Transcripts For CSPAN2 David Kilcullen The Dragons And The Snakes 20240713

The latest book the dragons and the snakes todays event is hosted by the center for related one center for military and political power of studying different strategies policies and capabilities necessary to the freedoms threat security and prosperity of americans and allies. I should mention he is an advisor chaired by former National Security advisor Lieutenant General hr mcmaster. With economic and financial power and the center on sovereign technology and innovation to integrate all instruments of American Power to achieve Better Outcomes for americans and for our allies. Using nonpartisan poly institute we are a source of Timely Research analysis and policy options the administration, the media and the broader National Security community we take any government or corporate funding. This is one of the events we host please visit our website. Today we enjoyed on invite you to join the conversation we have no studio audience we are being cautious about concerns we are live tweeting so please feel free to put questions there. Started with a brief introduction of our panel we have David Kilcullen with authoritative voice on guerrilla and untrue on and conditional warfare and experience over the 25 year career with australian and Us Government and army officer and analyst and advisor diplomat serving as the professor practice at Arizona State for research and Operations Program by geopolitical analysis and related support to government industry and ngos. Now the director for the defense policy studies at aei previously at the International Institute for International Studies and the distinguished experienced in government working with department of defense and state as well as the white house a National Security council. Next senior director of military and political power serving as National Security advisor to members of the Armed Services Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 15 years us military officer during a black hawk pilot and assistant professor at west point. So for those who have not read your book so explain briefly the dragons and the snakes. This is a book about military adaptation by adversaries and potential adversaries at the end of the cold war. The title comes from the president one present cia director and incredible prescient guy if you read his testimony when he was going through his confirmation hearing and 93 he was asked the cold war just ended what will be the threat environment America Needs to face to the postcold war. We slay the dragon talking about soviet union but now we have snakes in the dragon is easier to keep track of so he has this vision of week states and failing states and nonstate actors some call snakes and suggests that the state adversaries will not be a big deal for the immediate future which i call the dragon so i am suggesting we have a period of nearly 30 years where im trying to trace the history. If you look at what has happened since then but the dragons have come back now we talk about russia turns out Vladimir Putin his aspiration was not to be a member of Good Standing that was not at the top of his to do list. We wanted to make russia a normal country and they said by whose definition . So russia had specialized with a pretty we cant and four years acting on both sides of the aisle republicans democrats and liberals and conservatives and as a chinese get rich they will get moderate and will be a Strategic Partner its not communism anymore they havent even all that all we were all wrong thats another dragon. Right i suggest the dragons are back but they have learned from this makes it operating in a different way. The Trump Administration is a National Security strategy so it does talk about the dragons in those terms but we call those revisionist powers. The snakes rolled powers as well as nonstate g hardy actors. The National Security strategy is to recognize those threats is that essentially saying the same thing . Is definitely going in the same direction as david but as of different ways he says in the book one thing i would love for people to take away from the conversation which i dont think we have centered our conversation with not just on this panel but generally as we talk about american strategy event on against the snakes and the dragons that this is the bridge of our success great powers were driven to the edge of the conflict spectrum because we are so dominant and high on that escalation matter. Nobody thought they could win a war against the western military and that is why they were driven to the edges. Moreover the notion that russia and china are revisionist powers they are rejection is powers. Russia has determined it cannot be successful on western terms has rightly pointed out they have taken a strategy working on the margin trying not to cross the threshold to provoke direct confrontation with the west that is a smart marginal strategy and indicates we are actually still in their mind dominant in the middle of the conflict that we try to achieve politically and judge the military opportunities we should acknowledge we start from the notion is just not going to be good enough he explained nicely in the book the adversaries have been much more adaptive and we need to limber up in order to remain the better of our own fortune. As a military guy there is a tendency to say