Joining us now is Elbridge Deputy defenseer secretary in strategy and the Trump Administration, also cofounder and principal of the Marathon Initiative. Thank you for joining us. Host good to be here. Good to be here. Host thought we would ask you about china. What is the Marathon Initiative . Guest it is a small, new think tank on what we regard as the u. S. Policy, which is competition with china. Host how are you funded . Guest from a variety of individuals, governments, and corporations. We do not accept corporate funding. Host several headlines got our attention, including this one that says chinas military surpassed the u. S. In ships, fromles, and air defense, a Defense Department report, so talking about conventional weapons first, what is the relative size and strength of the Chinese Military . It is very impressive. It is daunting, actually. One of the things to remember is that the United States spans defense. Bly more in china has been closing that gap in china is a most discursively focused on its region. It is much more focused. Particularly in the asiapacific, it is shifting in chinas direction. The chinesers ago, military was a relatively primitive and unsophisticated force. That is no longer the case. They are closing the gap. That trend unfortunately is continuing. Host phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen for our guest, Elbridge Colby. Chinas military influence. If you live in the instant time 2027488000. In the western part of the country, mountain and pacific time zones, 2027488001 is your number. Also this headline in the area of the nuclear arsenal. Defensivenews. Com tells us china plans to double its nuclear arsenal. Talk to us about the equation here. Guest the conventional military advances china has been undertaking are more worrying. But its most to the nucleoside are also more concerning. It is slated to double in size to a relatively low amount. What is concerning china is increasingly able to have what it calls a second strike, the ability to retaliate against us no matter what we do. The report indicates china is considering a lower yield options and so forth. Could cast a greater shadow over American Allied activity especially in the event of a conflict in the western pacific, say over taiwan or the philippines or japan. Host lets talk about what this all means. The pentagon report on chinas military on defense. Gov. They write this way the Chinese Communist party frames this strategy as an effort to realize longheld nationalistic aspirations to return china to strength, prosperity and leadership on the world stage. Interested,ple are i coauthored a piece on the Foreign Affairs website with Robert Kaplan yesterday, and our argument is that this is primarily not about ideology, it is largely about the degree of power that china has. For the Chinese Communist party, it is partly ideological. Chinample reality is that is the largest state to enter the International System since the entrance of the u. S. It self in the 19th century. This is a massive solar system kind of influence that has an enormous gravitational pull. Chinese interests first off are to gain hegemony over its region essentially to create a market area centered around china and for its longterm first party and security. Of course, the United States cant afford that because, as i said, asia is the Worlds Largest , and that would greatly diminish american prosperity and ultimately freedom and security. China is basically developing a military consistent with these goals, which as a defense report longstanding nationalistic aspirations. Host here is the Foreign Affairs piece he wrote the ideology delusion. This is in the Current Issue of the Foreign Affairs. Americas competition with china is not about doctrine. Before we get to the calls, what does this mean in terms of u. S. Policy and u. S. Strategy toward china and the asian part of the world . Guest sure, i would refer back to the 2018 National Defense strategy done under secretary james mattis very much continued by his successors including esper. Ry of defense the reaction on the military and defense side is we need to rein the focus on china and asia. China is by far the pacing threat, the one we need to prepare for. The department has begun to vector on that but without the requisite urgency and degree of revolutionary change required. At the same time, it means being much more economical in our efforts elsewhere, particularly the middle east, and also other theaters, even europe. Europe is our second priority theater, but the danger is much less severe there russia is weaker than china and our allies are stronger in europe and can play a much larger role. I think longterm you will see more focused on the Asian Pacific and china, and in other theaters, a throttle back. Host our guest is eldridge colby, formerly with the Defense Department, former Deputy Defense assistant secretary of strategy and force development. We have our first call from pennsylvania. Go ahead. Caller i was wondering about the border dispute on the himalayas. . Hat is going on with china host something the president mentioned at his friday news conference, mr. Colby. For those not familiar with what is going on what kind of battles has china had with india recently on that border . It is a longstanding issue, right . Guest great question, and it is really striking actually. The border dispute between india and china goes back for 50 years. In fact, they had a short border war in 1962 about it. Neither side has forgotten about it. China seems to be pushing out in all directions. If china were following the old model of by your time and had your capabilities, this is their famous model under deng xiaoping, they build their strength. But instead, now china seems to be pushing out against not only the United States, but also india, vietnam, the philippines, and other Southeast Asian countries. There have been some pretty scary incidents up there. It is very high elevations, where handtohand fighting between the Chinese Military and