Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Iraq under Attack; Interview with Germany's Defense Minister

Aired June 22, 2014 - 10:00   ET


FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: -- (AUDIO GAP) America can do that will actually help. Retired General Zinni, Richard Clarke and Robert Grenier all weigh in.

Also, the other crisis in Ukraine. I will talk to Germany's Defense minister about punishing Putin.

Does Europe have the stomach for more pressure?

Then how a persuasive president who loves politics got an extremely controversial piece of legislation fast. The 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act. A milestone in American history.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now in this summer of 1964 the Civil Rights Bill is the law of the land.


ZAKARIA: Finally, how to crown a king when you're pinching pennies. Spain showed us the way this week.

But first, here's my take. To answer the question, what should America do in Iraq, we should try first to understand what's going on in the region through a broader prism. If you would look to the Middle East 15 years ago you would have seen a string of strikingly similar regimes across the region, from Libya and Tunisia in the west to Syria and Iraq in the east. They were all repressive dictatorships.

They were all secular in the sense that they did not derive their legitimacy from religious identity or authority. Historically they had been supported by outside powers. First the British and French, then the superpowers, which meant that these rulers were more about pleasing patrons abroad rather than carrying favor at home. And they had secure uncontested borders.

Today across the region that structure of authority has collapsed from Libya to Syria, and people are reaching for their deeper, older identities -- Shia, Sunni -- distrusting that they would be safe under anyone else's rule.

In Iraq and elsewhere, no amount of American military power can undo this tidal trend and put Humpty Dumpty back together. Why did it happen? The old order was probably unsustainable. It rested on extreme suppression which was producing extreme opposition movements. It also rested on super power patronage. And then one super power collapsed and the others' support dictators started wavering.

The countries with significant sectarian divides and in which minority groups ruled -- Iraq and Syria -- became the most vulnerable. The Iraq war was the crucial trigger and the American occupation needlessly exacerbated sectarian identities rather than building national identities. But let's be honest, Iraq's Shia, like the Sunni Islamist of Syria had been brutality suppressed by dictators for decades.

It is always going to be hard for them to sign up peacefully to share power with their former tore mentors. Maliki's reign of terror against the Sunnis has certainly ensured that the Sunnis will never really trust him and they are likely never to trust the parties he represents to rule over them.

As Washington supports the Baghdad government, it will have to be extremely careful not to be seen as taking sides in a sectarian conflict and to press for political reform and inclusiveness even as it offers Baghdad military support.

But Washington should recognize that national harmony in Iraq, everyone singing Kumbaya, is highly unlikely. It needs a plan B. Call it an enclave strategy. The world might have to accept that Iraq is turning into a country of enclaves and work to ensure that these regions stay as stable, terror free and open as is possible.

The Kurdish area, now bolstered by having captured the vital city of Kirkuk, is already a stable success story. It will be possible to work with countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan to influence the Sunni groups in the middle of the country and purge them of terrorists and empower moderate Sunnis.

Now there will be enclaves where ISIS and similar groups gain some strength. In these areas Washington will have to use drones, counterintelligence and occasional special forces strikes just as it does in parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. To scholar Joshua Landis' pointed that during the first half of the 20th century, much of Europe, especially Eastern Europe, went from being multi-ethnic to monoethic. One-third of Poland was non-Polish before World War II. One quarter of Czechoslovakia was minorities.

Then there was what Landis calls the great sorting out. The Middle East has been going through its own version of this process. America can't stop a trend like this. What it can do is try to limit the fallout, support those who believe in reconciliation and protect itself and its friends.

For more go to and read my "Washington Post" column this week.

Let's get started.

Let's get caught up on the latest from Iraq. Four towns on the highway between the Syrian border and Baghdad fell yesterday to ISIS. That is the Sunni militant group. And offshoot of al Qaeda that is wreaking havoc in the country.

One of the towns it took yesterday is just 62 miles from the Iraqi capital. And in Baghdad yesterday the rival Shia sect held a show of force of its own. The so-called parade was organized by Muqtada al- Sadr, a cleric made infamous by his actions during the most recent U.S. war with Iraq battling U.S. forces.

