It is chaired by former National Security adviser Lieutenant General hr mcmaster. The mpp experts work closely with economic and financial power and our center of cyber and Technology Innovation with the goal of innovating estimates of American Power to achieve Better Outcomes for americans and our allies. It is a nonpartisan policy institute, a source of timely research, analysis and policy options for congress, the administration, the media and wider National Security community, we take no for an funding. This is one of many events hosted throughout the year. We encourage you to visit our website, fdd. Or. We invite you to join the conversation. We are being cautious in response to health concerns. We are live tweeting so please put questions there that will get to me. I am going to start with a brief introduction of our panelists. David kilcullen, i meant to hold up his book, you get yourself a copy. He is a voice on guerrilla warfare, counterinsurgency, with extensive experience over a 25 year career with australian and us governments, army officer, analyst, advisor and diplomat, currently serves as professor a stones estate university and ceo and president of courier applications group, remote observation fieldwork and related support to government industry and ngos. Kori schake is director of defense policy studies at the American Enterprise institute for strategic studies and distinguished experience in government working with the government of defense and state and the white house and National Security council. Bradley bowman is director of the center on was very little power, serve as National Security adviser to members of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committee and 50 years in activeduty us military officer. He was a blackhawk pilot and assistant professor at west point. Those who havent read your book, explain who are the dragons, who are the snakes . A military application until the end of the cold war, jim woolsey, clintons cia director. Im an incredibly prescient guy, going through the confirmation hearing, the cold war just ended, America Needs to face in the first cold war period, we slated dragon talking about the soviet union and we are in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes. He goes on to lay out a detailed vision of week states which im calling the snakes. The media future which im 30 years since his testimony that adapted and eve all. Host if you look what happened, you have the snakes. Vladimir putin took over, and peaceful relations. We wanted to make russia a normal thing and russia has specialized a week hand. On both sides of the aisle, democrats and conservatives, as they get rich they get moderate and a strategic partner. They havent evolved in that way. Im suggesting the dragon is back. They operate in a different way. The Trump Administrations National Security strategy. For those terms, what we referred to as dragons, rogue powers and nonstate g hardy actors, and the strategy recognizing those threats, are they saying the same thing . It is going in the same direction in a less erudite ways. I would love for people to take away from the conversation about the nss, we sent to the conversation on this panel. As we talk about american strategy against snakes and dragons, that these are the wages of our success. They were given to the edges of the conflict spectrum because we are so dominant and on the hirings of the escalation matter. They thought they could win a war against western militaries and they were given to the edges of the conflict spectrum. Russia and china, they are rejection asked powers. Russia has determined it cant be successful on western terms. As dave puts out, they took a limited strategy. That is not a word we hear all the time. Working on the margins, working on the threshold, that is a smart marginal strategy that indicates we are still in their minds dominant in the middle of the conflict spectrum, having judged the military opportunities, we start from a notion with the success of what we did. It is not going to be good enough and they make that argument in the book that our adversaries have been more adapted than we have been and we need to limber ourselves to remain the rule center of our own fortune. As a military guy there is a tendency to do what we do well. What we did in the first gulf war and we prefer our enemies help us by challenging us in ways we are used to, that screws up all the plans we have, the weapons we are going to design but that is what we are going to do. Our enemies are adapting and even offering to use darwinian terms. We are on track and would like to stay on it. Our adversaries are imposing methods and military power, and advanced courses are 1dimensional and that is because the military is been so effective. Military power is necessary but not sufficient and that is why cutting the state Department Budget by 30 is so shortsighted. More places than we ever would, most war fighters want diplomatic experts, they are concerning battlefield success, longterm sustainable political gain. One other thing that is a distinction, what the National Strategy argues. The National Security strategy makes a narrow argument, with the challenges dave identifies in the book, cooperation and pooling institutions and allies along with it, a stronger front with which to confront these challenging. They are not funding the nonmilitary elements. The conceptual mistake that cooperative enterprises are diminishing with American Power. Playing team sport is what we do well and the captain of teams, our comparative advantage for adversaries. Not to follow up on, in recent years, liabilities, for Strategic Assets. 