Transcripts For CSPAN Public Affairs Events 20161201

And secondarily, the future is made of swarms of small things. How do we get the pentagon to realize you want to buy 1000 toyotas instead of one lexus . They keep missing the boat on that and creating giant aircraft carriers. One torpedo takes out a huge amount of our capability. Thats crazy. Mac thornberry well, both good questions. Ive already forgot the first one. Oh, the two im sorry. This years defense bill will abolish the qdr. Too much time, effort for nothing. And part of our frustration is, that it becomes, became a budget justification document, not really a strategy document. And so, that really gets to what you are talking about. We have adjusted the two mc kind of approach just based on the budgets, rather than the other way around, rather than looking at the world, trying to see what, ok, what sizing construct makes sense for the world were facing, and then develop the budgets to support them. So we have provided a different system of kind of thinking about the world with an outside group at the beginning and, you know, not trying to recreate the qdr but trying to do this differently. Because that has definitely not been successful. I think there are people in the pentagon who are very interested in this swarming idea. And i certainly am. I have had a number of folks that have provided me with some material to read and help think about this, whether we are talking satellites or whether we are talking other sorts of capability. But you get to the heart of an issue, you can think about and say, ok, that makes sense, but still you have cultural bias in a certain direction within the institution. And i think part of our job in congress is to break through some of this cultural bias that prevents us from looking at these different options. I dont mean many small is always the answer to everything. But we have to look in that direction, just the cost benefit ratio for a host of reasons. So i think that concept as well as others is maturing. It is involved in some of the third offset stuff. And again, part of our job is to nurture that even when the institutional interests are to squish it. Jim talent thats a great answer. If i can just add one thing on that, i think you are so correct. It is a balance that you need. We were talking before about the perceptions of congress as an institution, you know, the larger body of people outside of the committees, who you know, have a role to play in this decisionmaking. This is what i think the building needs to understand is that those people like to see tangible things for the dollars that they spend. Right . They are not all that up necessarily on all the gradiations and differences. But when you spend a lot of money on planes, you like to see planes. I think if the pentagon understood that thats the way to make everybody feel as if we are getting value for dollars, then there is going to be a little bit less pressure on some of the bigger programs to produce quickly. There is a perception issue involved here too as well as one with poor structures. Lets take one more, which ill let the chairman answer rather than sticking my nose in. I said ill come back over here. Well get this gentlemen right here. Congressman, thank you. I have a question about technological superiority. When it comes to russians capabilities, we havent seen it in a while. Given the dubious nature of the t14 armada tank and the new fighter jet, is it possible we are overestimating russian capabilities with regard to a military scenario with a usa. If we reorient ourselves, will we lose out on the capability to wage the wars we usually do with technologically inferior enemies . Thank you. Mac thornberry i do think the point is we have to be prepared for the range of contingencies. So there are folks who say ok, Counter Terrorism and Counter Insurgency is behind us. We need to just focus on the highend threats. We dont have that luxury. We have this huge array from sophisticated to less sophisticated threats around the world, and we have to be ready for them all and maintain competency for them all. But it is true that the 15 years of where we have focused on counterterrorism have meant that we have neglected training and other things for the highend sorts of threats. I think were pretty cleareyed about the threat that russia presents. I dont think anybody says their military has as much capability as ours. But you need we have to be realistic about where they are putting their time, effort, and money. So for example, they continue to crank out new Nuclear Weapons every year. We dont. We havent built a new Nuclear Weapon since about 1990. And we are trying to keep these old machines, you know, safe and reliable. But russia is putting a fair amount of effort into that. And you have read what they say about the tactical use of nukes to make up for conventional inferiority. We, we know what they are capable or at least their level of sophistication in cyber. We, you know, they have had some demonstrations, i believe, for our benefit, in syria. So they cant match us, but they dont have to. And if you see some of the recent press reporting about deployments they have made in clinnengrad, it is concerning. Part of it is to effect a political purpose, especially in Eastern Europe. And we have to deal with that. Jim talent well, i want to keep the chairman sensitive to your time and they want to be sensitive to your schedule. Thank you, chairman thornberry, you have been a fine fellow today, and i am sure you are ready for the new administration. [applause] announcer 1 now a look at Foreign Policy and the incoming changes under the Trump Administration. We hear from ben cardin. His remarks are under 40 minutes. Christopher griffin good morning again. Chris griffin with the Foreign Policy initiative. It is a pleasure to welcome senator ben cardin, who is the Ranking Member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for our next discussion on the role of congress and Foreign Policy in the Trump Administration. He will be moderated by ambassador Kristen Silverberg, who is the director for this system of finance. Kristen is wellknown and wellrespected among all of us in washington. In particular for her service during a number of senior capacities during the bush administration, United States ambassador to the european union, assistant secretary of state for International Organizations also in the white house and in baghdad. It is great to have a speaker and a moderator who share what for us is an organizational interest in the promotion of human rights and democracy and strong American Leadership in the world. I ask you to please join me in welcoming senator cardin. And the ambassador, thank you very much. [applause] Kristen Silverberg senator, it is always an honor to hear from you. You know, i have dozens of topics i would love to talk about. I thought i would just hop right into it and hopefully save about 10 minutes at the end for audience q and a. When we first schedule this panel on Foreign Policy and the next administration, i was confident we would be talking about the Clinton Administration. So much for that. So, how are you . You have spent a few weeks kind of getting your mind around how you are going to approach Foreign Policy under the Trump Administration . Can you say a word about that . Ben cardin kristin, thank you for your public service. It was really wonderful to be here. You are right. It was a little bit of a surprise. When we accepted this invitation, we had outlined our comments about how the Clinton Administration would carry on from the Obama Administration. And now we are talking about the incoming Trump Administration. It is going to be different. There is no question. It is going to be different. Foreign policy institute, one of your goals, your goal is to rope us support for Democratic Institutions and human rights. Thats under attack today. Thats under attack. And the principle opponent is russia and what they are doing. I think there is going to be a great deal of concentration on russia. Russia is using its influence to affect the geographical boundaries of democratic, independent states, as well as Democratic Institutions within these democratic states. And their target, quite frankly, has been their neighborhood, the former republics of the soviet union, but also the former communist bloc, and then beyond, including the United States of america. So we all see whats happened in ukraine. And we know that russia has invaded the territorial integrity of ukraine. We know they are continuing to disrupt the development of ukraine as an independent democratic state. But we also see their activity is well beyond ukraine. Of course in moldova and georgia, there is physical presence of russias aggression. But recently, we saw an attack here in the United States, a cyber attack where they compromised our cyberinformation, and then used it to try to discredit the American Democratic election system. It was not, in my view, or i think the view of experts, an effort to elect any one specific as president. But it was an attempt to discredit democratic elections. That that is not the best way for countries to survive. So when you look at the Foreign Policy institute and your objective to robust support for democratic allies, and human rights, it is under attack. And we need to do something about that. Whether were attacked by a mig or we are attacked