Transcripts For CSPAN Former National Security Adviser McMaster Others On Trump... 20240713

Welcome. Im pleased you are with us today for a very special fdd conversation. 18 years ago we were attacked out of a clear blue sky, litter chilichili attacked out of a clear, blue sky, literally and figuratively. Since then, russia has not moderated, russia has not reset relations, more than ever we need to integrate all tools, all all power. This has to be leveraged if we defend our interests at home abroad. Fdd has launched three centers on American Power, expanding the work we have done in the past providing research, analysis, and creative policy ideas on current and emerging threats. We share these ideas with policymakers from both parties, administrations, congress, the media, and the security community. Fdd focuses on military and political power and cyber power and economic power, all are doing cuttingedge research and analysis. Led andnters are staffed by thought leaders of varying backgrounds including academic and military intelligence. We are immensely proud to have them as colleagues. You will hear from the chairs of our three centers, all who have served by providing analysis at the most senior levels. H. R. Mcmaster the chair of our center on military and political power. He previously served as the National Security advisor to President Trump. Dr. Samantha, is the chair of vice chair of the president s Advisory Board and served as a deputy security advisor to Vice President cheney. And the chair of our economic and financial power chair served previously as the Deputy Assistant to the president and deputy National Security advisor for combating terrorism. Americas adversaries are determined to reshape the world order and to diminish and displace the United States in any ways that they can. These nations and nonstate may employ hybrid and gray zone tactics, operating against the United States and our allies in new domain such as race and cyberspace, and these new forms of Economic Warfare. In some cases, they wage their campaigns using sophisticated , asymmetrical capabilities below the threshold of war as the United States has defined it traditionally. They believe operating this way will enable them to achieve timemental, but over substantial process substantial progress, without eliciting a consequential response from the United States. Our leaders have too often found they cannot compete effectively until they use a holistic , comprehensive and forwardthinking strategy. America has powerful tools and they must be employed better than they have dig day if we are to if we are to deter our enemies and defeat those we cannot do tour. This is one of many forums we host throughout the year. For more information on our work and areas of focus we encourage you to visit our website, fdd. Org. We take no Foreign Government or foreign corporate money and we never intend to. We are glad to be joined by a distinguished audience of diplomats and representatives from the state department, pentagon, activeduty military personnel and a few members of the media. Todays event is being livestreamed and broadcast on cspan. I encourage guests here and online to join in on the conversation on twitter. Just use fdd. Thank you for being here in person, or watching on cspan, or watching online. If you are in this audience, you are not just anyone you are , participating and in many cases helping drive the policy debates in what remains a free and open society. Im going to start the questioning and get a few issues on the table and are not just then turn to you, not least the serious journalists who are with us today. But let me begin by talking up by talking about americas instruments of power. Two years ago, the National Security strategy that you oversaw said the United States was to compete with all tools of National Power. I think its fair to say that over the last decade the u. S. , has learned to use sanctions in a more muscular and targeted way and i believe you played a , role in that. The u. S. Has also utilized Cyber Capabilities to achieve ends that might have previously required economic pressure orwaa military might, samantha youve , played a role in that. The u. S. Has built bilateral and multilateral alliances to increase pressure on adversaries , and the u. S. Military has been forward thinking to ensure that we outpace enemies. I dont think it has consistent had the resources to achieve that mission. Let me just start with that, h. R. Am i painting too rosy a picture . Is there more dismal picture . How have we been doing over the past two years . Mr. Mcmaster cliff, i think you raise the essence of strategic competence, and is foundational to our ability to compete effectively against the adversaries you have mentioned. Great power competition is back with the revisionist powers of china and russia. We have a threat from nonstate actors, jihadist terrorist organizations who want to kill our children and who are the enemies of all civilized people, hostile states such as iran, youve seen what theyve done over the past several months not , only to attack broadly against the west, against our partners to keepegion, but also burning the fires of the sectarian civil war that is also allowing groups like isis, al qaeda, and other groups to continue to portray themselves as patrons and protectors of sunni arab populations in particular. So we have to be able to integrate all elements of National Power to compete effectively with powers and hostile states and nonstate actors. I would say we are doing better. But what you have seen in recent weeks, months, days, i think is an underappreciation for the degree to which all elements of National Power have to be combined to achieve sustainable , political outcomes that are consistent with our vital interests. For example when we talk about , the operations that our military is conducting, they are not operations as ends in and of themselves. They are part of a larger effort to ensure the security and prosperity of the American People, and to do that by competing effectively against determined and often as we see across the middle east, very brutal enemies. Cliff you can you pick up on any of that, and i will throw in addition. As our capabilities have evolved, i would argue so have the capabilities of our adversaries. China is well in advance of where was, taking over reefs, turning them into islands. We have deprived the Islamic State of territory, but it still exists, and i would say that those who proclaim themselves to be fighting a jihad against us have spread around the world, in more countries, far from being defeated. And russia has shown how, under putin, it can play that rather well. Russia goes into the middle east, obama says, its a quagmire, even for us, and putin says, i am willing to show how to operate and let me show you what i can do. So our adversaries are also not standing still. Me. thank you for having its an honor to be here. The map of the world is being reshaped by americas adversaries in many ways, physically as youve demonstrated, russia in crimea, China Building islands, isis has erased borders, there is a physical and virtual dimension, sam has done great work in that domain. The cyber world brings new communities, new borders and borderless communities, and you have also reshaped alliances that are not just being affected by americas adversaries, but being reshaped by how we think about power. Just to start off and take a step back, i think the map of the world is being reshaped as we speak. And the challenge we have is to give life to the strategy that h. R. Helped formulate. The problem, and this is the less rosy dimension of the picture, is that we are not good at combining elements of power but also thinking about how the , asymmetric properties of the Global Environment are actually taking place, and how we operate in them. What we have done at our center is to think about how we use economic and financial elements of power that we have used quite , well over the past 20 years to affect americas enemies, to bankrupt them, to dismantle Financial Networks that threaten us, to exclude illicit capital and rogue actors from the financial system. Thats the strategy we have used. And the reason we have been successful in that regard is that we have had primacy and we have maintained escalatory dominance. Because of the primacy of the dollar, the role of the economy and our ability to find the to define the rules of the road, thats part of it. But all of that is being challenged by our adversaries. And what is interesting, we forecasted this in the creation of our center over five years ago. We were saying the realm of economic and financial power as part of a broader tableau of asymmetric power happening around the world. Our enemies are getting smarter and more nimble, they