100,000 troops in afghanistan. It is not politically doable but they have 1000 troops in syria leveraging Syria Defense forces with logical and air support defeated the isis caliphate. If it werent for all partners in syria sending 100 first a lot of american casualties. Allies are Strategic Asset and we cannot implement the National Defense strategy without our allies. I want to dig in on this point. I totally agree with you the kurds and arabs are working with a small force multiplier. Dont understand why donald trump is taking credit for this goldilocks solution, 100,000 troops nor 0 troops and diminishing these the Islamic State and secondarily, tertiary early we are keeping at bay the Islamic Republic in iran which has its ambitions. All that is being done by a small footprint of highly skilled troops that are in combat. However i also we talk about our allies and im getting diplomats angry at me but that is the way it goes. The germans are not contributing to the collective security the way they might be, not spending enough money and when they do they are spending on benefits for retired soldiers rather than making their tanks are capable. The turks are the secondbiggest military in nato. I dont see the turks defending estonia if the russians attacked. I cant imagine that. The french have capability, australia will have capabilities and that is about it. The rest of the nato members i dont see them contributing and being allies we can count on. They expect us to protect them with very little input from us. It is possible to criticize nato which i do in the book. Primarily for being too big and unwieldy and threatening to russia and at the same time being too disorganized to generate a unified affect in places where it counts. It is interesting to see how the European Group within nato started to spend more in the last two or three years, donald trump made the same comments the last few president s have made, stylistically unusual way and that had an effect. Half of the effects with russias invasion of crimea. We didnt see a step up. Actually you do. Germans began in 2016. The germans are going ahead with north stream too. We believe this administration will make germany and europe more dependent on russia than ever. The us has this Freedom Program which people are paying attention to, which is about weaning parts of europe off of russian natural gas and that is a critical weakness. When i first served as an australian in iraq people said you are Great Coalition partner. I said we are not a coalition partner. We are treaty ally. There is a difference between allies by treaty who are committed to certain requirements and people you aggregate on the ground and one of the points i make in the book is us dominance poses an adaptation challenge not just for our adversaries but for allies. They have chosen to focus on certain capabilities to keep up with the United States but they have let other capabilities slide by the wayside. The british have tried to cover a wider band of things to keep up but they have less resources for each category so that is why the west learns to fight the west. We have to stop thinking of a collection of western powers as a joint set of capabilities rather than competing. One more point i want you to talk about is you are not talking only about military allies but also when we have a battlefield success this is very much in the book. We need a way to translate that to a political success afterwords. We have not been very successful at that. Who does that . If it is left to the military the military will do it. I remember being in afghanistan a few years ago, having them talk to me about the crops they should be planting. Wise military officer telling me that . I want to win and that is my mission but would do we have at the state department, usaid, National Endowment for democracy, do we have people who know how not so much to nation build in the sense of creating a jeffersonian Democratic Society but put in the institutions of basic government so it is not a failure, a failed state the minute we leave. It is a really good challenge and having worked in the state department and the pentagon i was shocked how little advantage of the state Department Personnel system makes of the talent in their midst. If i think of the american army, no offense, mostly what they are brilliant at is taking talent at the middle of the bell curve and shifting the bell curve upward. They look for young women who have the skills that would make her a good soldier, recruit her, train her, spent a third of her career teaching and training her, promote her not just on what she has done well but on her potential to contribute in broader challenges going forward. The state department does none of those things. You have brilliant american diplomats, bill burns for example, people you can throw into the deep end of the pool but nobody teaches them to swim and so the institution does an array to be successful. I cringe when somebody argues for all of government anything in the United States because we are politically incapable of that. We have a government designed not to do that. We are brilliant at swarms of independent actions that add up to stuff and instead of trying to make us culturally different than we are and we are successful for a reason and the reason isnt the ability to create whole of Government Operations but to build a better mousetrap entrepreneurialism and we should have strategies as they argue in the book that build on that. Answer me quickly, if president obama had not pulled our troops out of iraq in 2011, building the largest embassy in the world and we had worked harder with the iraqis, i will not call it nationbuilding, i will call it building of institutions, would we be in a different place in iraq today . To broker a model of various factions and put more effort into trying to create institutions of government and bureaucracy . Yes. Do you agree with that . I was there is a humble staffer, warning the Obama Administration not to do in predicting what happened. You would think after 9 11 the country would need a reminder bad things can hurt us here, that happened on 9 11 it happened again when we left prematurely in iraq and