NARRATOR: AFTER THE 1900s' "END OF HISTORY" EUPHORIA ABOUT A UNIPOLAR WORLD IN WHICH AMERICAN POWER WAS UNCHALLENGED, THE ROLE OF AMERICA IN THE WORLD CHANGED DRASTICALLY ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

WITH THE DECLARATION OF THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR AND ITS EMBLEMATIC CONFLICT IN AFGHANISTAN AND ESPECIALLY IN WHAT MANY VIEWED AS A PREEMPTIVE WAR OF CHOICE IN IRAQ, A RENEWED SENSE OF THE LIMITS OF AMERICAN POWER RETURNED.

IN THE PRESENT DECADE, WITH RISING CHALLENGES FROM BOTH RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THE ENTIRE MIDSECTION OF THE EASTERN HEMISPHERE, FROM CENTRAL AFRICA TO NORTH AFRICA ALL THE WAY EAST TO AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN, WITH UPHEAVAL AND SO MUCH VIOLENCE, WITH RESULTING TERRORISM IN THE WEST AND A TORRENT OF REFUGEES, AGAIN THE DEBATE IS RENEWED ABOUT THE PROPER ROLE OF AMERICA IN A DANGEROUS WORLD, BUT THIS DEBATE TODAY LARGELY FLOWS FROM POLITICAL AND POLICY LESSONS DRAWN FROM THE WAR IN IRAQ.

SO, WAS THE IRAQ WAR WRONG, AND WHAT CAN AND MUST THE UNITED STATES LEARN FROM THAT EXPERIENCE?

THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE DORAN FAMILY FOUNDATION, AMETEK, AND BY... FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTROOMS AROUND THE WORLD, PEOPLE HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL NOT ONLY THE TRUTH, BUT RATHER THE WHOLE TRUTH.

THE OATH REFLECTS THE WISDOM THAT FAILING TO TELL ALL OF A STORY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS LYING IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IN THE COURTROOM, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ALSO RELIES ON ADVOCATES ADVANCING FIRM CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS AND DOING SO WITH DECORUM.

ALL OF THESE APPLY TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT JOHN STUART MILL CALLED THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS.

THIS IS A SERIES IN WHICH THE COMPETING VOICES ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIME ARE CHALLENGED AND SET INTO MEANINGFUL CONTEXT SO THAT VIEWERS LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES THE WHOLE TRUTH.

ON THIS EPISODE, WE LOOK AT THE ROLE OF AMERICA IN A TURBULENT WORLD BEYOND THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY BY SEEKING TO LEARN FROM THE RECENT PAST, AND WE ASK THE QUESTIONS WAS THE IRAQ WAR WRONG, AND WITH AN INCREASINGLY VOLATILE AND VIOLENT INTERNATIONAL SITUATION, WHAT CAN AND SHOULD THE UNITED STATES LEARN FROM THAT EXPERIENCE?

AT THIS HOUR, AMERICAN AND COALITION FORCES ARE IN THE EARLY STAGES OF MILITARY OPERATIONS TO DISARM IRAQ, TO FREE ITS PEOPLE, AND TO DEFEND THE WORLD FROM GRAVE DANGER.

ON MY ORDERS, COALITION FORCES HAVE BEGUN STRIKING SELECTED TARGETS OF MILITARY IMPORTANCE TO UNDERMINE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S ABILITY TO WAGE WAR.

THIS WILL NOT BE A CAMPAIGN OF HALF MEASURES, AND WE WILL ACCEPT NO OUTCOME BUT VICTORY.

WITH US TODAY TO DISCUSS THESE MATTERS ARE DOUGLAS FEITH, FORMER UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY IN THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION, TAMARA COFMAN WITTES, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, AND RIBAL AL-ASSAD, WHO HAS LEFT THIS COUNTRY AND IS NOW THE FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF THE ORGANISATION FOR DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM IN SYRIA.

MR. FEITH WAS PRESENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS.

