tv Book Discussion on Obamas Globe CSPAN August 11, 2014 10:51pm-11:35pm EDT
taliban leaders are around that number came to pakistan and brought their families. at that time they talk to pakistan that pakistan should have stood by them but despite that they save them from being bombed. intelligence organizations, think there's a lot of manipulation. afghan taliban or pakistani forces helped them. in their operations against the northern alliance that there was this control, this manipulation and some were still sympathetic to pakistan. whenever they needed the old guards help to go after pakistani taliban they didn't help them much so they responded by not coming out of the pakistani taliban. the other question and it may
take a minute but that's a very profound idea. i'm not making the suggestion that from outside we use sufi-ism as a tool to tackle anything else. sufis after all there are sunni shoe -- sunni cities in shia sufis. [inaudible] they all had some common ideals which were religious which was complete nonviolence, which was always honoring them and giving them hope which was also nonenforcement. you would be surprised the biggest sufi -- is in india.
you would be amazed there are times more hindus and muslims there. sufis never force anyone to convert. that's why say the idea and the number of people who still -- i don't want more political support for the sufi but the sufi tradition provides a bridge for muslim sects to come together. we often say if you tolerate others that's a success. i think it is respect for the other religions of the people. there is respect about a human being. in terms of ideals i support it but you are right if anyone would try to choreographed political support, there've been suicide attacks. totally unprecedented in the
history of south asia. never ever before there was an attack on the sufi association. that happened because of two reasons. one because of the bigoted people in the various sects and those people know well that the challenge to their orthodoxy and conservatism and narrowmindedness is embedded in the sufi party. they are fearful that what if they get support politically or internationally. we have to be very careful and thank you for raising that point. >> thank you very much. i have have to bring the session to a close. i would like to apologize to all those who didn't get a chance to ask the question. i would like to thank hassan
the. >> host: how long have you taught here and what do you teach? >> guest: u.s. foreign-policy. and i started teaching year and the beginning of 1998 really when the school of public policy opened up for students. before that i had an affiliation with pepperdine sense that made -- early 1970's. >> host: what kind of filiation? >> guest: i think you know, when you get a request to go to college to give a speech to something, i always got the low straw. i'm going to go in his place. the cause was never very delighted to see me.
too bad. so most of the colleges in those days, it was rough going. i felt i succeeded because i was still alive after -- this was the nominal of that. and so i remembered sitting in my car with the hands on the steering will thinking, i made it. i get to the end of the speech and everything. so it was pretty rough going. when i went to pepperdine it was terrific. i mean, a lot of people disagree with me naturally. a mix of liberals and conservatives, but everyone was very respectful and very -- and i really enjoyed it. and when i got back, i great place. and so since that time in the mid -- early 1970's i had an affiliation in one way or another. >> host: what is your history in california politics? >> guest: not a great deal.
i came out here when i was eight years old. my folks cannot hear obviously. >> host: from? >> guest: from milwaukee, wisconsin where i was not successful and all in any of the things i endeavored. so they can now hear from me. anyway, it was a marvelous to my great place to go to school. and in terms of politics i got very involved in international politics starting in 1960. very involved in defense, including intercontinental ballistic missiles and the late 1950's. from that time forward once you start travelling around and doing these things in different countries you get just engrossed in it. at that time i was making movies. those are the kinds of movies i wanted to make. documentary's, i started making
