Longtimlongtime no see. I am thrilled to be moderating just about the most distinguished panel anyone could assemble foreignpolicy to my extreme right, max boot, i should say he used to be to my extreme right. [laughter] only on this stage in my twoyear extreme right. Not so much anymore. He is known to all of you as a prolific writer of columns for the Washington Post in the commentator on cnn, distinguished author of biographies and books on the military, i have a personal note to add, max was my first of the wall street journal and he was the best boss i have ever had and who was a good model for me on a personal basis for that reason for many years. You will notice he will get all the easy questions today. [laughter] jim fallows, well known to all of you as a distinguished writer for the atlantic, previous incarnation he was president carters chief speechwriter for a couple of years before winning a National Book award for his book on national defense, his career has taken him all over the world, he lived and traveled extensively in china and more recently traveled extensively here in the heartland of america with your plan, what kind of plane. Serous 22 with a plane in my wifes dad who is here someplace. Hes an instrument rated fire, if you ever need to go to marthas vineyard, i would encourage you to fly with him. George packer, that was a terrible joke i am sorry. George packer, i actually wrote george before i knew i would be moderating this panel with him, i wrote him a note, he won the prize and delivered the most significant and speaking personally over writer and moving speeches, sometimes i find on the atlantic website about what is happening to the craft of writing and george himself is a peerless craftsman when it comes to writing the winner of the National Book award for his reporting on what has happened to the United States. She was i think one of the very first writers all the way back in the 1980s who started writing on the subject of islam and political islam and what it meant to the world. And i think theres probably no writer in America Today to match her when it comes to subjects we care particularly about iran. If i wont go over the list of prizes, it is a wonderful panel. I would begin by noting i think rather strangely but this is the kickoff of the electoral season but the three issues that are more significant to the American People right now all seem to be more foreignpolicy related. On the account of behavior towards ukraine thats one thing on that list. The month kicks off with the decision by the United States to assassinate the head of the revolutionary guard corps of iran and just up the road you will be delighted to know the first flight of evacuees from wuhan is being quarantined at what used to be the Northern Air Force base so if you are are concerned, you will be in the hot zone but dont worry about that too much. What do you think of the shoot down of the iranian jetliner and is a touchstone event or is it going to be an inflection point, give us a sense of what the next year with iran could bring. To diminish its importance through the use of proxies it always had plausible deniability. I can still hear the bomb go off at the marine compound in 1983 with the Largest Military life and incident and it still is to this day. Within striking about the last six or eight months you see on and the United States going after each other directly, no plausible deniability. It began with tankers in the gulf by iran, the shooting down of a u. S. Drone, the iranian drone, the attack on the oil installations. The lasat the last month has represented the greatest threat that we have seen since the 1979 revolution. The United States won in terms of eliminating the most notorious extremist man responsible for many of the attacks on the facilities and personnel both united aides estimateisestimated at 603 amere killed in iraq and the cubs force and in charge of a operations across the middle east in some cases beyond. Its lacked the kind of overall strategy and how do you deal with evolution thats redefined the worlds political spectrum. You could argue that the french soviet and iranian revolutions s were three that defined the political spectrum. There is muctheres much more an just a elimination. Iran marks its anniversary and a couple of weeks and it goes to the polls to elect a new Parliament Later in february. Iran is at a turning point. The revolutionaries are dying out and they know that they have to accommodate a population dramatically. Its the huge outpouring of millions across the country and Memorial Services for him, but after the ukrainian plane was shot down you also sold millions of people turn out to protest against the iranian government. Are we looking at two different or is this a schizophrenia in public . It goes to the heart is it beginning to erode in terms of support from the population under the u. S. Maximum Pressure Campaign or is it beginning to find that it cannot sustain itself and utopian ideologies and inevitably collapse of communism and the soviet union because they are no longer economically feasible. So, what you saw in iran and both of those demonstrations was the kind of nationalism that dates back 5,000 plus years and has a strong sense of National Identity much like others in the middle east have strong identity in terms of ethnicity. Religion is actually comparatively new and in terms of nationality. Its an expression of me are going to stand up, but the striking demonstrations against the regime saying down with the dictator and Supreme Leader we want democracy was the reflection of the fact that revolution is in trouble. Trouble. Was that a sign that there was a different status that he was seen more like a nationalist hero and khomeini is the man running the regime that is