P. M. Eastern on cspan, online at cspan. Org or listen live with the free cspan radio app. Next, look at what u. S. Foreign policy will look like an abiding administration. This Brookings Panel talked about afghanistan peace talks, americas role in the middle east and the impact of the troop withdrawal ordered by President Trump. This runs one hour and 10 minutes. Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to this brookings and Charles Koch Institute event. We are going to be talking today about the socalled forever wars in the broader middle east region and what abiding presidency along with the 117th congress should do about them. I am joined by a distant wish group of scholars and friends from numerous institutions all around washington but nonetheless, reflecting a real divergence and breadth of thinking experience and approach in thinking about these kinds of things. Lots of handson expertise. Americanat the new initiative at the Atlantic Council. He is a longstanding scholar. Any of you will know him for his years at the Cato Institute many of you will know him for his years at the Cato Institute. He is a former navy officer and is in many ways one of the great skeptics and contrarian voices in American Foreign policy who i have known for a long time and am really pleased to have them with us in this event. , the Catholic University he used to be at cato as well. He recently wrote a important article called of the case for the throng from the middle east. He is an advocate of minimizing the u. S. Military footprint. I think it is fair to say that at a broad level, all of us are advocates of minimizing the footprint to the extent possible but much of todays debate or conversation it will have a little bit of both. It is how much you do that and how much engagement is reasonable and desirable. To what extent is staying in some places with some degree of presence the least bad option for American National security policy. Cutting into that topic with real expertise on south asia is , madea. D and colleague she wrote a book called pakistan under siege. One of the best modern studies on pakistan. I would recommend it to anyone. I asked many of my students in recent years to read it. She continues her work on the afghanistanh asia, theater as well but also nigeria because she is interested in education and the way that influences peoples attitudes toward the state and a stream is him. Yvette brown. She has done some of the best research in the broader middle east. Two of the places where she has done her most impressive Field Research have been some aliya and afghanistan. This is where she is famous for not just hunkering down in the relatively safe green zone of those places which is where you a placeally find me in like afghanistan. She is out in the field, talking to people, seeing what is happening on the ground with remarkable bravery and a lot of preparatory work to make sure she can get out of the field in places where she will be able to learn so much from her work. She is an ongoing and very active expert in all matters afghanistan and pakistan but continues to research as well. Drug trafficking, pandemic disease origins, wildlife markets in places like indonesia, china, brazil, mexico and elsewhere. We are delighted to have you join us as well in the audience. We will look forward to your thoughts in the latter part of this discussion. We will go until about 2 15. Rhonda will have to leave us just before 2 00. I want to pose a question to chris about what we have gotten right and what we have gotten wrong in the middle east. I will have a similar broad range question for every panelist after. We will have a second round with us and then we will go to you and your questions. Pleased to have you with us. Chris, without further ado, the floor is yours. Chris thank you. Thank you for sponsoring this event. Mostly to tryl be to set the context. I think it is helpful every once in a while to ask how does we got here, how it is that we are referring to a forever war. Was it truly a forever war . Did it start somewhere . Candidly, i think it started after 9 11. We all know why. I think if you said to someone on september 10, 2001 that 19 years after, the United States would have spent 5. 5 trillion, it would have lost the lives of over 7000 american servicemen ,nd women, 52,000 wounded perhaps an equal number of 7000 or more contractors killed. Perhaps 300,000 civilians killed in the various wars initiated after 9 11. They would be surprised, i think. They would say how did this all happen . We go back to the reason why it all happened, it is because of the horrific trauma of the terrorist attacks on september 11, 2001 and the way the United States and other countries around the world reacted after that horrific event. Time,k that from time to policy inertia is what it is. Policies dont change unless someone changes them. Whyink part of the reason we have stayed in this path is because the political incentive make a dramatic change ieople come along recall that john kerry thought terrorism should be reduced to a nuisance. He was viciously attacked for that. Even people like john mccain or Mike Bloomberg at various stages said the terrorism problem have been exaggerated. I think it is helpful if this money spent, lives lost, is it necessary to keep the United States safe . So far, i have not seen any better assessment of this than by my former colleague, john. He is a longtime professor of ohio state university. Thatin 2014, he estimated for the cost of what we spent on after terrorism since 9 11, we have to believe that those Counterterrorism Measures were responsible for stopping roughly times square like attacks. An attack that was attempted back in 2010. If we dont believe that the various measures that have been taken under if we dont think that those are useful in stopping terrorist attacks, we should wonder if have 5. 