THIS IS STILL A VERY, VERY RELEVANT QUESTION IN AMERICAN-- CONFRONTING AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, BUT ALSO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

IT IS NOW CONVENTIONAL WISDOM, IN FACT, IN AMERICAN POLITICS, FROM JEB BUSH TO BERNIE SANDERS, THAT THE IRAQ WAR WAS A MISTAKE, IN HINDSIGHT.

THIS IS NOT ATYPICAL OF AMERICA'S LIMITED WARS FOUGHT SINCE 1945.

I THINK THE ORIGINS OF EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN QUESTIONED, THE CONDUCT OF EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN QUESTIONED, AND THE OUTCOME OF EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN QUESTIONED, SO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IT IN THAT SENSE.

THERE IS A SCHOOL OF THOUGHT THAT THE IRAQ WAR UNLEASHED FORCES OF INSTABILITY AND EXTREMISM IN THE REGION.

SOME CONTEND THAT THE PRESENT WEAKENED POSITION THE UNITED STATES AND THE REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC WORLD FINDS ITSELF WITH RESPECT TO THE MIDDLE EAST ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAR, INCLUDING THE INCREASINGLY ASSERTIVE MILITARY AND GEOPOLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF RUSSIA AND CHINA.

LET'S ASK THIS FIRST AS AN HISTORICAL QUESTION.

ALL THESE YEARS LATER, LOOKING BACK ON THE IRAQ-- IRAQI FREEDOM, OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM IN 2003, WHICH WE ALL REMEMBER VERY WELL, TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT AND HOW YOU SEE THAT TODAY.

THE SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME WAS A MAJOR PROBLEM AND A MAJOR THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES AND AMERICAN INTERESTS THROUGHOUT THE 1990s, AND THIS WAS A PROBLEM THAT PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W.

BUSH DEALT WITH, PRESIDENT CLINTON DEALT WITH.

THERE PROBABLY WAS NO PROBLEM IN THE WORLD THAT GOT MORE ATTENTION FROM THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL IN THE 1990s THAN THE THREATS POSED BY THE SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

THE U.N.

PASSED SOMETHING LIKE 16 SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS TO TRY TO CONTAIN THE THREATS POSED BY THE SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

SO THIS WAS A PROBLEM THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION, INHERITED WHEN THEY CAME IN FROM THE TWO PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS, AND THEN CAME 9/11, AND WHAT 9/11 DID WAS IT MADE THE RANGE OF THREATS POSED BY THE SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME, THE THREATS OF AGGRESSION, THE THREATS OF SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM, THE THREATS OF PURSUIT AND, IN THE CASE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME, THE ACTUAL USE OF WMD, THE THREATS COMING FROM THE HOSTILITY THAT THE REGIME HAD TOWARD THE UNITED STATES-- IT MADE ALL OF THOSE THREATS LOOK BOTH MORE URGENT AND MORE IMPORTANT, LARGER, AND SO THE PRESIDENT DECIDED THAT, GIVEN THAT NUMEROUS METHODS HAD BEEN TRIED OVER THE PRECEDING 12 YEARS TO TRY TO CONTAIN THE THREAT AND THE CONTAINMENT WAS ESSENTIALLY CRUMBLING, HE DECIDED THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE REGIME IN ORDER TO REMOVE THOSE THREATS, AND I THINK HE MADE THE RIGHT DECISION AT THE TIME.

THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF DEBATES ABOUT HOW THE WAR WAS CONDUCTED AND ESPECIALLY THE AFTERMATH.

DAVID: WE WANT TO COME BACK TO THAT, SURE.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT DIDN'T THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FORCE PASSED BY THE SENATE IN THE FALL OF 2002 REFER TO, I BELIEVE, U.N.

RESOLUTIONS AND EARLIER RESOLUTIONS ESSENTIALLY CALLING FOR THE REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ, AS I RECALL?

YES, IT DID.

THAT RESOLUTION IS WORTH LOOKING AT BECAUSE IT LAID OUT A LONG LIST OF IMPORTANT REASONS TO JUSTIFY THE MILITARY ACTION, AND THE REASONS WERE FAR BROADER THAN SIMPLY THE POSSESSION OF WMD STOCKPILES, WHICH WAS, OF COURSE, A BIG MISTAKE.

OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAD SAID THAT WE WOULD FIND WMD STOCKPILES, AND WE DIDN'T, BUT IT'S CLEAR-- AND MANY WAR CRITICS LATER SAID THAT THAT WAS THE ENTIRE RATIONALE FOR THE WAR, BUT IF YOU GO BACK TO THE RESOLUTION THAT CONGRESS ADOPTED TO AUTHORIZE FORCE IN IRAQ, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE RATIONALE FOR THE WAR WAS FAR BROADER THAN WMD STOCKPILES.

DAVID: TAMARA?

TAMARA: I THINK DOUG'S RIGHT THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE INVASION OF IRAQ AT THE TIME, BUT WHAT DOUG IS POINTING TO, THE SENSE OF URGENCY, WHAT MADE THIS, FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S PERSPECTIVE, A WAR OF NECESSITY AND WHAT I THINK WE SEE IN RETROSPECT-- THAT IT TRULY WAS A WAR OF CHOICE-- IS, NUMBER ONE, THE INTELLIGENCE THAT ALL WESTERN GOVERNMENTS AGREED ON ABOUT IRAQ'S WMD PROGRAM, BUT MORE THAN THAT, THE MENTALITY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND THE AMERICAN POLITICAL LEAD IN THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION IN THE WAKE OF 9/11.

OUR RISK TOLERANCE HAD JUST CRASHED TO THE FLOOR, AND SO WE WEREN'T WILLING TO TAKE THE CHANCE.

THAT'S ALL UNDERSTANDABLE, I THINK, IN THE MOMENT, BUT WE HAVE TO SAY IN RETROSPECT, IT WAS A WAR OF CHOICE.

YES, SADDAM WAS AN INCREDIBLY DESTABILIZING ACTOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND HE HAD BEEN MAKING TROUBLE FOR THE UNITED STATES, FOR HIS NEIGHBORS, AND BRUTALIZING HIS OWN PEOPLE FOR A LONG TIME, AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO THINK HE WAS GOING TO STOP.

MORE THAN THAT, THE INTERNATIONAL REGIME WE HAD TO CONTAIN SADDAM WAS BREAKING DOWN, SO AT SOME POINT, THERE WAS A PROBLEM THAT WAS GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOLVED, BUT DID IT HAVE TO BE SOLVED AT THAT MOMENT IN THAT WAY?

I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT'S HARDER TO ANSWER.

DAVID: AS A FOOTNOTE, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

WHY, DO YOU SUPPOSE, THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN DID NOT JUST PLAINLY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT HE DID NOT HAVE WMD?

WAS HE TRYING TO MAINTAIN MYSTERY ABOUT HIS INTENTIONS TO TRY TO DETER AN ATTACK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

IT'S A FASCINATING-- THE TWO SIDES ALMOST COLLABORATED, IN A WAY, IN THAT MISJUDGMENT.

IT'S A FASCINATING QUESTION THAT YOU'RE RAISING.

WHEN SADDAM WAS INTERVIEWED AFTER HE WAS OVERTHROWN AND CAPTURED AND WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF OUR ARMED FORCES, HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THAT, AND WHAT HE SAID WAS THAT HIS MAIN CONCERN WAS USING THE THREAT OF WMD TO KEEP HIS OWN KURDISH POPULATION AND HIS OWN SHIITE POPULATION IN CHECK.

DAVID: RIGHT.

AND HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS-- THAT THE APPEARANCE OF HAVING A WMD CAPABILITY, AN INSTANT WMD CAPABILITY, STOCKPILES, THAT THAT WAS A PROBLEM FOR HIM WITH THE UNITED STATES, BUT HIS GENERAL VIEW WAS, AND HE EXPLAINED THIS, HE SAID THE AMERICANS ARE WEAK.

THE AMERICANS ARE UNWILLING TO TAKE CASUALTIES.