by a mouse, we need to respond. And currently, the Obama Administration is looking at a response. I have encouraged them to take a pretty robust response. I am developing legislation that will develop, give us additional tools that we can use against russia. Its going to be a bipartisan effort. Senator mccain, senator graham has already talked about efforts in this regard. Senator shaheen is also actively engaged. There are many of us who are working on how we are going to respond to the russia aggression. But this aggression is, again, not just limited to the United States, not just limited to their neighbors. We have seen what russia is doing in the middle east and syria and the impact it is having on supporting the assad regime. They are, what they are doing there affects what iran is doing. Iran of course affects the entire region. There are a lot of issues that we could talk about. Let me just try to tie this first to the Trump Administration. I know we talked a little bit before i walked up here. The Trump Administration has a significant problem. In that donald trump has holdings globally including in russia. His statements about russia have me greatly concerned, have many members of congress greatly concerned because russia is not our ally or friend. They are a bully. They need to be treated that way. You have got to stand up to a bully, and you have got to make sure that they understand that the leader of the free world will be there with our democratic allies. And first and foremost, mr. Trump needs to insulate himself from his business interests. And i introduced the clause yesterday to make a resolution that the only way the incoming president can do this and adhere to the constitution of the United States, which is the oath he will take on january the 20th, is to make sure that his Business Holdings are removed from his control. There are two ways to do that, a blind trust or to divest. And i am hopeful that he will take those steps. Now i am mindful of the statement he made just today or last night that he will set up a way that he will isolate himself from his business dealings. Well take a look at that. I think it is in response to many of us saying, you cant do both. But thats going to be very important to have the leader of the free world, the president of the United States, having credibility in dealing with our democratic allies as we stand up to russias aggression, whether it be in europe, whether it be their support in the middle east, or whether it be attacks here in the United States. Kristen silverberg thank you. Your comments on american support for human rights and democracy overseas i think are very important. You, of course, have been a leader on the anticorruption and human rights side. What seems to me as one of the challenges is Domestic Support here at home. I was disappointed by how little those issues played in the current elections. Im wondering if you have thoughts about what we can do to actually secure the bipartisan consensus that America Needs to be at the forefront of those issues . Ben cardin well first of all, im not surprised those issues dont play out well on election day. Election day is going to be about basically economic issues. We know that. That which controls most of the undecided voters. They are going to be concerned with how the next president and the next congressman or senator, what they are going to do to help their life. They are going to be interested in jobs. They are going to be interested in Higher Education. They are going to be interested in health care. Americas Global Leadership is not going to be first and foremost on their minds. Make no mistake about it, americas Global Leadership is critically important. We are the only country in the world that can advance good governance, human rights, anticorruption. If america doesnt lead, there will be no efforts globally to make these priorities. Recently, i was at a National Security council meeting. And it was called because of the concern of the growing corruption problems globally and the impact it has on americas National Security. If you are looking at the cancerous cause that is affecting stability globally, it is corruption. And America Needs to be at the forefront to fight corruption. Of course, the human rights agenda is all part of that. Good governance, human rights, anticorruption, empowering people, all and America Needs to be in the forefront in those efforts. I am proud of the role that we have played in the congress of the United States and the pitssky law that was passed as having an impact not just in russia but in europe. As they have passed mcnitssky laws, we are hopeful we will see the expansion of the law to a global application so that human rights violators anywhere in the world that are protected by their local governments will be subject to sanctions here in the United States. And we hope globally in using our Banking System or being able to get visas to visit america. That hurts greatly. Those corrupt officials do not want their money in local currency. They want their money in dollars. We can block that, we can make major advancements. Kristen silverberg we are obviously still waiting on some key National Security nominations, and i wouldnt ask you to get into any particular preferences, but i am wondering if you can say a word about how said it democrats are going to approach these nominations generally. I will go way out on a limb and say there will be some controversies. Ben cardin there will be some controversies. Kristen silverberg where are some of the democrats going to want to draw some lines . Ben cardin first of all, im looking forward to talking to senator corker and see how his conversations went. First and foremost, i think i speak for my all my colleagues, we want this transition to go smoothly. I think president obama is going to extremes to make sure this is as smooth a transition that can possibly be done. We respect the votes, the election results, and we want to make sure that mr. Trump comes into power as president of the United States with his team and with all the tools he needs in order to be a successful president on behalf of our nation. And were going to do everything we can to make that a reality. But when he deviates from constitutional requirements, such as the annulments clause of the constitution, we are going to speak out and take action. And when he nominates people that have records that are inconsistent with the values of our country, we are going to do everything in our power to highlight those concerns, to use the confirmation process of the United States senate to explore the backgrounds and their commitments and how they are going to respond to the portfolio under their direction and then ultimately, make a decision to either vote for confirmation or against confirmation. So, we will do that. On those advisers that are not subject to senate confirmation, we have i have already spoken out on some of those appointments, because we are not going to have other opportunities to do that. We have a constitutional responsibility. We are going to carry out that constitutional responsibility. But at the end of the day, we want donald trump to be a successful president. And we are going to do everything we can to try to help make that a reality. Kristen silverberg from the nsc appointments we have now, this seems quite clear it is going to be an nsc that is very focused on the war on terror and the campaign against isis. If anything, that may actually feed the administrations interest with some kind of accord with russia, if thats their focus. You can see that. And so im wondering what you think really their options are on the kind of isis campaign and war on terror in general . Ben cardin isis is a complicated issue. But russia is a critical player here. Russia and their support for assad and what they are doing in syria is making it much more difficult for us to have a unified front against the extremist organization, such as isis. Assad and what they are doing in syria is making it much more so, what concerns me, i need to understand what is in mr. Trumps strategic thought process and what he is suggesting with russia. Russia, as i said, is not our ally. They are not our partner. They dont share our values. They are a bully. They want a larger, greater russia. They dont want to see nato expansions. So, one of the first signals that this congress could do, this congress could do, is to approve montenegros succession into nato. The failure to do that will be interpreted by mr. Putin as a way he can block that from happening under the next administration that wants to set up good relations with russia. So, it is hard to figure out exactly where were heading in syria, where were heading against isis until we know how were going to confront russia. The Syrian Civil War has been going on now six years. There is no end in sight. Aleppo, when aleppo falls, and it probably will, its not the end of the civil war. Its continuing. The only way to end the civil war is to bring all sides but together and have a that negotiated way forward without president assad. I think all of the major stake holders, including russia, understands that. So we have got to get that done. And the humanitarian crisis thats been created through Russian Support of the assad regime warrants the human rights criminal investigations. This should be investigated at the hague. That needs to be done. If we