12 Burst results for "Gabriel Sierra"

"gabriel sierra" Discussed on Why It Matters

Why It Matters

07:53 min | 6 months ago

"gabriel sierra" Discussed on Why It Matters

"The foreigners coming to america to kill americans we immediately condemned and we see it as offensive wrong illegal and we've waged twenty year war on terrorism against this kind of threat. Some winter occurs in the united states. It's something we ignore. We don't wanna come to grips with and in part that's because of the constitutional freedoms freedom of expression freedom of assembly. But we have to understand too that words matter and that words can be weaponized as we've seen unfortunately in the digital arab be very quickly and easily transformed into want an outright violence last month on a bright day in the capital president biden used a phrase that no previous president had used in an inaugural address white supremacy arise streamers of supremacy domestic terror. Is words were delivered in the very spot. Where just one week earlier. A mob of insurrectionists stormed the capital at the behest of president donald trump. the riot was not exclusively a white supremacist event. But it did bring together. Extremists from a wide array of white nationalist and white supremacist groups. Many openly carrying flags and symbols in support of their movements one of the most haunting images of that day was that of the confederate flag being lofted in the halls of the capitol building for years. The united states has devoted enormous resources to fighting transnational terrorism. But until now the threat of homegrown white supremacist. Terror has not received the same focus even after multiple mass shootings even as the fbi and the department of homeland security designated it as the most lethal domestic threat. But now that seems to be changing. I'm gabriel sierra. And this is why it matters today white nationalism white supremacy and the fight to calm the situation has reached a dire point where the. Us capital is now in lockdown. Both the and learning more tonight about the capitol. Police officers died of injuries from the attack. Forty two year old brian. Nick served his country in. I grew up in austria and very aware of kristallnacht or the night of broken glass. He was a night of rampage against the jews carried out in nineteen thirty eight the nazi equivalent. The proud boys waste. It was the day of broken glass right here in the united states so to start with. I think it's important to have a definition. What is white nationalism white nationalism. I would define as an overarching concept that embraces the idea of white supremacism. This is bruce. He's a senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the council on foreign relations and leading expert on terrorism in twenty fourteen. He was appointed by congress to lead a review of the fbi's response to nine eleven it embraces a very strident xenophobic or anti immigrant physician. It is hostile to all those who were deemed quote unquote. The words all these strangers. All these new immigrants are taking what is ours. But not just any kind of material sense ours. His birthright the goal of a white list. I would argue is to rally as many people of his or her race into not just accepting but emulating and adopting their own exclusionary discriminatory xenophobic views. The topic of white nationalism and white supremacist extremism is complex and it lies in the shadow of the far larger problem of racism itself as you might expect with such a complicated issue. There is debate about nomenclature. I'm going to use the term. White supremacist extremism. And then tell you why. I think it's better than white nationalism. This is. Cynthia miller address a sociologist at american university in the school of public affairs and the director of the polarization and extremism research and innovation lab or peril so white supremacist. Extremism is an ideology. That believes in a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority that is racial that puts white people white civilizations as they use of the term of all others. it's global ideology and that global ideology rests on a conspiracy theory that is called the great replacement that believes that white civilizations are being deliberately. Eradicated through demographic change in immigration at the hands of usually jews and muslims. Were staring down the barrel gun here. In america we have the possibility of becoming a minority in our country. Possibility i'll say look. I'm actually using the wrong words. They're actually conquerors. And that's the thing we need to understand. Most white people were handing on the keys. Dr counter white supremacist extremists. They have specific policy proposals in mind. But essentially they want to restore a white civilization. they want to deport or what. They sometimes call in software. Language re migrate people or a non white back to their countries of origin so white nationalism which some people use has two problems one is that it can sometimes have the effect of softening what is really extremist and sometimes even terrorist behavior and making it sound like it's just overblown patriotism and it also sort of has the effect of making. It seem like it's a national problem. When i think it is clearly a global problem. If you've spent any time on the internet or listening to the news or podcasts. About this problem you will know that. There are lots of groups so there are dozens of militias neo nazi organizations and groups with specific emphases of hate there are the oath keepers and the three percenters and the proud boys self defined western chauvinist. Who gained some fame after president trump told them to stand back and standby and then are other groups that overlap into this far right extremists space. There's q. On a conspiracy theory that features satan worshipping pedophile controlling our government. Their concepts like the boo blew a coded reference to a second civil war and in cells a rallying idea for men with deeply misogynistic and violent views. The deeper you dig the more terms and movements you uncover. Do you think that one problem. With assessing all this is just the sheer number of groups. To what degree are these groups. All part of the same movement. And what makes it so difficult to pin this down roy. It's very hard to get a handle on. How many individuals were involved these types of movements because a lot of it is done anonymously. And that's one of the benefits of social media and the internet is you can be completely anonymous. You can have avatars or markers that don't reveal your true identity. But there's another element to this is that we're not talking about organizations between networks and networks that often have overlapping memberships. We may like to create our boxes of the three percenters the oath keepers or the proud boys or the cuban on and so on but we fail to realize.

Cynthia miller america austria donald trump gabriel sierra congress Nick one week earlier two problems last month twenty year tonight today trump Forty two year old president united states twenty fourteen nine eleven Both
"The Most Persistent and Lethal Threat"

Why It Matters

04:23 min | 6 months ago

"The Most Persistent and Lethal Threat"

"Last month on a bright day in the capital president biden used a phrase that no previous president had used in an inaugural address white supremacy arise streamers of supremacy domestic terror. Is words were delivered in the very spot. Where just one week earlier. A mob of insurrectionists stormed the capital at the behest of president donald trump. the riot was not exclusively a white supremacist event. But it did bring together. Extremists from a wide array of white nationalist and white supremacist groups. Many openly carrying flags and symbols in support of their movements one of the most haunting images of that day was that of the confederate flag being lofted in the halls of the capitol building for years. The united states has devoted enormous resources to fighting transnational terrorism. But until now the threat of homegrown white supremacist. Terror has not received the same focus even after multiple mass shootings even as the fbi and the department of homeland security designated it as the most lethal domestic threat. But now that seems to be changing. I'm gabriel sierra. And this is why it matters today white nationalism white supremacy and the fight to calm the situation has reached a dire point where the. Us capital is now in lockdown. Both the and learning more tonight about the capitol. Police officers died of injuries from the attack. Forty two year old brian. Nick served his country in. I grew up in austria and very aware of kristallnacht or the night of broken glass. He was a night of rampage against the jews carried out in nineteen thirty eight the nazi equivalent. The proud boys waste. It was the day of broken glass right here in the united states so to start with. I think it's important to have a definition. What is white nationalism white nationalism. I would define as an overarching concept that embraces the idea of white supremacism. This is bruce. He's a senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the council on foreign relations and leading expert on terrorism in twenty fourteen. He was appointed by congress to lead a review of the fbi's response to nine eleven it embraces a very strident xenophobic or anti immigrant physician. It is hostile to all those who were deemed quote unquote. The words all these strangers. All these new immigrants are taking what is ours. But not just any kind of material sense ours. His birthright the goal of a white list. I would argue is to rally as many people of his or her race into not just accepting but emulating and adopting their own exclusionary discriminatory xenophobic views. The topic of white nationalism and white supremacist extremism is complex and it lies in the shadow of the far larger problem of racism itself as you might expect with such a complicated issue. There is debate about nomenclature. I'm going to use the term. White supremacist extremism. And then tell you why. I think it's better than white nationalism. This is. Cynthia miller address a sociologist at american university in the school of public affairs and the director of the polarization and extremism research and innovation lab or peril so white supremacist. Extremism is an ideology. That believes in a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority that is racial that puts white people white civilizations as they use of the term of all others. it's global ideology and that global ideology rests on a conspiracy theory that is called the great replacement that believes that white civilizations are being deliberately. Eradicated through demographic change in immigration at the hands of usually jews and muslims.