IN ORDER TO OVERTHROW ME, THEY'D HAVE TO COME TO BAGHDAD.

THEY CAN'T COME TO BAGHDAD WITHOUT TAKING SUBSTANTIAL CASUALTIES, AND SO THE THREAT THAT THE AMERICANS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO COME AND, YOU KNOW, OVERTHROW ME IS NOT CREDIBLE.

DAVID: FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW, HOW DOES THIS SITUATION LOOK HISTORICALLY NOW?

I DO AGREE WITH, YOU KNOW, THE GENTLEMAN AND MISS TAMARA, ALSO, REGARDING IRAQ, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE, I THINK, THOUGHT BETTER BEFORE THEN GOING INTO IRAQ.

WE DID NOT THINK WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES.

WE DID NOT TAKE INTO THE CONSIDERATION THE VOID THAT WILL BE CREATED THERE.

WE DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ARE THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ-- WERE THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ READY AT THE TIME FOR THAT DEMOCRATIC CHANGE THAT WE WANTED.

WHO WAS GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE UNITED STATES GOING INTO IRAQ AND REPLACING THE ACTUAL REGIME, YOU KNOW, WITH THE OPPOSITION THAT ARE NOW IN POWER?

WERE THOSE PEOPLE READY TO PROMOTE THE VALUES THAT WE BELIEVE IN?

DO THEY SHARE THE VALUES THAT WE BELIEVE IN?

WELL, I DON'T THINK SO, AND WE'VE SEEN WHAT WENT ON.

UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEMOCRACY AS WE SEE IT TODAY.

MOST OF THEM THINK THAT IT'S MAJORITY RULING OVER THE MINORITIES, AND THIS HAS ALSO-- WE HAVE ALIENATED THE BAATH PARTY, AS YOU KNOW, WITH THE PROCESS OF DE-BAATHIFICATION.

AGAIN, SENDING THE MILITARY HOME, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISTAKES, AND NOW, THIS IS WHAT CREATED THE ISIS-- YOU KNOW, THE THREAT OF ISIS THAT WE HAVE TODAY.

THEY ARE MAINLY FORMER SADDAM PEOPLE, SOLDIERS AND OFFICERS, WHO ARE FIGHTING TO RECLAIM WHAT THEY HAVE LOST IN IRAQ, WHAT THEY HAVE LOST IN SYRIA, AND THEY WANT TO CREATE THEIR OWN SUNNI STATE IN BETWEEN IRAQ AND SYRIA.

DAVID: SORT OF THE LAST STAND.

THIS IS A REDOUBT, RIGHT?

THIS IS THE SADDAM REDOUBT, ISIL.

THE PROBLEM WAS NOT THAT THINGS WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

ALL KINDS OF THINGS WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, AND THE IMPLICATION OF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING IS THAT WE WENT TO WAR IN IRAQ IN ORDER TO MAKE IRAQ A DEMOCRACY, AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

WE WENT TO WAR IN IRAQ IN ORDER TO REMOVE A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT WAS THE THREAT POSED BY SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS SONS.

IF HE HAD REMAINED IN POWER-- AND HE WAS A RELATIVELY YOUNG MAN IN REASONABLY GOOD HEALTH-- HE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THERE PERHAPS FOR DECADES, AND THEN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCCEEDED BY HIS UNSPEAKABLY HORRIBLE SONS.

WE DIDN'T GO TO WAR TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY BY THE SWORD.

WE WENT TO WAR TO REMOVE A THREAT, AND WE SUCCEEDED IN REMOVING THAT THREAT.

WHAT HAS ALLOWED ISIS TO BECOME THE THREAT THAT IT IS WAS NOT THE REMOVAL OF SADDAM HUSSEIN.

IT WAS THE CURRENT CHAOS THAT EXISTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

I MEAN, ARGUABLY THE INACTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FACE OF THE CIVIL WAR IN SYRIA HAS CREATED A MUCH GREATER OPPORTUNITY AND HAS GIVEN ISIS THE POSITION THAT IT HAS IN THE MIDDLE EAST THAN THE ACTION THAT WE TOOK IN IRAQ.