Nic Robertson is in Baghdad and joins me now live.

Nic, it feels like on the ground Washington may be talking about supporting an Iraqi government and talking about national unity, but it sounds to me on the ground out there, this has turned into a sectarian war. Is that -- is that your impression?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The gun feels loaded for it at the moment, Fareed. And it's very hard to see as somebody stopping the momentum towards pulling the trigger, if you will. A few years ago when U.S. forces were here the city was happier with U.S. diplomats. They can hold more sway and hold the sides apart than looking at that demonstration by Muqtada al-Sadr's militia in the Sadr City of Baghdad and Basra in the south and there are many other militias -- Shia militias that have been activated.

It's very clear that the potential for a sectarian war is there. What we've seen in Al Anbar a taking of territory by the -- essentially by the Sunnis backed by ISIS or fronted by ISIS is just another dimension of that -- Fareed.

ZAKARIA: Nic, does it feel like in this context that American military advisors or even strikes could make a difference?

ROBERTSON: It's going to have to be a long-term strategy and certainly ISIS is based and where they're taking some of their weapons, where they have safe haven and sanctuary is across the border in Syria indeed in the same way that the Taliban and Afghanistan could hide across the border in Pakistan. So any effort to take out ISIS inside Iraq to weaken them to help, if you will, strengthen the Iraqi army and reclaim territory will have to necessarily include a component that strikes at ISIS' basis inside Syria.

It cannot succeed unless that happens. You're looking at a long-term strategy. It's hard to see how 300 advisors can provide enough intelligence and de-conflict the situation on the ground that provides the weight of airstrikes.

Yesterday after three days of fighting a whole brigade of Iraqi troops collapsed and were overrun at the border. That gave ISIS and their supporters free run all the way to the outskirts of Baghdad. What airstrikes could stop them? What airstrikes could pick them off along the way and have an immediate strong impact? It's not clear, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: Fascinating reporting as always, Nic. Stay safe.

Up next, will the United States be seen as taking sides in this sectarian war? Is there a way to do this right? An all-star panel weighs in. Stay with us.


ZAKARIA: Let's dig deeper into what the United States is doing in Iraq, what it should be doing, and how effective any potential action might be.

I have a terrific panel with me.

Retired General Anthony Zinni was the commander of the U.S. Central Command. In the post he oversaw all U.S. troops in the greater Middle East. Richard Clarke spent 30 years working in national security at the highest levels of government including 10 years at the National Security Council under both presidents Bush and President Clinton. He is also the author of the new thriller "Sting of the Drone."

And Robert Grenier was the CIA's Iraq mission manager from 2002 to 2004 and director of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center from 2004 to 2006.

Gentlemen, welcome.

Richard Clarke, when we think about these things we often think about them in sort of technical terms. Will this make the army stronger? Will it make it more effective? But my experience is that it's read on the ground in political terms. The United States is supporting the Shia dominated government, we are not supporting the Sunnis or we are taking sides.

Do you worry that this is going to be read in a sectarian way, this support?

RICHARD CLARKE, AUTHOR, "STING OF THE DRONE": I do. After all, the United States refused to get involved in Syria, refused to help the Sunnis who were being attacked by the government in Syria so it appeared like we were on the side of Iran and the Shias there. Now if we support the government in Baghdad it will be seen in some parts of the Middle East that we're supporting the Iranians and the Shia in Iraq as well, at the expense of the Sunni.

We have to remember that the goal here is not military. The goal is political and it's to have a national reconciliation process between the -- between the Sunni and the Shia and of course the Kurds. And so the U.S. military should do some things to prevent an al Qaeda takeover of Baghdad, but we have to limit what we do so that we keep our eye on the ball of the ultimate political solution that we have to try to achieve.

ZAKARIA: Mr. Grenier, when you listen to Richard Clarke, is that doable? Is it possible for us, for the United States to -- you know, to kind of stay somewhat removed and as I see what he's saying, as I interpret what he's saying, occasionally get involved, really zap the bad guys when they seem to be building a terrorist training camp or doing something that could affect U.S. interests?