can get that moving forward, then we can concentrate on isis. That is simple. You take away their support by their geography. You take away their support through oil revenues. You take away their support through extortion revenues and marginalize them and ultimately, we have to deal with them as a threat, because they have their terrorist networks, but we have shrunk them and shrunk their support networks, and ultimately, we can marginalize their importance. Kristen silverberg the Syrian Civil War among among its many consequences has been a lot of political stress on europe. You see european institutions struggling, the rise of populism. We have some key elections coming up. Do you have thoughts about what the u. S. Should be doing to support your at this point . Ben cardin you are right, we have critical elections coming up. The inward thinking is not just in certain european capitals that we have seen in their elections. Certainly, we have seen that in Great Britain and the brexit vote. We saw it as part of the vote here in the United States. It is now a major issue in the french elections. So it is really becoming a very critical issue as to whether nations are going to look inward. You can look inward, but you are still going to have the refugees. Refugees are in danger of their life. And thats the reason they become refugees. It is not safe to be in syria today. Thats why people are leaving syria and risking things like traveling over dangerous waters and dangerous borders and hostile communities. They do that because they have no choice, by the millions. And with the civil war continuing in syria, those numbers are going to continue. The impact on europe has been dramatic. Dramatic. I understand that. The impact on the United States has been minuscule, if at all. So, yes, as i said earlier, the United States is the leader of the free world. We believe in human rights. We believe that people should be able to live and raise their family without fear of their children being kidnapped as soldiers or killed and that women have the right to go to school and be educated in advance. Thats what we believe in and that is what we fight for. If we can look inward rather than globally, there will be no Global Leadership. The refugee crisis will get worse. It will lead to instability in other countries. It will affect americas National Security interest. So we need to be aggressive in saying, we need to be part of the solution of the refugee issue. Obviously, the way to solve the refugee issue is to solve the unrest in the countries. That is, weve already talked a little bit about syria. It is more than syria. We know whats going on in africa. There is a lot of places in the world where refugees are increasing. We have got to work as an International Community to resolve those issues, but we also have to recognize we have a responsibility in regards to the refugee issues more than just financial. We have got to take our fair share here in the United States. Kristen silverberg have you thought about the future of ttip . It is on life support, sort of flatlining. There was also discussion about whether an fta with the u. K. Would make sense. Do you have a sense of what is the future of our sort of trade negotiations with europe . Ben cardin i really dont know how the Trump Administration is going to deal with trade policies. They have also talked in addition to saying ttip is over, they have also said that nafta might be over. So its a lot of agreements and, of course, i am sorry, did you say tpp or Kristen Silverberg i said ttip. I will ask you about tpp. Ben cardin i thought we were talking about ttp. Ttip, thats on life support. That is possible, it is possible you can get the ttip agreement. It hasnt been concluded yet. The Trump Administration could take credit for concluding it in a way that is beneficial to the United States. Trade agreements, america is in a global economy. We need trade agreements. We need fair trade agreements. We need a level playing field. And yes, for many years, the United States has not been aggressive enough on nontariff barriers. So for a long time, intellectual property was not as aggressive as we needed to make it, and we should have make it a stronger service industry. Currency manipulation is still not being dealt with where we have been disadvantaged by many countries, around the world, china being the number one country. But there are other countries. On dumping issues, we havent been as aggressive as we need to be. There is areas on labor and environment. We are late to the table to deal with labor issues and environmental issues. So there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. Europe is probably a country where we could complete an agreement, but there, the battles are going to be on agriculture, they are going to be on areas in which europe has been very difficult to the u. S. Producers. I dont know whether a President Trump will take a tough position and, therefore, not be able to complete an agreement, or whether he will moderate some of his views on ttip. On ttp, that is a real void. I think we need a tpp agreement. Im not suggesting the one negotiated was the best one, and it couldnt have been done better and should have been done better. We are dealing with communist countries. When you are dealing with communist countries in trade agreements, you really need to make sure you have strict enforcement on governmental issues in the agreement. We can always do better there. I am hopeful that we will not give up with vietnam, that we will not give up with other countries and trying to develop a trade relation. If theres a void, china will fill the void. I think it is important that we are actively engaged in those areas, but there will have to be agreement that have broader support here in the United States. Otherwise it wont get done. So the Trump Administration is going to have to reach out and get broader support and bring in organized labor. Were going to need support in order to get those types of agreements done. Kristen silverberg and while i think your point on china is an important one, we are getting our ducks in a row on ttp, china is moving ahead. Australia has now decided to join, and i really wonder at the end of the Obama Administration, where is the assessment that we are in the rebalance, and this is something on bipartisan agreement that we really need to invest in asia. Ben cardin well, the Obama Administration has been strong on Maritime Security issues. We have used the military very much so and had physical presence. We have challenged china directly, and china has pulled back. They have done things that are unacceptable. Dont get me wrong. They recognize that we were but prepared to take more aggressive action, and they did not want to see a military confrontation. And i think we were able to make certain progress. We challenge of course their fly zones. We have challenged a lot of what theyre try to go do in the controlled areas that are unilateral decisionmaking rather than negotiating with their regional partners. And so we made some progress, and we have seen in the regime in china, of the regimes, that they have backtracked on a lot of the Good Government issues and hope human rights issues and opening the society. Thats not good. Thats not good for china or the United States or for the region. What i hope we will see moving forward is that the reform process that started in china several decades ago, and make some progress. We will energize the entrepreneurial spirit in china, allow people the opportunity to really express themselves and to be able to advance and make too many decisions about Young Children too early in life. There is a lot of things that have to be done in china that i think the United States can do, but were not going to be able to tell them to do things and they are going to say, yes we can do it because the United States want us to do things. It has to be in the interest and we understand that. The United States Foreign Policy has to reflect that. That is what diplomacy is about. That is what soul power is about. One of the interesting points, you mentioned donald trump at least the list which he is seeking part of the cabinet or wants as part of his cabinet, there are a lot of military people. Im not against that we need military people, but we need to understand that soft power, civilian control is critically important to americas goals. We dont have a large budget for diplomacy. We need a larger budget for diplomacy. We dont have a large budget for Development Assistance. We could use a larger budget for Development Assistance, particularly as it relates to developing Democratic Institutions. If we did that, i think we could help countries like china in a way that it would be in our National Security interests, allow china to grow as a stronger country as we want it to be, and it would be safer for the global community. Kristen silverberg want to open it up for the audience and before i do that, i want to have one other question about the assessment on where we are on the end of the Obama Administration and the alliances. Asia, we have some tensions with the philippines. Where do you think we are broadly on the strength of our alliances around the world. Well, i think president obama deserves great credit for strengthening americas partnerships. He recognized that we could not do things alone. I disagree with president obama on his