. I think it probably won't and I think the dilemma in the fall Will will be the woman that Brent describes and I think he He's right This this does seem to be a conflict that the parties on their own are not able to resolve And if you think it's an Israel security interest These are the Iran visa V Hamas visa V all of the enemies that surround Israel to find some way to Get some kind of settlement here as I do Then I think some more active US role now is appropriate Making just to make the linkage between the Arab Israeli issue and and and Iran again Which has come up into the public debate quite a bit Do you believe that the Israelis are capable of making the strategic compromises on peace before they know how the Iran issue will be settled Oh, yes, I don't I don't think these are mutually exclusive Israel considers its existential threat right now to be Iran and It would like the region to focus on the Iranian problem and thinks that the Arab states are a natural ally In dealing with the Iranian situation and that is theoretically true But it it overlooks this Gaping void of the Palestinian issue, which is existential with the Arab side So, you know the Bush 43 administration tried to get a coalition together To deal with with Iran the Arabs Israel the United States. It didn't work and it won't work Because of the Arab hang-up on the Palestinian issue I see a lot of other hands out there. Yes, sir in the middle. Can you wait for the microphone? It's on its way Hi, Michael Davis with Universal Human Rights Network I'd like to know what impact you think a politically stable Iraq will have in the larger region specifically I'm thinking of Egypt and Saudi Arabia well I'll take a crack at that if you if you had a political stable politically stable Iraq that was a Functioning democracy. I think the the impact would be enormous One last time I was in Baghdad or one time last year when I was there I was sitting talking with two Iraqi friends who were having a heated conversation about Whether Prime Minister Maliki should be dumped or not And you know one was saying Maliki's a disaster, you know this this man must be voted out You know any listed to two or three other alternative Prime Minister's no Maliki's done much better than you're saying and I thought to myself I can't imagine this conversation taking place anywhere else, you know arguably with the exception of Lebanon in the in the Arab world and So that's what the promise that Iraq offers Iraq is you know to everyone's surprise kind of a functioning democracy right now and They they're all they're on the verge of blowing it and you know demanding recounts and throwing candidates out but they seem to kind of Get it together at the last minute Again and again Egypt is facing a transition that really matters I mean Egypt is still the biggest country the heart of the Arab world as we as we always used to say and We're begin we have to think now about the post Mubarak era and how's that transition going to go and Do we do we have Radical Muslim Brotherhood Pressure against the regime and I Don't want to say there's a direct connection between between Baghdad and Cairo on this But but I but I do think that people in the Middle East are sort of struck by the fact that Elections are a pretty good thing and they and they watch Al Jazeera They watch all Arabia and they and they see this very lively Political debate in Iraq and there I mean so far as I know talking to my friends They're struck by it. So that's that's a good thing I don't want to overstate the linkage, but I think that there is a little bit If I could just add I agree with that completely. I think in the Middle East not just in Egypt There is a transition Middle East merged on our scene With us run by a series of strong men They're passing the first was King Hussein and that transition has been successful now We're facing one in Egypt. We're facing one fundamentally in Saudi Arabia as well What is the next leadership likely to be and I think Iraq could could play a role as An example of how that could take place Well this conference is streaming live on the internet and we have some questions that came in off the internet So I want to pose one of those to you. It's a bit of a bombshell But where will where will be the next crisis in the Middle East and how will it affect us interests? So you can take your pick I'll take a I'll take a check at that I think it's quite likely that the next crisis could be in Lebanon and it could be Precipitated by Iran who sees itself in a difficult position wants to take the pressure off and Stimulates an uprising by Hezbollah It could take place in in Gaza As well, which is another called this is not One of the other reasons suppressed on a peace accord is this is not a placid region It will just stay and wait until we're ready to do something Next a next step is almost certainly Going to happen and they're all bad and then you have to start reconstructing all over you mentioned Lebanon and Gaza Do you think it's in the interest of either Hezbollah or Hamas to provoke a war with Israel? And if there was that kind of a war again, how do you think that would affect the US? well, I this would not be provoking a war with Israel and Iran this would be Iran through its proxies in Hezbollah and Hamas Stimulating something which would fully occupy Israel and Iran would say what us I Like like brand. I think the top of my list would be Lebanon countries in the region tend to like to fight their wars Lebanese territory rather than their own for understandable reasons The only hope of avoiding that is that the Lebanese are sick of being everybody's