5 trillion might been spent better elsewhere and even more importantly, we might if the lives lost along the way if these people would still be alive. Thank you for the excellent framing and focus on the big questions. Now i would like to turn to mad ea. I know youre no fan of unnecessary deployments to the broader south asia or afghanistan theaters but i read enough of your work to know that you are not of the view that pulling out would be the smartest decision either right now. Could you tell us about your thinking on both afghanistan and pakistan . Madea thank you. Exactly. I am not a fan of staying in a forever war. I think the discussion on policy in washington is increasingly framed as a binary choice. If you choose to say i think it is an unhelpful framing. Athink there is middleoftheroad option that will serve us best. Should commit to maintaining a small troop presence, several thousand until in afghanistan peace is achieved. That would take 35 years. That is being hopeful but that is the hope. It is through a very painstaking negotiation process between the two parties. Deal thatink that the was struck in february should be abandoned. I am working within the gray area of the deal. The fact that the conditions that were put in place have not been met to date. Until this piece still is achieved my argument is that it benefits both couple and the United States. Negotiate ed to both kabul and the United States. Forl leveraged to negotiate the best team in right. A good outcome in afghanistan will serve us well in america. Ofs helps the core objective counterterrorism but also narrative on america in the region. We should be clear that any poor outcome in afghanistan, down the road will be seen as americas failure and the failure of this forever war. , calling it the endless lore is war is not hope for. January 20, it will be at less than two or 3 of the height of our presence of troops there. All the terminology serves is to make this a politically charged question and unnecessarily so. Nothing good can come of staying, this is the key opportunity window of opportunity that we have. If we leave now if we dont leave now, that we will get pulled in again to a greater degree. I dont think that assumption is necessarily accurate. On the contrary, if we do leave now, the cost is high. We should be clear that the future looks grim if we leave completely now. It goes from regional proxy wars to an ultimate taliban ascendance. Not to sound too grim but that is what it looks like. Conditions for doing this still have not been met. Done real damage, he has weakened not only the american position in the battle sth our allies but also kabul position. The only party this benefits is the taliban. When joe biden comes into power, i think his hands will be tied. The ability to have leverage over the taliban, the ability to pressure the taliban as we need to do becomes that much harder. There is also a possibility that this can be done with what he hundred trips. My sense is that he does not want to increase trips right away. Think that President Biden troopsa few thousand more is what we need to if President Biden thinks that a few thousand troops more is what we need to do, he should. The question of afghanistan has been central to our relationship with pakistan. Stans actions have affected how the war has gone and how it goes. I think the last two years, things have been all right for pakistan. Between the two countries has improved. I would argue that the best aance that we have to improve future relationship with pakistan is if it comes to a full then we can focus on other things in that relationship. In afghanistan that descends into violence due to history with war, that country will become a theater for regional proxy wars. And then other countries will get drawn in. Michael thank you. Justin, i want to go to you next. I welcome any thoughts you have about this for the topic before this. Any topicso welcome from your paper. Justin thank you for moderating, thank you to the other panelists were participating. Chris argued that something has gone really wrong with the forever wars. That we dont know how much longer theyre going to go on. Have quite clearly failed to aims that we gradually expanded over time. In 2002, we actually dealt a pretty decent blow to al qaeda and santa a good message to the taliban and afghanistan but i want to expand on what chris said. I wrote this paper. I argued that these wars should end. It is not just that they failed to achieve their aims but we failed to situate the greater released in a greater context. We fancy ourselves a global power with global interest everywhere. What animated the paper and what will animate my brief remarks here is trying to situate the greater middle east in the broader strategic context. I looked at was traditional measures of power. If you look at the greater middle east, it contains about 3. 3 of world gdp that is on its way down because of sinking oil prices. Public closer to 3 . Depending on how you count, it contains between 3. 5 and 5 of world population. No country within the region can project power outside of its borders went away. Iran cant conquer saudi arabia. Saudi arabia cant conquer iran. The really the existence of a royal hegemon how can we push the iranians and russians back in syria . This paper says what do we need from syria in a broader strategic context . I drew on the work from notre dame and our esteemed moderator, michael. To get a handle on what we spend , this is not an exact science about is of the order of 70 billion per year in peacetime in addition to the 5. 5 trillion if you count iraq, afghanistan and the post9 11 wars. It is real money. Say 70the argument to billion a year for this . I looked at what we worry about in the greater middle east, are the concerns that we think this resource expenditure warrants . Inoncluded that oil is real terrorism. The main concerns i looked at what we worry about when it comes to the oil markets, what we worry about when it comes to israel and what we worry about it comes to terrorism. 