understand how to use the elements of the financial system, they are Getting Better at the use of cyber tools they understand how , to use kinetic activity, drone warfare, other things in ways that make us more vulnerable, not just the u. S. But our , allies. So we have to think aggressively about how do we use these powers properly, strategically, sustainably. We think about how we use sanctions and financial regulations to drive the exclusion of rogue actors from the system. Secondly, we think about defensive strategies, because its the russians and the chinese and even nonstate actors that are thinking about how to use financial and Economic Resources to influence, coerce, and to shape environments. So what does that defensive posture look like . And finally one part of the , strategy that has not been fully articulated yet is how do , we use positive economic power as a complement to what we are do, both defensively offensively, to reshape the environment . This comes up when we talk about china in the one belt one road context, how are we investing strategically . How are we promoting the Good Behavior and alliances, both state and nonstate, that we want to see . So how we think about the use of the economic and financial power and that of our allies becomes a part of it. And i think we have not figured out as a country, how do we stitch this together so we can compete in an environment where our state adversaries are operating in an asymmetric domain, allying with nonstate actors, the russians with organized criminal networks, china using cyber activists and hackers, the iranians attacking not only our interests, but our allies interests . We have yet to figure out how do we deal aggressively in an asymmetric environment where, in many cases we have predominant , power and we dont know how to use it. I also want to emphasize the extent to which you have been instrumental in making clear the extent to which Cyber Weapons and Cyber Capabilities can impact our economic strength and our military strength. And i dont think everyone has been aware of this. Its not just about getting your personal information so you can be blackmailed online. This is way beyond that. Pick up on that. In 2015 we really started exploring the notion that we coined, cyber enabled Economic Warfare. That means the use by adversaries using cyber means to undermine key elements of our economy and economic strength in order to weaken us strategically. To weaken our military, our ability to finance our military, our Innovation Base, and to weaken our ability to project power strategically. Because we were concerned that these episodes of Cyber Attacks that we saw, whether it was iran against the Banking Industry in 2012, what north korea did against a u. S. Company, sony industries, and what they have been doing in south korea for many years, what china and russia have been doing. We see this as episodic. They were seen individually as acts of aggression, but they were not being taken as part of a Campaign Plan, a Campaign Plan to weaken our greatest source of is the private sector. We are the number military in one the world because we are the numberone economy in the world. The Innovation Base drives our position. We have been focusing on it, writing about it and understanding that the adversary understands it differently in beijing, moscow, we have great reports you can get online. And we were really high heartened when the notion of cyber enabled Economic Warfare was called out specifically in the 2017 National Security strategy. It was the First Time Ever our country at the highest level understood that type of intersection of our economy and our vulnerabilities to our economy and how that leads to , vulnerabilities in the strategic sense. And the center for cyber and technology innovation, we do two things. We focus on the adversary Campaign Plans, what they are going after, how they are going after it, why they want to undermine certain parts of our economy and maybe not others, looking at what they are doing in allied nations. So that is the first part, kind ringingthe bal, the bell, ringing the bell on the hill and the executive branch and dod and the department of energy because grid resiliency is critical for all of this as well as the , corporate sector. Its easy for our corporate citizens to hide as we are all being hit, or what are we supposed to do about it . So we really opened their eyes to that. But the second is that we are living, i want to say frighteningly, in a pre9 11 mindset. Except where i look at it, its the cyber vulnerabilities. So on the other part of the center, we look about how we can harden our defense because as we get out there, as anybody understands our use of sanctions , our use of treasuries more. Good call out, right . Thank you. Of the last chapter of treasuries war, juan predicted some of the conclusions as well. Its a powerful tool, but im not going to say people in glass houses should not throw stones , but we do need to harden our capital walls. Because we are out there and , when a country like iran, north korea, china, russia, looks at how they can undermine us, the cyber enabled Economic Warfare, getting into the supply chains, which we will talk about in a little bit is key to their , strategy. So at the other part of our center, we focus on what are some ways to harden the castle walls . We partnered with microsoft on a supply chain Defense Project for the pentagon. Real ways that can be piloted to make us stronger. When we talk about peace through strength, everyone nods their head, but i dont know if we thought through what that means. It essentially means theres one guy in the bar you dont mess with, hes too tough. We could be that guy, im not sure that we are. If you think about it, iran downs a u. S. Drone in International Airspace and attacked Saudi Arabian Energy Facilities that are a key to the u. S. Economy. China has for years been stealing us blind, hundreds of millions of dollars in intellectual property, including military secrets, building their defenses on that basis and what , have we done . And again, we have got to the point where the nba dare not insult them. Russia has attempted to attack our electric grid and undermine us in various ways and , north korea has been escalating its military tests. Yes it may be that the president , tried to use a positive economic incentive with kim i think kim jongun does not believe that fire and fury awaits him if he does not compromise. And i think without that, the idea of having a nice resort on the sea of japan will not do the trick. ,will start with you, h. R what is this a about our assumptions of American Power . Do we not have the tools . Are we not using them properly . How do we reinvigorate deterrence, so that we can determine most of our enemies . Mr. Mcmaster i think that we have improved, just based on the recognition that we can compete more effectively. And im sitting next to two people who have pioneered in making us more effective in arenas of competition. Juan really started our counter threat finance efforts as part of a way to defeat terrorist organizations who attacked our country. Samantha has opened everyones eyes to this new domain of competition in cyberspace and , the use of technology to go after us in new ways to attack , our National Security Innovation Base, for example, in ways that we thought were invulnerable or not that important. So i think we are Getting Better, but we have to recognize that we are behind. At the end of the cold war, we ofe flush with a great sense triumph and optimism and overconfidence and maybe hubris to an extent. We thought these competitions were over. We had won. And i think that complacency and overconfidence shifted after a number of strategic shocks, certainly the mass murder attacks of 9 11, but also the unanticipated length and difficulty of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. And the 2008 financial crisis. I think the emotional impetus behind our Foreign Policy shifted from over optimism to resignation, almost a sense of defeat is him and the belief that really, we cant win in these competitions, and an associated belief that our disengagement from these competitions was an unmitigated good. What these two approaches had, the approach of complacency and the approach of resignation, had in common was the failure to recognize the degree of agency and control the other, our adversaries, our enemies have over the future course of events. Both of these approaches i would say were profoundly arrogant because they believed that the future course of events and our security depended on what we decided to do and did not recognize that war but also other forms of competition are interactive. And the course of events would be anything but linear. So i think its important for us to recognize first of all as