Senior counsel at omalley and myers. He serves as a National Security advisor for obama and also headed the obama biden transition of he is a veteran of many democratic campaigns and of course serves on multiple. [inaudible] steve hadley served as the National Security advisor for resident george w. Bush from 2005 to 2009. Hes a deputy from 2001 to 2000 vibrant he is now a partner in a great little Consulting Firm called. [inaudible] also the chairman of the u. S. Ip and involved in just about as many bipartisan causes as one can be in washington d. C. So thank you steve for all the bipartisan work that you are doing. And here to interview both of them we have jim shoot a which is achieved National Security correspondent, we all see him on tv throughout the middle east and the arctic. He has a book out coming out next week with his virtual book tour called the mad man theory which i just looked at online jim and it looks fascinating although not a very relaxing beach read. But we all look forward to reading it that comes out next week. And let me just say steve and tom we have had conversations about the cold panoply of issues facing our nation. And no matter who is elected in november, by january 2021 when the next president is inaugurated. We will still have the pandemic crisis, the economic crisis as well as all of the issues facing our country. We were in the green room and we are talking about in the form so far weve had a lot of conversation about china and asia. Its a lot of conversation and top of mind theres a lot of conversation about iran with talk less about russia. We have talked less about alliances, less about whats going on in the developing world. So i will open it to jim to discuss any topic he wants but if you like to touch him as im sure our audience will live to hear about them. Thank you so much. Thank you anya, and to steven and tom the real honor to be grouped with you. Seven years as National Security advisor but of course many years be on that in government and dealing with these interactions which im sure many folks listen today both steve and tom have proven themselves not only smart and knowledgeable but also very fair and openminded. I certainly always appreciated that. So i look forward to hearing your insights on so many of the things today. I only wish we were in aspen. [laughter] its the year of the endless zoom call so here we find ourselves together. I want to just begin is to imagine yourself back in your roles as National Security advisors to the next president or a reelected president. In a meeting with them today after the inauguration of 2021. And what would you lay out to them is the biggest threat that famously barack obama communicated to donald trump 2017 it was north korea. Almost the biggest National Security threat. To picture yourselves in that position the day after the inauguration 2021. What would you say to the reelected president or the new president is the biggest threat to the country. And what would you recommend how would you lay out the world to them in that conversation . Be brief if you can. Tom, if i could start with your just because you happen to be next me on the window. Nnc. Thank you and thank you anna for the introduction. Jim got to get the book a little more centered in the picture here so people can see it there. There we go. [laughter] okay. I have a couple of responses to that question. One is, sitting here today, i hope we move to the challenge we have in front of his here which is we are going to very important moment in our democracy and that is to have a competent and vibrant election was an agreedupon outcome the next president whoever that is. The leadership in the world, really in many ways dependent on our being and being seen. Confident as a very important part is a place in the world the authority in the world from world war ii until today. Hopefully we can get through that moment. On generate 20 us, we both have these sessions i would have two or three things even if its a National Security briefing has to be in domestic renewal and meaning we are still going to be i think the tripartite challenge and health and social justice. Veloso be going into this next year for sure. That requires a definite agenda for the country. We both written about this, its a sharply targeted smart investment agenda can address a number of the challenges we have. Including the economic challenges. Including china, i will come back to that im sure during the course of this discussion. Second would be and what will be i think the most important Diplomatic Security challenge as far as the eye can see in this century would be to develop a comprehensive roach with respect to china for a no we will come back to that. I fear we are to reactive and defensive right and every were using all the elements of National Power and his National Security advisor to the next president. These are the up the approach of the china challenge if possible. Theyve gotten have not gotten a lot of attention but certainly my mind if i gave this briefing next to be cyber. We dont talk about a lot as of late, if you look at the director of National Intelligence threat assessment for the last five or six years that is at the top of the list is even greater today. I say that for a number of reasons including by the way exemplified by the way which we are having this meeting today. We have a lot of our Nations Online right now and virtually with all kinds of vulnerability. We have increased tensions with states that have a high caliber cyber capability like iran, china, russia, we have an entire new area of a tax base and growing in the internet of things. Some are not really structured i think the way we should be in the white house on this. I will be looking at nonproliferation as well. I heard it was touched on during the course of the session to date. Which could end up with more countries and more Nuclear Weapons. This would include obviously moving to re up the new start treaty. I think three courts today on the un making progress on its program during the dependency of the