SO THE BASIC POINT THAT I WOULD EMPHASIZE IS, WHEN WE ACT, THE MIDDLE EAST IS UNSTABLE AND A PROBLEM, AND WHEN WE DON'T ACT, THE MIDDLE EAST IS UNSTABLE AND A PROBLEM.

DAVID: HOW DID IT LOOK IN THE OBAMA YEARS?

WELL, FIRST LET ME SAY, I THINK THERE WERE THOSE-- PERHAPS NOT YOU, DOUG, BUT OTHERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION THAT YOU SERVED THAT MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE OPPRESSIVE REGIMES IN THE ARAB WORLD CREATED THE GRIEVANCES THAT DROVE RECRUITMENT TO AL-QAEDA, THAT DROVE THE PROBLEM AND THE THREAT THAT WE SUFFERED FROM ON 9/11, AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NECESSARY NOT ONLY TO REMOVE THESE OPPRESSIVE REGIMES, BUT TO ENABLE THE EMERGENCE OF INCLUSIVE DEMOCRATIC REGIMES AS A WAY OF ADDRESSING THESE GRIEVANCES, THE ROOT CAUSES OF TERRORISM.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE WAR, PERHAPS NOT THE PRIMARY ONE.

MAYBE IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DETERMINATIVE IN BALANCE, BUT IT CERTAINLY WAS ONE OF THE RATIONALES ARTICULATED, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT.

I THINK ANY ADMINISTRATION THAT EMBARKS ON AN INTERVENTION ALSO HAS TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT COMES AFTER, AND IT IS INCONCEIVABLE TO ME THAT ANY AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION WHICH HAS DECIDED TO GO IN AND OVERTHROW A STANDING REGIME WOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO REPLACE IT WITH SOME FORM OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.

WE DID NOT--WHEN WE GOT RID OF SADDAM, WE DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION TO HAVE A FULL EXCLUSIVE GOVERNMENT TO REPLACE SADDAM, AND WE ALIENATED-- BY DOING THAT, WE ALIENATED A LOT OF PEOPLE.

THERE WAS A LOT OF REVENGE, AS YOU KNOW.

IT'S ALSO PART OF THE CULTURE-- ARABIC CULTURE, NOT ISLAM-- THIS REVENGE CULTURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO GET RID OF, YOU KNOW, THE CHRISTIANS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO FOUGHT WITH SADDAM OR WHO WERE IN SADDAM'S RANKS.

WE HAVE TO GET REVENGE ON THE CHRISTIANS, WE HAVE TO GET REVENGE ON THE SUNNI MUSLIMS, AND THOSE PEOPLE, AS YOU KNOW, THEY'VE PAID THE PRICE.

ONE MILLION CHRISTIANS LEFT IRAQ.

THERE'S BARELY 200,000 LEFT THERE.

WHY?

BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, SADDAM, SAME AS THE REGIME OF SYRIA, THEY WERE KIND OF USING OTHER MINORITIES TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST THE MAJORITY, BUT BY DOING THAT ALSO, IT HAS HANDED OVER, EFFECTIVELY, THOSE SHIA IRAQIS TO THE IRANIANS, WHO SAW FOR THEMSELVES A VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, OTHER GULF STATES OR OTHER ARAB STATES, THEY WOULD NEVER SUPPORT ANYONE WHO IS NOT A SUNNI MUSLIM, AND SO THOSE PEOPLE NEEDED SUPPORT, AND SO THEY WENT TO THE IRANIANS, AND THIS IS HOW IRAN TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT.

THIS IS HOW IRAN IS STILL TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT, AND AGAIN, WE ALIENATED ALMOST 3 MILLION PEOPLE WHO FOUND THEMSELVES WITHOUT JOBS, WHO FOUND THEMSELVES, YOU KNOW-- THERE WAS, AS YOU KNOW, THE DEATH SQUADS OR SHIITE MILITIA AND OTHERS WHO WERE TAKING REVENGE AGAINST MOST OF THE BAATHISTS OR OTHER OF SADDAM'S SOLDIERS, THE FEDAYEEN, SADDAM REPUBLICAN GUARDS, AND OTHERS.