americans what is at stake in these competitions, and why we must put together strategies that are aimed at winning, at prevailing in these complex competitions. It may be that we have been at war for longer than americans want, but i think for example in places like the greater middle east, centered on the syria decision recently or in afghanistan, we have to be able to recognize what are the vital interests at stake . Whys it so important to us and our security . Once we understand that better, think about it, then we have to Work Together to craft strategies that are sustainable and do what samantha has said, we have to break out of this pre9 11 mentality. We have to ask ourselves, what could happen when you have transnational terrorist organizations and jihadist terrorist organizations who are more potent and capable than before 9 11 . Because remember, it was the afghan alumni from the soviet era will had to dean resistance resistance who committed mass murder against us on september 11. The al qaeda and the isis alumni are orders of magnitude greater than they were then. They also exist in Different Countries with more sophisticated means available to them, encrypted communications, different and more effective ways of recruiting young and Vulnerable People to their cause and radicalizing them, and the effect of really the democratization of disruption, in which they have access to destructive capabilities previously associated only with nationstates. Its extremely dangerous. And americans ought to ask why are we still in afghanistan . One of the main reasons is that we cannot win this fight on the defensive at the waters edge. These are unscrupulous, ruthless people who want to commit mass murders of innocents as a principal tactic in a war against anyone who does not adhere to their perverted interpretation of islam. The only way to win this fight is to keep them worried about their own safety and then to isolate them from sources of strength and support, financially and otherwise, that you can only do by working closely with partners in the region, partners who are bearing the greatest cost of these fights. And to have that access from the intelligence perspective, so you can apply the tools, cyber, financial tools, economic, military, and diplomatic efforts to advance and protect our interest. It feels good to some people to think that we should just disengage from that and worry about ourselves. If we did that we would become very vulnerable. We have to remember the tremendous human cost and financial cost associated with a catastrophic attack like what occurred on 9 11. A quick followup on this, the military planning and training necessary is very to deter china and its military capabilities is very different from whats necessary to defeat nonstate actors and those who support them. Such as the Islamic State. Can we do both at once . Because these are very different missions. We have to do both at once. We dont get to pick, as conrad crane often says, if are two if there are two ways to fight, asymmetrically and stupid, you hope your enemy picks stupid but they are unlikely to do so. So we have to be capable and our of integrating all elements of National Power and our military has to be capable at deterring state actors as well as trying to deter nonstate actors, but these are people who are fighting based on this ideology which i think in many ways are undeterable. The way we have to look at this is, we have to be able to defeat these organizations by isolating them from their strength and support, which include physical, military, financial, psychological, and ideological, the ability to use communications and Cyber Capabilities. So you cannot defeat them if you do not fight them. I think we have to maintain our own will. War is an extension of politics and also a contest of wills and we ought to examine, do we have the will to advance and protect our interest against this broad range of adversaries . And there are two fundamental ways to deter a potential enemy. One is the threat of punitive action later so that the costs are so high they have to factor in the decisionmaking, but the maybe i wont commit this act of aggression. But the other is deterrence by denial, convincing your enemy that the enemy cannot accomplish his objectives through that action. This is why samantha is talking about building a wall of defense is also an important means of deterrence as well as a range of offensive capabilities. And to deter cyber actors we have to be able to apply capabilities outside of cyberspace. We should not just think of this as a cyber only competition. In the military now, the catchphrase that was coined years ago is multidomain warfare and multidomain operations. And in its essence, we have always had to do this, the ability to project power and influence across multiple domains. For the military, land, maritime, aerospace, but also cyberspace, economic and financial space. Thats how we ought to think about how we integrate our efforts to deter and if necessary defeat adversaries. Samantha . You mentioned deterrence by punishment and denial, it is some of the things that the Cyberspace Commission that was written into the nda and im proud to be a member of that on the hill, is looking at how do we deter in todays world and how do we showcase our strength and power, right, in a world where china steals our technology and we cant get ahead of what they are doing . How do we showcase our ability to project power, or will to do so, the strength of our resiliency in a world where a grid can be brought down. Its not the world of aboveground Nuclear Tests anymore, where everyone saw, this is their capability and if they had to come the americans are going to use this. I think today is the 244th birthday of the navy. Happy birthday navy. Showcasing an Aircraft Carrier was a sure sign of strength and i would put out that it still is. But how do we showcase cyber strength . Our willingness to deter by punishment and showcase our resiliency . One of the things at the center that we have been working on, i think its a groundbreaking idea we put together, is continuity of the economy. Back in the cold war we had continuity of operations and continuity of government in the event that there was an attack by the soviets that the soviets actually knew we could get back up and running or never be brought down in the first place and they would suffer the consequences. But as we talk about attacks on the economy, think about what would happen if there was a largescale cyberattack against lots of different parts of the economy at once, the grid, banks, health care, how do we show case in advance to the adversary that we will not be down for the count and the next day you will feel our wrath . Thats the ability to have the adversary understand our capabilities in a clear and present way, and our will is something we have to grapple with in todays world. If i could feed off of the brilliant comments here. I think we have discounted heavily the reality that the cornerstone of powers the perception of power. We cannot be in all places at all times and we cannot take maximalist action against all enemies and we dont want to. There are only some demands and certain demands we can make of our allies, but there are limits to what you can do in preconflict and in conflict. However you define that. So i think we have not tended to the idea that the perception of power is the essence not just of deterrence but power itself, the ability to not act and have the environment shaped the way we want. To have American Values and interests met by the fact that people understand what it is the u. S. Can do, what we want to see happen. I think there has been a huge discounting. No administration has been immune from this problem and the syrian redline episode was sort of the classic demonstration of a lack of appreciation that the perception of power matters, which means at some point, you actually have to act. You have to bite at some point bothder to give meaning to perception of power and to what the consequences may be. We have to pick our battles of course. Two other dimensions of this, we have discounted the role of key allies, and i dont just mean nationstates but the private sector, in how we deter. One of the interesting innovations in the field of antimoney laundering sanctions has been that its really the private sector that has been the guardians at the gate of the system, which is to say part of the strategy has been to say look, the Financial Community has a responsibility to understand and manage its risk around terrorism, around proliferation financing, even now. With the magnitsky and human rights and corruption, these are actual risks that the private sector has to manage and think about. Shipping companies have to worry about oil to oil transfers. And