lets do what we do well the first goal for thats great so help us by challenging us in ways that we are used to but then that just screws up all the plans that we have and the weapons we will design but that is exactly what they will want to do. The enemies are adapting and evolving and we are not because we got on track. The adversaries are employing the methods so in the end because the military is so effective looking at the russians are operating so cutting the state departments budget to anyone who are spent far more time to speak with the war fighters they want that development and diplomatic experts with the longterm sustainable political gain in the areas of diplomacy development. And one other thing which is a distinction what david wrote in the book and the National Security strategy argues it makes a narrow argument about America First nationalism and for those kinds of challenges they have rightly identified as the nss with those institutions and allies is a much stronger front with to confront these challenges and the two failings of the nss that first they are not actually carrying out the strategy, and second they have that conceptual mistake and then to diminish American Power instead of the fact that playing team sports is what we will do well which is relative to any adversaries but what has been tried by liability one of the great strategic assets. So when we had 100,000 plus troops and unless we have another 9 11 we probably will not go there again. But what we can do is to leverage those forces for air support. The American People need to understand the isis caliphate will still exist. With the 101st from those casualties. And we cannot implement the National Defense strategy so the allies that are working with a very small footprint i dont understand why President Trump isnt with this goldilocks solution 100,000 troops and as you say we are diminishing the Islamic State but also secondarily and tertiary we are keeping out one at bay the ambitions of russia so however when we talk about our allies the germans are not spending enough money for the benefits of retired soldiers. The turks are the second biggest military in nato i see them coming into estonia. I just cant imagine that. Those that have capabilities and that it is about i dont see them contributing and being allies they expect us to protect them with very little input from us. I do criticize in the book nothing is too big or unwieldy and threatening to rush about the same time to generate that unified effect and how that European Group with the nato but President Trump with the last three or four president has mad made. So that actually has had. And with that russian invasion of crimea. And where the germans began in 2016. They are going at it we believe this administration and maybe you dont will make germany and europe more dependent on russia than ever. And the program that people Pay Attention to. And people say we are a treaty ally. That is the difference with allies by treaty and those certain requirements and those on the ground. And the one of the points i make in the book is us dominance poses that adaptation challenge so chosen to focus on certain capabilities and let others led by the wayside. And the british have tried to cover more to keep up but they have less resources in each category. We have to stop thinking of a collection of powers as those joint capabilities. Not only the military allies but when we have a battlefield we need to have a way to translate that into a political success that have generals and helicopters talk about what they should be planning. But he said i want to win and that is my mission at usaid the National Endowment of democracy not so much to nation build with the jeffersonian Democratic Society but in the basic government so that is not a total failure corrupt. Its a good challenge. I was shocked at how little advantage the state Department Personnel system if you think about the American Army mostly what they are brilliant at is taking the bell curve so they look for young women who have the skills and they recruit her and train her. And promote not just by what she has done well but on the potential and broader challenges going forwards. Had brilliant american and diplomats but nobody ever teaches them to swim i cringe every time somebody argues for whole of government for anything in the United States because we have a government design not to do that. And instead of trying to make us culturally better than we are to build a better mousetrap entrepreneurialism. And thats what build on that. And then to pull the troops out if we had stayed there building the largest embassy in the world. And we had worked harder with the iraqis i will not call it nationbuilding but they are proud to vote. Would we be in a very different place . To broker and to put more effort to institutions of democracy. And people like john mccain if you think after 9 11 and it happened again when we left prematurely in iraq. And then very much as we did in 2011. Certainly not in the form that we found those that are about to make that identical mistake is the Obama Administration made in iraq. Before we come back go to the options you sketch out very quickly. That i like to be able to say them on the air. [laughter] so just embrace the stock one it just means something unpleasant will happen and trying to make the most of it. So embracing the