it will happen again in afghanistan if we dont learn the lesson. I was not a fan of going place, if we hadnt done that, there would not be isis certainly in the form we found, wouldnt have had to go back in. The Trump Administration may be about to make the identical mistake the Obama Administration made in iraq. What i want to do before we come back, lets go through the actions you sketched, i want to name them, i want to say them on the air. Start with your option, embracing the suck, that is military slang, accepting that something unpleasant is going to happen and try to make the most of it. It would be to say to the extent that the us global primacy of the past 70 years or so is an example of a historical phenomenon of an empire, like any empire we are going to decline, we need to go for a soft landing by looking for a successor. I suggest that is not going to work. President obama favored such, quote, managed decline and it may take trump to execute the obama strategy. In the strategic positioning, they are similar to each other. I do think of a problem is for a strategy of handing over to a successor, that successor has to be interested in doing that, be capable of doing it and friendly enough to ask for that to happen. The chinese dont want to do it, the chinese cant do it, neither are friendly enough to trust them to do it. I think the president is an ambiguity of not contradiction in Donald Trumps thinking because on the one hand he wants america to be great. On the and any president whose job is to manage decline is not making america great, trying to make america denmark at best. What the president wants is for the United States to get credit without doing the work and that is the key to a failing strategy. My whole career i have looked for better allies than the nato allies. I would love to trade the nato allies for a better set of American Allies but i cannot find a better set of American Allies and that leaves you with a choice, does the United States organize everybody, my never up, challenge everybody to do better, shame everybody into doing more than they do or do we step back in the hopes that others will step forward . People who step forward are not going to do it on the terms that we want them to do it on and it is so much less expensive to sustain a largely beneficial environment than to allow us to corrode and reestablish it. People are stepping up more effectively. Previous president s of given mixed messages, you guys need to do more. Will always be there for you and do what it takes, donald trump said you need to do more and if you dont do more i might not be there and everyone is like that is a good point. It is instinctive the way this president pursues Foreign Policy which he doesnt get credit for. The fundamental purpose of nato is to deter russian invasion of european allies, codified in article 5. I understand the desire to get our allies to pay more particularly germany but the mistake was to tie the effort to article 5 because by suggesting america wont honor our collective response, youre inviting the very thing nato was designed to prevent, encouraging russia to do something that will be more costly than maintaining a few brigades in europe so incredibly shortsighted. Ash carter they also you need to pay more, pay more. I agree a harder stick was necessary, incredibly shortsighted and contrary to the congressionally mandated National Defense Strategy Commission addressing these concerns in the context of the office. I agree but i understand why trump did what he did. I dont know how peoples history knowledge is about, Kaiser Wilhelm gave a blank check to gary and was dragged to the world into world war i and it is worth thinking about how do we not make article 5 a blank check the dont do what brad is suggesting, encouraging a way to prevent by making it a dead letter. Somewhere in between is a more complex messaging strategy. Article 5 is a fundamentally if germany invades russia i dont believe anybody believes nato allies would back germany up on that. It is a fundamentally defensive commitment each makes to the other, galloping up in the way the blank check i heard donald trump say a very and to this, 83 russian. 100 estonian. Many of them are ethnic freshmen. His point is why would portugal, france and germany go to war in estonia. It has got to be somewhere between blank check and dead letter and i want to make the point as i lay out in the book, highly unlikely. What is happening right now, limited warfare strategy where military activity is being targeted to undermine the political enmity of nato and that is the real issue. You are advancing that caused by suggesting portugal im quoting Donald Trumps point of view. I am trying to interpret what is driving him to talk the way he is talking. It is a stupid idea but he is trying to achieve some double messaging strategy. As we think about russias relationship with nato and think of it as military and economic means, russia has the economy of greece, almost entirely oil and gas dependence, a serious internal problem. Nato dramatically out spends russia on defense as a collective. They dont act in an organized fashion. It is about organizing and aggregating our affects rather than operating in war fashion. There is a section that talks about Traditional Russian frontier craft and i like that session because he talks about how it is a longstanding policy to stoke separatism, sap unity and create pretexts for interference. To stabilize and subvert neighbors sovereignty as a means of exerting control and sometimes people like to blame nato expansion for Vladimir Putins policy but as you say in your book on 133 putins goal in 1999 was to reassert russian dominance and the whole idea of opendoor policy, Democratic People have a right to choose with whom they want to associate. Vladimir putin wants to choose for whom they associate, nato for a reasonable definition do they say all our sense of