President Donald Trump Gabriel Sierra FBI Biden Capitol Building Council On Foreign Relations A United States Department Of Homeland Securit Austria Nick Brian Cynthia Miller Bruce American University In The Sch Congress
"gabriel sierra" Discussed on Why It Matters

Why It Matters

05:44 min | 6 months ago

"gabriel sierra" Discussed on Why It Matters

"Foreigners coming to america to kill americans we immediately condemned and we see it as offensive wrong illegal and we've waged twenty year war on terrorism against this kind of threat. Some winter occurs in the united states. It's something we ignore. We don't wanna come to grips with and in part that's because of the constitutional freedoms freedom of expression freedom of assembly. But we have to understand too that words matter and that words can be weaponized as we've seen unfortunately in the digital arab be very quickly and easily transformed into want an outright violence last month on a bright day in the capital president biden used a phrase that no previous president had used in an inaugural address white supremacy arise streamers of supremacy domestic terror. Is words were delivered in the very spot. Where just one week earlier. A mob of insurrectionists stormed the capital at the behest of president donald trump. the riot was not exclusively a white supremacist event. But it did bring together. Extremists from a wide array of white nationalist and white supremacist groups. Many openly carrying flags and symbols in support of their movements one of the most haunting images of that day was that of the confederate flag being lofted in the halls of the capitol building for years. The united states has devoted enormous resources to fighting transnational terrorism. But until now the threat of homegrown white supremacist. Terror has not received the same focus even after multiple mass shootings even as the fbi and the department of homeland security designated it as the most lethal domestic threat. But now that seems to be changing. I'm gabriel sierra. And this is why it matters today white nationalism white supremacy and the fight to calm the situation has reached a dire point where the. Us capital is now in lockdown. Both the and learning more tonight about the capitol. Police officers died of injuries from the attack. Forty two year old brian. Nick served his country in. I grew up in austria and very aware of kristallnacht or the night of broken glass. He was a night of rampage against the jews carried out in nineteen thirty eight the nazi equivalent. The proud boys waste. It was the day of broken glass right here in the united states so to start with. I think it's important to have a definition. What is white nationalism white nationalism. I would define as an overarching concept that embraces the idea of white supremacism. This is bruce. He's a senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the council on foreign relations and leading expert on terrorism in twenty fourteen. He was appointed by congress to lead a review of the fbi's response to nine eleven it embraces a very strident xenophobic or anti immigrant physician. It is hostile to all those who were deemed quote unquote. The words all these strangers. All these new immigrants are taking what is ours. But not just any kind of material sense ours. His birthright the goal of a white list. I would argue is to rally as many people of his or her race into not just accepting but emulating and adopting their own exclusionary discriminatory xenophobic views. The topic of white nationalism and white supremacist extremism is complex and it lies in the shadow of the far larger problem of racism itself as you might expect with such a complicated issue. There is debate about nomenclature. I'm going to use the term. White supremacist extremism. And then tell you why. I think it's better than white nationalism. This is. Cynthia miller address a sociologist at american university in the school of public affairs and the director of the polarization and extremism research and innovation lab or peril so white supremacist. Extremism is an ideology. That believes in a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority that is racial that puts white people white civilizations as they use of the term of all others. it's global ideology and that global ideology rests on a conspiracy theory that is called the great replacement that believes that white civilizations are being deliberately. Eradicated through demographic change in immigration at the hands of usually jews and muslims. Were staring down the barrel gun here. In america we have the possibility of becoming a minority in our country. Possibility i'll say look. I'm actually using the wrong words. They're actually conquerors. And that's the thing we need to understand. Most white people were handing on the keys. Dr counter white supremacist extremists. They have specific policy proposals in mind. But essentially they want to restore a white civilization. they want to deport or what. They sometimes call in software. Language re migrate people or a non white back to their countries of

europe twitter hungary facebook fbi congress three january six twenty twenty Nearly ten thousand today one both january four times first time decades united states france germany poland federal communications act sec post nine eleven era
Domestic extremism has become 'mainstream,' could threaten American life for 20 years

Why It Matters

05:44 min | 6 months ago

Domestic extremism has become 'mainstream,' could threaten American life for 20 years

"Foreigners coming to america to kill americans we immediately condemned and we see it as offensive wrong illegal and we've waged twenty year war on terrorism against this kind of threat. Some winter occurs in the united states. It's something we ignore. We don't wanna come to grips with and in part that's because of the constitutional freedoms freedom of expression freedom of assembly. But we have to understand too that words matter and that words can be weaponized as we've seen unfortunately in the digital arab be very quickly and easily transformed into want an outright violence last month on a bright day in the capital president biden used a phrase that no previous president had used in an inaugural address white supremacy arise streamers of supremacy domestic terror. Is words were delivered in the very spot. Where just one week earlier. A mob of insurrectionists stormed the capital at the behest of president donald trump. the riot was not exclusively a white supremacist event. But it did bring together. Extremists from a wide array of white nationalist and white supremacist groups. Many openly carrying flags and symbols in support of their movements one of the most haunting images of that day was that of the confederate flag being lofted in the halls of the capitol building for years. The united states has devoted enormous resources to fighting transnational terrorism. But until now the threat of homegrown white supremacist. Terror has not received the same focus even after multiple mass shootings even as the fbi and the department of homeland security designated it as the most lethal domestic threat. But now that seems to be changing. I'm gabriel sierra. And this is why it matters today white nationalism white supremacy and the fight to calm the situation has reached a dire point where the. Us capital is now in lockdown. Both the and learning more tonight about the capitol. Police officers died of injuries from the attack. Forty two year old brian. Nick served his country in. I grew up in austria and very aware of kristallnacht or the night of broken glass. He was a night of rampage against the jews carried out in nineteen thirty eight the nazi equivalent. The proud boys waste. It was the day of broken glass right here in the united states so to start with. I think it's important to have a definition. What is white nationalism white nationalism. I would define as an overarching concept that embraces the idea of white supremacism. This is bruce. He's a senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the council on foreign relations and leading expert on terrorism in twenty fourteen. He was appointed by congress to lead a review of the fbi's response to nine eleven it embraces a very strident xenophobic or anti immigrant physician. It is hostile to all those who were deemed quote unquote. The words all these strangers. All these new immigrants are taking what is ours. But not just any kind of material sense ours. His birthright the goal of a white list. I would argue is to rally as many people of his or her race into not just accepting but emulating and adopting their own exclusionary discriminatory xenophobic views. The topic of white nationalism and white supremacist extremism is complex and it lies in the shadow of the far larger problem of racism itself as you might expect with such a complicated issue. There is debate about nomenclature. I'm going to use the term. White supremacist extremism. And then tell you why. I think it's better than white nationalism. This is. Cynthia miller address a sociologist at american university in the school of public affairs and the director of the polarization and extremism research and innovation lab or peril so white supremacist. Extremism is an ideology. That believes in a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority that is racial that puts white people white civilizations as they use of the term of all others. it's global ideology and that global ideology rests on a conspiracy theory that is called the great replacement that believes that white civilizations are being deliberately. Eradicated through demographic change in immigration at the hands of usually jews and muslims. Were staring down the barrel gun here. In america we have the possibility of becoming a minority in our country. Possibility i'll say look. I'm actually using the wrong words. They're actually conquerors. And that's the thing we need to understand. Most white people were handing on the keys. Dr counter white supremacist extremists. They have specific policy proposals in mind. But essentially they want to restore a white civilization. they want to deport or what. They sometimes call in software. Language re migrate people or a non white back to their countries of

United States President Donald Trump Gabriel Sierra Council On Foreign Relations A FBI Capitol Building Biden Department Of Homeland Securit Cynthia Miller American University In The Sch Austria Nick Brian Bruce Congress
"gabriel sierra" Discussed on Why It Matters