so unpopular . At the end of the day, they see themselves as the shiites, persons in the ethnic minority with arabs on one side and south asians. They see themselves as isolated and as much as we fear iran, they fear us even more. In the defense of the nation the equivalent would be the head of Central Command in charge of our operations in the middle east and south asia. This assassination took place obviously in iraq. George, could you just reflect for a bit about looking back they came out with 2005. You look back today 15 years. Certainly not for the United States. It is a failure for us. For iraqis it is harder to say because they are in the middle of the street. We broke them out of prison. That created chaos because we had no plan of making sure with a loa followed was something ane would want to live in. The first take there was a lot of truth to that. They have the most influence in that country by far and look whos in power into his Prime Minister once parliament, look at how quickly they can get a Million People into the streets to denounce u. S. Troops after the killing of an iranian. They lost the conviction when it came to the United States. The Political Class knows that they need the United States as well as iran and theyve been caught between these two conflicting countries and trying to essentially survive it. Iraqis are nationalists as well even though they are younger than iran, the most common thing i hearthings i heard especiallym sunni iraqis is anyone who seemed to be supporting us as the epithet meaning shia but for the iraqi sunni, the indictment was the agent of iran. Its the hornets nest to manipulate and control the country they know a lot more about it. Its on the border, they will be living with us long after they are gone, but they are still faced with a tremendousaved a tf how do you engineer a government that in a country doesnt want foreign meddling so there were people in the streets of baghdad just before the killing of soleimani protesting the Central Government and the iranian backed militias. So, for iraqis it is going to be a long and very ugly battle. But i would say if i had to say who benefited more from this war, i would say its the iraq iraqis. The question for us is policy in the region. The middle east is one of those places you dont want to be in and cant quite seem to get out of. Its the Hotel California of geopolitics. Is there a broad stroke formula by which america should think about it and engage . What we used to think are a central interests in the region just are not what they used to be. We dont need as much oil, middle eastern oil is it important to our energy weve learned we cant fix the nations and to do for them but they do for themselves. We have an interest in the security that israel is a very robust state. Is there basically a Southeast Asia solution for us a fax we got out and they sorted it. Trump could have declared victory and come home if the parliament is passing a resolution demanding departure of u. S. Troops that might have seemed like a nice chance for a president to say they dont want us, we dont want to be there they have just successfully taken out of our enemy in the region. Lets get out of there. Instead he sent more troops. He was defeated by the deep state, his own generals and people although he succeeded enough to betray their kurdish allies and to get a second lease on life. I wouldnt say that he completely failed. Wants to get out of the bath. This speaks to some thing, this connects to your book on the unwinding because america is much less interested in solving the worlds problems than it used to be and this isnt a bipartisan thing. Obama talked about turning a chapter or turning a page on a decade of the war and msn there is considerable continuity with trump although it is completely different. I agree obama never acknowledges that he saw his role as damaging the decline. His role was to make it as painless and graceful. Trump in making America Great again has hastened the decline rather than manage data tha mans the same trajectory. The public having been told for decades we needed troops here and to fight this war and to spend money on this alliance they lost their faith in the eb are saying these things because they didnt know what they were doing and they made mistake after mistake and failure after failure and finally when somebody like Richard Holbrook says we need to have a longterm prison in afghanistan, the question is why coming up why arent you and your kids part of it, why are my kids the ones that have to do that, so i think the cynicism about the sense of American Leadership because american leaders could earn some cynicism has undermined the right and the left for the idea they have to have us involved in everything. You said something yesterday on stage that i thought was so interesting. You said the closer one looks at the United States, that are he felt about the country and the more strengt strength useful. By contrast, the closer that the look twhen looked at china whics supposedly rising from the ashes of our decline or whatever the closer you look at china, the list of most like and as it happens, we are now in the midst of this crisis which is on the one hand the crisis of potential epidemic or pandemic that strikes me as a political crisis as well. So, when you think about american knowledge decline versus the chinese ascendancy, what is the episode of the coronavirus tell you . Thanks for remembering that. The message that we are talking about in the book is that time when all of the structural crises are happening if you go to the granular level of the american society, things look better than that. There is a kind of health and recovery. In china the strongest things about china are what you see when you first get off the airport or you read the headline about the billion dollars for this or that. During the years we were living in shanghai there were entire subway lines that came into existence in the same thing in beijings china the reality we tried to convey is how it is simultaneously so strong and so we get the balance between the areas in which it is strong and formidable and antagonistic may be recognized along with the ways in which it is fragile and brittle and of the populace to china are aware of that and the governors. I will give you one other illustration and talk about the coronavirus. A hole a few americans think of multiplied by 1. 