ROBERT GRENIER, FORMER CIA OFFICIAL: Yes, I think that we can have an influence there. And I actually agree with Dick, that the key issue is a political one. But the U.S. has to be in the mix. And I think that far short of having combat troops, we can enhance our presence in a way that will increase our political influence both with the government and also with the Sunni tribes with whom we've had reckless dealings in the past.

I don't, however, think that we will serve our interests or the interests of any of the concerned parties with a large conventional military force on the ground, combat troops, no. But the real weakness of the Iraqi army as I see it, and I defer to the expertise of General Zinni here. The real weakness of the Iraqi army is a tactical weakness. They have very, very bad tactical leadership and I think that's where training, mentorship of U.S. troops is going to be very important. Keeping them there at the battalion level I don't think is going to be enough.

ZAKARIA: General Zinni, how do you interpret the collapse of the Iraqi army so far? It seems as though a lot of it is Sunni troops who did not want to fight fellow Sunnis or Sunni troops disaffected by what they see as Shia generals. In other words, again, it seems like it's not a matter of effectiveness but it's a political issue. That the army doesn't want to fight for this government or those units in the army. And can that be remedied?

GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI, FORMER CENTCOM COMMANDER: But I think it's important to understand what Dick said. We cannot validate this as a religious war. Should we partner with Iran and accept Maliki -- not changing and continuing the same sort of isolation of the Sunnis that he has, we will do that. And we will clearly be seen on this one side and lose our allies in the Gulf and in the region.

I think what has to happen is, first, stay clear of the Iranians. Insist that anything more than the immediate emergency support we're supplying militarily for Maliki is all we would do unless he commits to a reform and changes and maybe even eventually steps down.

Third, I think we have to go to our allies in the region, especially those countries that have Sunni leadership, Kurds, Jordan, Turkey, the Gulf states, and solicit their help. They're going to want these guarantees on a Maliki change and see that we are distancing ourselves from Iran. But we're going to need their help in the long term to convince the Sunnis that whatever reforms Maliki puts in place will be enforced, will be supported by us and we'll bring them back into a holistic Iraq. If not, then we're going to see three rump states which will be destabilizing for the region.

ZAKARIA: Dick Clarke, is it possible to imagine that we can pull off this very delicate balancing act? Because what we're saying is, what -- you know, I think there is this general consensus, you've got to do something to support this government against ISIS, against this al Qaeda terrorist group, which means you are supporting a Shia dominated government that has been very tough on the Sunnis?

And yet -- obviously they're going to say but we're actually not supporting the Shia and we're not supporting this in sectarian ways. You know, what I'm wondering is that requires a level of nuance that

we may not be able to do but more importantly may not be read that way in the region no matter what we do.

CLARKE: Well, the president has to call the leadership of the Sunni countries. He has to call the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Emiratis and make clear that we're not getting in bed with Iran and we're not making war on Sunnis, we're making war on Daesh, ISIS, al Qaeda. And he has to find a way and maybe the Saudis can do this for us or the Jordanians, to open channels to the Sunnis who are not part of al Qaeda.

And the goal here has to be the split off the reasonable Sunnis who have been really attacked politically and otherwise by the Maliki government in Baghdad and to say to them we don't support Maliki per se. We support a government of national unity. Our problem is with al Qaeda, Daesh, and not with you.

Now that's going to be difficult but it's not beyond the capability of the United States if we cooperate with our allies here in the Gulf.

ZAKARIA: Robert, you've dealt with these people. Is it possible for the Sunnis of Iraq to trust the Maliki government even if he did make some concessions, even if he did make some outreach? If you were a Sunni leader in Iraq, you've watched what Maliki has done for the last four or five years, are you going to buy it? Are you going to be willing to get in bed with him? It just feels to me like the prospect of national reconciliation at this point is remote.

ROBERT GRENIER, FORMER CIA OFFICIAL: I agree with that. I think it's going to be very, very important for a replacement to be found for Nuri al-Maliki. And here I disagree with General Zinni. I think it's very important for the Americans to be speaking quietly with the Iranians. You know, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Jim Jeffries has a very nice phrase for this. He says that the Iranian interest in Iraq is to keep the Sunnis down, the Kurds in and the Americans out.