suck strategy that us global strategy is the example of an empire like any other empire and then to have a soft landing with a successor. And by the way when president obama favored such manage decline paradoxically and then to execute the obama strategy President Trump and president obama but the problem here is for the strategy that has to be very interested in doing that that the chinese dont want to do with the russians cant do i it. And i think the basic ambiguity and contradiction a President Trumps thinking on one hand he wants america to be great also with the manage decline to make America Great again youre trying to make america and denmark at best. The president wants the United States to get credit without doing the work. And that is the key to a failing strategy. My whole career i have worked for batter one better allies in the nato allies i would love to train the nato allies on trade them but i cannot find a better set of American Allies and that leaves you with a choice does the United States challenge everybody better than they do or do we step back that others will step forward . And those who step forward will not do it on the terms we will want them to do it on. And to sustain the large the beneficial environment. And one reason why they are stepping out more effectively in response to President Trump and you guys need to do more. And by the way if you dont do more now everybody says oh yeah. So now there is a new one sense and with that russian invasion of the european allies. And then to codified of the treaty. And i understand the desire to pay more and then with that effort to article five with that responsibilities that is designed to prevent you are encouraging russia to be far more costly to you are incredibly shortsighted. They have all said you need to pay more but to imply on article five to be shortsighted and contrary to be crash on congressionally mandated. I agree with that i understand why President Trump did what he did but in july 2014 there was a blank check to the hungarians that drag the war into world war i and it is worth thinking about have we not made article five a blank check but to make it a dead letter. A more complex messaging. And with that fundamentally defensive commitment i dont think anybody believes nato allies would back germany up on that. And that they each make to each other and to worry about it galloping off. And eighties 80 percent russian. 100 percent estonian many of them are ethnic russians. Why would Portugal France and germany so im not defending the point of view but that has to be somewhere between the two. And with the russians doing the tank on tank invasion of western europe and it is highly unlikely what is much more likely what is happening right now. And specifically they are being targeted to undermine the political negative a day. Im just quoting President Trumps point of view but i think it is a stupid idea but as we think about russias relationship with the nato but russia has the colony of greece almost entirely oil and gas with very serious internal problems. But then they just act in the organized fashion. And the critical differences. But to organize and aggregating. In that fashion. And saying how it belongs to any policy of russia and with those neighbor sovereignty. And then to blame nato expansion but putins goal to reassert the words russian dominance and with their share of influence but there is no reasonable definition can we say that is a threat. Mentioned that. They Work Together to defend that. Its really important thing what they were trying to do, internal resilience against brad and corey were talking about. Lets talk about option two. Option two is doubling down. Fighting to win against all adversaries. We do what it takes. Lets what we do. The commitment duckling don start of that but its a little narrow we keep on doing what we are doing now, we just do it harder. We spend more money, we get more fighters, we exploit our existing dominant narrowly defined conventional warfare. I argue thats probably not going to work because while i agree with cory about the asymmetry and that strategy, with respect to china is that these guys are pursuing a combination strategy. For example, chinas built an entire new class and knockout a carrier the 2500mile rate on the move. Why are they still failing carriers . Its cheaper and quicker to build or summary which they are also building. I suggest in the book, building carriers to keep those. In order to keep us on the effort and expense in our traditional areas of governance. While simultaneously striking from beside. I think its worth member doubling down means doing more of what we are doing now, suggesting we cant get out of the business of doing conventional warfare, art enemies would just move into space. We got to do more different. I agree with that. The chair of Institutional Innovation at the Stanford Business school has a good book called winning through innovation, he talks about why is it that successful businesses cant innovate . It seems to me extremely applicable to the challenges western military is facing now which is that when you are successful, it sort of doleful hunger for disruption. Its hard to let go of 11 aircraft carriers if thats the way you imagined. Thats with they for after exactly. And gunfire aboard ship. My favorite military strategist, 19th century american soldier by the