Podcast appearances and mentions of Mark Landler

In just a few weeks, the Trump administration has taken a hard line with allies such as Mexico and Canada. Now, a trade war is on the horizon with Europe.Mark Landler, the London bureau chief of The New York Times, explains how a fracturing alliance with Europe could affect global political dynamics.Guest: Mark Landler, the London bureau chief of The New York Times.Background reading: The European Union responded to American steel and aluminum tariffs with its own levies on boats and bourbon.Europe expected a transactional President Trump. It got something else.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Clemens Bilan/EPA, via Shutterstock Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Learn how Herb Allen Jr built his fortune and created Allen & Co to be Hollywood's premier merchant bank. Sources Books: "The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life" by Alice Schroeder "Hollywood Vault: Film Libraries before Home Video" by Eric Hoyt "Engulfed: The Death of Paramount Pictures and the Birth of Corporate Hollywood" by Bernard F. Dick "Steven Spielberg: A Biography" by Joseph McBride Articles: "Inside The Private World of Allen & Co." by Carol J. Loomis "All Those Allens Back a Broadway Hit" by Robert J. Col "Has Allen got a deal for you!" by Cary Reich "Herbert Allen and his merry dealsters" by Dyan Machan "Herbert A. Allen Institutional Investor Profile 1987" "When Herb Allen Talks, Star Makers Listen" by Alan Citron "Allen Puts No Stock in Wall Street Sages" by Charles Paikert "Allen & Co. Connects Hollywood with Wall Street" by Randall Smith "Inside The Annual Summer Camp For Billionaires in Sun Valley, Idaho" by Jim Dobson "Show About Mother-In-Law Making Stark a Millionaire" by Hal Boyle "Funny Girl Premieres As Movie" by Vincent Canby "Who is Running The Columbia Pictures Show?" by Jack Egan "Media-Mogul Madness" by Richard Turner "Happy Ending" by Dan Dorfman "Columbia Puts Puttnam in His Place" by Peg Tyre and Jeannette Walls "In Hollywood she walks the other way" by John Hallowell "How Are Things in Panicsville?" by Budd Schulberg "Behind the Silence at Columbia Pictures- No Moguls, No Minions, Just Profits" by Chris Welles "Stars Fell on Mismaloya" by Richard Oulahan "My Battles with Barbra and Jon" by Frank Pierson "Hollywood's Wall Street Connection" by Lucian K. Truscott IV "Financial Gossip" by Jesse Bogue "Sun Valley Daze" by Nikki Finks "A Look at Future of Show Biz" by Charles Schreger "Ray Stark—Hollywood's Deft Deal-Maker" by Philip K. Scheuer "Investigating the Gulf of Streisand Incident" by Joyce Haber "Paul Gallico's Best Seller Headed for Stage and Screen" by Louella Parsons "Movie Discs Get a Big New Boost" by Dick Williams "The Man Who Scored in Coca-Columbia" by Shawn Tully "Entertainment: New Gold in the Hollywood Hills" - Time Magazine (1966) "Show Business: Boston to Hollywood" - Time Magazine (1956) "Orchestrating Columbia's Forward March" by Joyce Haber "Tinsel returns to Columbia Studio" - Los Angeles AP (1975) "Alan J. Hirschfield Story of a Movie Mogul" by Shirley Dodson Cobb "Kerkorian to Seek 20% of Columbia" by Robert J. Cole "Coke Expected to Acquire Columbia Pictures" by Thomas C. Hayes "Schmoozing All the way to the Bank" by Leah Nathans Spiro "State of the Arb" by Jason Zweig "King of the Sports Deal" by David Whitford "A Major Studio Player" by Michael Cieply "Meeting of Moguls, if Not of Minds" by David D. Kirkpatrick "Cashing In on Old Friends in High Places" by Barry Rehfeld "Media Executives Lose their Edge" by Mark Landler

President Trump wants a peace deal in Ukraine and has signalled he's willing to put pressure on Vladimir Putin to achieve it. Volodymyr Zelenskyy also appears more open to a deal – if there is a guarantee for Ukraine's security. Bronwen Maddox is joined by Mark Landler, London Bureau Chief of the New York Times, The Telegraph's Francis Dearnley who hosts the award-winning podcast Ukraine: The Latest and Orysia Lutsevych, the deputy director of our Russia and Eurasia programme. Read our latest: Can the international order survive Trump 2.0? The world should take the prospect of Chinese tech dominance seriously, and start preparing now South Africa's G20 presidency is a chance for the West to engage with Global South priorities The Trump administration's sanctions policy could matter more than its use of tariffs Presented by Bronwen Maddox. Produced by John Pollock with Indio Media. Read the Winter issue of The World Today  Listen to The Climate Briefing podcast

The Bishop of Washington is one of the few voices this week to have pushed back against Donald Trump's policies as he swept into office. She did so publicly, in strong terms, and in a church. The Trump family were not impressed - and spewed vitriol at her online. Will she pay a price for standing up? We speak to Mark Landler, London bureau chief at the New York Times, about what is different this time around. Plus, Jon has caught up with Helle Thorning-Schmidt, co-chair of Meta's oversight board and former PM of Denmark, in the week that Mark Zuckerberg sat in prime position at the inauguration, and Trump continued to fixate on Greenland. Editor: Tom HughesExecutive Producer: Louis DegenhardtProducers: Natalie Indge & Rory SymonDigital Editor: Michaela WaltersSocial Media Editor: Georgia FoxwellVideo Production: Rory Symon, Shane Fennelly & Arvind BadewalDigital Journalist: Michael BaggsTickets to The News Agents Live On Stage with HSBC UK are now on sale! You can get your tickets for Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh here: https://articles.globalplayer.com/7giHoMavXLgdrd6gaC3GxWG7T8You can watch Lewis's special report on the abortion crisis in America here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df5BCL0ocFEDon't forget you can also subscribe to our other News Agents podcasts via the link below:https://linktr.ee/thenewsagentsThe News Agents USA now have merch! Click here to buy yours now: https://store.global.com/collections/the-news-agents-usaYou can listen to this episode on Alexa - just say "Alexa, ask Global Player to play The News Agents"The News Agents USA is brought to you by HSBC UK - https://www.hsbc.co.uk/

What will the return of Donald Trump to the White House mean for Keir Starmer, the government and British politics? - Mark Landler, London Bureau Chief at The New York Times - Dr Leslie Vinjamuri, Director, US and the Americas Programme at Chatham House This panel was chaired by Catherine Haddon, Programme Director at the Institute for Government.

With less than one month left before America's pivotal election, Christiane speaks with Bloomberg's Stephanie Flanders and The New York Times' Mark Landler about how disinformation is shaping a highly contested race, with Democrats anxious in key swing states. Cate Blanchett and Alfonso Cuarón sit down with Christiane in London to discuss "Disclaimer*", the psychological thriller series in which Christiane makes a cameo appearance, and dive into the show's themes of truth and deception. Christiane also revisits her reporting on the status of Afghan women just one year after the U.S. toppled the Taliban, and shows how 23 years later things have gone even further backwards, with Afghan women still fighting against the Taliban's misogyny and gender apartheid, even while in exile. Finally, director Steve McQueen speaks with Christiane about his new WWII film, "The Blitz", focusing on the stories of ordinary people separated by war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

General HR McMaster has a military career spanning three decades. Little did he know that a deployment much closer to home would prove his toughest mission yet. In a conversation about his new book lifting the lid on his time in the Trump White House, McMaster discusses Trump's strongman obsession, and the time his wife helped prevent a major diplomatic incident. Then Ian McKellen discusses his new movie - The Critic – and how wearing a "fat suit" on stage saved him from serious harm. Journalists Afua Hirsch and Mark Landler discuss where free speech ends and law enforcement begins, after the arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov. In the Amanpour Archive this week we turn to one of its most controversial kings. And Finally - the Afghan women defying the Taliban's latest inhumane laws, by singing for freedom. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

There's only one story in town – actually, there's only one story on the planet. And that's Joe Biden's decision to pull out of the presidential race – and vice president Kamala Harris' coronation as the new Democrat candidate to face Donald Trump in November. Mark Landler of the New York Times is back on the podcast to reflect on an absolutely momentous week in US politics, what Biden's exit means for the presidential race, and what this all means for the UK. PLUS: What is the government's public service inheritance – and how will public services look by the next general election if the government sticks to its spending plans? A new IfG report has the answers. Hannah White presents, with Alex Thomas and Stuart Hoddinott. Produced by Candice McKenzie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For more than a decade, Britain has been governed by the Conservative Party, which pushed its politics to the right, embracing smaller government and Brexit. Last week, that era officially came to an end.Mark Landler, the London bureau chief for The Times, explains why British voters rejected the Conservatives and what their defeat means in a world where populism is on the rise.Guest: Mark Landler, the London bureau chief for The New York Times.Background reading: Five takeaways from the British general election.The Conservatives have run Britain for 14 years. How have things changed in that time?For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. 

In the wake of the news that Kate Middleton, the Princess of Wales, has cancer, author S.L. (Sandi) Wisenberg joins co-hosts Whitney Terrell and V.V. Ganeshananthan to talk about the control that public—and private—figures should have over the disclosure of their diagnoses. Wisenberg, who survived breast cancer, and Terrell, who was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer, name books they have read that have helped them discover humor in their journey from testing to treatment, and reflect on the challenging nuances of what it means to have cancer. They talk about how and when they decided to tell their loved ones, friends, and students about their condition. Wisenberg reads from her 2009 book The Adventures of Cancer Bitch, which will be reissued in paperback in October. To hear the full episode, subscribe through iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app (include the forward slashes when searching). You can also listen by streaming from the player below. Check out video versions of our interviews on the Fiction/Non/Fiction Instagram account, the Fiction/Non/Fiction YouTube Channel, and our show website: https://www.fnfpodcast.net/ This episode of the podcast was produced by Anne Kniggendorf and Jasmine Shackleford. S.L. (Sandi) Wisenberg The Adventures of Cancer Bitch The Sweetheart Is In Holocaust Girls The Wandering Womb Others: “Princess of Wales Apologizes, Saying She Edited Image,” by Mark Landler and Lauren Leatherby | The New York Times Kate Middleton announces her cancer diagnosis | NBC News  Time on Fire: My Comedy of Terrors by Evan Handler Cancer Made Me a Shallower Person: A Memoir in Comics by Miriam Engelberg Memoir of a Debulked Woman by Susan Gubar Our Cancer Year by Harvey Pekar and Joyce Brabner The Cancer Journals by Audre Lorde Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book by Susan Love Señor Wences American Splendor Running in the Family by Michael Ondaatje  Dick York Nora Ephron Carl Bernstein Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On 5 November 2024, up to 161 million American voters will go to the polls to vote for the next president of the United States – and will be faced with a choice between the same two candidates that stood in 2020. Joe Biden, the incumbent, will again face Donald Trump – the former president who lost to Biden in 2020. But polling suggests many voters are less than enthused by the choice. Non-MAGA Republicans feeling queasy about the prospect of Trump – who is still facing a pile of legal challenges – returning to the White House, and many Democrats wonder if Biden, who would be 86 at the end of a second presidential term, is the best possible candidate. So what are we to make of American politics?  How does their system work? What will happen in the election? What could this mean for the UK? And is politics in the US a guide to what might happen in the UK? On this week's Expert Factor the team take a deep breath and take a deep dive into US politics. Mark Landler, London Bureau Chief of the New York Times and a former White House correspondent, joins Hannah, Paul and Anand (who dials in from Boston) to try and make sense of a presidential election that will have consequences across the world. -------- THE EXPERT FACTOR is the podcast for people who haven't had enough of experts. Each week the directors of three leading and respected think tanks – Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Hannah White of the Institute for Government, and Anand Menon of UK in a Changing Europe – get together to discuss, debate and explain the big questions and themes that will shape the election – and the political landscape for years to come.  Produced by Milo Hynes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What is happening with the Apple Vision Pro; recent Chinese cyber activity; signaling and deterrence in the cyber domain; building and maintaining cyber trust; demonstrating a capability without losing it; the psychological impact of potential cyberattacks; managing the overall US-China relationship in the midst of cyber incidents; extending the US cyber umbrella; cyber-intrusions into the electoral system in democracies; and Marcus likes powerPlease subscribe and leave a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your podcast player of choicePlease send us your questions! Send us an email or leave us a voicemailFurther reading/listening:David E. Sanger and Mark Landler. 2024. “U.S. and Britain Accuse China of Cyberespionage Campaign.” New York Times. Cheap Talk Podcast. 2023. “Giving ChatGPT Our Nuclear Codes.” Cheap Talk recommends:True Detective: Night Country on MaxShogun on FX/Hulu3 Body Problem on NetflixWorld War II: From the Frontlines on NetflixSee all Cheap Talk episodes

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Supreme Court's busy week on government speech and immigration authority; Donald Trump's bond issue and words problem; and COVID learning loss. Join us for Political Gabfest Live in Washington, D.C. on March 27! Tickets are on sale now; get ‘em before they're gone.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Court sympathetic to NRA's free speech claim and Supreme Court skeptical of restricting government communications with social media companies Lindsay Whitehurst for AP: Supreme Court appears receptive to NRA free-speech lawsuit against a former New York state officia Hogan Gore for the Austin American-Statesman: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals leaves SB 4 on hold after dueling orders on Texas immigration law Ben Protess, Maggie Haberman, and Kate Christobek for The New York Times: Trump Spurned by 30 Companies as He Seeks Bond in $454 Million Judgment Ruth Marcus for The Washington Post: Fair's fair: Trump should be able to appeal the judgment against him and Catherine Rampell:Trump can't find anyone to spot him $424 million. Would you? Sarah Mervosh, Claire Cain Miller, and Francesca Paris for The New York Times: What the Data Says About Pandemic School Closures, Four Years Later Slate Political Gabfest: The “Stop Counting Now” Edition Weakley County, TN Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Small Game: A Novel by Blair Braverman and Small Game: A Novel at the DC Public Library John: Ramishah Maruf for CNN: MacKenzie Scott donates $640 million after open call for nonprofits and Ahjané Forbes for USA Today: Ticketless passenger found in Delta flight's lavatory, forcing plane to turn around David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: DNA Tests Are Uncovering The True Prevalence Of Incest and City Cast: Work with us.   Listener chatter from Joshua Weaver in Austin, Texas: Matthew Brown for AP: Montana man used animal tissue and testicles to breed ‘giant' sheep for sale to hunting preserves   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily talk about The Mysterious Case of The Reappearing Princess. See Karla Adam for The Washington Post: Will Princess Kate video put an end to royal communications mess? and Mark Landler for The New York Times: The Royals Tried to Control Their Image Online. The Internet Had Other Ideas.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Tana French about her book, The Hunter: A Novel.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Supreme Court's busy week on government speech and immigration authority; Donald Trump's bond issue and words problem; and COVID learning loss. Join us for Political Gabfest Live in Washington, D.C. on March 27! Tickets are on sale now; get ‘em before they're gone.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Court sympathetic to NRA's free speech claim and Supreme Court skeptical of restricting government communications with social media companies Lindsay Whitehurst for AP: Supreme Court appears receptive to NRA free-speech lawsuit against a former New York state officia Hogan Gore for the Austin American-Statesman: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals leaves SB 4 on hold after dueling orders on Texas immigration law Ben Protess, Maggie Haberman, and Kate Christobek for The New York Times: Trump Spurned by 30 Companies as He Seeks Bond in $454 Million Judgment Ruth Marcus for The Washington Post: Fair's fair: Trump should be able to appeal the judgment against him and Catherine Rampell:Trump can't find anyone to spot him $424 million. Would you? Sarah Mervosh, Claire Cain Miller, and Francesca Paris for The New York Times: What the Data Says About Pandemic School Closures, Four Years Later Slate Political Gabfest: The “Stop Counting Now” Edition Weakley County, TN Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Small Game: A Novel by Blair Braverman and Small Game: A Novel at the DC Public Library John: Ramishah Maruf for CNN: MacKenzie Scott donates $640 million after open call for nonprofits and Ahjané Forbes for USA Today: Ticketless passenger found in Delta flight's lavatory, forcing plane to turn around David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: DNA Tests Are Uncovering The True Prevalence Of Incest and City Cast: Work with us.   Listener chatter from Joshua Weaver in Austin, Texas: Matthew Brown for AP: Montana man used animal tissue and testicles to breed ‘giant' sheep for sale to hunting preserves   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily talk about The Mysterious Case of The Reappearing Princess. See Karla Adam for The Washington Post: Will Princess Kate video put an end to royal communications mess? and Mark Landler for The New York Times: The Royals Tried to Control Their Image Online. The Internet Had Other Ideas.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Tana French about her book, The Hunter: A Novel.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss the Supreme Court's busy week on government speech and immigration authority; Donald Trump's bond issue and words problem; and COVID learning loss. Join us for Political Gabfest Live in Washington, D.C. on March 27! Tickets are on sale now; get ‘em before they're gone.    Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Court sympathetic to NRA's free speech claim and Supreme Court skeptical of restricting government communications with social media companies Lindsay Whitehurst for AP: Supreme Court appears receptive to NRA free-speech lawsuit against a former New York state officia Hogan Gore for the Austin American-Statesman: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals leaves SB 4 on hold after dueling orders on Texas immigration law Ben Protess, Maggie Haberman, and Kate Christobek for The New York Times: Trump Spurned by 30 Companies as He Seeks Bond in $454 Million Judgment Ruth Marcus for The Washington Post: Fair's fair: Trump should be able to appeal the judgment against him and Catherine Rampell:Trump can't find anyone to spot him $424 million. Would you? Sarah Mervosh, Claire Cain Miller, and Francesca Paris for The New York Times: What the Data Says About Pandemic School Closures, Four Years Later Slate Political Gabfest: The “Stop Counting Now” Edition Weakley County, TN Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Small Game: A Novel by Blair Braverman and Small Game: A Novel at the DC Public Library John: Ramishah Maruf for CNN: MacKenzie Scott donates $640 million after open call for nonprofits and Ahjané Forbes for USA Today: Ticketless passenger found in Delta flight's lavatory, forcing plane to turn around David: Sarah Zhang for The Atlantic: DNA Tests Are Uncovering The True Prevalence Of Incest and City Cast: Work with us.   Listener chatter from Joshua Weaver in Austin, Texas: Matthew Brown for AP: Montana man used animal tissue and testicles to breed ‘giant' sheep for sale to hunting preserves   For this week's Slate Plus bonus segment, David, John, and Emily talk about The Mysterious Case of The Reappearing Princess. See Karla Adam for The Washington Post: Will Princess Kate video put an end to royal communications mess? and Mark Landler for The New York Times: The Royals Tried to Control Their Image Online. The Internet Had Other Ideas.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, Emily talks with Tana French about her book, The Hunter: A Novel.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Podcast production by Cheyna Roth  Research by Julie Huygen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

131 years - that's how long it will take to close the gender gap, a sobering fact from the World Economic Forum, nobody on the earth right now will be alive to see. Our first guest has made it her mission to move the needle toward gender equity. She's an actress, filmmaker, and an athlete, who also happens to be the First Partner of California, a title she coined after shunning the traditional First Lady term. She's Jennifer Siebel Newsom, wife of one of the Democrats' loudest voices right now, Governor Gavin Newsom. Before heading to the governor's mansion Newsom lived through some very deep personal trauma - which helped shape her mission for gender equality today. In our Letter From London this week, what the world makes of the US political circus that never fails to deliver. Case in point: Donald Trump's stunning win in Iowa this week, in spite of - or perhaps because of - the 91 criminal charges and other legal fires he's fighting. Joining Christiane this week to discuss are two journalists who are no stranger to suspending disbelief - Emily Maitlis and Mark Landler. Also this hour, bullet wounds, burns, amputations and orphaned children. These are the realities of war that doctors in Gaza are dealing with, after three months of Israeli bombardment. Doctor Deborah Harrington spent two weeks over Christmas volunteering at Gaza's al-Aqsa Hospital, right in the heart of the Gaza Strip. What happens to the people of Gaza and Israel the 'day after', if and when the fighting ever ends? Christiane puts that to Mark Regev - Senior Advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister - following Benjamin Netanyahu's apparent rejection of a post-war Palestinian state. From the Amanpour Archive this week, how the first Gulf War - and the destruction it caused - echoes Israel's bombardment of Gaza today.  And in Ask Amanpour, one listener asks how Christiane can cope with witnessing such cruelty in the stories she reports on? Airdate: Saturday January 20th, 2024 Guests: Jennifer Siebel Newsom, Emily Maitlis, Mark Landler, Deborah Harrington, Mark Regev. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Mark Landler is London Bureau Chief for the New York Times, where he's worked for over three decades. In 2013, he served as the paper's White House Correspondent, and went on a trip to China with then-Vice President Joe Biden. Also on the plane: Hunter Biden. Mark recounts the trip here with Michael. Original air date 28 July 2023.

Michael looks at two important matters regarding speech, and freedom thereof. First, a conversation with Mark Landler, NY Times London Bureau Chief, on the controversial suspension and reinstatement of a popular British sports anchor who made comments on immigration. Then, Michael revisits the closer-to-home story surrounding U Penn Law Professor Amy Wax being accused of making racist statements - today, the New York Times reports on her on its front page. Original air date 13 March 2023.