Why It Matters

06:10 min | 6 months ago

"gabriel sierra" Discussed on Why It Matters

"When we hear about russia and we hear about it pretty often. The news usually isn't good. If you were to google the country on the day this episode was released for example. You'd see a story on the jailing of political dissidents alexey navalny and a new deployment of russian forces in syria civil war. At this point we're used to hearing about this kind of stuff when it comes to russia hacking military muscle support for authoritarian regimes. The whole world over. But what's the story behind that reputation. Their power isn't derived from their economy. Russia's gdp is smaller than italy's for example. So how is it able to exert such a steady influencing global events. And why does it pursue the strategies that does i'm gabriel sierra and this is why it matters today russia for the eighth time russia has vetoed a proposed un security council resolution regarding the horrors and atrocities going on in syria over this six year. Plus war in other news. Russia has reported concluded the delivery of a second s four hundred missile system to china. It turns out more. Us agencies were targeted by suspected russian. Act the department of homeland. Security was hit. The new york times says so. We're part of the defense department. Russians intended to medal and they mental resident represents a real stability of nation world. So russia is one of those countries that you hear about a lot in the news. Even if you don't pay much attention to international relations right so is it really as powerful and influential a country as it seems to be. I mean how powerful is russia. Well it depends how you want to measure pout. My name is angela spent. I am the director of the center for eurasian russian and east european studies at georgetown university. It is the only a of a nucleus superpower the united states and russia between them possess ninety percent of the world's nuclear weapons. So we have to listen to it. We have to pay attention to it because it can destroy us many times over. It has a seat on the united nations security council. It inherited that when the soviet union collapsed the soviet union had a seat rationale. Has that seat. A permanency means that has a veto so it can make it very difficult for the united states and its to carry out certain policies and we see that all the time. It is an energy superpower. It has the world's possibly largest reserves of oil and gas. Europe depends a lot on the energy. They produce an increasingly the chinese abida. And if you look at their nuclear weapons which is really number one they can do story the united states and probably most of the world so yes. They are powerful. There's no question this is jill. Dougherty she served as moscow. Bureau chief during a three decade career at cnn. She currently teaches at georgetown university. And is a global fellow. At the woodrow wilson center in washington dc. Now when you go beyond that there are many ways you could count it. But i would say conventional military. They're also quite powerful. If they went into a conflict with nato the united states and nato together they would probably lose but they are very powerful. They are developing new weapons and they have a sophisticated educated populace and they put as much money as possible into their military. Russia is not afraid to use its military prowess whether it's in syria or ukraine. And don't worry we'll get to both of those later. But their military investments are also a significant source of profit. Russia is the world's second largest arms exporter. Next the united states its most famous product. Is the ak47. Designed in nineteen forty nine and still regularly used in conflicts all over the world but russia also makes highly sophisticated weapons like the s four hundred anti aircraft system which poses a threat to the most advanced jets used by the united states and its allies russia's military capability and its enormous nuclear arsenal form the backbone of its unique position in the world. But it's not what we hear about most often in the news there is every reason to think of russia as important and powerful but the reasons often change. I'm stephen sestanovich. I'm a senior fellow at the council working on russia and eurasian affairs. I also teach columbia university. I think there are new reasons that people mention often for why russia matters and in fact some of the most important ones that you hear most often these days would not have been mentioned by anybody ten years ago if you said white is russia matter. You'd hear a lot today about russia's cyber capabilities the fact that he can use those to put american infrastructure at risk or interfere in elections. You might also hear that. Russia has become an agitator for populist nationalism that it has kind of stoked a backlash against democratic institutions and liberal internationalist ideas particularly in the west. These are the aspects of russia. We hear about most often in the news. An ability to infiltrate and exert influence all over the world whether through espionage hacking or disinformation campaigns. In short russia isn't afraid to get its hands dirty. Other countries do these things to but russia seems to have a unique willingness to use every capability at its disposal and in order to understand this russia. You have to. I understand something about the man who runs.

alexey navalny stephen sestanovich ninety percent china gabriel sierra Dougherty ten years ago soviet union washington dc ukraine jill united nations security counci one angela spent today three decade four hundred second largest arms exporter georgetown university eighth time
"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

