25 Burst results for "Haass"

"haass" Discussed on Why It Matters

Why It Matters

03:39 min | Last month

"haass" Discussed on Why It Matters

"Focus on this type of a thing. Look it's It is what it is what it is. I wish there were more consistent interest in the world particularly since we're living in a world coming back to the theme of the podcast you host. You don't have to look very far to see how the world matters whether here we are up against the twentieth anniversary of nine. Eleven for three thousand people died here today. We've been talking about on your show. Cova more than six hundred thousand americans already have lost their lives from a disease that broke out in Who on china we're dealing with the growing terrible effects of climate change which is a few well the cumulative effect of activity everywhere what we put in cyberspace now is no longer safe. We can't even protect our own cyberspace from other people putting things in there. We don't want so people may not be that interested in the world but the world's interested in us that teams to me simply a fact of life and the reason foreign policy so important is what we do and don't do has intern. An impact on the world is a loopier world influences us. We can influence the world. And i think what's interesting about afghanistan if you look at the last twenty years i think there's been moments some moments we got it right. I think after again nine eleven. I think got initially right. I think along the ways we've done too little and we've done too much. I almost wish you'd invited. Goldilocks on your show. Instead of me you know he was so busy today. I am hired about that. But the if you look at the history of the last twenty years you can almost form two columns the times we overreached in afghanistan and the times we have under reached in the last couple of i'd say the last eighteen months. There's been a lot of under reaching what i was talking about. I think right after nine. Eleven early on in two thousand one two three. I think we under reached and some of the nation-building controversial. I get it but clearly with the surge and other things we overreached we put too many forces. But that's the kind of conversation we need. I think it's important to come away with the right lessons. The only thing worse than making mistakes is not learning from them on that. Now richard haass. Thank you for joining us on why it matters today. Always a pleasure to see you. Good to see you as well for resources used in this episode and more information visit. Cfr dot org slash wyatt matters and take a look at the show notes. Have a question for some feedback. Just be like saying hi. Send us an email at why it matters at. Cf afar dot org. Subscribe to the show on apple podcasts. Spotify stitcher or wherever you get your audio and if you're a fan we'd love it if you could leave us a review. Ideally a good one. The more stars the better it really does help us get noticed and we really appreciate it. Why it matters is a production of the council on foreign relations. The show is created and produced by asher. Ross jeremy sherlock and me gabrielle. Sierra are sound designer is marcus zacharia rafael. Siewert is our assistant podcast producer. Sophie is our summer intern. Robert mcmahon is our managing editor and doug halsey is our chief digital officer. Original music is composed by kerry tour. Hugh said special. Thanks go to richard haass and jeff ranki for why it matters this gabrielle. Sierra.

Cova afghanistan richard haass china Ross jeremy sherlock marcus zacharia rafael Siewert council on foreign relations apple Robert mcmahon asher doug halsey gabrielle Sierra Sophie jeff ranki kerry Hugh
"haass" Discussed on Why It Matters

Why It Matters

07:04 min | Last month

"haass" Discussed on Why It Matters

"The time of the obama administration so you testified before the foreign relations of the senate foreign relations committee and express your skepticism that the surge in afghanistan was a good choice. I think at the time you said that we may have to accept a situation. That is just good enough in afghanistan. The surge was a kind of attempt to be decisive in a situation. I didn't think we could be decisive. That it wasn't going to end in military victory wasn't going to bring about the taliban yelling uncle for peace. When i favored over the years was something more modest steady. The idea of ghanistan good enough or rock. Good enough actually think is an important one. Americans tend to see situations as problems and anytime one. Here's the word problem on immediately. Expects to see the word solution and the problem with thinking of things as problems. Now that i've totally muddled it. Is that a lots of things are really situations. And by definition situations cannot be solved with military force or any other policy instrument at best they can be managed which often means not what you can bring about. But what it is. You can't avoid. I wanted to dial down our ambitions and simply say here's what we want. We want to avoid a taliban takeover of the major cities can't stop the taliban for making some inroads so what we want to focus on a situation we can help sustain at affordable cost the saugerties against a surge was looking for a decisive blow in a situation there simply was not a decisive blow. I think we've got to be modest about what we ask. Military force to colin powell before secretary of state as you know is general you say the military forces good strong things but military force can do is create a context in which other things can can happen but my own view is. We often turn to a too often. We often ask too much of it. I guess that brings me to a question of does nation building ever work. I mean the most famous successes are places like germany and japan after world war two. These were defeated than occupy places. So the question you have to ask is why did it work there. And you looked at the characteristics of these society highly educated highly homogeneous in many cases society strong national traditions and so forth. None of these things were present in afghanistan so again it was not a good candidate. I get the question was. I didn't see clear alternatives at that point. I couldn't guarantee it would work. But i thought it was worth a limited investment. I didn't think it was high risk at that moment. Because we had tremendous authority. We had tremendous momentum. The taliban are gone. Al qaeda was gone so i thought it was a window and my view is. Let's take advantage of this window. Worse comes to worse. It won't work okay. Then we can deal with the consequences of that but we were not willing to give it. I thought a serious try and that set in motion. A situation where the government of afghanistan was never able to do what it needed to do. We misguidedly took on an ever larger role so we became not just the nation builders behind the scenes we essentially became a protagonist in their civil war and that seemed to me an escalation. That was unwise. But i'm worried here. That wars are always fought three times as the question of whether you fight a war this the fighting of the war and then it's the lessons and what worries me. A little bit about. This is that we could learn the wrong lessons. Don't think the lesson ought to be that nation or state building is always wrong right. It's always destined to fail. I think what we really need to think hard about is what are the conditions which we ought to think or positive and what are the techniques. What have we learned about sequencing. What have we learned about pacing. What have we learned about. How do we adjust for local culture and district and the reason. This is so important we don't want to be doing everything ourselves around the world but there's dozens of governments around the world. We need to help in particularly in the middle east particularly in central america particularly and africa. And so we had better learn some of the correct lessons of nation building rather than to say. Well it's never worth it or it's never a good idea that seems to me. We either live in a world which is much more dangerous or we confront ourselves with highway. The united states get involved directly in combat operations in more places than i sure. Don't want that mean. Look one of the things that i can't help but think about. Is you know the women right. I mean this is something that has been told to us in the messaging of why we were even still in afghanistan the repression of women you know in these women saw a level of freedom and now they see this chance disappearing. You mentioned culture. What responsibilities do we have to a society and to a culture when we come into a country and leave grasping big questions today. I'm not going to avoid your question. But it's not unusual one. This is one of the fundamental debates in american foreign policy. To what extent should american foreign policy be about shaping and influencing the external behavior of other countries essentially to what extension american foreign policy be about influencing the far policy bumps and to what extent should what we do in the world be about influencing the domestic behavior. The nature of the problem is with. That often are influences limited. Often we have other priorities and maybe the single most ambitious task you can imagine you can set for yourself is to try to change the internal workings of another society particularly one with a long deep culture. So i take from this yet. We have values here. But we've got to understand in some cases the limits to our influence that we can always translate our preferences. I don't like this. I still remember a dinner party. Where i made this argument about the middle east and i was excoriated. I think is not too strong of a word. Hammered might be another word by prominent former policymaker on the basis of i was selling people short in the middle east and i was actually accused if a kind of racism that that not everybody was ready for democracy and i said i wasn't making a statement about individuals is making statement about cultures and societies and. I'd studied enough anthropology and sociology and enough about the middle east in particular. Were one had to be aware of preconditions and resistance to certain types of traditions I take that as simply. I don't like it. I like the idea that everybody in the middle east would read federalist papers in arabic translation. And that people in afghanistan would be reading it.

taliban afghanistan obama administration senate foreign relations commi colin powell Al qaeda middle east germany japan central america africa united states
"haass" Discussed on Why It Matters

Why It Matters

03:26 min | Last month

"haass" Discussed on Why It Matters

"So like many of you we at wyatt matters have been watching the news coming out of afghanistan. The united states is twenty year. War has come to an end. The government we attempted to build their has failed amid taliban has retaken the country with breathtaking speed. For many of us. It is a time of reckoning about what went wrong. The war began as a direct response to the nine eleven attacks on the talibans refusal to hand over the members of al qaeda that perpetrated them but as the years dragged on many americans lost track of why we were there and what the mission was many young americans. Don't recall a time where we were not at war in afghanistan. The debate about all of this is going to continue for years to come but one thing is certain we have to try to learn the right lessons from afghanistan so in an effort to start learning those lessons. We thought we would do something different this week. Usually on the show we feature several guests with differing opinions. We think that's important but today we're just going to have one guest and he's my boss. Richard haass the president of the council on foreign relations. We spoke on zoom and the team decided to release the conversation with minimal editing. The views you will hear are his own. We spoke to him because he has spent four decades studying and advising on afghanistan and serving under four presidents. He was in the room when many of the most important decisions about the afghanistan war were debated and shaped. There's a lot on his resume. But here are few things you should know. He was in the state department in the nineteen eighties. When the reagan administration attempted to counter the soviet invasion of afghanistan. He later worked at the national security council under the first president bush or he attempted to implement a post soviet policy for the country most importantly he was the head of policy planning for the state department under the second president bush when nine eleven occurred and became the us coordinator for the future of afghanistan in the period that followed. He left the bush administration in two thousand three to become the president of the council on foreign relations. On gabriel sierra and this is why it matters today. Richard haass on the afghanistan war.

afghanistan talibans wyatt taliban Richard haass al qaeda council on foreign relations us reagan administration national security council bush bush administration gabriel sierra
A Global Shot in the Arm With Dr. Fauci

Why It Matters

04:26 min | 7 months ago

A Global Shot in the Arm With Dr. Fauci

"It's march and it's been nearly a year since covid nineteen was declared a pandemic. There's no two ways about it. It's a bitter anniversary but it's also a time to think about how far we've come. There was so much confusion at the start about how to protect ourselves now year leader. We've learned a lot about how to stay safe and we've developed highly effective vaccines in record time. We're starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel but there is at least one more hurdle that threatens to undo our progress all around the world wealthy countries are hoarding vaccine. Sp leaving huge swaths of the global population without access global health officials. Say that this could be a lethal mistake. For rich and poor countries alike. I'm gabrielle sierra. And this is why it matters today. Why a global pandemic needs a global response. It was almost a year ago but the country began shutting down from covert and for the first time. There seems to be a real reason. Have cautious optimism gets the vaccine when or not only serious questions that us but also around the globe in the global fight against covid nineteen is mutations good approving the next great challenge so we have a lot of really important stuff to talk about but i feel like one of those important things is that both you and i are south brooklyn children and i feel like it was really important to just get that out of the way Where were you. Where were you in south brooklyn. I'm from manhattan beach. You are from vincent hurst. i know. Wow you need no introduction but also start the way we always start which is what is your name and what do you do. My name is dr anthony fauci. And i'm the director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases at the national institutes of health. All right so let's say that a majority of americans were vaccinated tomorrow. Would we be fully in the clear. So if we got let's say seventy to eighty five percent of the people in the country vaccinated then we would be very much better off than we are now. But there's a real catch to your question. Because even if we got the overwhelming majority of the population vaccinated there is a big wide world out there and that's the global pandemic so if the rest of the world did not get covid nineteen or saws covy to under control. There would always be a looming threat over us that the virus would be mutating would be changing and we would get new variants that even if we felt ourselves protected in this country sooner or later of variant or mutation could come here and essentially circumvent protection of the vaccine. So i think when you think in terms of a pandemic you have to remember it is global and it requires a global response not just a single country response in the old days when we used to get on airplanes. You remember that what we can all travel one of the first things you get. Is this disembodied voice that would say in the event of a loss of cabin pressure. Oxygen masks will come down from the overhead. This is richard haass president of the council on foreign relations former director of policy planning for the state department adviser to presidents and my boss structured by this to put it on yourself and then only after you yourself and taking care of then you turn to your children your neighbors and others and that's our instinct year we've got to jettison that instinct unless the rest of the world get vaccinated. It doesn't just threaten their lives. It threatens hours to gossip. We don't take care of others. Variants will continue to break out and variants breakout over there. They will figure out a way to come here so then we end up in a race. That never quite ends that we'd never quite win to stay ahead of the curve. We have to understand variance and in order to understand variance. We have to understand mutations and in order to understand mutations we went to the country's medical explainer chief so what is a mutation. Where do they tend to come from. Why do we need to worry about them when viruses replicate which they do very very rapidly particularly when you have literally one hundred million people infected which is what we have right now in the world with over two point four million deaths when you have that amount of replication. as the virus replicates. It makes mistakes in reproducing itself. That's called a mutation

Gabrielle Sierra Vincent Hurst Dr Anthony Fauci South Brooklyn National Institute Of Allergy Manhattan Beach Confusion National Institutes Of Health Brooklyn Richard Haass Council On Foreign Relations State Department
"haass" Discussed on The World Next Week

The World Next Week

03:33 min | 7 months ago

"haass" Discussed on The World Next Week

"May do their businesses increasingly politicised. That's just a fact of life. So i think do all gonna be cognizant to that factor these things. I expected a lolly. Be a matter of time before anyone doing. Business in brazil is going to be attacked unless result improved behavior in the amazon rainforest. I think these issues are going to become more and more Province for better. And for worse i think more for better. We've come a long way. we're simply shareholder. Value is the only narrow concern of people in your world. Point one two. In lots of cases corporations have so much to britain to bring to the table and my point is they ought to be at the table. I mean how in the world could you ever have a conversation now about dealing with covid. Nineteen around the world without having pharma at the table. Johnson and johnson pfizer. Biotech majority At the table the gates foundation. We need they've got to be there. I think about dealing with the internet and digital. Of course you need silicon valley and others at the table over climate you need energy companies need those who like you're the walmarts of the world there. we're gonna deal with trade agreements. Obviously walmart's gotta be at the involved in that so i think increasingly companies need foreign policies And i think they have to be participants not just observers again in part because they gotta manage their own environment in political environment and then secondly if you have views about the us united states ought to be doing action not why in the climate domain or in the public health demeanor in the digital domain. Will you should be part of that conversation. I'm not suggesting you need much less. Want seat in the un general assembly. I sure as hell but But you do want to be part of the serious foreign policy conversation. I actually think increasingly corporations whether they're doing business around the world a preponderance of the business around the world. I think increasingly need to be in this space to be aware of it. Because again the constituencies they must deal with on a daily basis and because policies that are being set by governments will affect your bottom line. So you wanna be part of that of that conversation. You did your arm. You thank you i know my. My pencil is slow in reacting We are out of time and they're over twenty questions the chat. I'm sorry we could not get to all of you But what we will do is. We're we're looking at your questions and we'll we'll put together discussion that Zero in on some of the issues that arena. I'll say one other thing at some point we'll do this again if there's enough interest This is an important set of issues. This is really important constituents For the council on foreign relations for me personally so we can a week. A there's interest. We'll do it again. Someone fantastic and of course. Dr haass is a reason why we launched this initiative on so he is personally committed to it. So thank you very much of for for being with us today Into all of you for your great questions again. My apologies for not being able to get to you So dr on twitter. You can follow him at richard haass..