“At last! A true Tory budget”, proclaimed The Daily Mail after the mini-budget. Four weeks on and a very different tone: “In office but not in power”, was the front page this Tuesday. So what exactly is Liz Truss' relationship with Britain's press? Was she really “egged on” by the media, as some of her critics claim, to do what she did in the disastrous mini-budget? And if the opinion polls are to be believed – with her party apparently heading for oblivion at a general election – might traditional Tory papers switch allegiance? Guests: James O'Brien, Presenter, LBC, Christopher Hope, Associate editor, The Daily Telegraph, Eleni Courea, Deputy editor, Politico's London Playbook, Mark Landler, London bureau chief, The New York Times and Tessa Szyszkowitz, correspondent for German and Austrian publications. Presenter: Katie Razzall Sound engineer: Duncan Hannant Producer: Helen Fitzhenry

In Britain, a day of mourning, gratitude, and change. The world witnessed the funeral for a British queen, a ritual never before seen on live television, and – for the first time in most people's lives – the United Kingdom welcomed a new king. Now, the world turns to what lies ahead: the reign of Charles III.  Today's guests include: Sir David Manning, former British ambassador to the US; Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney; former Director of Royal Communications for Buckingham Palace Sally Osman; New York Times London bureau chief Mark Landler; composer Andrew Lloyd Webber.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

The House and Senate were always supposed to check the president's power in foreign affairs. But when partisan loyalties and an onslaught of domestic issues make legislation nearly impossible… what's a congress to do? This week, we talk to Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) about how Congress can take back its power in foreign affairs – and finally get some things done. We discuss his efforts to stop the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the animating power of a passionate public, and why he's optimistic about the future of congressional power in American foreign policy. GUEST: Congressman Ro Khanna, represents California's 17th Congressional District ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: War Powers Resolution of 1973, Nixon Library Trump Vetoes Measure to Force End to U.S. Involvement in Yemen War, Mark Landler and Peter Baker, The New York Times Saudi warplanes carpet-bomb Yemen with US help. This must end, Berine Sanders and Ro Khanna, The Guardian Dignity in a Digital Age, Ro Khanna, Simon & Schuster

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is in India for a two day visit, some 5,000 miles from home – but it seems he can't outrun the accelerating fallout from his ‘Partygate' scandal. Today, the House of Commons launched a formal investigation into whether Johnson misled parliament about breaking his very own Covid-19 laws. This as Johnson kicks up a fresh controversy by announcing a plan to offload asylum seekers to Rwanda, prompting immediate backlash from opposition politicians and human rights defenders. Johnson is refusing to resign, even though a majority of Britons say he should. For more, Christiane speaks with Mark Landler, London Bureau Chief for The New York Times.  Also in today's episode of Amanpour: Evgenia Kara-Murza, Project Manager of the Free Russia Foundation; acclaimed author and historian Ben Macintyre. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Mark Landler of The New York Times joins Jason Greenblatt to discuss what he has seen and reported on around the stripping of Prince Andrew's titles, British government parties, and how similar Biden and Boris Johnson's Pandemic responses are now. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Este "A riesgo de demanda" (ARDD) se basa en dos: uno de Mark Landler escrito para de New York Times y otro de La Bot Constituyente

The war in Afghanistan is over. In this episode, we document how and why the Biden administration finally admitted defeat in our 20 year attempt to create a new government in Afghanistan and we take a hard look at the lessons we need to learn. Afghanistan is a country in a far away land, but there are disturbing similarities between the Afghanistan government that just collapsed and our own. We'd be wise not to ignore them. Executive Producer: Rachel Passer Executive Producer: Anonymous  Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD218: Minerals are the New Oil CD210: The Afghanistan War CD124: The Costs of For-Profit War How We Got Here Craig Whitlock. The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War. Simon and Schuster, 2021. Patrick Tucker. August 18, 2021. “Trump's Pledge to Exit Afghanistan Was a Ruse, His Final SecDef Says.” Defense One. Eugene Kiely and Robert Farley. August 17, 2021. “Timeline of U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan.” FactCheck.org. Eric Schmitt and Jennifer Steinhauer. July 30, 2021. “Afghan Visa Applicants Arrive in U.S. After Years of Waiting.” The New York Times. Craig Whitlock, Leslie Shapiro and Armand Emamdjomeh. December 9, 2019. “The Afghanistan Papers: A secret history of the war.” The Washington Post. Mark Landler and James Risen. July 25, 2017. “Trump Finds Reason for the U.S. to Remain in Afghanistan: Minerals.” The New York Times. John F. Harris. October 15, 2001. “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer On Bin Laden ” Washington Post. The Evacuation: Those Left Behind William Mauldin. September 2, 2021. “Afghanistan Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Staff Left Behind.” Wall Street Journal. Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Annie Karni. August 29, 2021. “Series of U.S. Actions Left Afghan Allies Frantic, Stranded and Eager to Get Out.” The York Times. Sami Sadat. August 25, 2021. “I Commanded Afghan Troops This Year. We Were Betrayed.” The New York Times. Marjorie Censer. August 18, 2021. “US contractors rush to get former employees out of Afghanistan.” Defense News. Siobhan Hughes. August 18, 2021. “Afghanistan Veterans in Congress Trying to Prevent ‘a Death Warrant' for Helping America.” Wall Street Journal. Alex Sanz and Tammy Webber. August 18, 2021. “US friends try to rescue brother in arms in Afghanistan.” AP News. Seth Moulton. June 04, 2021. "Moulton, Bipartisan Honoring Our Promises Working Group to White House: Evacuate our Afghan Partners.” Contractors in Afghanistan Matt Taibbi. August 18, 2021. “We Failed Afghanistan, Not the Other Way Around.” TK News by Matt Taibbi on Substack. Jack Detsch. August 16, 2021. “Departure of Private Contractors Was a Turning Point in Afghan Military's Collapse.” Foreign Policy. Matt Stoller. July 15, 2021. “‘A Real S*** Show': Soldiers Angrily Speak Out about Being Blocked from Repairing Equipment by Contractors.” BIG by Matt Stoller. Lynzy Billing. May 12, 2021. “The U.S. Is Leaving Afghanistan? Tell That to the Contractors.” New York Magazine. Oren Liebermann. March 29, 2021. “Pentagon could open itself to costly litigation from contractors if US pulls out of Afghanistan this year.” CNN. Lucas Kunce and Elle Ekman. September 15, 2019. “Comment Submitted by Major Lucas Kunce and Captain Elle Ekman.” [Regulations.gov(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulations.gov). Aaron Mehta. Oct 25, 2016. “30 Years: William Perry — Reshaping the Industry.” Defense News. Jared Serbu. August 22, 2016. “DoD now awarding more than half its contract spending without competitive bids.” Federal News Network. 41 U.S. Code § 3307 - Preference for commercial products and commercial services. Money: Lost and Gained David Moore. August 23, 2021. “Lawmakers Benefit From Booming Defense Stocks.” Sludge. Lee Fang. August 20, 2021. “Congressman Seeking to Relaunch Afghan War Made Millions in Defense Contracting.” The Intercept. Anna Massoglia and Julia Forrest. August 20, 2021. “Defense contractors spent big in Afghanistan before the U.S. left and the Taliban took control.” OpenSecrets.org. Stephen Losey. April 16, 2021. “The Bill for the Afghanistan War Is $2.26 Trillion, and Still Rising.” Military.com. Eli Clifton. February 16, 2021. “Weapons Biz Bankrolls Experts Pushing to Keep U.S. Troops in Afghanistan.” Daily Beast. Open Secrets. 2021. Defense: Lobbying, 2021. Open Secrets. 2021. Defense: Money to Congress. Laws S.1790 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 Sponsor: Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) Status: Became Public Law No: 116-92 on December 20, 2019 H.R. 3237: Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 Sponsor: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Status: Signed into law, 2021 May 20 House Vote Breakdown Congressional Budget Office Score Law Outline TITLE IV: BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF THE AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM Sec. 401: Amends the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 to expand eligibility to include Afghans who worked not only for the US Government for more than 1 year but also our allies as an off-base interpreter or if they performed "activities for United States military stationed at International Security Assistance Force (or any successor name for such Force). Increases the number of Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) to Afghan partners by 8,000, for a total of 34,500 allocated since December 19, 2014. Sec. 402: Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of state to jointly waive for 1 year (maximum 2 years with an extension) the requirement that Afghan partners eligible for SIVs get a medical exam before they can receive their visa. The Secretary of Homeland Security has to create a process to make sure Afghan SIV holders get a medical exam within 30 days of entry into the United States. Sec. 403: Allows the surviving spouse or child or employee of the United States Government abroad to be eligible for immigration into the United States if the employee worked for our government for at least 15 years or was killed in the line of duty. It also expands entry permissions for Afghan SIV applicants in addition to those who have already been approved. This is retroactive to June 30, 2021. Policies for Visa Processing: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Policy Manual, Chapter 9: Certain Afghan Nationals U.S Department of State -- Bureau of Consular Affairs. “Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans - Who Were Employed by/on Behalf of the U.S. Government.” Audio Sources Gen. Mark Milley: "There was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days." August 18, 2021 General Mark Milley: The time frame of rapid collapse that was widely estimated and ranged from weeks to months, and even years following our departure, there was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days. Central Command submitted a variety of plans that were briefed and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the President. These plans were coordinated, synchronized and rehearsed to deal with these various scenarios. One of those contingencies is what we are executing right now. As I said before, there's plenty of time to do AARs(After Action Reviews) and key lessons learned and to delve into these questions with great detail. But right now is not that time. Right now, we have to focus on this mission, because we have soldiers at risk. And we also have American citizens and Afghans who supported us for 20 years also at risk. This is personal and we're going to get them out. President Biden on Afghanistan Withdrawal Transcript July 8, 2021 Sound Clips 01:30 President Biden: When I announced our drawdown in April, I said we would be out by September, and we're on track to meet that target. Our military mission in Afghanistan will conclude on August 31. The drawdown is proceeding in a secure and orderly way, prioritizing the safety of our troops as they depart 3:40 President Biden: Together with our NATO allies and partners, we have trained and equipped nearly 300,000 current serving members of the military, the Afghan national security force, and many beyond that are no longer serving. Add to that hundreds of thousands more Afghan national defense and security forces trained over the last two decades. 04:04 President Biden: We provided our Afghan partners with all the tools, let me emphasize, all the tools -- training, equipment -- of any modern military. We provided advanced weaponry, and we're going to continue to provide funding and equipment and we'll ensure they have the capacity to maintain their Air Force. 5:54 President Biden: We're also going to continue to make sure that we take on Afghan nationals who worked side by side with US forces, including interpreters and translators. Since we're no longer going to have military there after this, we're not going to need them and they'll have no jobs. We're [sic] also going to be vital to our efforts. they've been very vital, and so their families are not exposed to danger as well. We've already dramatically accelerated the procedure time for Special Immigrant Visas to bring them to the United States. Since I was inaugurated on January 20, we've already approved 2,500 Special Immigrant Visas to come to the United States. Up to now, fewer than half have exercised the right to do that. Half have gotten on aircraft and come commercial flights and come and other half believe they want to stay, at least thus far. We're working closely with Congress to change the authorization legislation so that we can streamline the process of approving those visas. And those who have stood up for the operation to physically relocate 1000s of Afghans and their families before the US military mission concludes so that, if they choose, they can wait safely outside of Afghanistan, while their US visas are being processed. 8:13 President Biden: For those who have argued that we should stay just six more months, or just one more year, I asked them to consider the lessons of recent history. In 2011, the NATO allies and partners agreed that we would end our combat mission in 2014. In 2014, some argued one more year. So we kept fighting. We kept taking casualties. In 2015, the same, and on and on. Nearly 20 years of experience has shown us that the current security situation only confirms that just one more year of fighting in Afghanistan is not a solution, but a recipe for being there indefinitely. It's up to the Afghans to make the decision about the future of their country. Others are more direct. Their argument is that we should stay with the Afghans and Afghanistan indefinitely. In doing so they point to the fact that we we have not taken losses in this last year. So they claim that the cost of just maintaining the status quo is minimal. 9:19 President Biden: But that ignores the reality, and the facts that already presented on the ground in Afghanistan when I took office. The Taliban is at its strongest militarily since 2001. The number of US forces in Afghanistan had been reduced to a bare minimum. And the United States and the last administration made an agreement that they have to with the Taliban remove all our forces by May 1 of this year. That's what I inherited. That agreement was the reason the Taliban had ceased major attacks against US forces. 9:55 President Biden: If in April, I had instead announced that the United States was going to go back on that agreement, made by the last administration, the United States and allied forces will remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, the Taliban would have again begun to target our forces. The status quo was not an option. Staying would have meant US troops taking casualties, American men and women back in the middle of a civil war, and we would run the risk of having to send more troops back in Afghanistan to defend our remaining troops. Once that agreement with the Taliban had been made, staying with a bare minimum force was no longer possible. 10:34 President Biden: So let me ask those who want us to stay: how many more? How many 1000s more Americans' daughters and sons are you willing to risk? How long would you have them stay? Already we have members of our military whose parents fought in Afghanistan 20 years ago. Would you send their children and their grandchildren as well? Would you send your own son or daughter? After 20 years, a trillion dollars spent training and equipping hundreds of 1000s of Afghan National Security and Defence Forces. 2,448 Americans killed, 20,722 more wounded, and untold 1000s coming home with unseen trauma to their mental health. I will not send another generation of Americans to war in Afghanistan with no reasonable expectation of achieving a different outcome. 11:51 President Biden: Today the terrorist threat has metastasized beyond Afghanistan. So, we are repositioning our resources and adapting our counterterrorism posture to meet the threats where they are now: significantly higher in South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. 12:07 President Biden: But make no mistake, our military and intelligence leaders are confident they have the capabilities to protect the homeland and our interests from any resurgent terrorist challenge emerging or emanating from Afghanistan. We're developing a counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed at any direct threat to the United States in the region and act quickly and decisively if needed. 12:38 President Biden: We also need to focus on shoring up America's core strengths to meet the strategic competition competition with China and other nations that is really going to determine our future. 14:58 Reporter: Is the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable? President Biden: No. It is not. Because you have the Afghan troops, 300,000. Well equipped, as well equipped as any army in the world, and an air force against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable. 15:45 President Biden: Do I trust the Taliban? No, but I trust the capacity of the Afghan military who is better trained, better equipped, and more competent in terms of conducting war. 18:07 Reporter: Your own intelligence community has assessed that the Afghan government will likely collapse President Biden: That is not true 18:53 President Biden: And I want to make clear what I made clear to Ghani, that we are not going to walk away and not sustain their ability to maintain that force. We are. We're going to also work to make sure we help them in terms of everything from food necessities and other things in the region. But there is not a conclusion that in fact, they cannot defeat the Taliban. I believe the only way there's going to be -- this is now Joe Biden, not the intelligence community -- the only way there's only going to be peace and secure in Afghanistan, is that they work out a modus vivendi with the Taliban, and they make a judgement as to how they can make peace. And the likelihood there's going to be one unified government in Afghanistan, controlling the whole country is highly unlikely. 21:30 Reporter: Mr. President, how serious was the corruption among the Afghanistan government to this mission failing there? President Biden: First of all, the mission hasn't failed yet. 22:00 President Biden: There were going to be negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan national security forces, and the Afghan government that didn't come to fruition. So the question now is where do they go from here? The jury is still out, but the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely. 23:20 Reporter: Mr. President, "speed is safety," as you just said in your remarks. Are you satisfied with the timeline of relocating Afghan nationals? Is it happening quickly enough to your satisfaction if it may not happen until next month at the end? President Biden: It has already happened, there have already been people, about 1000 people have gotten on aircraft and come to the United States already on commercial aircraft. So as I said, there's over 2500 people, that as from January to now, have have gotten those visas and only half decided that they wanted to leave. The point is that I think the whole process has to be speeded up -- period -- in terms of being able to get these visas. Reporter: Why can't the US evacuate these Afghan translators to the United States to await their visa processing as some immigrants of the southern border have been allowed to? President Biden: Because the law doesn't allow that to happen. And that's why we're asking the Congress to consider changing the law. President Biden Remarks on Afghanistan Strategy Transcript April 14, 2021 Sound Clips 00:38 President Biden: I'm speaking to you today from the Roosevelt -- the Treaty room in the White House -- the same spot where in October of 2001, President George W. Bush informed our nation that the United States military had begun strikes on terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. It was just weeks, just weeks after the terrorist attack on our nation that killed 2,977 innocent souls, that turned Lower Manhattan into a disaster area, destroyed parts of the Pentagon and made hallowed ground in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and sparked an American promise that we would never forget. We went to Afghanistan in 2001, to root out al Qaeda to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States planned from Afghanistan. Our objective was clear, the cause was just, our NATO allies and partners rallied beside us. And I supported that military action along with the overwhelming majority of the members of Congress. More than seven years later, in 2008 weeks before we swore the oath of office -- President Obama and I were about to swear -- President Obama asked me to travel to Afghanistan and report back on the state of the war in Afghanistan. I flew to Afghanistan to the Kunar Valley, a rugged, mountainous region on the border of Pakistan. What I saw on that trip reinforced my conviction that only the Afghans have the right and responsibility to lead their country. And that more and endless American military force could not create or sustain a durable Afghan Government. I believed that our presence in Afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place: to ensure Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again. We did that, we accomplished that objective. I said, along with others, we would follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell if need be. That's exactly what we did. And we got him. It took us close to 10 years to put President Obama's commitment into form. And that's exactly what happened Osama bin Laden was gone. That was 10 years ago. Think about that. We delivered justice to Bin Laden a decade ago. And we've stayed in Afghanistan for a decade since. Since then, our reasons for remaining in Afghanistan have become increasingly unclear, even as the terrorist threat that we went to fight evolved. Over the past 20 years, the threat has become more dispersed, metastasizing around the globe. Al Shabaab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, on Al Nusra in Syria, ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. With the terror threat now in many places, keeping 1000s of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and our leaders. We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdraw and expecting a different result. I'm now the fourth United States President to preside over American troop presence in Afghanistan: two Republicans, two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth. After consulting closely with our allies and partners, with our military leaders and intelligence personnel, with our diplomats and our development experts, with the Congress and the Vice President, as well as with Mr. Ghani and many others around the world. I concluded that it's time to end America's longest war. It's time for American troops to come home. 5:01 President Biden: When I came to office, I inherited a diplomatic agreement, duly negotiated between the government of the United States and the Taliban, that all US forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1 2021, just three months after my inauguration. That's what we inherited. That commitment is perhaps not what I would have negotiated myself, but it was an agreement made by the United States government. And that means something. So in keeping with that agreement, and with our national interest, the United States will begin our final withdrawal beginning on May 1 of this year. 8:11 President Biden: You all know that less than 1% of Americans serve in our Armed Forces. The remaining 99%, we owe them. We owe them. They've never backed down from a single mission that we've asked of them. I've witnessed their bravery firsthand during my visits to Afghanistan. They've never wavered in their resolve. They paid a tremendous price on our behalf and they have the thanks of a grateful nation. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) High-Risk List Center for Strategic and International Studies Transcript March 10, 2021 Speaker: John Sopko - Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Sound Clips 7:40 John Sopko: But right now, that state is under threat. In the wake of the February 2020 withdrawal agreement, all is not well. Compromise appears in short supply on either side. Taliban attacks have actually increased since the agreement was signed. Assassination of prominent officials, activists, journalists, aid workers and others have also increased, including an unsuccessful attack on one of the female members of the peace negotiating team. And the Taliban offensive on Kandahar city last October, as peace negotiations were ongoing, may well have succeeded, were it not for U.S. air support. Peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban have achieved little for Afghanistan so far, and only time will tell as to whether the new Biden administration initiative will bear fruit. And the Afghan people's fears for its own government survival are exacerbated by the knowledge of how dependent their country is on foreign military and financial support. 12:56 John Sopko: Another equally serious threat to Afghanistan's stability has also largely been ignored as we focus on the boots on the ground in Afghanistan. And that is the provision of last year's U.S.-Taliban agreement that stipulates that in addition to the departure of U.S. and coalition troops, or non-diplomatic civilian personnel: private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting service personnel also must leave the country by May 1. Should this come to passSIGAR and many others believe this may be more devastating to the effectiveness of the Afghan security forces than the withdrawal of our remaining troops. Why is that? Because the Afghan government relies heavily on these foreign contractors and trainers to function. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2021 there are over 18,000 Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan, including 6000 Americans, and 7,000 3rd country nationals, 40% of whom are responsible for logistics, maintenance, or training tasks. Now, it is well known that the Afghan security forces need these contractors to maintain their equipment, manage supply chains, and train their military and police to operate the advanced equipment that we have purchased for them. For example, as of December, the Afghan National Army was completing just under 20% of its own maintenance work orders, well below the goal of 80% that was set and the 51% that they did in 2018. So that's actually going down. The Afghan National Police were just as bad if not worse, undertaking only 12% of their own maintenance work against a target of 35% and less than the 16% that we reported in our 2019 high risk list. Additionally, and more troubling. The Department of Defense does train, advise and assist command air, or commonly called TAC air recently reported that since late 2019, they have reduced their personnel in Afghanistan by 94%, and that the military drawdown now requires near total use of contract support to maintain the Afghan Air fleet. They assess that quote “further drawdown in the associated closure basis will effectively end all in country aviation training contracts in Afghanistan.” Again, why is this significant? Why do we view this as a high risk? Namely because contractors currently provide 100% of the maintenance for the Afghan Air Force, UAE 60 helicopters and CE 130 cargo aircraft and a significant portion of Afghans Light Combat Support aircraft. TAC air this January gave a bleak assessment, namely, that no Afghan airframe can be sustained as combat effective for more than a few months in the absence of contractor support. 17:51 John Sopko: Continued funding for U.S. reconstruction programs aimed at promoting economic development, rule of law, respect for human rights, good governance and security for the Afghan people may be more significant, because it may be the primary lever left for the US and other donors to influence that country. It appears that even the Taliban understand Afghanistan's dire need for foreign assistance. Because, as one of the few commitments that the US had to make last year was, “to seek economic cooperation for reconstruction, with the new post settlement, Afghan Islamic government.” Now how much the donor community wishes to stay involved will of course depend on what that government looks like and how it behaves. Numerous officials, including then Secretary of State Pompeo and Ambassador Halley, have stated that the US will be able to advance its human rights goals, including the rights of women and girls with the Taliban by leveraging or conditioning this much needed financial assistance. But unfortunately, as SIGAR has long reported, even when conditionality involved only dealing with the Afghan government, donors do not have a stellar record of successfully utilizing that conditionality to influence Afghan behavior. 27:19 John Sopko: Today our report suggests the donor community should realize the Afghan government is focused on a single goal, its survival. Afghanistan is more dependent on international support than ever before. It may not be an overstatement that if foreign assistance is withdrawn and peace negotiations fail, Taliban forces could be at the gates of Kabul in short order. Hearing: A PATHWAY FOR PEACE IN AFGHANISTAN: EXAMINING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AFGHANISTAN STUDY GROUP House Committee on Oversight and Reform: Subcommittee on National Security February 19, 2021 Testimony was heard from the following Afghanistan Study Group officials: Kelly A. Ayotte, Co-Chair; News Corp Board of Directors since April 2017 BAE Systems Board of Directors since June 2017 Blackstone Board of Directors Boston Properties Board of Directors Caterpillar Board of Directors Board of Advisors at Cirtronics General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr. (Retired), Co-Chair Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Obama and Trump presidencies. Lockheed Martin Board of Directors since February 2020 Nancy Lindborg, Co-Chair President and CEO of the David Lucile Packard Foundation Former President and CEO of the US Institute for Peace Former Assistant Administrator for the bureau for democracy conflict and humanitarian assistance at USAID During the mid-Obama years. Sound Clips 3:13 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): I'd also like to take a moment to thank the nonpartisan US Institute of Peace for the support and expertise they provided to the study group during the course of its work. 3:23 Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA): In the fiscal year 2020 omnibus bill Congress led by Senator Graham Senator Patrick Leahy and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee of state foreign ops and related programs. They tasked the independent and bipartisan Afghanistan study group to quote, consider the implications of a peace settlement or the failure to reach a settlement on US policy, resources and commitments in Afghanistan. After nearly nine months of review and consultation with current and former US and Afghan government officials, allies and partners and other key stakeholders, the Afghanistan study group issued its final report earlier this month. 15:12 Kelly Ayotte: We recommend that US troops remain beyond may 1. We believe a precipitous withdrawal of US and international troops in May, would be catastrophic for Afghanistan, leading to civil war, and allow the reconstitution of terror groups which threaten the United States within an 18 to 36 month period. 15:41 Kelly Ayotte: Let me be clear, although we recommend that our troops remain beyond may 1, we propose a new approach toward Afghanistan, which aligns our policies, practices and messaging across the United States government to support the Afghan peace process, rather than prosecute a war. Our troops would remain not to fight a forever war, but to guarantee the conditions for a successful peace process and to protect our national security interests to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a haven again, for terrorists who threaten the United States of America. 37:15 General Joseph F. Dunford: Do we need to increase forces if the Taliban don't accept an extension past the first of May, and if they then would re initiate attacks against US forces? and Chairman, we heard exactly what you heard. In the fall. What we were told by commanders on the ground in the department of fence was that 4500 US forces, in addition to the NATO forces that are there was the minimum level to address both the mission as well as protection of our forces in the context of the conditions that existed in the fall in as you've highlighted, those conditions have only gotten worse since the fall so in in our judgment 2500 would not be adequate. Should the Taliban re initiate attacks against the United States Hearing: Examining the Trump Administration's Afghanistan Strategy House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on National Security January 28, 2020 Witness: John Sopko - Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) Sound Clips 48:54 John Sopko: We've almost created a system that forces people in the government to give happy talk success stories because they're over there on very short rotations. They want to show success. The whole system is almost geared to give you, and it goes up the chain of command, all the way to the President sometimes. He gets bad information from people out in the field because somebody on a nine month rotation, he has to show success, and that goes up. 54:24 John Sopko: Maybe incentivize honesty. And one of the proposals I gave at that time,be cause I was asked by the staff to come up with proposals, is put the same requirement on the government that we impose on publicly traded corporations. Publicly traded corporations have to tell the truth. Otherwise the SEC will indict the people involved. They have to report when there's a significant event. So put that onus, call it The Truth in Government Act if you want, that you in the administration are duty bound by statute to alert Congress to significant events that could directly negatively impact a program or process. So incentivize honesty. 1:10:25 John Sopko: Over 70% of the Afghan budget comes from the United States and the donors. If that money ended, I have said before and I will stand by it, then the Afghan government will probably collapse. Wartime Contracting Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs September 21, 2011 Witnesses: Charles Tiefer: Commissioner on the Commission on Wartime Contracting Clark Kent Ervin: Commissioner on the Commission on Wartime Contracting Sound Clips 1:11:30 Charles Tiefer: Our private security in Afghanistan appears to be a major source of payoffs to the Taliban. Our report has the first official statement that it's the second-largest source of money for the Taliban. Sen. Carl Levin: After drugs. Charles Tiefer: After drugs, that's right. 1:25:18 Clark Kent Ervin: It's critical that the government have a choice, and that means that there needs to be at least a small and expandable, organic capacity on the part of these three agencies to perform missions themselves, so the next time there's a contingency, the government has a choice between going with contractors and going in-house and the determination can be made whether it's more effective to do it either way, whether it's cheaper to do it either way. As we said at the inception, right now the government doesn't have an option. Contractors are the default option because they're the only option. President George W. Bush announces U.S. Military Strikes on Afghanistan October 7, 2001 President George W. Bush: Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime. More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: close terrorist training camps, hand over leaders of the Al-Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals including American citizens unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met and now the Taliban will pay a price by destroying camps and disrupting communications. We will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. ** International Campaign Against Terrorism Senate Foreign Relations Committee October 25, 2001 Witness: Colin Powell: Secretary of State Sound Clip 27:00 Colin Powell: Our work in Afghanistan though, is not just of a military nature. We recognize that when the Al Qaeda organization has been destroyed in Afghanistan, and as we continue to try to destroy it in all the nations in which it exists around the world, and when the Taliban regime has gone to its final reward, we need to put in place a new government in Afghanistan, one that represents all the people of Afghanistan and one that is not dominated by any single powerful neighbor, but instead is dominated by the will of the people of Afghanistan. Executive Producer Recommendations Elect Stephanie Gallardo 2022 Krystal Kyle and Friends. August 21, 2021. “Episode 35 Audio with Matthew Hoh.” Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

