tv Book Discussion on Obamas Globe CSPAN August 12, 2014 4:59am-5:44am EDT
>> i promise to be brief. i am sorry i'm a professor and trained to give long answers. >> i'm so grateful for such a benefiting insightful -- of many layers. thank you very much. you mentioned about benazir bhutto's assassination i think some questions, some of the questions remain to be debated. who was behind president kennedy's killing? who killed benazir bhutto? it's one of those cases where we remain to debate it. you have mentioned at the end the recommendation that you ga gave. on enforcement enhancements
and -- and sharif double the salaries and a -- were doubled. my question to you is based on your recommendation on religious pluralism and law enforcement, my question is in most of the cases in pakistan the prime ministers became prime minister after an accident. if you become prime minister and if you are asked to make the recommendation of the prime minister pragmatically what a something specifically the three or four steps you will do to bring this kind of terrorism and instability to a close? thank you. >> thank you very much.
you are right it is an issue but the reason i would really like pakistan to thoroughly investigate and figure out who killed benazir bhutto because in the absence of a very clear answer it continues to become more popular and is those who are behind the killings think they can continue to kill and get away with it. we have seen in the recent past many of the politicians were killed. people of the national party the pashtun in that area, many of the leaders, there was a very well-known member of the pakistani parliament a christian leader who was a member of the cabinet also in the case of benazir bhutto we don't know who killed her. he was killed by his own guard.
he said he were supporting a hindu girl who had committed blasphemy and the tragedy is some i must say this that it was the government of punjab. there was not a single imam the day that he was killed he was ready to stand and lead the prayers for her. including the officially paid imam who had been fired. the imam was still the official imam so there's that fear and that's why it's important but your point is well taken. in case of sharif raising the salaries is only one part of the problem. the real issue is your transformation as an institution in terms terms of current six and investment in new technologies in terms of many modern states there are these cameras on the highways and other places because you can --
is not meant to stop terrorism. the modern policing concepts are not particularly focused on stopping terrorism. they are focused on investigating terrorist might happens. pakistan has not invested in that in any case. that is a choice pakistan has to make and with respect from my friend from pakistan air force, don't take it personally. pakistan wants modern police stations. for the price of one f-16 you can build 30 new stations. it's not only about salary but about a policy choice and they also have a choice in this regard. the last question and i think most likely the best chance that i have is to be able to at some stage -- i love my job as an academic and i would love to be a professor but there's no
chance i will ever become a prime minister but if i got a chance to advise i think first and foremost and one of my pakistani friends i mention it right pakistani officer who is here in the u.s. scholarship a couple of years ago he had mentioned in his experience working in the prime minister's offices. all the problems can be resolved if you get an honest and efficient and competent prime minister. some of the things are very basic. for instance and first and foremost for me is rooting out corruption and i can only happen if you instill a form of accountability. this will not happen overnight but as soon as the north major case of corruption which there is no -- unfortunately in the political arena they go after
them in a strong fashion. i would be the first thing. the second thing which i mentioned keeping pakistan's religious identity but taking pakistan -- making this post famous speech he said would be good to her mosque or a church or a temple state has nothing to do with it. this was in 1947. he was not this one small intellectual in some corner thinking about his dream. no he was the most popular leader that pakistan has produced. people love him and he was able to create a whole country. his ideas are based on pakistan. pakistan is very far away from us ideals. they can do small things for which they can take pakistan backwards. some of those issues are related to policy issues.