sanctions in north korea, venezuela, iran. We have not done a good enough job of thinking about how does deterrence play out when we are enlisting other actors in the Global Environment and creating the antibodies in the system that get the results the United States wants. In the economic domain its largely how do you make it harder, costlier and riskier for americas enemies to move money around the world . The final part of it, and it goes to hrs points, we have been reticent and unable to deal in these various domains all at once. Our enemies have gotten good at thinking about how to use these asymmetric tools in concert. The russians know how to use the bots, they know how to use organized criminals, they know how to use the mercenaries, media intended to intendeds that are all to influence the environment, ways that undermine u. S. Interests and advance theirs. We are not good at that. Our authorities are not blended in a way. We have a clear and important public and private divide, and we often dont see the threats that are emerging. Thats why the cyber enabled Economic Warfare research and discipline that sam has innovated is so important. Another domain to reference as a key example, one that all three of our centers touch on is the challenge of norms. I think one of the things that our adversaries, especially nationstate adversaries is challenging the norms, whats acceptable behavior . How is it they can change the map, they can change the norms . We see this in china, human rights abuses, massive surveillance with their technology, interesting and difficult questions with their Major Technology Companies Operating globally. Some interesting questions and president putin has made this a core part of his strategy. What i find fascinating, and you will see this, whenever russia is challenged, whether its use of chemical weapons in syria or interference in the u. S. Elections, putins immediate retreat is to muddy the waters, change the framework, and he ends every conversation with prove it. Hes trying to change the norms around evidence and proof and we are left on our back heels because we are caught in western ways of proving things and demonstrating things and legitimating actions and its difficult and they understand if they can muddy the waters, change the narrative, even change the rules of what proof means, thats a form of power. We often dont think that way and its part of the domain and we have to think that way. I think it really is important also to recognize that deterrence is going to have limits in a way that did not exist when this was u. S. Versus the soviet union. Deterrence brings to mind that we are going to stop something from happening. In cyber and other parts of what we are talking about, its already happening. There is this notion that what we really are talking about may be persistent engagement. We are in this fight. We are not going to deter it. We may be able to deter from escalating, but the fight is happening, the fight is on in cyberspace certainly. The persistent engagement notion that we have to persistently engage, and im not talking engage sitting around the table and writing a treaty. So if weict is on, and kind of say, well, deterrence is to stop them from doing something, they are already doing something. And one of the things we did when we worked together in the white house was to rethink the nature of deterrence, but also the actors that can be effective. If you think about the threats we face and the nature of deterrence and one of the things we had to deal with was the potential that terrorists would get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction, how do you deter that . To hrs point, some of these actors are undeterminable. They are going to act, they have apocalyptic views. But if you pull the lens back and open the aperture theres an entire supply chain and enabling network which would enable that to happen. Its not just the bomb thrower or the soldier with an ak47 that you have to deter or even the kremlin or beijing. Along theacilitators business chain, the supply chain that actually can impact what happens. That affected the way we thought about wmds. It led to a different kind of declaratory policy. And also the proliferation of security initiative. Exactly. Scientists, bankers, deep pocket donors, there is a supply chain that would enable a terrorist group to get their hands on a nuclear device. Its opening an aperture to say you are not just trying to deter one type of actor, it is an entire system or network that you try to impact. I think this is really what we have done with these three centers is to think about security more broadly and do so when a way that provides the focus and impetus for real policy change. Across my career i drew on the great work here. It is wonderful to be part of it. I wanted to make one point which is relevant to both your points. We have cyber enabled and Economic Warfare but also cyber enabled information warfare. This is how russia in particular but many others are operating against us in an effort to paolo rise america and hit us against each other in a way that diminishes our confidence and will so that we are not effective at competing against them. And we take the bait a lot and we become divided over issues that we ought to be able to agree on. And i think especially what the ftd has taken on, we ought to have a preponderance of areas of agreement which would allow us to Work Together to bolster our confidence and our democratic principles and institutions and processes and confidence in a Foreign Policy, that we could execute in a sustainable and consistent way. Juan said, it is our will and its our perception of power, thats important, and i think we are losing it now because of the perceived inconsistency. And therefore unreliability. And as a result, what happens is that likeminded partners whose interests align start to hedge. They say i cant rely on the United States, i have to make sure i dont burn my bridge with russia. Them a do need to give little more free reign in syria in exchange for their promise to diminish irani and influence there, which is a lie. The perception is a good example, there is a direct line between the unenforced redline in syria and the annexation of crimea and the invasion of ukraine, potentially the reclamation efforts in the south china sea, i think those are related. So how are the decisions we are making today affecting the perception of American Power . In particular i would highlight the word consistency and reliability over time and how we are perceived by likeminded partners. I will ask you to be brief on this but its important, you have all been involved in whats called the interagency process, you have tried to run the interagency process, and you know how challenging it is. What you are talking about and making the case for is a need for a more coordinated cross domain at first effort for the use of American Military power, cyber power, economic power, thats quite a bureaucratic challenge to try to bring about that coordination within the government as it is now structured. As an outside observer, hr was trying to do this mightily, in both the construction of the strategy under his leadership, in practice. It case in point, the president gave a speech on afghanistan given his policy decision, where , he admitted that i am making a different decision than what i previously thought and promised. Its pretty remarkable that this president has been pretty steadfast in his views and mercurial depending upon your point of view. I think the challenge is less can you get the department of commerce and energy into the situation room. That we can do. The question is can you align the elements of power in addition to other elements of power . The Innovation Base, tech companies, financial institutions, investors in a global way. Thats difficult in part because there are legal restrictions to how you do that. Congress has passed the build act to try to reinforce American Investment which would spur additional private sector investment. There are attempts to get out this. The real challenge is less the interagency cliff and how do you enable and enlist the private sector at a time when theres a lot of suspicion, and a lot of distance between the private sector and the government. I think thats the real challenge. I cannot agree more. Its really fantastic, one of the commissioners, there are four members of congress and six outsiders and one of them is the ceo of a company, a large grid operator in the country. Its fantastic having tom on the commission, because 15 to 20 years ago there was this type of Congressional Commission it would have been people who had been in government or on government, but the importance of having the private sector, what type of seat do they have at the table . They definitely have a