movies for the in that is disinformation agency. president johnson has made to work for the united states information agency as its director when george stevens jr. left. >> host: the new work for president johnson and nixon. >> guest: indeed. first it usia and in the white house. i just have to tell you, one of the -- not one of the, the greatest expert on foreign policy i have ever known, i was very, very fortunate to work with that guy. it magnificent man he is received so much negative things thrown at him through the years and even lately. i just cringe every time i hear them. what do they know? for god's sake, what do they know? most of them are so young they
had to get it from another generation, and that generation got it from abc, cbs, nbc, "washington post," new york times, from all of those. and so naturally this generation having heard it from the last one just believe it because the euro lot of very good people speak negatively about it. and that bothers me a lot. >> host: bruce herschensohn, you got involved in electoral politics. >> guest: i did. >> host: did you when? >> guest: no, no. i lost. of course. [laughter] after the nixon administration came to kabc television and did commentaries in debates when former secretary john tunney to my great guy. incidently we still see each other whenever he comes in from the york rite of there. a marvelous guy. fourteen years of these things. and so, once you have name
recognition you are better off than someone who does not. anyway, i gave it a try. i ran -- i got the nomination. ran against barbara boxer. >> host: 1992. >> guest: that's correct. 1992. >> host: he ran again in '94, did you? for the nominations each you know, i did not. the first time i ran, i knew nothing was going to happen. but it was 1986. and then the second time was 1992. that did go a lot better, but i did not win. >> host: bruce herschensohn, you are the author of this book, "obama's globe: a president's abandonment of u.s. allies around the world". >> guest: yes,. >> host: what is "obama's globe," what do you mean by that >> guest: i believe -- let me preface it by saying i believe. i believe to have foreign-policy as a nuisance. i think he loves the stuff that
is domestic in nature. and when it comes to foreign policy where a president really can do what he wants, not really always do what he wants on domestic and economic policy. he has to have a congress that is for him, and if he does not he cannot. on foreign policy you can do what you want. is there you didn't know that which isn't saying anything terrifically negative. i remember they're wanted to do things. wanted to do foreign policy. by god he did. but most people, president reagan love foreign policy as well. those two really loved him. they get stuck with it. and then they realize toward the end of the administration. a guy like bill clinton came into office wanting to have health care. that was his big pursuit.
his wife headed it. in those days we called it hillarycare. it did not go anywhere. when he wanted to go into bosnia he went into bosnia. when he went into kosovo i don't think there was one member of congress who knew he was going to do it. everyone forgets. the bombardment to get rid of their the w and the supply. he did that. all of those things he could do and did. he can do it. he has the final say on things like that he take george bush 43. he wanted immigration reform. he wanted social security reform 9/11 happened. if he wanted to go he went. different. if he wanted to go, good for him. he did it. president obama does not have --
on not show -- not so sure he really gets it. the only thing that gives me the idea i guess he does get it is when he was thinking of attacking syria very, very recently. that was before you decided to leave it up to the congress. he was going to leave it up to the congress. the next day the russian president save his neck. having negotiations regarding chemical weapons. anyway. but he wanted the congress to have the final say. i could sense he wanted to take this. he wanted to move the advocacy of only having foreign policy and then have the congress take care. again, i have to say i think. i don't know the man. but it certainly appears that
way. really appears that way. what we have not done for our allies, will we have done for those who are either enemies or certainly those people who don't think well of us is extraordinary and consistent. when i say allies, i'm talking about crib britain, the czech republic, poland, is well, honduras, and then when something happens like a break the people of iran dennis j. s. their own government in 2009, nothing. you don't hear anything. syrians -- endo remember when i wrote this book, just -- i'm not going to refer to the book other than to say it was 5,400 people it had been killed in syria at that time. that is a you an estimate. and it was 5,400.