The President's Inbox

39:30 min | 3 years ago

"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

"Welcome to the president's inbox a c. for podcast about the foreign policy challenges facing the United States. I'm Jim, Lindsey, director studies at the council and borne relations. This week's topic is Syria. With me this week to discuss the recent developments in Syria jecklin when it comes to the inlet province are Aaron Stein in Steve Heideman, Aaron is a resident, senior fellow at the Atlantic council's refused Hariri center for the Middle East. His expertise include US Turkey relations. The Syrian conflict non-proliferation in Iranian nuclear program. Steve is the Janet right catch him nineteen. Fifty three chair in Middle East studies at Smith College in a non resident, senior fellow in the center for Middle East policy. At the Brookings Institution. He is an expert on the comparative politics in political economy of the Middle East with a particular focus on Syria, Aaron, Steve, thanks for joining me today. Steve. Amana, begin with you obviously serious a big complex place right now lot, the news about Louis, it lib. Before we dive in it live, could you maybe just do a play set or forest and sort of tell us we're thing stand on the ground right now in Syria, given a course. You know, a number of years ago, the expectation was the Assad government was going be pushed out that dream seems to have died. We're just sort of things stand in Syria right now. Sure, sure. And thanks for having me on beginning twenty eleven along with people in many other parts of the Middle East Syrians started to protest seeking political changes in their country. The regime which is one of the world's most brutal dictatorships responded with quite extraordinary violence and their response to those protests cascaded into a civil war that's become one of the most violent one of the most destructive conflicts of of modern times up until mid twenty fifteen. It really wasn't clear what the outcome of that conflict would be. Even though the Assad regime had far greater military power than its armed opponents. Those. Opponents armed groups were able to pretty much fight the regime to a standstill to take control of of huge swaths of Syrian territory and even threaten the Assad regime itself. And it was precisely that threat, which in two thousand fifteen lead Russia to decide that in order to save the sod regime, it would launch a major military intervention, particularly using its airpower to try to reverse rebel gains and to support the regime. Since that time, the regime has been steadily retaking ground from the opposition. It has been carving back territory that it had lost to opposition armed groups in the summer. It retook one holdout opposition bastion in southern Syria and that freed up the forces of the Assad regime together with those of its major patrons, Russia, but also Iran to focus on it live on the north on this one area which now constitutes the single. Largest contingent of armed opposition fighters that continues to confront their regime. And so we find ourselves now at a really critical turning point in this conflict in which the Assad regime is absolutely determined to retake this province that remains outside. Its control is prepared to use any means necessary to do so Russia and Iran also seem prepared to do that. And yet because this is the last stronghold because this piece of Syria is adjacent to Turkey, which is very concerned about the humanitarian consequences of mass displacement. If this offensive occurs for other kinds of reasons, there are Kurds in the area that is now under attack who the Turks e as enemies and Kurds, whose whose position in all of this is very complicated. So for a variety of reasons, the world is really watching what's unfolding live in part because the state. The humanitarian stakes are so high, but also in part because what happens to it, live will really be decisive and signaling one of the one of the end phases of this seven and a half year war. So Aaron, if you look at it, let my understanding is that the number in the province has swelled over last couple of years of people have fled other parts of Syria. I think now estimate somewhere north of three million people when three or four years ago, the population was probably what half that at nucle- mixed. Steve mention courage, live nearby Arabs. You have rebel groups. Some that are associated have ties with al-qaeda. If I understand it. If the province falls to the Syrians would've knock on consequence, what is the significance of this? I think for the Turkish government, you know, this is the point of no return. And what I mean by that. Is that this is the last holdout for a number of their supported opposition that they have given support two cents the twenty eleven uprise. So what what has been encores position these via Damascus? Again, it's it's changed as the conflict has moved on, I would say from the outset and I'd say the twenty eleven to twenty fifteen period maybe even twenty sixteen period Turkey was the primary backer of the armed opposition committed to the overthrow of the regime. The introduction of Russian airpower really turned the tables on Turkey combined with that. You've had the introduction of American forces in the end of twenty fourteen that hasn't powered Kurdish forces in the northeast of the country. We had a change in Turkish priorities away from, I would say, regime change and towards preventing the break-up of the Syrian state along the lines that would empower its enemy, which is the Syrian Kurds which are linked to the Turkish Kurds that are more or less an armed insurgent group inside of Turkey. That has been in conflict with Turkey since the early nineteen eighties for the Turkish covering air to one, the nature of the problem is changed, fundamentally absolutely. And this crystallizes in inland because the concern for Turkey has also been concurrent to Kurdish empowerment is the amount of Syrians inside of of Turkey and the financial burdens takes to take care of upwards of at least two to three million refugees inside of Turkey and so took, you would like to work through the Russians to prevent an assault on this largely for self interested, political reasons. They don't want the opposition strongholds to fall because that would weaken their bargaining position with the government as they move forward to negotiate with them, vis-a-vis Russia and to these people have to go someplace and Turkey doesn't want them coming into Turkey. In fact, they want the opposite. They want Syrians that are in Turkey to be able to return to areas that are stabilized by that. They mean not under threat of regime bombardment Steve sort of going back to the point you may. Made. It seems to me that prison air one is not in a strong negotiating position to decide what happens in Italy, province or missing something here. Well, what you're missing is that Turkey a couple of years ago decided that the potential threat of Kurdish irredentism was rising to the point that it was necessary for Turkey to intervene militarily in Syria, and so has actually entered Syria with a substantial military force. It has occupied a significant piece of Syrian territory about four thousand square miles through an operation that it calls you frady shield and as the powers that are really the critical actors in the Syrian conflict, Russia, Iran, and Turkey sat down to negotiate what we call deescalation agreements, one of which covered it lib that agreement. Gave the Turkish government, the authority to put some military outposts along the borders of the area. It controls inside of Turkey inside of Syria. So it not only has direct military presence in that area, which it is consolidating. It has Aaron mentioned support for a number of air of armed opposition groups, which it is also arming. And in the last several weeks, it has begun to increase the the amount of weapons that it is bring and end of people troops that that Turkey is bringing into it lip. And so while air Duan is in something of a weaker position than some of the other parties to this conflict. Air one has been very, very committed to doing what he can on the ground and it lived to improve his bargaining position. So we had the Assad government that wants to reclaim this territory and win the civil war. They had the support of the Russians. The Turks don't wanna see. See that outcome, but there's another actor and all this, which is Iran. To what extent are the Iranians involved in active on the ground in Sierra, Steve Iran is one of the signatories to the de-escalation agreement in and it has outside of the scope of that agreement been a critical provider of of manpower troops in support of the regime. We don't know the exact numbers. They range anywhere from forty to sixty thousand largely foreign fighters that Iran train sponsors equips when you say foreign fighters, they're not. They're not Ronnie regular military personnel. They're not regular Iran in military personnel. Very few of them, in fact, are Ronnie and they are Iraqi Shia. They are Afghans. They are his Bulloch Lebanese fighters, all of whom are operating under Iranian auspicies in Syria and who are positioning themselves to participate in offensive against it. So Iran has that aspect of its role, but because of its. Participation in the de escalation agreement, Iran will also play a role in policing a new arrangement that was put in place just this Monday between Russia and Turkey to try to stabilize it live and fend offer at least post-poned invasion. This is so-called soci- summit, correct? Aired Awan in Putin. The blacks resorted Soji. Correct. And and that meeting grew out, I think of air don's determination to do what he could to prevent the offensive in live from occurring both because as Aaron said, they have no interest in a massive flow of new Syrian refugees across the border, but also because I think they understand that preventing that offensive is the best way to turn into a space to which current Syrian refugees can return and that their presence in it live is the most effective means from their view for preventing. The era dentist ambitions of Syrian Kurds. So they very much want to keep their presence there. They very much want to turn into a space that refugees will feel safe, returning to none of that will be possible if the offensive occurs and let me just add that there are some Syrian Kurds, including partners of the US who have said that they will join with Assad forces if this offensive takes place precisely because they see it as a chance to push back against Turkey's presence in Syria. So for all kinds of reasons, that's so CI summit was an imperative of air lawns. And quite frankly, he seems to have come out of it with a deal that that I think meets most of his requirements. Well, explain that to me are because he would seem again that his bargaining leverage. Head significant limits because best I can tell the government is intent on going into it lib. The Russian seemed to this point backed up the Syrian government, the Iranians, Steve just laid out have been active in supporting the Syrian. So does this mean the Assad government is going to relinquish its ambitions for retaking control of? I think what the main thing here is that Russia has its own alliances to manage. And I think that's always been really critical is the Turkey. I wouldn't call them an ally of Russian Syria, but hope not because they're NATO in Russia is calling you at this point though. And I mean that in a way in that the Russians would like to de-escalate this conflict in ways that are favorable to their own interest, and they want to de-escalate the conflict. They've been at war for three years. One would think that they would want to be able to downgrade their support for the sowed regime and least begin to roll back what is pretty substantial. Military support that costs money, and you see opinion polling coming out of Russia is particularly with the economic downturn is that they like to spend money on butter rather rather than guns. Are you saying that the Russians in some sense, jumped into the Middle East maelstrom and are now having second thoughts about the wisdom of that decision? I would say the interventions relatively low cost for them, but not cost free. And so within that aired one is the weaker of the two parties that's obvious, but he's not feckless and what the Russians need the Turks to do, and this is where the talks are in their own problematic position is to deliver the opposition to the regime. And this I think is the ultimate problematic point between the Russian goals in Syria and the Turkish goals in Syria, and the limits of their partnership is that the Turks did win. An agreement with the Russians to stall the offensive, then agreement. It will be difficult for on correct to implement. There are three particular points in that agreement that I think are worth fleshing out is that by October tenth, October fifteenth to specific dates. The Turks have agreed around ten to fifteen kilometers buffer zone along the line of contact. It's not let yet clear to disarm heavy weapons, its allies. That will be difficult. I don't know how one measures that too. Is that within these areas, as you said at the outset. There are al-qaeda-linked groups or sort of jihadi link groups that in some cases have dialogue with the Turks in some cases, do not. That the Russians are demanding be removed from these places. This has been a goal of turkeys for very long time largely for self-preservation because these groups creates causes beleive for the regime and the Russians to bomb with Liberia little, I guess, with very little maneuver for the global community to condemn them because who can condemn an actor for bombing Jihadist. But these groups are not likely to listen to Turkey or if they do this, could causing trouble. Problems could actually make the split the groups, but then you're still stuck with very hard grow very hard Lang groups in these areas. Turkey is agreed to do this by October tenth or October tenth, and then again by October fifteenth. So we're getting close to those dates already. And so my guess is that the Turks have forestalled this and the Russians have an interesting continuing to talk to the Turks again because they need them to deliver the opposition. But the main fundamental problems of this conflict is that even if the Turks are success. Decibel, both the regime and its two allies. The Russians and the Iranians, I don't think are going to be happy with foreign forces controlling large swaths of in their mind, sovereign countries borders. And so that next step, whether it happens or not. For me, I mean, I hope it doesn't happen because of the humanitarian crisis, it will cause, but whether it happens or not, still doesn't address that issue of how Turkey will be called upon to deliver its allies to the regime in some sort of reconciliation deal. So wouldn't surprise you. The agreement struck it. So CI falls apart, it'd because tricky can't deliver the folks on the ground, don't cooperate because again, if you're one of these rebel groups, I would imagine you could read it as if we surrender our weapons. We were affectively committing suicide. Exactly. I mean, you know, again, I hope it doesn't fall apart. I can also see the Russians being being flexible because keeping Turkey on side, at least for now is in their interests. You know, they have managed to cultivate relatively strong political ties at the top levels of the Turkish government at a time when top level political ties with the United States have deteriorated rapidly over other things, but this becomes beneficial for Prada Russian foreign policy. I'm visions both broadly and narrowly in terms of trying to solve the Syrian conflict, Steve, the one country we have mentioned the conversation so far is the country that was long seen as the security guarantor in the Middle East. And that's the United States would as you as policy been or sought to accomplish. We talk about specifically the problem it live. It's been interesting to watch because we've seen some developments in US policy toward Syria around the crisis that if they're if they're really meaningful. Signal a significant shift in the extent to which the US is prepared to engage on Syria. For the most part, both the Obama administration and the Trump administration of south to minimize US engagement and Syria other than the anti campaign, which is going to get to that in a moment. But honestly, only in the civil war beginning with Obama, there was decision that we weren't going to intervene to make Ossets ouster come about, and that's what makes them recent shifts in the statements out of the White House. Interesting. Because initially the US made comments of a kind that it has. It has expressed before warning the Assad regime not use chemical weapons. If it if it attacked it, live and suggesting there would be consequences if it did so more recently, it's broadened those warnings. It's broaden them to encompass any kind of major use of force in and suggested that if they're. Was an offensive against it limit would not only retaliate against the sad regime, but would in the words of President Trump impose full-fledged economic sanctions on Russia seek to completely isolate the Russian economy. And so what we've seen is a significant escalation in the kind of of rhetoric coming out of the White House around the consequences. The US is willing to impose on the Assad regime and its allies at sponsors should that offensive occur, and it is important. I think to recognize that there that there is a reasonable reason that it is reasonable to believe that that level of pressure from the US both empowered air on in his negotiations with Russia and may have contributed to some second thoughts on the part of the Russians. Again, I'm not sure that that how the US has positioned itself will prove