seat at the table, what type . Where should they be is something we are grappling with because the answers do not always reside in government. Anything you want to add . Im going to ask one more question and i want to narrow the aperture and get your thoughts. Lets start with you on the president s decision to withdraw u. S. Troops from syria. From u. S. Central command said this decision threatens to undo five years worth of fighting against the Islamic State and reliability in severely damages american credibility and reliability in any future fights where we need strong allies. We know the president is thinking about withdrawing not some but all of the troops from afghanistan. Anything you would to say . Lets think about where this is coming from. This is coming from this sentiment that the president and others perceive that our forces are not accomplishing worthwhile outcomes in the protracted commitments. What is missing, i think, is a more full understanding of whats at stake in syria, whats at stake in afghanistan, and how are the risks that our troops take and the sacrifices they make contributing to outcomes worthy of those risks and worthy of those sacrifices . I believe that the true commitment in northeastern syria was immensely helpful to u. S. Security and interests in a number of ways. First, as we know, these terrorist groups, after you defeat them on the physical battlefield, dont go away. They meld in, taking countermeasures, maintain networks and build capabilities looking opportunistically to continue their campaign against us. To establish another emirate as part of a caliphate later. We know this has to be a sustained effort to defeat isis. In the case of northeastern syria, our forces served as a useful means of preventing what we see now, which is a turkishkurdish civil war that has profound political and humanitarian consequences in the region. The other aspect of this, as i mentioned in the beginning, is military operations and efforts are not an end in and of themselves, they help you bridge into political outcomes. In northeastern syria, those Syrian Defense forces with our special Operations Forces and those of our allies happened to be sitting on top of 6570 of syrias oil reserves, and guess who wants that badly . Vladimir putin and the assad regime, which is why he had russian mercenaries attack our forces in april of 2018 resulting in the death of about 300 russian mercenaries. So once you cede control, you cede influence over what does a postcivil war syria look like . Does it keep a murderer in power who has created a humanitarian and political catastrophe in the greater middle east and has enabled iran in their efforts to perpetuate a civil war . Create a bridge and place a proxy army on the border of israel . How can that be good . And does it guarantee russias interests . In a postcivil war syria . Whats unfortunate i think about the decision is that a lot of people who may have been talking to the president or the president himself may not have focused on the importance of that force in connection with defeating a terrorist organization but also having the influence necessary to ultimately help end this catastrophe across the greater middle east associated with this broader sectarian civil war as it is playing out. I think what we have in the middle east is the potential for maybe four crises. We see one happening now, a kurdishturkish conflict. Another could be an intensification of the syrian civil war, we saw how the United States exerted influence so there would not be another aleppo. But when you thought it could not get worse, guess what . It could. There could be intensification there, a destabilization of iraq and who knows how that would play . And how does iran see these protests and what will they do as they have been trying to affect state capture in iraq . And you have the continued effort on the part of the iranians to seed their network of proxies with lethal and capable weapons aimed at who . Israel. Israel is in a dangerous position. It always is, but even more than usual. And you have iran, who has been engaged in a proxy war since 1979 against us. Samantha made a great point, we had to stop looking at these cyber events you mentioned as discrete events. Doing now,iran is there is a precedent for. They committed mass murder against us in 1983. In lebanon, and in and the 1996. Attack on the Saudi Arabian Oil Infrastructure looks Like Operation hajj with new capabilities. In the gulfnd before. They use ship to shore missiles. They have been firing missiles into uae and saudi arabia. They conducted Cyber Attacks on our banking systems. We have to look at the middle east and understand that we have vital interests at stake. There are some who argue that we make a lot of our own oil and its not that important. But the middle east is important for other reasons as well, principal among them is the perpetuation of the sectarian civil war also perpetuates and expands the threat from jihadist terrorists and empowers iran who really has hegemonic designs on the region. You ought to read what they say about us and what they want to achieve. They really do believe this really strange blend of shiism and marxism. Oftentimes we tend to discount the ideological and emotional dimensions of what motivates our enemies. It does not make sense to us, we tend to mirror image and go, why would they do that . It doesnt make sense to conduct another attack. But its like the geico commercial, its what you do. You conduct those attacks. I think there are these four potential crises that could happen near simultaneously in the middle east. And i think the truce in the northeast was helping against two of those. Do you want to add anything . I have three quick thoughts and i promise to be quick. Even if you agree with the decision we should not be there, we should get the troops out, you have to use our leverage to get other things, right . The president is a dealmaker. Use our withdrawal to get other things that we may need. My moms cuban, my sister is here, we are proud to have her here. She would often say that its not the what, its the how. If you think that we should not be there in the middle of the mess, get something out of it. Dont make it so transactional that you lose the strategic impact of the withdrawal. Two, it sends a signal around the world and to hrs point, everything we do in one part of the world is watched and witnessed by everyone else, adversaries, friends, competitors alike. What we are doing here, in essence, lifting the security veil with respect to those who have fought with us on the ground and have fought isis and is going toa, resound around the world. Can we trust american promises, American Security and American Military power . The answer today is probably no. That is what people are reading into it. The third dimension of this, which is longerterm and goes to hrs work with his center, is whats our military posture . We are caught in this all or nothing thing, we should bring all of the troops home, or not. We should be policing the world. Theres a middle ground. We have a thousand troops having strategic impact in the region. If you listen to the troops they are not happy about withdrawing. They see the important mission. The troops in west africa attacking isis and enabling our allies to fight on their own, that is enabling. We have to rethink how we conceive of our military posture , to enable our friends and allies and other elements of power so we can shape environments and not be absent from them. Lets go to questions. Please identify yourselves. Brad, i know who you are but please identify yourself. Thank you all for your important insights. General mcmasters, thank you for your leadership. As you know, turkey acquired the s 400 air Defense System from russia and the administration has moved to remove turkey from the f35 program. Im interested in your thoughts, do you believe its time to impose sanctions on turkey for its acquisition of the s 400 . Thank you brad. And i will ask my colleagues to comment about this. I think its inevitable. It has to happen. It is a matter of the legislation. I know for sure that turkish leaders knew what the consequences would be of acquiring the system. It is incompatible to bring essentially a russian trojan horse into a nato country in a compromise our advantages in technology, Stealth Technology in particular, so i think it is inevitable that it will have to happen. It is regrettable, just as turkeys actions are today, regrettable. What i think we have to understand is, what is happening with turkey . What is happening with turkeys, maybe the greatest geopolitical happened in the postcold war timeframe and sadly it is against us. I think turkey under the erdogansne party wants to see itself as more eastern leaning, shifting away from europe so it