negotiations with the administration for it iran is closer to a Nuclear Weapon that was two or three years ago. And i dont think were working hard enough on Raw Materials and locking that down the way we should. And the last couple would be an important focus, the United States is kind of been out of the climate addressing the Climate Policy gains for the last three and a half years. Thats not where the world is right now though. Look at the investment world, talk to europeans and even more so increasing in asia, climate is the front of the agenda. Increasingly they see the climate risk as an investment risk and we certainly should see that as a risk here. One of the great kind of firestorms is in the emerging world. We obviously have to deal with our issues here. Going forward in the emerging world and they are in the middle of a perfect storm of coveted think were going to have the debt crisis will require a lot of international work. And last maybe we can talk about that on january at whatever time the president comes in. I had it a little easier than steve. George w. Bush came in very early. Steven. Grews everything tom said. But i think before i got to those. I would have a little conversation. Mr. President was going on the world right now . Why so much chaos . I think i would step through with that all know, the International Order in the International System weve had for the last seven years is really under attack. Under attack for the things we all know through the reemergence of great power, competition, the reemergence of an ideological beast tween authoritative state capitalist in the heart of russian china versus the democrats. New Technology Challenges that are increasingly revolutionizing our world beyond our ability to a cup to cope and adapt. Global challenges like pandemics and we dont seem to be in a position to manage. All of these things are going on. But fundamentally we have a problem here at home. We have a democracy that does not seem to be delivering what democracies deliver. That is the way of life consistent with the highest aspirations of the human spirit. But democracy is to deliver economic and administrative competence. We dont seem to be doing that so well right now. There is a certain crisis of confidence among our people, inner institutions, and our system. If you look internationally our brand does not look so good. And in addition theyve got a little tired of American Leadership always leading the way. If you put all those things together, we are one of these points were the system we lived with is really breaking down. And there always inflection points you have choices. At some the work we have before us isnt going to beat 1919 or 1945 . Are we going to pull back from the world, focus internally, look to our own problems and let the world in some sense deal with that own . Or is it going to be 1945 for he helped found with our friends and allies over International Order. I would hope we would make that second choice. But if we are going to do that we need to fix our institutions at home when need to reconnect with our allies, we need to start kneading and engaging in the world. We need to start revising, adapting international institutions. And we need to start in some sense refreshing our brand in the world and our values in the world. So mr. President , you have a huge task before you. Youve got to address all of the things tom talked about. But we have to somehow explain to the American People what is this moment . And what the most fundamental choice is . And then you have to make a case to the American People that fixing that helm, engaging abroad, and leading the world is still in americas interest. Select thanks for both of you, thoughtprovoking and so many levels. Youre speaking i recall the conversation at aspen i believe it was three years ago. And he raised a concern then, three years ago about the fragility of u. S. Institutions. I had asked him at the time kind of apply your intelligence and brain the often applied to other countries et cetera to look at the u. S. And what concerns you. And thats what concerns him born out in the last several years of crisis of confidence et cetera. So two that point aspen is an continuing conversation. I certainly felt that they are. Okay theres a lot discovered. We will nephew minutes get to participant questions. On the question of russia, tom, and steve and i as you know there is a discussion now often led by the president of another reset, finding a way forward. Had long conversations wishes of the root of a lot of President Trump outreach and conviction that he can somehow get this relationship right. Hes not the first president to believe that. Tom, you first. Is there the groundwork now the potential for somehow improving that relationship with the increasing aggression on so many fronts what your view and then steven ill get yours back ten seconds on your point on jim klappers observation. If you do kind of an old fashion set the United States in the world you would bet on the United States moving forward here for sure. There are challenges and you cant take them for granted. We have issues we have system breakdown have investment issues, we have any quality issues in the United States. We have big policy choices on things like immigration to ensure our demographic advantage Going Forward. Those are choices. We work from a strong base but it cant be taken for granted. With russia a couple of things. Number one is russia is actively hostile to the United States. And you know we have had reporting on the bouncy issue in afghanistan. But it is well be on that. And virtually acrosstheboard , we can talk about the individual. By the way thats not the first incident with afghanistan talking about this publicly with respect to supplying arms with the taliban its actively hostile across the wind. I think that at least the public presentations from Intelligent Committee seems to be unanimous that we expect additional attacks and interference and try to upset the United States elections in 2020, the first one. The second