the people were carrying banners, placards saying, help us or we will all be killed. well, we didn't, and they have been killed. now the estimate is 5,400. it's 130,000 is the last estimate of the u.n., and they are not estimating anymore. you can't do it anymore. he can't get a correct number. the people there will say we think it's about a hundred and 50,000. but there were being killed. and then in iran when there was this marvelous demonstration of the people against ayatollah, the placards said you are either for us or for them. we did nothing. you may remember that crow who was killed on the street, blood coming out of her mouth we had
an opportunity to do something for some awfully good people, awfully good people in syria. >> host: would you have sent troops? >> guest: i would never say we should not send troops. i think he is already made that mistake regarding ukraine. no boost -- he will say everything is on the table. two sentences later no boots on the ground. most people say, yeah, that's right. no, it is not right to say it. if you by the commander in chief, be quiet about anything you're not thinking of doing or even what you're thinking of doing. he has done something really extraordinary. first of i keep in mind, when you join the service, basic training, first week you were told by your commanding officer, first sergeant, however it may be, if you are ever captured their only three things you can tell the enemy, your name, rank,
serial number. nothing else. we don't have a private but a commander in chief who says when we are going to leave and then tells afghanistan. and it is already telling ukraine that we are not even going to be there. it is just -- i don't know how guy enters this service today can hear a commanding officer say that and not burst out laughing. naturally here you get to know a lot of people who serve in the military have lunch with a good friend and a great guy just back from afghanistan. i said, in basic training -- [laughter] there was some laughter between as because i just don't know how anyone can take that seriously, your commander in chief telling your real enemy in afghanistan
-- and those are enemies, not just antagonists are people who you can suspect may become enemies, telling them what we're going to do from someone so official as the president of the united states. >> host: bruce herschensohn, when you look at the vietnam war and the most recent, what affect do those two wars have on how we view foreign policy and how we conduct foreign policy? >> guest: you hit on something that is so important. what has had in effect is what people think happened in vietnam they have been told a bunch of stories about vietnam. how people think about president nixon if they don't know anything about them. i hear intelligence, smart people, brilliant people say the vietnamese did not know how to fido we should never been there
in the first place where you can't win a guerrilla war. all untrue. we won the war with vietnam and in cambodia, we won those wars on january the 23rd of 1972. president nixon gave a speech in prime time saying that peace accords would be signed in four days. signed on the 27 to. and we have everything we wanted but it isn't just me talking. the north vietnamese have said in their memoirs, we lost the war then because at the paris peace accord they said that if there is any violations -- i'm paraphrasing, if there is any violations we will supply south vietnam with everything they lose. if they lose a ball and we would give them one. if it is a helicopter we will give them one.
and it went in to a list of things. but what we promised south vietnam was freedom. we use the bill of rights, particularly the first amendment, as the instrument and then expand it. was everything you could think of, freedom of association, meetings, anything. and it was signed by the viet cong, the north vietnamese, the south vietnamese, the united states. then it all came about because president nixon decided to bomb until they came back to the piece table. in the media still calls it the christmas bombing we didn't, of christmas. we bombed in december. the president asked some on his staff, do you think we should bomb on christmas? was one of those guys who said
yes. they are not christians in north vietnam. they're atheists. the tet offensive in 1968. the biggest holiday you can have in that part of the world. and they attacked otherwise they're going to take it vantage of us. they're not gonna stop because we do. well, the president's did not agree with me. the president felt he should not on my christmas. so we had a 36 hour bombing halts on christmas eve passing through december the 205th. but the media had already called it the christmas bombing. it just could not stop. they love to do that. a pickup in the book right now. look in the index and you will see the christmas bombing. that never occurred. however, the bombing that we did do and december was massive on
military and industrial targets. they came to the table. they signed the agreement we wanted them to sign. that was the war was done and we won. a lot of people were unhappy about how we won. anyway, it took to one 1/4 years. this is what happened. watergate happened for sure. happened that year. has already happened, but it had not become a scandal. it became a scandal really during 1973, the big year for watergate. they knew then -- and i am quoting them, not me to -- that they would be able to win even though they had already lost. they tested a new president of
president ford. a magnificent guy. they attacked one village in south vietnam when he was able to do that they knew they had this the one. they would attack saigon. president ford gave a speech on april the tenth -- what am i talking about now? seventy-five. and he -- god, he was just bleeding for the congress to please give us the aid that we promised. and a lot of them walked out. they give speeches for the audience. april the tenth. april 17th in cambodia fell. a week later. april the 30th south vietnam.