YOU DON'T JUST DISBAND THE ARMY.

YOU SEND THEM BACK TO BARRACKS, AND YOU KEEP PAYING THEM SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE INCENTIVE TO GO MAKE MISCHIEF ELSEWHERE.

FEITH: WE HAD THE SURGE, AND WHEN THE SURGE OCCURRED, WE BROUGHT VIOLENCE DOWN.

WE HAD A FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ, AND WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHDREW U.S.

FORCES FROM IRAQ, HE DID SO ESSENTIALLY DECLARING VICTORY.

HE DIDN'T DO SO SAYING THE PLACE IS A MESS.

HE SAID THE PLACE IS IN REASONABLY GOOD SHAPE, AND SO WE CAN CONFIDENTLY WITHDRAW.

AFTER HE WITHDREW OUR FORCES, YOU STARTED TO GET ALL OF THE POLITICAL PROBLEMS THAT AROSE, THAT I THINK TAMARA RIGHTLY POINTS OUT ARE THERE IN ANY EVENT, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO.

THE REAL STRENGTH OF ISIS-- WHEN DID IT APPEAR?

AFTER THE CRISIS IN SYRIA.

WHY?

BECAUSE THERE WAS A VOID THAT WAS THERE.

THE AMERICANS HAD LEFT, AND THE SAUDIS, QATARIS, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT WERE WILLING TO PAY WHOEVER, AS YOU KNOW, TO GET RID OF THE ASSAD REGIME.

SO THEY WERE REALLY FUNDING WHOEVER GROUPS WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT, AND OF COURSE, SADDAM'S PEOPLE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THAT.

THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GET MONEY AS FORMER BAATHISTS, BUT THEY WOULD GET IT AS ISLAMISTS FOLLOWING THE WAHHABI IDEOLOGY, WILLING TO FIGHT THE ASSAD REGIME, THE INFIDELS, AND THE SHIA IRANIANS, AND THE SAUDIS ONLY NOTICED THAT TOO LATE.

THOSE PEOPLE HAD ALREADY CONTROL OF VAST AREAS.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT BOTH OF YOU ARE DISCOUNTING THE PRIMARY AGENTS HERE.

IN IRAQ, IT'S THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT IN BAGHDAD, AT THAT TIME RUN BY PRIME MINISTER MALIKI, WHO GOVERNED IN AN EXCLUSIONARY MANNER... OF COURSE.

THAT ALIENATED SUNNIS AND CREATED THE FOUNDATIONS ON WHICH ISIS COULD OPERATE, AND IN SYRIA, IT WAS BASHAR AL-ASSAD, GOVERNING IN AN EXCLUSIONARY MANNER, RESPONDING TO HIS OWN PEOPLE WITH BRUTALITY, RELYING ON THE IRANIANS TO SUPPORT AND SUSTAIN HIM IN THE FACE OF A POPULAR UPRISING, AND SO IN BOTH CASES, IT WAS THE CHOICES OF LEADERS IN POLITICS THAT GENERATED THE CHAOS THAT FRACTURED THESE SOCIETIES.

DAVID: ONE THING THAT IS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THIS IS THAT OF ALL THE LIMITED WAR THAT WE HAVE WAGED SINCE 1945, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE WHICH HAS PROMPTED CONSIDERABLE POLITICAL PRESSURE ON THE POLICYMAKERS TO RETURN TO.

IN OTHER WORDS, UNDERSCORING THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS REGION AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES AS YOU SAW THEM IN 2002 AND 2003, IS THAT WE ARE IN NO WAY OUT OF THAT AREA YET, AND THERE'S CONSIDERABLE PRESSURE TO GO RIGHT BACK.

TAMARA MADE AN IMPORTANT POINT ABOUT PENDULUM SWINGS IN AMERICAN STRATEGIC THINKING-- NOT JUST IN POPULAR POLITICS, BUT IN STRATEGIC THINKING-- AND WE HAVE HAD A PENDULUM SWING RECENTLY.