strategies on ukraine and on syria, as far as his original responses. I thought we should have been more aggressive. President obama did not want the United States to be alone on decisionmaking. He went to europe and he went to the middle east. He went to other areas and formed a broader coalitions. The first things he did was formed a broader coalition against iran. That paid off and we were able to negotiate an agreement. I disagree with the end agreement, but i do agree that we should have an agreement. That was good diplomacy, good work in forming alliances. We have seen that now in north korea. There will be an announcement made about a u. N. Resolution. That is good news. We have been able to work with other countries. To coin a phrase, we are stronger together. And president obama has done that. He has formed a true confidence and allegiance and allies in all parts of the world. And i have talked to many of the leaders in our hemisphere. Our policy to cuba was isolating the United States in our own hemisphere. Get cubargue how you to change its way. In cuba has to change its way, but the prior policy was not working. And it was marginalizing the u. S. Influence in our own hemisphere. The Obama Administration has demonically improved americas influence in our own hemisphere. I have been to asia several times. I can tell you that i was pleasantly surprised to see the close personal views in vietnam with the United States. A country where at war with not too long ago. He has built those relationships countries would prefer to work with the United States rather than russia and china. They look at the United States as being a stronger and more reliable partner and they want to deal with us. I was in the middle east, meeting with one of our gulf state strategic partners. Leader, they said, we would rather deal with the United States, but if you are not there, we have to look elsewhere. I think we have formed those alliances that are critically important for the american National Security interests. I want to go to the audience. Im going to ask everybody to keep your questions concise. Senator, you talked about montenegro and nato. What is your opinion on sending an invitation and georgia for the alliance as well . Ukraine and georgia are going through a process with nato. Make no mistake about it. Russia is doing everything in their power to make that is difficult. Their activities in ukraine and their occupation of crimea. They have all made it more challenging for nato to meet the nato requirements for a session. That is a strategy would need to counter. I would like to see ukraine in nato. I would like to see us develop a path that we can get there. The same thing is true with georgia. I would like to see george it in nato. Russia again, is occupying, or encouraging the occupation of the territories in georgia. As long as they can continue that uncertainty, that because of the border uncertainty issues, it is unlikely that geora can make it to full participation in nato. We should counter that by showing a way that they can get full participation. I very much want to go on a path to get there. That would require u. S. Leadership, because we are more interested in that expansion than the other European Countries are, and you need consensus for nato expansion. It will require u. S. Leadership with our european partners. Kristen silverberg ok. Lets go over here. Yes, right there. Yeah. I would say dark suit, white shirt. [laughter] but thank you. You spoke about the importance of alliances. Given the rhetoric of president elect trump and those talking about racketeering when it comes to nato, what does this mean for the baltic . Is there defense any less secure now. We have him talk about the rapprochement of russia. Are there any alternative security guarantee they could give themselves if they had to . Sen. Cardin that is a great question. A lot of things mr. Trump said during the campaign had me greatly concerned. They goes well beyond Foreign Policy. Goes well beyond Foreign Policy. When heso welcomed changed some of his views on these issues. I would want him to do more of that when it comes to the experts in the campaign. It is one thing to appeal to voters and it is another thing to govern. I do not condone comments made it during the campaign. I think you should have a moral standard in the campaign, but i want him to govern properly and i hope he will take this advice. As it relates to russia, i hope he will understand the danger of russia to the United States and of the region. The baltic countries, there are so many countries that are justifiably concerned as to what will happen. Some are nato allies. We have security arrangements. We have the Security Initiative states,to in the united which i think is the right way to go. It shows physically that we are there and we have increased that dramatically. I am suggesting we have a democratic initiative, Democratic Institutions similar to what we did for military and institutions. So we can provide real support for those Democratic Institutions. You are finding more Civil Societies being challenged and we should be providing significant support to make sure that those institutions remain strong and in particularly starting with our democratic allies. Theres a concern that some of the allies including nato will go below the threshold. That is acceptable for us as a democratic country. Kristen silverberg you had a question . Yes. Russell king. Senator, i have a question about cuba. I know you mentioned it briefly. But cuba has had a close relationship with russia and china over the years, and they have been heavily militarized, and i believe lately it was mostly the chinese weapons. I would you do the demilitarization of cuba . Sen. Cardin because of how close they are to us. Our relationship with cuba. We need more people to people contact. We need more business to business contact. And yes, we need military to military. We need to understand their military better. We need to understand their military better. We need to break the isolation that has existed between the two countries. I could give you chapter and verse on this, what people have to go through with canadians in order to get the type of information they need from cuba. It is ridiculous. Make no mistake, cubas government is repressive to Economic Growth of their country. I am shocked at how backward they are on dealing with Business Issues in the country. I have had people in my state who have tried to do business with cuba and it is very tough. I have had if you go to cuba will see how unfriendly it is toward commercial activities. The way that they treat their citizens is terrible. The opposition, it is not a lot the opposition is not allowed. There are so many things that need changed for them to be able to grow in the way that they need to. And then the military. What are their intentions for their military . We need to know. Who are they worried about . That needs to be changed. Yes, i do worry about the military and their Human Rights Violations and their repressive economic system. And in a country that is so close to us. We need a strategy to change all three of those, and you cannot do that with policy that has failed for decades. Kristen silverberg we can take two more. We need to keep the senator on schedule. Over here in the front row. Senator, one of the things is strengthening democracy abroad and strengthening our allies. Why do you feel it is so important to send more money overseas, when most americans would argue that there are shortcomings at home and we need to taxpayer dollars to be spent on education and health care reform, issues that affect our citizens . Sen. Cardin i would argue we do not send massive sums overseas. It is not part of the budget. It is only 1 of the budget, a small percentage of our security budget. Soldiers and weapons, then there is the generals, they will call you that the money that we spend on Development Assistant saves money on the military side, the department of defense side, and it saves lives. When we can prevent a country that is strategically important to the United States, from becoming a destabilizing influence in that region, with potentially using soldiers, we are saving money. Look at afghanistan. Look at the amount of money we spent in afghanistan. Look at the amount of money we spent in iraq. Look at syria. Look at africa, there are places in africa that could be challenging to the United States. It is in our interest to resolve these issues. It is not the u. S. Alone. The Sustainable Development goals with the u. N. , weve been able to reduce poverty, increase health outcomes. If you look at ebola and u. S. Involvement, the taxpayer involvement, they saved hundreds of thousands of lives. I think americans should be proud of that. And is not just that america can make a difference and we should make a difference. We should be proud of that. The humanitarian and social conscience. It also makes us safer. It is a winwin situation. And our Development Assistance budget, we spend a lot of money in a few countries. We should be spending more money on developing Democratic Institutions. In africa, we spend such a small amount of money to build Democratic Institutions. We should be spending more. Kristen silverberg last one. In the red shirt. You talked about Democratic Institutions and building them up. Can we discuss your views on turkey . Sen. Cardin turkey is going