walmart brazil richard haass twitter walmarts today Nineteen silicon valley Biotech haass twenty questions amazon rainforest one johnson Dr Johnson covid Point one two secondly pfizer
"haass" Discussed on CFR On the Record

CFR On the Record

02:31 min | 7 months ago

"haass" Discussed on CFR On the Record

"Candidates vice president for the national program and outreach here it's the afar we're delighted to have participants from forty nine states and territories with us today. as you know this webinar is on the record. The afars an independent think. Tank a nonpartisan membership organization and publisher focusing on us foreign policy through our state and local officials initiative. We serve as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas. The state and local governments by providing analysis on a wide range of policy topics see far is also the publisher of foreign affairs magazine. We are pleased to have. Cfr president richard haass with us. Today you all have its bio. But i will just give you a few highlights. Dr haass is in his eighteenth years president of c. afar. He served senior middle east adviser to president. George h w bush and the state department's director of policy planning under secretary. State colin powell. Dr haass was also use coordinator for policy toward the future of afghanistan and the us ombo to both the site. Cyprus and northern ireland peace talks is a recipient of the state department's distinguished honor award the presidential medal and the temporary international peace award. He's the author or editor fourteen books on. Us foreign policy and one book on management. His books include foreign policy begins at home and a world in disarray and his latest book is entitled the world a brief introduction. So dr haass. Thank you very much for being with us We are now obviously in our fourth week. The biden administration. What do you think are the most pressing domestic and foreign policy challenges facing the united states today. And how will these challenges affect Us citizens will thank serena and thanks to one and all for joining us today. Since i don't live in washington. I will reduce my temptation to filibuster. And i will keep my answer for me. Relatively chris and seducing not give us most of our time for questions back and forth what what. What have you but this is. This is a very tough time to become president of the united states and another way of thinking about is when you run for president you can choose running mate if you win. You can choose your cabinet. You can choose what you say in your inaugural the only thing..

washington George h w bush Today eighteenth years fourteen books Cyprus today one book fourth week haass richard haass forty nine states northern ireland serena afghanistan both president colin powell biden administration united states
"haass" Discussed on The President's Inbox

The President's Inbox

01:43 min | 10 months ago

"haass" Discussed on The President's Inbox

"Being <Speech_Male> active <Speech_Male> role won the world matters <Speech_Male> to if <Speech_Male> we do it right if <Speech_Male> we do it smart if <Speech_Male> we don't overreach <Speech_Male> the benefits <Speech_Male> will be far greater <Speech_Male> than the cost. <Speech_Male> And i think what's happened <Speech_Male> in the last couple <Speech_Male> years we've gone <Speech_Male> from an era <Speech_Male> of overreach perhaps <Speech_Male> to europe of under <Speech_Male> age and <Speech_Male> show. <Speech_Male> I'm concerned about <Speech_Male> that. So we we got <Speech_Male> a rightsizing <Speech_Male> and it's going to be easy <Speech_Male> again. It's <Speech_Male> all have to take place <Speech_Male> in this context. <Speech_Male> These really large domestic <Speech_Male> needs. <Speech_Male> I would say the world's <Speech_Male> not going to give us a time <Speech_Male> out in the world is <Speech_Male> basically say okay you <Speech_Male> americans go take <Speech_Male> a couple years <Speech_Male> sort yourselves out <Speech_Male> and when you're ready <Speech_Male> all will be glad to have <Speech_Male> you back. It doesn't work. <Speech_Male> History doesn't doesn't <Speech_Male> have a pause button. <Speech_Male> So i think what we've gotta <Speech_Male> do is figure <Speech_Male> out. How do we sort ourselves <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> out at home. With <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> covert and other issues <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> at the same time <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> do enough to <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> basically <Speech_Male> <Advertisement> repair the world. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> The down some <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> kind of new scaffold <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> and then <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> just maybe <SpeakerChange> we get <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> more ambitious down <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> the road on <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> that. no doubt. close <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> up the president's inbox <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> for this week. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> I guess has been richard haass. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> President of the council <Speech_Music_Male> on foreign relations <Speech_Music_Male> is the author <Speech_Music_Male> of the book. The <Speech_Male> world a brief <Speech_Music_Male> introduction richard. <Speech_Music_Male> Thanks for an excellent <Speech_Music_Male> discussion. Great to be <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> with you my friend please <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> to the presence. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Inbox and apple podcasts. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Spotify <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> wherever you listen and <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> levers review the help <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> us get notice improved <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> the show as always <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> opinions expressed <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> in the presence inbox <Speech_Music_Male> solely those <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> host. Our guest <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> not see afar <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> which takes no institution <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> positions on matters <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> of policy. Today's <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> episode which <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> produced by. Zoe called <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> senior producer. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Jeremy shirley <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> so he also did double <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> duty as a recording <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> engineer. Thanks zoe <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> special. Thanks <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> go to margaret gach <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> for her assistance. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> This is jim lindsey. <Music> <Advertisement> Thanks for listen.

richard haass europe richard Jeremy shirley apple Zoe margaret gach zoe jim lindsey
What's behind Trump's decision to withdraw troops abroad

Forum

07:49 min | 10 months ago

What's behind Trump's decision to withdraw troops abroad

"Announced yesterday that it will continue to withdraw U. S troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving 2500 and each nation by January. 15th. Moved through bipartisan rebukes from lawmakers and some top military commanders who say the troop reduction is premature and could further destabilize Afghanistan. In particular. The announcement comes as President Trump continues to install loyalists at the Pentagon and a week after he fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Going to talk about what's behind the with the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan and other foreign and military policy decisions that the Trump Administration is making in this lame duck period. And joining us is Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His most recent book is The world. A brief introduction and welcome back to form Richard House. Good to have you Always good to be with you, Michael. And let's begin by talking about this pull back, and I should mention we're not only talking about Afghanistan and Iraq. We're also talking about Somalia. But this is being done at a time January 15th, which is just days before five days before The Biden administration will presumably be moving in now in limbo. And what does that mean in terms of national security that there's no transition yet? Well, there's no upside the fact that there's no transition Can only hurt whoever. Whenever Joe Biden does take over and let's just say January 20th, he's going to inherit an extraordinarily difficult in box. And the more time he and his team have to prepare for it, The better the country will be, so there's nothing to be gained by delaying the transition. The array of international challenges is Is extraordinary. In terms of what you began the show with you set it up exactly right. This is being determined not by local conditions unless by local you mean the trump White House. This is a political calendar rather than on the ground conditions in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else. It's inappropriate. I would argue to do this during any transition. Again. What's what's driving this? I believe it's always dangerous toe project with my I believe it's Mr Trump's desire to make good. On certain promises he made. It's consistent with his world view, which tends to be relatively unilateralists, an isolationist, but it will not be good either for the situation in any of these countries or for America's long term efforts, among other things, against terrorism or for our reputation for reliability. Well, let's talk about some of those concerns because they are profound, and they're certainly deep in so many ways, And we should mention perhaps the fact that the president had promised to get troops up. My Christmas is just cutting them in half. But the last time there was a major pullout from Iraq, it led to the rise of the Islamic state there and in Syria, and there's great concern and understandably so about well the Taliban taking over as they did in 1996, possibly in Afghanistan, or for that matter, Afghanistan being a sanctuary for terrorism, not only because of Al Qaeda but because of Isis and, well, the Taliban itself. Look, all those concerns are warranted. I wish I could argue differently, but I can't. What's particularly ironic in Iraq is not only is this You know, we have some history to go by, as you suggest that weakens the ability to fight terrorism. What the administration is concerned about Iranian influence. This seems to me a page the way for increased Iranian influence in Iraq, so even by their own lights. This makes this makes no sense and Afghanistan is really bad. You know. They signed an agreement in February with the Taliban, They bypassed the government. Which in and of itself was bad. It's not a peace agreement that would claims to be. It really is an American withdrawal agreement. The Taliban did not have to give up their arms to not have to agree to. Ah, Ceasefire and they made rhetorical pledges about their relationship with terrorists. But you can't take any of those toe to the bank. Ah, this is really after all we've done in Afghanistan, including the stakes were, you know, I'm prepared to argue that the United States overreach there and trying to remake aspects of the country. But this is this is the opposite mistake. This is under reaching and I hate for that, but that the idea come that down the road, some future administration BIA, Joe Biden's or someone after him. They have to contemplate doing things in places like Iraq or Somalia or Afghanistan simply because the Trump Administration race to the exits and we should mention since you brought up Somalia that the timing on this is really terrible, because There's actually a parliamentary elections that you're coming up soon in about a month, and there's a concern that counterterrorism there of Shabaab led counterterrorism could He stalled working against you, Bob, but this was why getting back to Afghanistan from over. This is why Marcus for the secretary defense was fired. He was concerned about the effects of a rapid pullout on the troops and the remaining What That would mean in terms of our alliance is, but also there's ongoing peace negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government that are pretty crucial here, too. Are there There's negotiations going on. I'm skeptical about them. But even if you were a believer in these negotiations Can't think of a worse way to negotiate then to unilaterally make these kinds of reductions. I mean, Mr Trump is renowned for quote unquote. The art of the deal. Well, you'll get a deal here, but you won't get a deal That's worth the paper. It's written on. It won't last the Taliban will have no incentive. T meet its commitments and at this risk the moralizing and undermining the government. What we ought to be doing overtime is potentially reducing our presence. We ought to do it in a coordinated, coordinated way with the government with our NATO allies were also there on the ground. There ought to be done in conjunction with significant long term commitments of military aid, economic support intelligence sport. Essentially, it ought to be coordinated and it ought to be carried out on Lee in a context. In which stability and our interest could be protected. This is a textbook case of how not to go about it. And I'm struck also Richard by the fact that there have been attacks despite this agreement that was signed in February, this diplomatic agreement. On personnel. The coalition personnel even though it was signed, and there have also been let's go to Iraq for a moment rockets fired into the Green Zone in Baghdad near the US Embassy shortly after that withdrawal was announced, so A lot of this is pretty ominous in many ways, and certainly ought to be a great concern. I want also, look at this with you for a moment. From the political standpoint, you have a lot of President Trump's fellow Republicans who were balking at this, including Mitch McConnell. That to me is the only bright side of this. Is that it shows that there is a degree of bipartisan support for first serious foreign policy, which includes, Ah continued American presence in the world, one dimension of which is his military. So the fact that these Republicans on the hill are willing to stand up to President Trump, at least in this domain is welcome and also bodes well for the Biden foreign policy for the Biden administration. I'm not naive. I know how difficult it will be in many areas to forge a common policy path but a matters towards China on matters towards Russia on some aspects of American deployments abroad. This suggests to me that the Biden administration and are even if the Republicans keep the Senate after the Georgia votes. Suggests to me that at least in some areas, bipartisanship in foreign policy is is a real possibility nicely

Afghanistan Iraq Trump Administration Taliban President Trump Mr Trump Biden Administration Defense Secretary Mark Esper Richard House Somalia Joe Biden Richard Haass Council On Foreign Relations U. Pentagon Afghan Government America White House Al Qaeda
"haass" Discussed on The Current

The Current

02:19 min | 1 year ago

"haass" Discussed on The Current

"Protests I also think the United States needs to learn that it's position in the world is not permanent. Necessarily that we've got, we've got to work whether the quality of our society or the telling of our foreign policy. We've got a maintain. America's position in the world doesn't get maintained by itself is your sense that this momentous is creating the conditions for that that humility that that sound so important to to what you're talking about? I don't think so. I'm more worried that it will create conditions for further American pulling back from the world that we are going to turn in which in order to deal with racial challenges, our economic challenges are health. Challenges were politically divided. So what worries me is? We're GONNA turn away from the world exactly at a moment when the principal lesson of the pandemic ought to be that we have to pay more attention to the world that what begun began and Wuhan doesn't stay behind, and we face all these challenges from proliferation to. Climate Change Pandemics and I'm worried that the United States is not going to have the bandwidth or the focus or the appetite to stay active in the world, and then I. Worry about what happens to the world. That's a grim. Does it. Keep you up at night thinking. Look! What it's grim, but there's nothing in it that it's inevitable. Into like I've been lucky. I've worked for four American presidents Carter Reagan and both president. Bush and I've been in the Oval Office enough to see that individuals can really make a difference. There's so little. That's inevitable, so yeah things look grim right now, but they don't have to stay that way. Good policies can be introduced tomorrow if people want to want them to be introduced and that's these the positive. Positive side and that's what I tell young people is Ya you. You've inherited a bad hand of cards. What's going on in the country right now? But things can. Things can approve, but they don't automatically improve its if things are not inevitably bad, it's equally true that there's nothing inevitable that things will get better. It'll take good people getting involved Richard. Haass, it's great to speak with you. Thank you. Thank you Matt, Richard. Haass is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, his new book is called the world, a brief introduction for more CBC podcasts Goto to CBC DOT CA slash podcasts..