As the G7 kicks off in the English seaside and U.S. President Joe Biden meets with British PM Boris Johnson, all eyes are on the special relationship. Mark Landler, London bureau chief of The New York Times, and Tom McTague, staff writer at The Atlantic, join Bianna Golodryga, standing in for Christiane Amanpour, to discuss. Turning to Nicaragua, human rights defender Bianca Jagger reflects on the crackdown by President Daniel Ortega and explains what the U.S. can do about it. Then former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton and author of "The Profession" talks police reform and the rise in violent crimes across the United States. Our Hari Sreenivasan speaks to Jamie Metzl, WHO adviser and senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, about the need for an investigation into the origins of covid-19 and why we shouldn't dismiss that it escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Will President Trump take another shot at the presidency in 2024? Anthony is joined by Mark Landler of the New York Times, currently their London bureau chief and formerly White House correspondent. Britain is currently facing double trouble - with Covid forcing the population into lockdown, and Brexit just four weeks away, the UK government’s own advisers were caught secretly warning Prime Minister Boris Johnson of a “systemic economic crisis”. Broadcaster and journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer gives us the take from London. Finally, to give an alternative perspective on the election we contrast Trump and Biden’s campaigns with global brand insight guru Nadim Sadek, founder of ProQuo AI. Follow our guests on Twitter:@MarkLandler @JuliaHB1 @nadimsadek Follow us:@moochfm @Scaramucci Sign up for our newsletter at:www.mooch.fm Podcast created & produced by Right Angles:www.right-angles.global

In his webinar address to the IIEA, Mark Landler assesses the outcome of the US Presidential Election in the context of Anglo-American relations. Four years on, as Brexit Britain prepares to finally sever ties with the EU, he considers what a Biden Administration will mean for US-UK cooperation and a potential future free trade deal. About the Speaker: Mark Landler is the London Bureau Chief of The New York Times. In 28 years at The Times, he has been Bureau Chief in Hong Kong and Frankfurt, White House correspondent, diplomatic correspondent, European economic correspondent, and a business reporter in New York. He is the author of Alter Egos (2016), a comparative study of the foreign policy of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

After an incredible week, and even with votes still being counted, we now know that Joe Biden has won the US presidential election. But Donald Trump is refusing to concede that he last lost, and is instead mounting a series of legal challenges. So what happens now? How does a smooth transition of power work in this scenario? What will Donald Trump do next – and what next for Trumpism? How will Joe Biden lead – and reset – the US? What does his election mean for the special relationship? And how will President Biden work with Boris Johnson? In this special edition of the Institute for Government podcast, Bronwen Maddox is joined by Henry Zeffman, Washington correspondent for the Times, the New York Times’ London bureau chief Mark Landler, and IfG senior researcher Alice Lilly. Audio production by Candice McKenzie. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

There’s no escaping COVID19, and with calls for a ‘circuit-breaker’ lockdown growing by the day, how is the Government coping as the pressure mounts? And with Number 10 sidelining the devolved administrations, Jess Sargeant joins to discuss the impact of the Britain’s varied coronavirus response. Plus, with the US Presidential election less than a week away, what will the result mean for the UK?“Boris Johnson hasn’t found a way to navigate between the scientists and his backbenchers” - Mark Landler“Whether or not the Government acts now affects if people can see their families at Christmas” - Cath Haddon“Angela Merkel has political capital to spend on a lockdown that Boris Johnson does not” - Alex Thomas“Closing borders is not a sustainable solution, practically or politically” - Jess Sargeant“Biden would not view a UK-US trade deal as a priority” - Mark LandlerPresented by Hannah White with Cath Haddon, Alex Thomas, Jess Sargeant and Mark Landler. Audio production by Alex Rees. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Well-wishers around the world are sending messages to President Trump and the First Lady, since they contracted coronavirus. Former Deputy U.S. Surgeon General Boris Lushniak joins Christiane Amanpour to discuss the president’s diagnosis. Chief POLITICO Correspondent Ryan Lizza and Deborah Pearlstein, Professor at Cardozo Law School, discuss the political implications. Then, New York Times London bureau chief Mark Landler breaks down how Prime Minister Boris Johnson's experience could map out President Trump’s future. CNN’s Senior International Correspondent, Matthew Chance, shares the details of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s own “protective bubble.” Academic and writer for The Atlantic Zeynep Tufekci tells Amanpour what she thinks we’re missing when we talk about the spread of the pandemic.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Former UK Chief Negotiator for Northern Ireland, Jonathan Powell, and New York Times London Bureau Chief, Mark Landler, join Christiane Amanpour to unpack the parallels between UK PM Boris Johnson and U.S. President Donald Trump as the UK moves to break international law over Brexit. Then Jim Tankersley, author of "The Riches of This Land," debunks the myth of the middle class. He also explains to our Michel Martin why restricting immigration to boost wages is the wrong way to go. And finally, Chinese pianist Lang Lang gives a private concert from his home in Beijing where he has spent the duration of lockdown keeping up his musical fitness. He reflects on realizing his life-long dream of playing Bach’s Goldberg Variations.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

In March 2018, Mark Landler — then a White House correspondent at The New York Times — attended a dinner party hosted by the United Arab Emirates’ ambassador, Yousef al-Otaiba, at a Washington restaurant. There he witnessed a chance encounter between the ambassador and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel — one the ambassador asked to keep private. Two years after that delicate conversation, Israel and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to normalize diplomatic and trade relations. Today, we speak to Mr. Landler about the Trump administration’s role in the agreement, what normalization means for Palestinians and what it says about the Middle East’s political climate. Guest: Mark Landler, London bureau chief at The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: The Arab Spring, growing power of Iranian proxies and demographic changes — how changing dynamics in the Middle East set the stage for the deal.The U.A.E. has agreed to normalization in exchange for Israel’s suspending annexation of areas in the occupied West Bank. Many Palestinians see the deal as less of a balm and more of a stab in the back.

Trump, Facebook, the economy, the Presidential election and the unprecedented tumult in the US following the killing of George Floyd. The New York Times’ London bureau chief MARK LANDLER talks to Bronwen Maddox of the IfG. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

As the UK edges closer to 40,000 coronavirus deaths, there is uproar in the country over the behavior of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s chief political advisor Dominic Cummings, who drove nearly 300 miles across England while the public were being urged not to leave their homes. Mr Cummings stands unapologetic, and with the support of the Prime Minister behind him, is this another example of one rule for the people and one for the elite? Anna Soubry, former UK Health Minister, and Mark Landler, London bureau chief at The New York Times, join Christiane Amanpour to discuss the controversy.  Music producer Drew Dixon and author Joan Morgan talk to Christiane about ‘Off the Record’, an HBO documentary chronicling the allegations of sexual assault made against hip hop mogul Russell Simmons. They reflect on how black women have been treated by the #MeToo movement, and why the film almost didn’t make it to air. And French street artist JR, known for his giant photographs of faces in urban areas, tells our Hari Sreenivasan about how lockdown is inspiring him.

Mark Landler is London bureau chief of the New York Times. Educated at Georgetown University, he joined the Times as a ‘copy boy’ in 1987 before moving to Business Week. He returned in 1995 covering the finance beat, then headed the bureaux in Hong Kong, Frankfurt and Washington DC. In 2011, he became White House correspondent, covering the Obama and Trump administrations, before moving to London as bureau chief in 2019. A regular panellist on ‘Washington Week’ and ‘Face the Nation’, his 2016 book ‘Alter Egos’ shone a light on the fraught relationship between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In this in-depth interview, he describes covering Brexit Britain from the perspective of an outsider, argues that the polarising rise of Trump has given the Times a sharper focus and identity, and shares his adventures writing “all the news that’s fit to print” for 27 years - across 70 countries.[Editor’s note: this podcast was recorded in London on 3rd March 2020, before the onset of the coronavirus public health crisis.]

The Trump administration has made a deal with the Taliban which has been reported as "the beginning of the end" of the Afghanistan war... But is it? In this episode, an examination of Afghanistan's past helps us understand our current role in Afghanistan and by looking into the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, 2020 government funding law, and some key Congressional hearings, we get some insight into our possible future in terms of America's "forgotten war". Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD093: Our Future in War CD208: The Brink of the Iran War Bills HR 1158: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 Page 53: Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide: Allows up to $225 million to be given to other countries for military operations in Afghanistan in addition to over $1 billion that can be giving to “foreign security forces or other groups or individuals” for any “Department of Defense security cooperation programs” Page 55: Afghanistan Security Forces Fund: Provides over $4.1 billion to the security forces of Afghanistan that can be spent on equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, construction, and “funding”. Out of this $4.1 billion, $10 million musth be used for recruiting women into the Afghanistan National Security Forces Section 9021: Funds for the Afghanistan Security Forces are allowed to be transferred to them even if they have conducted human rights abuses that are so bad that funding them would be illegal, as long as the Defense Secretary certifies that “a denial of such assistance would… significantly undermine United States national security objectives in Afghanistan” and that Afghanistan’s officials have promised to do better. National Defense Authorization Act - 1,119 pages Signed December 20 Sec. 1211: Extends the authority for the Defense Department to transfer weapons and provide military services to the security forces of Afghanistan for two more years, until December 31, 2022. Section 1213: Allows (but doesn’t not require) a maximum of $3 million per year to be paid to people injured or killed by US forces or our partners. The Defense Secretary gets to write the regulations determining the amounts of payments and to whom they will go. Section 1216: The Secretary of State “shall seek to ensure the meaningful participation of Afghan women in the peace process in Afghanistan” Section 1520: Requires $10 million of the Afghanistan Security Forces fund to be spent on women’s integration and other women’s program Articles/Documents Article: Retired Army 4-Star Jack Keane to Receive Presidential Medal of Freedom by Gina Harkins, Military.com, March 4, 2020 Article: Afghan conflict: Taliban to resume attacking local forces after deal with US by Cat Schuknecht, BBC News, March 2, 2020 Article: Taliban and U.S. Strike Deal to Withdraw American Troops From Afghanistan by Mujib Mashal, The New York Times, March 1, 2020 Article: Afghan President Rejects Timing Of Prisoner Swap Proposed In U.S.-Taliban Peace Deal by Cat Schuknecht, npr, March 1, 2020 Article: Afghan conflict: US and Taliban sign deal to end 18-year war by Lyse Doucet, BBC News, February 29, 2020 Article: The Saudi Connection: Inside the 9/11 Case that Divided the F.B.I. by Tim Golden and Sebastian Rotella, The Nation, February 14, 2020 Article: The Members of Congress Who Profit From War by Donald Shaw and David Moore, Sludge, January 23, 2020 Article: The Members of Congress Who Profit From War by Donald Shaw and David Moore, Sludge, January 13, 2020 Article: US military presence in the Middle East and Afghanistan by Alia Chughtai, Sludge, January 13, 2020 Document: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES, 2020, Senate Appropriations Committee, 2020 Document: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 2020, Senate Appropriations Committee, 2020 Article: I Knew the War in Afghanistan Was a Lie By Maj. Danny Sjursen, truthdig, December 9, 2019 Article: What Did the U.S. Get for $2 Trillion in Afghanistan? By SARAH ALMUKHTAR and ROD NORDLAND, The New York Times, December 9, 2019 Article: At War With the Truth by Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post, December 9, 2019 Article: The U.S. Opioid Epidemic By Claire Felter, Council on Foreign Relations, September 17, 2019 Article: Afghanistan profile - Timeline BBC, September 9, 2019 Article: Timeline: US military presence in Afghanistan by Ellen Mitchell, Aljazeera, September 8, 2019 Article: Afghanistan’s Hired Guns by Paul D. Shinkman, U.S. News, April 26, 2019 Article: A retired general has twice turned Trump down to be defense secretary — a sign Trump has a self-inflicted personnel problem by Christopher Woody, Business Insider, January 8, 2019 Article: Here’s the blueprint for Erik Prince’s $5 billion plan to privatize the Afghanistan war By Tara Copp, Military Times, September 5, 2018 Article: Israel’s hugely controversial “nation-state” law, explained By Miriam Berger, Vox, July 31, 2018 Article: How the heroin trade explains the US-UK failure in Afghanistan By Alfred W McCoy, The Guardian, January 9, 2018 Article: At stake in US military efforts to stabilize Afghanistan: At least $3 trillion in natural resources By Mariam Amini, CNBC, August 19, 2017 Article: QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS SIGAR - Special Inspector General forAfghanistan Reconstruction, July 30, 2017 Article: Trump Aides Recruited Businessmen to Devise Options for Afghanistan By Mark Landler, Eric Schmitt and Michael R. Gordon, The New York Times, July 10, 2017 Article: The MacArthur Model for Afghanistan by Erik D. Prince, WSJ, May 31, 2017 Article: What We Know About Saudi Arabia’s Role in 9/11 By Simon Henderson, Foreign Policy, November 20, 2016 Article: Ret. Army Gen. Jack Keane Says He Declined Trump's Defense Secretary Offer, npr, July 18, 2016 Article: What Sort of Foreign-Policy Hawk Is Hillary Clinton?, John Cassidy, The New Yorker, April 22, 2016 Article: How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk, Mark Landler, The New York Times, April 21, 2016 Article: 10 years later, did the Big Dig deliver? by Anthony Flint, Boston Globe, December 29, 2015 Article: Robert Bales Speaks: Confessions of America’s Most Notorious War Criminal by BRENDAN VAUGHAN, GQ, October 21, 2015 Article: Why Ashraf Ghani Succeeded on his Rocky Road to the Afghan Presidency by Ali M Latifi, Vice, October 1, 2014 Article: Natural Resources Were Supposed to Make Afghanistan Rich. Here’s What’s Happening to Them. by Antony Loewenstein, The Nation, December 14, 2014 Article: A Historical Timeline of Afghanistan PBS, May 4, 2011 Article: From Errand to Fatal Shot to Hail of Fire to 17 Deaths By By James Glanz and Alissa J. Rubin, The New York Times, October 3, 2007 Additional Resources Homepage SIGAR - Special Inspector General for Afganistan Reconstruction Video Joe Rogan Experience #1436 - Adam Curry Mar 4, 2020 Sound Clip Sources Hearing: United States Strategy in Afghanistan, United States Senate Armed Services Committee, February 11, 2020 Witnesses Jack Keane: Chairman of the Institute for The Study of War Appointed by John McCain when he was Chairman to the Congressional Committee on the National Defense Strategy Dr. Colin Jackson: Professor at the United States Naval War College Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia Transcript: 27:30 Jack Keane: General, Scott Miller, one of our very best commanders in Afghanistan who was due to brief you next month, was working on reducing U.S. troop presence before negotiations began with the Taliban. He concluded after he took command and did his assessment that he had more troops than are required to do the mission. In other words, the troop reduction that we will undergo to 8,600 is an acceptable risk in the mind of the Commander in Charge. Second, we need to reduce the financial burden on the United States. Currently it's around $45.5 billion from a high down from a high of 110 billion in 2010 during the Afghan surge. Let's get it down. It's possible, certainly below 30 billion initially and eventually below that. Not just because of the troop reductions, but by reductions also in contractors who represent a $27 billion cost of the 45 billion. Ashraf Ghani, who I've spoken to on more than one occasion, if he forms a new government, wants to reduce the U.S. burden of $5 billion to the Afghan national security forces, he wants to provide more funds himself. He thinks he can do that, and he's had negotiations with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE and a couple of others to assist in the financing. 1:51:00 Sen. Angus King (ME): We're doing counter terrorism in other countries without a military presence. Colin Jackson: Absolutely. Sen. Angus King (ME): Would that be possible in Afghanistan? Colin Jackson: Not in the same way. In other words, it's much more...it's much easier for us geographically and politically to operate in a place like Yemen from offshore than it is for us to operate offshore into Afghanistan. It has to do with distances. It has to do with agreements with neighboring countries, that type of thing. 1:52:20 Sen. Angus King (ME): Is this a case, would you make to the American people that this is a place where we need an indefinite presence? Not at a terribly high level but as at a level that will enable us to keep, as I think you use the term "keep a foot on the throat of the terrorists." Jack Keane: I totally agree with that assessment. I think it's a political apple that leaders are not willing to swallow and talk to the American people honestly about - this is a multigenerational problem that we've got. We are being selective about which radical Islamic groups are threatening the American people. And you can make a case that we could possibly have to have a counterterrorism for us someplace in central South Asia, best place is Afghanistan, as long as that threat is there indefinitely. Sen. Angus King (ME): And it will require a military presence to support the counter terrorism function, is that what you're saying? Jack Keane: And I think we will eventually, frankly, get down below 8,600, at some point, and we'll narrow that down to Intelligence, Counter-Terrorism and Air Power that's outside the country to be able to support our activities. But it could possibly lead to an indefinite commitment of a small number of forces in that country. Much like we have less than a thousand now trying to keep our foot on ISIS, keep our foot on their throat in Syria to make sure that they don't re-emerge. Sen. Angus King (ME): I think you'd agree on it and I'm out of time, but I think you'd agree that if that's going to be the case, somebody's got to tell the American people. Jack Keane: I totally agree with that, Senator. Totally agree with that. Sen. Angus King (ME): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1:53:48 Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK): I think there's merit in having a closed hearing for this committee. But not necessarily, we can do it ourselves. Good thought. We'll follow through. Hearing: Examining the Trump Administration’s Afghanistan Strategy, United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Homeland Security, January 28, 2020 Watch on Youtube Watch on CSPAN Witnesses John Sopko: Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Transcript: 17:35 Rep. Jody Hice (GA): To date, American taxpayers have spent $780 billion on combat operations, $137 billion on reconstruction efforts since 2002, so we're pushing $1 trillion here during that time. And in spite of that money, we've lost 2,400 courageous American service members during the conflict and one stat that often is overlooked is over 20,000 who had been wounded in action, many of them very seriously. 18:15 Rep. Jody Hice (GA): The United States is drawn down our military presence from a peak of about a hundred thousand under the Obama administration to less than 14,000 today. 26:30 John Sopko: Unfortunately, since my last appearance, not much has changed on the ground in Afghanistan to diminish our concerns. The military situation is still a deadly stalemate. The Afgan economy - extremely weak. Corruption - rampant. Narcotics production - growing. Reintegration of ex-combatants - problematic. Women's rights - threatened. And oversight restricted by widespread insecurity. Our newest quarterly report, which will be released in a few days, discusses all of these threats and in particular highlights that if peace is to be sustainable, financial support from donors will need to continue and may need to continue for years to come. 28:00 John Sopko: Now more than ever, I caution that if there is a peace agreement and continued assistance provided to the Afghan people, oversight needs to remain mission critical. Otherwise you might as well pile up all the dollars and euros in Masood Circle and downtown Kabul and burn them for whatever good they can accomplish. 32:55 John Sopko: Every metric that we used to provide you the Congress and the American people in our quarterly reports. Every metric that you would find useful is now either classified or no longer available. Now it's available, some of it in a classified setting, and I know Chairman, you and I spent some time there briefing on it. You know how difficult it is to use that, but this was information that we'd been providing publicly for years, and then it's been taken away. So that is a problem, but I can't answer why they eliminated that. 46:00 John Sopko: We decided to embark upon trying to learn some lessons from those 18 years. And what happened is in the course of that, we got a lot of information, reviewed a lot of cables, interviewed a lot of people. Some of the people we interviewed were reflective of what happened 10 years ago. And they basically were saying...I think General Lute and others that...we didn't know what was going on, but that was sort of after the fact. They're reflecting. It was very useful information in some areas, but a lot of the information was also talking about the warfighting and none of our reports deal with the warfighting. We deal with reconstruction and the training. We don't look at whether we should be in Afghanistan or not. So when Ambassador Lute or General Flynn say, we shouldn't be there, that's nice. It's his opinion, it's their opinion. But it doesn't help us do these lessons learned reports, which we've done seven. So that explains it. It's not that these people were evil, they're just reflecting on what they saw and observed seven, eight years ago. 48:55 John Sopko: We've almost created a system that forces people in the government to give happy talk - success stories because they're over there on very short rotations. They want to show success. The whole system is almost geared to give you, and it goes up the chain of command all the way to the President sometimes. He gets bad information from people out in the field because somebody on a nine month rotation, he has to show success and that goes up. 50:25 John Sopko: Well, Congress, I don't know if I can answer the bigger question about whether we are wasting our time or not. I'm going to leave that to you and the President to decide. But we are giving them systems, whether it's military hardware or other systems, that they can't use. And one of the questions we asked early on is do the Afghans and know about what we're giving them? Will they use it? Do they want it? And we couldn't even get government agencies that asked those questions. And I have run across Afghans who said, "I didn't know that clinic was being built until it was given to us by the donors." 53:05 John Sopko: We also have this hubris, which I think was identified before, that we think we can turn Afghanistan into little America or another Norway. We can't. That's the hubris. 54:25 John Sopko: Maybe incentivize honesty. And one of the proposals I gave at that time, cause I was asked by the staff to come up with proposals, is put the same requirement on the government that we impose on publicly traded corporations. Publicly traded corporations have to tell the truth. Otherwise the SEC will indict the people involved. They have to report when there's a significant event. So put that on us, call it The Truth in Government Act if you want, that you in the administration are duty bound by statute to alert Congress to significant events that could directly negatively impact a program or process. So incentivize honesty. 56:15 John Sopko: Well, I think now more than ever, because there are fewer state department aid people and DOD people there, you need somebody watching the store. And there will be a tendency, because of a security situation, decrease staffing to give the money directly to the Afghan government or to give the money through third party monitors such as the world bank and UN and other international organizations. And we have reported in the past that, first of all, the Afghan government's incapable of handling the money. We really need to do a ministerial assessment ministry by ministry to determine whether they can handle our taxpayer money. And then secondly, we have some real questions about some of these international organizations. The UN and the World Bank we've already identified have serious problems with monitoring it. So what we're saying is don't just focus on the troop level. Don't just focus on the amount of money, focus on how we are going to protect the U.S. taxpayers dollars. That's why I think now more than ever, we have to keep our focus on that. 59:11 Rep. Tom Massie (KY): Can you tell us how much we have spent on Afghanistan reconstruction at this point? John Sopko Congressman Massey, I can. The latest figure is 136.97 billion as of December 31st. So 136, you can round it off to 137 billion. That's staggering to me. But just for reference, the entire federal budget for roads and bridges is 50 billion to 60 billion. It's gone up a little bit. We could double our spending on our nation's infrastructure for two or three years for what we've spent in Afghanistan. 1:04:10 John Sopko: This building of this empire. You talk about it, you don't want to see, well, there is a soldier or somebody from the Pentagon who is trying to oversee that. If he comes back and the first traunch who's going to be protecting your money? That's my concern. That is the big concern. Getting out as a concern. But we've kind of worked our way around that. But you can't cut the oversight capabilities of Aid, State, and DOD in this, this drive for what they called right-sizing. 1:06:35 John Sopko: It has been our goal from the beginning is that kicked the Taliban out and try to help to create an Afghan government to keep the bad guys out from attacking us. So that's been a constant goal of all of the administrations. Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC): However, that goal seems to be very far in the distance. I mean, we have a great difficulty in achieving that. Correct? John Sopko: Well, I think the obvious answer is that we got 80,000 or 60,000 Taliban plus you have five to 10,000, I think ISIS members, and you got 20 over terrorist groups there. So obviously we have not succeeded in keeping the bad guys out or creating a government that can keep them out. 1:10:25 John Sopko: 70%. Over 70% of the Afghan budget comes from the United States and the donors. If that money ended, I have said before and I will stand by it, then the Afghan government will probably collapse. 1:10:45 Rep. Stacey Plaskett (VI) I can only think of those soldiers, those USA ID individuals who had been there all these years through their rotations, risking life, supporting the Americans objective, to have that thrown away because we believe we need to withdraw our troops at this point is just such a slap in their face. 1:13:15 Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC): And the American people, be sure the money being sent to Afghanistan is being spent for legitimate purposes and not being used for corrupt purposes. John Sopko: As hard as we all try, I don't think I have a warm, fuzzy feeling about the money being spent and its intended purposes. And I don't mean to be facetious ma'am, but the former head of CSTCA is an example. That's the Combined Security Training Command Afghanistan - estimated at one point that 50% of the fuel that we purchase for the Afghans disappears. 50%, so we're talking billions. So it is a significant problem, ma'am. 1:16:30 Chairman Carolyn Maloney (NY): I'd like to focus my questions on the importance of women in Afghanistan and the differences that has made with a America allowing them to participate in the economy and an education. I recall when we first went to Afghanistan, women were murdered and killed if they went to school. And now I'm told that they have made a tremendous progress over the past 18 years. They make up a 14% of a kindergarten to 12th grade and 30% of university students now are women. And there are more than 170 public and private higher education institutions across the country, even in the most difficult parts of Afghanistan. And I'm told that women are the majority of teachers at these schools, which is important. And according to some government reports, women make up to 27% of government employees before they were not even allowed to work. And they serve as ministers, deputy ministers, judges, and in many other positions. According to the United nations, maternal mortality rates...They used to be second in the world and they have fallen substantially. And that is because there are so many women that are trained as midwives and health professionals now and are working to help other women. And I understand they're over 530 public and private hospitals and hundreds of health and sub health centers. And even if these numbers are exaggerated women appear to be an important part of the success that is happening, certainly in education and healthcare. And so, wouldn't that alone makeup our investments, wouldn't that alone justify our investments in the country? I know the United nations has made several reports that when women are educated and empowered and respected, the amount of terrorism in that country or in that village goes down. So investing in women and allowing them to be part of of the country and not killing them if they go to school. I think we've made a tremendous impact in that country. And I'm afraid if we retreat and leave, it'll go back to the way it was before. 1:19:40 John Sopko: I must admit, for all the trips I've gone there and all of the Afghan women I have talked to, I have not met one Afghan woman who trusts the Taliban. And the concern is if they're excluded from the negotiations or if the negotiations are done by men and they ignore the advances, it is going to be very bad for women in Afghanistan. 1:29:45 John Sopko: Well, we actually, at the request of former Congressman Walter P. Jones and others, we did an analysis on how much money was wasted in Afghanistan. It was a very difficult, long term project. So we looked at all of our contracts that we have reviewed. And so 52 billion of that, 136 billion we looked at, and we basically determined that up to 15 billion. So about 30% was either wasted or stolen. Now, that was just of the universe that we had already looked at. 1:31:00 John Sopko: And again, how do we define waste? You notice three variables that we as IGs look at inputs, outputs, and outcomes. We look at the outcome that the administrations told Congress they were supposed to resolve. So like in counternarcotics, it was to lessen the amount of opium, it was to end that scourge. Well, it's been a total waste. None of our programs have led to any reduction in opium in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, opium is the largest export of Afghanistan. It's more than the licit crop. I think it's 1.2 to $2 billion in export. The licit, the pine nuts and everything else they sell comes to less than a billion. So we looked at that program and said, that's a waste. We spent, we wasted $9 billion. We've accomplished really nothing. 1:32:25 John Sopko: Back in 2013, I sent a letter to the Sec Def, Sec State and Administrator of USAID and I said, can you list your top 10 successes and your bottom 10 failures and why? And this would have forced the administration to rack and stack their programs, list what works, what doesn't, and try to understand what works there. They refused to answer the mail in 2013. So in 2014 we basically came up the lessons learned program. I was trying to answer my mail to you. You got to force the administration to be honest. And, and it's not political, Republican, Democrat. The administration has to come in and tell you specifically, why are you spending this money? What do you expect to accomplish at the end, you're going to spend $9 billion in counter narcotics and the end result is that there's actually more opium been grown. Are you going to spend $500 million on airplanes and they can't fly? You're going to spend millions of dollars on air on buildings that melt. I mean, you need to hold people accountable. You need to bring in the head of those programs and say, "what were you thinking?" And don't be negative about it. Just say, look at if it doesn't work, stop, do something else. 1:38:15 John Sopko: But if you decide this is important, then the biggest stick you have for the Afghans as well as the Taliban, because the Taliban want foreign assistance too. That's what's been reported, is that 70% of the budget, those billions of dollars that they will want, and you have to hold their feet to the fire. It's called conditionality. So if you want assistance, you can't go back to your old ways. I mean, that would be the way I would bargain this. 1:42:55 John Sopko: We need to have a government that the Afghan people trust and believe in, and it offers a modicum of services that those people want. Because the difficulty we have is that, for example, Afghan people want a little bit of justice. They don't want to have to pay a bribe to get it. What we gave them were a bunch of courthouses that looked nice. They would fit in any American city, but that's not what the Afghan people wanted. They wanted a modicum of justice that they didn't have to pay a bribe. Hearing: Craig Whitlock on the Afghanistan Papers, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, January 6, 2020 Guest Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post Transcript: 1:45 Bill Scanlan: The Special Inspector General - SIGAR...They've done monthly reports, almost weekly updates. They're very transparent and open. What was the purpose they told you of these, these interviews and why had they been held secret or classified or unavailable to the public? Craig Whitlock: Right. So the reason they did these interviews was for a special project called Lessons Learned in which they were trying to figure out the mistakes made during the war in Afghanistan. This started in 2014 and it's important to remember, this was five years ago, people thought the war was coming to an end. You know, President Obama had declared an end to combat operations. He had promised to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of his presidency. So the Inspector General thought it'd be a good time to figure out what mistakes were made that they could learn about for the future if they were ever involved in another war. So they did hundreds of these interviews and did publish a number of reports about these lessons learned. But what they did is they left out all the good parts, all the striking quotes, all the unvarnished commentary from people who were involved in the war about just how bad things were. They left all that out, and so we had to go in under the Freedom of Information Act and obtain those. That way. They're not classified, these are public documents. It's just we had to persuade the Inspector General to finally release them. Speech: U.S. Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, C-SPAN, White House Speech, March 27, 2009 Full Transcript Guest Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post Transcript: 5:00 Barack Obama: So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. 12:00: Barack Obama: We will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. 13:55 Barack Obama: to advance security, opportunity and justice -- not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces -- we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that, isn't dominated by illicit drugs. And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. That's also why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations. 15:20 Barack Obama: As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the special inspector generals for Afghan Reconstruction. Testimony: International Campaign Against Terrorism, C-SPAN, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 25, 2001 Witness Colin Powell: Secretary of State Transcript: 26:50 Colin Powell: Our work in Afghanistan though, is not just of a military nature. We recognize that when the Al Qaeda organization has been destroyed in Afghanistan, and as we continue to try to destroy it in all the nations in which it exists around the world, and when the Taliban regime has gone to its final reward, we need to put in place a new government in Afghanistan, one that represents all the people of Afghanistan and one that is not dominated by any single powerful neighbor, but instead is dominated by the will of the people of Afghanistan. 27:10 Colin Powell: We need to put in place a new government in Afghanistan. 27:25 Colin Powell: Ambassador Richard Haass, the Director of Policy Planning at the State Department is my personal representative working with the United Nations. 42:45 Colin Powell: I think once the Taliban regime is gone and there's hope for a new broad-based government that represents all the people of Afghanistan, and when aid starts to flow in, I think that will cause most of the groupings in Afghanistan to realize this is not the time to fight this as the time to participate in this new world. That's our hope. Public Address: U.S. Military Strikes, C-SPAN, President George W. Bush, October 7, 2001 Transcript: President George W. Bush: Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al-Qaida terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime. More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands, closed terrorist training camps, hand over leaders of the Al Qaeda network, and return all foreign nationals including American citizens, unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met and now the Taliban will pay a price by destroying camps and disrupting communications. We will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans.