threats to russia and anyone who puts nato expansion plans for Vladimir Putins policy, i dont think it was like that. I will agree with the blame point, i am quoting a great russia experts based in london. Russians traditionally the regard russian frontier is safe it has a russian soldier on both sides of it with security and while we are talking nato, nato organization, really focusing on another article they dont spend time on which requires selfhelp nations to be more resilient, focused on baseline requirements, defense on this kind of stuff. That is what nato is trying to do, the lets talk about options of doubling down. Winning against adversaries, there is none that we cant defeat. The argument in doubling down is sort of that. We keep doing what we are doing but do it harder. We spend more money, get more carriers, fifthgeneration fighters, exploit existing dominance in narrowly defined form of conventional warfare. I agree about asymmetry and limited strategy. The point with respect to china is they are pursuing a combination strategy. China built an entire new class of anti Ballistic Missiles, they cannot cut a carrier 2500 miles away on the move. Why are they still building carriers. It is cheaper to build Ballistic Missiles or submarines. I suggest building carriers to keep us focused on carriers to keep soaking up effort and expense in traditional areas of dominance while simultaneously building ways to strike from the side for strategic documents. It is worth remembering that doubling down means more of what we are doing now. We cant get out of the business of conventional warfare or moving to that space or doing more of it is different. I agree with that. Charles o reilly, winning through innovation, he talks about why is it successful businesses cant innovate . Seems to be applicable to the challenges western militaries are facing now which is when you are successful it does the hunger for disruption. It is hard to let go of 11 aircraft carriers. If that is the way you have imagined. They were continuous gunfire aboard ship, the example charles uses. My favorite military strategist in Nineteenth Century america by the name of mckenzie was successful on the indian frontier because he asked a fundamental question of innovation which is what are our adversaries doing right. How do we blend the effect of their success by doing Different Things right . Dave makes a powerful case in the book that we have gotten dumb and lazy because we are so successful and we are being out innovated in basic ways, we need to up our game and we are culturally advantaged in this regard. Through the lens of adaptive biology, we have become fat, lazy and slow. At the risk of starting another fire. We came for it. That stagnation is good in terms of talking about the victims success. The book is widely misinterpreted. Francis for llama wrote about what happens now . A lot of people mistaken for something he couldnt say, the apex predator, where do we go now . At the end of history, people dont properly credit him that the challenge will be boredom, dissipation, lazy satisfaction. And that actually is what we in free societies have indulged ourselves in. One place im more optimistic than you are is free societies have a regenerative capacity. I dont think you give us enough credit for and that too is an enormous advantage. If the government posits an authoritarian position that needs to control everything than anything that goes wrong is governments fault. We see that in china with the coronavirus, when we have a pluralistic open, laissezfaire society are more resilient in many ways. The military reforms come after defeats or under pressure, strikes me what the United States is trying to do is go through the largest restructure reform in 40 years. Preparing for an adversary that has not yet defeated us. We have to help the American People and their leaders in congress understand it would be better to reform now than wait for the defeat. Lets go to your third option, youre trying to start a conversation, the least bad of the options. I still make the point that it might not work. I drove the analogy that we regard this is different from the romans, the roman empire collapsed in the fourth century a. D. But the state itself for another 1100 years. The 20 ninth of may 14, 53 when the ottoman caliphate occupied constantinople, i asked how did they do that . There are a number of things that come out of that. They selectively learned from their enemies, figuring out what our adversaries are doing and if we look at what our adversaries are doing, there are some things we would never in 1 million do for ethical or legal reasons. There is a lot of stuff that is neither good nor bad but a technique we are using. Secondly they focus on not going into occupation outside core territory like the romans did. Instead of trying to occupy provinces that have agile forces that can move to threaten frontier is required. They have large and effective groups of allies, certain core niche advanced technologies that are more capable than their adversaries. They have a strong focus on domestic resiliency and having an efficient and effective governance, administrative educational system at home as a way of creating resiliency and they were not shy about letting these fall over and coming back in later to reestablish. They had a more flexible strategy optimized for longevity. The russian empire in central asia and western europe for expansion, that was also true of the roman empire and they achieved it. It is worth thinking about that. It might buy time for the Global Environment to shift. It is not a solution but is a holding strategy. You want to get a comment. If the time horizon is centuries or millennia it is true that empires will fade or die but if we take a shorter time horizon it is an interesting thought experiment put ourselves in constantinople in 500 a. D. They didnt know they would last another millennium. They