battle battlefield Exerting pressure on the on the actors especially Hezbollah to To resist that I think I see no evidence that we have a Lebanese government strong enough to do that I'll just mention one problem that concerns me. I don't think it's the next War or crisis at that level, but it's something that's not on people's radar. And I so I want to mention mention it one consequence of not addressing the Palestinian problem for the Netanyahu government is that as as as Palestinians feel more pressure in the in the occupied territories absent a settlement there's an inevitable tendency to move out toward Jordan and In the last several weeks a group of retired Jordanian Army officers has issued a public Letter to the King the King Abdullah something that's quite unusual in that country demanding that King Abdullah Resist efforts to solve the Middle East the Israeli Palestinian problem at Jordan's expense These are essentially East bankers in the army the traditional Bedouin core of Stability in that in that country who were saying You know Netanyahu wants to make Jordan the Palestinian state Palestinians are streaming into Jordan Have a demographic majority have increasing roles in the government In King Abdullah's government and they're unhappy about it and taking this unusual step That's just a small sign. We like tend to think thank goodness of Jordan as a relatively stable Island in this kind of messy Map, but here's here's a sign of underlying tensions Unusual steps by important actors that if if I were sitting in the NSC and Brent scope cross old chair I would take seriously Yes, sir Chet Crocker Georgetown University a couple of 20,000 foot questions for a retired Air Force general and a screenplay writer Um Brett you mentioned the phrase a nurturing presence and I wonder what kind of post-Iraq war post-Afghan war Military footprint you see in that part of the world and and what what role for our diplomacy Are we going to be the lead actor on all the issues that we've been touching on? Israel Palestine India Pakistan And of course the Gulf security architecture, which David mentioned So are we going to be? the lead diplomatic presence and the lead military presence in this region and should this region continue to occupy 80 percent of our Political and diplomatic capital around the world. Thank you Yeah, I think you're the best one to answer that question. I I would hope that we would Back down a little bit from leadership in the region to if you will nurturing and cooperation and encouragement For the region to Get itself together and to move in unison. It's fundamentally a rich region Iraq for example has huge natural resources the right kind of encouragement Could do a lot to turn the Iraqi-Iranian relationship To one at least of toleration. I Think Jordan is another problem, which is in part a regional problem Aside from the issues of the East Bank and so on. There are close to a million Iraqi refugees in In Jordan, this is a terrible burden for a state without the natural resources That some of the others have I think we can use our ability to organize and guide in a way Which encourages the best instincts of the region without saying We've dealt with these military problems now. We're gonna set the region straight because I don't think we're able to do that Chat let me throw out just one idea that I heard recently that Made me think of ways we can hand off some of the The hard work here to others that that may be more successful in an aspects of it Talking with Ashraf Ghani the former Afghan finance minister over the last several weeks prior to the arrival of President Karzai he mentioned the Interesting Prospect that Afghanistan may have a lot more mineral wealth If conflict there ever Subsides than we realize I mean his estimates were one to three trillion dollars in copper iron ore lithium other strategic raw materials and he argued the key to Development of these resources and the key to long-run stabilization of our country may be China As you probably know was the Chinese who bid on the big Compromise that the Afghans opened open for for for bids And the Chinese agreed as part of that deal to build a rail a railroad into Afghanistan through the northeast they obviously can't go over the direct border because you'd have to go right over the Himalayas that would be a hell of a railroad to ride so they'll probably go through Tajikistan but but Ghani said something that really stuck with stuck with me He said our problem is that we have been a frontier that we have been seen strategically as a barrier to India and Pakistan it's the way the world thought of us and We need to be not a barrier, but a transition point and He said think of frontiers are always dangerous. He said frontiers are crazy people are always getting his wild conflicts and Think of your own frontier and think of what ended its status as a frontier where people went around shooting each other It was the railroad It was it was the basic Fact of economic infrastructure and development and he said that's going to be true for us Some day and the people who may be best positioned to do that are not new Americans But the Chinese and I found that fascinating really interesting idea Other questions, thank you You're not Alexander an academic Thank you for your overview If I may I would like to guess your reaction Regarding another element we focused a lot on the Palestinians value Issue if only we can resolve it this can make a tremendous change in the Middle East My question is how do you see the prospects? of peace between Syria and Israel and The ball for example of Turkey in this process. Thank you