70,000 troops, it is not necessary to protect what are limited to rest to those interest. I am happy to go into those discussions in q a. This is a bitesized version of the argument. The central problem is that the United States has had so few internal or external restraint on its Foreign Policy that it has been able to spend almost Unlimited Money at times on funds. The essence of strategy is about choice. When countries dont have any need to choose, frequently, their strategies can become striving in. I think that is part of the problem. Thank you. One quick, clarifying question before i move on. The term middle east gets used in many different ways. When you talk about 3. 5 of world population, what is your definition of the middle east that you are applying . The toe eastern to pakistan. Not including turkey . I will have to look at turkey but it was not an immense swing. Now, you have an intriguing opinion like this on like everyone. I believe it is fair to say that you now decided that the Peace Process requires a whole different look at the u. S. Military posture and a different approach. I eagerly anticipate your thoughts on somalia as well. Over to you. Thank you. Let me start by making a broad comment and emphasizing something that justin said and endorsing it. When we think about u. S. Military engagement in situations such as afghanistan, we have to think not solely in terms of the developments and also thiss but is rarely done in u. S. Strategy. Once engagement is launched, lens, the predominant looks at how to make the mission succeed. Whether it is a military mission or other missions. This contract trap that we often all into is thinking that impliesu. S. Interests moves on the ground. They use military deployment. This is particularly true of other u. S. Interests such as an , u. S. St in him invites economic objectives as well as geopolitical competitions. Those are all very important interests. Also, those values. This is who we are as americans. The fact that those are important does not mean that they should be addressed through military deployment, particularly, lengthy deployment. The third point i would make is policy is a real risk of , falling into the tyranny where engagement and say we have this tremendous amount of effort sacrificing blood and treasure. Theont focus on psychologically uncomfortable much more emotionally uncomfortable marginal utility and marginal cost. 14 billion a year on maintaining our military deployment in afghanistan, we have to ask what else we could put that money toward deforestation, degradation around the world that has significant impacts on preventing pandemics. It has the most crucial impact on preventing pandemics. If we see the devastation in terms of lines and economy, you opportunists coming out. They need to couple the analysis of marginal utility and marginal how the prospects change over time. This is the frame that we should decisions on how we engage rather than a notion that a grand strategy, all of this is looked at a certain way or the promotion of certain rights, objectives, it includes certain military deployment. Let me come to some of the specifics very quickly in afghanistan. First of all, i want to emphasize afghanistan in somalia. This does not mean that control under all circumstances is right. Of aia is on the cusp president ial election in december and february. It can easily end up very violent. Withdrawing u. S. Troops right now as opposed to waiting several months to get through the elections greatly amplifies an already enormous a combustible situation. I do not support that policy. Fromould be separate asking what is the marginal effect the marginal utility there . I agree with madeas analysis that the departure of u. S. A deal between the afghan republic and the telewill significant he worsened the terms of the deal. U. S. Troops might be dying in great numbers. Are dying on a yearly basis. That rate is only intensifying. Offended. N is already there is no prospect for immersing the u. S. , even if the United States and the Biden Administration increases its military presence. Down theimply slow rate with which the taliban is offended. I was a supporter of the search and that we should have negotiations with them every day. They said that the Obama Administration try to negotiate but the taliban refused. Mainly because the obama administrator should administration wanted to help the Afghan Government. I fundamentally dont believe u. S. Troops stay in afghanistan beyond the may deadline, the taliban will simply accept it. Ateink this will the go she i think it should negotiate a short delay with the taliban. However, regardless of the legality, the taliban will feel betrayed. You might say you dont care but it will start attacking u. S. Bases. It could also have the result of being pulled into an openended war with the taliban. This is my last comment. We are using the term forevermore. Use the termather openended war. Over to you. A secondlets go into round. What i would like to do is goin. I would like to invite each panelist to respond based on what they heard from each other. Phases part of the next of discussion. I would like to tweak the order slightly. You, i will begin with then go to justin. Then afghanistan about a specific question about the Peace Process. Certainly, everyone can comment on the whole region. Andbegan at a very clear conceptual grand strategic level in your analysis. I would like to push you further to ask you where you would like to see the u. S. Military presence in the middle east reduced, or any other form of u. S. Application of national power. And as you all know, because you are such a good military scholar with navy experience, we have a big Navy Presence in bahrain, a Big Air Force base in qatar, we have Army Logistic capability in kuwait. We have the smaller combat related options in iraq and syria. A little bigger in iraq. Those are primarily focused on the specific problems inside of those countries or pieces of those countries. We have forces in saudi arabia, which was not true for most of the obama period, but is true as the iranians has rebel threats against saudi facilities and saudi airfields. Then we have smatterings of capability going as far