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia joins Christiane Amanpour to discuss the ongoing political crisis between the U.S. and Iran, just as reports emerge that the Ukrainian Boeing plane that crashed killing 176 people, may have in fact been mistakenly shot down by Iran. He unpacks what action is occurring in Washington to limit any further military escalation. Fred Pleitgen, CNN Senior International Correspondent, gives the view from ground in Tehran. He explains the Iranian government's stance on these latest developments. Dickie Arbiter, former press secretary to Queen Elizabeth II, and Mark Landler, London bureau chief at The New York Times, give their perspective on the unprecedented news that Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, and Prince Harry are stepping back as senior royals. They asses what has prompted this move and how it will work practically and financially. Our Hari Sreenivasan sits down with Cyrus Habib, Washington Lieutenant Governor, to talk about the demonization of Iranian-Americans.

Scott Walker, former Republican Governor for the battleground state of Wisconsin, gives his take on the historic vote to impeach President Donald Trump; only the third President ever to be impeached. He reflects on whether the President did indeed commit high crimes and misdemeanors. He also defends his record on voter suppression. Mark Landler, the London bureau chief of The New York Times, Susan Glasser, staff writer at the The New Yorker, and Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, all weigh in on the impeachment debate. They each give their perspective on this momentous day and how it will impact American politics and society for years to come. Our Michel Martin sits down with Alfre Woodard, actor in "Clemency", and Chinonye Chukwu, the director of the film, to unpack the moral questions surrounding death row and more specifically, the complex role of the executioner.

Afua Hirsch, author and social commentator, Simon Fraser, former head of the UK Foreign Office and Mark Landler, the London Bureau Chief for the New York Times join Christiane Amanpour on set to discuss the Conservative Party landslide victory in the historic UK election. Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the former Danish Prime Minister discusses Boris Johnson's Brexit plan. Craig Whitlock, a lead investigative reporter for the Washington Post, discusses his work uncovering the Afghanistan papers.

This week the ladies of Bombshell go deep on the Syria raid and the “value” of high-value targeting, before turning their attention to popular protests in Iraq and Lebanon. Of course, no episode would be complete without a Brexit update! Radha regales us with CFIUS tales and we all lament the attacks on LTC Vindman. Also, will the NDAA ever pass?   Links Tamara Qiblawi, "Protests Toppled Two Governments in Three Days, But the Fight is Only Beginning," CNN, November 2, 2019 Sara Khairat, "What Triggered Iraq's Mammoth Protests?" Aljazeera, November 1, 2019 Alissa Rubin, "Iraq Demonstrations Grow, and Government Scrambles to Respond," New York Times, November 1, 2019 Jen Kirby, "The Future of Brexit Will Be Decided in December 12 Election," Vox, October 29, 2019 Mark Landler and Stephen Castle, "Boris Johnson Has Big Lead in UK Election. That Might Not Mean Much," New York Times, November 2, 2019 Leo Shane III and Joe Gould, "What's in the Emergency Defense Policy Bill?" Defense News, October 30, 2019 John M. Donnelly, "Skinny Defense Bill Omits Key Element: Military Construction," Roll Call, November 1, 2019 Joe Gould, "Congress Mulls Spring Continuing Resolution to Avoid Government Shutdown," Defense News, October 25, 2019 Greg Roumeliotis, Yingzhi Yang, Echo Wang, and Alexandra Alper, "Exclusive: US Opens National Security Investigation Into TikTok," Reuters, November 1, 2019

This week the ladies of Bombshell go deep on the Syria raid and the “value” of high-value targeting, before turning their attention to popular protests in Iraq and Lebanon. Of course, no episode would be complete without a Brexit update! Radha regales us with CFIUS tales and we all lament the attacks on LTC Vindman. Also, will the NDAA ever pass?   Links Tamara Qiblawi, "Protests Toppled Two Governments in Three Days, But the Fight is Only Beginning," CNN, November 2, 2019 Sara Khairat, "What Triggered Iraq's Mammoth Protests?" Aljazeera, November 1, 2019 Alissa Rubin, "Iraq Demonstrations Grow, and Government Scrambles to Respond," New York Times, November 1, 2019 Jen Kirby, "The Future of Brexit Will Be Decided in December 12 Election," Vox, October 29, 2019 Mark Landler and Stephen Castle, "Boris Johnson Has Big Lead in UK Election. That Might Not Mean Much," New York Times, November 2, 2019 Leo Shane III and Joe Gould, "What's in the Emergency Defense Policy Bill?" Defense News, October 30, 2019 John M. Donnelly, "Skinny Defense Bill Omits Key Element: Military Construction," Roll Call, November 1, 2019 Joe Gould, "Congress Mulls Spring Continuing Resolution to Avoid Government Shutdown," Defense News, October 25, 2019 Greg Roumeliotis, Yingzhi Yang, Echo Wang, and Alexandra Alper, "Exclusive: US Opens National Security Investigation Into TikTok," Reuters, November 1, 2019