all of that was in april of 75. he pleaded. when south vietnam fell senator fulbright said the command i am being precise, i am no more concerned than i would be if arkansas lost a football in the texas wine. if arkansas loses a football into texas there are not 2 million who died in a genocide in cambodia and another million who stormed out of south vietnam. still a half million in the south china sea people that are still there from trying to scare him. and people who said peace now, they got it. they got it, all right. but they did not say anything about it. there are some marvelous people who did, who really did. one. at every entire vietnam demonstration. the degree of -- high in
washington d.c. he took in and out cinematic concentration camp out of south vietnam. 111 someone who has given the rest of his life to this because he feels so horrible about what he did during the war. in effect supporting the north vietnamese. he would do anything to try to make up for it. there are those people. unfortunately there are a lot of them who don't do that. this generation has stuck with the memory of vietnam, but it does not really have any justification to really feel that way except what people of. a good person give a false statement about losing the war and won.
we should have kept our word. and once one that is considered the people of the united states. that the president parried the people of the united states give their word. it has been our tradition and a tradition of democracies. the prime minister, whomever may be signing an agreement. that is the people of that nation. one quick example, reagan during the campaign for the presidency. the president, however, it was dawn. by one vote. he never did anything about the panama canal treaties when he was president. i think he was right. he was right in being opposed to it.
but once it was signed by president carter, once it was done and the senate package, as an american he has got to be for it. so he did nothing to harm it. that was knowing that that document was signed by the people of the united states. president carter was signing for the people. >> host: bruce herschensohn, what about the iraqi war, will there be a lingering effect? >> guest: yes. and i can hear it now. we should never have gone in. there were no weapons of mass destruction, and i have heard it all and countless, cal times maybe we should have gone in and one. we were on the verge of it with the search with patraeus. we were on the verge of winning. we had already announced that we were going to and the war. you don't end the war. you win it or lose it. you don't end a war. you cannot win a war by
evacuation, churchill said that. we evacuate it. of course record going to lose. a black flag, felicia, outside the government building, the black flags of al qaeda. american fans that unless something changes radically -- maybe it will. there will be a new leader of afghanistan. as just hope that everything will be okay. i think that karzai has sort of romance himself with the taliban and because he knows there is tradition in afghanistan. leaders get assassinated, killed. ages two. he is certainly a likely suspect for assassination. and i don't doubt that he is thinking of his own future. we're going to leave, but the talent and is going to stay. >> host: ukraine. >> guest: ukraine? we are letting it happen.
probably the strongest leader in the world right now, something i'd is by saying, but he is. i have to face it. and what he wants to do you will do. we talk about sanctions as though he will go nuts. what we don't seem to realize is that a tyrannical person runs the government does not really care very much about his own people. look at any tyranny in contemporary history. i use contemporary as my lifetime. so stalin, pol pot. he does not care about the people. killed his own people. that is the way. so we have to have sanctions. he is going to think, oh, my god, my poor people. he does not think that. he wants the power. he wants to rebuild the soviet union. i have to say the words again, i believe. i don't know that with certainty it seems to be that way.
the way that he talks. at one point president obama do you realize, the majority of people who voted, but we all saw a videotape when the microphone was on and he did not know what. he was saying to the president, talking about missile defense and the czech republic of poland , missile defense. and he said, tell vladimir that this is my last election. and after the election i can be more flexible. and he said, i understand. i'm sure he told him. i would think he would want to give that message to our allies.
he could be more flexible. not those people who are opposed to los. number one, he should give that message of the voter. he would have lost, of course. the majority. but the majority of people heard it. they voted for him anyway. while. killing an adversary, and that is a word i can use to describe russia, an adversary that he can be more flexible after the election. while. >> host: people will be listening to this and saying, he is just a 1980's warmonger, defense guy. the world has changed. we don't want to go to war any more. >> guest: i know we don't. and so we won't, and the world will change. the world will change for the worse. we will change. and i know because i have seen this in foreign countries. they look at the united states
or have looked at the united states in the same way that the old u.s. west and movies, the cavalry was coming. the cavalry is coming. we will win after all. that is what people in foreign countries thought about the united states. when there really had it by a totalitarian for a foreign power, the united states will come in here. look. i am one of them. in vietnam i thought we can't -- i never thought for a second we could lose. never did. in the people there didn't either. but my god, what happened, the 904th congress. they were the ones to destroy everything that we did. our military never lost one battle in vietnam. i'm just talking right now.