ZINNI: And right now Nuri al-Maliki is not serving any of their agenda items. I think that they will agree once the current crisis has passed this man needs to be replaced. I think that we have to have a substantial presence on the ground to give us the influence that we need to work again indirectly in conjunction with the Iranians who share some interests with us to make sure that there's a change of leadership in Baghdad.

Remember Iran's interests in Syria and Lebanon and in Palestine and elsewhere is not in our interest. I don't see how you cut and split apart support or work with Iran and then in another case oppose them. I just don't see the deftness in diplomacy that we've been lacking for quite a while that's going to pull this off.

ZAKARIA: Richard Clarke, would you agree, talk to the Iranians?

CLARKE: Not very much. I think we have to have some contact with them. But we have to avoid being seen to have our advisors standing next to the Quds force, Iranian advisors on the ground. You know, Fareed, the major thing we have to bear in mind here is it's

not America's job to fix the Middle East. It's America's job to worry about our own interests. And we have to be guided by two principles. One, we want to stop al Qaeda and prevent a sanctuary and, two, we want to minimize Iranian influence because it is fundamentally anti- American and it is seeking throughout the Middle East to make trouble for the United States.

Those are the two things we should go after and not worry about trying to make democracies or trying to make functioning states where that's nearly impossible.

ZAKARIA: Gentlemen, fascinating discussion. This issue is not going to go away so I hope we can rely on you again.

Next on GPS, the IMF says the U.S. must raise its minimum wage. I have a better idea to help the nation's working poor and it has serious bipartisan support. I will tell you about it when we come back.


ZAKARIA: Now for our "What in the World" segment. The economic buzz word of the year is inequality. It sparked protest around the world, as the centerpiece of President Obama's agenda now. It's even inspired an unlikely best-seller.

People watch the growing inequality around the world and in the United States and despair about what to do. One of the most popular fixes is raising the minimum wage, and that's not just on the left. Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has recently supported a new wage increase as has Britain's chancellor, the Exchequer, the conservative George Osborne.

In the United States President Obama proposed the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in the beginning of the year. That's a 39 percent increase over the current minimum wage of $7.25. Republicans have, of course, made it clear that they will never pass this in Congress.

This week the International Monetary Fund weighed in and urged the U.S. to raise the wage floor saying it is low by both historical and international standards. The federal minimum wage in America was about 38 percent of the median wage in 2011, which is one of the lowest percentages among the rich countries of the world.

A group of more than 600 economists signed a letter imploring the president and Congress to pass a wage hike which they contend would, quote, "have a small stimulative effect on the economy," end quote.

Truth be told, small is the operative word. It's really not clear what kind of effect raising the wage would have on the U.S. economy. The billionaire investor warren buffet has made very clear his positions on most economic issues but not this one. Buffet said this on CNN in April.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WARREN BUFFETT, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: I thought about it for 50 years and I don't know the answer on it.

ZAKARIA: There is in fact a better way to help the working poor. What's more, it's something that has some bipartisan support and something that the vast majority of economists agree will make people better off. What could it be? Drum roll please. We need to raise substantially the earned income tax credit. I know, I know. You don't know what I'm talking about? And anyway it sounds really boring.

Let me explain and you might be interested, too. The earned income tax credit, the EITC, is a credit for people who earn under a certain threshold annually. So if you earn under 51,500 and 67 dollars. You automatically get an extra refund check from Uncle Sam. So the average worker got anywhere from $2,000 to $6,000 back in 2012 depending on how much she made, whether she's married, how many kids she has. What I'm suggesting, along with many others, is that more people should get more money back through the EITC. Here's why the earned income tax credit is a more effective way of attacking poverty. The Congressional Budget Office found that if the federal wage were increased to $10.10 as Obama has proposed, 19 percent of the gains in income would go to workers below the poverty line. It's the intention to help those people. But get this, the CBO says that 29 percent of the income gains would go to households that make three times the poverty level. So raising the minimum wage is a blunt tool. It helps some working poor, but also helps others and, thus, is inefficient. Meanwhile, the earned income tax credit ensures that money almost entirely gets to the poorest workers, to those who need it the most. It is by far the most effective way to fight poverty and reward hard work.