Yemen: Most of us don't know where that is but we Americans have been participating in a war there since 2015. In a surprise move, the 116th Congress recently put a resolution on President Trump's desk that would LIMIT our participation in that war. In this episode, learn about our recent history in Yemen: Why are we involved? When did our involvement start? What do we want from Yemen? And why is Congress suddenly pursuing a change in policy? In the second half of the episode, Jen admits defeat in a project she's been working on and Husband Joe joins Jen for the thank yous. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD167: Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE CD131: Bombing Libya CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? Additional Reading Article: Hurricane Michael upgraded to a Category 5 at time of U.S. landfall, NOAA, April 19, 2019. Article: US carries out first airstrikes in Yemen in nearly 3 months by Ryan Browne, CNN, April 1, 2019. Article: The assassination of Jamal Khashoggi by Joyce Lee and Dalton Bennett, The Washington Post, April 1, 2019. Article: Trump revokes Obama rule on reporting drone strike deaths, BBC News, March 7, 2019. Article: US carried out 36 airstrikes in Yemen last year by Andrew Kennedy, The Defense Post, January 7, 2019. Article: See no evil: Pentagon issues blanket denial that it knows anything about detainee abuse in Yemen by Alex Emmons, The Intercept, January 7, 2019. Report: Senate bucks Trump's Saudi approach by Jeff Abramson, Arms Control Association, January/February 2019. Article: Saudi strikes, American bombs, Yemeni suffering by Derek Watkins and Declan Walsh, The New York Times, December 27, 2018. Article: The wooing of Jared Kushner: How the Saudis got a friend in the White House by David D. Kirkpatrick, Ben Hubbard, Mark Landler, and Mark Mazzetti, The New York Times, December 8, 2018. Report: Saudi lobbyists bout 500 nights at Trump's DC hotel after 2016 election by John Bowden, The Hill, December 5, 2018. Article: Hidden toll of US drone strikes in Yemen: Nearly a third of deaths are civilians, not al-Quaida by Maggie Michael and Maad al-Zikry, Military Times, November 14, 2018. Article: Jamal Khashoggi's friends in Washington are in shock by Scott Nover, The Atlantic, October 12, 2018. Report: Catastrophic Hurricane Michael strikes Florida Panhandle, National Weather Service, October 10, 2018. Article: Yemen's President Hadi heads to US for medical treatment, Aljazeera, September 3, 2018. Article: Bab el-Mandeb, an emerging chokepoint for Middle East oil flows by Julian Lee, Bloomberg, July 26, 2018. Report: YEM305: Unknown reported killed, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, March 29, 2018. Article: Yemen: Ex-President Ali Abdullah Saleh killed, Aljazeera, December 10, 2017. Article: In Yemen's secret prisons, UAE tortures and US interrogates by Maggie Michael, AP News, June 22, 2017. Report: Yemen: UAE backs abusive local forces, Human Rights Watch, June 22, 2017. Article: What we know about Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11 by Simon Henderson, Foreign Policy, July 18, 2016. Report: Yemen: Background and U.S. relations by Jeremy M. Sharp, Congressional Research Service, February 11, 2015. Article: How al Qaeda's biggest enemy took over Yemen (and why the US government is unlikely to support them) by Casey L. Coombs and Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept, January 22, 2015. Report: Yemen protests erupt after fuel price doubled, Aljazeera, July 30, 2014. Article: U.S. charges saudi for 2002 oil tanker bombing by MAREX, Feburary 6, 2014. Report: "Between a Drone and Al-Qaeda": The civilian cost of US targeted killings in Yemen, Human Rights Watch, October 22, 2013. Article: Yemen: Opposition leader to be sworn in Saturday by Reuters, The New York Times, December 7, 2011. Article: Yemen's Saleh signs deal to give up power by Marwa Rashad, Reuters, November 23, 2011. Article: Yemen's leader agrees to end 3-decade rule by Kareem Fahim and Laura Kasinof, The New York Times, November 23, 2011. Article: Yemeni president's shock return throws country into confusion by Tom Finn, The Guardian, September 23, 2011. Article: Yemen: President Saleh 'was injured by palace bomb', BBC News, June 23, 2011. Article: Government in Yemen agrees to talk transition by Laura Kasinof, The New York Times, April 26, 2011. Article: Hundreds take to streets in Yemen to protest by Faud Rajeh, The New York Times, February 16, 2011. Article: U.S. plays down tensions with Yemen by Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, December 17, 2010. Article: Cables depict range of Obama diplomacy by David E. Sanger, The New York Times, December 4, 2010. Article: Yemen's drive on Al Qaeda faces international skepticism by Mona El-Naggar and Robert F. Worth, The New York Times, November 3, 2010. Article: Op-Ed: The Yemeni state against its own people by Subir Ghosh, Digital Journal, October 11, 2010. Roundtable Summary: Reform priorities for Yemen and the 10-Point agenda, MENAP, Chatham House, February 18, 2010. Article: As nations meet, Clinton urges Yemen to prove itself worthy of aid by Mark Landler, The New York Times, January 27, 2010. Article: After failed attack, Britain turns focus to Yemen by John F. Burns, The New York Times, January 1, 2010. Resources Congress.gov: S.J.Res.54 - A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress Govtrack: S.J.Res. 7: A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by ... Congress IMF.org: Gulf Cooperation Council Countries Middle East Institute: Addressing the Crisis in Yemen: Strategies and Solutions Open Knowledge Repository: Leveraging Fuel Subsidy Reform for Transition in Yemen US Dept. of Treasury: International Monetary Fund Sound Clip Sources House Proceedings: Yemen Resolution Debate, 116th Congress, April 4, 2019. Congressional Record Sound Clips: 1:06:30 Rep. Michael McCaul (TX):This resolution stretches the definition of war powers hostilities to cover non-U.S. military operations by other countries. Specifically, it reinterprets U.S. support to these countries as ‘‘engagement in hostilities.’’ This radical reinterpretation has implications far beyond Saudi Arabia. This precedent will empower any single Member to use privileged war powers procedures to force congressional referendums that could disrupt U.S. security cooperation agreements with more than 100 countries around the world. 1:14:30 Rep. Barbara Lee (CA): Yes, Madam Speaker, I voted against that 2001 resolution, because I knew it was open-ended and would set the stage for endless wars. It was a blank check. We see this once again today in Yemen. We must repeal this 2001 blank check for endless wars. Over the past 18 years, we have seen the executive branch use this AUMF time and time again. It is a blank check to wage war without congressional oversight. 1:21:30 Rep. Ro Khanna (CA): My motivation for this bill is very simple. I don’t want to see 14 million Yemenis starve to death. That is what Martin Griffith had said at the U.N., that if the Saudis don’t stop their blockade and let food and medicine in, within 6 months we will see one of the greatest humanitarian crises in the world. Senate Floor Proceedings: Yemen Resolution Debate, 115th Congress, 2nd Session, December 12, 2018. Congressional Record Pt. 1 Congressional Record Pt. 2 Sound Clips: 7:09:00 Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT): Finally, an issue that has long been a concern to many of us—conservatives and progressives—is that this war has not been authorized by Congress and is therefore unconstitutional. Article I of the Constitution clearly states it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to send our men and women into war—Congress, not the President. The Framers of our Constitution, the Founders of this country, gave the power to declare war to Congress—the branch most accountable to the people—not to the President, who is often isolated from the reality of what is taking place in our communities. The truth is—and Democratic and Republican Presidents are responsible, and Democratic and Republican Congresses are responsible—that for many years, Congress has not exercised its constitutional responsibility over whether our young men and women go off to war. I think there is growing sentiment all over this country from Republicans, from Democrats, from Independents, from progressives, and from conservatives that right now, Congress cannot continue to abdicate its constitutional responsibility. 7:14:45 Sen. Bob Corker (TN): I have concerns about what this may mean as we set a precedent about refueling and intelligence activities being considered hostilities. I am concerned about that. I think the Senator knows we have operations throughout Northern Africa, where we are working with other governments on intelligence to counter terrorism. We are doing refueling activists in Northern Africa now, and it concerns me—he knows I have concerns—that if we use this vehicle, then we may have 30 or 40 instances where this vehicle might be used to do something that really should not be dealt with by the War Powers Act. 7:49:06 Sen. Todd Young (IN): We don’t have much leverage over the Houthis. We have significant leverage over the Saudis, and we must utilize it. 7:58:30 Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK): The Sanders-Lee resolution is, I think, fundamentally flawed because it presumes we are engaged in military action in Yemen. We are not. We are not engaged in military action in Yemen. There has been a lot of discussion about refueling. I don’t see any stretch of the definition that would say that falls into that category. 8:01:00 Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK): Saudi Arabia is an important Middle Eastern partner. Its stability is vital to the security of our regional allies and our partners, including Israel, and Saudi Arabia is essential to countering Iran. We all know that. We know how tenuous things are in that part of the world. We don’t have that many friends. We can’t afford to lose any of them. 8:04:30 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): It is important to note some-thing that we take for granted in the region—this now long-term detente that has existed between the Gulf States and Israel, which did not used to be something you could rely on. In fact, one of the most serious foreign policy debates this Senate ever had was on the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia back in the 1980s. The objection then was that by empowering Saudi Arabia, you were hurting Israel and Israeli security. No one would make that argument today because Saudi Arabia has been a good partner in trying to figure out a way to calm the tensions in the region and, of course, provide some balance in the region, with the Iranian regime on the other side continuing to this day to use inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric about the future of Israel. So this is an important partnership, and I have no interest in blowing it up. I have no interest in walking away from it. But you are not obligated to follow your friend into every misadventure they propose. When your buddy jumps into a pool of man-eating sharks, you don’t have to jump with him. There is a point at which you say enough is enough. 8:06:00 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): Muhammad bin Salman, who is the Crown Prince, who is the effective leader of the country, has steered the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia off the rails. Folks seem to have noticed when he started rounding up his political opponents and killing one of them in a consulate in Turkey, but this has been ongoing. Look back to the kidnapping of the Lebanese Prime Minister, the blockade of Qatar without any heads-up to the United States, the wholesale imprisonment of hundreds of his family members until there was a payoff, the size of which was big enough to let some of them out. This is a foreign policy that is no longer in the best interests of the United States and cannot be papered over by a handful of domestic policy reforms that are, in fact, intended to try to distract us from the aggressive nature of the Saudis’ foreign policy in the region. 8:08:15 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): I am appreciative that many of my colleagues are willing to stand up for this resolution today to end the war in Yemen. I wish that it weren’t because of the death of one journalist, because there have been tens of thousands who have died inside Yemen, and their lives are just as important and just as worthwhile as Jamal Khashoggi’s life was, as tragic as that was. But there is a connection between the two, which is why I have actually argued that this resolution is in some way, shape, or form a response to the death of Jamal Khashoggi, for those who are primarily concerned with that atrocity. Here is how I link the two: What the Saudis did for 2 weeks was lie to us, right? In the most bald-faced way possible. They told us that Jamal Khashoggi had left the consulate, that he had gotten out of there alive, that they didn’t know what happened, when of course they knew the entire time that they had killed him, that they had murdered him, that they had dismembered his body. We now know that the Crown Prince had multiple contacts all throughout the day with the team of operatives who did it. Yet they thought we were so dumb or so weak— or some combination of the two—that they could just lie to us about it. That was an eye-opener for a lot of people here who were long-term supporters of the Saudi relationship because they knew that we had trouble. They knew that sometimes our interests didn’t align, but they thought that the most important thing allies did with each other was tell the truth, especially when the truth was so easy to discover outside of your bilateral relationship. Then, all of a sudden, the Saudis lied to us for 2 weeks—for 2 weeks—and then finally came around to telling the truth because everybody knew that they weren’t. That made a lot of people here think, well, wait a second—maybe the Saudis haven’t been telling us the truth about what they have been doing inside Yemen. A lot of my friends have been supporting the bombing campaign in Yemen. Why? Because the Saudis said: We are hitting these civilians by accident. Those water treatment plants that have been blowing up—we didn’t mean to hit them. That cholera treatment facility inside the humanitarian compound—that was just a bomb that went into the wrong place, or, we thought there were some bad guys in it. It didn’t turn out that there were. It turns out the Saudis weren’t telling us the truth about what they were doing in Yemen. They were hitting civilian targets on purpose. They did have an intentional campaign of trying to create misery. I am not saying that every single one of those school buses or those hospitals or those churches or weddings was an attempt to kill civilians and civilians only, but we have been in that targeting center long enough to know—to know—that they have known for a long time what they have been doing: hitting a lot of people who have nothing to do with the attacks against Saudi Arabia. Maybe if the Saudis were willing to lie to us about what happened to Jamal Khashoggi, they haven’t been straight with us as to what is happening inside Yemen, because if the United States is being used to intentionally hit civilians, then we are complicit in war crimes. And I hate to tell my colleagues that is essentially what the United Nations found in their most recent report on the Saudi bombing campaign. They were careful about their words, but they came to the conclusion that it was likely that the Saudi conduct inside Yemen would amount to war crimes under international law. If it is likely that our ally is perpetuating war crimes in Yemen, then we cannot be a part of that. The United States cannot be part of a bombing campaign that may be—probably is— intentionally making life miserable for the people inside of that country. 8:14:00 Sen. Chris Murphy (CT): There is no relationship in which we are the junior partner—certainly not with Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia can push us around like they have over the course of the last several years and in particular the last several months, that sends a signal to lots of other countries that they can do the same thing—that they can murder U.S. residents and suffer almost no consequences; that they can bomb civilians with our munitions and suffer no consequences. This is not just a message about the Saudi relationship; this is a message about how the United States is going to interact with lots of other junior partners around the world as well. Saudi Arabia needs us a lot more than we need them, and we need to remind folks of that over and over again. Spare me this nonsense that they are going to go start buying Russian jets or Chinese military hardware. If you think those countries can protect you better than the United States, take a chance. You think the Saudis are really going to stop selling oil to the United States? You think they are going to walk away from their primary bread winner just because we say that we don’t want to be engaged in this particular military campaign? I am willing to take that chance. We are the major partner in this relationship, and it is time that we start acting like it. If this administration isn’t going to act like it, then this Congress has to act like it. 8:44:15 Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Many of my colleagues will argue—in fact some of them have argued just within the last few minutes—that we are somehow not involved in a war in Yemen. My distinguished friend and colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, came to the floor a little while ago, and he said that we are not engaged in direct military action in Yemen. Let’s peel that back for a minute. Let’s figure out what that means. I am not sure what the distinction between direct and indirect is here. Maybe in a very technical sense—or under a definition of warfare or military action that has long since been rendered out- dated—we are not involved in that, but we are involved in a war. We are co-belligerents. The minute we start identifying targets or, as Secretary James Mattis put it about a year ago, in December 2017, the minute we are involved in the decisions involving making sure that they know the right stuff to hit, that is involvement in a war, and that is pretty direct. The minute we send up U.S. military aircraft to provide midair refueling assistance for Saudi jets en route to bombing missions, to combat missions on the ground in Yemen, that is our direct involvement in war. 8:48:00 Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Increasingly these days, our wars are high-tech. Very often, our wars involve cyber activities. They involve reconnaissance, surveillance, target selection, midair refueling. It is hard—in many cases, impossible—to fight a war without those things. That is what war is. Many of my colleagues, in arguing that we are not involved in hostilities, rely on a memorandum that is internal within the executive branch of the U.S. Government that was issued in 1976 that provides a very narrow, unreasonably slim definition of the word ‘‘hostilities.’’ It defines ‘‘hostilities’’ in a way that might have been relevant, that might have been accurate, perhaps, in the mid-19th century, but we no longer live in a world in which you have a war as understood by two competing countries that are lined up on opposite sides of a battlefield and engaged in direct exchanges of fire, one against another, at relatively short range. War encompasses a lot more than that. War certainly encompasses midair refueling, target selection, surveillance, and reconnaissance of the sort we are undertaking in Yemen. Moreover, separate and apart from this very narrow, unreasonably slim definition of ‘‘hostilities’’ as deter- mined by this internal executive branch document from 1976 that contains the outdated definition, we our- selves, under the War Powers Act, don’t have to technically be involved in hostilities. It is triggered so long as we ourselves are sufficiently involved with the armed forces of another nation when those armed forces of another nation are themselves involved in hostilities. I am speaking, of course, in reference to the War Powers Act’s pro- visions codified at 50 USC 1547(c). For our purposes here, it is important to keep in mind what that provisions reads: ‘‘For purposes of this chapter [under the War Powers Act], the term ‘introduction of United States Armed Forces’ includes the assignment of members of such Armed Forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.’’ In what sense, on what level, on what planet are we not involved in the commanding, in the coordination, in the participation, in the movement of or in the accompaniment of the armed forces of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-led coalition in the civil war in Yemen? 9:57:15 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): In March of this year, I led a letter to the Department of Defense with my colleague Senator JACK REED of Rhode Island, along with many of our colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee, stating our concern regarding U.S. support for Saudi military operations against the Houthis in Yemen and asking about the DOD’s involvement, apparently without appropriate notification of Congress, and its agreements to provide refueling sup- port to the Saudis and the Saudi coalition partners. We were concerned that the DOD had not appropriately documented reimbursements for aerial re- fueling support provided by the United States. Eight months later—just days ago— the Department of Defense responded to our letter and admitted that it has failed to appropriately notify Congress of its support agreements; it has failed to adequately charge Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for fuel and refueling assistance. That admission 8 months after our inquiry is a damning indictment. These errors in accounting mean that the United States was directly funding the Saudi war in Yemen. It has been doing it since March of 2015. Video: Trump: Khashoggi case will not stop $110bn US-Saudi arms trade, The Guardian, October 12, 2018. Donald Trump: I would not be in favor of stopping from spending $110 billion, which is an all-time record, and letting Russia have that money, and letting China have that money. Because all their going to do is say, that's okay, we don't have to buy it from Boeing, we don't have to buy it from Lockheed, we don't have to buy it from Ratheon and all these great companies. We'll buy it from Russia and we'll buy it from China. So what good does that do us? Hearing: U.S. Policy Toward Middle East, House Foreign Affairs Committee, C-SPAN, April 18, 2018. Witnesses: David Satterfield: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Wess Mitchell: Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Sound Clips: 18:00 David Satterfield: We all agree, as does the Congress, that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is unacceptable. Last month, the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates provided $1 billion to Yemen's humanitarian response appeal, and this complements the US government pledge of $87 million and more than $854 million contributed since beginning of fiscal year 2017. 19:45 Wess Mitchell: Turkey is a 66 year member of the NATO alliance and member of the defeat ISIS coalition. It has suffered more casualties from terrorism than any other ally and hosts 3.5 million Syrian refugees. It supports the coalition through the use of Incirlik air base through its commitment of Turkish military forces against Isis on the ground in (Dibick? al-Bab?) And through close intelligence cooperation with the United States and other allies. Turkey has publicly committed to a political resolution in Syria that accords with UN Security Council. Resolution 2254. Turkey has a vested strategic interest in checking the spread of Iranian influence and in having a safe and stable border with Syria. Despite these shared interests, Turkey lately has increased its engagement with Russia and Iran. Ankara has sought to assure us that it sees this cooperation as a necessary stepping stone towards progress in the Geneva process, but the ease with which Turkey brokered arrangements with the Russian military to facilitate the launch of its Operation Olive Branch in Afrin district, arrangements to which America was not privy, is gravely concerning. Ankara claims to have agreed to purchase, to, to purchase the Russian S 400 missile system, which could potentially lead to sanctions under section 231 of CAATSA and adversely impact Turkey's participation in the F-35 program. It is in the American national interest to see Turkey remains strategically and politically aligned with the west. Hearing: U.S. Policy Toward Yemen, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, C-SPAN, April 17, 2018. Witnesses: Robert Jenkins: Deputy Assistant Administrator at USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, & Humanitarian Assistance David Satterfield: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Robert Karem: Assistant Defense Secretary for International Security Affairs Nominee and former Middle East Adviser to Vice President Cheney Sound Clips: 9:30 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Well, Yemen has always faced significant socioeconomic challenges. A civil war, which began with the Houthis armed takeover of much of the country in 2014 and their overthrow of Yemen's legitimate government in January 2015, has plunged the country into humanitarian crisis. 17:25 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our first witness is acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, Ambassador David Satterfield. Ambassador Satterfield is one of the most distinguished, one of our most distinguished diplomats. He most recently served as director general, the multinational force and observers in the Sinai peninsula and previously served as US Abassador to Lebanon. 17:45 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our second witness is Robert Jenkins, who serves as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for USA ID Bureau for Democracy, conflict and humanitarian assistance. Mr. Jenkins, recently mark 20 years at USAID and previously served as the Director of Office of Transition Initiatives. 18:15 Chairman Bob Corker (TN): Our third witness is Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Robert Kerem. Prior to his Senate confirmation last year, Mr. Karem served as National Security of Staff of Vice President Cheney and then as National Security Advisor to the House, majority leader's Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy. 20:15 David Satterfield: US military support serves a clear and strategic purpose to reinforce Saudi and Mrid self defense in the face of intensifying Houthi and Iranian enabled threats and to expand the capability of our Gulf partners to push back against Iran's regionally destabilizing actions. This support in turn provides the United States access and influence to help press for a political solution to the conflict. Should we curtail US military support? The Saudis could well pursue defense relationships with countries that have no interest in either ending the humanitarian crisis, minimizing civilian casualties or assisting and facilitating progress towards a political solution. Critical US access to support for our own campaign against violent extremists could be placed in jeopardy. 30:00 Robert Karem: Conflict in Yemen affects regional security across the Middle East, uh, and threatens US national security interests, including the free flow of commerce and the Red Sea. Just this month, the Houthi, his attack to Saudi oil tanker and the Red Sea threatening commercial shipping and freedom of navigation and the world's fourth busiest maritime choke point, the Bab el Mandeb. 32:00 Robert Karem: The Defense Department is currently engaged in two lines of effort in Yemen. Our first line of effort and our priority is the fight against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS in Yemen, two terrorist organizations that directly threaten the United States, our allies and our partners. To combat AQIP, AQAP, and ISIS, US forces in coordination with the UN recognized government of Yemen are supporting our regional key counter terrorism partners in ongoing operations to disrupt and degrade their ability to coordinate, plot and recruit for external terrorist operations. Additionally, US military forces are conducting airstrikes against AQAP and ISIS in Yemen pursuant to the 2001 a authorization for the use of military force to disrupt and destroy terrorist network networks. Our second line of effort is the provision of limited noncombat support to the Saudi led coalition in support of the UN recognized government of Yemen. The support began in 2015 under President Obama and in 2017 president Trump reaffirmed America's commitment to our partners in these efforts. Fewer than 50 US military personnel work in Saudi Arabia with the Saudi led coalition advising and assisting with the defense of Saudi territory, sharing intelligence and providing logistical support, including aerial refueling. 35:45 Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): Mr. Karem. I'm gonna Start with you. Um, in regards to the US military assistance that we give to the kingdom, you said that is to embolden their capacity and to reduce noncombatant casualties. Last March, the CENTCOM commander General Votel stated that the United States government does not track the end results of the coalition missions. It refills and supports with targeting assistance. So my question to you is, how do you determine that we are effectively reducing the non combatant casualties if we don't in fact track the results of the kingdoms military actions? Robert Karem: Senator, thank you. Um, it's correct that we do not monitor and track all of the Saudi aircraft, um, uh, a loft over Yemen. Uh, we have limited personnel and assets in order to do that. Uh, and CENTCOM's focus is obviously been on our own operations in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Syria. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): I understand that, but my question is, our stated mission is to reduce noncombat and casualties. If we don't track, how do we determine that? Robert Karem: So I think one of our stated missions is precisely that. Um, there are multiple ways that I think we do have insight into, uh, Saudi, uh, targeting behavior. Um, we have helped them with their processes. Um, we have seen them implement a no strike list. Um, and we have seen their, their, their uh, capabilities, uh, improved. So the information is based upon what the Saudis tell you, how they're conducting the mission rather than the after impact of the mission. I think our military officers who are resident in Saudi Arabia are seeing how the Saudis approach, uh, this, this effort that took getting effort. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): But you know, obviously the proof is in the results and we don't know whether the results are, there are not fair statement. Robert Karem: I think we do see a difference in how the Saudis have operated in Yemen, how they operate. Sen. Ben Cardin (MD): I understand how they operate but we don't know whether in fact that's been effective. The United Nations Security Council panel of experts on Yemen concluded in recent reports that the cumulative effect of these airstrikes on civilian infrastructure demonstrates that even with precaution, cautionary measures were taken, they were largely inadequate and ineffective. Do you have any information that disagrees with that assessment? Robert Karem: Senator, I think the assessment of, uh, our central command is that the Saudi, uh, and Emirati targeting efforts, uh, have improved, um, uh, with the steps that they've taken. We do not have perfect understanding because we're not using all of our assets to monitor their aircraft, but we do get reporting from the ground on what taking place inside Yemen. 40:15 Sen. Rand Paul (KY): Ambassador Satterfield. I guess some people when they think about our strategy might question the idea of our strategy. You know, if your son was shooting off his pistol in the back yard and doing it indiscriminately and endangering the neighbors, would you give hmi more bullets or less? And we see the Saudis acting in an indiscriminate manner. They've bombed a funeral processions, they've killed a lot of civilians. And so our strategy is to give them more bombs, not less. And we say, well, if we don't give him the bomb, somebody else will. And that's sort of this global strategy, uh, that many in the bipartisan foreign policy consensus have. We have to, we have to always be involved. We always have to provide weapons or someone else will and they'll act even worse. But there's a, I guess a lot of examples that doesn't seem to be improving their behavior. Um, you could argue it's marginally better since we've been giving them more weapons, but it seems the opposite of logic. You would think you would give people less where you might withhold aid or withhold a assistance to the Saudis to get them to behave. But we do sort of the opposite. We give them more aid. What would your response be to that? David Satterfield: Senator, when I noted in my remarks that progress had been made on this issue of targeting, minimizing or mitigating civilian casualties, that phrase was carefully chosen into elaborate further on, uh, my colleagues remarks, uh, Robert Karem. We do work with the Saudis and have, particularly over the last six to nine months worked intensively on the types of munitions the Saudis are using, how they're using, how to discriminate target sets, how to assure through increased loiter time by aircraft that the targets sought are indeed clear of collateral or civilian damage. This is new. This is not the type of interaction… Sen. Rand Paul (KY): And yet the overall situation in Yemen is a, is a disaster. David Satterfield: The overall situation is extremely bad. Senator. Sen. Rand Paul (KY): I guess that's really my question. We had to rethink...And I think from a common sense point of view, a lot of people would question giving people who misbehave more weapons instead of giving them less on another question, which I think is a broad question about, you know, what we're doing in the Middle East in general. Um, you admitted that there's not really a military solution in Yemen. Most people say it's going to be a political solution. The Houthis will still remain. We're not going to have Hiroshima. We're not going to have unconditional surrender and the good guys win and the bad guys are vanquished. Same with Syria. Most people have said for years, both the Obama administration and this administration, probably even the Bush administration, the situation will probably be a political solution. They will no longer, it's not going to be complete vanquished meant of the enemy. We're also saying that in Afghanistan, and I guess my point as I think about that is I think about the recruiter at the station in Omaha, Nebraska, trying to get somebody to sign up for the military and saying, please join. We're going to send you to three different wars where there is no military solution. We're hoping to make it maybe a little bit better. I think back to Vietnam. Oh, we're going to take one more village. If we take one more village, they're going to negotiate and we get a little better negotiation. I just can't see sending our young men and women to die for that for one more village. You know the Taliban 40% in Afghanistan. Where are we going to get when they get to 30% don't negotiate and when we it, it'll be, it'll have been worth it for the people who have to go in and die and take those villages. I don't think it's one more life. I don't think it's worth one more life. The war in Yemen is not hard. We talk all about the Iranians have launched hundreds of missiles. Well, yeah, and the Saudis have launched 16,000 attacks. Who started it? It's a little bit murky back and forth. The, the Houthis may have started taking over their government, but that was a civil war. Now we're involved in who are the good guys of the Saudis, the good guys or the others, the bad guys. Thousands of civilians are dying. 17 million people live on the edge of starvation. I think we need to rethink whether or not military intervention supplying the Saudis with weapons, whether all of this makes any sense at all or whether we've made the situation worse. I mean, humanitarian crisis, we're talking about, oh, we're going to give my, the Saudis are giving them money and I'm like, okay, so we dropped, we bomb the crap out of them in this audience. Give them $1 billion. Maybe we could bomb last maybe part of the humanitarian answers, supplying less weapons to a war. There's a huge arms race going on. Why do the Iranians do what they do? They're evil. Or maybe they're responding to the Saudis who responded first, who started it? Where did the arms race start? But we sell $300 billion a weapons to Saudi Arabia. What are the Iranians going to do? They react. It's action and reaction throughout the Middle East. And so we paint the Iranians as the, you know, these evil monsters. And we just have to correct evil monster. But the world's a much more complicated place back and forth. And I, all I would ask is that we try to get outside our mindset that we, uh, what we're doing is working because I think what we're doing hasn't worked, and we've made a lot of things worse. And we're partly responsible for the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.  48:30 David Satterfield: The political picture on the ground in Yemen has changed radically with the death, the killing of a Ali Abdullah Saleh, uh, with the fragmentation of the General People's Congress. All of that, while tragic in many of its dimensions, has provided a certain reshuffling of the deck that may, we hope, allow the United Nations to be more effective in its efforts. 1:05:45 Sen. Todd Young (IN): Approximately how many people, Mr. Jenkins require humanitarian assistance in Yemen? David Jenkins: 22 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): What percent of the population is that? David Jenkins: Approximately 75% was the number of people requiring humanitarian assistance increase from last year. It increased by our, we're estimating 3.5 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): And how much has it increased? David Jenkins: About 3.5 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): Okay. How many are severely food insecure? David Jenkins: 17.8 million. Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many children are severely malnourished? David Jenkins: 460,000 Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many people lack access to clean water and working toilets? David Jenkins: We estimate it to be around 16 million people. Sen. Todd Young (IN): Does Yemen face the largest cholera outbreak in the world? David Jenkins: It does. Sen. Todd Young (IN): How many cholera cases have we seen in Yemen? David Jenkins: A suspected over a 1 million cases. Sen. Todd Young (IN): And how many lives has that cholera outbreak claim? David Jenkins: Almost 2100. 1:46:00 Robert Jenkins: I do know that the vast majority of people within that, the majority of people in need, and that 22 million number live in the northern part of the country that are accessible best and easiest by Hodeidah port, there is no way to take Hodeidah out of the equation and get anywhere near the amount of humanitarian and more importantly, even commercial goods into the country. Hearing: Violence in Yemen, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and North America, C-SPAN, April 14, 2015. Witnesses: Gerald Feierstein: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. Former Ambassador to Yemen (2010-2013) Sound Clips: 1:45 Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (FL): On September 10th of last year, President Obama announced to the American public his plan to degrade and destroy the terrorist group ISIL. While making his case for America's role in the fight against ISIL, the president highlighted our strategy in Yemen and held it up as a model of success to be emulated in the fight against ISIL. Yet about a week later, the Iran backed Houthis seized control of the capital and the government. Despite this, the administration continued to hail our counter-terror operations in Yemen as a model for success, even though we effectively had no partner on the ground since President Hadi was forced to flee. But perhaps even more astonishingly in what can only be described as an alarmingly tone deaf and short sighted, when Press Secretary Ernest was asked at a press briefing if this model was still successful after the Yemeni central government collapsed and the US withdrew all of our personnel including our special forces, he said yes, despite all indications pointing to the contrary. So where do we stand now? That's the important question. President Hadi was forced to flee. Saudi Arabia has led a coalition of over 10 Arab nations and Operation Decisive Storm, which so far has consisted of airstrikes only, but very well could include ground forces in the near future. 4:45 Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (FL): Iran has reportedly dispatched a naval destroyer near Yemen in a game of chicken over one of the most important shipping routes in the Gulf of Aden. This area is a gateway between Europe and the Middle East and ran was not be allowed to escalate any tensions nor attempt to disrupt the shipping lanes. 13:30 Rep. David Cicilline (NJ): I think it's safe to say that the quick deterioration of the situation in Yemen took many people here in Washington by surprise. For many years, Yemen was held up as an example of counter-terrorism cooperation and it looked as if a political agreement might be achieved in the aftermath of the Arab spring. The United States poured approximately $900 million in foreign aid to Yemen since the transition in 2011 to support counter-terrorism, political reconciliation, the economy and humanitarian aid. Now we face a vastly different landscape and have to revise our assumptions and expectations. Furthermore, we risk being drawn deeply into another Iranian backed armed conflict in the Middle East. 17:30 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): Following the deposition of Yemen's longtime autocratic Saleh in 2011, the US supported an inclusive transition process. We had national dialogue aimed at rebuilding the country's political and governmental institutions and bridging gaps between groups that have had a long history of conflict. Yemen's first newly elected leader, President Hadi made clear his intentions to cooperate closely with the United States. 18:00 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): Yemen, the poorest country on the peninsula, needed support from the international community. The United States has long viewed Yemen as a safe haven for all Qaeda terrorists, and there was alarming potential for recruitment by terrorist groups given the dire economic conditions that they faced. In fact, the US Department of Homeland Security considers al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate, most likely the al Qaeda affiliate, most likely to attempt transnational attacks against the United States. 18:30 Rep. Ted Deutch (FL): While the national dialogue was initially viewed as successful, the process concluded in 2014 with several key reforms still not completed, including the drafting of the new constitution. The Hadi government had continued to face deep opposition from Yemen's northern tribes, mainly the Shiite Iranian backed Houthi rebels, over the past year. The Houthis, in coordination with tribes and military units still loyal to Saleh, began increasing their territorial control, eventually moving in to Sanaa. Saleh had long been thought to have used his existing relationship to undermine the Hadi government. Houthis are well trained, well funded, and experienced fighters, having fought the Yemeni government and Saudi Arabia in 2009. 23:15 Gerald Feierstein: I greatly appreciate this opportunity to come before you today to review recent developments in Yemen and the efforts that the United States is undertaking to support the government of Yemen under president Rabu Mansour Hadi and the Saudi led coalition of Operation Decisive Storm, that is aimed at restoring the legitimate government and restarting the negotiations to find peaceful political solutions to Yemen's internal conflict. 26:45 Gerald Feierstein: To the best of our understanding, the Houthis are not controlled directly by Iran. However, we have seen in recent years, significant growth and expansion of Iranian engagement with the Houthis. We believe that Iran sees opportunities with the Houthis to expand its influence in Yemen and threatened Saudi and Gulf Arab interests. Iran provides financial support, weapons training, and intelligence of the Houthis and the weeks and months since the Houthis entered Sanaa and forced the legitimate government first to resign and ultimately to flee from the capitol, we have seen a significant expansion of Iranian involvement in Yemen's domestic affairs. 27:30 Gerald Feierstein: We are also particularly concerned about the ongoing destabilizing role played by former President Saleh, who since his removal from power in 2011 has actively plotted to undermine President Hadi and the political transition process. Despite UN sanctions and international condemnation of his actions, Saleh continues to be one of the primary sources of the chaos in Yemen. We have been working with our Gulf partners and the international community to isolate him and prevent the continuation of his efforts to undermine the peaceful transition. Success in that effort will go a long way to helping Yemen return to a credible political transition process. 42:00 Gerald Feierstein: From our perspective, I would say that that Yemen is a unique situation for the Saudis. This is on their border. It represents a threat in a way that no other situation would represent. 52:30 Gerald Feierstein: I mean, obviously our hope would be that if we can get the situation stabilized and get the political process going again, that we would be able to return and that we would be able to continue implementing the kinds of programs that we were trying to achieve that are aimed at economic growth and development as well as supporting a democratic governance and the opportunity to try to build solid political foundations for the society. At this particular moment, we can't do that, but it's hard to predict where we might be in six months or nine months from now. 1:10:00 Gerald Feierstein: When the political crisis came in Yemen in 2011, AQAP was able to take advantage of that and increase its territorial control, to the extent that they were actually declaring areas of the country to be an Islamic caliphate, not unlike what we see with ISIL in Iraq and Syria these days. Because of our cooperation, primarily our cooperation with the Yemeni security forces, uh, we were able to, uh, to defeat that, uh, at a significant loss of a life for AQAP. Uh, as a result of that, they changed their tactics. They went back to being a more traditional terrorist organization. They were able to attack locations inside of, uh, inside of Sanaa and and elsewhere. But the fact of the matter is that, uh, that we, uh, were achieving a progress in our ability to pressure them, uh, and, uh, to keep them on the defensive as opposed to giving them lots of time. And remember in 2009 in 2010, uh, we saw AQAP mount a fairly serious efforts - the underwear bomber and then also the cassette tape effort to attack the United States. After 2010, uh, they were not able to do that, uh, despite the fact that their intent was still as clear and as strong as it was before. And so a while AQAP was by no means defeated and continue to be a major threat to security here in the United States as well as in Yemen and elsewhere around the world, nevertheless, I think that it was legitimate to say that we had achieved some success in the fight against AQAP. Unfortunately what we're seeing now because of the change in the situation again, inside of Yemen, uh, is that we're losing some of the gains that we were able to make, uh, during that period of 2012 to 2014. That's why it's so important that we, uh, have, uh, the ability to get the political negotiation started again, so that we can re-establish legitimate government inside of Sanaa that will cooperate with us once again in this fight against violent extremist organizations. 1:16:45 Rep. Ted Yoho (FL): How can we be that far off? And I know you explained the counter-terrorism portion, but yet to have a country taken over while we're sitting there working with them and this happens. I feel, you know, it just kinda happened overnight the way our embassy got run out of town and just says, you have to leave. Your marines cannot take their weapons with them. I, I just, I don't understand how that happens or how we can be that disconnected. Um, what are your thoughts on that? Gerald Feierstein: You know, it was very, it was very frustrating. Again, I think that, if you go back to where we were a year ago, the successful conclusion of the National Dialogue Conference, which was really the last major hurdle and completion of the GCC initiative, Houthis participated in that. They participated in the constitutional drafting exercise, which was completed successfully. Uh, and so we were in the process of moving through all of the requirements of the GCC initiative that would allow us to complete successfully the political transition. I think there were a combination of things. One, that there was a view on the part of the Houthis that they were not getting everything that they wanted. They were provoked, in our view, by Ali Abdullah Saleh, who never stopped plotting from the very first day after he signed the agreement on the GCC initiative. He never stopped plotting to try to block the political transition, and there was, to be frank, there was a weakness in the government and an inability on the part of the government to really build the kind of alliances and coalition that would allow them to sustain popular support and to bring this to a successful conclusion. And so I think that all through this period there was a sense that we were moving forward and that we believed that we could succeed in implementing this peaceful transition. And yet we always knew that on the margins there were threats and there were risks, and unfortunately we got to a point where the Houthis and Ali Abdullah Saleh, my personal view is that they recognized that they had reached the last possible moment, where they could obstruct the peaceful political transition that was bad for them because it would mean that they wouldn't get everything that they wanted, and so they saw that time was running out for them, and they decided to act. And unfortunately, the government was unable to stop them. Hearing: Targeted Killing of Terrorist Suspects Overseas, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, C-SPAN, April 23, 2013. Sound Clips: 44:30 Farea al-Muslimi: My name as you mentioned, is Farea al-Muslimi, and I am from Wessab, a remote village mountain in Yemen. I spent a year living with an American family and attended an American high school. That was one of the best years of my life. I learned about American culture, managed the school basketball team and participated in trick or treat and Halloween. But the most exceptional was coming to know someone who ended up being like a father to me. He was a member of the U S Air Force and most of my year was spent with him and his family. He came to the mosque with me and I went to church with him and he became my best friend in America. I went to the U.S. as an ambassador for Yemen and I came back to Yemen as an ambassador of the U.S. I could never have imagined that the same hand that changed my life and took it from miserable to a promising one would also drone my village. My understanding is that a man named Hamid al-Radmi was the target of the drone strike. Many people in Wessab know al-Radmi, and the Yemeni government could easily have found and arrested him. al-Radmi was well known to government officials and even local government could have captured him if the U.S. had told them to do so. In the past, what Wessab's villagers knew of the U.S. was based on my stories about my wonderful experiences had. The friendships and values I experienced and described to the villagers helped them understand the America that I know and that I love. Now, however, when they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads ready to fire missiles at any time. What violent militants had previously failed to achieve one drone strike accomplished in an instant. 1:17:30 Farea al-Muslimi: I think the main difference between this is it adds into Al Qaeda propaganda of that Yemen is a war with the United States. The problem of Al Qaeda, if you look to the war in Yemen, it's a war of mistakes. The less mistake you make, the more you win, and the drones have simply made more mistakes than AQAP has ever done in the matter of civilians. News Report: Untold Stories of the underwear bomber: what really happened, ABC News 7 Detroit, September 27, 2012. Part 1 Part 2 Hearing: U.S. Policy Toward Yemen, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, C-SPAN, July 19, 2011. Witnesses: Janet Sanderson: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Daniel Benjamin: State Department Counterterrorism Coordinator Sound Clips: 21:00 Janet Sanderson: The United States continues its regular engagement with the government, including with President Ali, Abdullah Saleh, who's currently, as you know, recovering in Saudi Arabia from his injuries following the June 3rd attack on his compound, the acting president, Vice President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, the opposition, civil society activists, and others interested in Yemen's future. We strongly support the Gulf Cooperation Council's initiative, which we believe would lead to a peaceful and orderly political transition. The GCC initiative signed by both the ruling General People's Congress party and the opposition coalition, joint meeting parties. Only president Saleh is blocking the agreement moving forward and we continue to call on him to sign the initiative. 22:30 Janet Sanderson: While most protests in Yemen have been peaceful over the last couple of months, there have been violent clashes between pro- and anti-government demonstrators and between protesters and government security forces and irregular elements using forced to break up demonstrations. The United States is strongly urged the Yemeni government to investigate and prosecute all acts of violence against protesters. 27:00 Janet Sanderson: We strongly believe that a transition is necessary, that an orderly, peaceful transition is the only way to begin to lead Yemen out of the crisis that it has been in for the last few months. 34:30 Daniel Benjamin: Really, I just want to echo what ambassador Sanderson said. It is vitally important that the transition take place. 1:02:15 Daniel Benjamin: The the view from the administration, particularly from a DOD, which is doing of course, the lion's share of the training, although State Department through anti-terrorism training is doing, uh, uh, a good deal as well, is that the Yemenis are, uh, improving their capacities, that they are making good progress towards, uh, being, able to deal with the threats within their border. But it is important to recognize that, uh, uh, our engagement in Yemen was interrupted for many years. Uh, Yemen, uh, did not have the kind of mentoring programs, the kind of training programs that many of our other counter-terrorism partners had. Um, it was really when the Obama administration came into office that a review was done, uh, in, in March of, uh, beginning in March of 2009, it was recognized that Yemen was a major challenge in the world of counter terrorism. And it was not until, uh, December after many conversations with the Yemenis that we really felt that they were on-board with the project and in fact took their first actions against AQAP. This, as you may recall, was just shortly before the attempted, uh, December 25th bombing of the northwest flight. So this is a military and a set of, uh, Ministry of Interior that is civilian, uh, units that are making good progress, but obviously have a lot to learn. So, uh, again, vitally important that we get back to the work of training these units so that they can, uh, take on the missions they need to. Press Conference: Yemen Conference, C-SPAN, January 27, 2010. Speakers: David Miliband - British Foreign Secretary Hillary Clinton - Secretary of State Abu Bakr al-Kurbi - Yemeni Foreign Minister Sound Clips: 3:30 David Miliband: And working closely with the government of Yemen, we decided that our agenda needed to cover agreement on the nature of the problem and then address the, uh, solutions across the economic, social, and political terrain. Five key items were agreed at the meeting for the way in which the international community can support progress in Yemen. First, confirmation by the government of Yemen, that it will continue to pursue its reform agenda and agreement to start discussion of an IMF program. The director of the IMF represented at the meeting made a compelling case for the way in which economic reform could be supported by the IMF. This is important because it will provide welcome support and help the government of Yemen confront its immediate challenges. 11:45 Hillary Clinton: The United States just signed a three year umbrella assistance agreement with the government of Yemen that will augment Yemen's capacity to make progress. This package includes initiatives that will cover a range of programs, but the overarching goal of our work is to increase the capacity and governance of Yemen and give the people of Yemen the opportunity to better make choices in their own lives. President Saleh has outlined a 10 point plan for economic reform along with the country's national reform agenda. Those are encouraging signs of progress. Neither, however, will mean much if they are not implemented. So we expect Yemen to enact reforms, continue to combat corruption, and improve the country's investment in business climate. 15:45 Abu Bakr al-Kurbi: This commitment also stems from our belief that the challenges we are facing now cannot be remedied unless we implement this agenda of reforms and the 10 points that her exellency alluded to because this is now a priority number of issues that we have to start with, and I hope this is what will be one of the outcomes of this meeting. 16:30 Hillary Clinton: One of the factors that's new is the IMF's involvement and commitment. the IMF has come forward with a reform agenda that the government of Yemen has agreed to work on. 24:30 Hillary Clinton: We were pleased by the announcement of a cease fire, um, between the Saudis and the Houthis. That should lead, we hope, to broader negotiations and a political dialogue that might lead to a permanent, uh, end to the conflict in the north. It's too soon to tell. The Daily Show with John Stewart: Terror 2.0 by Yemen - Sad Libs, CC.com, January 6, 2010. The Daily Show with John Stewart: Terror 2.0 by Yemen, CC.com, January 4, 2010. Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Millions of Americans watched on Tuesday night as President Trump made his case for a wall on the southern border, and as Democratic leaders dismissed his talk of crisis. Guests: Michael M. Grynbaum, who covers the media for The New York Times, and Mark Landler, a White House correspondent. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