south in , whichion as djibouti will be in the africom military theater in the United States. It still in the Central Command theaters. With all of that in mind, as well as afghanistan, could you give us a couple of examples of where you like to cut, but also where you think we should stay. I think we need to steadyntiate between a permanent u. S. Overseas presence. And that additional increment of presence that is connected to the post9 11 wars. The United States has had forces for variouser missions going back to the Carter Doctrine since the late 1970s in the persian gulf and in the red sea, etc. As a person who believes in a naval naval presence, the naval vessels are to be moved if you are lucky. If you are the chief on a ship like i was years ago and the screws are turning analytes are on, you are doing your job. Thats a whole point. The difference and a lot of the presence that we have is thathed since 9 11 the physical presence of u. S. Forces in many of these places can become a lightning rod for resistance and radicalism, even in the most extreme cases. As the case was made for the war in iraq in 2003 on the argument that we were not going to leave forces, to your question by u. S. Forces in saudi arabia, we would not leave them after the attack on Saddam Hussein in 2003 because they were a lightning rod for terrorism. So even advocates for the war in iraq sought the benefit of being able to eventually reduce permanent on the ground u. S. Presence. I think that also applies to the case of afghanistan. Speaking, itarted wrote down some notes about the trends in afghanistan and why, if they are moving in an unpleasant direction from our perspective, why is that . Simply impossible to deny the presence of u. S. Forces, even small numbers of u. S. Forces has been in a lightning rod for the taliban, who have managed to expand their control over this country over many years. And one last point, a lot of times we hear that these forces in places like iraq, around the time of the surge, or afghanistan, gives us leverage over the taliban or resistance fighters inside of iraq. I want to leverage over the government china get them to behave the way we want them to. There is not a lot of empirical evidence to support that. As often as not you have governments that are encouraged to behave in reckless ways because they are confident the United States will have the classic and moral hazard problem. I dont want to miss an opportunity. These are openended wars. Acutelye notice more than the people who have been fighting the civil war 442, 43 years. So what we really should be talking about, back to your question mike, is not were the u. S. Military presence should be or should not be, the whether the u. S. Military presence in all of these places is actually contributing to peace, is actually contributing to greater security for ourselves and the people in the meeting in the region. His actual making space for american engagement, or is it at the expense of those things . I think many times we reach for the military hammer i we dont consider the other instruments. And thats where i would turn the question back on you and say , precisely because we approach the things in military terms, we dont take account of the unintended consequences and the opportunity process. What could we be doing instead . Justin, i will go to younext for any questions need to make and maybe youll give me the end of a similar answer of what you just said initially. And i think the title of your paper speaks for itself that your viewers comprehensive. I wonder if i could push a little further task are there some u. S. Military positions, maybe some of the more remote locations in qatar where you see a value in having some residual presence, or do you feel that your recommendation is fairly categorical and we would be better off not thinking of this as a theater where we need the capacity to get involved militarily at all . Over. Its a good question. Maybe its having been proximate to chris for so many years, but i am a navy enthusiast relative to ground forces. Agreements make sense to me. You can conceive of a time in the future where a regional hegemon might emerge in the middle east. I think its unlikely. An access agreement in a port is pretty cheap. As terror bases and things like that, i think these countries need to demonstrate at a minimal level that they were in defense on the part of the United States should something terrible happened. I am not super sympathetic to the idea that we need to be pouring concrete over there constantly. I did this very sweeping article and i want to push a couple of forever wars were openended wars, whatever term we choose to call them. Can we conceive of a time when ,he last u. S. Troops left syria or when the last u. S. Troop leaves afghanistan, or when the seemingly inflatable saudi thirst to blast away at yemen has been faded . Jim jeffrey said famously we were looking for the enduring defeat of isis in syria. I will do those guys are going to sign a treaty. I think that these things almost seem set up to go on forever. One of the questions i had as i heard the discussion about whether we was needed to renegotiate a new deal , whether the taliban noncompliance with terms of the deals that was mentioned causes a recapitulation of what we are trying to do over there . It seems we have many discussions about progress or in the absence of an end state that we are looking for. Its useful to try as best as you can to flush out what the end goal is and how what we are doing at presence present promises to get us there. Michael so now i will come back to the south asia theater, the same questions. You can feel free to comment on a broader range of topics as well. As a do this i will be weaving in a couple of the questions we have received from the audience because they are questions about the kind of in afghanistan peace deal we might realistically expect, and how you would link the prospects to your preferred approach. A number ofo stay months or even years, im curious about the timeframe that you would