Here's the problem. It's less palatable to politicians because they can't pass off the costs to employers. They have to pay for it themselves directly through the federal government. That shouldn't matter because it's a much more effective efficient mechanism. In March the White House did propose an expansion of the earned income tax credit to cover substantially more Americans. Some Republicans have gotten on board. It would be funded by closing corporate tax loopholes, which would be a good thing to do anyway. The earned income tax credit is an anti-poverty tool that works. If it didn't exist, 3.1 million more children would have lived in poverty in 2011. It's a fundamentally conservative idea supported by Milton Friedman that eats away at inequality by investing more in working Americans. Can Washington get over its polarization enough to say yes to a good bipartisan idea?

Next on "GPS" the other crisis, Ukraine. Will Germany support tougher measures against Vladimir Putin? I'll ask the German defense minister when we come back.


ZAKARIA: This week all eyes were on Iraq, but let's not forget about Ukraine. The question in that crisis has been the same from the start, how to get Vladimir Putin to behave. How to deter Russia from being more aggressive. In my view, the only way to do that is solidarity. The United States and Europe speaking from one mouth. To talk about all of this and more joining me is Ursula von der Leyen, the German defense minister. She is the first woman to hold that office and is often talked about as a possible successor to Chancellor Angela Merkel. Welcome, madam minister.


ZAKARIA: Do you believe that Vladimir Putin has been deterred? That Russia is now content with the situation in Ukraine as it is? What is your best information from the Russian/Ukrainian border?

VON DER LEYEN: Well, he didn't do that by chance. He didn't do this annexation of Crimea out of the blue, but it seemed to have been a long-term strategic plan to have this intervention in the Crimea, that be annexation of the Crimea. And all of a sudden it seems so forgotten, that Putin trampled on international rules and laws and ignored the sovereignty of the Ukraine so we should not forget about that. But something happened - where I think Putin did not count on. All of a sudden there was a growing solidarity and unity in the West and NATO, Europe, and America to stop him by the means we choose that are economic sanctions. And I think this is the right way to go.

ZAKARIA: You know, the whole region is nervous. I know in Finland there is, for example, this great debate now about whether Finland should try to be part of NATO because, you know, there have been leaks about Russians talking about how if Finland were to try to dare to join NATO it would start World War III. Do you think that the Baltic States, Finland potentially could be defended, in the event of a Russian attack?

VON DER LEYEN: The answer is yes and because the Kremlin does know that. He would certainly not even dare to think about it.

ZAKARIA: Madam Minister, we've learned from the Snowden revelations that the NSA had a very active -- has a very active presence in Germany, has about a dozen collection sites around the country. There's this large building in Wiesbaden where it collects data. As an aftermath of all these revelations, is Germany still going to cooperate with U.S. intelligence services in data collection or are you rethinking that?

VON DER LEYEN: Well, NSA is a difficult topic and let me put it in the right frame. I'm absolutely convinced that we -- Europe specifically, Germany and the United States, we have a strong bond - Transatlantic bond and alliance because we share the same values and we defend the same values. And over and over again, we have to make sure that we never forget that because we should not take it for granted, this very specific friendship. It's something very precious, but within this friendship, yes, there has been quite a disappointment that the NSA was acting as it did in Germany specifically with regard of, you know, going into listening with phone call conversations of high representatives in Germany if I may put it in these terms. We've learned two things out of that. First of all, it's also matter of being dependent in Germany from certain technologies, but there is also a discussion that has to be led between our countries and I think there's a debate in the United States, too, that poses the question whether the government is allowed to do anything that is possible.

So the rules by which we are playing specifically when the serviced is - what the services are concerned have to be redefined, the balance between individual rights and, of course, security matters that are important for a government. And within that I think the most important thing is the transatlantic trust and confidence and friendship. We are caring for and I'm sure we're going to solve the daily problems a friendship does have, like the one you just mentioned.

ZAKARIA: Very diplomatically put. Madam Minister, thank you very much. Pleasure to have you on.

VON DER LEYEN: It was an honor. Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on "GPS," we'll recall a time in America when a major transformative piece of legislation and a very controversial one actually passed through Congress, thanks to the persuasiveness of a president. It's a tale with resonance today when we come back.