decisive. In the decision making of the regime or Russia. But for our part, the US has certainly expanded its willingness or it's its stated willingness to to act in the event and offense in an offensive in it. Live occurs Steve Honey square. This tougher line at the White House is taking with the Syrians in Muslim Arkley with the Russians in light of the criticisms that President Trump has been far too friendly. Toward Russia far too funding in his praise. Of President Putin. Obviously, the criticism that came out after the Helsinki summit is, is there a disconnect here is that use the phrase I hate, but his popular in language should the deep state driving this here I'm just sort of struck by would seem to be certainly on tonal basis. Sort of a disjunction the White House approach to Russia? No, I think there are absolutely disconnects. I think they have nothing to do with anything like some sort of purported deep state. I think this administration seems to have a smorgasbord foreign policy in place. Take pick the one you want, and we have a policy which reflects President Trump's own rather volatile and and McCurry oil approach to managing foreign policy issues. And we have a different strategy which reflects the preferences of some of the key figures within his administration, including key Haley are investor at the United Nations, including secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and perhaps even including secretary Mattis at the Pentagon. And so it's not a surprise that you have more or less a a pick the foreign policy. You want approach to this that's consistent with the overall incoherence of administration led by. By a president who is quite volatile, but I think there is enough consistency and enough coherence in what we've been hearing over the past two weeks about the US response to suggest that that. It would well, let me just say it's difficult to imagine that those statements are not generally in keeping with what President Trump is prepared to do. I'm curious an just picking up. We're Steve left off. The administration is talking about a harder line against Russia also Syria. But I think for many Americans out there tired after seventeen years of being Afghanistan by seeing a rock war that was promised to provide a breakthrough toward democracy in the Middle East, that turned into a quagmire with costs far higher than anyone had told them about, sit back and say, what interest do we have here in in Syria DHS? It's a terrible humanitarian. Catastrophe we wish you wouldn't happen, but their humanitarian catastrophes. Other parts of the world. In the United States doesn't go rushing to involve itself. So would so important about this particular issue that the United States should make it a priority to try to influence what happens? I think that's the million dollar question enough. I have to pick up on something Steve said, I think the Trump administration's lost its way in Syria. I did see the increase in rhetoric, saw it more as built around, establish trying to reestablish red lines around chemical weapons and trying in this unique way. Trump's embrace of those horrible images after the contract Hoon chemical weapons attack is that he's in internalized the the brutality nastiness of civil conflicts, and in particular, these weapons. And in contrast, I think to his understanding how the abomination handled that he was going to set a tough line on future use of chemical weapons. We have that on one hand. But on the other hand, you have through leaks through through the big papers here in the. United States is that this administration has given up on regime change. And so you have this really interesting seems to be a reasonable conclusion is on the ground. I mean, I think that personally it is the Trump administration and it was CIA director, Mike Pompeo according to leaks in the press who ended the American clandestine arming of much of the Sarab majority opposition that was committed to regime change at the outset of this administration's tenure in power. But it's been, I would say Syria more generally has been involoved into this bigger. Anti-iran push that the Trump administration sees it as a zero sum game with the Iranians and the Russians in this are somebody or at least they country that this administration can use both carrots and sticks to try and put pressure on Iran to settle this conflict in a way that probably sharla Saad stays. Russia has a major role of keeps its airbase. It keeps its expanded naval facility, but they do something about Iranian influence. I think that becomes what's driving a lot of this out of the Trump administration whether or not that's feasible or not. I think entirely different questions. Goal is to try to find some way to free. The Iranians. Yes. And in that sense, toughen rhetoric against the Russians is your is your stick and. Carat is if you do something about Iran, there could be opportunities to work together opportunities to work together, or we won't make a fuss about what you're doing in Syria and you can have your basis. And I think there would be some elements of counter-terrorism in that, but you know, working together would probably, you know, get shunned from the from the from the Pentagon, something along the lines of a more cooperative relationship on what was the initial reason the US involved self in the Syrian civil conflict, which was concerns about Islamic state's and safe haven that would allow them to plan external attacks in Europe in the US. That's that's actually a great segue where I wanna go next is really talk about these Lomb state, but I think Steven one, I just wanted to step in on this question of what's at stake for the US what our interests are, because it's such a critical question. You're absolutely right to point out that Americans are tired of fighting overseas for purposes. They don't truly understand, but Syria is a perfect eggs. Example of a conflict that I think the Obama administration imagine could be contained that the effects of the conflict could be could be kept within the borders of Syria, and it has proven that view to be completely misguided. Nothing that happens in Syria stays in Syria and the Syrian conflict spills over to affect immediate American interests in all kinds of ways. The single biggest source of the refugees that flooded into Europe and twenty fifteen and provoked a political crisis that has destabilized, the union came through Turkey out of Syria. We have critical security allies in the Middle East Israel and Jordan. Both of whom have been caught up in the Syrian conflict and now face a more complex security environment with Iran's and Russia's gains in the Middle East, we face a regional security architecture that looks far more daunting from the US perspective than the one that existed. Previously. We have countries in the region like Lebanon and Iraq who stability we care about that have been affected by the conflict. Act and then there's ISIS the Islamic state which you raised a moment ago. One of the top line goals of the US presence in Syria is the defeat of ISIS and creating conditions that will prevent its resurgence. If we fail to prevent a resurgence of ISIS, it will be a singular failure of this administration which made that it's critical priority and the idea that the US can disengage from Syria and expect that all of these interests that are at stake in this conflict. All of the spillover effect of these conflicts can be managed at arm's length through a reduced US diplomatic and military role in the region, I think is wishful thinking. You're telling me what I'm hearing. He says, reminds me of something Middle East hand told me while ago which is for the United States. The fact that we may have lost interest in the Middle East doesn't mean the Middle East is lost interest in us, and we'll conclude a throw. Problems, but let let's talk about the Slavic steak. Obviously, if you shift from Italy, which is in the northwestern part of Syria, you go to the eastern part of cereal along the border with Iraq. You have, I guess, investigated two thousand US troops operating, what are they seeking to do the mission of the US of operation inherent resolve, which is a coalition led by the US, but including many, many other actors is the military defeat devices, much of that goal has been accomplished. We don't know precisely how many ISIS fighters remain in Syria, but the numbers are small and they're in isolated pockets scattered across eastern Syria and those pockets by the way are being attacked right now, the current offensive that was launched last week, I believe was targeting exactly those few remaining areas where ISIS outs exist. However, what we've been less attentive to is creating conditions that will prevent their. Resurgence of extremism, whether in the form of a reconstituted ISIS or some other form in eastern Syria, and and that's a product of a number of factors reconstruction of the area's damaged. In the anti ISIS campaign has been slow. It's generated grievances among the local population. We're now delegating to our Kurdish partners. The Syrian democratic forces in eastern Syria, every aspect of local governance, even era, majority areas where Kurds have never been in control that that's also fuelling local griffis India recipe for success down the road. That's agree. And the jets exactly, right. And this is an area where ISIS did have success in recruiting young men in in years past where many of the grievances that drove them to ISIS continue to exist. So we have to be mindful that for all of our success militarily against ISIS, we have. Been less attentive. I think to putting in place post-conflict conditions that will address a really critical goal of the United States, preventing the resurgence of radicalism in those areas. Obviously, one of the questions here is even if we were attentive to actually know enough are smart enough, have the right resources to be able to succeed in lane. Now, that's a whole nother question, but I'm just curious, just jar you out in this obviously, St. pointed out the purpose of US forces in eastern series to end the existence of the Slavic state. But people point out that one receding is growing Ronnie and influence in Syria. And what's describe is to have this basically land bridge would go from Tehran to the eastern Mediterranean in particular potentially threaten Israel just over last couple of days Syrians. They were shooting at Israeli planes and they shot down Russian plane fifteen Russian soldiers on it perished. When the plane crashed through helped me think about sort of the Ronnie and enroll in the region sort of how Americans you think about this a long term sort of way. Because again, if the disappearance, the Islamic state has the byproduct of growing strength of Iran, which then raises tensions between Iran and Israel, that seems to be exchanging one terrible problem for another terrible problem. That is one of the main issues I think ministration is grappling with the Americans have extreme liabilities that I think the Iranians are keen to exploit that. Actually, in a very odd sense, gives them leverage over us where even though the United States is obviously the stronger actor for political reasons. If there was an escalation in. Tensions with Iranians beyond sanctions, beyond sort of rhetoric that's put out there is that the Iranians have symmetric ways to target US forces both in Syria and probably more importantly in Iraq in. So do you risk escalating tensions with Iran where they can retaliate against u s forces particularly in Iraq that could undermine political support for that mission under my popularity for elected leaders for military leaders, looking for promotions, or you try and manage things. I think this is the problem that the US is going to have to grapple with as the counter ISIS campaign winds down territorially and the US again tries to figure out what it's doing, northeastern Syria if it's reappropriated into an anti Ron mission. It's often framed here in Washington as that this can be leveraged that then can be exacted on both the Russians and the regime that we will never give back northeastern Syria unless you demands on one of those demands is to decree. Runyon presence. But if you flip that around, you know, leverage sometimes turns into a liability. And if that's ultimately more Mike question is not an picking up. Something Steve said is, I don't think the US should disengage from Syria, and I don't think that the US should immediately withdraw troops from Syria. But the question that's not being addressed both within the context of counter ISIS and with an accountant, context county, Ron is what is the US prepared to live with what concessions are we willing to make to the Russians and even to a lesser extent running, don't like making those decisions, but that's politics is what are you willing. Of his because it people find out what you're willing to settle for. They're going to attack you for not wanting more right. And I think this alternately links into the previous question that you asked is, how can you square hardline or more hardline administration, rhetoric against Russia with Trump's sort of, let's say, softer approach to blame you personally is exactly on this question is that they're trying to use that soft line approach the man personally as tools to try and win concessions that the US is prepared to live with. And so within that these Syrian Kurds have been reappropriated into an anti Ron force. I don't think the Syrian Kurds want to be an entire on force. I think the Syrian Kurds are smart enough to tell the Americans that they're willing to entertain the idea while quietly talking to the Iranians because the Iranians eighty million people, there are a lot of Iranian Kurds and they have to live there and we go home in the Iranians will continue to be their neighbors. That's right. And I think anybody who's fall during conflict. Knows that Iranians may decrease. Their presence may decrease him out the funding given to Damascus, but they're not leaving. I would imagine Kurds historical memory which says the United States can change its mind and decide not to stand by despite many promises. I wanna close. I'm gonna give you both inoperability to share with us what your advice would be. If you could, you know, grab the administration's national security team for two minutes and give them one or two things you think they should do. What would it be start with you? I Steve Vang's one of the biggest challenges for US Syria policy since twenty eleven has been a systematic disconnect between the MVP missions that the US defines in setting out its policy goals in the region and its willingness to commit resources to achieving those objectives. And now we have identified three very large Varian bishops policy goals in Syria, reducing Iran's, influence and presence, eliminating ISIS, prevent. Resurgence and achieving what the State Department describes as a meaningful political transition in Damascus. Even if that does not require regime change, none of those goals can be achieved on the cheap. And the US again has shown it is very reluctant to make the commitments needed to get what it says it wants out of Syria, including the idea that it can use this two thousand men troop presence as a meaningful source of leverage. So my advice would be to put your money where your objectives are to begin to resource and staff and make the commitments at the diplomatic level, the military level, the civil society level to achieve what you say you're trying to achieve because otherwise, no one will take you seriously and the cost US credibility of failing to match our objectives with with with real resources and commitment has been a singular singular negative in. In terms of US credibility in the Syria conflict for set for the past seven years. I wish I could say that that problem was limited Syria, but I think it is a problem that crops up in American foreign policy over and over again, Aaron ear advice, the Trump administration, redefine the goals. We went to the war in Syria to defeat the Islamic state. These Slavic state has been territorially defeated. It may return. It may not a regime, Russian offensive with Turkish backing on, let's say, northeastern Syria would undermine the gains against the United States has made territorially against the Islamic state what concessions is the United States willing to make to ensure that the northeastern enclave is not bombarded that will allow for the conditions that would release the security arrangements in that place for ISIS sleeper cells to reinfiltrated. So is there a deal to be had where you can trade as unpalatable as it? So. Sounds regime security for Curtis acuity, and are we prepared to live with that? I suspect that most administrations don't like it. When they ask for advice in the answer is to focus on what you're willing to get up as opposed to. Here's what the other guys will give you. But on that sobering note, we're going to close up the presence inbox for this week. Once again, I guess where Stephen Heideman who is the Janet right? Catch him nineteen fifty three chair in Middle East studies at Smith College in a non resident, senior fellow in the center for Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution and Aaron Stein to his resident, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council for fee careers center for the Middle East, Steve, Erin. Thank you very much. Police ascribed the presence inbox on apple podcasts over every listen in leaves review. They help us get noticed in to improve the show opinions expressed in the presence boxes solely those of the host or guests not see far which takes no institutional positions. Today's episode was produced by Kevin lisera with senior pitcher, Jeremy Sherlock. Dan mud was recording engineer special. Thanks to Corey Cooper, Gabriel, Sierra for resistance. This is Jim Len's. Thanks for listening.