I MEAN, WE HAD THE "NO MORE VIETNAM" MENTALITY BEING VERY INFLUENTIAL IN AMERICAN STRATEGY FOR YEARS.

WE HAD A "NO MORE IRAQ" MENTALITY THAT GOVERNED IN RECENT YEARS AND WAS LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNITED STATES DECIDING TO STAND ASIDE FROM THE DISINTEGRATION OF SYRIA AND KIND OF WATCH IT DISINTEGRATE, AND IT HAS BEEN CATASTROPHIC.

I MEAN, THE SITUATION IN SYRIA IS HEARTRENDING.

I THINK MUCH OF OUR POLITICAL LEADERSHIP OVERLEARNED THE LESSONS OF IRAQ, THAT, YOU KNOW, HOW DISASTROUS IT IS TO MAKE AN INTERVENTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT-- THE LESSON THAT INTERVENING IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS DANGEROUS IS A VALUABLE LESSON ALWAYS, BUT IT WAS OVERLEARNED, I THINK OVER-APPLIED, AND WE NOW HAVE A SITUATION OF REALLY CATASTROPHIC DIMENSIONS AND GREAT INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE, INCLUDING IMPORTANCE TO US AND OUR SECURITY, THAT'S HAPPENING IN SYRIA.

WE DID NOT SHOW THE SYRIAN PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE, THAT IT WILL BE THAT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM IRAQ, THE LACK OF INCLUSIVENESS, AND WE'VE DONE COMPLETELY THE EXACT SAME THING AGAIN, BUT INSTEAD, THIS TIME, AS YOU SAID, WE DECIDED TO STAY IN THE BACK AND ALLOW OUR PARTNERS IN THE REGION TO TAKE THE LEAD.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T SHARE THE SAME INTERESTS WITH OUR PARTNERS IN THE REGION.

TURKEY HAS THEIR OWN AMBITION FOR SYRIA.

QATAR HAS THEIR OWN AMBITION.

SAUDI ARABIA HAS THEIR OWN AMBITION.

SO WE HAVE ONLY ONE THING IN COMMON, IS THE REMOVAL OF THE REGIME, BUT WHAT COMES AFTER WE JUST LEFT A VOID THERE, WE JUST SAID WE WANT REGIME CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE IRANIAN, YOU KNOW, THREAT, NUCLEAR THREAT, AND WE DIDN'T TRY TO OFFER ANY ALTERNATIVE, VIABLE ALTERNATIVE, TO THE SYRIAN PEOPLE, TO THE PEACEFUL MAJORITY OF THE SYRIAN PEOPLE.

WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE SALIENCY, THE ABILITY, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AMERICAN INTERVENTION ABROAD.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION RIGHT NOW WHICH IS CLEARLY IN TRANSITION.

I GUESS MY CONCLUDING QUESTION IS, IN LIGHT OF THE HISTORY, IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCED, AND IN LIGHT OF CONDITIONS NOW, IS THERE A WAY OF REASSEMBLING, AT THIS POINT, AN AMERICAN POLICY IN IRAQ?

HAVE WE LEARNED LESSONS THAT WILL KEEP US OUT OF THAT AREA FOREVER, OR ARE THERE LESSONS THAT CAN NOW BE APPLIED TO ACHIEVE A MORE EFFECTIVE OUTCOME AND ONE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LONG-RANGE INTERESTS OF EVERY INTERESTED POWER IN THAT REGION?

TAMARA: WELL, LOOK, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT TROUBLES ME ABOUT OUR PUBLIC DEBATE RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE HAVE THIS DICHOTOMOUS APPROACH-- EITHER MILITARY INTERVENTION OR NOTHING.

DAVID: RIGHT.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS, TO SOME DEGREE, A MISTAKE OF THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO BELIEVE THAT THE UNDERLYING PROBLEMS OF THIS REGION COULD BE ADDRESSED MILITARILY, BUT IT IS EQUALLY A MISTAKE TO THINK THAT THE UNITED STATES CAN'T ADDRESS THEM AT ALL, AND THE MILITARY TOOL IS NOT THE ONLY TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX.

TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S CREDIT, THEY DID, LATER ON, INTRODUCE OTHER TOOLS TO TRY AND SHAPE OUTCOMES IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND TRY TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THIS REGION, LIKE EVERY OTHER REGION IN THE WORLD, IS FULL OF PEOPLE WHO WANT FREEDOM, DIGNITY, OPPORTUNITY, AND A CHANCE TO HAVE A VOICE IN HOW THEY'RE GOVERNED, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE, SO I THINK THE QUESTION FOR THE UNITED STATES IS HOW IT CAN NURTURE THE ONLY KIND OF GOVERNANCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST THAT WILL BE STABLE, WHICH IS INCLUSIVE GOVERNANCE.

I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR TAKING TIME OUT TO BE PART OF THE SHOW.

I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH, AND I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LEARN A LOT TUNING IN ON AN ISSUE THAT'S VERY MUCH WITH US TODAY.

AMERICA HAS SPENT ENORMOUS BLOOD AND TREASURE IN THE INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ.

WHAT DID OUR COUNTRY GET OUT OF IT?

WHAT WAS OUR MISSION, AND WAS IT ACCOMPLISHED?

WHAT DID THE IRAQIS GET?

ARE THEY, IN THE MAIN, BETTER OFF TODAY THAN BEFORE WE WENT THERE?

AND WHAT OF THE WIDER MIDDLE EAST-- INDEED, WHAT OF THE WIDER WORLD?

IT'S BECOME DIFFICULT TO HAVE A THOUGHTFUL AND CIVIL DISCUSSION OF THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IN MANY QUARTERS, THE ANSWERS ARE THOUGHT TO BE SELF-EVIDENT.

BUT AS WE'VE SEEN IN OUR DISCUSSION HERE, REASONABLE PEOPLE OF GOOD FAITH CAN HAVE DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW ON THESE MATTERS, AND THE ANSWERS, LIKE THOSE TO THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, ARE OFTEN MORE COMPLICATED THAN THEY MIGHT SEEM OR THAN CONVENTIONAL WISDOM MIGHT SEEM TO ALLOW.

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, WHAT AMERICA DECIDES AS THE LESSONS OF THE IRAQ EXPERIENCE WILL BE ENORMOUSLY CONSEQUENTIAL FOR OUR COUNTRY AND FOR THE WORLD, BECAUSE WHETHER AMERICA CHOOSES TO POWER DOWN WITHDRAWING FROM ITS NOW 70-YEAR-LONG POLICY OF BEING THE PRINCIPAL SWORD AND SHIELD FOR A CERTAIN FORM OF INTERNATIONAL ORDER-- THE INSTITUTIONS WHICH AMERICA MOSTLY CREATED IN THE WAKE OF WORLD WAR II-- OR AMERICA DECIDES TO CONTINUE AND PERHAPS EVEN EXPAND ITS ROLE IN REACTION TO RENEWED AND NEW THREATS TO THAT INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND TO OUR HOMELAND, WILL AFFECT EVERYONE ON THE PLANET EARTH.

AND HOW WE DECIDE TO SEE OUR EXPERIENCE IN IRAQ, WHAT WE DECIDE TO LEARN FROM IT, IS SURELY A PRIMARY DRIVER OF WHAT WE WILL DECIDE OUR FOREIGN POLICY CAN AND SHOULD BE GOING FORWARD.

WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT WHATEVER PATH AMERICA CHOOSES IN THE POST-IRAQ WAR WORLD, THAT CHOICE MUST BE MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF AN UNDERSTANDING OF OUR RECENT HISTORY THAT GOES DEEPER THAN POLITICAL SOUNDBITES AND THINKS LONG AND HARD ABOUT THE KIND OF WORLD THAT WE WISH TO LEAVE TO OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.

I'M DAVID EISENHOWER.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE DORAN FAMILY FOUNDATION, AMETEK, AND BY... AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.