4 million, to strengthen the military. We think of everything divided by 1. 4 billion. Our resources, opportunities, environment, etc. Multiply and divide it. I think this coronavirus episoe number one based on what we know now, i dont think that this is the next play is a problem but probably not something a year from now we will be dealing. In the airport where the flight landed in San Bernardino international where we often had orbital plane, i think the last 20 years theyve had a couple of these experiences and we have of course sars. One of our sons was living in china and dad was virtually the only passenger on the flight from dc to beijing and of course the h1n1 developed in 09 and now this. I think ms trust fullness for the institutions for dealing in this kind of emergency from the medical system to the basic belief that people in the authority are not going to tell you the truth there was a very interesting piece from somebody in wuhan yesterday talking about for the first six or seven weeks nobody shared any information about this and so it was the sense of what dont we know now because the bureaucrats and officials everybody was afraid of telling the higher up. It is exaggerating to tell this to the documentary on chernobyl but its sort of the same power, they authoritarian system that has a hard time dealing with these episodes and require public trust. We see the strength of china and this is an illustration of the fragility. Its interesting that you can almost chart political revolutions to natural disasters. Nicaragua largely fell because of its mismanagement of an earthquake. The soviets there was a terrible earthquake in 1988. Mexico city where i grew up you can pinpoint september 19, 1985. I was living there at the time and that is when it began to fall because the regime lies couldnt contain the inner truth of what was happening on the ground and they affect in terms of exposing building practices in the salon. We were comrades at the journal editorial page and in the recent books is the corrosion of conservatism. Lets talk wide Angle AmericanForeign Policy for a minute. America first. If you are giving a speech, a book talk somewhere in the middle of america, in the capsule what is the flaw of America First thinking and doesnt that seem like a kind of statement of the obvious of what the American Foreign policy ought to be . It is a privilege to be with all of you on the panel with the writers for whom i have been a speck in the world, its truly an honor. Your question about America First i think gets to a very important point which is how do you define America First of course the slogan America First as we kno know dates back to the 1930s Charles Lindbergh isolationism and often some epic to nazi ism into the historical lens to see the president resurrect the slogan, but i dont think anybody disagrees with the notion of putting America First. Its a complete crock to say that there is a class of globalists selling out the United States. This is the same kind of conspiracy fear mongering we have heard going back many decades. The reality is everybody is in favor of America First. The question is how do you define America First. The question is if isolationism and protectionism is actually in americas interest and we have an experiment in the postseason the 1930s which of course failed spectacularly and as a result of that, the greatest generation decided no other way to put America First is not by pursuing isolationism and protectionism, the way to do it is to keep our troops forward. To support our allies and create institutions like nato to support free trade and eventually the wto and they understood harry truman, george marshall, there was going to be some shortterm cost of doing that. But they understood the Marshall Plan and those were devastated by war that was going to hurt us economically because we would not dominate the Global Economy in the same way as we did in 1945. They understood that in the long run this was the greatest thing we could do becaut wou create a system of peace and prosperity from which we would be the biggest beneficiaries and that remains true today when we have about 4 of the worlds population and 20 of global gdp. We are the biggest beneficiaries created but i fear that the benefits of the system are not well understood. Theres been bipartisan support for this Foreign Policy supported by republican and democratic administrations for more than 70 years and this was created by the greatest generation isnt going to be defeated by china, north korea or any other country. The only way that it will be defeated is if we lose the will to keep fighting for those values and i do see a lot of evidence that in fact we are losing that will. We tend to get involved in the daily headlines when you look at the trend line over the second half more than 60 democracies were undermined by military coups. There was a physical reaction that undermined. Since then, the number of democracies that are facing challenges is because people elected, parliaments went along and enacted laws that were divisive and undermine democratic values. Its the people at this time undermining democracy