ZAKARIA: Ten days from now the United States will mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To me it remains one of the great puzzles and achievements of American history. The achievement part is obvious. The puzzle part is twofold. First, why did it take so long? It passed 101 years after President Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. And, second, how did it finally get passed? To get the answers, let's step back 50 years. It's hard for young people today to imagine, but back then there were restaurants and stores and cabs, mostly in the South, where black people were not served. There were separate water fountains for the two races. And as Rosa Parks made infamous, separate sections of buses just to name a few. It was legal in 1964 to refuse to hire somebody because of the color of the skin or their gender. A year earlier President John F. Kennedy had addressed the nation to urge action on civil rights.


JOHN F. KENNEDY: It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color, but this is not the case.


ZAKARIA: But then Kennedy was assassinated. Surprisingly his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a staunch Southerner, took up the cause, a cause that looked hopeless. Why? Here's American historian and Johnson biographer, Robert Caro.

ROBERT CARO, BIOGRAPHER OF LYNDON B. JOHNSON: Civil rights had always died in the center because of the filibuster, but this bill wasn't even in the Senate. It wasn't even on the House floor. It was in the House rules committee, which was chaired by this racist from Virginia, Judge Howard W. Smith, and he wasn't letting it out.

ZAKARIA: American political parties were very different back then. Smith was a democrat and Caro says Smith's Southern Democrats were conservative and racist and powerful.

CARO: The Southerners controlled Congress, and, you know, there was -- the civil rights was boiling up on the streets of the South, there were so many heroes there. I mean 1964 is the summer when Chaney and Goodman and Schwerner were killed. It's the summer where all the fire hoses were being turned on the little children. They're rolling that little girl down the street. It was horrible. But the civil rights bill was a movement. The Southern Democrats didn't care what the national sentiment was. In their district, in their congressional district or their state, if it was a senator, the voters didn't care for that. They voters liked their stand against civil rights.

ZAKARIA: But Johnson had a secret weapon he would wield called a discharge petition. If a majority of House members signed it, the foundering Civil Rights Act would have to be released from the rules committee to be voted on by the full House. First Johnson had to figure out a way to get one crucial vote, Charles Halleck of Indiana, was the House Republican leader who had said that anybody who signed the discharge petition would be kicked out of the Republican Party. How did Johnson change his mind? Here's Caro again.

CARO: Johnson has Halleck to his office and with Halleck, he feels that what Halleck really wants is NASA grants, National Aeronautic Space Agency for Purdue University, which is the biggest employer in his congressional district. While Halleck is sitting there, he picks up the phone and calls James Webb, the NASA administrator and he says, I'm sending Charles Halleck over to you.


LYNDON JOHNSON: I'm made to do anything I can for Charlie Halleck. Isn't there something you can do?

I'll do everything I can. And I hope when he comes back to you, he'll tell you that I have - he's not satisfied and he comes back to me, well then I'm going to be talking to you again.


JOHNSON: OK. Thank you, sir.


CARO: Halleck is satisfied and "The New York Times" reports the next day all during this Republican caucus people are members or walking out to take calls from leaders and the Republicans start to sign the discharge petition and the civil rights bill starts to get moving.

ZAKARIA: But once passed the House, the bill had to go to the Senate. There was an arguably bigger hurdle there. What was thought to be an impenetrable Southern filibuster? Seven years earlier Strom Thurmond had filibustered on civil rights for 24 hours and 18 minutes. Still the record for the longest filibuster in history.

The Senate, the central drama, it seems to me, is between Johnson and his greatest mentor, Richard Russell. And I've now -- because of your book I've listened to the tapes and the tapes are fascinating because you see Johnson seducing Russell telling him, you're the most important person in my life. You're like my father. You've got to come to dinner.


JOHNSON: It's not up to me to tell you how smart you are, the son to tell the father.

Take care of yourself, I love you, and be good.


ZAKARIA: But clearly what I know from the book is the strategy and the plot is to totally undermine him and outmaneuver him and to pass this bill despite Russell's opposition.