Senator John McCain was proud of his reputation as a maverick in American politics. Through pivotal moments in his life — as a prisoner of war, a young congressman, a presidential candidate, and, ultimately, an elder statesman — that reputation was both validated and challenged. Guests: Elisabeth Bumiller, the Washington bureau chief for The New York Times; Carl Hulse, The Times’s chief Washington correspondent; Mark Landler, who covers the White House for The Times; and Scott Shane, who writes about national security for The Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

There is no question that Donald Trump's approach to foreign affairs is nothing we've seen from the Presidents who preceded him.  In a recent New York Times Op-Ed, Mark Landler argued that the Trump Administration has broken a 70-year tradition in America's foreign policy. Whether this is an abrogation of America's responsibility to the globe or a necessary change for the good of the country requires knowledge of what came before, so Bob & Ben caught up with Whittier College's Joyce Kaufman to learn about the origins of American diplomacy and the reasons that the US became so heavily involved abroad. It turns out America's approach to foreign relations in 2018 may have a lot in common with earlier periods of American history.                                  Dr. Joyce Kaufman is an expert on International Relations in the Department of Political Science at at Whittier College, where she has taught for more than 3 decades. She is the author of multiple books, including A Concise History of US Foreign Policy (4th edition, Rowman & Littlefield, 2017). She previously served as a Foreign Affairs Specialist in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs at the Department of Defense (1977-79). Visit Dr. Kaufman's faculty page for more on her work and publications. For more on this episode or others, visit www.TheRoadToNow.com  