point is United States should address russia for a better position of strength his memoirs called situations of strength United States should build situations of strength in your with respect to russia. And that means, i heard work about ambassador boltons conversation at his form today, speculating whether or not a second term of President Trump would have them pull back from nato. Dividing United States and russia for a long time. In pushing back and not addressing that i think is really quite important. This will depend i think Going Forward here, on russian conduct. I think it would move forward to build additional strength but russian conduct will matter a lot during the course of this election. And i do think that we do in the opportunity cooperation category, we do have an opportunity to go back to the table and renew the new start agreement which provides for a renewal prayer of up to five years at the two sides agree freight for the life of me i dont know why we would do that. We have a discussion going about whether we should have the chinese with a complicated agreement. Thats not on the table right now. But what is on the table is i think to not have a schedule place for the first time in half a century. I think those would be the elements of the approach that i would move forward. Thank you jim. Steven . Stay back i dont disagree with much of that. I think so it needs to be put in a framework. If you are talking to the president and the question is what can we expect of a relationship with russia . What should we be shooting for . I think they are hostile. They are a spoiler almost acrosstheboard. And so what is the kind of relationship we can hope for with the country as a common adversary. I think the american approach to that has really of longstanding administration after administration. And it is not complicated. It is basically to cooperates with potential adversaries where we can. We cooperated with arms control and the worst days of the cold war with the soviet union. Shouldve had a strategic ability conversation with russia developed over these issues. So cooperate where we can. Oppose them and stand up to our principles where it is in our interest to do so. That manage those differences so they dont result into permanent confrontation or military conflicts. That is kind of a formula we have with adversaries. We are off the page with brush on that. The question is can we get russia back on that page. I think a couple things are required. One, they better not interfere this election. They interfere this election as a did with 2016 we are going to into the deep freeze again. Second, we need to try to make progress on beginning to solve ukraine initially addressing the issue. Think theres a possibility there. There is a ceasefire in place shaky though it is. That should be addressed. And again i would try to begin things like a strategic dialogue. But at the same time we have to deter russia from their intervention and interference with the neighbors. Thats a strong relationship with nato. That means more aggressive with ourselves and checking russian behavior. And its not that hard. Putin has been brilliant taking Tactical Advantage of situations and enhancing russia with very modest investments. So it is trying to engage russia in a sensible way. Also deterring and in some sense taking away the free ride russia has had in some areas something we can do the overlap with your analysis and emphasis right . Give a president that disagrees on the fundamental points. One to be the important sanctity of alliances. And that would extend to nato. Were still in it always concerned about leaving it but general questions the president has raised about article three, defending nato partners not just limited to nato. Youve had a weakening of the south Korean Alliance dispute there again over money with the u. S. Withdraw troops as a means of applying pressure. But then again raising questions about the u. S. Nuclear umbrella for japan. You have a Current Administration the immune ability of those of alliances but also the importance of them. I wonder if i could ask both of you what is the lasting damage to those alliances from those questions being raised . Their confidence pieces, right . Confidence is easily lost and difficult to be gauged perhaps start with you on this one. Is there longterm damage can be turned around with a new approach new president . High think it can be turned around whoever is elected whether it is by an or trump i think tom and i will probably disagree a little bit on this. Look, i am less worried about a reelected President Trump pulling out of these alliances. I think there are a lot of people in this administration who understand particularly in a conversation with china the big advantage we have in our system of alliances also plans this is huge youre worried about competition with china the last thing you want to do is throw it away. The presence tried to do is to get the allies to do more. That has been an objective of republican and democratic administrations for the last 20 years. The present has been willing to be much more forthright about it and threatening about it. We can discuss with her that was the right tactics are not in some respects its got some results out of nato i think look this is a president who was elected to be a disrupter on os in many ways has been a disrupter. I would hope both a Biden Administration and a trump to administration the president would be a bit of a builder now having disrupted relationships and then use our close allies with us the only way to address them successful birthing people around the president understand that. I think both Vice President biden and President Trump understand that. Do you agree . Not with everything. [laughter] agree on the fundamental analysis. One point is that at the end of the day president s typically get the people in the policies they want. And i think we have seen that during the course of the Trump Administration as we have moved from he will see a lot of things and they may mitigate that. Different