and that is one of the most important trends understanding who the enemy is and how much fear is defining the political agenda and foreignpolicy and almost everything we do. Lincoln gave a great speech in which he said of destruction we must be its author and finisher and we shall either live forever as a nation of freemen or die by suicide into your kind of disturbing the suicide option. But how do you find some pathetic to that and believe in the foreigthe foreignpolicy frw do you answer the charge that those years of free trade and movement of people and capital and information created winners and losers in the country and a more dramatic way than anything we have seen some of the robber baron era and the forward position of u. S. Power created the war that seemed to have ended in tears and failure so how do you answer that charge because i dont think anyone can advocate a return to the postwar internationalist position without acknowledging that the last couple of decades have been very rough on it. Theres no question that the socalled globalist elites on who i have to count myself as a member of the council on foreign relations, for there is no question theyve gotten a lot of things wrong and weve been discredited to some extent by the war in iraq which i supported and i regret supporting and of course by the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 at the end of the day, i fundamentally stemmed from this notion that our policies have created this horrible situation. Theres no question there are winners and losers or income inequality has widened but most of that is due to the march of technology. Its not due to globalization or immigration flows, it is changes in the economy at the same way that we saw the Industrial Revolution created winners and losers and now we see the and think about how we deal with those consequences in our domestic sphere but its not scapegoat the International Leadership and engagement for causing these domestic problems. It is not the case and i would argue in terms of the war there is no question weve made major mistakes in places like vietnam and the iraq war that has cost tens of thousands of american troops their lives but i think fundamentally looking at the big picture, our Foreign Policy over the last several years has been the greatest Success Story and nato. We have seen freedom and prosperity expanding in ways we could have never imagined. Look at europe which for centuries was a source of conflict now largely free even though you see freedo freedom ie road in places like poland and we havent seen this but we have seen the expansion of freedom and prosperity in the United States has been the biggest beneficiary of that, so i fear we do not have enough Historical Perspective to understand how good we have it even while keeping in mind some people are doing much better than others on the whole. I think our society is remarkable. Its hard to say to people that you dont know how good you have it. Is there a failure of pedagogy they had persuaded people things are much better than they think they are or have they forgotten to be grateful for the blessings of the free world or are we just thoughlove seeing something flex tomorrow theres something none of us expected when it happened when they remove themselves from the European Union and i think it came particularly as a shock to those of us if i may say in this class of pickup members of the global elite so we have to ask ourselves what are we missing here is that this world of abundance, international travel, free trade has not persuaded. Do you have thoughts on this . Stomach the combination of looking through so much of history myself at this point in having lived for a long time in china and japan may be even more aware that anything more important involves deep contradictions and these contradictory things are simultaneously true and that is how i think of americas involvement in the world. And lets say since 1870 or so when the u. S. Is a global power on the one hand, we recognize there are real costs of involvement. You have the war and the expenses of International Presence and complication of being bogged down in the middlee east or Southeast Asia and the exposure of your economy there are costs of doing that an and e also know there are costs of not doing that with the turned back as world war i and isolationism and the sense of free trade after vietnam as well. My sense is that American History these last 150 years or so essentially have been going from one of these at recognizing its cost to the other and being exposed to its cost and that is with the president ial personalities we tend to go from one extreme to another, by employer jimmy carter to eventually bill clinton did it from obama to trump etc. Both of these paths are filled with peril and heartbreak and there are propositions each of them in the snow that is where i think we are destined to be in the band going back and forth. At the first volume of memoir, Henry Kissinger writes about the u. S. Foreignpolicy between overcommitment and isolationism and the challenge is to find some revenue. I want to followup on something said that is important for us and that is in the 75 years america has been a superpower, the values and the ideas of democracy have evolved and what people expected in 1945 and what they expect today has changed so i think it is a problem we see everywhere in the world. In the spring and the middle east and other parts of the world the transition from eastern europe. Everyone understands now, courtesy of its education, social media, it is half of democracy and the other is the sense of responsibility. Thats where the divisions have deepened a and Everyone Wants more rights than the other guys. Whether its the economy or physical Security Status