solve this problem in weeks if that's what you mean. I think this is going to take some time. That was president Obama yesterday talking about military action in Iraq. Before heading to Martha... See More
solve this problem in weeks if that's what you mean. I think this is going to take some time. That was president Obama yesterday talking about military action in Iraq. Before heading to Martha vineyard's for a working vacation. We're back now with the roundtable. Matthew dowd, in the "The new York times" this week that, Obama becomes the fourth president in a row to order military action in that graveyard of American ambition. Well, to me, this is the decisions that have made by previous presidencies, especially president bush in 2002 and 2003, and our entry into Iraq, the next president is also going to be dealing with this, to my view, if you broaden this, this is exactly what happens. We have a humanitarian crisis. We have a global crisis is when we don't align moral objection. With long-term strategic goals. You have to be idealism but realism and we have had presidents in a row that basically had idealistic ideas. President bush was very idealistic. In the aftermath of this unrealistically, I think president Obama dealt a bad hand but has played it badly. We know now that have a presidential foreign policy that's not strategic but ad hoc. It doesn't work. We're not acting like a superpower, that's the problem. I agree with Hillary Clinton as you quoted her earlier saying, that, you know, if we had gotten into Syria when the rebels were begging us to come in and saying, here we are, trying to secure our freedom, where is America? Then, we wouldn't have this group fulfilling the vacuum. The president was very defensive about not getting a status agreement. Not having troops remain. And the president basically said, if they were there, they would be -- Run over. But isn't the reason we did not know that Isis was making such a rapid advancement because we didn't have people on the ground. They're not just there to walk around and show their guns. And I would argue, it may be time for someone to develop in the United States a policy that's bigger than going from country to country and treating them like they're small paradigms independent of one another. Contain Al Qaeda and terrorism? And how are we going to accomplish that? We don't have that strategy. We never developed it. And there are people inside the government who believe we ought to have such a thing. Lz, I going to go to you as a person who doesn't cover foreign policy, but as a person who has watched and see what happened this week in Iraq and over the years, what do you think. The more we have this conversation, religion and oil, the further we get away from the real problem. Part of the problem that we don't have the influence in the middle east, because we make decisions in the best interest of America. What's in the best interest in America is oil. But to me this is what happens, if the history of our country, when foreign policy done well, we don't get overly involved in regional conflicts. We use regional conflictses. Temporary, not permanent. And we do it in a strategic sense. The wars involved haven't been strategic or temporary. One word answer, does this consume the president for the rest of his term? Yes. Thanks, everyone. And next -- on a personal
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.