Syria United States Russia Steve Iran Middle East Turkey Assad Aaron Stein Assad government Turkish government Mike Pompeo Brookings Institution President Trump President Putin Atlantic council Smith College
"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

The President's Inbox

03:21 min | 3 years ago

"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

"Integration, the pub- the public's there are pushing back. I can't imagine that the president's present Trump's performances making it any easier for European politicians who wanna do the things you described do them because it looks like they are carrying out Trump's wishes. And I could imagine that's not a politically popular thing to do. Certainly German ways in the sense that on the one hand, if if Trump wags his finger and throws candy at miracle and says, you got to increase defense spending two percent. This is a reference tossing to to starve. Charlevoix don't tell me, I don't give you anything on then it makes it harder for her to accommodate. On the other hand, Europeans are watching this show. They're saying, you know, we may be on our own. Now the president of the United States just call the European Union, a photo f, o e, right? We. Her take destiny into our own hands. So that gives some momentum to European leaders who say, we may not like this, but you know, the post American post Atlantic era could be opening. We better figure out what that means will a post America posted lanting opening Jim, be good for America. No, I don't. I don't think it will be good for Americans, but I don't know. I mean the the challenge for the European, they're in a really tough spot because the they are from a security standpoint, they are dependent on the United States and changing that anytime soon is next to impossible. I mean, terms of investing in serious military capabilities on their own. I mean, this is this would be a really long term project, but from a US standpoint, I think the thing that is of such great concern to the foreign policy establishment democrat and Republican is that our alliances have always been seen as enhancing American power enhancing American leadership. It's always been seen as the advantage to the. United States has over countries like China and Russia, which have very few allies. I mean, they had clients. They're just don't have countries that are close to them. And so we've always seen, well, we have this huge network and that's good for the United States. I've dozen formal allies in and we deal with the threat posed by countries like China and Russia. We've always seen that as an asset to just toss that away seems to be quite foolish. On that somber. Note, we're going to close up the presence in box this week. I have been chatting with Jim goal gar senior fellow here at the constant foreign relations and Charlie Cup and also senior fellow here at the council, foreign relations, Jim, Charlie. Thanks for joining me very uncleared. Please scratched the presents inbox on apple podcast or wherever you listen to your podcast in please levers review. They help us get noticed, give us suggestions for improving the show opinions expressed in the president mocks or solely those of the hosts or guests see c. which takes no institutional positions. Today's episode was produced by Kevin lisera Zo with senior producer, Jeremy Sherlock. Dan mud was reporting engineer special, thanks to RG bowl, Corey coop. Gabriel, Sierra, the Angela Peterson for their assistance. This is Jim linzie. Thanks for listening.