United States president Richard Haass Council on Foreign Relations Wuhan Carter Reagan America principal Bush Oval Office Matt
"haass" Discussed on Kickass News

Kickass News

03:11 min | 1 year ago

"haass" Discussed on Kickass News

"What a former <Speech_Male> professor friend <Speech_Male> of mine called forces <Speech_Male> of society and forces <Speech_Male> of anarchy and it looks <Speech_Male> to balance and it looks <Speech_Male> at the trends <Speech_Male> and we all <Speech_Male> benefit <Speech_Male> from a world <Speech_Male> in which the <Speech_Male> reality and the trends <Silence> favourite water <Speech_Male> and we all <Speech_Male> have much reason <Speech_Male> to fear <Speech_Male> the <Speech_Male> opposite. <Speech_Male> So that's that's simply <Speech_Male> a fact of <Speech_Male> fact <Speech_Male> of life at at <Speech_Male> at at any <Speech_Male> time <Speech_Male> phrases like <Speech_Male> liberal world order. Well <Speech_Male> that's a historical concept. <Speech_Male> What came out of <Speech_Male> the burst <Speech_Male> of creativity <Silence> after World War Two <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> and that basically was <Speech_Male> institutions from <Speech_Male> the UN to the World <Speech_Male> Bank to the IMF <Speech_Male> to the American alliance <Speech_Male> system <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> large economic <Speech_Male> interaction <Speech_Male> around the world <Speech_Male> spread of democracy <Speech_Male> to a considerable <Speech_Male> extent. This <Speech_Male> is the world that <Speech_Male> we've lived with for nearly <Speech_Male> three quarters of a century <Speech_Male> and I would argue a served. <Silence> Us fairly well. <Speech_Male> New <Speech_Male> World Order was a <Speech_Male> phrase that <Speech_Male> was used <Speech_Male> after the end of the <Speech_Male> Cold War. About what <Silence> would come next. <Speech_Male> I <Speech_Male> wasn't a big fan of <Speech_Male> the phrase in part <Speech_Male> because it was never really <Speech_Male> developed <Speech_Male> the content was <Speech_Male> never really <Speech_Male> given to <Silence> am I view. We do <Speech_Male> need <Speech_Male> a world order. <Speech_Male> Whatever adjective <Speech_Male> you WANNA put in front of it. <Speech_Male> I've called World Order <Speech_Male> to point out <Speech_Male> but we need a world <Speech_Male> in which we <Speech_Male> not only deal with the <Speech_Male> traditional challenges <Speech_Male> to <Speech_Male> order. Were WE <Speech_Male> WANNA <Speech_Male> have sovereignty <Speech_Male> respect that we don't WanNa <Speech_Male> have countries invading <Speech_Male> another using <Speech_Male> military force <Speech_Male> to intimidate <Speech_Male> interfering <Speech_Male> in one another's politics <Speech_Male> we want to deal <Silence> with the old agenda <Speech_Male> but we also <Speech_Male> want WANNA world <Speech_Male> Comes together <Speech_Male> to deal with the new agenda <Speech_Male> to deal with pandemics <Speech_Male> and Climate <Speech_Male> Change <Speech_Male> and cyberspace <Speech_Male> and terrorism. <Speech_Male> So I think <Speech_Male> the challenge <Speech_Male> going forward <Speech_Male> is to have <Speech_Male> both dimensions <Speech_Male> the old and the new <Speech_Male> dealt with <Speech_Male> and that's what will result <Speech_Male> in <Speech_Male> world order <Speech_Male> and my argument <Speech_Male> is it won't just happen <Silence> by itself. <Speech_Male> United <Speech_Male> States can't bring <Speech_Male> about by itself. <Speech_Male> Unilateralism <Speech_Male> is no answer <Speech_Male> and the United <Speech_Male> States can't <Speech_Male> hide from it <Speech_Male> isolationism <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> is not a viable <Speech_Male> strategy. <Speech_Male> So I actually <Speech_Male> think the only <Silence> way to build a <Speech_Male> world that <Speech_Male> deals with the <Speech_Male> old challenges <Speech_Male> as well as the new ones <Speech_Male> and that promotes <Speech_Male> prosperity <Speech_Male> and security <Speech_Male> and health <Speech_Male> is a world <Speech_Male> whether is a degree <Speech_Male> of a collaboration <Speech_Male> the degree of multi-lateralism <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> and again I think the <Speech_Male> United States is <Speech_Male> in the best position <Speech_Male> to lead it. Not as <Speech_Male> an act of philanthropy <Speech_Male> not that I'm <Speech_Male> against philanthropy <Speech_Male> but an act of hard-headed <Speech_Male> self-interest <Speech_Male> and to me the <Speech_Male> biggest question is <Speech_Male> will we <Speech_Male> and that's a very <Speech_Male> long answer to <Speech_Male> say why why. <Speech_Male> Why wrote this book? <Speech_Male> I think there's a powerful <Silence> powerful case <Speech_Male> <SpeakerChange> that it is <Silence> in our interest to do so <Speech_Male> absolutely <Speech_Male> and I really <Speech_Male> enjoyed the book and <Speech_Male> I also want to point out <Speech_Male> that this <Speech_Male> book is not just <Speech_Male> for career. Diplomats <Speech_Male> are policy wonks. <Speech_Male> It really <Speech_Male> explains foreign <Speech_Male> policy in a <Speech_Male> way that neither <Speech_Male> talks down <Speech_Male> to readers <Speech_Male> nor does it <Speech_Male> talk above readers <Speech_Male> heads it's <Speech_Male> a great primer on <Speech_Male> international relations <Speech_Male> and the challenges <Speech_Male> we face a really encouraged <Speech_Male> people to read <Speech_Male> it. It's called <Speech_Male> the world <Speech_Male> a brief introduction. <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> Richard Haass <Speech_Male> thank you so much for <Speech_Male> talking with me. <Speech_Male> Thanks so much <SpeakerChange> for having <Speech_Music_Male> me really enjoyed. <Music> <Music>

professor Richard Haass United States IMF UN
"haass" Discussed on Kickass News

Kickass News

14:02 min | 1 year ago

"haass" Discussed on Kickass News

"It or not. We live in a global era in which what happens. Thousands of miles away has the ability to affect our lives this time it's covert nineteen which originated in a Chinese city. Most of us had never even heard of but quickly spread to the corners of the earth. Next time it could well be another infectious disease from somewhere else. Twenty years ago it was a group of terrorists trained in Afghanistan and armed with others who commandeered four planes and flew them into buildings. Claiming nearly three thousand lives in thousand. Sixteen hackers in a nondescript offices building in Russia traveled virtually and cyberspace to manipulate America's elections in two thousand eight. It was a global financial crisis caused by mortgage-backed securities in America. But one day it could well be a financial contagion originating in Europe Asia Africa. This is the new normal of the twenty first century and globalism is not a choice but a fact now Dr Richard Haass the President of the Council on Foreign Relations and a season diplomat. Who served under four presidents is helping make sense of this complicated? An interconnected world with a new book called the world a brief introduction and today. I'm happy to welcome. Dr Haass back to the show to discuss the foreign relations aspect of the current pandemic his concerns that the crisis may lead to more isolationism and nationalism. Instead of greater cooperation and what the pandemic might mean for U s China relations he addresses. Why terms like globalism and world order such hot buttons for many Americans and why the negatives of globalism and trade often overshadow the many benefits. Dr Haass Talks about the current post Cold War period and why we still struggle to define it thirty years in and he proposes that the world may have to rethink its ideas about national sovereignty to address problems that know no borders like cove nineteen and climate. Change Lessee outlines the most urgent global problems the world faces in the twenty first century the regions of the world that worry him most and why he believes the. Us shouldn't get out of the nation building business. Just yet coming up with Dr Richard. Haass injustice moment. Dr.

Dr Richard Haass Dr Richard Council on Foreign Relations America Afghanistan Europe Russia China Asia Africa President
"haass" Discussed on The President's Inbox

The President's Inbox

10:57 min | 1 year ago

"haass" Discussed on The President's Inbox

"Facing United States. I'm Jim Linzie director studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. This week's topic is world within discuss what you need to know about the world's Richard Haass. Which is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations? He has served in a variety of government roles during his career including a special assistant to the president and senior director for Near East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council staff in the George H W Bush administration. He was also the director of policy planning for the State Department under President George W. Bush. He has written extensively in international affairs and foreign policy. His newest book which is being released today. Is the world a brief introduction of note that the world a brief introduction already tops to of Amazon's best in the month lists for history and for non fiction Richard thanks for being here congrats on the pre publication? Biz for the world a brief introduction. Thank you professor. Lindsey good to be with you. I want to note for listeners. Richard Ni- practicing social distancing in recording from our SPEC of homes. We apologize for any audio issues. That may crop up as well as any unscheduled guest appearances. Richard I wanted to begin with the book but I WANNA put it in the current context since you finished writing the book put into publication. You have had the corona virus pandemic and at least wondering what is the pandemic tells about the world. The pandemic tells us about the world. Jim Is that. Globalisation is a reality. How we respond to it as an important set of choices but the fundamental point is that globalization is reality which starts in. Wuhan doesn't stay there. Oceans are not moats borders or not impermeable We have to understand that in the modern world very little stays local for long and that to me is the beginning of wisdom and then we can have policy debates about how we ought to prepare for this how we ought to take advantage of the positive dimensions of globalization which are often overlooked how we protect ourselves against the negative dimensions of globalisation. In this case viruses could be computer viruses could be. Climate change could be terrorism. Have you and also? It's often overlooked how we make ourselves more resilient in the face of the fact that on occasion whether it's again a computer virus or a physical virus they are going to get through whatever. Elaborate preparations are defenses? We have and that's me is the beginning of a serious public policy conversation. So why right the world brief introduction now the reason I wrote it now is increasingly. I came to conclude that a lot of Americans wouldn't necessarily agree with what I just said or even if they didn't disagree they wouldn't necessarily be aware of it. I think a lot of Americans have been turned off the world but turned off on foreign policy the results say the Iraq and Afghanistan Ventures. We also tend not to teach it in our schools or if we do teach it. We don't require it so you can now graduate from virtually any university in the United States with a four year degree. And if you navigate your course requirements cleverly. You can essentially be globally illiterate. Not Know the first thing about the world that you're going to enter and that's going to shape your life. Were also living at a time. Where a lot of media organizations have closed their bureaus around the world. Dot percentage of time devoted say to international news on the nightly news is virtually nil or even more recently the Democratic presidential debates. I haven't taken out my stopwatch quantitative analysis. More your thing the mind but I would bet. It's not an awful lot more than ten percent. Maybe fifteen percent Max. I think you're being generous of these debates was devoted to international subjects. Even though we're not electing the mayor of Kalamazoo were electing the next president of the United States and this individual is going to happen. More missed discretion enormous influence an enormous power. When it comes to doing things are not doing things in the world all of which will have tremendous implications and consequences for three hundred twenty five million Americans not to mention the other seven and a half billion people who inhabit the planet. So I'm struck by the gap between the importance of the world and what we know about it and what I try to do was produce a book that would help narrow that gap not just for students by the way but for citizens who have to vote like your parent. You've got kids going into the world and they're lucky to have you at least in the sense that you could give them wise advice occasionally. We'll get a chance to call in and they would call it unwanted advice but by definition coming from a but you're in a position to give them advice about say Career decisions. Should I join the military? Should I join intelligence or business? People need to understand. Should I be investing here? Should I be building a factory? They are in my retirement plan. Should I have stocks from around the world? Should I go visit this particular country at this particular time so all of us are making decisions I citizens or as business people as individuals about the world? And what I wanted to do was helped arm them to give them the foundation so they could make better decisions. I WANNA go back to your point. We think is right. One that for fair number of Americans don't see how the world matters to them. They see the world more as a place. The United States gets involved in somebody else's problems and we best if we just sort of stayed home view typically referred to his isolationism. We can debate whether that's the right argument or not but when you're talking to people in helping them understand that the United States has interest overseas. How do you respond to the person who said we'd be better off just sticking to our own knitting to it in two ways one is? I remind them how over the last couple of decades all sorts of things have happened in the world that have affected them. The covert nineteen pandemic is an expensive demonstration of just that I think of nine eleven which is what two decades ago now and that was an example. How a bunch of terrorists trained in Afghanistan could get on airplanes in the United States arm with box cutters and three thousand people lost their lives in a single day. Some people who older or might remember financial crises that originated around the world so in the analogy that comes to mind. It's not a generous donors. We can be the ostrich we can stick our head in the sand but the tide still gonNA come in. We're still going to be affected. That's half my argument is that we can run. But we can't hide from the world and if there is any silver lining from the current pandemic it would be that that people would finally internalize the idea that the world matters for better. In this case for much worse I would seem to be the lesson of the Twentieth Century Rhyming With War One. The United States thought it could sit on the margins not be working to anyway then of course the original America first move in the nineteen thirties notion. Was what was happening over. There wouldn't affect does and then we had. Pearl Harbor has knock America's door whether the United States wanted to or not that's a good way to put it and it's exactly right but every generation seems to need to relearn that lesson where continental country. So there's a lot going on here to observe us. People also tend to focus disproportionately on the costs of our international roll which are considerable. We've lost a lot of lives fighting wars some of these wars. Which in a previous book. I Dub wars of choice were ill advised most recently Iraq and a lot of what we did in Afghanistan obviously in Vietnam so people as if they were looking at a business plan and only saw. The Debit Side of the ledger didn't see the revenues and people are ignoring the fact that over the last seventy years. There's been peace between and among the major powers. Unlike the first half of the twentieth century there has been extraordinary improvements in our standard of living here in the United States and around the world. There's been extraordinary increase. In the duration of our lifespan by decades. The amount of people living in democratic countries has gone up so I look at our investment in the world and I say pretty good returns and by the way investment. Now if you add up everything we're spending on defense and the like which is considerable but and you know this. As a percentage of our percentage of our Gross National Product. It's only roughly half of what we average during the Cold War so the other argument to make is not only what goes on in the world is important and it will affect us for better us but we could afford to do reasonable things in the world and not break the bank. We can do that and still do the things we should be doing here at home we can have. I would argue. We need to have our taken need. We need to be involved in the world and we need to make America stronger society. I'll point out you to book. Called foreign policy begins at home. We talked a bit about the need to pay attention to the wellsprings of American power in prosperity. Now we have these conversations with people the rejoined it often comes up is a one word rejoinder Iraq Arabia to word rejoin Iraq Afghanistan where people recoil against America involvement that went on far longer than people anticipated and was far costlier than anticipated and draw the inference that we should bar the new buzzword exercise restraint come home America. If you want to borrow the phrase from the nineteen seventies how does that factor into your thinking about America's role in the world? I think people who are critical of what we've done in Iraq and to a large extent North Galveston have a good point. I oppose the Iraq war even though I was in the State Department at the time and wrote a lot about it. I have real questions about what we did in Afghanistan. So I understand that people think we've overreached and what we overreach clause allotted human life. It costs a lot in dollars. Treasure in no way are the gains commensurate with what we spent. I get it but the answer to overreach should not be under each and it gets back to our previous conversation that there's a danger in the United States doing too much in the world there's at least an equal danger of not a greater danger from our doing too little the world's not gonNA organize itself without us and bad things can do and will happen in the world if we simply leave it alone again. We can't insulate ourselves from the consequences and this is true of pandemics. It's true of terrorism. It's true if the spread of nuclear weapons true of climate change. We can't get others to play by the rules. Would like to see them. Play by when it comes to the digital space so just because we're tired of the world doesn't mean the world is tired of us. I want to go back to. I think an important part of what you just said Richard. You said the world's not going to organize itself and this gets us into a concept that is often use people who do foreign policy international relations. And that's the idea of order world order and in Your Book. The world debrief introduction you talk about order and I think for most people who don't spend their days reading. The American Political Science Review or foreign affairs are way through. I want to make clear that I am also one of those Americans who does not spend this day reading the American Political Science Review. I once read the American Political Science Review. So I can I guess I'm formed non reader of the American Political Science Review. But for people who don't do this for a living sort of this notion of ordered isn't necessarily transparent her clear when you talk about order what is it that you sort of have in mind what is supposed to entail. We really have in order. Sloppy would look out and say. Hey I read a book by Guy Richard Haass and he told me that the world in disarray. So how can we have an order?.