CARO: And, you know, and Russell, you're exactly right. You summarized it better than I could, but Russell knows what he's dealing with. He tells a friend, he says, you know, we could have beaten John Kennedy in the civil rights. We can't beat Lyndon Johnson. He says, he's a man who understands power and how to use it. He'll tear your arm off at the shoulder and beat you over the head with it, but he'll get your votes. We're going to lose to Lyndon Johnson.

ZAKARIA: And lose is exactly what Russell did. On June 10th, 1964, the Senate voted to end the filibuster and soon after passed the bill. On July 2nd Lyndon Johnson, that unlikely shepherd of civil rights in America, spoke to the nation before signing the bill and ended his address with a powerful message.


JOHNSON: Let us close the springs of racial poison. Let us pray for a wise and understanding hearts. Let us lay aside the irrelevant differences and make our nation whole.


ZAKARIA: With that, he signed the bill. When he signed the civil rights bill he does recognize and actually says, I have handed the South over to the Republican Party.

CARO: Yes, for 40 years he says, I've turned that over to the Republican Party.

ZAKARIA: So he knew that he was paying a terrible political price for doing what he thought was the right thing.

CARO: Yes, a terrible political price.

ZAKARIA: Thanks to the great Robert Caro. For more on this fascinating portion of American history, don't miss CNN's series, the 60s, a great episode on the Civil Rights Act airs this Thursday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern for viewers in north America.


ZAKARIA: A new report analyzing U.N. data shows that the global trade in small arms and light weapons almost doubled between 2001 and 2011. It brings me to my question, which nation leads the world in both the import and export of small arms? Is it Germany, Russia, the United States or China? Stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer.

This week's book of the week is Jack Devine's "Good Hunting." Devine, a 32-year veteran of covert operations of the CIA gives that rear well written insider's account of the agency and its work around the world. A fascinating read. Now for the last look. This week Prince Philippe became Philippe VI, king of Spain. Rather than the big to do one normally sees at European coronations, Prince Philippe opted for a more muted ceremony. It felt kind of like a second marriage rather than the big first wedding ceremony. There was a military procession and a simple proclamation. There were no horse drawn carriages. The royals arrived by car, although that is a nice car. There were no foreign royals or heads of state in attendance. King Juan Carlos himself didn't even attend the ceremony. Instead of a seated banquet guests were served toppers while standing. The crown was displayed next to Philippe, but he didn't wear it. Ardent royalists criticized the austere event as a missed opportunity to project a positive image of Spain to the world, but the occasion was reflective of Spain's economic situation and mood. Still recovering from the recession, the country's unemployment rate is roughly 26 percent. For youth, that number is north of 50 percent. That didn't stop others from adding pomp to the event, commemorative souvenirs reminiscent of a royal wedding are being sold all around the country. Of course, that could be a nice stimulus that the Spanish economy needs.

The correct answer to our GPS challenge question was C, the United States as some of you might have predicted, which tops votes' lists of countries with at least 100 million in exports and imports of small arms annually. China and Russia join the U.S. at the list of top exporters. Germany was the only other country to join the U.S. on both lists.

Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

ERIN MCPIKE, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Erin McPike. And here are the big stories we are following this hour. Islamic militants in Iraq are gaining significant ground in their battle against Iraqi troops. Two Iraqi security officials say ISIS now controls 70 percent of the western province of Anbar. That includes Al Qa'im, a strategically key town at border Syria, a stronghold for ISIS militants. Secretary of State John Kerry, who's in Egypt today, heads to Jordan tonight to discuss the Iraq crisis with regional leaders.

In his strongest language yet Pope Francis is telling members of the Italian mafia they are excommunicated from the Catholic Church. He warns them, quote, "Hell awaits you if you continue on this road." This is the first time any pope has threatened excommunication for mafia members. Some prosecutors are now worried the mafia might target the pope.

At the World Cup there's a huge game for team USA coming up in just a few hours. They go up against Portugal, and if they win they are guaranteed a spot in the next round after beating Ghana in their first game. But they'll have to do it without one of their star players, Jozy Altidor who's injured. Portugal's team has their own worries: Superstar player Cristiano Ronaldo is expected to play with a knee injury. "Reliable Sources" starts right now.