United States Trump president Jim linzie America European Union Charlie Cup senior fellow China Russia Kevin lisera Zo apple Corey coop Dan mud Jeremy Sherlock Angela Peterson Gabriel Sierra engineer
"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

The President's Inbox

04:18 min | 3 years ago

"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

"More like a technocrat era no he's at greater by nature i mean by he knows he understands commerce and the stands what business wants his predecessors prime minister headed economic technocratic but that's but he entered usually funds at the end of the eighties early nineties let's so what i did on the economy he encouraged the growth he pumped in a huge amount of money in terms of grand big projects at ports highways bridges that enrich a lot of people but but he created essentially to it to layer shows economyclass won the various businessman who also owned the newspapers and therefore support him cetera but also turks get handouts from from the state tuition help of help for for kids if you have many more kids if you're most more of swings you get you get somebody told us yesterday that twentyone million people in turkey get some kind of doug state aids so you've created a dependency if you want on the state that is personified by don so yes there is and but but also several tricks he's the rainmaker he and look turkey has done better now let's talk in two years after the economy crisis goes future key then we'll ask turkey were stock you're selling but steven what do you chalk up to one success i think it's important that we don't focus almost exclusively on economics places the economy's very very important let me just say you know i've been in the room with air john and number of different for of in he really is to my mind the best politician this side of bill clinton he's incredibly charismatic even with non turkishspeaking audiences but i think what's really important in new secret to success in why roughly half the population supports and he governs that part of the population and he intimidates the other part of the popular ocean has to do with the three piece piety prosperous nece and turkey's powerful country one of the geniuses of air on the justice and development party has allowed is that they've allowed turks to explore the religious identities in ways that they haven't been able to do before second clearly the country is much more prosperous than it was when he first came to power in two thousand two on the heels of financial crisis and undoubtedly it is a powerful country and the fact that turkey has a seat at the table the fact that major european leaders in the american president are calling congratulating him on his most recent victory and that turkey is a country that has to be dealt with on major issues like syria reinforces the idea that when aired one came to power and said i'm gonna make turkey a leader of the region and in fact global power that's evidence enough so if you think about it in terms of piety prosperity and a powerful country he can take the box all three of those things and they're deeply resonant for at least half the country so turks are pretty pleased populous we're gonna go thirty i guess i guess you put it that way and on that note we're going to close up the president's im box for this week once again my guess where on rebar key who's a senior fellow here at the council on foreign relations and also professor at lehigh university and steven cook who is also a senior fellow here at cfr stephen enrique thank you for joining q great thank you police have scribe to the presence inbox apple podcast in livas review it really helped opinions expressed on the presence in boxes solely those of the host or guests not of the afor which takes no institutional positions today's episode which by kevin lisera was senior producer jeremy charlotte dan mud recording engineer special thanks to audrey poll corey cooper gabriel sierra angela peterson for their assistance this jim linzie thanks for listening.

two years
"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

The President's Inbox

09:33 min | 3 years ago

"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

"Educating countries. But I think to some extent, it is really positive that there is this conversation going on preemptively before we build these weapons and not after the fact. It's just not clear where this will go. One of the things that I, I like in these conversations is there's been more of a focus on the rule of the human any that is really an important dimension to this. We need to understand that technology what it can do, what are the benefits and risk, but also there's sort of. Sort of a deeper more fundamental question, which is if we're all the technology in the world, what ruled we want you missed a plate in warfare and why? And actually, if the freaking answer that question that that will help guide us to think about how we use this technology going forward, how would you answer your own question? I think that there is tremendous advantage in humans to understand the broader context for what's going on in war and for humans to be morally responsible for what's happening general pulse oval. The vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has actually expressed a desire to keep humans responsible Morley and accountable for lethal decision making war, and I quote him in the book on this, he's broken about this publicly a number of times including before the Senate. And I think that as a guiding principle, we want to keep humans morally responsible for what's going on in the battlefield and keep humans evolved as a as a failsafe that if we use it on me, that atonomy should be bounded in such a way that if it does fail, we. Accept the consequences that they are not catastrophic. How do you keep human beings morally involved when at least some the direction of technology separates the warrior from the consequences of his or her actions? I mean, you go back to the crossbow at one point war was very personal and still his personal in in some settings to today where someone at Nellis Air Force base is pressing a button in somebody dying eight thousand miles away. Yeah. And in some ways, the crossbow was a major paradigm shift in more for moving from an era where people fought hand to hand up close and personal to now killing at a distance, which is certainly one of the reasons why it was revived at the time. I am less concerned about the physical distance. I see that the evolution of robots and drones as just merely one more step in a long or of technological innovations, increasing physical distance. I'm much more concerned about the psychological distance that which doesn't geographical. This at some point create and make it easier to have that moral distance. Not really witnessing. It seems like it is something outside of you. Well, I think that in a pre digital era, maybe right? So certainly if you're looking down the scope of a rifle into the further, you are away the more that the human just becomes a silhouette, right? And if you're looking down a bomb sight in World War Two, you're not seeing humans at all. I think that digital technology insurance actually compressed psychological distance. And so you see things like post traumatic stress from drone operators because they actually can see up close and personal the effects of what they're doing. They can see that there are people on the other end. And in fact, they they, in some ways, may have much more intimate knowledge in a battlefield than someone in a fighter jet overhead there, watching the after effects that watching the family members come and pick up the bodies and that certainly takes a psychological toll on people. I think always thinking about adding an automation, we should very hard about how. Framing these choices to people what the human machine interfaces look like. A might give some examples in the book of of some interfaces that are probably not good examples or as one of of testing album that had one of these little sort of paper cope assistance like we'd seen in Microsoft Office from years ago being used to help queue up decisions for turn it into people. Now, this wasn't actually used. It was sort of in a mockup, right? But that's like totally the opposite of what you'd want to do that we don't want people to morally offload the board and if killing to the machine to technology, but a lot of how we use it and then the doctrine and training that goes into educating the human operators, you were an army ranger, so you've jumped out of planes and things like that. You deployed in Iraq in Afghanistan. How did you is a soldier feel about your technology? Because I'm one level it's critical to your mission. Saves your lives, saved the lives of your colleagues. But also there is this issue of sort of distancing yourself from what it is that you're doing your ability to create harm increases. Yeah. I mean, certainly in the types of wars that we were fighting at the time in the role that I had as an infantryman in ranger regiment. You know, there was there was a very intimate relationship between you and the enemy, and I talk about in the book one instance I was on mountaintop Afghanistan and looking down a rifle scope and watching another person, and it was unable to determine at the time whether he was combatant or not, was trying to determine whether he'd been been stalking would follow coming up to the mountain, whether if he'd seen are reconnaissance team and was trying to sort of sneak up on us or he was just a goat herder in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I talk in the book about sort of the moment of realizing that I, I hear him singing to his goats and he's just a civilian. And so I think you know, at least for people in that kind of rule, you've just very clear relationship between. The gravity and the understanding the gravity of what you're doing, the decisions you're making the the irony in some respects, the wall I played now looking at emerging technologies is that I actually bring to this job a lot of the the grunts skepticism of new technologies. I mean, the last people who really want newfangled technologies or the grunts down in the muck in a mode who've got have stuff that's robust in that works and and they don't want something that brings a lot of batteries, and it's got a bunch of new stuff that's going to break and wires going to work. I don't mention this in the book, but I was in in one instance where we're in a a near ambush. We're in a firefight and the radio didn't work. And the reason why it didn't work was there was a thin wire that was used to snake from the radio on or radio operators backpack to a control unit on the arm and the wirewood Kingston, it didn't work. I used it in the past. I kind of knew it was a little finicky might actually told a radio operator. It wasn't a fan of it and. And use it anyways, and, and I sort of appreciate that really need to work well in combat. But at the same time, we don't want to be loaded. It's wanna make sure that the troops on the front lines do of access to some of the latest and greatest technology, and we're giving them these opportunities to to better protect our own servicemembers. Just sort of thinking about that sort of the stress of combat on human beings. Obviously, you mentioned post traumatic stress syndrome with drone operators, but it's also certain clearly for soldiers on the front line. Is there an argument for these lethal autonomous weapons in the sense that you could potentially have fewer people on the frontlines, experiencing the stress that you felt in in firefights and other Sombat? Yeah. I mean, there's certainly an argument for physical distance, and I think that's really quite quite clear. Right. I think the argument for moral separation for psychological distance is interesting because it is there you don't hear it as prominently. In conversations about autonomous weapons. But when you start talking about these moral issues of reducing human moral accountability, I need, it's very important knowledge. I'm glad you brought it up that what you're basically doing is making an argument for post traumatic stress and moral injury because that is the actual consequence of humans bearing the moral burden of of these wars. And I don't wanna be flippant about that at all. It's it's a terrible tragedy. These wars linger on in many service members minds for decades. I personally lost friends to PTSD through suicide. We have a Hough just horrible problem of of suicide among veterans in the United States, and and it's it certainly, we need to do more society to to help servicemembers who struggling with these issues. So I don't want to suggest that it's it's clear cut her black and white there is, I guess, an argument there to save. Well, maybe we'd be better off if if no one. Filtis moral consequences. I think it's just worth is asking the question of what would that do to warm as a consequence would be less restraint in world. We see more killing 'em. What would that mean for us as if no one slept on easy at night? How what would that say about our virtues and how we think about our own humanity on that no doubt close up the president's inbox for this week. Paul. Thank you for terrific conversation. Thank you. Thank you. I think there are no easy answers here. I really think you for the conversation discussion Nelson to thank you for your service. Thanks much. Paul's book is the army of none autonomous weapons in the future wore out from WW Norton. I highly recommended, please subscribe to the presence inbox, and I tunes and leave us a review. It really helps opinions expressed in the presence inbox or solely those. Those were guests not of c. afar which takes no institutional positions. Today's episode was produced by senior producer, Jeremy Sherlock. Dan mud was record. Engineer special. Thanks RG boulder, Corey Cooper and Gabriel Sierra for their assistance. This is Jim. Lindsey, thanks for listening.