the Indian Military has happened. No real resolution as far as ive seen. The indians have certainly held their own. This is just driving india further into the friendship of the United States, which is something that is really critical. I would say that two key allies if you will, partners of the u. S. In the coming years will be japan and india, in particular with australia also playing a critical role. Of a me it is a bit mystery about what beijing is thinking. Perhaps when you are that strong and they are feeling their oats, they are beginning to say, hey, why are we putting aside these disputes . China deserves to be respected and others should defer. Host brad in kentucky, good morning. Caller good morning. Mr. Colby, you have quite an impressive resume. You, when wen for were making the decision to go , was bush misled about wmds, that would be one question i have. Even on the day of 9 11, he had a real strong he was verbally for this to lead into saddam somehow. Where does that come from . You were close, you are there, can you talk about it . Calling. D, thanks for guest thanks, brad. Question. Eat you may have seen in my background that i served on the Commission Set up to look into why the iraqi intelligence was wrong. This may be sounds like monday morning quarterbacking, but i always thought the iraq war was a mistake but i dont acted onsident bush bad faith. I think he and Vice President cheney and others seem to have believed that the possibility of a rock reconstituting a nuclear and other wmd program was enough invasion ofte an the country, and i think they were more optimistic about how it would go. And they probably also thought that it would, it would set an forple for other countries more compliance on wmd and terrorism issues. Obviously, it didnt work out way. In terms of the intelligence, i would say that i dont think the president was misled, i think elements of the Intelligence Community generally believed iraq was beginning to reconstitute a wmd program. The famous example i remember is the biological weapons analyst in the c. I. A. Who told deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz that she would cut off her finger if she was wrong about the assessment. She turned out to be wrong. Though it is worth remembering that there were few countries at in saddamwere husseins iraq. A think they were genuine mistakes. The other thing is that the Intelligence Community wasnt assessing that iraq already have them, it was that they were in the beginning stages of them. Ing the fear in the Bush Administration was that once they were sort of outofthebox, it would be difficult to put them back in. Despite all that, it was a mistake. Call. A hard host mr. Colby, take us back to china and the u. S. When it comes to Nuclear Weapons. Here is a look at the numbers. The u. S. Currently at 5800 Nuclear Weapons, 3800 active, 2000 unwitting dismantlement. China is estimated in the low to hundreds. Can you put that 200 number in perspective if we are talking about an increase in china. To what extent are they looking to grow out . Guest i tend to think that in the nuclear realm. Make a difference dont make a difference. That 3800 number is not the number that is deployed or would be expected to be used. The numbers can be a bit misleading. I think china actually understands that. China has always wanted to avoid they perceive the soviet union made, which was getting in an arms race with a technologically creative United States. They are looking to develop enough Nuclear Weapons, i think, that theycan be sure would be able to blow up some american targets that we really care about. In the context that we in the American People would want to fight in the asiapacific, that is enough to cast a shadow. , prevent us to say from trying for instant nuclear blackmail. Believe the u. S. Uses Nuclear Weapons used Nuclear Weapons to blackmail them in the 1950s and so forth. I am more worried about their conventional forces. And more worried about the indications in the report that they may be considering low yield systems because these would give china potentially intermediate options that would be more plausible in the event of a conflict in the western pacific, a limited conflict, which is almost certainly what would happen if, god forbid, a war did break out. Host we know the u. S. Is in talks with russia right now about the future of their nuclear deal. Talk about the u. S. , china, and now, russia and how the situation plays on itself. Guest in my view, russia is a serious danger, and the u. S. Has a are afoot interest in ensuring russia cannot use weapons against itself or nato. In the pentagon or elsewhere, the Trump Administration has lost a lot of strength in the position in europe. But i think longterm, and this is a radical do these days, my view is that we want to maximize or encourage distance between beijing and moscow. I give some comments the other day to the Financial Times in case people are interested in more. The thing is we dont want what happened in the 1950s and 1960s, which is china and russia together. The russians are closer to the chinese than they have been since that time. I think we should look for opportunities while protecting our own interests, Election Security and all that sort of stuff, to put some distance between the russians and the chinese. I commend the administration for opening up bilateral discussions with russia. I think an agreement and an extension of the new start treaty would be in the u. S. s interest in that context. We would be in a stronger negotiating position to put pressure on china on arms controls issues from that vantage point. Host . Caller . Caller from cleveland, good morning. Caller good morning. Colby. Rning, mr. And good morning americ, americ. Mr. Colby, i find you fascinating. Broke down three questions for you, and i just want to roll through them. Is, what isestion the trade deficit between . Merica and china second is, if china is the enemy stealing all of our intellectual thenrty and all that stuff why