can play situations to its advantages to define its own interests. What is tragic about it is in my previous job, i worked with colleagues in turkey to map our interests and to show where our interests align and where they diverged. And you know what . They aligned 95 of the time. Where they diverged was with really our support for the ypg assyrian democratic forces, the ypg affiliated forces in syria, and that is something we want to work on. And you saw that administration was working on that with the joint patrols and so forth. I can only conclude that moredent erdogan is driven by emotion, maybe by domestic Political Considerations in how he wants to conjure up a conflict like this, for domestic reasons, by bolstering his nationalist base. It is regrettable. I think it is something we really have to work hard on diplomatically, but in terms of sanctions, i dont think there will be an option. It is sad. It has been a sad couple days and it will get sadder as the relationship with turkey becomes regrettably even more strained. Joe, you go ahead. Go ahead, stand up, identify yourself. Thanks so much. Susan glasser from the new yorker. I think it is an important point about turkey in this geostrategic shift. I do want to change the subject a little. This has not come up today, but i have a simple question for you. Do you think it is appropriate for the president of the United States to solicit foreign interference in our political process . Thank you. Of course, no. No, it is absolutely not. Of course what has to happen here is seeing our democracy play out. Our separation of powers play out. And for the American People through their representatives in congress to make a judgment as to whether or not that happened. To answer that directly, of course it is not appropriate. Any other comments, please . [laughter] we have a microphone over here. Go ahead. General mcmaster, i wanted to ask you about north korea. Following the eu members expressing concern about north koreas latest test, north korea is saying they are ready to take steps to reverse steps to Building Trust with the United States. If the North Koreans go ahead and test nuclear and longrange ballistic missiles, how do you think u. S. Engagement with north korea is going to change . We hear a lot about north koreas growing Cyber Capabilities. I was wondering if there was any area in the cyber field you are paying attention to in terms of north korea . Thank you. Juan ran a task force for cfr years ago and came up with great recommendations that we used as part of the strategy about two years ago, i guess. I guess one of the questions to ask about north korea is what is motivating kim jongun and the kim regime . I think this is where we get divergent views on what the appropriate response might be. Some people think, he just wants a deterrent. He wants to deter us, and i think that is a mirror imaging problem. The north has tremendous deterrent capabilities in their forces, their artillery, in the we have to at. Least be open to the possibility that kim jongun may be wanting to keep his Nuclear Weapons, really for reasons of extortion, maybe to use extortion and to mess with the u. S. South korea alliance. To use it as the first step in saying what the kim regime says it wants to do, which is to unify the peninsula under the red banner. To do that, they cannot absorb south korea. South korea is twice as populous , 40 times larger than the north, but what the north has envisioned over the years is dragging south korea down as a way to equalize the Playing Field and begin this kind of unification. So i think we have to be open to that possibility. If that is the case, what is the appropriate response . I dont think it hurts to talk and have a summit. I think summits were beneficial in a certain way because in the past, they had been approached, it was all bottomup. There were two out there were too many opportunities for spoiling. If there was going to be a breakthrough, it would be with an unconventional president to , with some degree, an unknown quantity in kim jongun. I think what is central and what is still in place is the recognition that what we cannot do, we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past, which is to allow this provocation cycle to result in us alleviating sanctions prematurely based on an empty promise, essentially, of negotiations with no meaningful progress. And then we know what happens next, long, drawnout negotiations during which the North Koreans try to extort more money and payoffs from us, and ultimately, you get a weak agreement that locks in the the new normal, and north korea breaks the agreement right away. That is the definition of insanity if we do that again. I think that the chance that we have, and this gets to the point of the integration of military options, which is important, how do we convince kim jongun and the kim regime that he is less safe with Nuclear Weapons that he is without them . That is just not just a military threat but the threat of strong sanctions thanks to nikki haley and what she did at the u. N. These are unprecedented sanctions. They havent really kicked in all the way because it is in december, for example, that all of the north korean slave labor, the socalled guest workers, have to go back, for example. There are many more tools available. Secondary sanctions, if chinese want to allow financial flows into north korea, that is an example of an option. I will stop there but i think we have to examine, what is their base motivation . Therefore, what is an appropriate policy response . Not just for us, but for china, too. This is not in chinas interest. I will say quickly, first of all, on the website for the center, a great report was written by my colleague on kim jongun, looking at the cyber enabled Economic Strategies of north korea. On fiber, the North Koreans see this as some ways a comparative advantage for them. Their cyber force is almost equivalent to our Cyber Mission force. The numbers over there arent clearly known, but certainly, they are putting a lot of effort and attention into this. Why . One, because it is a way to steal money to support the regime. The other is it is a way to try and level the Playing Field to a certain extent between north korea and other nations. So i would say two more things. One, south korea is a test bed for a lot of what north korea then tries around the world. The United States and other allies really need to be working so closely with south korea to understand what is going on in their systems because, no pun intended, with sony, but it will come to a theater near you. It is not just south korea. North korea is exploiting networks all over the world. Democracies andhere our allies our allies need to be together on what North Koreans are doing so we can chase them back and thrash them because, again, it is just like hr. They ratchet up, ratchet up, dont feel punishment, they ratchet up again. And they are profiting from the cyber tools, right . Yes. Over 2 billion based on their cyber activities with the North Koreans exploiting it. Ransom weller ransomware, the whole bank of bangladesh with the swift attack was the North Koreans. One thing i would say on sanctions, and it is fundamental to what hr was saying, you have a challenge diplomatically as to how we think about negotiating with, through, and against our sanctions. So how do you apply the maximum pressure and perhaps unwind it in the context of negotiations in a way that it doesnt give up the sanctions to early but gives the other side something they want . Like the whole jcpoairan debate. Part of the challenge, and something we have talked about for a long time is the effectiveness of these tools is often based on the fact that these regimes are engaged in a whole range of illicit and nefarious activities that are not being negotiated around. I testified to this. This was the fundamental flaw of the jcpoa. You cannot promise sanctions relief when the sanctions are predicated on terrorist financing, proliferation financing, missile programs that are counter to un sanctions, the whole nine yards. You cannot unwind that. You cannot expect the private sector to go back and back in wholeheartedly if those risks still exist, right . That is the fundamental challenge for the effectiveness of our sanctions and the maximum use of them, and how you negotiate back and unwind them. I think it takes some, not just understanding, but some deafness of the diplomacy to get that ss ofafness deftne diplomacy to get that right. Hi, i am fred hiatt from the Washington Post editorial. Thank you for an interesting panel. However, i found the opening remarks a little disorienting in the sense they assume everybody agrees with you on who the adversaries are and the importance of allies and the problem is one of strategic competence or what