to a difficult time. Turkey has had a rough history. For many years they were not treated fairly by europe. Mainly because they are a muslim majority country. They have had their share of issues. Turkey is concerned about the kurdish extremists. To the detriment of themselves. They focus much on that that it causes a challenge in their governanceto Good Government and human rights. It prevents turkey from being a significant player and dealing with the broader Regional Security issues. So we look at turkey as our ally. Policies isrdogans not where we would like to see them. We continue to work with them. We want to continue our partnership with turkey. We look at it as a country that it is a large independent country that they will do what they think is right for their National Interest and we will try to work with them to get them more in mind of what we think is more important for a major democratic date. Let me let me end on that point. There is one thing i want to mention. One of my priorities the next congress. It is a bill that would develop an anticorruption index, which i think is important for all countries. It will be interesting to see how the United States and turkey and other countries will fare on that index. No country is perfect on fighting corruption. We all have that problem. In some countries, it is part of their system. We saw in trafficking with persons, when we put a spotlight on acceptable practices in combating modern day slavery, we were making progress in reducing the amount of trafficking. I was in india recently and the big issue in their country today on how they are dealing with trafficking. So i work on that. And we have been principally response to the type of changes responsible for the type of changes we are seeing in india. So we should use that model to put a spotlight on all countries, all of us can do better. I am not picking on turkey. I am not. I would not put them as being that, they are not they are within range. We can make additional progress. I think every country can benefit and america is taking the leadership. This could really help National Security. Corruption is so devastating in the International Community. So that is something i will be working on in the next congress. I have republicans interested in this. I am hopeful congress will do what we need to do it Foreign Policy as well as other areas. This is a conversation i have had with several republicans, before the election and since the election. As you may be aware, there is serious concern that barack obama has abused his power as president. That he used his power stronger than it should have been used. The general view among both democrats and republicans is powerresidents abuse through executive action because congress is not active. On immigration, we should have acted. On climate change, we should have acted. Congress. We did not. As a result, the president felt compelled to use the power he had as president. Fastforward to january 20 of my steer. I think it is incumbent upon congress to act. We have seen many statements that donald trump made that i think is out of step with congress. And if congress does the responsibility and passes legislation, we can influence what the donald Trump Administration will do. That is very true in Foreign Policy. That is why you will see democrats and republicans, whether it is russia, iran, climate change, whether it is how we deal with tolerance for Human Rights Violations and corruption, you will see members of Congress Come together, i hope, and be able to be the voice of the legislative branch of government. That is an optimist speaking on a cloudy day. But i do have confidence in our country. Thank you very much. [laughter] [applause] senator ben sasse of nebraska joined the Foreign Policy event speak about u. S. Foreign policy in the world and Foreign Policy priorities. This is 45 minutes. Good morning. If i could ask you to make your way to your seat. We will begin our next ambassador edelman and senator sasse on the retreat of the west. A very heavy topic to discuss. A great followup to some of the discussed that were raised earlier with senator cardin. We are joined by senator sasse that represents nebraska and has unique backgrounds. A perspective that many of us will benefit from as he brings. It will be moderated by ambassador edelman. He serves on the board of directors at the Foreign Policy initiative. Thank you for all that you do. More importantly, before that, i had a Foreign Service officer retiring in 2009 as a career minister after a number of senior positions, including under a secretary of defense policy and ambassador to turkey. I appreciate you both for being here today. Please join me in welcoming them. [applause] sen. Sasse thank you. It is great to be here. It is great to be here with one of my favorite United States senators and talking about one of my favorite subjects, american exceptionalism. The senator and i share next youth. A misspent for any struggling graduate students who may be out there working toward your phd, we are living proof that there is life after graduate school. Sen. Sasse have a backup. Mr. Edelman both of us had backup plans i think. I got my degree a few years before the senator, when dinosaurs walked the earth. And when the academic job market was so bad we literally had a publication called the silver lining, which consisted of faculty obituaries around the country. [laughter] mr. Edelman i am not making that up. It is true. Were going to talk about a really important subject today, about american exceptionalism and retreat of the west. Senator, i wonder if you could unpack the subject a little bit. When people use the term american exceptionalism, i think they tend to talk past one another in the sense that it has been used both as a descriptive term to analyze those things that make the United States different and separate it from other countrys historical experience. But its also used in the sense of Americas Mission abroad. And what exactly the nature, if there is such a mission what exactly the nature of that mission is. I wonder if you could tell us how you think about american exceptionalism and then we can go from there. Sen. Sasse you bet. Thanks for having me as well. Obviously, the term has been used lots of different ways and the u. S. Mission in the world, in general post 1945, and maybe in particular in a more contested way, post 1989 and the end of the cold war, it is complicated and has been contested and theres a lot of interesting and debatable things we should talk about related to that. The u. S. Is kind of a unique place in the world since world war ii, but i think its important historically to understand that what the word, the term american exceptionalism used to mean and i think it should mean again partly because it provides a meta level of agreement before he get to all the things we should rightly dispute. American exceptionalism is really a historical claim about the american founding. I think it was really sad. And i dont, im a very conservative guy, but im not particularly partisan. So i dont say this to sort of open by taking a shot at president obama, but i thought it was particularly sad in the runup to the 2012 election when president obama was being interviewed one time and he was asked, do you believe in american exceptionalism . And if you watch the videotape you can see the president s wheels turning in his head as he thinks what to say. It felt like what he was thinking, of course i cant say i believe in american exceptionalism because that sounds parochial in a way thats arrogant and maybe ethnic or race based or something. And yet, you could also hear him heading towards the election, saying im not supposed to say i dont believe in it either so he pauses for a minute and he says, well, of course, i believe in american exceptionalism, i believe in american exceptionalism in the way that the greeks believe in greek exceptionalism or the brits believe in british exceptionalism. But that does not mean anything. It is like saying you believe in patriotism. And you should be thankful for what you inherited from your grandparents and thats true. That is universal. But american exceptionalism is something else. Its a recognition of the fact that the american founding was a truth claim about Human Dignity. Margaret thatcher used to say that all of europe, every european country is a product of history, but america is the only nation that is a product of philosophy. The american founding is a claim that rights come to us from god via nature and government is a shared project. To secure those rights. Government isnt the author or the source of our rights. It is an important secular told that we the people build tool that we the people build together but rights predate government and government is a claim about Human Dignity. When you look at Human History there are flirtations with this idea. Greek city states for a while in the early modern period. Swiss city states have talked about Human Dignity as a foundation for commonality and community. And that. But by and large throughout history, people have assumed that the worlds a broken and dangerous place so you need government to protect us and provide stability. And is so whoever has the stability, whoever has the monopoly on violence we should be grateful for them. And we should sit back and supplicate before the king to see what rights he grants us. The