from your questions. but yes. people are going to look. "president bush did, i don't in any american would have done if there were present at the information he had. well, the cra. perhaps. so did mi. give him the information. so did the germans security effort. along in that i just can't renounce the of 18 syllables. so did the french. so did amazingly enough, so did the russian president. he was in office. president, minister, president. seventeen resolutions. they disobeyed. who would not do that coming right from 9/11?
where everyone in the united states seemed to think, you know, there are times when you better take, you better do those things that are necessary to do before tragedy rather than after and then that feeling, and that people say to me maybe we need is another 9/11. no. it will just be another month of people understanding and then we will all go back to the things that we did before. yap. >> host: bruce herschensohn, is the solution? >> guest: getting someone strong enough. a strong leader. a strong leader who understands the tradition of presidents post world war two. by tradition, i mean all of them, republicans, democrats. two exceptions in carter and obama. president carter did abandon
good friends of ours. the president of aus salvador, the president of nicaragua. the sandinistas in return. they killed 70,000 in central america. he abandoned the shot of iran and displaced ayatollah. then he abandoned taiwan, the people's a public of china. so he was the first to did this, but not to the extreme numbers and consistency of president obama. >> host: someone who has lived in southern california for most of his life, what is the effect of hollywood on public policy? >> guest: i am not so sure it is on public policy. certainly it is in effect on policy. a lot of people and the country. there is in effect. the main thing they are able to do is get a lot of candidates.
people want to see them. in terms of really changing policy, perhaps individual people with an administration, but very few. by and large it is what the president once done, and that is as it should be. with the president once done. as it should be, the people should really understand what they're voting for. if we want to change domestic policy, boy, work for congressman or someone who wants to be a senator. if you want to change policy remember what you're doing when you vote for president. that is what you're doing. he does not need to make speeches. as we have heard president obama and the number of times pleading with the congress to please give him the health care, whenever it may be. they don't need to do that for foreign policy. he doesn't want to. ..
actor, a great man and a successful man and people wanted to be as successful as him and they wanted to have the kind of grosses of their films that he could bring in. they are smart to just sort of not make a big deal out of it. wait until they get to a position where they can make changes. >> host: the last time california voted for a republican president was 1988 i believe, george h.w. bush. >> guest: yeah i think you are right. in fact you are right. that's correct. i didn't think of it in those terms. generally california really goes to the liberal and. on most of the national offices. members of the house, members of the senate, president and vice president, it just does. even the state legislature it's
a very liberal state politically. >> host: is that trend continuing? >> guest: i think so. it certainly has been until you can see it stop. it would be dangerous to think no it isn't continuing. it certainly has been. >> host: in your view was the conservative argument to make? >> guest: against back? >> host: what would be the conservative argument to put an end to california's democratic nomination? >> guest: it takes the right cast of characters. it just takes the right people. one thing that's dangerous that i think is happening with republican party right now, really dangerous is what i would call stirring up isolationism that is coming back. they would call a libertarianism. i like libertarians when they
talk about economics but by god there is a lot of isolationism, using the same excuses that were used by republicans before world war ii further isolation. we are for free trade and certainly it bombards us that we have no business being in whatever country may be mentioned at the time. oh god, wow. we are the only nation in my lifetime, maybe in anybody's lifetime, that has consistently risked their lives for the liberty of strangers and i like that about us. i like it a lot. no other people will do it. you asked the question a while ago and i think i got on a different track or a wrong tra track. and there is a waiting line right now to take a place as
leader of the world, a waiting line. it is russia and the people's republic of china and jihadist and the u.n.. even the e.u.. there are line of people who are waiting and one of them is going to take it. right now i would say putin has an inside track right now at this moment. it may be the jihadist, i don't know but we are at war and we had better realize that. we are at war against the jihadist. they declared war on us on 9/11 and killed our people and until we win we have the risk of losing. >> host: finally bruce herschensohn we talked about the mideast that the president recently diverted into saudi arabia on his trip to europe and stay you want to talk about the middle east situation as far as israel and saud