anticipate for the Peace Process. Perhaps with the u. S. And nato forces already having less over the next few months in the late spring of 2021, what prospects you would see on issues like afghanistans women rights, the prospects for meaningful powersharing between the taliban in some kind of elected government. What would happen to Security Forces . Would they emerge or with the taliban replace the afghan army with its own fighters . There are a number of questions about what kind of afghanistan we are likely to get to based on your own prescription for the Peace Process. That is a pretty big question, but at least it has the beginning with a specific question on how long do you think the Peace Process might take under your recommended framework. That may be a starting point for both of you, and then branch out into what kind of afghanistan you think might follow after a deal. Thanks, mike. Maybe if i can respond very quickly to a point justin made. What is the and state . What is the end state of victory . The end state of victory is a peace deal that has been achieved. In the last american troops leave at that point. That that is an end state the whole region wants. The Pakistan Government says it wants it and the Afghanistan Government wants it. The taliban is the one insisting not leaves regardless are if a peace deal is achieved. And terms of what form i think this might take and how long, i government has been stalling the process a little bit, perhaps in the hopes of a Biden Victory in doing so. But i do think the u. S. Has pushed as much as possible. I think there has been many trips to the region to push this process along. Pointow they are at a where they are still reaching agreements on the tones of the discussion. Becausea long process the taliban in kabul is opposed in what their vision of afghanistan is. This is not going to be easy. But, and there is a real possibility that this could be. Hey dont agree on much at all so its not that i am sure there is a certain outcome that ap still might be achieved, or the possibility of ap still, that is what we should work towards. I would say that with the u. S. Help, pakistan certainly has been helping in this process. Visiting andn pakistans Prime Minister just made a trip for the First Time Ever for him. And he has basically said that towill do whatever he can help reduce violence and help with the Peace Process. Help with ake that grain of salt. With all this help i think an optimistic prediction might be a few years. Three to five years. Takehen what form might it . Some kind of powersharing agreement. Think allhat i and i of the afghanis would want to be in afghanistan, which is democratic. At least thees basic games and womens rights. Wilmington go to work and that people dont get their heads topped off women can go work and that people dont get their heads chopped off in a stadium like they did in the 1990s. That is what we want is a very basic as the outcome. The constitution might take, if he becomes a little bit more like iran, we will have to see. In outcome that both sides except will be the outcome that i think we will have to accept. Just two quick other responses. Think there is a tendency to think of this in the 20 year timeframe. I dont think we should think of the decision in the 20 year timeframe and think about all the cost of it as well as what. S the benefit being achieved we should think of the decision costont of us so that the of the benefit of the fork in the road. I do think afghanistan needs to be thought of in relative in terms of the theater of the world conflict. Should we be spending money on the u. S. Domestically . Should we be spending money on Climate Change or on afghanistan . I am not sure that is the same to think of, but i think its afghanistan in isolation and the cost of the benefit. If you look at it that way it becomes clear. Economists have said it very well. Cost of leaders is high, the cost of gain is low. Not indefinitely, for a few years because of what afghanistan might descend into in terms of the cost of leaving right away. And to other very quick things on counterterrorism and the unintended consequences of us staying. Counterterrorism, i do not think we should doubt the threat of isis and al qaeda and all these other terrorist groups in the region, and what a taliban victory is. That legitimacy . It serves as propaganda. The more we can walk away within the achievement of something that is different than what they want, that is a victory for the United States. And finally, in terms of how the from theefits unintended consequence, yes it benefits from propaganda, but we should be clear that these and a lot ofd from other local grievances and local narratives, and its not that they drive all of their recruitment from the fact that the u. S. Is in the region. Thank you very much. Over to you for that broad framing about what you expect from a Peace Process on a number of the other dimensions i referred to and anything else you would like to bring in at this point. On february 29 i published a brookings peace in which i argued that this was a bad deal. At the same time it was the best deal that was obtainable. And the taliban tried to push. Or a different deal one that would only come in after the deal was accomplished and could not get it from the taliban. Surpriseno subprime of the unwavering position since 2007 and 2009 when feelers for negotiations started. Years, the those taliban is significantly more in thel than it has been u. S. Capacity to shape the taliban and its military actions is much bigger. Every day the deal that is obtainable becomes a worse deal. At the same time its a deal that the Afghan Government hates. It is vicious for the deal to collapse. Why . At minimum the deal obligated to share powers with the taliban but more likely it believes that the taliban will be the dominant in the deal. The Afghan Government, and i think many in u. S. Policy and politics would wish for a deal that columbia legs. What is the essence of the deal there . Agreed to suspend military amnesty in