name of mckenzie was successful on the indian frontier again and again in the fundamental election. What are our adversaries doing right . How do we run the effect of their success by doing Different Things . I think its a powerful case in the book that weve gotten dumb and lazy because we are so successful. We are simply being out innovated in basic ways that we just need to up our game. Our culturally advantage in this regard. I make a similar argument through the lens of adaptive biology. Weve become sort of fat and lazy and at the risk of starting on the other side. The one hand, its out now, stagnation. Its very good in terms of talking about how we may be passive, the victims are on success. The guy who nailed this, his book is widely misinterpreted, he wrote about what happens now . A lot of people have chosen that, his points were come up when we go from here . The other thing i think frank is right the end of history, people dont properly credit him for is that the challenge will be boredom, dissipation and lazy satisfaction. All that great new work. That is what we have indulged ourselves in. The one thing about the one place i more optimistic i think that you are in the book, the societies have a regenerative capacity that i dont think you give us quite enough credit for and that too is an enormous advantage compared to the adversaries. If the government is where it needs to control everything, everything that goes wrong is the governments fault. Its a much more open laissezfaire society, you are a lot more resilient in many ways. Dave talks in his book about the great military reforms and history, after defeat. There under pressure and strikes me as the United States trying to do right now, go through what i would call the largest restructure reform in 40 years but have prepared for. I think we have to help American People and their leaders in congress understand that it would be better to reform now before the defeat and wait until the defeat happens. Lets go to your third opti option, i know youre trying to start a conversation, the least bad of your options i still think the points in the book that it is still there. I drove my analogy on the empire and i pointed out that its different from them. The roman empire collapsed in the fourth century a. D. But sustained itself for 1100 years. Matilda tonight of may conquered and occupied. How did they do that . Is a number of things that come out of that. One, they selectively learn from their enemies which weve been talking about. Figuring out what our adversaries are doing. If we look at what our adversaries are doing, there are some things we would never in a million years do ethically or legally. Its a short list. Its not a good or bad, its just technique that we could be using. Second, they focused on not going into large wars of occupation outside of the territory flicka robbins did in trying to occupy agile forces that could move from certain frontiers as required, very large and effective groups of local allies, local allies and military forces are agile, certain core advanced technology that they were able to acquire our more capable than their adversaries. They had a strong focus on domestic resiliency and having an efficient and effective governance, administered of educational system at home. The resiliency from which to target. They were not shy about dipping back letting things fall over coming back in later to reestablish. They had a much more flexible strategy that was optimized for longevity. The russian empire in central asia and western europe was up for expansion. It is also true of the roman empire, they went for longevity and they achieved it. Its worth thinking about that. I say it might not work but what it might do is by time for the Global Environment to shift. Its on a solution but almost a holding strategy. Brad, do you want to start . I just want to say strategies of millennial, of course its true that eventually empires will fade or die but if we take a slightly shorter time, its an experiment to put ourselves in content and 50080. They didnt know they were going to last one of millennial. I might have worried they would fall another 50 years but together a set of strategies and strategies and so forth that last a long time. I studied under paul kennedy and im old enough to remember how america was done. I would respect we challenge that. Not convinced we dont have several more centers here but it depends on the decisions we make and i think those decisions have to be informed by a couple of things. We cant trade who we are for security. We would have neither more freedoms or security and we need sustainability, we are going to spend more on National Debt service and defense in the next decade. We have to understand the defense is far more than the department of defense. We need to remember the value of allies. Im not convinced were going to see american decline in the next step. I cant contrast those views and that, he says look, it is inevitable. Underwent declines. We are going to decline. The environment. He says the decline is a choice. I think, i dont know the answer to which of those two things is the case, i do think it depends on timelines. But certainly, even if decline might eventually come about, theres ways to extend that without the dominance away. I do agree with that. The rise of the west, which he says is thrilling because he was wrong in that. We are not seeing the rise of the west. Wonderful examples, wouldnt we like to be like that . Is just isnt happening that way. If you were to invite him down here i said have a thrill in back. The ultimate are all these together, the type of governance really, really matters and you alluded to this, you say in the book, i would just bang a hammer down on that again and again and again because while it is certainly true that Democratic State fight more words than other types of countries, they fight wars about expanding the basic freedom and it does make the International Order more stable, safer for people. 