United States Afghanistan Iraq America Richard Haass American Political Science Rev Council on Foreign Relations Jim Linzie president Richard State Department President George W. Bush Richard Ni Amazon director Lindsey professor Richard I
"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

09:54 min | 1 year ago

"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

"It wasn't because anybody was intentionally lying. I mean there were people in the administration administration who had an agenda not the intelligence community. And even Powell when he made the speech at the UN. He scrubbed everything he said and and he thought that everything he said was was accurate turned out that several things were not but that was not out of intent. That was just simply we got it wrong. This administration's relationship with the Intel community is fundamentally different. Essentially it's been to discredit. It's been to ignore it now. They're in the ironic position where they feel compelled to The deep state yes. Where's that deep state where we need and make the case it was necessary was imminent imminent threat that they had no choice but to RESPOND RESPOND TO SO I. It's ironic. Hopefully this will lead to a recovery. In the relationship between policymakers and intelligence people. But I won't hold my breath. Oh just say one other thing on that which is It's important that if there is a strong case to be made for imminence that we get it out there because there is a lot of suspicion in part because of the historical echoes about WMD. That you you mentioned but also there's a larger debate here that even if imagine we have lots of information about imminence or there is a DC case. There's still the question of whether it was smart. And whether it was wise and whether it was strategically in our interest so I hope that the conversation Washington doesn't just focus on the question of Imminence whether it was justified but I do hope the larger conversation stays on on the question of whether it was smart. So based on what you know do you think it was smart. I disagree with that. I think we had better options which better consequences. We'll Richard Richard thank you so much for joining us. Both Joe and I look forward to reading your next book later this year which is called the world a brief introduction. Maybe we'll be able to have you back on and chat then we'll need you for more than twenty minutes. We'll just hang him well after that wonderful interview with Richard Haass. We WanNA get your take Joe on. What's on your mind this this week in the context of everything that's going on with Iran and a little bit of impeachment to and how they might be related? I WanNa talk about some reporting from the Wall Street Journal that came out that president trump actually told some associates after killing Sela money that he was under pressure to deal with so money from GOP senators that he thought were important. Went in his upcoming impeachment. Trial and choose Senator Senator Mike Lee and rampal seemed to not be thrilled with how they have received information on the Iran Ron dealings and on salomone and how that's going so far so it seems like even though his original goal was to appease some senators or at least in part it was. That doesn't seem to be playing out so well L. for him. How do you see this going into an impeachment trial? Well I mean the Mike Lee and rand. Paul are the two most predictable members of the Republican caucus in the Senate when it comes to these constitutional issues and war powers act and limiting the president's authority so if Mike Pompeo thought he could go in and charm them Mike Pompeo's a fool and what he did is he made the problem a whole lot worse and I think it exposed a division in the Republican Party hardy in the in the in the Senate. I don't know that it has a long term impact on the president's ability to conduct foreign policy but it sure there was an ugly moment and gave a lot of credibility to the Democrats skepticism. I think that's probably the biggest impact it had. It wasn't Democrats. All of a sudden didn't look like wining party of opposition. They were like even. The Republican leaders are are agreeing with us. The Wall Street Journal reference in the these stories were in the Washington. Post The New York Times also. That's probably the most troubling thing of this whole affair. I mean I think it was interesting the Richard at the end someone who went through the lead up to the Gulf War and understands what happens when intelligence gets manipulated by political actors. Almost quietly at the end said this was a mistake. And we're finding finding out now that one of the reasons the president has done it or at least he's told people is because he wanted to shore up support among Republicans for his own own fate and that you know there's one thing about Donald trump is he's a pathological liar but he has this very narrow on a streak when he wants to show off and I think he's being very honest when he says I did this. Show them how tough I am. We have destabilized the the region and maybe the world because Donald trump is worried about himself. And that's the common denominator that everything comes back to. That's why he's being impeached because because he consistently puts himself in front of the country his own interest politically financially ahead. Of what what the country's interests are and that's why he's going to be sitting in the dock in the Senate as early as this week or next week we. We also got reporting that Nancy Pelosi plans to send the articles of impeachment over so we can expect a trial pretty soon. We've got the early rumblings from from from Mike Lee and Rand Paul. At least about Iran that at least demonstrate some dissension or some ability to speak up outside the traditional Republican. Talking points means that everyone seems to have been sticking closely to. We also have heard a little bit from Romney whose indicated that he wants to hear from witnesses or at least from John John Bolton so how do you see us going into the impeachment trial knowing that the president needs all of those votes to come out positively on the other end. Well there'll be a lot of debate as everybody looks at this two months from now two years from now. Twenty years from now about Pelosi's gambit upholding holding back these impeachment articles and. I think history will serve her well for a couple reasons. One is one partly sh. They got lucky lucky. They got lucky that new information came out and they were able to take advantage of it and talk about. See this as actually why we're doing this but I think more fundamentally anti what Speaker Pelosi was trying to do was frame. The narrative of the Senate trial as the Republicans wanted to to frame it as the president. It's either guilty. or He's not guilty and they were going to prove he's not guilty in the way you prove someone's not guilty is at the end of the day you take a vote and and you quit or you convict. What Speaker Pelosi has done is changed the narrative the narrative of this trial now is is it going to to be a real trial or is it going to be a show trial? Is it going to be a cover up. That's how we go into this debate whether it's Sevilla's week or next week whenever it starts so while the first phase will be important. The house managers making their case It'll be really important with the White House presenting a defense because we don't know what that defenses. We know what it can't be any longer it. It can't be that you don't have any first hand corroboration because if you make that defense you then make the logical case for well. Let's bring in the first tanker operations operation and by the way John Paul is now saying he's willing to testify so to me. It's an open question of what their defense will be It may be that they offer very little defense. You know they say prosecution didn't make their case let's get to a vote they'll be motion to dismiss. which has a chance of passing saying if Republicans? Just WanNa get rid of this. They'll pay a political price for that but the meat of this. The substance of this will be a full-on debate about whether this will be the first impeachment hearing in the history of the Senate and the Senate's done some fifteen of them that didn't have witnesses and didn't have documents provided to it and that's ultimately a heavy lift for some Republicans and that's what would with. This is all going to play up to one of the reasons that always going to happen is because speaker. Pelosi held the impeachment articles back and allowed this narrative to form and the Republicans don't have a narrative changing argument. They're gonNA. I'm sure they you think they've won this battle but I don't think they're going to win this war politically. That doesn't mean the president's going to be removed but the American public is going to judge not so much the president's innocence or guilt to they're going to judge the validity of the trial and in that case as the president most certainly is going to lose because if he's acquitted by something that seen as a show trial he's not granted the political benefit of innocence and Vats. That's what Democrats have been trying to set up and it's gotten lost a little bit over the last week but it's I say this on almost any. I just saved a question. Nancy knows what she's doing and she did this right. Well if she does in fact send over the articles of impeachment and named the House manager New Jersey. Landscape will almost certainly very different the next time we talk and hear your thoughts so we look forward to that until then talk to you then Katie. Thank you for listening to words matter please. Rate and review words matter on apple podcasts and other podcasts providers..

president Senate Speaker Pelosi Senator Senator Mike Lee Rand Paul Donald trump Iran Richard Richard Wall Street Journal Joe Mike Pompeo Intel Richard Haass UN Powell John Paul Washington Republican Party
"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

14:14 min | 1 year ago

"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

"With brief read we can tell that you're not one of those Democrats who loves terrorists. Your experience you served in the State Department under President Reagan on the National Security Council under President Bush forty one and in senior positions at the State Department under Colin Powell in the Bush forty three administration. And so I wanNA take a step back and actually ask what you make of this hyper politicisation. That's happening with foreign policy by some Republicans including President Zandt trump himself. I hate it. I'm actually a registered Republican. Even though my the first president I worked for was a guy named Jimmy Carter when I worked for him in the Pentagon. Ah Good Georgia boy. I worked for Reagan and both presidents Bush old enough and old fashioned enough that I actually do think when it comes to farm policy politics Oughta stop at the water's edge now. It's just the opposite if anything now. We're seeing politics getting more intense. The water's edge. This is this is bad ad for the country so I I never thought that there was a democratic or Republican foreign policy and saw the polarization of politicisation word to views of of foreign policy is bad for us and so they were just talking about a minute to talk about predictability about rely but matt consistency. It's terrible double for that. Also sends a terrible image to the world when this kind of just intense infighting I expect that allies of ours wake up in the morning and they look at it and go holy holy smokes. We are GONNA place our future our security on this bunch of characters. They can't get along and can't agree on anything. Why in the world would we WANNA do that? So I I actually actually think this unnerved too many of our friends around the world looking at the whole board and how this is playing out right. Now we talk articulate earlier with Joe's expertise. That's far more than mine about how polarized we are domestically with politics and how. That's probably never going to change. Do you think that we can pull this back in. I'm from foreign policy perspective and shift the polarization where this is going and you see anyone on the playing field right now that can take a leadership role in that I would limit minute to the United States. But if there's somebody in the global game board that you see to I I would just be interested in your thoughts degree of bipartisan consensus about the challenge posed by China so all is not hopeless there. I think there's a degree of Agreement ironically enough given recent events has that we ought to reduce our presence in the Middle East that it's occupied too large a space since the end of the Cold War. I think there's pretty widespread agreement that Mr Putin is a up to no good in Europe. There's tremendous bipartisanship these days on Venezuela. I don't understand the Republican position on climate change but one day there will be bipartisanship on climate change. So I I don't think it's hopeless. And if Joe Biden or might Bloomberg were elected elected president there there around the fifty yard line. These are not people in the end zone and I don't know where post trump Republican party goes. But I would expect that it's quite possible that we may not go back to Bush forty one but we could have elements in the Republican Party. That if they may not be at the fifty yard line but they might be at the thirty yard line. These things go go in cycles and I think also a lot depends upon what goes on in the world and what we're reacting to. What's going on in Australia for example on the climate issue If something like that hits US anyone who suddenly plays party. Politics is going to look stunningly petty and irresponsible. There was an element of coming together. After nine eleven i. It doesn't last. I understand politics grown up but I I think now this hyper partisanship. I tend to think this is something out of the ordinary. That probably won't last so Richard. You had what I think is one of the three or four more interesting jobs in government when you're at the State Department Pharma being the Director of policy planning and that quite simply is a little bit kind of the Intellectual Foundation for our foreign policy across the government. I think about that in one of my closest friends in the world. Jim Steinberg had that job. I don't see Steinberg's Haas in this government and I'm wondering Eh how you look at the hollowing out of expertise in government over the last three years or if you believe it's beyond that and the impact that has I mean you. You mentioned mentioned. We need to offer diplomatic off ramp. Do we have the intellectual and expertise half now to come up with something or are we just running around chasing the president's tweets. I'll be honest with you. I'm worried I'm uneasy and I think if you're not worried you're not paying attention the hollowing out of the State Department. Some of the people who are in positions at home and around the world just shouldn't be I actually. I'd love to see every single candidate. Pledge that they would only nominate dominate embassador who were qualified. And I don't care if they're career or non-career you know we've had non-career Ambassadors Howard Baker Mike Matt Seal but the kind of guy we sent off to the EU. WHO's in the middle middle of Ukraine scandal? That's outrageous why would we ever have. Such people representing the United States is a country of three hundred thirty million people. We can do better. We ought not to pay eight people off for campaign contributions with with embassies. I think it's a question of staffing in the administration. A lot of it's not what it should be also so process. This is probably the most ad hoc administration in modern American history and that's dangerous because processes. This is good process at times can be stifling. Process also offers tremendous protection decreases significantly the chance. You'll be surprised BUI- events or by reactions to what it is you actually do. And president trump is a guy who quite honestly is uncomfortable with processes. Anyone I've seen that's dangerous and it seems to me it increases the odds. You're surprise we may have seen elements of that over the last week or two and the whole response to Sulamani Sulamani about how Iran would react with any threatened sanctions against Iraq and it's inconceivable to me. That policy came out of a deliberative process. No one who has worked on the Middle East for a minute would do such a thing so I worry about personnel but even more worrying more about the the lacquer process and the political culture and I actually think times the president he may be comfortable with it but the job of process and people around the president. And you've done it. I've done it is not to make the president comfortable. It's not to give him what he wants to give him what he needs. And I think all too often donald trump gets what he wants and not nearly enough what he needs. Yeah I think there was a A New York Times story that reflected that while his advisers get along a lot more now they are much more accommodating of his wishes which is exactly the opposite. I think of what we've seen. What should people look for? I mean I think. I think you've said that people are naive if they think that the rocket attack in Baghdad was Iran's response what should people be looking for over the next year as far as how they might hit back and how to calibrate a message from that as far as how. This thing thing is escalating or calming. I think it's probably realistic to look for a couple of things. One is continued. Gradual breakout breakout from some of the elements of the two thousand. Fifteen nuclear agreement that we've already discussed and it's one of those games almost chicken where Iran will continue to do things and the question is at what point does the United States or Israel or somebody basically say that's intolerable. So there's there's that that I would. You'd think Iran will do some things with cyber only because cyber is relatively difficult to trace and it allows them to cause damage and basically say. Hey we had nothing nothing to do with it. You can't pin anything On US militias will continue to do things. We're already seeing that and they will say these militias are independent and even if we give them strategic support we're not tactically directing them now. You can't hold US accountable or responsible. I think think they'll probably avoid they themselves. Iran Direct Action Against American forces. But I wouldn't be surprised if Iran did some direct action against some of the neighbors. I think they'd like to take advantage of the fact that the United States is put some distance between itself and its traditional friends in the region particularly the Saudis and maybe leverage them a a bit. I think it's interesting here. We haven't mentioned but what got the United States is involved as we've been recently was not attacks on Saudi Arabia shipping. It was the killing of an American contractor contractor and then attacks directly on American installations. So my guess is the Iranians of internalized that and they said okay. We probably got a bit more leeway so long as we avoid one set of targets and ways that can be traced back to us. But we've got a lot of leeway if either go after different set of targets or things can't be easily traced nice to us. The president made that pretty clear in his statement which was in celebrating no casualties. It may not have been a wise diplomatic message but it was. It was a clear message and had been one that had been made before and I think again. I think they've internalized it so again. They won't stand down but they will. We'll be selective but the dangerous still but everybody miscalculates. We don't have very good direct lines of communication and this is kind of the fog of diplomacy and it's very easy for Americans in Iraq and to misread one another and so. I'm not sanguine that what we can pull this off indefinitely it's why I feel some urgency about establishing more dedicated diplomatic channels and by beginning a more. You're dedicated diplomatic conversation. I think just leaving this out there to chance is As we'd say risky business I wanNA and with a comment you made in recent days that actually shifts are perspective from the world back to our shores back to the homeland. And you said it's been almost half for centuries since Professor Arthur Susser junior published the imperial presidency and if anything the imbalance between the legislative and the executive branches has grown grown. Do you think that there's any going back from that. And what can we do. Or what can congress do to kind of recapture its role balance between article. One and article. Two one I find it ironic that I I tweeted that I am saying this because I for longtime was a card carrying a member of the executive I approach to policy. I'll admit it. I never though imagine we'd have what we have now and I think what we need need to do. Congress needs to do some things. There must be well over one hundred grants of authority some of the for example some of the grants authority of Congress that this administration used to sanction in Canada. That's because under all these laws that Congress pass gave the executive tremendous discretion and this this executive branches run with it. The Obama Administration did all sorts of things Again essentially legislation is is tiresome and tedious. Takes time off and you can't get anything green much easier to do things through the regulatory channel or just do it. Unilaterally wasn't invented by the trump administration nuclear weapons obviously created a certain urgency. But it just seems to me if the founders came along they would they would not recognize what we now have so yeah. There's some decisions that have to be made in a matter of seconds or minutes. I get the need to delegate those but fundamental decisions of trade policy or foreign policy. We don't have to decide those between two thirty and two thirty two to am. You've got time to talk about so if I were congress I would be looking a lot at reclaiming certain powers that have been transferred. Maybe very hard to do this now though because everything will be seen through the partisan lens you mentioned before so Republicans in the Senate will probably oppose anything that seems to rain in the President President. So this may only happen. funnily enough one you have one party controls Congress and also control the White House and it's not seen as a partisan the effort by one party to corral the other and may actually have to be more of a constitutional re-balancing than something seen as partisan so ironically ironically enough. A May only come about when you have one party control. I'm going to throw one more end. And you live through the lead up to the Gulf the A second Gulf War with Iraq yard track and I think in the aftermath of that there was a maybe not a crisis but certainly a uneasy feeling about how intelligence was used and our intelligence gathering and Secretary Powell has spoken about this many many times was it feels like there's exponentially a worse problem now having lived through three years of the president himself Denigrating the the intelligence community. Is there a solution there is there. How big a problem is just feel like? We went through about a ten year. Convulsion abortion as a country of we feel like we were led into war on false terms and now we have a president. Who says don't believe the people who are telling you what's going on in the world? It is it possible to get back to a place where there's a consensus and would move forward as a country and what will that take I sure hope so intelligence community my experiences filled with a lot of professionals. Not a lot of Agenda there so I always thought they were pretty straight shoot if he disagreed at times. It doesn't mean they were wrong and I was right and even when they got it wrong on weapons of mass destruction for the most part..