might have worried they had fallen for years but they put together a set of strategies, allow them to last a long time. I studied under paul kennedy in grad school, rise and fall of great powers, i remember how america was done. The inevitable decline over millennia. Im not convinced we dont have several more centuries but depends on the decisions we make and they have to be informed by a couple things. We cant trade who we are for security. Once we do that we have neither our freedom nor our principles or security, we have fiscal sustainability, spending more on National Debt or National Defense in the next decade and defense is more than the department of defense and we need to remember the value of allies. Im not convinced we will see american decline i am not i contrast the view in the postwestern world where he says decline is inevitable. We are going to decline. Johnny goldbergs version in suicide of the west, or charles krauthammer, decline is a choice. I dont know the answer to which of those is the case. I think it depends on timeline but certainly even if decline might come about there are ways to extend the period of primacy without frittering the dominance away. The view of the rise of the west is thrilling because they are going to be for all kinds of he was wrong in that. A wonderful example, wouldnt we like to be like that . It isnt happening that way. Before he wrote those words in 2008 we got a thrill i hope he would say that. The element that for me, all of these together is type of governance really matters and you allude to this, you say it in the book. I would bang a hammer on that again and again because it is certainly true that democratic states fight more wars than other types of countries, they fight wars about expanding basic freedom and that does in fact make the International Order more stable, safer for free people and the way to choose when and how you commit to policing frontiers or going out into Indian Country is when the opportunity presents itself to help people secure their own freedom and that, the thrilling rise of the west doesnt work because they are not advancing freedom. China getting stronger while it is this repressing is an actual danger to us but a china where moms can militate for safe baby milk and achieve something besides prison sentences is a strong powerful china we can deal with. We dont have a revolving. We are not anywhere near it. Rather than hong kong being digested let me argue on his behalf. You mentioned a different economy. One of the key players was india and potential longterm strategic ally of the west. The picture is more positive. India is trending authoritarian in dangerous ways because of intolerance, they are allowing the corrosion of the things that make free societies resilient and vibrant. The parliamentary system, a peaceful change of power at some point, they will have a new president , a new prime minister. I cant delay this any longer. Keeping down bad guys and do that, persuaded otherwise, now lets get to afghanistan and talk about that. There is a peace plan. I want your thoughts on that. There is some disagreement. I dont think it is a good plan, on the other hand there are worse ideas going from 13,000 troops to 600 troops for the next year. There are those on the right and left or restrain is, after all this time, let the taliban and take over, no skin off our nose. After 18 years to keep the us military, watch how supercharged jihadist and other enemies are now that they know once they know how to drive us out of one battlefield they will use the same effort to drive us out of anyplace else and there are those who say that is fine. We have two oceans, lets get between them, put up some walls and borders and let the rest of the world go to hell. My applause is firmly in check for this particular piece deal. You have two rival Afghan Government administrations, inauguration ceremonies in kabul. The Afghan Government was not involved in these discussions, signing off to the things we are trying to get the afghans to do. More importantly more than a decade ago when i worked for Stanley Mcchrystal part of my job was talking to people that were protaliban and the negotiating position was antithetical to the position we agreed to 11 years later. They havent shifted. They have always been saying no longer have a relationship with al qaeda which i next ordinarily skeptical about. They want us to leave and deal with the Afghan Government after we are gone. We could and should push for a better deal. There will need to be a political deal but they are dealing from a position of weakness rather than a position of strength. The other point, dont want this to come off as harsh but from a strictly financial and military standpoint we the United States and our allies can keep doing what were doing in afghanistan literally forever. We lose a couple dozen people every year which is horrible and bad for their families and their communities but doesnt destroy our ability to continue the we lose that many people in car accidents. What is problematic is not the money we spend but the Afghan Governments office, we got to figure out how to reduce their losses and give the support they need an aviation, intelligence, maintenance, things that are relatively noncombat focused and having small special forces and larger conventional force and we need to focus on making them sustainable so they can negotiate from a position of strength with the taliban. This is hard to call for me. I am sympathetic to the argument that 18 years of time and effort producing this little change may be our effort would be better spent in other places at home and abroad where we can foster the resilience daves strategy argues for. I also agree with all the analysis dave outlined. What puts me on the margin in favor of remaining in afghanistan is the moral argument, we created the circumstances that exist in afghanistan, both the hope for a