exchange for in a minimal term for anyone crimes with very small guaranteedand its to okun representation in the Colombian Congress that needs to compete in the election. Essentially its a deal is not going to jail, not having to fight anymore and having political impact. And it is done badly in elections now. However, that deal is completely unrealistic given the battlefield picture in afghanistan. In colombia the conflict was stalled. Because the conflict was stalled the colombian government agreed to negotiate. But it was stalled at a low level of conflict. In afghanistan is no longer true , so the taliban does not want the deal that columbia legs minimal token of political. Epresentations the presentation in the government, it wants to be the dominant actor and the military has to be acting of the domains with afghan Security Forces dramatic with the pandemic on the United States. When you withdraw the political dynamics and Security Dynamics worsen, the taliban will have the capacity to take over and hold capitals for afghan Security Forces to dramatically amplify deals. Of the important afghan politicians today are defenders andemocracy in human rights women rights. I think that an optimistic scenario would be in iran might , orem where the taliban rather the likely scenario is where the taliban would agree to some elections taking place at a total Authority Level composed of the taliban. Prospect, in odious prospect. Do we have any capacity, but its a real prospect. Is the Columbia Lake deal not achievable unless the policy becomes just staying and hoping and praying that something will break. That is the essence of the policy in 2014. Hanging on and hoping that the taliban will make enough mistakes. That has not happen and i think it is little likelihood that it will emerge. But we have to shape the taliban for other military presence on the ground. The taliban clearly wants to have a working relationship with the United States. , and itn government constantly speaks about the desire to maintain international relationships. It needs to be deployed to shape the talibans behavior, to emphasize the inclusive at of ethnic minorities and some protection for women rights. I want to make too broad comments in concluding. The issue of terrorism. Theerrorism really has been dominant interest the United States has had in engaging in afghanistan. One could make the argument that having troops on the ground weather in somalia, afghanistan, syria or other place in the world gives the u. S. More striking capacity in the air or on the ground than not having a presence. It is absolutely true. The question needs to be raised against the cost. I would say the cost is the oflly threatening emergence rightwing Domestic Violence in the United States, with many of themselvesthat call part of u. S. Open ended military engagement. By combating terrorism abroad, we are creating a fire hose for domestic terrorism and the undermining of it. What threat judge of terrorism is more imminent. In at the same time mitigate the other and not exacerbated. I will leave it at that. Is how i would like to handle the last 20 minutes or so. I have one specific question for you, which i think we can get in before you leave. And then i will take the audience questions on which there are four or five broad themes, and put them all before the remaining three of you all together at once. I will give each five minutes to respond to those one or two questions they find a greater interest or relevance to your research. So before you have to peel off, we have not talked a lot about been one ofq has the longstanding american predocumentations going back to 1990. You basically favored keeping the 3000 or 2500 u. S. Forces who are going to be in iraq when President Biden is inaugurated for some link of time to continue training, air power support, where do you want to see that number phase down quickly . I dont think that we are feeling the same pressures in iraq as we are in afghanistan. The setting is different, so i think there is a good reason to not come into the administration and that the bill should be withdrawn. I think the policy needs to be reconciled with how we handle iran and how we handle militias. Clearly our iran policy is driving proiranian militias into attacks on u. S. Bases that paralyze its advisory capacity the themine counterterrorism actions. So the Trump Administration policy was in some ways the worst of all were when maintaining the costs. At the same time disabling the capacity to engage objectively. Requires a very careful reconsideration of how we handle it and how we deal with it entity that has many factions. Is part of ass state entity. Obviously part of the constitute. But its a militia whose members are designated by the United States as actors. Those are some of the issues. Hat we are grappling with i direct it. Suspect it will become what we need to grapple with in many different parts of the world. How to deal with those cyber acts and those nonstate actors who are hardly pleasant in many who, but at the same time is who within the government. With that i want to think everyone for the excellent conversation so far, for mike for the invitation, and i apologize that i need to leave. Michael thank you. We appreciated and we will continue on with the remaining questions as which there are about four or five. I hope you can each take notes and maybe we will go in that order and give you five minutes or so to respond to whichever specifics you would like. One is going to forecast the Biden Administration. And specifically the question is asked about whether president elect bidens previous thoughts on this tenet to emphasize special forces and standoff airpower even before that was invoked. Perhaps there is an the bidenncy with team or what the president himself may favor and whether that is along the lines of what you have been advocating, and whether that is similar to what President Trump has been doing. In other words, how much disruption do you anticipate and will it be adequate to make you happy . Based on what