president United States Iran Iraq President Reagan State Department Bush Middle East President President donald trump President Zandt Joe Biden Republican party Secretary Powell Mike Matt Seal Georgia Congress Jimmy Carter
"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

11:54 min | 1 year ago

"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

"We have to be careful even by using the word regime we should call it the government and a much more realistic path as we could give them a diplomatic attorney the they may not like but they might say is their least bad option. Your length and experience in the sphere would take a long time to read at the introduction but even with brief read we can tell that you're not one of those Democrats who loves terrorists. Your experience you served in the State Department under President Reagan on the National Security Council under President Bush forty one and in senior positions at the State Department under Colin Powell in the Bush forty three administration. And so I wanNA take a step back and actually ask what you make of this hyper politicisation. That's happening with foreign policy by some Republicans including President Zandt trump himself. I hate it. I'm actually a registered Republican. Even though my the first president I worked for was a guy named Jimmy Carter when I worked for him in the Pentagon. Ah Good Georgia boy. I worked for Reagan and both presidents Bush old enough and old fashioned enough that I actually do think when it comes to farm policy politics Oughta stop at the water's edge now. It's just the opposite if anything now. We're seeing politics getting more intense. The water's edge. This is this is bad ad for the country so I I never thought that there was a democratic or Republican foreign policy and saw the polarization of politicisation word to views of of foreign policy is bad for us and so they were just talking about a minute to talk about predictability about rely but matt consistency. It's terrible double for that. Also sends a terrible image to the world when this kind of just intense infighting I expect that allies of ours wake up in the morning and they look at it and go holy holy smokes. We are GONNA place our future our security on this bunch of characters. They can't get along and can't agree on anything. Why in the world would we WANNA do that? So I I actually actually think this unnerved too many of our friends around the world looking at the whole board and how this is playing out right. Now we talk articulate earlier with Joe's expertise. That's far more than mine about how polarized we are domestically with politics and how. That's probably never going to change. Do you think that we can pull this back in. I'm from foreign policy perspective and shift the polarization where this is going and you see anyone on the playing field right now that can take a leadership role in that I would limit minute to the United States. But if there's somebody in the global game board that you see to I I would just be interested in your thoughts degree of bipartisan consensus about the challenge posed by China so all is not hopeless there. I think there's a degree of Agreement ironically enough given recent events has that we ought to reduce our presence in the Middle East that it's occupied too large a space since the end of the Cold War. I think there's pretty widespread agreement that Mr Putin is a up to no good in Europe. There's tremendous bipartisanship these days on Venezuela. I don't understand the Republican position on climate change but one day there will be bipartisanship on climate change. So I I don't think it's hopeless. And if Joe Biden or might Bloomberg were elected elected president there there around the fifty yard line. These are not people in the end zone and I don't know where post trump Republican party goes. But I would expect that it's quite possible that we may not go back to Bush forty one but we could have elements in the Republican Party. That if they may not be at the fifty yard line but they might be at the thirty yard line. These things go go in cycles and I think also a lot depends upon what goes on in the world and what we're reacting to. What's going on in Australia for example on the climate issue If something like that hits US anyone who suddenly plays party. Politics is going to look stunningly petty and irresponsible. There was an element of coming together. After nine eleven i. It doesn't last. I understand politics grown up but I I think now this hyper partisanship. I tend to think this is something out of the ordinary. That probably won't last so Richard. You had what I think is one of the three or four more interesting jobs in government when you're at the State Department Pharma being the Director of policy planning and that quite simply is a little bit kind of the Intellectual Foundation for our foreign policy across the government. I think about that in one of my closest friends in the world. Jim Steinberg had that job. I don't see Steinberg's Haas in this government and I'm wondering Eh how you look at the hollowing out of expertise in government over the last three years or if you believe it's beyond that and the impact that has I mean you. You mentioned mentioned. We need to offer diplomatic off ramp. Do we have the intellectual and expertise half now to come up with something or are we just running around chasing the president's tweets. I'll be honest with you. I'm worried I'm uneasy and I think if you're not worried you're not paying attention the hollowing out of the State Department. Some of the people who are in positions at home and around the world just shouldn't be I actually. I'd love to see every single candidate. Pledge that they would only nominate dominate embassador who were qualified. And I don't care if they're career or non-career you know we've had non-career Ambassadors Howard Baker Mike Matt Seal but the kind of guy we sent off to the EU. WHO's in the middle middle of Ukraine scandal? That's outrageous why would we ever have. Such people representing the United States is a country of three hundred thirty million people. We can do better. We ought not to pay eight people off for campaign contributions with with embassies. I think it's a question of staffing in the administration. A lot of it's not what it should be also so process. This is probably the most ad hoc administration in modern American history and that's dangerous because processes. This is good process at times can be stifling. Process also offers tremendous protection decreases significantly the chance. You'll be surprised BUI- events or by reactions to what it is you actually do. And president trump is a guy who quite honestly is uncomfortable with processes. Anyone I've seen that's dangerous and it seems to me it increases the odds. You're surprise we may have seen elements of that over the last week or two and the whole response to Sulamani Sulamani about how Iran would react with any threatened sanctions against Iraq and it's inconceivable to me. That policy came out of a deliberative process. No one who has worked on the Middle East for a minute would do such a thing so I worry about personnel but even more worrying more about the the lacquer process and the political culture and I actually think times the president he may be comfortable with it but the job of process and people around the president. And you've done it. I've done it is not to make the president comfortable. It's not to give him what he wants to give him what he needs. And I think all too often donald trump gets what he wants and not nearly enough what he needs. Yeah I think there was a A New York Times story that reflected that while his advisers get along a lot more now they are much more accommodating of his wishes which is exactly the opposite. I think of what we've seen. What should people look for? I mean I think. I think you've said that people are naive if they think that the rocket attack in Baghdad was Iran's response what should people be looking for over the next year as far as how they might hit back and how to calibrate a message from that as far as how. This thing thing is escalating or calming. I think it's probably realistic to look for a couple of things. One is continued. Gradual breakout breakout from some of the elements of the two thousand. Fifteen nuclear agreement that we've already discussed and it's one of those games almost chicken where Iran will continue to do things and the question is at what point does the United States or Israel or somebody basically say that's intolerable. So there's there's that that I would. You'd think Iran will do some things with cyber only because cyber is relatively difficult to trace and it allows them to cause damage and basically say. Hey we had nothing nothing to do with it. You can't pin anything On US militias will continue to do things. We're already seeing that and they will say these militias are independent and even if we give them strategic support we're not tactically directing them now. You can't hold US accountable or responsible. I think think they'll probably avoid they themselves. Iran Direct Action Against American forces. But I wouldn't be surprised if Iran did some direct action against some of the neighbors. I think they'd like to take advantage of the fact that the United States is put some distance between itself and its traditional friends in the region particularly the Saudis and maybe leverage them a a bit. I think it's interesting here. We haven't mentioned but what got the United States is involved as we've been recently was not attacks on Saudi Arabia shipping. It was the killing of an American contractor contractor and then attacks directly on American installations. So my guess is the Iranians of internalized that and they said okay. We probably got a bit more leeway so long as we avoid one set of targets and ways that can be traced back to us. But we've got a lot of leeway if either go after different set of targets or things can't be easily traced nice to us. The president made that pretty clear in his statement which was in celebrating no casualties. It may not have been a wise diplomatic message but it was. It was a clear message and had been one that had been made before and I think again. I think they've internalized it so again. They won't stand down but they will. We'll be selective but the dangerous still but everybody miscalculates. We don't have very good direct lines of communication and this is kind of the fog of diplomacy and it's very easy for Americans in Iraq and to misread one another and so. I'm not sanguine that what we can pull this off indefinitely it's why I feel some urgency about establishing more dedicated diplomatic channels and by beginning a more. You're dedicated diplomatic conversation. I think just leaving this out there to chance is As we'd say risky business I wanNA and with a comment you made in recent days that actually shifts are perspective from the world back to our shores back to the homeland. And you said it's been almost half for centuries since Professor Arthur Susser junior published the imperial presidency and if anything the imbalance between the legislative and the executive branches has grown grown. Do you think that there's any going back from that. And what can we do. Or what can congress do to kind of recapture its role balance between article. One and article. Two one I find it ironic that I I tweeted that I am saying this because I for longtime was a card carrying a member of the executive I approach to policy. I'll admit it. I never though imagine we'd have what we have now and I think what we need need to do. Congress needs to do some things. There must be well over one hundred grants of authority some of the for example some of the grants authority of Congress that this administration used to sanction in Canada. That's because under all these laws that Congress pass gave the executive tremendous discretion and this this executive branches run with it. The Obama Administration did all sorts of things Again essentially legislation is is tiresome and tedious..

president United States Iran State Department President Reagan Bush Middle East donald trump Joe Biden President Zandt Republican party Iraq Congress Georgia Mike Matt Seal executive Jimmy Carter attorney National Security Council
"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