No one really knows what Donald Trump plans to do as US Commander in Chief, but the United States' most influential war mongers have a plan. In this episode, hear the highlights from a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing - a hearing that was kept off of C-SPAN and had no one in attendance - and get some insight into the advice our next President will be given to direct our nation at war. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Hearing Highlighted in this Episode Emerging U.S. Defense Challenges and Worldwide Threats, Senate Armed Services Committee, December 6, 2016 Witnesses Robert Kagan Served in the State Department in the Reagan administration Co-founder of the Project for a New American Century, a think tank that laid out a plan for the United States to use our massive military to force a global order centered around American control. Served on the 25 member State Department Foreign Affairs Policy Board under Hillary Clinton & John Kerry. Current: Senior Fellow, Project on International Order and Strategy, The Brookings Institution Current: Board of Directors for the Foreign Policy Initiative Family: "First Family of Military Interventionists” Married to Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State, European & Eurasian Affairs in the Obama administration Father: Donald Kagan, Yale professor and co-chairman of the Project for a New American Century report outlining the global dominance plan Brother: Frederick Kagan, military historian & author, member of the American Enterprise Institute and Project for a New American Century. Was co-architect of the surge (with General Keane) Sister in law: Kimberly Kagan, President at the Institute for the Study of War General Jack Keane Chairman, Institute for the Study of War Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army during the key Bush years, 1999-2003. Board of Directors at General Dynamics Shawn Brimley Executive Vice President and Director of Studies, the Center for a New American Century National Security Council from Feb 2011-October 2012 Research Associate at CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) from April 2005-Feb 2007 Columnist at War on the Rocks Council on Foreign Relations member *Clip transcripts below Sound Clip Sources YouTube: Julian Assange tells RT that the Russian government was not the source of Clinton campaign emails, posted November 5, 2016. YouTube: Julian Assange on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur to talk about the danger to their sources and the murder of Seth Rich, posted August 9, 2016. Local News Story: 27-Year-Old DNC Staffer Seth Rich Shot, Killed in Northwest DC by Pat Collins and Andrea Swalec, NBC Washington DC, July 11, 2016. Additional Reading Book: The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas P.M. Barnett, May 2005. Article: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House by Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima, and Greg Miller, December 9, 2016. Article: Army accelerates Active Protection Systems technology by Kris Osborn, Defense Systems, October 13, 2016. Press Release: Artis announces Army APS contract award, Business Wire (Berkshire Hathaway), September 28, 2016. Article: Seth Rich: Inside the Killing of the DNC Staffer by Jeff Stein, Newsweek, August 20, 2106. Twitter: Wikileaks offers $20,000 reward for information about Seth Rich's murder Article: Debbie Wasserman Shultz to Resign D.N.C. Post by Jonathan Martin and Alan Rappeport, New York Times, July 24, 2016. Article: Wasserman Shultz immediately joins Clinton campaign after resignation by Victor Morton, The Washington Times, July 24, 2016. Article: Army Pushes Missile Defense For Tanks: MAPS by Sydney Freedberg, Breaking Defense, April 25, 2016. Article: How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk by Mark Landler, New York Times, April 21, 2016. Email: John Podesta & Staff email his username & password, Wikileaks document, February 9, 2015 Blog post: Iron Curtain: Active Protective System (APS), by the editors of RicardCYoung.com, May 30, 2013. Miscellaneous Sources Webpage: Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go Recommended Podcast Episodes CD108: Regime Change CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? CD093: Our Future in War Jen's appearance on The Sea Hawkers Podcast, November 16, 2016. Hearing Clip Transcipts {18:30} Chairman John McCain: Our next president will take office as the U.S. confronts the most diverse and complex array of global security challenges since the end of the Second World War. Great power competition, once thought a casualty of the end of history, has returned as Russia and China have each challenged the rules-based order that is the foundation of our security and prosperity. Rogue states like North Korea and Iran are undermining regional stability while developing advanced military capabilities that threaten the United States and our allies. Radical Islamist terrorism continues to pose a challenging threat to our security at home and our interests abroad, and the chaos that has spread across the Middle East, and on which our terrorist enemies thrive, has torn apart nations; destroyed families; killed hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children; and sent millions more running for their lives. But today—today—President Obama will deliver a speech in Florida, touting his counter-terrorism successes. I’m not making that up. Ugh. Yet, even a glimpse at the chaos enveloping the Middle East and spreading throughout the world reveals the delusion and sophistry of this president and his failed policies. In short, when our next president is inaugurated, just six weeks from now, he will look out on a world on fire and have several consequential strategic choices to make: how to address Russian or Chinese aggression, how to confront threats from North Korean, whether to alter our relationship with Iran, how to improve and quicken our campaign against ISIL, how to counter the instability radiating from Syria, how to ensure a victory in the war in Afghanistan, and I could go on, not to mention the overwhelming challenge of cybersecurity. Our next president will not have the benefit of time and cautious deliberation to set a new strategic course for the nation; that work begins with a series of decisions that will present themselves immediately on day one. That’s why it’s so important to get these things right from the outset. As we ponder these strategic questions, we must also consider our military posture around the world. We must decide the appropriate military presence in Europe and reverse reductions made by the Obama administration under the assumption that Russia was a partner. We also need a fresh look at further steps to enhance U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific region. We need to uphold our commitments to allies and partners, including by finally providing lethal assistance to Ukraine and standing by the opposition in Syria. We need to push back against the spread of Iranian malign influence in the Middle East. This starts in Iraq where the eventual liberation of Mosul will intensify the sectarian struggle for power and identity. We need to finally give our troops in Afghanistan what they need to succeed—permanent and flexible authorities to engage the enemy and troop levels based on security conditions on the ground. Here at home we need to return to a strategy-based defense budget. Our next president would need more than $100 billion over and above the Budget Control Act caps just to execute our current defense strategy, which is insufficient since it predates Russian invasion of Ukraine and ISIL’s rampage across Syria and Iraq. This will require our next president to negotiate a broad bipartisan agreement on the budget that brings an end to the dangerous and misguided Budget Control Act. {30:50} General Jack Keane: I’m delighted to be here with Dr. Kagan, a good friend, and let me just say something about Dr. Kagan here and his family. His father, himself, his wife, his brother, and his sister-in-law all made— Sen. John McCain?: All have exceeded—Keane: —a great contribution to this country, believe me. {35:45} Gen. Jack Keane: The reality is we need more combat brigades. The reality is we need more ships. The reality is we need more aircraft. It’s indisputable. {37:20} Gen. Jack Keane: The United States has not fielded a single active protection system on a tank yet or any other combat vehic— But your committee has mandated they do it, and you put some money in there for them to do it. Now, listen, if you don’t know what active protection system is, let me take you through it for a second. You put sensors on a vehicle that track an incoming round to the vehicle, and as the round is about to hit the vehicle, you actually have a kill system on the vehicle that kills the round before it hits. Brilliant technology. Where do we get all of that from? Private sector. It has to do with microchip technology and incredible software programs. Out there on a private sector, smart guys, small-business guys, got it; DARPA had a program over ten years ago to look at this; technology’s proven, and the United States military ground forces still haven’t put it on anything. What’s wrong with that? It has nothing to do with money. It doesn’t have anything to do with the White House. It doesn’t have anything to do with Congress. It doesn’t have anything to do with OSD. You know what it is? It’s the damn bureaucracy inside the Army. They push back on new technology because they want to design it themselves because you give them money to do it. These are the laboratories and the tech bases. It’s the acquisition bureaucracy that stalls this. When I was vice chief of staff for the Army, I had no idea about all of that, and it took me a year or two to figure out what I was really dealing with—bureaucrats and technocrats that were stalling the advance of a great army. That’s out there, and you’ve got to bore into that with this committee. The military and Defense Department needs help to break down that bureaucracy. {43:20} Gen. Jack Keane: Let me just say something about the DOD business side of the House. Certainly, we are the best fighting force in the world; we are first rate at that. But we’re absolutely third rate at running the business-like functions of DOD because we’re not good at it; we don’t know enough to be good at it. We’re managing huge real estate portfolios. We’re managing huge lodging capabilities. We’re one of the biggest motel owners in the United States. We’re managing the largest healthcare enterprise in the world. The amount of maintenance that we’re doing from a pistol to an aircraft carrier is staggering. Those are all business functions. Business functions. They’re all non-core functions. And we’re also managing new product design and new product development, using business terms, and we don’t do well at this, and there’s a ton of money involved in it. We’ve got to get after that money, and we’ve got to do better at it. And I think we should bring in, as a number-two guy in the Department of Defense, a CEO from a Fortune 500 company in the last five years that’s done a major turnaround of a large organization. We need business people to help us do this. We need a CFO, not a comptroller, in DOD. That CFO has the background that’s necessary to look at business practices in the DOD, where cost-basis analysis and performance, internal-controlled auditing, rigorous financial reviews, cost efficiency, and dealing with waste, those are the kinds of things we need—desperately need them because the money is there. You want to do so much more—some of that money is sitting right there in the budget. {46:55} Gen. Jack Keane: ISIS is the most successful terrorist organization that’s ever been put together. We’re making progress against them in Iraq, to be sure. We do not have an effective strategy to defeat them in Syria, because we don’t have an effective ground force. And we have no strategy to deal with the spread of ISIS to thirty-five other countries. I’m not suggesting for a minute that we’re involved in all of that, but I think we can tangibly help the people who are. {47:35} Gen. Jack Keane: In Iraq, we will retake Mosul. How long will depend on how much ISIS wants to resist; they didn’t resist in Fallujah and Ramadi that much. But after we take Mosul, if we have sectarian strife in Mosul, where we do not have unity of governance and unity of security, then that is going to contaminate the political unity and the country as a whole, which is so desperately needed. And that is a major issue for us. The major geopolitical issue for the United States and Iraq is political unity with their government and diminishing Iran’s strategic influence on Iraq. That is what we should be working on. {48:52} Gen. Jack Keane: The Syrian civil war, a major human catastrophe, to be sure, is a tractable problem, I think as any of us have had to deal with. The reality is we squandered the opportunities to change the momentum against the regime—I won’t list them all, and you’re aware of it—but right in front of us, I still believe we could put safe zones in there to safe guard some of those humans up near the Jordanian and Turkish border and that de facto would be a no-fly zone. I think it would also aid the Syrian moderates and likely attract some others to that movement. {49:49} Gen. Jack Keane: Afghanistan—let me just say, the war is not winnable under the current policy. We cannot win. And that’s the reality of it. We’ve got sanctuaries in Pakistan. No insurgency’s ever been defeated with sanctuaries outside the conflict area. Pakistani-Afghan national security forces do not have the enablers they need to be able to overcome the Taliban, who have resurged. {55:55} Robert Kagan: I want to talk about a subject that we don’t like to talk about in polite company, and it’s called world order. We naturally focus on threats to the homeland and our borders, and we talk about terrorism, as we must, as something that is obviously of utmost importance, has to be a top priority to protect the homeland. But as we look across the whole panoply of threats that we face in the world, I worry that it’s too easy to lose sight of what, to my mind, represent the greatest threats that we face over the medium- and long term and possibly even sooner than we may think, and that is the threat posed by the two great powers in the international system, the two great revisionist powers international system—Russia and China, because what they threaten is something that is in a way more profound, which is this world order that the United States created after the end of World War II—a global security order, a global economic order, and a global political order. This is not something the United States did as a favor to the rest of the world. It’s not something we did out of an act of generosity, although on historical terms it was a rather remarkable act of generosity. It was done based on what Americans learned in the first half of the twentieth century, which was that if there was not a power—whether it was Britain or, as it turned out, it had to be the United States—willing and able to maintain this kind of decent world order, you did not have some smooth ride into something else. What you had was catastrophe. What you had was the rise of aggressive powers, the rise of hostile powers that were hostile to liberal values. We saw it. We all know what happened with two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century and what those who were present at the creation, so to speak, after World War II wanted to create was an international system that would not permit those kinds of horrors to be repeated, and because the understanding was that while Americans believed very deeply in the 1920s and ’30s that they could be immune from whatever horrors happened out there in the world that it didn’t matter to them who ran Europe or who ran Asia or who did what to whom as long as we were safe, they discovered that that was not true and that ultimately the collapse of world order would come back and strike the United States in fundamental ways. And so Americans decided to take on an unusual and burdensome role of maintaining world order because the United States was the only power in the world that could do it, and the critical element of maintaining that world order was to maintain peace and stability in the two big cockpits of conflict that had destroyed the world and had produced repeated conflicts from the late nineteenth century onward, and that was Europe and Asia. The United States accomplished something that no other power had been able to accomplish before. It essentially put a cork in two areas that had been known for the constant warfare, put an end to an endless cycle of war between France and Germany, between Japan and China; and that was the stable world order that was created after World War II, that America gradually thrived in, that produced the greatest era of great-power peace that has been known in history, the greatest period of prosperity, the greatest period of the spread of democracy. {1:01:24} Robert Kagan We especially cannot take our eye off what I believe is ultimately the main game, which is managing these two revisionist powers and understanding what they seek. We cannot be under any illusions about Russia and China. We will find areas of cooperation with them—they both partake and benefit from and, in some case, sort of feed off of the liberal world order the United States has created—but let us never imagine that they are content with this order, that they do not seek fundamentally eventually upend this order, especially on the security side, to create a situation which they think ought to be the natural situation which is they being hegemonic in their own region. China has a historical memory of being hegemonic, dominant in its region. Russia has a historical memory, which Putin has expressed on numerous occasions, of restoring its empire, which stretched right into the heart of Central Europe. As far as they are concerned, the order that the United States has created is unfair, disadvantageous to them, temporary, and ought to be overturned. And I can only say that in the process of overturning that the history teaches that overturning does not occur peacefully. And so it should be our task both to prevent them from overturning it and to prevent them in a way that does not produce another catastrophic war. {1:04:00} Robert Kagan: It’s unfortunate that after these eight years in which this signal has been sent that during this political campaign, the president-elect comments during the campaign as well as those of his surrogates have only reinforced the impression that the United States is out of the world-order business—comments about whether the United States really should support NATO allies; comments about Estonia being in the suburbs of St. Petersburg; complaints about the need to defend Japan and is that an equitable thing; the fact that both candidates came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is really, in my eyes, a strategic deal more than a trade deal, designed to pull the United States and its Asian partners together. All the elements of this campaign have only sent even greater shockwaves throughout the world about what the United States stands for. So, in a certain sense, yes, the next administration has a big hole to dig out of; it also has to dig out of a hole, to some extent, of its own making. And so we need to see, in the early stages, in the very early stages, I would say, a clear repudiation of all that rhetoric; some clear signs that this new administration understands the importance not only of reassuring allies but a willingness to bolster our commitment to those allies, because after all, the challenge from the revisionist powers is increasing; therefore it’s not enough to say we’re committed to the defensive allies; we have to show that our capacities are increasing along with those of the increasing threat which, of course, gets to the defense budget, which I don’t have to talk to this committee about. {1:22:00} Robert Kagan: I’m very dubious that unless you actually increase the top line that you’re going to get what you need, because I just think, you know, you can only squeeze so far and be as brilliant as you can be. Brilliant is never going to be your answer, so I think the answer is there’s going to have to be more spending, and, you know, I’m not a budget expert at large either, but I would say we have to do whatever we need to do. We have to—if we need to raise taxes or we need to have some package that does that, if we need to find other ways of, you know, dealing problems like entitlement spending to do it, we have to do it. I mean, I lived through the Reagan years. There were increases in defense budget, which were offset by political bargains of one kind or another that required increases in domestic spending which led to increased defense budgets. We survived the—I mean, in overall deficits. We survived the deficits and won the Cold War. So I would say we are going to have to, as a nation, take this seriously enough to pay for it. {1:46:45} Senator Angus King: So selection of leaders is a crucial element, looking for innovative and willingness to move. Let me— Gen. Jack Keane: You’ve got to force the R&D effort, and you’ve got to talk to civilian—you’ve got to talk to defense industry on a regular basis because the defense industry is spending their time thinking about your function. They’re all also spending research dollars on it. You have to have regular communication with them. Let them know where you’re trying to go, bring them into it to help contribute to it, drive your own people to work with them as well. We can accelerate this process rather dramatically. King: And I would suggest that we have to. {1:50:00} Senator Joni Ernst: I would like to get your thoughts on ISIS in Southeast Asia because I do think it’s something that we haven’t spent a lot of time focusing on—we’re not talking about it nearly enough—and Islamic extremist groups in Southeast Asia, like the Abu Sayyaf group, they are all coming together under the flag of ISIS, and it’s a bit concerning. {1:52:20} Shawn Brimley: One of the tangible second-order benefits that we get from forward deploying our troops and capabilities overseas is we have that daily connectivity, and we have that daily deterrent prowess in places around the region. One of the debates that you see and hear inside the Pentagon, or one of the debates that we had inside the Pentagon as pertains to, say, the Marines in Darwin, for instance, is, you know, you start to break apart these larger entities, like a Marine Air-Ground Task Force, for instance, and you start to put a company here in Southern Philippines and put a task force of some kind in Australia. And there’s a tradeoff between doing that, which gives you that kind of daily interaction with local communities, the ability to do a counter-terrorism operations, for instance. But there is some risk that it becomes more difficult to quickly bring those capabilities back together for a larger threat, responding to a larger threat. And that’s the balance that DOD, particularly OSD, has to grapple with every day. {1:53:50} Senator Joni Ernst: General Keane, could you talk a little bit more about militarily what we could be doing in that region and the use of forces? * General Jack Keane*: Yeah, absolutely. And ISIS has expanded into 35 countries, and we don’t really have a strategy to deal with any of that. We’re focused on the territory that they took, certainly in Iraq and Syria, and I’m not saying that’s not appropriate—that should be a priority—but commensurate with that priority, we should be addressing these other areas as well. And a lot of the identification with ISIS is aspirational but they also have affiliates in these countries—this is one of them—and with an affiliate, they actually sign a document together to abide by certain ISIS principles and rules. And in some cases they direct, some cases they provide aid, but in most cases there’s no direction, and that’s largely the case here. But I believe what the United States can do with its allies is, you know, we’ve been at war with organizations like this now for 15 years, and our reservoir of knowledge and capability here is pretty significant, and it far exceeds anybody else in the world, but we have allies that are participating with us. There’s much we can do with them in sharing intelligence and helping them with training and also helping them with technology—not expensive technology, but things that can truly make a difference with those troops, and I don’t think we necessarily have to be directly involved in fighting these forces ourselves, but aiding and supporting these forces and having a strategy to do that— {1:57:55} Senator Jeanne Shaheen: You also talked about taking retaliatory action against Russia for what they’re doing. What kinds of efforts would you suggest we look at in terms of trying to retaliate or respond to what Russia’s doing in the United States? Robert Kagan: Well, I’m sure there’re people better equipped to answer that question than I am, but I would, you know, publish the Swiss bank accounts of all the oligarchs around. I mean, there are all kinds of things that you could do that would cause— Shaheen: Yeah, keep, keep saying a few— Kagan: Well, I mean— Shaheen: A few more of those because I think those are helpful. Kagan: You know, you could talk about all the ways in which you could reveal stuff about the way Putin has manipulated his own elections. I mean, there’s all kinds of stuff out there, which, if you were of a mind to do it, you could do that would be embarrassing of one kind or another. I mean, these people have money stashed all over the world. They have dachas, they have villas, etc. This is a kind of a Mafia organization where part of the game is everybody holding together. There are ways to create divisions and difficulties. I mean, I’m sure, as I say, there are people who could, if you put them to the task—and for all I know they have been put to the task—you could come up with a whole list of things. And, by the way, I wouldn’t make an announcement of it; they would understand what had happened. But until we do something like that, it’s just open season for them to do this, and so I think we need to treat this like any other weapons system that’s being deployed, because they are treating it like a weapons system. {2:00:32} Sen. Jeanne Shaheen: One of the things, General Keane, that you pointed out is that there is a predilection to try and kill some of the innovative programs so that the Pentagon can actually do those themselves. We had this experience with the Small Business Innovation Research program as we’re going into this NDAA because the initial effort was to try and increase the amount of money that DOD is making available to small businesses to do innovation, and I think we’ve heard from a number of panelists previously that this is one of the best research programs that still exists within—for small businesses to produce innovation that’s used by the Department of Defense. So, is this the kind of initiative that you’re talking about that there may be, for whatever reason, efforts to try and keep it from putting more money into that small-business effort to produce innovation?* Gen. Jack Keane*: I certainly encourage that. You know, the active protection system that I was talking about and that when DARPA made a call to the people to come forward and they knew that this would be an advanced technology that could actually change warfare, the contractor that the United States Army has gone to is a small-business contractor. So here’s this small-business contractor, conceptualized this capability themselves, and it will revolutionize combat warfare as we go forward. They also have technology, interesting enough, and they’ve brought military leaders out to see it, they can stop a bullet. In other words, a 50-caliber bullet, they can kill a bullet. And it’s all because of everything—all of this is available in the private sector. Microchip technology, as I mentioned, and unbelievable software apply to that technology. Well, that’s revolutionary technology that I just mentioned to you. It changes warfare. And so that is something we should be investing in. We should put money behind this. I have no affiliation with this organization—let’s get that straight. {2:05:27} Senator Mike Lee: For several decades, Congress, quite regrettably in my opinion, has deliberately abdicated many of its constitutional responsibilities, and it’s just sort of handed it over to the executive branch, being willing to take a backseat role—a backseat role, at best—in determining America’s role around the world and how we’re going to combat threats that face us. The result ends up being a foreign policy that is made primarily within the executive-branch bureaucracy and Washington-insider circles, informed, as they tend to be, by the interests and the aspirations of the so-called international community. This is a circle that increasingly becomes untethered from any clear lines of accountability, connecting policy, policy makers, and the American people. For instance, the U.S. military is currently operating in the Middle East under a very broad, I believe irresponsibly broad, interpretation of a 15-year-old authorization for the use of military force, using it as justification to engage in a pretty-broad range of actions, from intervening in two separate civil wars to propping up a failing Afghan government. Meanwhile, the executive branch seems increasingly inclined to choose and identify and engage threats through covert actions, and that further helps the executive branch to avoid the scrutiny that would be available if stronger Congressional oversight existed, and they avoid that kind of scrutiny and public accountability. This may be convenient for members of Congress who want nothing more than to just have someone else to blame for decisions that turn out to be unpopular or unsuccessful, but it’s an affront to the Constitution. And it’s more than that; it’s more than just an affront to a 229-year-old document—it’s an affront to the system of representative government that we have dedicated ourselves to as Americans, and I think it’s an insult to the American people who are losing patience with a foreign policy that they feel increasingly and very justifiably disconnected from, notwithstanding the fact that they’re still asked from time to time to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way to defend it. So as we discuss these emerging threats to our national security, I’d encourage this committee and all of my colleagues to prioritize the threat that will inevitably come to us if we continue to preserve this status quo and to exclude the American people and their elected representatives, in many cases ourselves, from the process. So I have a question for our panelists. One of the focuses of this committee has been on the readiness crisis within the military, brought about by the conflicts we’re facing in the Middle East and by a reduction in the amount of money that the Pentagon has access to. The easy answer to this is often, well, let’s just increase spending. That’s not to say that that’s not necessary now or in other circumstances in particular, but setting aside that, that is one approach that people often come up with. But another option that I think has to be considered, and perhaps ought to be considered first, is to reexamine the tasks and the priorities that we’re giving to our military leaders and to ask whether these purposes that we’re seeking readiness for are truly in the interest of the American people, those we’re representing, those who are paying the bill for this, and those who are asked to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way. * Sen. John McCain: Senator’s time has expired. *Lee: So,-- McCain: Senator’s time has expired. Lee: Could I just ask a one-sentence question, Mr. Chairman, to— McCain: Yes, but I would appreciate courtesy to the other members that have—make one long opening statement, it does not leave time for questions. Senator’s recognized for question. Lee: Okay. Do you believe that the Congress, the White House, and the executive branch agencies have done an adequate job in reaching consensus on what the American people’s interests are and on calibrating the military and diplomatic means to appropriate ends? {2:10:43} Robert Kagan: I don’t accept this dichotomy that you posited between what the Congress and the President do and what the American people want. I mean, when I think of some of the—first of all, historically, the executive has always had tremendous influence on foreign policy—whatever the Constitution may say, although the Constitution did give the executive tremendous power to make foreign policy. If you go back to Jefferson, the willingness to deploy force without Congressional approval, you can go all the way through 200 years of history, I’m not sure it’s substantially different, but in any case, that’s been the general prejudice. The Founders wanted energy in the executive and particularly in the conduct of foreign policy. That was the lesson of the Revolutionary War. That’s why they created a Constitution which particularly gave power to the executive. But also, I just don’t believe that the American people are constantly having things foisted on them that they didn’t approve of. So one of the most controversial things that’s happened, obviously, in recent decade that people talk about all the time is the Iraq war, which was voted on; debated at length in Congress; 72 to 28, I think was the vote, or something like that. The American people, public opinion, was in favor of it, just as the American people was in favor of World War I, the Spanish-American War later. These wars turn out to be bad or badly handled, the American people decide that it was a terrible idea, and then people start saying, well, who did this? And the American people want to find somebody to blame for doing these things; they don’t want to take responsibility for their own decisions. I don’t believe we have a fundamentally undemocratic way of making foreign-policy decisions; I think it’s complicated, I think mistakes are made. Foreign policy’s all about failure. People don’t want to acknowledge that failure is the norm in foreign policy, and then they want to blame people for failure. But I think the American people are participants in this process. {2:22:26} Senator Lindsay Graham: We’re talking about important things to an empty room. Just look. Just look. So, Iran with a nuke. Number one—I’m going to ask, like, 45 questions in five minutes. Give brief answers if you can. If you can’t, don’t say a word. Do you believe that the Iranians in the past have been trying to develop a nuclear weapon, not a nuclear power plant, for peaceful purposes? Shawn Brimley: Yes. Gen. Jack Keane: Nuclear weapon, yes. Graham: All right, three for three. Do you believe that’s their long-term goal, in spite of what they say is to have a nuclear weapon? Keane: Yes. Brimley: [nods] Robert Kagan: [thumbs up] Graham: Okay. Do you believe that’d be one of the most destabilizing things in the world? Brimley: Yes. Graham: Do you believe the Arabs will get one of their own? Brimley: Yes. Kagan: [nods] Graham: Do you believe the Iranians might actually use the weapon if they’d gotten one, the Ayatollah? Brimley: [nods] Keane: Well, I think that—before I answer that, I think there’s just as great a chance that the Arabs would use their weapon as a first right to take it away. Graham: Okay, then, so, we don’t know—well, let’s have— Bob, you shook your head. If you’re Israel, what bet would you make? Kagan: [speaks, but mic is not on] Graham: Okay, but what if he wants to die and he doesn’t mind taking you with him? What does he want? Does he want to destroy Israel, or is he just giddy? Kagan: [speaks, but mic is not on] Graham: When the Ayatollah says he wants to wipe Israel out, so it’s just all talk? Kagan: I don’t know if it’s all talk, and I don’t blame people for being nervous. We lived under—the United States, we all lived under the shadow of a possible nuclear war for 50 years. Graham: Yeah, but, you know, on their worst day the Russians didn’t have a religious doctrine that wanted to destroy everybody. Do you believe he’s a religious Nazi at his heart, or you don’t know? And the answer may be you don’t know. Kagan: I believe that he clearly is the—believes in a fanatical religion, but— Graham: Here’s what I believe. Kagan: I’m not—okay, go. Graham: Okay, I believe that you ought to take him seriously, based on their behavior. Number one— Keane: I think we should take him seriously. Whether they’re religious fanatics or not, I don’t think is that relevant. Clearly, their geopolitical goals to dominate the Middle East strategically, to destroy the state of Israel, and to drive the United States out of the Middle East, they’ve talked about it every single year— Graham: Well, do you think that’s their goal?Keane: Yes. Graham: Okay, so do you- Keane: Of course it’s their goal. And not only is it their goal, but they’re succeeding at it. Graham: Do you think we should deny them that goal. Graham: Good. North Korea—why are they trying to build an ICBM? Are they trying to send a North Korean in space? What are they trying to do? Brimley: They’re trying to threaten us. Kagan: To put a nuclear weapon on it— Graham: Do you believe it should be the policy of the United States Congress and the next president to deny them that capability? Brimley: I believe so. Graham: Would you support an authorization to use military force that would stop the ability of the North Koreans to develop a missile that could reach the United States? Do you think Congress would be wise to do that? Brimley: I think Congress should debate it. I remember distinctly the op-ed that Secretary William Perry and Ashton Carter— Graham: I’m going to introduce one. Would you vote for it if you were here? Kagan: Only if Congress was willing to do what was necessary to a followup—Graham: Well, do you think Congress should be willing to authorize any president, regardless of party, to stop North Korea from developing a missile that can hit the homeland? Kagan: Only if Congress is willing to follow up with what might be required, depending on North Korea’s response. Graham: Well, what might be required is to stop their nuclear program through military force; that’s why you would authorize it. Kagan: No, but I’m saying that if I’m—the answer is yes, but then you also have to be willing, if North Korea launched—Graham: Would you advise me— Kagan: —that you’d have to be willing to— Sen. John McCain: You have to let the witness. Graham: Yeah, but he’s not giving an answer, so here’s the question. Kagan: Oh, I thought I— Graham: Do you support Congress—everybody’s talking about Congress sitting on the sidelines. I think a North Korean missile program is designed to threaten the homeland; I don’t think they’re going to send somebody in space. So if I’m willing, along with some other colleagues, to give the president the authority—he doesn’t have to use it—but we’re all on board for using military force to stop this program from maturing, does that make sense to you, given the threats we face? Keane: I don’t believe that North Korea is going to build an ICBM, weaponize it, and shoot it at the United States. Graham: Okay, then, you wouldn’t need the authorization to use military force. Keane: Right. And the reason for that is— Graham: That’s fine. Keane: The reason—Senator, the reason they have nuclear weapons is one reason: to preserve their regime. They know when you have nuclear weapons we’re not going to conduct an invasion of North Korea. South Korea’s not going to do it; we’re not going to do it. Graham: Why are they trying to build ICBM? Keane: They want to weaponize it. Graham: And do what with it? Keane: I don’t bel— Kagan: Preserve their regime. Graham: Okay, all right. So, you would be okay with letting them build a missile? Kagan: No, but— Graham: Would you, General Keane? Keane: They’re already building a missile. Graham: Well, would you be willing to stop them? Keane: I would stop them from using it, yes. Graham: Okay. Keane: I’m not going to stop them from— Graham: Assad—final question. Do all of you agree that leaving Assad in power is a serious mistake? Brimley: Yes. Keane: Yes, absolutely. Graham: Finally, do you believe four percent of GDP should be the goal that Congress seeks because it’s been the historical average of what we spend on defense since World War II?Kagan: Pretty close. Graham: Thanks. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

How did Hillary Clinton lose Americans' trust? Stanley Greenberg, a top Democratic campaign strategist, describes how he addressed the trust issue for another Clinton: Bill. We also speak with Lissa CQ Muscatine, a longtime adviser for Hillary Clinton, and Mark Landler, a White House correspondent for The Times.

How did Hillary Clinton lose Americans’ trust? Stanley Greenberg, a top Democratic campaign strategist, describes how he addressed the trust issue for another Clinton: Bill. We also speak with Lissa CQ Muscatine, a longtime adviser for Hillary Clinton, and Mark Landler, a White House correspondent for The Times.