we are not able to do. It seems to me we have a president who does not share your view of the importance of allies or who the adversaries are. This weeks abandoning of an ally in a way that benefits iran and russia is a recent example, accepting their word over the intelligence community. Im not going to go through it, but im curious whether you dont mention it because you think as long as the rest of the administration underneath is still trying to implement your strategy, it is not that relevant . Or it is relevant or but counterproductive to talk about it . Or doesnt have an impact on what your roles are . I would like to look at it broader than the president , ok . Which is unusual for the president to do on occasion. But i think that what President Trump is often times i think expressing, what is a feeling that is held much more broadly than, maybe not in the beltway and those of us who are engaged in these issues, but is held more broadly than President Trump, i think what this does, it is better for us to understand, like what he said yesterday for example about allies, that we have been taken advantage of. I dont think he is appreciative of the tremendous benefits of allies, but he is not alone and in that, right . This goes back to the strain of american isolationism that resulted in the United States not joining the league of nations at the end of world war i. It is the reason why we did not become involved in world war ii until the imperial japans attack on pearl harbor. It is the reason we have had this strain in our politics. Even in the time of jimmy carter wanting to pull troops off the korean peninsula, for example. That we shouldnt define this as just a President Trump problem. That is why i was trying to make the case to the American People, because that is what we have to do. I dont think our leaders talk enough about what is at stake, and then help americans understand kind of the great deal we get, right . Lets think about two cocktail competing parties. You got an invitation. You can go to the one with china and their allies or the United States and our allies prayed and our allies. Which one are you going to go to . Look at who chinas allies are. This gives us a tremendous differential advantage because we are bound together by common principles and common interests, so, of course, we are going to compete with the European Union from a trade end economic perspective. They are fine with that. But we ought to recognize the value of a strong europe, ideologically, politically, economically. At the same time, right, give voice to what President Trump and others have asked, this greater burden sharing. That is not a new initiative either. Heck, germany should do a heck of a lot more defense. Why is germany pursuing north stream two in a way that is going to give russia coercive economic power over europe and disadvantage ukrainians at a critical time . But allies can have these disagreements, and they are not unprecedented, right . So i think it is regrettable that maybe more americans, overall, not to speak just directly to the president , do not understand the less tangible benefits and rewards from these alliances. That does not mean there does not have to be tough love sometimes, and we ought to be direct in our disagreements. If we looked at syria, why didnt the europeans do more on syria earlier . We debate about what more we should have done, but i think, in terms of human cost and financial cost, pennies on the dollar to have established Something Like a nofly zone like was done at the end of the gulf war for the kurds, and to use not just military force but robust humanitarian assistance earlier in the region. Think of what that would have done to stem the massive flow of refugees, and then, of course, the effects it has had on europe politically, with the growth of nativist parties. The polarization of their parties, as well. I think tough love with our allies is fine, but we ought to recognize those alliances give us tremendous advantages that are mutually beneficial. Sir, i am happy to answer quickly. I think the president has a hyper personalized approach to diplomacy, among other things. Sometimes it makes it hard. To your terminology, even incoherent, to sort of engage in these broader strategic questions when it is hyper personalized and transactional, and even, some would argue, a mercurial approach to decisionmaking. I take your point, but i do think there are elements to what the president has done, especially with respect to china, calling on european allies to do more, which are important steps. One of the approaches i think we take is to look objectively at what has happened. There are lots of things that are wrong with that approach. There are certain things that are interesting and important. To hrs earlier point, it may take an unconventional approach to actually shatter the way we thought about a particular relationship. China has always been, for Foreign Policy types, kind of a third rail. We are touching that third rail in many ways. We are designating chinese entities. Soes putting big sle on the list, we are questioning huaweis technology. I agree with hr, one of the problems in the administration is they have ruptured relationships unnecessarily, all at once. When we needed those relationships to do lots of hard things. China is a hard question for the world. I pose questions to european allies, how are your privacy laws a norm . How does that apply in the chinese context, to Chinese Technology and institutions . Are you asking that hard question . Lo and behold, they are often not. This is a transatlantic debate. China seems to be immune from what should be normalized treatment for any country or commercial entity operating in the Global Environment. I take your point there is a bit when we talky about grand strategy and the policy appears to be material mercurial and transactional, but there are elements of what the administration has done that we had to take advantage of the challenge ourselves and the way we thought about these problems. Wes morgan from politico. General mcmaster, this is mainly for you, National Securities in National Security leaders are grappling with the president s decision to move remove special operators from the areas that the turks are launching the incursion into. Im curious, one, whether you think that incursion could have been prevented, or whether you think this is an inevitable messy outcome . Two, having served both in and out of uniform at National Security levels, could you talk about the duties and responsibilities of people in those positions, ranging from resigning in protest when there are policy decisions that they strongly disagree with, the to finding creative ways to execute the orders in ways that will help mitigate the repercussions of the turkish offensive . Ok, so on the turkish offensive, i really feel like we failed. That the people working on policy failed over the years in northeastern syria to give the president , any president an option other than go to war with a nato ally or withdraw, right . Again, it gets to not just using military force and those we are enabling, to go after isis. It is how do you build into a sustainable political outcome . Maybe one in which you are repatriating, bringing back displaced arab refugees and you are morphing the security arrangements there to allay turkeys concerns that there is not going to be a ypg army on their border. I think there mightve been more things that couldve been done to avoid that breakpoint. To your specific question, was this going to happen anyway, i dont know. I would ask the state department or the white house. I dont know. On the militarys role, when you swear to support a country by the constitution of the United States, you recognize your job is not to be political. You dont make policy decisions. Nobody elects generals to make policy. These are reasons why i never even voted since i was 17. I went to west point when i was 17. I thought, i took George Marshalls example of being completely nonpolitical. In terms of policy decisionmaking, Senior Officers think, oh, any president is their best military advice. Once those decisions are made, it is your job to implement those, if those are legal. If you are a senior officer and disagreed with a policy because you thought it was illegal, then you could resign or request to retire, and so forth. But i think for the military, there has to be a recognition that because sovereignty in our nation rests with the American People, it is the American People who ultimately have to have the say in what happens, and they have that say through electing a president and representatives in congress. It is not the militarys role. They have to give their best advice to congress and the executive, and that is difficult at times. But i will tell you the