Afghanistan Paul vice chairman of the joint chi Senate Nellis Air Force Microsoft PTSD Morley ranger regiment Kingston Dan mud Lindsey Engineer stalking Jim producer Jeremy Sherlock Corey Cooper Iraq
"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

The President's Inbox

01:53 min | 3 years ago

"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

"You know the there may be other shoes to drop him but i don't see any reason why those two won't be confirmed here's one thing to watch in the pompeo hearings is what they can get him to say about russia and about russian involvement what he's learned in the two thousand sixteen election can they create some daylight between him and that sentence senators writ large talking democratic senator especially democrats but let's remember that senator corker has been a rather critical of the president not running for reelection so he doesn't have any thing the owes the president and getting getting the incoming secretary of state on their wavelength about russia will be one goal of the senators who were examining the risk of creating daylight between the secretary of state and the president is you create daylight between the secretary of state and the president and we began by talking about how secretary tillerson was hobbled by the fact that he really didn't have the presidency or lost it fairly quickly and you know washington it matters less what title you hold and whether you have the president's here yes might vice to mike pompeo stick to your cleared talking points very on twitter feed readily on that note close up the presence inbox for this week thanks for being your pollens dave butter greg please subscribe to the presence inbox i tune in leaves review it really helps opinions expressed in the presence inbox or solely those of the host or guests not of see afar which takes no institution positions today's episode was produced by kevin liz rosza senior producer jeremy sherlock john perry was recording engineer special thanks to audrey bowler for cooper in gabriel sierra for their assistance this is jim lynton thanks for listening.

secretary jim lynton audrey bowler engineer jeremy sherlock producer kevin liz rosza twitter mike pompeo washington senator gabriel sierra cooper john perry tillerson russia president senator corker
"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

The President's Inbox

02:02 min | 3 years ago

"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

"Routed goals although i'm sure they get indoctrinated once they're in there are also a lot of young people who don't know anything other than putin so the people who are there will be a newgeneration eligible to vote next month for putin who uh were born in two thousand the same year he came to power they literally have never experienced rush under anybody also they're both board and not that scared of him because it and a lot of the people that now vine they for example brings out into the streets are young men and that's who we saw for example on thai rear square in in cairo in uh in syria all there's a reason it's young man you know the the you know they're breeze haven't fullyformed eib's seriously they don't quite understand consequence so for me what was the most interesting was going to the court with that was processing a lot of the arrests from the mass protests and these i mean they were boys they you know they have beards beardson um mustaches coming in but their voices are still cracking their at their kids and they had no point thought that going out into the street which seemed cullin fun and like a a rush of adrenalin at no point did they think they end up in court getting a guilty verdict something on their record that might keep them from getting a job in the future and i think we in the west fetish eyes young people abroad we think that they're always the vector for change and progress and often they are but young people stay young for a very short amount of time and very quickly turned into more pragmatic cynical middle age people who have mortgages and families and um a much lower tolerance for risk in on that so riina close up the presence inbox this week julia thanks for joining me thank you so much for having me please subscribe to the presence in bucks in i tuned to leave review could really helps opinions expressed in the presence in or solely those of the hosts were guests none of cfr which takes no constitution positions today's episode was produced by kevin lizerazu is senior producer jeremy sherwin a recording engineers john fletcher special thanks go to arjun bullard gabriel sierra moral trevivian.

putin cairo syria eib kevin lizerazu julia producer jeremy sherwin john fletcher
"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

The President's Inbox

01:56 min | 3 years ago

"gabriel sierra" Discussed on The President's Inbox

"Therein lies to debate and it warn the important points there she noted they've not yet had to deal with the crisis to find out how well their decisionmaking crisis works everything we know from history is that things were different in a crisis on that just that but a my experts no administration does well in its first crisis no administration's machinery is the same after the first crisis could suddenly you go oh my god this was an adequate this was awry you sometimes even think about different personnel this administration's already going through some personnel changes very few of these people have any prior experience in the national security process as some of them have experience in foreign policy particularly the military side but not in managing a a price in all of its dimension algae we've not had a global economic crisis remotely like what we went through ten years ago so if there is a major incident with the north korea if saudi arabian a rauner israel in iran find themselves going to war if indianpakistan would have find themselves on the brink of war seems to happen every decade or two event as well or reaches the the the the breaking point suddenly this administration we'll have to shift gears and after you conduct american foreign policy in the most pressured of situations and i think the i am i guess i'll be i'll be generous in say the jury's out on whether they're up to that while let's hope they if that happens if they break which you point out has been the historical trend not handle the first crisis farewell on that note will cause of the president's inbox for this week richard thank you for joining us means said jennifer your time thanks for having me at police ascribed to the president's inbox bucks i tuned in levers review it really helps opinions expressed in the presence in boxer solely those of the hosts or guest not of cfr which takes no institution positions today's episode was preached by kevin lizerazu senior producer germ sherlock glenn goldman was recording engineer audrey bowler gabriel sierra poor pooper all provided research assistance this is jim a thanks for listening.

foreign policy economic crisis north korea israel indianpakistan american foreign policy president richard glenn goldman jim iran kevin lizerazu producer engineer gabriel sierra ten years