perspectives present has a different view of alliances pretty think its a fair assessment. I think that if he were in the tack room with us right now i think he would say that. But in fact it seems to be more transactional approach. It does not have the same history and importance to the United StatesGlobal Benefits of alliances including in any competition with china. In economics as well its totally different ways. Theres a bilateral trade and the more unilateral approach on security issues. This transactional approach is a very different approach that youve made by the president of the last halfcentury. Doesnt put his side the point of the contribution. It was essentially present obama in 2014 at the summit that had the goal of having 2 contribution for defense. The other thing i worry about it is Popular Support for the alliance and allied countries. Thats not healthy for the United States things whoevers gets elected president there is an opportunity to come back and reinvigorate our alliances. But there will be a different tactic in the community in the last three to half years. Again its a straightforward difference. An approach that i dont think works to our longterm advantag advantage. More transactional approach on things. So if im dealing with the head of an allied company for an adversary kind of the same thing. But its not the same thing we think about the longterm interest of the country and what we gain from these alliances. Thats right interviewed only folks who served in the Trump Administration. The president former policy was the most common description. Some see that. [inaudible] as you described, getting more out of those relationships without pressure applied. We are two minutes away from going to the audience. Succeed note you will usually raise hand function to do that. Before we get there i want to just very briefly ask you a big picture question from being a little bit unfair to you. If you can, on drawing down u. S. Troops from, not just afghanistan but syria, ending the endless wars or finding a way to extract ourselves from them, it can of you make an argument that it is time for instance to come out of afghanistan . Tom perhaps you first. Okay a couple points on that. I have argued if you will a rebalancing of our Defense Forces globally. And i think again we got a different direction during the course of the Trump Administration. President argued for no more endless war. And part of a core message he put forward in the course of the 2016 campaign. But in fact i think, check me on the numbers, 40 or 50 additional thousand additional troops. My only view is that takes attention from the kind of defense and security rebalancing we need to do. Where i think we have not put in place the proportionate assets. Got the doctrine question systems, coordination system we need. I am for a rebalancing in the middle east. The second pieces exceedingly expensive. I think these socalled oco accounts the Defense Budget that is devoted just to the war effort in the middle east, i think again someone check me on this im sure i think it is around 19 or 20 billion a year. That its close to the entire budget of the state department. It is tremendously expensive. So i do think it makes sense to take a hard look at this drawing down to was essential. Probably having the key policy focus on counterterrorism frankly and keeping your eye on that threat. Last ten sectors of the middle east as if you are in these jobs and you have to whats important the middle east right now. I think it is the Iranian Nuclear program. We can talk about that may be in the chat. That is if youre going to make a list of whats important there. In addition, obviously to getting the troop levels right. I am for moving this troop levels down. I think that is the correct direction. But the most important thing for asia. She next even your view. We talk about these bringing an end to the endless wars. At one level this endless wars are already over for the United States. Because we have already done a lot of the rebalancing, thomas already talked about. We have Something Like five to 6000 troops in iraq. We are down to about 8600 and afghanistan. We have literally only hundreds in syria. So in some sense weve done that. Its our allies, the strategies we developed a buy, with, through other allies is now what we are doing in those areas. Now, i dont minimize the fact that her men women in uniform are at risk. And some of them are being killed. In every one of them is one too many. But the fact is from u. S. Perspective we have already rebalanced. And if you look at those deployments, if you are concerned about iran not just the nuclear deer but also irans disruptive behavior in the region and threat to israel and all the rest, if you are going check iran in the region, iraq is one of the few places youre going to be able to do it in terms of u. S. Troop presence. In the country that actually wants to be free of iranian influence. In afghanistan you have the first opportunity in 20 years deceived we can get a peaceful settlement of that war. The last thing you want to be doing is dramatically reducing our forces and undermine the ability of an Afghan Government or Afghan Society to negotiate with the taliban. And in syria i would say we have people in the tragedy of syria, people say that i iraq shows the consequences of eights then comb mission. I think syria is the sin of omission. The destabilizing migration flows that almost destabilized europe. So i think they were in some sense under resourced and seriously dont want that situation to be even worse. I think we have already rebound. We have it about right. We cant afford it and it is proportional to her interest. Done a lot of work on military efforts maintain the smallest foothold in syria that is a maxim they could do and try to push off the president s desire to pull everybody out. Its tough. It has been tough. Listen, thanks to both of you. I learned a lot and that 34 minutes right there before we go to the audience. So im going to go to the audience now. In the first