we can see in our cristobal. Likely toere biden is go. The second is a question of india, especially in south asia. Should we be asking india to do more . To what extent can india do more in afghanistan . To what extent can we push in afghanistan to negotiate over taxpayer . Though its a little beyond its brought within the scope of the fee ever wore. But to the extent and the forever war. Feel free to have added. Another question that takes us further east but is potentially thevant as to what extent socalled rebalance to the asiapacific region of the Obama Administration going back almost a decade, and to what extent your proposed policy of relative disengagement from the middle east, especially for chris and justin, to what extent with that facilitate an effort to rebalance prioritize the china threat and the broader indo Pacific Theater and do less and the middle east . Im getting near the end of my questions, but perhaps thats the right way to leave it. We have a few more specific questions on afghanistan. I will apologize to those in the audience, we have had a fair amount of discussion on afghanistan unless the panelists want to go in that direction about what future role the u. N. May have and to what extent economic assistance could be used as leverage to get a dominated government to behave better and protect the human rights and womens rights that were talked about earlier. If you want to touch on that, feel free. But i would like for asked but i would like for you to comment on the Biden Administration, the role of india, and the broader administration of the asia Pacific Theater, the rebalance policy now being reinvigorated if we can find a way to drawdown from the middle east. If that is something you agree with and favor. Know, thats a lot but i you can handle a good chunk of it, so over to you. Thank you for your confidence. I will mostly leave the question about india. I will just make one comment on this. To the extent that pakistans behavior of afghanistan is driven by security concerns, if we could just bracket that someion, the certainly sort of improvement in relationship to india and should help to ease their concerns with respect afghanistan. I will leave it at that. I am mostly going to focus on the first question. Justin has a lot to say about the rebalance, and i will leave that mostly to him. But on the question of forecasting biden and where we are and where we are headed, i think this all comes back to what has, starting with the president elect and all of the people coming in with him, what have they learned from the experience of the last 20 years . Did they believe that these wars have advanced American Security . Made us more prosperous and more resilient . Have they helped spread American Values . Where did they believe a different approach is warranted . Of this, when you look at it along a generational perspective. One of the great ironies of president elect biden being the oldest man to have this office is the real possibility for a generational shift that is taking place from the baby boomers and my generation to the next generation of millennials. Because i think you see in much more interest in american engagement through diplomacy, trade and exchange, and much less for military operations. Point, that has to do with prioritization. The main disruption that we have all experienced over the last nine months, not quite, is the fact that we are all doing this by zoo. By disease we had not prepared for and the instruments of power are not suited for us. So the question is are we in the future going to rebalance how we define threats . And might it be, and i hope that it is, that the fear of terrorism proceeds finally after a very long time, and fear of other things that are far more likely to do more harm or even kill you are elevated. And if thats true, then the instruments of power that we need to deal with those other threats will naturally rise to the surface. So the true question is will we see downward pressure on the military budget. Will we see it on military spending, and will some of that increment of spending be redirected here at home to rebuild our power here at home, our infrastructure and educational system, or will it be debord it elsewhere abroad . Nothing that the really open question right now. Michael thank you. Justin, over to you. Justin yesterday, as i started doing this i thought, they will make me try to predict biden Foreign Policy and you assured me i when i have to do that. Now that i do a little bit of the work, i will do my best. I am a personnel or policy guide. Thatve a few appointments we are waiting for. I would be interested to see Deputy Assistant secretaries on down to get a better art of where i thought things were most likely to go. In this region, one thing worth keeping an eye on is the emerging israel saudi access that seems to be going with the peace deals that have arty happened not between saudi, but between uae and bahrain, but whether this personal beef between joe biden during one notable visit to israel, and biden had said we need to stop propping up the saudis more in yemen. There thatme baggage is interesting and worth watching. If it comes to be the case at its israel and saudi detente that comes together, whether or not those two countries are really clashing with the Biden Administration. On the rebalance i have done a lot of work on this. It is sort of interesting. It was supposed to be called the pivot to asia and if you talk to people in the obama and ministration of the time, they had to stop calling it the pivot to asia because our partners in the middle east got the vapors. Because when i pivot away from you i am not looking at you, i am looking over here. We had to call it a rebalance. I really do impress on my time that the middle east is eating your lunch. , itou look at this document was not the full throated justin logan the case for withdrawing from the middle east, but it was really about the state of interest that were enunciated in the middle east and what was needed to achieve those interests. If you