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. The thrilling rise of the west doesnt work because they are not advancing freedom. China getting stronger while it is this repressive is an actual danger to us but china where moms can militate for baby milk and achieve something besides milk is in sentences, thats strong and powerful china we can deal with. But we dont have it evolving. We are not anywhere near that. China is more like hong kong rather than the other way. I will argue on be his behalf. You can defend him. [laughter] you mentioned indians, i know its a different kind but one of the key players was actually indian. Democracy and a potential strategic ally of the west. If you add india into the mix, its a little more positive. Pending authoritarian right now and dangerous because of allowing the corrosion of the things that makes free societies resilient. Is a parliamentary system. They have a new president and prime minister, that is the points of democracy. The ability to generate. I cant delay this any longer. We all agree, i think u. S. Military is doing good work, keeping down some bad guys and continue to do that. Should they were persuaded otherwise for now, now lets get to afghanistan. One, is a peace plan, i put that and i want to get your thoughts on that. Theres some disagreement. I dont think the peace plan is a good plan. I dont think its a good idea what we are doing, worst ideas from 13000 troops. 1600 trips at least for the next year. The question is, the right and the left, restrainers who say no, we should just give up afghanistan, if they cant defend themselves after all that time and let the taliban take over. Its no skin off our nose. On the other hand, at the taliban defeat the u. S. Military, on how supercharged jihadist and other enemies are now that they know america is willing, once they know how to drive us out a one battlefield use the same method to drive us out and those who say thats fine, lets get between them. I have my partner on this particular piece deal. On the one hand, youve got to drive rivals who were inaugurated today. The Afghan Government was not involved in the discussions. Didnt sign up for the things we are trying to get the afghans to do as part of the agreement. More important, more than a decade ago, when i worked in kabul, part of my job was talking to people in the taliban. Negotiating position that the taliban had into thousand nine is that was identical in the position we agreed to. Eleven years later. They havent shifted. Theyve always been saying they would no longer have a relationship with our credit. They said they will not allow it to be used to carry on and they will deal with the Afghan Government. I think we could and should push for a better deal. Obviously it will eventually need to put up with you, i think we are dealing with a position of weakness rather than strength. I dont want to come off as harsh but masterly financial and military standpoint, we the United States and allies can keep doing what we are doing in afghanistan literally forever. We lose a couple of dozen people every year, which is horrible and its very bad for families and their communities but it doesnt destroy our ability to continue operation. We lose that many people in car accidents. Whats problematic is not losses or the money we spent, is the Afghan Government losses. 45000 people in the last five years. We have to figure out how to reduce losses, given the support they need and i would argue its aviation, intelligent, medical support, maintenance and things that are relatively noncombat focused. Having a slightly Smaller Special forces and larger conventional force, i think we need to focus on making them sustainable so they can negotiate from a position of strength with the taliban. This has been a hard call for me. I am sympathetic for the argument 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. Both at home and abroad where we can have the resilience for this. I also agree with all of the analysis he just outlined. What put me on the margin in favor of remaining in afghanistan is the model argument, we created this circumstance that exist now in afghanistan. Both the hope for a better kind of afghanistan and afghanistan where individuals have rights and limited ways for re purposes. I also think that we are responsible for encouraging wave after wave of afghans to come into the Security Forces, to try and create that. The best culpability for the 45000 bed afghan National Security forces because we helped persuade them that this could be a different kind of place. It grieves me to think that we will and afghanistan back over to the harsh realities of taliban control so on the margin, i am in favor of continuing a strategy that i do believe will eventually