assumption has been that government came first, power came first and the powerful out of their beenough asense granted rights to people. And people are created with dignity. We should secure the rights together as a people. And now we get to, ill stop here, but we get to the role , what americas role should be to advance that truth claim and versus the responsibilities of this nation that shares this as a truth claim and therefore the basis of our own power internally. Then we should debate to advance it externally. Mr. Edelman before we get to that external vision, which i think will be the part of the discussion with the audience, we should stick to the theme of what separates the United States and its experience from that of other nations. You have touched on i think the important point of the founding and the selfunderstanding that the founders had of what they were doing that was quite different. Because theyre very, very conscious of the fact of what theyre undertaking is different from what has happened in the past and its antecedents in the ancient world, in the renaissance world demonstrated how fraiand difficult the undertaking was. But there is another, i think, important element that emerges out of this thats not irrelevant to our immigration debate and the Larger Mission debate, which is, what does it mean to be a citizen of the United States . And with that i believe we are exceptional as well. Because most other countries in the world, citizenship is rooted in blood and birth and in our country, it is rooted in adherence and allegiance to a set of philosophical premises and those documents that enshrine those premises. First lets acknowledge two thinks. Is a t disinheritance special thing, its extraordinary that we have a shared sense of what america means and we should recognize what great peril were in right now because we dont really have a shared sense. Polling data would show that our young people really dont know this history. We havent done civic or ultural. Were 12 years past the declaration of independence and theyre still working through the ideas. American kids should read the federalist papers. They should know what it meant to the people in the past and as lincoln and others have said the idea of the constitution being a silver frame around the golden apple which is the big truth claims about Human Dignity that are in the declaration. We arent a nation rooted in blood. We arent a nation based in ethnicity. As a seriously conservative guy, i get disappointed and angered and saddened all the time to hear Current Media analysis of the political spectrum that somehow breaks down by race, class and gender all over the place. You wake up and you see a ticker on the morning news almost every morning, demography is destiny for america. That means elections will be determined by a persons skin pigment. Which ever way it goes based on pigment or ethnic coalitions that are built, which ever way it goes america died. Because america was an idea that was about something much bigger than what tribe you come from. We actually think the greatest things in life are the textured relationships you have with your family and your friends and the dignity and the mportance of your local work as you try to serve out of a life of gratitude. Try to serve your neighbors and build a better mousetrap and wrestle through important questions about mortality and heaven and hell and all the important things in life are local relational things that are based on ideas and persuasion and government isnt the center of any of that. Government is a means to an end. And our government is a smaller issue than the american idea that is that set of things and truth claims that we believe about Human Dignity that unite us. Right now, we havent been having that conversation for 50 years. And ill pull up here, but to think back to president eagan well before he was republican president reagan, before he was a republican governor of california, the Democratic Labor Union organizer who talked to the factory workers about what america meant. This is not a republican or a democratic claim. This is a unifying claim. That reagan said, in any republic, youre always only one generation away from the extinction of freedom. The only way that freedom in the american understanding goes on is if the next generation comes to own it. Were not doing that ight now. 41 of americans under age 35, 41 of americans under age 35 tell pollsters now that they think the First Amendment is dangerous. Because you might say things with your freedom of speech that hurt somebody elses feelings. Actually, thats the whole point of america. That we can say things that hurt each others feelings because we believe in the dignity of the person, that we want to persuade them or be persuaded by them and well try to have a community thats free from violence. So we can wrestle ogether as people with questions that are more important than power. Power is a means to that end. I think as conservatives we also believe in prepolitical things. And that politics is not the be all, end all of life. Its one dimension of life, but not the only one. Just underscore that thing, believing in prepolitical things is an essential element of being a fully participatory american. I have on my twitter profile, im a husker addict and what i mean the Dwight Eisenhower line that every american adult should understand themselves as a parttime politicians. People who have my calling for a time that think being a politician is the be all and end all of their identity theyre not worthy of this job and of this service to the American People because politics arent the center of life. Yet American Adults on farms and ranches in nebraska today that are fully loving their neighbor and serving and maintaining the polity and passing it on to their kids cant be totally disengaged either because we all share this project. Im grateful to hear you say that as someone whos in a mixed political marriage it helps me get through every day. So thank you. I do want to come back to you now i think reverted twice to polling data about Young Americans and the weakness of their grasp of the fundamentals. Not just of american exceptionalism but the founding and the Political Institutions and our system of governance. I want to come back to that at the end, but before we get there, what works either of history or political philosophy have you found most illuminating and enlightening that you found that has been more most important to you in your understanding of american exceptionalism. I mentioned the federalist papers, everyone ought to read them and wrestle with federalist 10. The federalist arguments ought to be to become a part of things we wrestle with as parents all the time. As were teaching our kids. But ill go to democracy in america in toqueville. If ou ever had it assigned in the class and it felt daunting to get this 1,500 page assignment from the professor and the ambassador joked that were both his torians together, actually before we came out here we were in the greenroom in the back. Five of us had history ph. D. S which meant that one of us was employable. When i was in the grad school at one point, the chronicle of Higher Education came out with a special issue. It had a picture on the front of it, it was the pvc pipe and it was where they interview for jobs and literally the headline on the hronicle of Higher Education was in the pit at the american historical association, wouldbe historians beg for jobs they dont really want. My wife cut this out and hung it in our kitchen and said get a backup plan fast. But if you ever had a history professor or a political scientist or a history in lit kind of class and they assigned democracy in merica and you looked at it as a daunting 15,5 1500 page book, rip the front page off and it was written as a bunch of travel reports. As toqueville tried to explain what was happening in america in the late 1830s and 1840s, back to europeans who couldnt make sense of this experiment. This experiment in republican government, this experiment in selfgovernance, what made it the case you had a canal revolution . That you had a pro toe railroad revolution, it was the putting out sort of production revolution that wasnt the factory system, but it was something that was going to approximate a moving assembly line. You had this massive economic innovation happening in the 1830s and 40s. The europeans didnt know why. They said the americans we thought the people were founded on the idea theyd have pluralism and they believe all these crazy religious things theyre not going to kill each other and theyll have Cultural Diversity and pluralism and now all of a sudden theyre economically productive. How do we make sense of that. Toquevilles first thesis was if you understand economic ingenuity they must have better planners than we do so well go to washington and find out where the central planners reside. They write back, this is kind of a swamp and the people arent that interesting or creative. You know, not a lot has changed. And ultimately hey said, this isnt the center of america. The center of america isnt here in the ompulsory power center that is washington and there were 25 states at this time and toqueville travels to 17 of the 25. He writes back and he essentially says, i found the meaning of america, i found the center of america. Its the rotary club. Its actually where people come together, theyre