others will be linked to education ensuring that your next book to ensure review all of the curriculum and take out some of those words and some of the bigotry which is part of the pakistani textbook. the second thing would be after accountability an and corruption would be education reforms and the third thing i think would be a larger issue which is a peace process for india. i am convinced and i think pakistani leadership is convinced you will not be able to get rid of pakistani groups or some other radicalization and less pakistan and india make an amicable sustainable peace process. there are signs of that. think it's a pakistani security establishment which also has to be convinced. not only the pakistani leadership i think india has to play a role to make such a transition happen. without these few things i don't
see a bright light before pakistan. >> i am president of eight in dose and i have two short questions. number one is the taliban have regrouped and thank you for a very excellent analysis of the situation. i find it a bit paradoxical they have taken large territories but their posture is significantly different to what it was in 2001 and secondly the elections were pretty well-conducted and well attended. there was no disruption our activities from taliban. so i find it a little hard to believe. my second question is the
military action in progress. do you think it's going to continue for long" will be the long-term outcome of back? do you see the possibility of isolating pakistani taliban from other taliban? >> thank you very much. you are absolutely right. in case of the taliban or afghanistan's political situation we have a crisis there but the crisis is different from what we had talked about and disrupting the whole election process. there is a lot about the resilience of the people and some of the very good things that happened benefiting from the u.s. effort. major mistakes like supporting warlords and so many others on the part of united states frankly but at the same time
there's a new middle class that's going up in afghanistan. that has a new stake in afghanistan's future. i think we owe it to the international community and especially that states which funded it by and large however the case for instance there are 30,000 reporting stations. elections were not conducted in several because taliban did not allow that to happen. there are pictures of them and long white beards in caps with bandages on their fingers because all those who voted, their fingers were cut. you have to see i think the hindu newspaper where the picture has come. luckily abdullah abdullah and some of the others as well they
are joined in terms, join together as the future of afghanistan and the future of afghanistan. on the opposition side mullah omar had said they are against democracy and against elections. in this case there was a lot of work as well as american intelligence. there was a lot of support which kept some of the taliban away. i was talking to one of the gentlemen who is doing research on this who is actually sitting here and reminded if you look at all the incident data the number of acts and afghanistan by the taliban has not declined. what happened in kabul recently and others in recent days but the overall percentagewise those have not declined.
we will have a successful election but we will see how -- have to see where this goes. i think credit should go to secretary kerry and others who were able to bring -- to abdullah and connie telling them that they have to reconcile and figure out how they will bring a national unity government. it will not be weeks, it will be days that you see taliban conducting more attacks. even if there is a reconciliation among the political bigwigs in afghanistan and in south and east infrastructure is -- in the case of pakistani taliban and the problem is much larger. i think there's a huge impact of -- conducted in may of 2013. all of the progressive voting parties couldn't -- so the
pakistani taliban in some ways a more devastating impact than the taliban and afghan. for that i mentioned there were no solutions. >> one last question. >> thank you so much hassan abbas. i teach at the department of -- and i'm currently a visitor at carnegie. i have two questions. one about your recommendation as a solution for the radicalization. last i remember there was a long discussion on the musharraf -- and a lot of time on talk on building pakistan there were efforts to spread this tradition. i'm not really sure what exactly are the concrete steps that states can take to change the
outlook in the nomenclature within society because when you talk about spreading tradition and there are delegated efforts there's an amount of persistence to that. a progressive society probably is sometimes a national consequence of other steps you have taken and he mentioned education reforms and all that stuff. [inaudible] second is a historic anomaly. you talk about afghan taliban and pakistan's zone of comfort as opposed to the pakistani taliban. i'm still wondering what exactly was the reaction of taliban on pakistan's decision to site where the united states post 11 -- post-9/11?
if they felt that kind of betrayal than i would assume that their reaction should have been, there should have been some sort of position within them and wouldn't that create attention against the state of pakistan? >> both very good questions. they felt there was a betrayal and i mentioned that is in chapter 3 or four and you are right. this is obvious from the book who has written a book with the taliban. he was ambassador to pakistan a close friend of pakistan. you can read the book and see the distaste he has for pakistan because he thinks the pakistanis -- there are simply no doubt about it. that is why have some doubts about the nomenclature. but still we know for a fact
from various studies that the majority of taliban either had moved to pakistan with their families. recently there was a mullah who was killed who was the taliban leader who was killed most likely by pakistani taliban because military intelligence is now pushing them. that is the commitment they have given to the united states. however in the initial years they ignored the option to come to pakistan from their point of view. in afghanistan they would have been killed. pakistan gave him space and it's my guess and estimate without any direct source in this case, i think maybe now 100 afghan 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 further review the situation and like to invite all of you to attend the session this coming monday with a special adviser
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, a