professional servicemen and women, i remember i saw a major my Sergeant Major onetime, dont worry about it. Pack our the call to stuff up and leave, we will do it. If he calls us to go back, we will go back. We ought to be just so grateful for the Selfless Service and courage of our servicemen and women. I want to say one thing quickly. Sorry to go on about this. I noticed a tendency in some of the coverage of our soldiers or sailors and marines deployed that there is a tendency these days to portray them as victims, right . Almost as hapless victims on the receiving end of adversary actions, when in fact, we are aggressively attacking the enemies of all civilization. It does not really get a lot of coverage. Our warriors have real agency. They are not passive. And they dont like to be portrayed as victims. And so i think it is something maybe to just Pay Attention to in the coverage of these wars and something i think deserves more attention. Victimhood is the new heroism these days it seems like, right . And really, soldiers do not want to be pitied. What they would like to be as is maybe acknowledged. What they would like to have acknowledged may be is their combat prowess and what they are doing to defend us, and what they are accomplishing to defend us. One of the reasons i think there is this forever war narrative is we dont do a good job of explaining to the American People what is at stake for us, and in particular, the external threats that emanate from these various groups on the afghanistanpakistan border and in syria. I will stop there. Sorry to go on for so long. Hugely important points in my view. Does someone have a microphone . Go ahead and use it. I with the sunday times of am london. Im very pleased to be at your cocktail party. [laughter] a question for all of you. Something you mentioned about the perceptions of American Power and how allies perceive us. How do our allies perceive us . What happens when the president like, the kurds didnt help us in normandy, which seems absurd . It doesnt seem like, how does language like that, which really leaves a lot of us shaking our heads, affect our allies perceive us in the world . I will tell you, it is not the first time our allies feel skepticism about us and our commitment. Our reputation has been that americans do not have a long Attention Span for these kind of things. I think George Marshall said democracies cannot fight a seven year war. We are in year 20 in afghanistan. I think these tensions and doubts about americas staying power and commitment are not new what all. And how often europe has vacillated between years of the cold war, complaining about american troop presence there, and the angst of potential withdrawal. I think what we have to do is do a better job of explaining the value of our alliances. I will tell you that during an i think what we have to do is do a better job of explaining the value of our alliances. I will tell you that during an extended tour of duty in afghanistan, i remember a time when there was a decision made to reinforce our effort in afghanistan. At the same time, at the time the withdrawal was announced with our allies. They cannot believe it. Why would you announce to the world when you are withdrawing at the same time you deploy soldiers . I remember an afghan friend of mine said, will you please just be american about this . [laughter] i just convinced him to get the job done. I think there have been doubts across multiple administrations. I do think it is reaching a dangerous point, where there is too much misunderstanding and doubt. Juan mentioned here, two insults dont really help and are not productive, but both of you have lots of experience in cultivating and maintaining relationships with our allies. I will say one thing. This is from maybe the other side of the point on this, you said just be american. If we look at what we are trying to talk through with our allies on huawei and what the chinese are doing, we are being american. We are absolutely talking with our allies, who are blue in the face about recognizing the challenges we all face Going Forward with a significant, substantial, some would say not just with 5g, but in terms of where china wants to take the world and its own image, which is a frightening image of an authoritarian country that allows no freedom, that america is trying to talk to our allies about recognizing the cost of some of the decisions they are making. Frankly, we are telling them things like, look, if you are right and we are overstating what china is doing through 5g and other things, ok, great, you saved a couple of pennies by having samsung, ericsson, or nokia, or huawei do your systems. If we are right, all of your privileged, prized data, that runs your civilization is going straight back to beijing. I would say on some things, lets keep the focus and attention on where we are being very american and trying to get our voice out there, yet, there is serious pushback in a way that is detrimental to freemarket democracies around the world. 66 of frances communication is run by china. Do you expect china to treat france better than they treat their own people . Probably not. The point samantha is making, i think it is astounding the degree to which some of our allies have been accommodating the Chinese Communist party with such a brazen, obvious threat to their own security. Is china going to respect the data privacy of the french and all of us . Probably not. We will do two final questions. I will ask one question after another, and then answer those questions. And any final thoughts you have. Nicholas . General mcmaster, i just wanted to followup on susans question. Could you tell us whether there was any effort during your time in the administration by the white house to seek some sort of action by ukraine on investigating the bidens and the 2016 election . Was that part of the conversation when you were there . And could you also elaborate on what your response was when you read the transcript of that ukraine call and the whistleblower . Go ahead. We will let you answer that. I will get back to you. General mcmaster, President Trump took this decision. On his own. Now, we have a crisis. I can tell you this is going to be a massive invasion. Whatever happened happened. What would you tell the president , or what would you try and do to mitigate the impact of this . Lindsey graham, the sanctions, would you support that . In all the conversations, meetings, there was never an incident of the president soliciting any kind of assistance for anything domestic or political. It just didnt happen when i was there. Or in any conversation i was part of, which was a think, all of of the c the head of state calls and all of the meetings. What i would advise the president to do now, the president said something that indicated to me that he may not have been fully aware, or president erdogan didnt tell him about the nature he envisioned. Think there are probably already ongoing, important discussions with the turks now. I would say in connection with our allies, i hope there also important consequential discussed in discussions going on with our ally and president erdogan, as well. He ought to understand he is operating in not just u. S. Interest in this case, but he is operating against european interests there. Of course, with the french and british allies in northeastern syria, as well. I had not looked at the legislation. I thinkarea of caution, we have to be careful about use at first light. Congress has an instinct to go to a use of sanctions, financial and commercial measures without thinking through the sequence and the diplomacy that may be attached to it. I would look at the actual provision, but i think there should be a little bit of caution before jumping to sanctions, which has become a bit of a first instinct for congress. [inaudible] i dont think i can add to whatever anybody else has said. I think you can see why we are so proud of the sanctions we have and the leading fingers for helping with this research and the analysis. The advice we are attempting to give. A round of applause for our panel. I think all of you for being here today and your support. I thank all of you for being here today and for your support. Thank you. Thank you. [indistinct chatter] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] announcer cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up friday morning, your reaction to President Trumps and when on the impeachment inquiry. Join with your calls, texts, facebook comments, and we. Tweets. Join the discussion. Announcer campaign 2020, watch our live coverage of the president ial candidates on the campaign trail, and make up your own mind. Cspans campaign 2020. Your unfiltered view of politics. President trump held a Campaign Rally at the target center in downtown minneapolis