not isolated individualists, but they dont believe government power, but they believe in community and they believe in persuasion and they believe in building better products and services and having someone build that thing. They believe in that community. There was a tragic ne five years ago where it was said, i dont want to beat up on the second democrat, but it was barney frank. Lets not mention it. He said, government is just another word for those things we choose to do together. No, its not. Community is another word for things we choose to do together. Government is another word for compulsion and theres compulsion thats necessary in the world, but we should move cautiously. So i think democracy in america is a great little snapshot of all of the little platoons where thick and rich life is lived in america and has been. I think the now pretty well documented decline of mediating institutions that toqueville identifies as the engine of america as you were describing along with some of the other phenomena that you mentioned earlier i think when taken together really are troublesome in terms of the future of what we call the exceptional america that the founders created. Lets now turn to that question of mission. Its always been a tension i think in american thinking about this. On the one hand, the founders were not only aware of the frailty of Democratic Institutions and for that reason came up with the republican remedy as the ederalist papers call it for the frailties of democracy, but they were also very mindful of the fact that they were inhabiting a world of nondemocracies and that it would be very difficult in the long run for the United States to prosper and survive in a world that remained nondemocratic world. Now, the tension in that was, you know, how do you particularly as a small not, you know, that not that strong country, you know, how do you lead a World Revolution of democracy . You dont. On the other hand, as adam said in his 4th of july speech, youre the wellwisher to all who want democracy and the tension between how much we should intervene to help other Democratic Forces in the world has really been there since the beginning. And its very much the animating force for what we do during world war ii, world war i and ii, and the unique growing place since 1945 that youve identified earlier. How do you if you when you go to nebraska, when you speak to constituents, and they ask you about americas place in the world and what our mission if we have one is, how do you describe it . How do you how do you talk to them about it . What do you find when you go there when you talk to constituents and what ought those of us who both believe in exceptional america and an america that is engaged in eading in the world, what work do we have to do in the wake of this last electoral cycle . Great question. And lets tart and i certainly do when i engage and listen to nebraskans and wrestle through the questions with them, lets start by rejecting silly false choices. So the idea that theres a choice between isolationism and some sort of mushy internationalism is crazy because theyre horrible ideas. If you look at some of the polling data right now, one of the tragic things thats happening is were deciding that a continuum we have across right versus left on domestic policy issues. I think one simple way to think of right versus left over 50 to 75 years has been mouch how much governmental federal governmental intervention do you want in the economy . So you could have a debate about the minimum wage. This not about limited government. This is small to limited government. It says we dont believe that the government comes first, we dont believe in totalitarianism. So small versus medium is an important debate about Economic Engagement by the federal government. Foreign policy shouldnt have your Foreign Policy views shouldnt have to be immediately tailorable and alignable with that. We see right versus left on domestic politics are seeming to embrace silly views of Foreign Policy on both sides that dont always make a lot of sense. So ill cite a bit of polling data from pew last week or two weeks ago. When asked on the eve of the election Trump Supporters versus clinton supporters do ou mostly identify with this statement, other countries should solve their own problems or the u. S. Should help others to solve their problems. First of all, kind of a silly statement, right . But if youre oing to take it at face value, 56 of clinton supporters said the u. S. Should help. Well, lets take apart why that doesnt make sensehelp how . And are there any limits on how we would help because theres certainly limits on our capacity and our means. But on the other side, only 25 of Trump Supporters said the u. S. Should help in the world. And the assumption behind the question seems to be that theres a choice that if you help in the world that means youre rejecting tackling our own problems at home. I think one way to kind of map this is to a more sophisticated debate would be idealism versus realism in Foreign Policy and also there we should recognize that the right answers in the long term recognizing that the world is becoming a flatter and flatter space are going to be that realism done right is still going to affirm lots of long term value propositions about the rule of law, about stability, about how when you make pledges to allies they know they should trust you and hat your enemies should fear youll keep your word and conversely idealism done right is always going to be bounded by a sense that the world is broken and there are going to be a whole bunch of things that are beyond your ability to anticipate. And there are unintended consequences from all action. What i try to do as i wrestle through the questions with nebraskans is say, lets ecognize there is no withdrawal from the world that ould possibly be cost free for us. The distinction that we all learned on 9 11 is that al qaeda and the taliban were different entities and yet we the American People hadnt thought about before what a post 1989 world looked like where nation state actors were not the only actors who had the lobal reach. The taliban was the government of afghanistan and yet they didnt have a onopoly of violence, and yet l qaeda was able to kill 3,000 americans. Do massive harm on our economy and transform a whole bunch of aspects in the way that americans thought about the world over the coming decade. Yet, they were a pretty Small Organization and only enabled by the fact that there were vacuums of ungoverned space in afghanistan. Well, guess what . If you look at a globe of the world today if youre nerdy parents like, we make the runs get the globe and we spin it and we talk about their neighbors and what their local Economic Production looks like, and something about the history. Its rough to be our children i acknowledge. But about a third of all countries on the globe that we treat as if theyre countries, about a third of them arent really countries. Twothirds of the places on the globe are countries as we think of them in a post west failian way. Most are a jump ball and if more and more ungoverned spaces expand youll have more consequences at home for us in terms of loss of life, in terms f battle of jihadists here. In terms of economic implications because the world is flat to quote tom friedman. With need a Foreign Policy thats engaged and starts with a question of what is the long term interests of the 320 Million People that the american politicians are called to serve . And that involves a respect for human rights and the rule of law. So its a more complicated question than mushy internationalism versus quick isolationism. I want to touch on something, and i know you have to get back up to the hill to preside so i hope we can have time for one or two questions before we lose you. Part of the proposition that we are different appears to be being undermined by the fact that many of the same forces that seem to be coursing through the body politic in the United States this year have been coursing through the body politic in other countries. And just as a proposition, you know, our former yale colleague jeremy suri wrote a book about 1968 which may be the previous point in history where similar kind of forces were moving across the globe affecting the way that countries thought about their international role. I have in mind, you know, sort of the rise of populist movements in Eastern Europe and central europe, the brexit vote and of course the trump phenomenon here. Some of that suggests that to me anyway that our political system may be in a deeper crisis and the political system that we associate with the west, with democracy may be in deeper crisis than we realize. Part of it is what you have talked about in terms of the polling data. Theres also very disturbing polling data that younger folks not only dont see the importance of free speech, but they said didnt care if they lived in a democracy or not. Which i find, you know, enormously troubling. Before the actual election was held in november, there was a lot of focus on our party. And the crisis that it was in. And a lot of discussion about how our party was going to you know, implode or explode or break up the coalition, couldnt, you know, hold together. And the trump nomination was proof of that allegedly. Now in the wake of the election, you know, we look around and the Republican Party seems dominant. They