they want to just a little bit more even if it is to feel equal but that gives them a sense of security and its a problem that plays out. Its like i said the kids in the middle east that led to this incredible arab spring only to find they knew what their rights were but they didnt know how to create an alternative that gave everyone a sense of belonging and make them invested in the future. One of the problems everyone faces everywhere is wanting to invest and being willing to give up something to make sure that there is stability and a sense of equality. Even though we talk about it its kind of evaporated. Let me ask the whole panel of simple questions. Big picture. If you were advising the next democratic president , what is a piece of advice he would offer for the conduct of the American Foreignpolicy . I think we need to resurrect the Foreign Policy consensus that has guided the American Foreign policy since 1945 which is fundamentally premised on defending and promoting freedom and liberty on standing with our allies and security and promoting free trade and sadly i dont think most of the Democratic Candidates speaking up for those values but i think that is a broad policy direction which we have many stumbles but i think to get to the point jim was making, it beats the alternative, and i think that we need to try to rebuild that bipartisan consensus into his disheartening for me right now to see that theres not a Free Trade Party left in america. That isnt good for the tour of the united they are the world. You actually got to do this when you were jimmy carter. There was another time. One of the speeches stands up is the speech carter gave in 1977 in a commencement which h they would know about the human rights policy. Is that where he talked about the inordinate fear of communism . I remember that well. Theres a whole discussion about that i can tell you later on. I think that for the next president , theres an operational level of things being able without the public knowing about it to reengage seeing people engage and just rebuilding the infrastructure of how the indignation deals with the rest of the world. I think that the message the next president gives both of domestic and International Affairs as they are better than this. We are a better country than the one weve been presenting ourselves as for the last couple of years. The sense of responsibility to our American Family which is an inclusive family thats what makes the American Family unique. We can mak meet people from arod the world about and aspire to our ideals have become parts of america and we are better internationally feeling confident enough not to be picky at recognizing the values we support our values other countries can support out too and they can be not in an aggrandize that way the inclusive and so the idea we can be better than this domestically, internationally and we will find ways to defend our interests which are involving the economic and military might but a country that tries to say a country of the big tent that is the big difference is that an example. I am persuaded by what both of you but that message to get across the first is to tell the truth. No president since jimmy carter said things he said from the oval office. So, weve gotten used to a level of diction and feel good rhetoric that is part o of the cynicism of the public so start with telling the truth and part of that means acknowledging where the public is, where a large part of it is. We are such a divided country that it will visit eight with maybe 55 of americans but i think 40 or 45 might be utterly appalled and so right away, that new democratic president is going to have a major partisan battle on his or her hand so that is just the nature of the politics. I think in the phrase the right way by the right people we are better than this. Youve always been more optimistic than me. But i would say to even get to the position the president can deliver a wonderful message, that president would have to acknowledge what the stakes theyve paid the price for and then to be able to call americans to a better and higher vision. Briefly because we are about to run out of time, this is the 21st century and the president needs to understand what it is about and whether we like it or not its about globalization and one of the problems in the processes that there hasnt been leadership or institutions. After all of the turning point in history there were moments we could take a breath after world war ii and created nato and the union, the imf, the world bank. Because of the kind of perpetual disruption and the pace of change now, we dont have the time, the leadership, the kind of wherewithal to get us through this very awkward and unavoidable process. The other thing i would say is be proactive, dont always be reactive. Unfortunately too often as we started off, that thinking strategically longterm help to create alternatives or a better world with broad points and that gets to what people talked about and that is making america better. Conducting the foreignpolicy you can define your value is according to your interest the way rome did with its conquest and its values for honor, loyalty, purge and so on. Or you can define your interest according to your values and those can be the open society, pluralism, respect, the deep belief in the dignity of every human being and the profound value of freedom. And i think america has always been at its best when we have asked ourselves first with the values are and then watched as our interests have fallen into place usually quite magnificently in the hope that we are able to do that again. Thank you to my panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations] senior scholar on bradford discusses the power and influence of the European Union in