11:54 min | 1 year ago

"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

"We have to be careful even by using the word regime we should call it the government and a much more realistic path as we could give them a diplomatic attorney the they may not like but they might say is their least bad option. Your length and experience in the sphere would take a long time to read at the introduction but even with brief read we can tell that you're not one of those Democrats who loves terrorists. Your experience you served in the State Department under President Reagan on the National Security Council under President Bush forty one and in senior positions at the State Department under Colin Powell in the Bush forty three administration. And so I wanNA take a step back and actually ask what you make of this hyper politicisation. That's happening with foreign policy by some Republicans including President Zandt trump himself. I hate it. I'm actually a registered Republican. Even though my the first president I worked for was a guy named Jimmy Carter when I worked for him in the Pentagon. Ah Good Georgia boy. I worked for Reagan and both presidents Bush old enough and old fashioned enough that I actually do think when it comes to farm policy politics Oughta stop at the water's edge now. It's just the opposite if anything now. We're seeing politics getting more intense. The water's edge. This is this is bad ad for the country so I I never thought that there was a democratic or Republican foreign policy and saw the polarization of politicisation word to views of of foreign policy is bad for us and so they were just talking about a minute to talk about predictability about rely but matt consistency. It's terrible double for that. Also sends a terrible image to the world when this kind of just intense infighting I expect that allies of ours wake up in the morning and they look at it and go holy holy smokes. We are GONNA place our future our security on this bunch of characters. They can't get along and can't agree on anything. Why in the world would we WANNA do that? So I I actually actually think this unnerved too many of our friends around the world looking at the whole board and how this is playing out right. Now we talk articulate earlier with Joe's expertise. That's far more than mine about how polarized we are domestically with politics and how. That's probably never going to change. Do you think that we can pull this back in. I'm from foreign policy perspective and shift the polarization where this is going and you see anyone on the playing field right now that can take a leadership role in that I would limit minute to the United States. But if there's somebody in the global game board that you see to I I would just be interested in your thoughts degree of bipartisan consensus about the challenge posed by China so all is not hopeless there. I think there's a degree of Agreement ironically enough given recent events has that we ought to reduce our presence in the Middle East that it's occupied too large a space since the end of the Cold War. I think there's pretty widespread agreement that Mr Putin is a up to no good in Europe. There's tremendous bipartisanship these days on Venezuela. I don't understand the Republican position on climate change but one day there will be bipartisanship on climate change. So I I don't think it's hopeless. And if Joe Biden or might Bloomberg were elected elected president there there around the fifty yard line. These are not people in the end zone and I don't know where post trump Republican party goes. But I would expect that it's quite possible that we may not go back to Bush forty one but we could have elements in the Republican Party. That if they may not be at the fifty yard line but they might be at the thirty yard line. These things go go in cycles and I think also a lot depends upon what goes on in the world and what we're reacting to. What's going on in Australia for example on the climate issue If something like that hits US anyone who suddenly plays party. Politics is going to look stunningly petty and irresponsible. There was an element of coming together. After nine eleven i. It doesn't last. I understand politics grown up but I I think now this hyper partisanship. I tend to think this is something out of the ordinary. That probably won't last so Richard. You had what I think is one of the three or four more interesting jobs in government when you're at the State Department Pharma being the Director of policy planning and that quite simply is a little bit kind of the Intellectual Foundation for our foreign policy across the government. I think about that in one of my closest friends in the world. Jim Steinberg had that job. I don't see Steinberg's Haas in this government and I'm wondering Eh how you look at the hollowing out of expertise in government over the last three years or if you believe it's beyond that and the impact that has I mean you. You mentioned mentioned. We need to offer diplomatic off ramp. Do we have the intellectual and expertise half now to come up with something or are we just running around chasing the president's tweets. I'll be honest with you. I'm worried I'm uneasy and I think if you're not worried you're not paying attention the hollowing out of the State Department. Some of the people who are in positions at home and around the world just shouldn't be I actually. I'd love to see every single candidate. Pledge that they would only nominate dominate embassador who were qualified. And I don't care if they're career or non-career you know we've had non-career Ambassadors Howard Baker Mike Matt Seal but the kind of guy we sent off to the EU. WHO's in the middle middle of Ukraine scandal? That's outrageous why would we ever have. Such people representing the United States is a country of three hundred thirty million people. We can do better. We ought not to pay eight people off for campaign contributions with with embassies. I think it's a question of staffing in the administration. A lot of it's not what it should be also so process. This is probably the most ad hoc administration in modern American history and that's dangerous because processes. This is good process at times can be stifling. Process also offers tremendous protection decreases significantly the chance. You'll be surprised BUI- events or by reactions to what it is you actually do. And president trump is a guy who quite honestly is uncomfortable with processes. Anyone I've seen that's dangerous and it seems to me it increases the odds. You're surprise we may have seen elements of that over the last week or two and the whole response to Sulamani Sulamani about how Iran would react with any threatened sanctions against Iraq and it's inconceivable to me. That policy came out of a deliberative process. No one who has worked on the Middle East for a minute would do such a thing so I worry about personnel but even more worrying more about the the lacquer process and the political culture and I actually think times the president he may be comfortable with it but the job of process and people around the president. And you've done it. I've done it is not to make the president comfortable. It's not to give him what he wants to give him what he needs. And I think all too often donald trump gets what he wants and not nearly enough what he needs. Yeah I think there was a A New York Times story that reflected that while his advisers get along a lot more now they are much more accommodating of his wishes which is exactly the opposite. I think of what we've seen. What should people look for? I mean I think. I think you've said that people are naive if they think that the rocket attack in Baghdad was Iran's response what should people be looking for over the next year as far as how they might hit back and how to calibrate a message from that as far as how. This thing thing is escalating or calming. I think it's probably realistic to look for a couple of things. One is continued. Gradual breakout breakout from some of the elements of the two thousand. Fifteen nuclear agreement that we've already discussed and it's one of those games almost chicken where Iran will continue to do things and the question is at what point does the United States or Israel or somebody basically say that's intolerable. So there's there's that that I would. You'd think Iran will do some things with cyber only because cyber is relatively difficult to trace and it allows them to cause damage and basically say. Hey we had nothing nothing to do with it. You can't pin anything On US militias will continue to do things. We're already seeing that and they will say these militias are independent and even if we give them strategic support we're not tactically directing them now. You can't hold US accountable or responsible. I think think they'll probably avoid they themselves. Iran Direct Action Against American forces. But I wouldn't be surprised if Iran did some direct action against some of the neighbors. I think they'd like to take advantage of the fact that the United States is put some distance between itself and its traditional friends in the region particularly the Saudis and maybe leverage them a a bit. I think it's interesting here. We haven't mentioned but what got the United States is involved as we've been recently was not attacks on Saudi Arabia shipping. It was the killing of an American contractor contractor and then attacks directly on American installations. So my guess is the Iranians of internalized that and they said okay. We probably got a bit more leeway so long as we avoid one set of targets and ways that can be traced back to us. But we've got a lot of leeway if either go after different set of targets or things can't be easily traced nice to us. The president made that pretty clear in his statement which was in celebrating no casualties. It may not have been a wise diplomatic message but it was. It was a clear message and had been one that had been made before and I think again. I think they've internalized it so again. They won't stand down but they will. We'll be selective but the dangerous still but everybody miscalculates. We don't have very good direct lines of communication and this is kind of the fog of diplomacy and it's very easy for Americans in Iraq and to misread one another and so. I'm not sanguine that what we can pull this off indefinitely it's why I feel some urgency about establishing more dedicated diplomatic channels and by beginning a more. You're dedicated diplomatic conversation. I think just leaving this out there to chance is As we'd say risky business I wanNA and with a comment you made in recent days that actually shifts are perspective from the world back to our shores back to the homeland. And you said it's been almost half for centuries since Professor Arthur Susser junior published the imperial presidency and if anything the imbalance between the legislative and the executive branches has grown grown. Do you think that there's any going back from that. And what can we do. Or what can congress do to kind of recapture its role balance between article. One and article. Two one I find it ironic that I I tweeted that I am saying this because I for longtime was a card carrying a member of the executive I approach to policy. I'll admit it. I never though imagine we'd have what we have now and I think what we need need to do. Congress needs to do some things. There must be well over one hundred grants of authority some of the for example some of the grants authority of Congress that this administration used to sanction in Canada. That's because under all these laws that Congress pass gave the executive tremendous discretion and this this executive branches run with it. The Obama Administration did all sorts of things Again essentially legislation is is tiresome and tedious..

president United States Iran State Department President Reagan Bush Middle East donald trump Joe Biden President Zandt Republican party Iraq Congress Georgia Mike Matt Seal executive Jimmy Carter attorney National Security Council
"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

13:15 min | 1 year ago

"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

"Welcome to words matter with Katie. Barlow and Joe Lockhart welcome to words matter. I'm Katie Barlow. Our goal is to promote objective reality as a wise man once said had everyone is entitled to their own opinion not their own facts. Words have power and words have consequences. Our guest today is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a diplomat and the author author or editor of more than a dozen books including the forthcoming the world. A brief introduction. Richard Haass. Welcome to words matter. Grew to be with you guys Josh. So a year ago in January of two thousand nineteen you made a prediction for the year. And I want to read what you said. Here's here's what you said if I were going to place a bet on two thousand nineteen where there could well be a serious new war in the world. It wouldn't be North Korea. It wouldn't be the South China Sea. You never know what Mr Putin will do in Ukraine but I would bet on Iran and turns out you were right about that that would have been a pretty pretty good bet. So what did you see in January of two thousand. Nineteen that led you to make that prescient prediction. My first reaction to that as I ought to be raising my consulting fees luck this was baked into the cake. Once the United States got out of the two thousand fifteen nuclear deal which essentially replace temporary limits on some of the critical components of Iran's nuclear program once we unilaterally got out of it I think it was in two thousand eighteen and and we slapped on these really draconian sanctions on the Iranian economy. Essentially we said to the Iranians we are going to commit an practice economic Mike Warfare. Unless you change your ways fundamentally and I thought there was no chance the Iranians would change their ways. Fundamentally and I thought they would sooner or later push back but they couldn't push back kind. They couldn't practice economic warfare against us. They don't have the tools they don't have the leverage what they could practice. was there kind of warfare. And that that meant as we've seen things like shooting off missiles at Saudi oil installations going after tanker traffic going after using their militias to go after American servicemen and personnel and contractors and so forth. So to me we were just on a on a collision course. There was no diplomatic off ramp. We were practising economic coercion. They were likely to respond the only way they know how with military so I just thought this was inevitable. I I WANNA ask about the deal itself for our listeners. That may know some about it but not everything so the two thousand fifteen joint comprehensive plan of action. JCP away you call it. The nuclear deal the Iran deal it was announced in Vienna Austria on July fourteenth two dozen fifteen and it was between Iran and the P five or the five permanent members members of the UN Security Council plus the European Union so for our listeners. Could you explain kind of what was in that agreement and how it was working until may two thousand eighteen when the US pulled out what the agreement did was put into place Certain limits on Iran essentially for thick durations. Gent's roughly a decade. They couldn't be in the business of producing a running any significant number of centrifuges the machines that enrich uranium make coban capable. There were tremendous limits. They had to dramatically reduce the level of enriched uranium that they were allowed to possess those are the two the principle limits they agreed to a certain degree of international inspections in return. They got a significant degree of relief from the economic sanctions. That had been in place. They were in As everybody agreed to in compliance with the deal that wasn't the issue the issue for the the new administration of Mr Trump because this is obviously an agreement negotiated by the Obama Administration. They thought it was flawed. The reason being probably three three things or four things. One is that the durations of limits on Iran. They thought were to short-lived so-called sunset was too soon tonight Florida. It's worth I think they had a point secondly it didn't cover missiles missiles were covered by various UN resolutions. But Not by this agreement. Thirdly this agreement had nothing nothing to do didn't place any constraints on what Iran doing Syria or Lebanon or Yemen or anywhere else which I didn't think it was a very good argument Because you can't expect a single agreement to do everything we we never expected. Arms Control Agreements with the Soviet Union. The solve the Berlin crisis. We were usually happy that they could solve some of the Nuclear crisis it didn't deal with say domestic conditions inside around. This wasn't an agreement that solved everything but it wasn't agreement that reduced the nuclear challenge posed by Iran for fifteen years plus. Let's remind us. And it provided US by Western intelligence agencies Israel's to tremendous warning so if Iran worded wake up one day and decide that it wanted to Put together a nuclear weapon because of what the agreement did while the agreement was in force. It would buy us a lot of warning. Time people estimated as much as a year so we would find out there doing it and then we would have more than enough time to try to persuade them not to do it or to respond to them so that was the advantage of the deal. The critics again thought thought it was too short lived. It wasn't ambitious enough. It transferred to many resources to Iran. And that's what led this administration to get get rid of it slap on these really dramatic sanctions and for what it's worth. I think though it was never there articulated policy their hope was essentially essentially the sanctions would be so has such an impact that it would either bring down the regime so called regime change or get it fundamentally change change its nature and behavior. I never thought that was realistic. The regime is quite resilient than those how to push back so the sanctions had a real bite their estimates that it may have forced the Iranian economy to shrink by as much as ten percent. So That's rob. That's one of the reasons we've seen people until recently out on the streets there but I never thought it was enough to get the regime forty years after the revolution to change its stripes Richard. I know that people like John Kerry I've been on TV saying that. This was the biggest mistake in a long time. I'm interested because I think at the time and was being negotiated there. Were parts of this. You supportive you're a critic of part of it try to put it into some context whether it was a strategic mistake to PLO out and what the implications are for both this and are standing in the world my I position essentially was this agreement was Not The agreement could on should have been. I actually think the Obama Administration in this really ticks off John Kerry every whenever he hears me say this. I hope he's not listening but I thought we were the typical person who went to the used car lot determined to buy a car and we ended up leaving the lot with the car. We wanted the agreement too much. We didn't want to have a crisis with Iran. At the time we didn't want to have any more Middle Eastern crises. This was an an administration that was reluctant to get involved in Syria. We saw I also think there was Somewhat naive hope that by integrating Iran more into the region giving giving them some connections economically that we would set in motion trends or dynamics in Iran that they would mellow they would become a more reasonable more moderate country. I for one thought that was naive. And essentially we went into the agreement a little bit too hungry for it and a little bit overly optimistic that said I opposed host. What the trump administration did I was against getting out of it unilaterally? This wasn't just a bilateral agreement. Also we had nothing to put in. Its place it's one thing. Aim to get out of an agreement. If you're confident you've got something better. You've got a clear plan B but the only plan B. where these sanctions that again were aimed at regime change which I thought had no chance the answer working and I thought as we began this conversation it could set us on a collision course with Iran and see how that was going to be in. US interest so. I was using the odd position where I wasn't in love with the agreement but then once we had it I was against unilaterally pulling out in one other job. which is I think it's important for? Great power like the United States to be a country of its word to be predictable so many other countries whether they're friends or foes base their foreign policy on on expectations of what we are likely to do. Great powers do have to be predictable. They've got to be reliable. So I thought getting out of this without outta alternative breaking the collective cohesion set or a really bad message about our behavior. Yeah I mean it's what we've talked on this podcast many times about being the adult in the room and there needs to be one and sometimes there is. Sometimes there isn't right now. Hopefully there's a few in this room. Hopefully hopefully if you break down the decision to go and take out the Iranian general talk a little bit about that and with an eye towards where we'll be a six months a year from now. There's an argument that Iran in the longer run is going to get what it wants because what they really want is the US out of the region and this may be a a step towards doing that. How do you assess near? And I guess midterm the results of the drone strike and everything that is going to happen a narrow calculus. I think you'd have to say that getting Mr Sulamani off the playing fields. Good thing this was a a man who has expression goes had a lot of blood on his aunts. That's said to some extent he can be replaced and in the long run. I'm not sure the at all this leaves us better off as you alluded to. I'm very worried that opposition in Iraq precarious now and we ought US take stock. If Iran's goal is to get the United States out of Iraq. Why do we want to do things that seem to be consistent with that goal? Iraq's one of the most important Arab countries got enormous energy reserves. We WanNA push back against Iranian influence. We don't want to see isis. Put up stakes again in Iraq so that ought to give us a pause plus we've now announced new sanctions on top of the old sanctions. So I don't think anything's changed your I think again. We continue to practice economic warfare very against Iran. I think they're likely to find ways to push back whether it's against Saudi Arabia or doing something against Israel doing something with cyber anywhere in the world so the possibility of continued friction or worship conflict with Iran. I think is is likely so. I'd make the same prediction I made a year ago. Iran has not stood down contrary to what the president said. When I take a step back look at the world? Now you've got a rising China you've got a North Korea. The one thing we know for sure it we'll never denuclearize. We have Putin doing what he's doing in Ukraine and he might be tempted to do it elsewhere. We've got a crisis in Venezuela that's producing. What somewhere between between one and two million refugees this year do we really want the United States to once again find itself getting much more involved in the in the Middle Middle East indeed? I'm hard pressed from Donald Trump's point of view why he would want to do this. I thought he believed in America. I I thought he was against these quote unquote forever. Endless wars wars. He didn't get involved in Syria. We essentially betrayed the Kurds. We didn't respond to the attack on Saudi Arabia. So this seems totally out of character for him and totally inconsistent with his own strategic bias which was to dial down America's involvement in the Middle East. I don't necessarily share that biased. But all I'm saying has given our desire to do more in the rest of the world. It's odd for me to see why we would want to go down this path with Iran at a minimum. Mom what I would want to do with. Iran is offer a serious diplomatic to use the CLICHE offramp alternative against the backdrop of sanctions and go to Iran and say. Hey here's a potential replacement for the two thousand fifteen nuclear deal in exchange for a degree sanctions relief. We WanNa have some longer term limits on what you can do. We want to capture your missile programs. And maybe the sanctions are biting enough that the Iranians might be intriguing. It's interesting the I Tola Khomeini in the late eighties. At the end of the decade of Iran Iraq war he reluctantly accepted piece. Then Saddam Hussein his arch-rival and and he said this is like drinking poison to me but he was willing to drink the poison to make a compromise with an archenemy because she thought it was essential to preserve the Iranian Ronnie Revolution and our goal ought to be to get Iran back to such a point so we have the economic sanctions. But we're not gonNA again force the regime regime out of power..