Well Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu was just in Washington at the time of the nuclear summit with his prime minister Davutoglu is one of the most ambitious foreign ministers I know and He is eager to restart the Turkish Channel for dialogue between Syria and Israel He's also eager to start a channel with Iran and just flying back and forth to Tehran every other week I Think you know we'll see how that goes more important to me right now is is the u.s. Syria bilateral relationship, and I think it really it really You know if there's if there's an opportunity out there for creative diplomacy You know a makeable putt to use the golf term. It strikes me that this is it Every time that I go to see Bashar Assad every time that anybody goes to visit and me basically Just can't stop telling you how eager he is for greater dialogue that his future inevitably is looking west not east and I think you know Testing that in a creative way Creative skillful way through engagement and diplomacy make sense this question of Syrian Shipment of weapons or tolerance for the shipment of weapons to Hezbollah has come up again And this has made this more complicated You know that raises to me the more fundamental question of whether the tail wags the dog here I mean, I think it's increasingly difficult for Syria to exercise control over Hezbollah But to me that makes it more important for us to begin to move now Rather than less I think that I think that you know Syria the serious ability to exercise control So that really crazy things don't happen in Lebanon With a missile exchange and really devastating conflict. That's really important. So I'd love to see more attention I'd like like to see our ambassador get over there and and just see you'll see what's possible I couldn't tell you for sure, but I'd sure like to see it being explored more. I I'm surprised we haven't made more progress with Syria than we have because it seems to me It's certainly in the US interest. It seems to me It's in Syria's interest not to be totally hostage to Iranian foreign policy So far it has gone Extremely slowly. I think fundamentally though the Syrian Israeli problem is much more tractable than the Syrian Palestinian problem because That that frontier is a strategic frontier. It is not a historical cultural Frontier and there is a solution if you stand on the top of the goal and heights It's almost like you're looking straight down into Israel So it is a strategic problem for Israel, but a demilitarized goal on heights with UN troops or somebody there is a perfectly acceptable solution I think to both sides so I think that is something waiting to happen and It puzzles me that it hasn't happened faster The conference organizers made only one request to me and that was that we end on time. So I'll be quick then Are there some Lower visibility issues that the US and Iran could engage in We that whether it be counter-narcotics at the border with Iran or piracy and are there some things that could become the capacity Building confidence building kinds of steps we could make without it always having to be the higher order issues of Iraq or the nuclear Well, that that's a good question. I think they're I think they probably exist there Two separable categories the one is Iraq and the region which is we've been talking about the other is a rock with nuclear Iran with nuclear weapons and I think that can be treated separately from the others I Think it'd be worthwhile trying but to me one of the really Intractable difficulties how you talk to Iran at all Both you don't know what the right channel is who are the right people what their negotiating authority is with their report To and there's a reluctance of any of these groups to be seen Reaching out to the great saint because it exposes them to Domestic problem to me. That's the greater problem, but I think I think we ought to be searching for ways to deal with it One starting point that's appealed to me for the last several years would address One area in which the US and Iran are constantly Facing off and that's Incidents at sea in the Persian Gulf I think there's quite a lot of interest and support quiet support among our naval officers for the idea of finding some way to The model would be the incidents at sea agreement that was Negotiated with the Soviet Union at the height of Cold War tension when you know, we were really getting into some tricky moments Of confrontation and that agreement was negotiated and it was it did build confidence between the militaries I'm sure Brent was part of that Process and you could you could do something similar arguably in the Gulf one problem is that is that operational control over coastal defenses Of Iran and the Gulf as I understand it has now been given to the Revolutionary Guard Naval forces not to the regular Navy and the Revolutionary Guard is increasingly active So you this would really be a negotiation with the Revolutionary Guard not with the regular military At a time when we're trying to undercut the Revolutionary Guard when they're so unpopular at home Do you want to be negotiating with them? It's complicated, but that's that's one area that people who think about this question Have focused on and you know if you were looking for a starting point that would be it So this doesn't appear to be getting any easier with the drawdown Maybe we didn't solve all the problems not yet. Thank you so much. This has been an incredibly enriching discussion I've learned a lot. I'm grateful to both of you General Scowcroft David Ignatius for enlightening this discussion And thank thank you to all of you for for joining us