person i see raising his hand is chad, i believe if you are ready for your question we will all be able to hear it. And there chad heres your chance. Hey hi, thank you very much very thoughtprovoking presentation. I would like to ask the two judgment based on their experience of the National Security advisors in the brief invaded the outside of the presentation, what kind of recommendations would they make regarding the size, structure, and organization of the National Security council to best serve the next president . So tom has primordial belt views and ive heard one as it needs to be rethought and restructured. Well talk about we need a whole of government approach. You know, bringing all the elements of National Power, to bear on a problem. Its things like the competition with china. We need a whole of society approach. Because the private sector, the civil society, there are a whole series of societal groups are going to be recalled wired including individual citizens to resist chinas efforts to disrupt our politics. It is going to require a concerted effort. We do not have the institutions to pull together a whole of society approach. We have a big issue of how china is going to affect almost everything, how you organize the National Security council to deal the issue of china . A china czar . Does it really make sense . Or is it something that has to be top of the mind for all these security council. The impact of technology which revolutionizes how we do business. I think we still havent caught up to where the technology is. Think there is a huge amount that needs to be done. That we need to rethink how we do business both in the inner agency but also in the individual agencies and a number of people have talked about and written about what should be done at the state department for example. Is a couple of points on it. Im not so sure the National Security council is too big. You can go back to the history of this taking on a lot of additional coordination responsibilities over the years including Homeland Security and sublease all of government issues steve talked about. Specifically belt there needs to be some restructuring and reemphasis from three or four items. We do not give a good job in the United States government today of integrating technology in National Security policy. Its big because of the kinds of people frankly better in policy and technology. Bringing together a think is a really important aspect ready think we will have a ton of issues in its absolute essential in our effort to make china challenge to get this right . We have all manner of issues with our technology sector. My recommendation would be to have an assistant at the National Security adviser that coordinates the issues for technology and cybersecurity as someone who can use the 75yearold or 70yearold muscle memory and institutions and competencies National Security council to try to put that together and do it right. We dont have that broadbased with competition for example. Unhealthful sure. I think you will need to have a National Security council much more focused effort on International Health issues there refurbishing of the institutions and important focus im not so sure i think im in the minority i dont think a counsel to bigger issues brought together. And you cannot drive big crosscutting issues except from the center. I have been the chief of staff of an agency of the state department. I understand that dynamic between the white house and the agencies but the truth is the president s policies need to be driven from the center the inner agency basis with another challenge which means you give a lot more thought to is how to get other Stakeholder Input as well. Should be reorganized on some the key challenges we have specifically in technology. Select thats interesting. Redound to the last minute i want to to one more audience question. He has his hand ray, steven maybe just keep it quick and given the time if you have one of our guests more in mind to ask the question . Others look at them both for a quick answer. Yes thank you can hear me . Yes. Thank you very much for an informative discussion i have been busy with ukraine member afghanistan for the last 42 years of war started the start of this distributing teaching england. Both of you are familiar with the word. [inaudible] you both worked on we have a president right now who prides himself as being the great communicator at the end of the cold war and 89 when the berlin wall went down of challenging the jihad. What i mean by that with the 1100 clans in afghanistan give each of those clams a telephone and encouraged and even though we live in a democracy where we have one not necessarily how gannett stan relates to things we give then that is a gift a satellite, telephones each of the clans we could create a modern down. [inaudible] that they could have every week if they wanted to. Im not a big fan of the taliban but i feel that we need to state was some sort of presence. Being gifted as being a good communicator on tv especially. This could be a good time for that. How do you feel about that . Sue maxime and take that one . The specifics are interesting. But the broader point you are making is that Technology Offers enormous opportunities that we did not have before. In one of the things we are learning in this post covid19 world is how to be more adept at using technology. Youve just given one example. There are lots of examples. And thats why i think tom is right but the next president whoever it needs to have someone at the senior levels who can work at having utilize technology. We really need to bring science and technology to the center of policymaking in the United States. As we did by the way after the government to visors. Now in just about one minute we have coming up a session with tony blinking who was our deputy secretary of state for president obama and is now a close advisor to former Vice President joe biden. So we look forward to hearing from tony next. Thank you very much. Women time of this case for the past half hour this morning. Ild