better kind of afghanistan, afghanistan where individuals have rights and loan them in limited ways for different purposes and we are responsible for encouraging wave after wave of afghans to come into Security Forces to create that. We bear culpability for those 40,000 dead, avenue and National Security forces, it grieves me to think that we will and afghanistan back over to the harsh realities of taliban control and so on the margin im in favor of continuing a strategy that is successful and we havent prosecuted anywhere near the creativity that we are to be prosecuting. After so much time we have not seen better results, we should remember more than 1000, your wasnt attacked on 9 11, we were and they invoked article 5, they stood with us shoulder to shoulder, i thousand 8 oh service did not go home to husbands and wives, talk about tangible value of our alliance. It is frustrating weve not see more progress in this time but you begin with the objective. The objective is to prevent another 9 11 and the burden of proof is on anyone who said we can withdraw, we have safe havens around the world but there is something unique about the afghanistan pakistan region, that is a historical argument. It is not easily accessed, it is landlocked. A large number of the worlds terrorist organizations find their homes right there. We have 486,000 activeduty soldiers in the u. S. Army and with 46,000 activeduty in afghanistan for the foreseeable future, what we need to do is prevent another 9 11 on new york, washington with weapons of mass distraction a reasonable investment. What about service members, we should also weep over people in new york who died on 9 11 and make sure that doesnt happen again. There are two reasons you might leave an occupation force for a lengthy time. Talking 10,000, 8000 you hear from the media we are fighting this year for 18 years, that is not fighting a war. It advises and assists counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. Counterterrorism and Security Force assistance. If you want to define that. It gets a visceral reaction. Two reasons why. One is to achieve something. The other is to prevent something. Peoples critique of afghanistan is what are we achieving . This is what we are preventing. If you want an example of something that has worked the answer is career. 28,500 troops in south korea going on 50 years, not to nationbuilding north korea but create a war in the korean peninsula. It is part of the equation. Even if it hadnt been it would be an abusive that size force. Talking dramatically better force for a set of circumstance, we need to preserve that circumstance. I realize nationbuilding is out of fashion but theres the example of Northern Iraq after the 1991 war where the United States and its allies create safe zones the we invited reconstruction for longterm, providing longterm security, with political leaders among iraqis in northern when i started working on the middle east in 1990 words were killing each other at wedding parties and now it is the safest, stay blessed part of the country most aligned to the values we want for the entirety of the region. If you actually Pay Attention in a sustained way, thats the problem with Donald Trumps continued melodrama about immediate withdrawal from syria, iraq or afghanistan it drives the cost of achieving the stability in our interest to achieve. A big part of this is we have this view that war is something that should be declared and there should be a end and a victory parade, not sure that ever existed but if it is it is not static and wonderful but thats not the real world we live in. Dave speak so beautifully to this in the book, fire away. I make the point, it takes a long time. The classic counterinsurgency example is the middle and emergency that came to a end in 1960. In 1989, still deploying troops 30 years after the end of the campaign because what happens is you draw the threat down where the local partner can have it and they handle it as long as it takes. The second point is i observe in the book that we are extraordinarily good at achieving particular battlefield Outcomes Using military force. We totally suck at translating those into longterm sustainable political outcomes so the problem is not they can to do this kind of conflict but the nation hasnt figured out how to translate military power into a broader set of outcomes. It isnt a military problem. It is a broader national problem. We hope the un is helpful but it has not been. In the last few months, i suspect in the coming months we will hear a lot about the term endless wars. We were talking, you quoted leon, you may not be interested in war but war is interested in you and you write in your book we confuse leaving the conflict with the same thing as ending it like in a boxing ring, you can put down your hands intimate guest clocked and we saw it on 9 11, you have to withdraw the middle east, folks on china, the number one way your china strategy will fail is if you have another 9 11 and a major ground war, the way to focus finite resources is to be smart in the middle east that donald trump tried to end. We are talking now permanent victories, we are talking wars like the cold war which was the forever war until it ended. That is the reality people dont want to face. Longterm resilience, adaptability, that is the sort of stuff we need to be focusing on. Not a tickertape parade down broadway. Not to solve the problem but free societies remain free, if you are doing that you have done a wonderful job for one hour. The conversation will go on. I asked the audience to applaud and you should do so at home. Thanks very much, pleased to be with you. I am clifford may, good day. Thank you. Is a look at the bestselling nonfiction books according to in the bound. For more information check the Program Guide or visit booktv. Org. [inaudible conversations] hello, everyone. A
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.