Congress goes on vacation; the Executive Branch escalates a war. In this episode, we look back at the 2011 Libya regime change to understand why we are bombing again in 2016. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Sound Clip Sources: Hearings Department of Defense Libya Briefing: Defense Department Briefing, Peter Cook, Department of Defense Press Secretary, August 1, 2016. Timestamps and Transcripts {00:31} Peter Cook: I want to begin today with an update on the campaign to defeat ISIL wherever it tries to spread. Today at the request of Libya’s Government of National Accord, the United States conducted precision air strikes against ISIL targets in Sirte, Libya to support GNA-affiliated forces seeking to defeat ISIL and its primary stronghold in Libya. These strikes were authorized by the president, following a recommendation from Secretary Carter and Chairman Dunford. They are consistent with our approach of combating ISIL by working with capable and motivated local partners. GNA-aligned forces have had success in recapturing territory from ISIL, and additional U.S. strikes will continue to target ISIL in Sirte and enable the GNA to make a decisive, strategic advance. As you may have seen earlier today, Prime Minister al-Sarraj, the head of the GNA, announced that he had specifically requested these strikes as part of the GNA’s campaign to defeat ISIL in Libya. As we’ve said for some time, the United States supports the GNA. We would be prepared to carefully consider any requests for military assistance. We have now responded to that request, and we’ll continue to work closely with the GNA to help the government restore stability and security in Libya. {05:37} Reporter: And then how long the campaign will last? Cook: Again, we’ll be in—this will depend on the requests of support from the GNA, and we’re proceeding along that line. We don’t have an endpoint at this particular moment in time, but we’ll be working closely with the GNA. {13:35} Reporter: Previous intelligence estimates had ISIS at a fighting force of around—up to 6,000, I believe. Is that the current assessment that you guys have? Cook: The assessment numbers that I’ve seen, and, again, I would—it’s hard to gauge ISIL numbers anywhere, but I’ve seen that number, at least our assessment is that it’s been reduced, and the number may be closer to 1,000 now. Reporter: That was in Libya, all together? Cook: In Libya, all together. Reporter: Okay. And lastly— Cook: I’m sorry. That’s specific to Sirte, but that’s the predominant area where ISIL has, in terms of geography, has occupied. So… Reporter: Got it. {15:50} Reporter: So there was a strike today, one in February that you confirmed previously. Is this the third strike now? Was there one before the one in February? Cook: Yes, there was an earlier strike. I believe it was November was the first strike against ISIL by U.S. military. {16:50} Reporter: In answer to a previous question, you said initially there were no U.S. forces on the ground, and then you seemed to clarify later you meant specifically to this operation. Are you saying that right now there are—are you making it clear there are no U.S. teams of any kind on the ground, or are you just specifically saying there are no U.S. on the ground related to this particular operation? Cook: I’m—this is specific to this operation. I’m not going to get into what we’ve talked about previously, the small number of U.S. forces that will be on the ground in Libya. They’ve been in and out, and I’m not going to get into that any further. {24:50} Reporter: You keep comparing this to the strikes at the—strikes in November and February, which were going after a high-value individuals. They were after specific individuals versus my understanding of this—correct me if I’m wrong—is this is the beginning of a campaign, an air campaign in Libya, in which the U.S. military is supporting GNA militias who have pledged their loyalty to the GNA. Is that fair? Is this the beginning of—president has approved these strikes and they will continue until Sirte is liberated. Cook: They will continue as long as the GNA is requesting—Reporter: But they don’t have to put in the request every single time. There is now this blanket authority that exists for the U.S. military to strike when the GNA puts in their requests, right? Cook: These requests—these requests will be carefully coordinated with the GNA. This all originates from GNA requests for assistance, and the president has given the authority for us to have—to carefully consider those requests. Reporter: Okay. But just to be clear, because I think comparing this to these two previous strikes that were going after individuals, each one, it sounds as if this is—these were strikes that were carried out today and that’s to be the end of it. But this is the beginning of an air campaign over Libya, correct? Cook: We are prepared to carry out more strikes in coordination with the GNA if those requests are forthcoming, and so— Reporter: Again, the request has been granted, right? There was—with the GNA— Cook: The authorization has been granted. {28:30} Reporter: Under what legal authority are these strikes being conducted? Cook: The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, similar to our previous air strikes in Libya. {33:17} Reporter And one last thing. You’ve made many references to civilians in Sirte. What is the U.S. estimate of how many civilians remain in Sirte? Cook: I’ll try to get that number for you; I don’t know that offhand. {35:00} Reporter: Peter, were leaflets dropped on that tank and those vehicles before the air strikes? Cook: I’m not aware that they were. Hearing: U.S. Africa Command and National Guard Bureau Nominations, Senate Armed Services Committee, June 21, 2016. Witnesses: Lieutenant General Thomas Waldhauser, Director for Joint Force Development for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nominee for AFRICOM director Joseph Lengyel, Chief of National Guard Bureau Timestamps and Transcripts {20:35} Lt. General Waldhauser: We have two significant objectives for the United States: one is to get the Government of National Accord up and running, and the second is to disrupt Libya—disrupt ISIL inside Libya. {22:40} Senator John McCain: So, right now you don’t think we need additional U.S. military presence. Waldhauser: At the moment, no.McCain: “At the moment” means to me, we don’t have a strategy. I don’t know what “at the moment”—unfortunately, this administration has reacted “at the moment” with incrementalism, mission creep, a gradual escalation in Iraq and Syria, and I don’t want to see the same thing in Libya, but I’m beginning to see the same thing. Do we have a strategy for Libya, or are we just acting in an ad hoc fashion, which was—it’s been the case, as we’ve watched ISIS establish, metastasize, and grow in Libya. Waldhauser: Well, as indicated, the two strategic objectives that we do have for Libya is to assist the— McCain: I know the objectives; do we have a strategy? Waldhauser: To continue to support that right at this point in time, I am not aware of any overall grand strategy at this point. {1:03:55} Senator Angus King: Does the GNA control the military and the police forces? Waldhauser: Senator, and to my knowledge I would not use the word “control;” I think at the moment these militias, it seems to me, appear to be working in a direction that Sarraj would like to go, but I would, at this point and if confirmed I’ll look into this, but I would not use the word “control” for the GNA over the militias. King: But ultimately that’s going to have to happen if they’re going to control the territory. Waldhauser: Ultimately it will have to happen because you won’t have a secure and working government unless they have control of a military, and in this case numerous militias across that country. Hearing: U.S. Policy Toward Libya, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, June 15, 2016. Witness Jonathan Winer, State Department Special Envoy for Libya Timestamps and Transcripts {20:50} Senator Ben Cardin: Could you tell us whether the administration is anticipating sending up an authorization to Congress for its military campaign in Libya? Winer: I don’t know of a military campaign in Libya being contemplated, Senator. {28:15} Winer: I think that the problem is not so much pumping it out and losing it—there’s still room for further exploration, further development—as it is the problem of too much money going out and not enough coming in, where the IMF has said to us, for example, there is no solution, no reforms, they can take if they’re not producing their oil. Senator David Perdue: Their debt situation’s already in a crisis level. Winer: Their very difficult economic situation right now is a result of not pumping their oil. They should be pumping 1.5 million a day; they’ve been pumping less than 400,000 a day. Last week I talked with the head of the petroleum forces and said, you’ve got to turn the oil back on. Now he now supports the Government of National Accord, his forces have been fighting to get rid of Daesh, and I think that oil is going to be turned on. It’s absolutely critical. There are forces in the West—there’s Zintan, they’ve shutdown formed in 40,000 barrels a day because some of their concerns have not met.Perdue: And does ISIS, since that’s such an important economic issue—I’m sorry to interrupt— Winer: Yes, sir. Perdue: But, does ISIS pose a threat to that oil production, even if they could turn it up? Winer: To the production, yes. To exploitation, probably not. The pipelines run north-south, south-north, and they are not really exploitable in Libya in the way they’ve been exploitable in Iraq. Daesh did attack the oil crescent area and destroyed some terminals, some areas where oil was being stored at the terminals, and that’s probably reduced their capacity some, but it’s quite limited damage at this point. One of the things that’s really impressive about the efforts against Daesh in the Sirte region and the oil crescent region is it’s begun to push them away from their ability to threaten Libya’s future oil production. So that’s a significant development. But the Libyans need to draw together and address one another’s grievances so that everybody agrees to allow the oil to be pumped again. Hearing: The Path Forward in Libya, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 3. 2016. Witnesses Fred Wehrey - Senior Associate, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Claudia Gazzini - Senior Analyst, Libya, International Crisis Group Timestamps and Transcripts {23:10} Fred Wehrey: I just returned last night from Libya, where I saw first hand the country’s humanitarian plight, political divisions, and the struggle against the self-proclaimed Islamic State. I spoke to the young militia fighters who are on the front lines against the Islamic State. I heard stories from the victims of its atrocities. What struck me most is that Libya’s fragmentation into armed militias, tribes, and towns has created a vacuum that the Islamic State is exploiting, and this dissolution also presents a number of risks for U.S. and Western strategy against the Islamic State. First, there is no national military command through which the U.S. and its allies can channel counterterrorism aid; the country is split between two loose constellations of armed actors, so-called Dignity camp in the East and the Dawn camp in the West. Now, over the last year, these two factions have fragmented, splintered, to the point that they exist in name only, and although the factions signed an agreement in December for a new Government of National Accord, that government remains stillborn and unable to exert its authority. A key stumbling block is the question of who and what faction will control the country’s armed forces, but perhaps most worrisome is that these two camps are still, in my view, more focused on viewing each other as a threat rather than the Islamic State. Many are, in fact, using the danger posed by the Islamic State as a pretext to wage war against local rivals over political supremacy, turf, and economic spoils. Both sides accuse the other of with the Islamic State. {30:24} Claudia Gazzini: The country’s economic situation is also dire. Libya, as you know, is an oil-rich country, but over the past two years, production of crude oil has plummeted because of attacks on oil fields and oil terminals. The drop in oil prices has forced the country to run a deficit of up to two, three billion dollars a month, and this has rapidly drained the country’s reserves of foreign currency, which are now between 50 and 60 billion dollars, less than half of what they were just two years ago. {36:31} Senator Bob Corker Speaking of special operators, right now it appears there’s a wide variety of foreign special operations forces on the ground in Libya. Both U.S. and Europe have bold plans for supporting the GNA. If the GNA is supported under heavy Western hand does that cause—does that not cause them to lack legitimacy in the eyes of Libyans? {38:15} Wehrey: There is the sense that this is the third government, that it’s been imposed, and so, yeah, if there is military support flowing to that government, it could create some dissonance. {58:25} Senator Ed Markey: Dr. Wehrey, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that the United States military and some allies, including France and the UK, have for months been preparing plans for a second intervention into Libya to support a potential Government of National Accord. The report also said that we and our partners have already established a coalition coordinating center in Rome. Sound Clip Sources: News & Documentaries RT Newscast: US Looks On Libya as McDonald’s – Gaddafi’s Son, Reported by Maria Finoshina, RT, June 30, 2011. RT Newscast: Gaddafi Gold-For-Oil, Dollar-Doom Plans Behind Libya 'Mission'?, Reported by Laura Emmett, RT, May 5, 2011. BBC Documentary on Libya: Before Rats Freedom & Democracy in Lybia (2008): Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Additional Hearings, Documentaries, and News Segments Hearing: CIA Intelligence Activities in Libya, Senate Select Intelligence Committee, June 16, 2016. Documentary: Pipeline to Paradise (Gaddafi's Gift to Libya), By Winfried Spinler (2001), Published on YouTube November 14, 2013. Hearing: Examining The U.S. Policy Response to Entrenched African Leadership, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 18. 2012. Hillary Clinton CBS New Interview: Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We Came, We Saw, He Died, CBS News, October 20, 2011. Hearing: Libya and War Powers, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, June 28, 2011. Hearing: War Powers and U.S. Operations in Libya , House Foreign Affairs Committee, May 25, 2011. Hearing: Perspectives on the Crisis in Libya, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 6, 2011. Hearing: U.S. Security Interests in Libya, House Foreign Affairs Committee, March 31, 2011. Hearing: U.S. Operations in Libya, Senate Armed Services Committee, March 29, 2011. U.N. Security Council Meeting on Libya, United Nations Security Council, March 17, 2011. Al Jazeera English Television Broadcast: Libyan Leader Moammar Qadhafi Address, February 22, 2011. Current News Libya 2016 Article: Italy Reportedly Sends Special Forces to Libya By Tom Kington, Defense News, August 11, 2016. Article: US-backed Forces in Libya Liberate Most of IS Group Stronghold of Sirte By News Wires, France 24, August 11, 2016. Article: French Special Forces Withdraw from Libya's Benghazi By Saifuddin al-Trabulsi and Osama Ali, Anadolu Agency, August 11, 2016. Article: U.S. Special Operations Troops Aiding Libyan Forces in Major Battle Against Islamic State By Missy Ryan and Sudarsan Raghavan, The Washington Post, August 9, 2016. Article: Libya: Free Saif ! Free the Nation! By Eric Draitser, Sri Lanka Guardian, August 9, 2016. Press Briefing: United States Department of State Daily Press Briefing, Spokesperson John Kirby, August 2, 2016. Article: Obama Approves 30-day Airstrike Mission Against ISIS in Libya By Lucas Tomlinson and The Associated Press, Fox News, August 2, 2016. Article: U.S. is Bombing Libya Again, 5 Years After NATO War Destabilized the Country By Ben Norton, Salon, August 2, 2016. Article: Aug. 1: The U.S. Intensifies Its Fight in Libya, Stratfor, August 1, 2016. Article: Gaddafi’s Ghosts: Return of the Libyan Jamahiriya By Dan Glazebrook, RT, July 30, 2016. Article: Deal to Open Libya's Ras Lanuf and Es Sider Oil Ports, Al Jazeera, July 30, 2016. Article: Libya: Tripoli Condemns French Military Involvement, Al Jazeera, July 21, 2016. Article: France Confirms Three Soldiers Killed in Libya, Al Jazeera, July 20, 2016. Article: Freedom for Saif al-Islam Gaddafi! Freedom for Libya! By Eric Draitser, New Eastern Outlook, July 14, 2016. Article: Libya: Leaked Tapes Suggest West Supports Haftar, Al Jazeera, July 9, 2016. Article: Gaddafi Son Saif al-Islam 'Freed After Death Sentence Quashed' By Chris Stephen, The Guardian, July 7, 2016. Article: U.S. Special Forces Take the Fight to ISIS in Libya By Nick Paton Walsh, CNN World News, May 26, 2016. Executive Order by Preseident Barack Obama: Blocking Property And Suspending Entry Into The United States Of Persons Contributing To The Situation In Libya, The White House Office of the Press Secretary, April 19, 2016. Article: Who is Libya’s New Prime Minister-Designate Fayez Al Sarraj?, The National, April 7, 2016. Article: Libya's UN-Backed Government Sails Into Tripoli, Al Jazeera, March 31, 2016. Article: Chief of Libya's New UN-Backed Government Arrives in Tripoli By Chris Stephen, The Guardian, March 30, 2016. Article: Exposing the Libyan Agenda: a Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails By Ellen Brown, Counter Punch, March 14, 2016. Article: Even Critics Understate How Catastrophically Bad the Hillary Clinton-led NATO Bombing of Libya Was By Ben Norton, Salon, March 2, 2016. Article: Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall By Jo Becker and Scott Shane, The New York Times, February 27, 2016. Article: U.S. Scrambles to Contain Growing ISIS Threat in Libya By Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, February 21, 2016. Article: U.S. Bombing in Libya Reveals Limits of Strategy Against ISIS By Declan Walsh, Ben Hubbard and Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, February 19, 2016. Article: Obama Readies to Fight in Libya, Again By Jack Smith, CounterPunch, February 5, 2016. Article: Obama Is Pressed to Open Military Front Against ISIS in Libya By Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, February 4, 2016. Article: Opening a New Front Against ISIS in Libya By The Editorial Board, The New York Times, January 26, 2016. Article: Libyan Oil, Gold, and Qaddafi: The Strange Email Sidney Blumenthal Sent Hillary Clinton In 2011 By Avi Asher-Schapiro, Vice News, January 12, 2016. The Guardian News Reports on Libya The New York Times News about Arab League Additional Reading Libya 2011 to 2015 Article: Syria Exposes Threat Between Obama and Clinton By Peter Baker, The New York Times, October 3, 2015. Article: Gaddafi Loyalists Stage Rare Protest in Eastern Libya, Reuters, August 4, 2015. Article: Where in the World Is the U.S. Military? By David Vine, Politico Magazine, July/August 2015. Article: Tyler Drumheller Was the Man Behind Hillary Clinton's Private Libya Intel, Sources Say By Benjamin Siegel and John Parkinson, ABC News, June 17, 2015. Article: War Crime: NATO Deliberately Destroyed Libya's Water Infrastructure By Nafeez Ahmed, Truthout, May 30, 2015. Article: How NATO Deliberately Destroyed Libya's Water Infrastructure By Nafeez Ahmed, The Cutting Edge, May 13, 2015. Article: Human Trafficker Gets Busy as Libya Migrant Crisis Worsens By Caroline Alexander and Salma El Wardany, Bloomberg, May 10, 2015. Article: East's Bid to Control Libya Oil Wealth Likely to Fail By Ulf Laessing, Reuters, March 23, 2015. Article: Khalifa Haftar Sworn in as Libya Army Chief, Al Jazeera, March 9, 2015. Article: Libya Clashes Force Oil Port Closure, Al Jazeera, December 14, 2014. Article: The Startling Size of US Military Operations in Africa By Nick Turse, Mother Jones, September 6, 2013. Article: Libya’s “Water Wars” and Gaddafi’s Great Man-Made River Project By Mathaba, May 13, 2013. Article: Election Results in Libya Break an Islamist Wave By David D. Kirkpatrick, The New York Times, July 8, 2012. Article: Braving Areas of Violence, Voters Try to Reshape Libya By David D. Kirkpatrick, The New York Times, July 7, 2012. Article: An Erratic Leader, Brutal and Defiant to the End By Neil MacFarquhar, The New York Times, October 20, 2011. Article: Foreign Oil, Gas Firms Returning to Libya, CBS News/Associated Press, September 2, 2011. Article: World Powers Free Up Billions to Rebuild Libya By John Irish and Keith Weir, Reuters, September 1, 2011. Article: The Race is On for Libya's Oil, with Britain and France Both Staking a Claim By Julian Borger and Terry Macalister, The Guardian, September 1, 2011. Article: NATO Bombs the Great Man-Made River, Human Rights Investigations, July 27, 2011. Article: Rebels Say Qaddafi Must Face Trial as Airstrikes Hit Tripoli By Associated Pess, Fox News World, July 22, 2011. Article: Libya Rebels Get Formal Backing, and $30 Billion By Sebnem Arsu and Steven Erlanger, The New York Times, July 15, 2011. Article: Conflict in Libya: U.S. Oil Companies Sit on Sidelines as Gaddafi Maintains Hold By Steven Mufson, The Washington Post, June 10, 2011. Article: AFRICOM's Libyan Expedition By Jonathan Stevenson, Foreign Affairs, May 9, 2011. Article: Nine Killed in NATO Attack on Sirte, Reuters, April 22, 2011. Article: Libyan Rebel Council Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi’s By Bill Varner, Bloomberg, March 22, 2011. Article: France and Britain Lead Military Push on Libya By Steven Erlanger, The New York Times, March 18, 2011. Article: As U.N. Backs Military Action in Libya, U.S. Role Is Unclear By Dan Bilefsky and Mark Landler, The New York Times, March 17, 2011. Article: Clinton Meets in Paris With Libyan Rebel Leader By Steven Lee Myers, The New York Times, March 14, 2011. Article: Map of the Day: This Is Where Libya's Oil Infrastructure Is Located By Joe Weisenthal, Business Insider, February 28, 2011. President Barack Obama Executive Order: Executive Order 13566 --Libya, The White House Office of the Press Secretary, February 25, 2011. Libya Prior to 2011 Article: African Union Names Gaddafi as Head, Al Jazeera, February 2, 2009. Article: The Years of Wheelus By Walter J. Boyne, Air Force Magazine, January 2008. Article: Africa United in Rejecting US Request for Military HQ By Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, June 26, 2007. Article: Behind Gaddafi's Diplomatic Turnaround By Scott McLeod, Time, May 18, 2006. Article: Libya's Thirst for 'Fossil Water' By John Watkins, BBC News, March 18, 2006. Article: 350 Libyans Trained to Oust Qaddafi Are to Come to U.S. By Neil A. Lewis, May 17, 1991. E Book/Pdf: The Green Book By Muammar Al Qaddafi, Originally published 1975. Owners vs. Producers Housing Additional Information GreenStream Pipeline GreenStream Pipeline Activity Human Rights Watch Website Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: Great Man-Made River (GMR) Energy Information Administration: 2007 Libya Energy Data, Statistics WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton Email Archive: "Tick Tock On Libya", September 2, 2011. Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton Email: "Lots of New Intel; Possible Libyan Collapse. Sid", March 27, 2011. Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton Email Archive: "H: France's Client & Q's Gold. Sid", March 4, 2011. Wikipedia: General People's Committee Reports Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy By Christopher M. Blanchard, Congressional Research Service, May 13, 2016. Appendix B. U.S. Assistance to Libya FY2010-FY2015 Total Energy 2013 Report on Activities in Libya Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

NYT's White House correspondent Mark Landler examines the complicated relationship between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and explains the implications of Obama's legacy on a possible Clinton presidency.

One grew up the daughter of a Navy petty officer in 1950s suburban Chicago, the other spent formative years in Indonesia before being raised by his grandparents in Hawaii. Their experiences couldn’t have been more different but over the last eight years, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have become the twin pillars of the Democratic Party. Once rivals, then colleagues, it would seem that there’s not much daylight between the President and his former Secretary of State on major foreign policy issues. But there are differences and, as New York Times White House correspondent Mark Landler discovered in reporting his new book, "Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle over American Power," those differences are sometimes quite significant. This week on the podcast, we sit down with Landler to talk about the relationship between the president and his party’s presumptive nominee, how their backgrounds shaped their views on foreign policy, and the pair's evolving relationship.

Beware: Opinions ahead! In this special episode, Jen discusses who she will vote for in the June 7th Presidential Primary.   Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Podcast Awards Thank you for nominating Congressional Dish for the 2016 Podcast Awards! Please VOTE HERE every day starting on May 29th North Carolina Podcast Are you interested in co-creating a Congressional Dish style podcast about North Carolina? Email Amy Howard: ahoward at ralieghonlineradio.com Sound Clip Sources YouTube: "She’s Baldly Lying": Dana Frank Responds to Hillary Clinton’s Defense of Her Role in Honduras Coup, April 13, 2016. YouTube: Trump Campaign Event in Bluffton, South Carolina: Trump says you will find Saudi Arabia did 9 11 and no WWIII over Syria, February 25, 2016. YouTube: NBC News-YouTube Democratic Candidates Debate, January 17, 2016. YouTube: Trump on 9/11 Truth & 28 Pages CNN"s Republican Town Hall, February 18, 2016. YouTube: Hillary Clinton National Security Address, November 19, 2015. YouTube: Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders on Whether to Invade Iraq - 2002, October 2002 Additional Reading Article: CLO Debt Market Peps Up by Sam Goldfarb, Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2016. Article: How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk by Mark Landler, The New York Times Magazine, April 21, 2016. Article: How Clinton’s email scandal took root by Robert O'Harrow Jr., The Washington Post, March 27, 2016. Article: DRUGS, DAMS, AND POWER: THE MURDER OF HONDURAN ACTIVIST BERTA CÁCERES by Danielle Marie Mackey, The Intercept, March 11, 2016. Article: The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders by Greg Grandin, The Nation, March 3, 2016. Article: THE LIBYA GAMBLE PART 1: Hillary Clinton,‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall by Jo Becker and Scott Shane, The New York Times, February 27, 2016. Article: THE LIBYA GAMBLE PART 2: A New Libya, With ‘Very Little Time Left’ by Scott Shane and Jo Becker, The New York Times, February 27, 2016. Article: The Dangerous Path Toward Mining Law Reform in Honduras by Lynn Holland, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, December 18, 2015. Article: During Honduras Crisis, Clinton Suggested Back Channel With Lobbyist Lanny Davis by Lee Fang, The Intercept, July 6, 2015. Article: The Wedding That a U.S. Drone Strike Turned Into a Funeral by Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, January 9, 2014. Article: Drone Attacks at Funerals of People Killed in Drone Strikes by Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, October 24, 2013. Article: Get the Data: Obama's terror drones by Chris Woods, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, February 4, 2012. Article: Honduras: President Signs ALBA Agreement by Francisco Macías, The Library of Congress, September 11, 2008. Additional Information Website: Carl Icahn Biography by Colin Dodds, Investopedia. Hillary Clinton Top Industries, federal election data 2016 Hillary Clinton Contributions by Industry, 2008 Cycle Votes: Authorization for Use of Military Force: September 14, 2001 Hillary: Yes Bernie: Yes Votes: USA PATRIOT ACT Bernie": No Hillary: Yes Votes: USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Bernie: No Hillary: Yes Votes: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Bernie: No Hillary: Yes Votes: The bank bailout Bernie: No Hillary: Yes Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. President Obama is in the final two years of his Presidency and some may argue he is facing his most difficult national security challenges yet. The Islamic State has ripped through Syria and Iraq with unprecedented fury. Vladimir Putin is doubling down on a westward move. And, an Ebola outbreak that is being classified as a “national security priority” by the U.S. Department of Defense. With these crises and others the President is also being hit with friendly-fire from past advisors. So, what is at stake in the coming months? What should the country’s national security plans be in the Middle East, Russia, and beyond? And, further what will President Obama’s diplomacy and military legacies be? Former U.S. Representative Jane Harman, Washington Post writer David Ignatius, and president of The Chicago Council on Global Affairs Ivo Daalder joined the IOP to discuss issues of national security in a changing global landscape with moderator Mark Landler of The New York Times.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. President Obama is in the final two years of his Presidency and some may argue he is facing his most difficult national security challenges yet. The Islamic State has ripped through Syria and Iraq with unprecedented fury. Vladimir Putin is doubling down on a westward move. And, an Ebola outbreak that is being classified as a “national security priority” by the U.S. Department of Defense. With these crises and others the President is also being hit with friendly-fire from past advisors. So, what is at stake in the coming months? What should the country’s national security plans be in the Middle East, Russia, and beyond? And, further what will President Obama’s diplomacy and military legacies be? Former U.S. Representative Jane Harman, Washington Post writer David Ignatius, and president of The Chicago Council on Global Affairs Ivo Daalder joined the IOP to discuss issues of national security in a changing global landscape with moderator Mark Landler of The New York Times.