think there will be resource constraints for the United States going forward, the indo pak people are really going to be looking at that bucket of money and i think its a good thing. My former colleague is always on about interservice petition. The best arguments that you can get for whats wrong with one or another comes from guys inside the building you want them money for themselves for their little mission. I think that competition in terms of how we think about the world can produce information for us to analyze what we think about our own security. Thank you very much. I would touch on both the forecasting and abide in administration as well as the india question. Very quickly, i think i mentioned some of this in my remarks, but i am very curious to see what a Biden Administration does in terms of whether or not it stays on for the afghan Peace Process, and who the secretary of defense will be. I think those two decisions will tell us a little bit more in terms of where the Biden Administration will go, but i and takewill take this the 2500 troops as they are an aim to make a decision on the response. We have heard that term before. It would be harder on the taliban. It ifden ministration, conditions are not met, they will tell them the conditions are not met, unlike the trump unlike the Trump Administration. There is a tendency, or expectation that we have that it will benefit from the expertise of what the people in the pentagon are telling the decisionmakers. So i am hopeful it is a decision that will be taken and it will be along some of the lines that i have been advocating for, at the very least, keeping a 2500 troops until there is much more clarity on the conditions of the deal being met. India ande of pakistan and afghanistan, pakistans decisions forever in afghanistan had been affected by the threat pakistan had felt from india. So indiana has been the sector that has loomed over pakistans behavior. So for threat on india on its wanted border, pakistan the serious strategic debt on the western border and that defined the decisions of afghanistan. Pakistan now argues it has moved that is the official line. But what we could see is that because india has not been involved in the afghan process, it has really made pakistans fear when it comes to involvement in afghanistan over the last couple of years. Playing a big role in the Peace Process. It really has not cultivated a relationship with the taliban to be able to have any leverage over it. So it has actually made pakistan feel more confident and secure and has allowed it to become a key partner of the Trump Administration in helping along the discussion. Benefitthat has been a on the unmet assessment. So my argument would be, right two other quick things, india and pakistan are not in a great place. His has to do with everything that began with the attack last february, but then with the evocation of error time he. But there are fingers being in india at acts of terrorism within pakistan. That, its a Peace Process, the afghan Peace Process does not come to a full afghanistannd receives into some kind of andation of civil conflict combined with the fact that we have a Biden Administration that people expect will be essential in the u. S. Relationship with india. Pakistan has a central fears of indias involvement and afghanistan will come to the floor. That will inspire the turn to strategic depth. Investing in these things that it considers friendly at the extent of others that it might be considering to others. They are the best outcome for the region and for india and that means that pakistan will focus more domestically and perhaps focus on an economic and trade partnership with afghanistan, economic ownership with the u. S. And its existential fears will have less of a role to play in the decisionmaking. All three of you, thank you very much. Things to our colleagues and teams at Catholic University and the Atlantic Council and brookings and the Charles Koch Institute. And everybody who is with us today, we appreciate your participation and we wish you all a very happy thanksgiving. Signing off. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] cspans washington journal, everyday we are taking calls and we discuss policy issues that impact you. Up wednesday morning, the director of the National Institute for allergy and infectious diseases, dr. Anthony fauci discusses the federal response to the 19 pandemic. In wall street journal aviation reporter talks about Airline Travel amid the pandemic and its impact on the airline industry. And issues affecting native americans and alaskan natives and native americans Rolling Campaign 2020. Watch cspans washington journal live at 7 00 eastern on wednesday morning. And a discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, Text Messages and tweets. Georgia senator and the democratic challenger will debate on friday, december 6. The race is one of two georgia u. S. Runoff elections that will be held on january 5. We will have live debate coverage at 7 00 p. M. Eastern youre an online at cspan. Org or listen with a free cspan radio app. At theesday, its a look future of the Transatlantic Alliance and natos role in securing ukraine and georgia. Hosts and article fun our live coverage begins at 11 00 a. M. On cspan, online at cspan. Org or listen live with the free cspan radio app. Retired Army Lieutenant general h. R. Mcmaster, the former National Security advisor to President Trump, discussed u. S. Foreignpolicy at an event hosted by the Atlantic Council. He talked about middle east security, u. S. Strategy towards china and iraq. This is 45 minutes. Pillow, and welcome. I am president and ceo of the Atlantic Council, and i would like to welcome you to Atlantic Council front page, or ac front Global Platform for global leaders. We have had heads of state and heads of government and former cabinet level officials and International Organization leaders, and sometimes they also of thisauthors wonderful book that i will talk a little bit more
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.