be successful and that we havent prosecuted anywhere near the kind of creativity or attention that we ought to be prosecuting our strategy with. s deeply frustrating after so much time, we have not seen better results. After so many afghans and americans giving their lives and so many nato allies. More than 1000, europe wasnt attacked, we were. They invoked article five and they went and stood with us at our side, shoulder to shoulder and 1000 soldiers did not go home to their husbands and wives. Talk about a tangible valuable right there. Its frustrating we have not seen more progress over this time but you begin with the end, he begins with the objective. To prevent another 9 11 from being launched from afghanistan on our moment and allies. The burden of proof is on anyone we says we can withdraw and not see that happen. Responses, we have safe havens for terrorists all over the roof, yes, but theres something unique about the afghanistan region. Its a historical argument. Its not easily accessed, it is locked, theres a lot of bad a large number of both terrorists organizations find their homes right there. We have 486,000 activeduty soldiers in the u. S. Army. By maintaining five to 8000 out of 486,000 and afghanistan, for the foreseeable future is what we need to do to prevent another 9 11 on new york, washington and this time with weapons of mass destruction, what about the service members, we should weep over but also weep over people in new york who died in 511. Making sure that doesnt happen again. Star two reasons why you might want to leave an occupation force. When youre talking 13000, 10000, 8000, or for 18 years, 13000, that is not called war. Its been terrorism and Security Force systems. Very highly effective. They get that reaction for that. Two reasons why, one is to achieve something. The other is to prevent something. Peoples critique of afghanistan is what are we achieving . If you want an example of something that has worked in u. S. History recently, to do that, the answer is korea. 28500 troops in south korea are going on 50 years, not for north korea but to prevent a war the west. What they have to build. It is part of the equation. But even if i hadnt been. He still would have been a valid use for that force. Dramatically better set of circumstances we saw in 2001. We need to preserve that he met another example. I realized out of fashion, there is the example of Northern Iraq after the 1991 war for the United States and its allies created a safe zone that we invited reconstruction for long term, providing longterm security there, we grew a generation of political leaders among iraqis in northern part when i started working on the middle east in 1990, they were at wedding parties. Now it is the safest, stable list part of the country most aligned to the values we want for the entirety of the region. If you actually Pay Attention and care about it and do it in that way, thats the problem with President Trump continued melodrama about immediate withdrawal from syria or iraq or afghanistan. It drives the concept of achieving the stability that in our interest. A big part of this, we still have this view, its something that should be declared. A victory parade, maybe a sword, im not sure but thats not the real. You speak so beautifully to this in the book. I made two points. One, when you deal with snakes, you dont get up victory parade. It takes a long time. The example is the emergency which officially came in 1960 and 1989, my battalion was still deploying troops. What happens is, you draw them down to where the farmer can have it in the they handle it. The second part, i observed in the book that we are extraordinary good at achieving particular outcomes, using military force. We totally suck of translating those into longterm sustainable outcomes so the problem is not that the military cant do this kind of conflict, is that the patient hasnt figured out how to translate military power into economic and political outcomes. Thats where we all need to get engaged. Its a broader area. We hope that he went would be helpful to say, it hasnt been. In the last few months and i suspect the coming months, we will hear a lot of the term analyst war. We were talking yesterday, he quoted me and you said you may not be interested in work but were is interested in your. You also write in your book that we confused sometimes leaving the conflict is the same thing as ending it. Its kind of like in a boxing ring, you can put your hands down and you might get caught or they can follow you home. We seen that before. To my friends on the center right, you have to withdraw from the middle east and china and i counter and say number one way your china strategy will fail is if you have another 9 11 and major groundwork in the middle east with vast resources. The way to focus on the china threat is an Economy Force mission. You were talking the battles, wars like the cold war which was a forever war until it ended. The reality a lot of people dont seem to want to face. Longterm resilience and adaptability timothy adversaries evolved, thats what we need to focus on. Not necessarily like it the parade. He wrote this book not to solve the problem but to get a better debate doing that, you cannot. You have done a wonderful job on that for one hour. It could have gone longer. I would ask [laughter] thanks to our panel. Good day. Thank you