are our corporations running over there doing business with them . And ruins our supply lines it is affecting our politics. Americans feel for corporations that abandon them, seeking slave wages . Whats the caveat was the trade deal about with russia . Well not russia, with nixon. Nixon went over and opened up china, but i never knew what the deal was. And it looks like to me, we are getting a raw deal. But we seem to be loving it, because our corporations are running over there. Host a little bit of history there but a little bit of presentday. Can you speak first and the economics and then pull it into this larger conversation we are having u. S. And china, deficits and tariffs. What would you say . Guest thank you for that question. I dont know the trade deficit exactly. Frankly, i share your views about what happened, particularly over the last few years. I think nixon and kissinger made the right decision at the time, because that was about the reverse of what we were just talking about with russia, they tried to pull china more into our camp against the soviet union at the time, which was our primary threat. The chinese and the soviets actually fort a border the chinese and the soviets actually fought in border war which was pretty bloody. But they work with us to balance out the soviets i think it was a successful policy. Success is never final. In 1971 a good policy or 1972, doesnt mean it is still a good policy, so it is time to change. I share your point on corporations. Corporations are vital for american prosperity. One of the things that i think the policydefend toward china over the last 25 years is, and this is not my area, is that. A lot of corporations benefited for a while. But these essentially became multinational corporations. They are headquartered in the United States, but they are not always thinking about what is best for the United States. That is fine, but i think trade deals should be done in the interest of the American People primarily. Things need to change. In fairness, i think a lot of corporations have sort of had it with china in terms of i. T. , and theeft stealing of market share. The indians have basically banned almost all chinese apps, they banned tiktok and that can of thing. We need to have a really clear are and not be naive. Frankly, we were naive in the last 25 years, until the last couple of years. Host anthony from new jersey, good morning. Caller good morning. Winky for taking my call. I was wondering, thank you for taking my call. I was wondering, is there any way to ascertain what percentage of the chinese budget is used for domestic control . Thank you. Guest it is a great question. I dont know off the top of my head. As i recall, there was a section on the internal. It is a sizable fraction of the Chinese Defense and security ending, but i think the main concern for us is that given the growth of the chinese economy, they are making leaps and bounds in their external military capability. To give an example, the report mentioned the chinese plants to to open bases in 10 countries around the region. I dont think we should let that distract from their very robust external activities. Host more from the pentagon report on chinas military. They write that the pace and scope of the military modernization and expansion provides opportunities as well as challenges for the u. S. Defense relations as the prc championship military develops, miscalculation or a and increases highlighting the need to ensure the operational safety of forces operating in close proximity, as well as the need to establish Crisis Communications mechanisms. Mr. Colby . Guest i think it is important that. M certainly for it is important to emphasize that the United States and i have participated in these semiofficial discussions, unofficial discussions with china at least since about ep3 incident in 2001 where an american aircraft was forced down. Often, it is the chinese will havent been particularly interested in these communication mechanisms. I believe there are some between military commanders in the United States and china. China has to pick up the phone. Miscalculation and accidents are not the problem. It is hard to find examples of conflicts that have arisen by accident. During the cold war, there were accidents, american planes that went down i believe in the communist territory without it escalating. Countries usually escalate because they are prepared to and when they see an opportunity. So i think it is important, but i dont think we should focus on that too much. Host Elbridge Colby is a former Deputy Assistant secretary of defense back in 2018 and 2019. Under what circumstance did you leave the administration . Guest the primary thing i worked on was the 2018 National Defense strategy. That was completed and i actually felt i could make more of a difference on the outside, through engagements just like this. Host as a former defense one who oversaw issues with the military, what do you make of this whole controversy over the atlantic story, where the president was said in the article to have made disparaging comments about dead and injured troops . Guest i mean, i have never heard anything like that. So ie no direct knowledge really couldnt comment, except to say that i never heard of the president saying anything like that. That kind of thing, it strikes me, you should have your sources pretty well locked down. I think under the Trump Administration, the military has gotten more funding. I think the president and this administration have made clear his respect for the troops. Beyond that, it is not really the kind of thing i concentrate on, but it doesnt ring true to me, so. Host a call from howard in north carolina, good morning. Caller good morning. Why is it that you dont beliee or it doesnt interest you what this gentleman said about our military, which we have a lot of news media collaborating and confirming corroborated and confirmed that what was said was true . China, out of all countries we have russia flying near our airspace and our