Iran United States Syria Iraq Saudi Arabia North Korea John Kerry Richard Haass Mr Putin Katie Barlow Obama Administration Donald Trump president Council on Foreign Relations South China Sea America Israel Josh editor
"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

Words Matter

13:15 min | 1 year ago

"haass" Discussed on Words Matter

"Welcome to words matter with Katie. Barlow and Joe Lockhart welcome to words matter. I'm Katie Barlow. Our goal is to promote objective reality as a wise man once said had everyone is entitled to their own opinion not their own facts. Words have power and words have consequences. Our guest today is president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a diplomat and the author author or editor of more than a dozen books including the forthcoming the world. A brief introduction. Richard Haass. Welcome to words matter. Grew to be with you guys Josh. So a year ago in January of two thousand nineteen you made a prediction for the year. And I want to read what you said. Here's here's what you said if I were going to place a bet on two thousand nineteen where there could well be a serious new war in the world. It wouldn't be North Korea. It wouldn't be the South China Sea. You never know what Mr Putin will do in Ukraine but I would bet on Iran and turns out you were right about that that would have been a pretty pretty good bet. So what did you see in January of two thousand. Nineteen that led you to make that prescient prediction. My first reaction to that as I ought to be raising my consulting fees luck this was baked into the cake. Once the United States got out of the two thousand fifteen nuclear deal which essentially replace temporary limits on some of the critical components of Iran's nuclear program once we unilaterally got out of it I think it was in two thousand eighteen and and we slapped on these really draconian sanctions on the Iranian economy. Essentially we said to the Iranians we are going to commit an practice economic Mike Warfare. Unless you change your ways fundamentally and I thought there was no chance the Iranians would change their ways. Fundamentally and I thought they would sooner or later push back but they couldn't push back kind. They couldn't practice economic warfare against us. They don't have the tools they don't have the leverage what they could practice. was there kind of warfare. And that that meant as we've seen things like shooting off missiles at Saudi oil installations going after tanker traffic going after using their militias to go after American servicemen and personnel and contractors and so forth. So to me we were just on a on a collision course. There was no diplomatic off ramp. We were practising economic coercion. They were likely to respond the only way they know how with military so I just thought this was inevitable. I I WANNA ask about the deal itself for our listeners. That may know some about it but not everything so the two thousand fifteen joint comprehensive plan of action. JCP away you call it. The nuclear deal the Iran deal it was announced in Vienna Austria on July fourteenth two dozen fifteen and it was between Iran and the P five or the five permanent members members of the UN Security Council plus the European Union so for our listeners. Could you explain kind of what was in that agreement and how it was working until may two thousand eighteen when the US pulled out what the agreement did was put into place Certain limits on Iran essentially for thick durations. Gent's roughly a decade. They couldn't be in the business of producing a running any significant number of centrifuges the machines that enrich uranium make coban capable. There were tremendous limits. They had to dramatically reduce the level of enriched uranium that they were allowed to possess those are the two the principle limits they agreed to a certain degree of international inspections in return. They got a significant degree of relief from the economic sanctions. That had been in place. They were in As everybody agreed to in compliance with the deal that wasn't the issue the issue for the the new administration of Mr Trump because this is obviously an agreement negotiated by the Obama Administration. They thought it was flawed. The reason being probably three three things or four things. One is that the durations of limits on Iran. They thought were to short-lived so-called sunset was too soon tonight Florida. It's worth I think they had a point secondly it didn't cover missiles missiles were covered by various UN resolutions. But Not by this agreement. Thirdly this agreement had nothing nothing to do didn't place any constraints on what Iran doing Syria or Lebanon or Yemen or anywhere else which I didn't think it was a very good argument Because you can't expect a single agreement to do everything we we never expected. Arms Control Agreements with the Soviet Union. The solve the Berlin crisis. We were usually happy that they could solve some of the Nuclear crisis it didn't deal with say domestic conditions inside around. This wasn't an agreement that solved everything but it wasn't agreement that reduced the nuclear challenge posed by Iran for fifteen years plus. Let's remind us. And it provided US by Western intelligence agencies Israel's to tremendous warning so if Iran worded wake up one day and decide that it wanted to Put together a nuclear weapon because of what the agreement did while the agreement was in force. It would buy us a lot of warning. Time people estimated as much as a year so we would find out there doing it and then we would have more than enough time to try to persuade them not to do it or to respond to them so that was the advantage of the deal. The critics again thought thought it was too short lived. It wasn't ambitious enough. It transferred to many resources to Iran. And that's what led this administration to get get rid of it slap on these really dramatic sanctions and for what it's worth. I think though it was never there articulated policy their hope was essentially essentially the sanctions would be so has such an impact that it would either bring down the regime so called regime change or get it fundamentally change change its nature and behavior. I never thought that was realistic. The regime is quite resilient than those how to push back so the sanctions had a real bite their estimates that it may have forced the Iranian economy to shrink by as much as ten percent. So That's rob. That's one of the reasons we've seen people until recently out on the streets there but I never thought it was enough to get the regime forty years after the revolution to change its stripes Richard. I know that people like John Kerry I've been on TV saying that. This was the biggest mistake in a long time. I'm interested because I think at the time and was being negotiated there. Were parts of this. You supportive you're a critic of part of it try to put it into some context whether it was a strategic mistake to PLO out and what the implications are for both this and are standing in the world my I position essentially was this agreement was Not The agreement could on should have been. I actually think the Obama Administration in this really ticks off John Kerry every whenever he hears me say this. I hope he's not listening but I thought we were the typical person who went to the used car lot determined to buy a car and we ended up leaving the lot with the car. We wanted the agreement too much. We didn't want to have a crisis with Iran. At the time we didn't want to have any more Middle Eastern crises. This was an an administration that was reluctant to get involved in Syria. We saw I also think there was Somewhat naive hope that by integrating Iran more into the region giving giving them some connections economically that we would set in motion trends or dynamics in Iran that they would mellow they would become a more reasonable more moderate country. I for one thought that was naive. And essentially we went into the agreement a little bit too hungry for it and a little bit overly optimistic that said I opposed host. What the trump administration did I was against getting out of it unilaterally? This wasn't just a bilateral agreement. Also we had nothing to put in. Its place it's one thing. Aim to get out of an agreement. If you're confident you've got something better. You've got a clear plan B but the only plan B. where these sanctions that again were aimed at regime change which I thought had no chance the answer working and I thought as we began this conversation it could set us on a collision course with Iran and see how that was going to be in. US interest so. I was using the odd position where I wasn't in love with the agreement but then once we had it I was against unilaterally pulling out in one other job. which is I think it's important for? Great power like the United States to be a country of its word to be predictable so many other countries whether they're friends or foes base their foreign policy on on expectations of what we are likely to do. Great powers do have to be predictable. They've got to be reliable. So I thought getting out of this without outta alternative breaking the collective cohesion set or a really bad message about our behavior. Yeah I mean it's what we've talked on this podcast many times about being the adult in the room and there needs to be one and sometimes there is. Sometimes there isn't right now. Hopefully there's a few in this room. Hopefully hopefully if you break down the decision to go and take out the Iranian general talk a little bit about that and with an eye towards where we'll be a six months a year from now. There's an argument that Iran in the longer run is going to get what it wants because what they really want is the US out of the region and this may be a a step towards doing that. How do you assess near? And I guess midterm the results of the drone strike and everything that is going to happen a narrow calculus. I think you'd have to say that getting Mr Sulamani off the playing fields. Good thing this was a a man who has expression goes had a lot of blood on his aunts. That's said to some extent he can be replaced and in the long run. I'm not sure the at all this leaves us better off as you alluded to. I'm very worried that opposition in Iraq precarious now and we ought US take stock. If Iran's goal is to get the United States out of Iraq. Why do we want to do things that seem to be consistent with that goal? Iraq's one of the most important Arab countries got enormous energy reserves. We WanNA push back against Iranian influence. We don't want to see isis. Put up stakes again in Iraq so that ought to give us a pause plus we've now announced new sanctions on top of the old sanctions. So I don't think anything's changed your I think again. We continue to practice economic warfare very against Iran. I think they're likely to find ways to push back whether it's against Saudi Arabia or doing something against Israel doing something with cyber anywhere in the world so the possibility of continued friction or worship conflict with Iran. I think is is likely so. I'd make the same prediction I made a year ago. Iran has not stood down contrary to what the president said. When I take a step back look at the world? Now you've got a rising China you've got a North Korea. The one thing we know for sure it we'll never denuclearize. We have Putin doing what he's doing in Ukraine and he might be tempted to do it elsewhere. We've got a crisis in Venezuela that's producing. What somewhere between between one and two million refugees this year do we really want the United States to once again find itself getting much more involved in the in the Middle Middle East indeed? I'm hard pressed from Donald Trump's point of view why he would want to do this. I thought he believed in America. I I thought he was against these quote unquote forever. Endless wars wars. He didn't get involved in Syria. We essentially betrayed the Kurds. We didn't respond to the attack on Saudi Arabia. So this seems totally out of character for him and totally inconsistent with his own strategic bias which was to dial down America's involvement in the Middle East. I don't necessarily share that biased. But all I'm saying has given our desire to do more in the rest of the world. It's odd for me to see why we would want to go down this path with Iran at a minimum. Mom what I would want to do with. Iran is offer a serious diplomatic to use the CLICHE offramp alternative against the backdrop of sanctions and go to Iran and say. Hey here's a potential replacement for the two thousand fifteen nuclear deal in exchange for a degree sanctions relief. We WanNa have some longer term limits on what you can do. We want to capture your missile programs. And maybe the sanctions are biting enough that the Iranians might be intriguing. It's interesting the I Tola Khomeini in the late eighties. At the end of the decade of Iran Iraq war he reluctantly accepted piece. Then Saddam Hussein his arch-rival and and he said this is like drinking poison to me but he was willing to drink the poison to make a compromise with an archenemy because she thought it was essential to preserve the Iranian Ronnie Revolution and our goal ought to be to get Iran back to such a point so we have the economic sanctions. But we're not gonNA again force the regime regime out of power..

Iran United States Syria Iraq Saudi Arabia North Korea John Kerry Richard Haass Mr Putin Katie Barlow Obama Administration Donald Trump president Council on Foreign Relations South China Sea America Israel Josh editor
Booing The President, What Goes Around Comes Around Politics And   al-Baghdadi's death

MSNBC Morning Joe

14:24 min | 2 years ago

Booing The President, What Goes Around Comes Around Politics And al-Baghdadi's death

"Trump was at the game last night where he was greeted with boos when his attendance was announced during the game accord the Washington Post the crowds sustained booing hit almost one hundred decibels and was followed by chance of lock him up impeach trump when he was introduced after the third inning he good morning and welcome to morning Joe it is Monday October twenty eight and with us we have MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle White House reporter for the Associated Press Jonathan Lemere president of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the bulk a world in disarray Richard Haass columnist and Associate the Washington Post David Ignatius and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Retired Four-star Navy Admiral James to Rita's he's chief international security and diplomacy analyst for NBC News and Msnbc it was sort of startling and sad to hear those chance of lock him up Saturday from the crowd I do no pleasure in that it really was there have been many traditions that have been brought about Donald trump and his supporters and people around that are UNAMERICAN of even fascist like a chance of lock her up the sent her back but the lock lock her up about Hillary Clinton repeatedly has become a centerpiece and that's what that's what dictators they take over and then they start talking about imprisoning others and it's un-american it's it's here here playing chant here aw that's that's unfortunately it's been fad to America's political system through Donald Trump and last night it was turned against him it but again it's it's it's un-american and the people in the stands that were doing it last night shouldn't have done it in fact they learned they have learned from Donald Trump that's what you do to political opponents I hope that Donald Trump after saying that he could be facing this entire campaign will cut it out we'll cut it up because this is I remember when Barack Obama was leaving office a lot of liberals wanted George W Bush tried by some international tribunal. I remember saying don't do it because it will be you on the other side of the presence he didn't have to worry about retribution from person that you follow yeah of course you don't you never think Mike Barnicle nobody everything's said anybody's ever going to follow them as president the United States when they first get in just like Donald Trump it's never he's never imagined it but live by the sword die by the sword and sure enough now you have donald trump having bar conduct an outrageous an outrageous investigation against Barack Obama and Donald Trump even calling the forty fourth president United States treasonous it's like this guy is just not smart enough to figure out that it goes around comes around and what he dishes out to others will be dished out to him that's why everybody has to tone it down stop chance stop with fat stop with fascists like tactics and the rhetoric it's just on I'm American and it's just not right yeah Joe and you know if you know this I mean most people know this what of people in this country just want the entire situation calmed down they want the country to come down they want candidates to come down be tough to have the crowd last night come down because really into it unfortunately but I think it's important going forward especially today as we talk about the events that occurred over the weekend that we take the time and the fought to separate it donald trump and whatever you feel about Donald trump to separate him and how he behaves in how he speaks from the actions of the Delta Force team the special operation now flew in and conducted that mission is to separate things and the best of the best of who we are and what we do around world's in why so much of the world still relies on this was in operation over the weekend Jonathan Lemaire you can speak to that but also last night yeah I mean it is certainly an American tradition to boo politicians who go to baseball games there's there's a rich history of the American president seeing the American pastime William Howard Taft was the first president throwing the first pitch I remember the Barco was there and every president since has at some point this accident has not yet not since taking office but he went last night I think the people around him we're hoping it could be part of the victory lap after announcing the death of album Dotty earlier in the day that of course was not the case but let's remember he's deeply deeply unpopular in the district of Columbia itself received about four percent of the vote there in two thousand sixteen obviously it's a little bit of a different crowd last night the world series it's more out-of-towners more corporate types still he was going to get booed and he was but certainly it comes at the end of what his administration feels like a a a significant watershed day for him to be able to make this announcement of the death as Mar Mike said you could separate the president and feelings towards him with what happened the day before in Syria this leader of Isis killed this is just gives president an image he thinks to put alongside President Obama's announcement of the death of Sama Bin Laden and it certainly comes at exactly the right time his people feel for it's an undeniable triumph to happen during the midst of the impeachment inquiry and it allows him to defend his Bryant C. and Syria just somebody Republican senators critical we know we're here we can we get we're GonNa get to that right now get Sewri obviously just follow pro Jonathan said there is a very long enrich fish presence it sporting events most of them do all different but now but again I speak to the lock him up chance again I it's just un-american it started with Donald trump in fact he's made it the centerpiece of his campaign rallies we find it sickening when it happened rallies Kinda sickening it's we we are Americans and we do not do that we do not want the world hearing has chant lock him up to that he created this president or any president that's all I'm saying let's hope is move forward maybe this one US fascist tactic he and his supporters us during chance that you were going to actually imprison your political opponents so let's evatt behind and just I don't we'll see we'll see if the astros possible going to finish it off in Houston I don't know if Max can pitch game seventy it's possible that's what she will tell me before we came but I said President Trump yesterday confirmed the death of Isis later Abu Baqer al-Baghdadi following a raid this weekend in northwestern Syria by US special operations forces president trump tease the announcement in the tweet on Saturday night writing quote something very big has happened God I know by the way they had not confirmed it happened at the time as the Washington clown show post points out the White House script on the death of brutal terrorist Abu Bakar Al Baghdadi was short but president trump turned a somber announcement into a vivid forty minute news conference that included bravado detailed descriptions of military option rations questionable statements and self promotion from the first day I came to office and now we're getting close to three years I would say doc where's al-Baghdadi I want al-Baghdadi and we would kill terrorist leaders but they were names I never heard of they would names it weren't recognizable and they weren't the big names some good won some important ones but they weren't the big name I kept saying where's Al Baghdadi and a couple of weeks ago they were able to scope amount you know these people are very smart than not into the use of cell phones more than not they're very technically brilliant you know they use the Internet better than almost anybody in the world perhaps other than Donald Trump but they use the Internet incredibly well and what they've done with the Internet through recruiting and everything and that's why he died like a dog he died like a coward he who is screaming and crying and frankly I think it's something that should be brought out so that his followers and all of these young kids WANNA leave various countries including the United States they should see how he died now Admiral S- Ravidas ah yeah we'll we'll see we'll get to the the strategic importance of what we get to but again just underlining un-american language and and the sound of tyrants again he died like a dog died like a coward upbringing screaming it's just can you please explain to maybe three of Donald Trump supporters who fist when they hear that the downside of that ny the forty four American presidents who preceded him did not talk about casualties on the ward even if they were the most heinous casualties like Osama bin Laden are are are you name it or Japanese opponents at war are not cease why we we didn't talk that way or Qaddafi in Libya for example In every case Joe the problem here is there's is that internal desire to kind of take victory lap but it's counterproductive it comes across as unprofessional it's spiking the ball in the end zone and here's the real problem it's motivational for the other side make an argument that it's a deterrent I don't think so I think that that tape will be played particularly that image of the dog in the Arab world is well known as as an extremely negative and that'll become a recruiting tool that the Islamic state uses on the Internet and for the record I'd say they're better than Donald Trump there managing apparently to conduct a global operations without owning a shred of territory in Easter after we took away the caliphate from them which was another good accomplishment they still conducted a massive attack in Sri Lanka using the Internet to recruit proselytizing conduct the operation they will use this footage to motivate their followers to recruit more. It's really not how we WANNA play the Yes it is it is actually a much smaller level it's what you call basically press clippings from from locker from for locker uh-huh where somebody on the other side said something you cut out the press clippings you put it up and you used to inspire other people in something we don't want here let's let's let's let's go Richard Haass go to and talk about the impact of the death and we'll we'll get into some of the other things I obviously I remember us being celebrating at least most Americans Saar cow was killed I believe it was in two thousand six two thousand seven thinking that the guy that really was the inspiration for Isis and of course that just lead to more silence splinter groups we of course all celebrated we had our on the deck of the Missouri moment a little bit when Osama bin Laden was killed and two thousand eleven we're all cheering but of course out of that came the rise of Isis and so I'm wondering it's we see very important death but do we make the same one man is going to end the movement that he was so successful in spreading the short answer is yes there's no such thing as decapitation when comes to dealing with terrorists because whether you call them networks of movements they're not narrow organizations that are highly structured we're getting rid of the leadership essentially Abel's all the fighters they'll they'll reform they may splinter and so forth decentralisation there in formality in some ways is is a degree of strain so I think we've got to keep the accomplishment as meaningful as it is in perspective and more important justice important you've got to take steps back and say are we putting ourselves in a position where we can do this sort of thing again and again as we will need to do and there I think the jury's out or you've got to say it's going to become much more difficult we're not gonNA have the forces on the ground collecting the intelligence we're not gonNA have partners like the Syrian Kurds and other Kurds doing so much there's still questions about the willingness of this administration to work closely with its own intelligence community so again yesterday was an important day but we shouldn't exaggerate it and I'm really worried about going forward whether we're going to be able to repeat this because we're going