pilots, russia trying to take over the north pole, russia assinating people, russia and you want to sit here and talk about china because that is a talking point for trump. I dont understand this. You are not going to divert from what is going on. Ps not going to send my family members into war and this man doesnt even care about our american troops overseas. Yall need to stop this. Is this Just Another Program like the n. R. A. , like the charity fund he had for military and all of it was a hoax . Next month, trump will be voted out and this mess will be resolved, buddy. Host anything you want to respond to, mr. Colby . Guest i appreciate his point of view, howard. Thank you for your comments. On the strategic issue you raised them i disagree with you. Russia is a major danger, but if you look at the numbers, the amount of resources russia is able to put into its military, it is a fraction of what china can do. And we have alliances with countries in asia that are directly threatened by china. If you look at it from a strategic perspective, you increasingly see that coming into the public view and i would say it is actually a bipartisan view. The russian discussion is one that is very delicate and politicized, but we have to be very careful. They have thousands of Nuclear Weapons. They are very dangerous. A bit of an analog here with the 1950s, what we dont want is a highly politicized situation where we are unable to break off the second tier. In the 1950s, it was a situation where the loss of china created immense political heat and we were not able to engage with china, which was an awful state. I think it killed more of its own citizens than any country in government vil an it will government at the time. But given this is a priority, it is another problems that helped us get into vietnam. We could have maybe gotten more room by dealing with the chinese and putting more pressure on the vietnamese, in part because of the very, very nasty politics of the 1950s and early 1960s. Today we need to be careful that while we push back and condemn russian activities on election interference or their assassination of people, we need to look at it in a strategic lens. To your point about serving in wars, my goal here is to avoid wars, but the way you avoid war is not by putting our head in the sand, you have to look at the most powerful, dangerous country in the system and focus of banned. That is certain he what i am doing most powerful, dangerous country in the world and focus there. That is i am doing. Ost mike caller m hello thank you for taking my call. Question about chinese nationals but live in our country and work in our country. I have people that colleagues work inork with that our country that are chinese. Some of them live on the border, they live over in canada. I am wondering, should we have espionage, orout is there any potential concerns that we should have that worke citizens in our country, that may have access to data . Guest thanks, mike. First off, we want to be selective. We can be too suspicious. We wentgiven some to make sure we are fair to ,eople of chinese backgrounds who are obviously some of our american citizens and some of the most idiotic americans and so forth. Americans andtic so forth. Security concern, as attorney general barr and fbi wray and others have made clear particularly in the sensitive data. I wouldnt want to contribute any paranoia on anyones part, but the other thing about the way that it seems that the peoples republic operates is widespread,nd of temper has a vacuum. We have seen that with their 10,000 Talents Program and so forth, in chinese out which to state governments. I think, again, i am not an i think whats, but the fbi and the department of justice and other sources have concerning. Is very for instance about some of the administrations actions on students. Ionalist these are legitimate concerns but we need to balance them with concerns about fairness and equality. So it is a tough issue, but quite a real one. Host one last call from james in south carolina, good morning. Caller good morning. I have this problem with a guy named howard. I think he made a big mistake about russia. One, by mr. E clinton, that left everybody over here so they could still our technology. And also, under obama, what did mr. Biden do with the 1. 5 billion for hunter . Thank you. Host final thought from our guest. Guest i wouldnt comment on the political stuff, but i think oft in terms of the scale what china is doing is much more serious. Actually, one thing i have heard smart people observe is that the chinese traditionally one more preferred to fly under the radar wears russians were more brash and inyourface. But as in anything, you should be worried about the one who is picking his fights, staying under the radar but is 10 times the size of the brash one. That is where your real problem is. We are finally getting around to focus on the main challenge. Host our guest has been Elbridge Colby, former defense Deputy Assistant secretary and cofounder and principal of a a fifth term. For two other independent candidates also take part. At 7 p. M. Age begins eastern on cspan. This week on q a, Richard Horton editorinchief of the lancet discusses his book the covid19 catastrophe. Were going to have to figure out a way to get past this acute phase. We will. Its going to take some years. There are two ways to help reduce risk. One is a vaccine, but that is only part of the solution. The other is this idea that came up early on which is not the way to manage it but in the long term, its very important. That is whats called herd immunity. The more people to build up immunity to the virus, that will reduce the possibility of there being epidemic or pandemic outbreaks. Thats not going to happen this year or the next year or the year after. Its going to take several years for that to take place. To be in this for the long haul. A look now at the evolution of data technology. Current Cyber Threats and interagency collaboration on cybersecurity. This is from