Donald Trump President Trump Mike Barnicle Msnbc Richard Haass Washington Post Barack Obama Washington Osama Bin Laden Associated Press Hillary Clinton Council On Foreign Relations David Ignatius United States Isis George W Bush Jonathan Lemere Nbc News JOE Nato Supreme Allied
Early election results show Israel's top two parties nearly tied

MSNBC Morning Joe

02:29 min | 2 years ago

Early election results show Israel's top two parties nearly tied

"Now to Israel's general election the latest unofficial results and exit polls show a virtual dead heat and too close to call. It's a rerun of April elections in which Prime Minister Benjamin Jamin Netanyahu one but failed to form a majority government under a deadline Israel's parliament dissolved itself soon after prompted prompting the unprecedented a new election Netanyahu's right-wing wing Likud party appears to have again fallen short of securing parliamentary majority with his ultra religious and nationalist nationalist allies however he says that he is not conceding in just two weeks. Netanyahu is set to appear in court for a a pretrial hearing on a slew of corruption bribery and fraud charges brought by Israel's Attorney General Netanyahu has denied any wrongdoing doing sense of familiar joining us now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the book a world in disarray Richard Haass so we're going to get to Iran and in just a moment but first. Is there any pathway any possibility looking at the way things look now that Netanyahu can form a government. We've learn not to rule him out right longest serving prime minister in Israel's history but it's hard to see if you take him and his political allies they just don't get to sixty one votes which is what Oh you need in Israel that said it's not clear there's a path for the principal alternative party the so called blue and white party they too might fall short because in Israel you've never had an Arab list of parties as formerly part of a government majority so what what we're now seeing is the possibility of for quote Unquote National Unity Government with Likud with the so called blue and white party with another party led by the former show someone from the Soviet Union of Ignore Lieberman who runs a secular secular right wing nationalist party. The question is if you had a national unity government. I don't think Bibi Netanyahu could be the prime minister of it as others would say we won't make it happen if he is prime minister so at the moment he's hanging by a thread okay and amidst all this the charges against him What is he looking at here and can it can impact him while he's serving well. Only if you serving as prime minister does he have immunity and that's why this is so important to them that essentially actually there's a deal we former government you protect me but if he can't form a government then he is vulnerable

Prime Minister Benjamin Jamin Israel Prime Minister Likud Party Bibi Netanyahu Unity Government Council On Foreign Relations Richard Haass Soviet Union Bribery Iran President Trump Attorney Principal Fraud Two Weeks
Trump's Dismissal of Bolton Highlighted Differences in Life or Death Policies

Morning Edition

04:34 min | 2 years ago

Trump's Dismissal of Bolton Highlighted Differences in Life or Death Policies

"President trump's dismissal of national security adviser John Bolton highlighted differences on some life for death policies you know John was in line with what we were doing and actually in some cases you thought it was too tough what we were doing Mr tough guy let's examine one big issue on which they apparently deferred president trump came close to bringing the Taliban to camp David the other day he was considering an agreement that would begin the U. S. withdrawal from Afghanistan John Bolton didn't seem to like the idea and the president drop the plan for the meeting there was also one of the Taliban are dead now building is gone but the problem remains how if at all to resolve an eighteen year old war critics of the administration's plans included Richard Haass he is president of the council on foreign relations the basis of the agreement seems to have been that they would be an initial American troop withdrawal from roughly twelve or thirteen thousand down to about eighty five hundred. that there would be the likelihood of further withdrawals and even a complete withdrawal over the the next year it off to fourteen months in exchange there would be something of a ceasefire with the with Taliban would at least stop attacks on the United States what was obviously left uncertain is what would have happened in the aftermath of a full American withdrawal because what you described can be seen as the U. S. doing something permanent it would be hard to send the troops back politically once you're through them in exchange for something temporary the Taliban saying we want attack for the moment. indeed the parallels were drawn to the Vietnam negotiations were at the time in the mid seventies the United States essentially negotiated an American exit from Vietnam and two years later the north Vietnamese took over the entire country and the concern here was that once the United States had left the Afghan government that we have been associated with ever since I saw it was created in the aftermath of nine eleven eighteen years ago that that government would ultimately not be able to sustain a long term political military effort against the Taliban was there a case to be made for this deal if the main priority was getting US troops out. well if the goal was to get US troops out then that would be the explanation or rationale for the deal but no one should confuse that with peace no one should confuse that with bringing about a better Afghanistan no one should can choose out with one of the other goals of the agreement which was to get the Taliban to commit not to support terrorists who could carry out actions against the United States and the Taliban either could have allowed it or they simply could have been too weak to have prevented it were you essentially on the same side as John Bolton on this thinking that this meeting was a bad idea. well that's one way to put it yeah my view is that the United States should be looking for and what I would call an indoor and strategy in Afghanistan not an exit strategy for me in a dorm strategy would be a long term but small military presence perhaps half or two thirds are current size what we should probably also be doing is expanding level of our military diplomatic and economic support for the government and this to me is something that American farm policy has done literally for decades were were still in Europe were still in South Korea was still in Japan the goal of American foreign policy has never been to withdraw all troops were in areas where we have in the interests and where there are threats rather it is been to have sufficient troops in those areas to either the turf those threats or to or to meet them and protect our interests so I saw Afghanistan it in that light rather than as a place we should rush to get out of what would you have the president do about Afghanistan given the current situation today. what I would have the United States to is essentially for the time being give up on diplomacy I don't believe it can work given the nature of the Taliban and the fact by the way that the Taliban still enjoy a physical sanctuary in the neighboring country of Pakistan instead what I would do is have a small but long term U. S. saw armed presence in the country and I would look for ways through economic and military aid to buttress the Afghan government to avoid a situation where Afghanistan would again become a a territory from which terrorists could launch global strikes Richard Haas of the council on foreign relations always a pleasure talking with you thank you

Donald Trump President Trump Nine Eleven Eighteen Years Fourteen Months Eighteen Year Two Years
Nicolas Maduro assassination attempt: Venezuela makes six arrests

Rich Stevens

01:09 min | 3 years ago

Nicolas Maduro assassination attempt: Venezuela makes six arrests

"Then just everyone running away the magnitude seven point zero, earthquake hit the island of, Lombok, Bali killing around ninety people on. Sunday disaster, officials say hundreds more have been. Hurt authorities have arrested six people in connection to the apparent assassination. Attempt I'm Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro Richard. Haass the president of the council on foreign relations tells NBC incidents like this are bound to happen as the country. Collapses This is a country is. This is way past the point of any liabilities being propped up more than anything else by, Cuban, security d'oro survived the attempt on. His life Saturday when explosive drones went off. During a speech he was giving a military event in Caracas seven. Members of the country's national guard were. Hurt your next update at eleven thirty I'm Karen Curtis stay connected with news anytime at eight fifty WTO dot com Good morning traffic is brought to you by Office Depot office max southern. Boulevard westbound at pike road we still have that crash of sloppy one left lane southern boulevard heading early erected fairgrounds. That actually, in, the clearing stages now Chrysler coast the turnpike has a collision this one. Northbound.

President Trump Nicolas Maduro Richard Bali Caracas Office Depot WTO Karen Curtis Chrysler NBC
Security forces gear up for mass Palestinian protest marches on Passover eve

Steve Deace

02:06 min | 3 years ago

Security forces gear up for mass Palestinian protest marches on Passover eve

"Don't know what would happen then so we don't know what's gonna happen tomorrow hamas lease a hundred thousand gaza strip residents to engage in six weeks of mass demonstrations along the israeli border jewish families up for the passover holiday which begins friday evening demonstrators are meant to cover from mass military campaign the swim israel's borders stoke violence against the jews so we don't know what's coming tomorrow night but i can feel in my blood something's coming it's been quiet too long now some things to quiet now is gonna flood israel with armed assets during the demonstration they've even position the commitments such tractors the shift the ground in a wreck fortifications haass's trying to trigger a passover war and the united nations is there to help them as is the same network that is out to destroy donald trump that's right the networks are there with them they probably have the cameras ready to go to show the injured palestinians thousands of civilians rushing israel's border tearing down the fences and providing covers hamas murderous flood into israel so what did he israeli supposed to do they're not gonna use much force what are they gonna do though tell me how they gonna stop this is no answer meanwhile the un is supporting hamas setting up israel to get blamed for anything that happens to the human shields and what would you do israel is going to uphold its responsibilities as a civilized nation they're going to uphold international human rights lawns humanitarian laws and so what will they use to stop this are they going to use lethal force as a first resort no as a last resort but this is going to happen that's what people see it's almost biblical in its magnitude hamas swarm the israel's border sparking passover war israeli stealth fighters fly over iran pope declares no hell what a day this is go on the.

Hamas Israel United Nations Donald Trump UN Gaza Iran Six Weeks
In PA special election, GOP candidate struggles with campaign basics

Liquid Lifestyle

01:41 min | 3 years ago

In PA special election, GOP candidate struggles with campaign basics

"Two police officers following a traffic accident killing one of them and they yard fill california folks are mourning the loss of three workers in a va home who were killed last night by a former patient who then took his own life there was no sign of life inside and the only question was was at two or three haass's dead with the gunman unfortunately one of those women that was murdered here are was also pregnant fox's adam housley the gunman is identified as albert wong he'd been treated at that facility for post traumatic stress disorder president trump tweeted about the tragedy saying we are deeply saddened by the tragic situation in yard fill and mourn the loss of three incredible women who cared for veterans meanwhile the national rifle association's going to court against florida this after governor rick scott sign new gun laws which raises the purchase age for a firearm to twenty one in a statement announcing its federal lawsuit the nra said florida's ban in his affront to the second amendment does it totally vis rates the right of lawabiding adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty one to keep and bear arms fox's garrick county all this follows last month high school shooting in parkland which claimed seventeen lives and touched off a national movement by students to toughen gun laws president trump on his way to south western pennsylvania to campaign for the gop candidate in next week's special election in the eighteen th congressional district fox is molly line is there a lot of those make america great hats are out uh these are clearly a lot of pro trump supporters and many of them also supporting his choice for this congressional seat the race pitch republican rexecode against democrat qatar land paul's point to a tight race this is fox news.

FOX Adam Housley Florida NRA Pennsylvania Paul California Albert Wong President Trump Rick Scott GOP America Qatar
"haass" Discussed on The Daily Zeitgeist

The Daily Zeitgeist

01:48 min | 4 years ago

"haass" Discussed on The Daily Zeitgeist

"Mitch brick shit house yeah yeah richard haass with who has to be with you i wanted to know where to turn came from one of my favorite turned because that mike like my coaches of me all your built like a brick should feel like a bridge shit house and then as you have a flashback or did someone recently refer to you as a brick should have like donated to somebody's uh go fund me as brick she'd house god way of what is the root of that phrase uh it was is it nobody knows it will just a term to describe people that's built big yes so i can find it uh let's see what else i got on here richard houses good i think that's revealing a young people now have an idea of what you are built like i'm delighted damn bridge said house right yes yes somebody mel asmal good though you smell a bricks allows yes while like a brig rose house hi uh walls to do that that ruin internet today by a jeep pie built like a bridge yet house union among here problems come employer you can get these haines car with something that's overrated um overrated yes paul bowl's full over me too much much okay balls are it's like a hawaiian dish right like like raw wrought tuna mixed with a green onions and rice mmhmm and he get in any way but yet ivic those places are popping up everywhere like went cupcakes stores were like everywhere like rats like now i feel like every fucking places like it we got poggi yeah eggs out gay except raw fish is not something you wanna fuck with like cupcakes can't kill you cut it looks like if you have a bad cupcake it's just a bad cupcake but poke willing gazing he yeah that's true i'm hoping it.

mike richard haass paul bowl