control they will as of january 20th control the white house, the senate obviously which republicans held, and the house during the eight years of barack obama the Democratic Party has seen an enormous decline not only in the number of members of the house, but of the senate. Governorships, state legislatures, et cetera. Some people are talking about a 0 year republican dominance. The focus now is on the Democratic Party and its dysfunction and questions about whether in the absence of the impact of the clintons, whether the party will lurch to the left. Something along the lines of the labor party in britain. It seems that both parties remain in crisis. Theyre both in crisis throughout 2016. They remain in crisis and our political system is going through the adjustment of crisis because of the process of globalization that may last for, you know, five, ten, ten ears. It may take that long to unwind. How do we go through that crisis and assure that we come out the other end as a vibrant democracy and that democracy doesnt end up being on in retreat around the world as compared to the enormous advances, you know, it went through in the 80s and 90s . Lots of meat in that question. Let me agree with the horror about the young people data that shows somewhere between a third and a half are drifting toward indifference to whether they live in a democracy. But let me outbid it with one bit of horror to show our historical amnesia and the lack of Civic Education that we have. And we dont another three hours or we could talk about the goofiness of a lot of the Media Coverage of castros death, because its a way of showing how little shared understanding of where we are in history. About a third i think it was 32 of millennials in a poll in october said that they believe that george w. Bush had killed more people than stalin. A third of american millennials. Stalin killed around 50 Million People. So we have big problems in terms of what were not teaching. But i think that nybody who says they know what comes next in partisan politics in American Life five, ten years in the future is smoking something because the reality about the undercurrent of all of these movements right now is that automation is transforming the economy and the nature of work in arguably unprecedented ways in Human History. Right, when hunter gathers became farmers that became disruptive. We didnt have an alphabet for what it looked like as a disruption for people, but in the transformation of work for this moment is the 50 to 75 year period that was industrialization. And it was remarkably unsettling for people to go from almost everyone inheriting the farming job of your mom and dad and grandparents for generations to now go to the city and have to get a totally different kind of job in a big tool economy. As disruptive as that was, it was, it spawned progressivenessism under roosevelt and others but once you got the new job you tended to have that job until death or retirement. What were going to have now is everybody losing their job, every three to five years for the rest of their existence. We have never had 40 and 45 and 50 and 55 yearolds having to get a new job. If you lose your job now at age 55 you never get employed again. In the future thats not going to work because it will be all of us and thats hugely theres tons of human turmoil, we can talk about Charles Murray and putnam and the j. D. Vances new book on the shrinking of the institutions, but were not talking about the underpinning of that, and the nature of work from stable life long jobs to unstable occasional parttime flex jobs where everybody is going to have to become a life long learner. So we havent talked much about trade, but when people feel about anxiety right now, theyre trying to project the things theyre worried about on trade. Trade is a big deal. Where im from, theres a pretty broad consensus that trade is a big deal. If we had more trade with asia, nebraska which is the you know, were known for our corn and football, but were the largest cattle state in the union. In nebraska, if theres more trade with asia, youll nd one a cheaper silverado and well end up with more beef markets for export. So trade is a winwin for nebraskans. Trade is a win for all consumers nationally. Trade is a net win for producers nationally but theyre geographic and sub sector folks who suffer under trade. We dont have good trade mitigation policy. Its a much smaller topic than artificial intelligence, than Machine Learning and machine automation and the transformation of the economy. We can talk about a specific factory moving from ohio or indiana to mexico. And the jobs that might be saved or lost in a move like that. But the much bigger long term factor is that each of those factories has so many fewer workers. We are talking about 7 of the u. S. Workforce now working in industrial jobs and were not wrestling with any of hose questions and Neither Political Party has an answer. So people who reduce this immediately to right versus left are shortsighted and sniffing something that thinks that this town is made up of a whole bunch of geniuses who know how to sen centrally plan 20, 30, we cant. You can see why senator sasse is one of my favoriters. I think we have a minute or two for questions. Please introduce yourself and keep the questions in light of the senators time constraints short and that they have a question mark at the end. What hes saying, sasse is 99th in seniority so he has to preside over the senate whenever anyone else doesnt want that and thats lunch. So thats why i have to be on time. First of all, thank you for spending your time with us. Im here with the duke university, Alexander Hamilton society. Also as one of the millennials i would say that we do not believe the things that you have been saying horrendously about our generation, but i would like to ask, in this very layered and complex world, how you mentioned how you teach your kids about different countries. I think thats amazing. How would you you know teach our generation how to handle this new complex and very different world specifically to College Students like us . Thanks, great question. We do have a weird experience with our kids because i live in nebraska and commute every week and i bring which ever kid mom is most sick of for the week. They come with me. So my 13yearold is here today. I wont point her out because mom must have banished her from the home last week. I think the most important thing for secondary education and for College Students is that we need to make the flip from viewing schooling and education as sin synonym synonyms. School advances education and sometimes distracts us from actual education. Were entering a world that people have to become life long learners. Its going to have to become a much more sophisticated approach to the way you build networks and to the way you acquire new information. And frankly to the way we reacquire an ability to have long cycles of learning that arent driven by whatever gadget in our pocket is buzzing. We think we have switched from one social media platform to another one in four minutes and we need to have a lot more thinking long ability and read texts again. And right now, were not developing those habits of mind and discipline that are necessary for people who are not going to finish learning. At age 18. Youll have to learn a lot longer in the future. As education is radically underperforming in america, grade 13 would somehow solve this problem. If grade 11 isnt working very well, im not sure why we think a universal one size fits all grade 13 would work as well. Around policy conversations that are too regularly stuck in 1965, the hightech revolution is creating lots of opportunities for disintermediation and digitalization that goes beyond what is saying, and should be supplemental and not displacing in the long term. But are able to go faster than our policy iscussions, which are clunky and stuck at half a century ago. Things as basic as the gaughan academy, we could go through lots of different places where Online Education is not going to be a substitute for world view forming things that need to happen in community and in relation with real teachers and with peers and with people who care about the big and true and the good, rue and beautiful kinds of philosophical questions youre wrestling through to root your identity and your world view. But lots of things that are more like accounting. There could be new skills acquired much more rapidly in online and hybrid learning environments and there are tools available that we didnt envision five years ago. As you can tell from that answer, senator sasse is way more tech savvy than i am. If you have not seen him reading mean tweets about himself, go to youtube because youre in for a treat. I would like to call on my former colleague in the reagan administration, bud mcfarland. Senator sasse, thank you very much for not just today, but for every day that you serve here. Its really a blessing for all of us. This isnt about today Foreign Policy for mostly, but however, in the context of idealism, realism, and real things were facing i believe in the years ahead in the middle east, has spawned a lust among the Sunni Arab States for an equivalent capability in Nuclear Power generation, ostensibly, but of ourse with the potential for eapons systems. If you believe the rhetoric coming from saudi arabia and the vision 2030 of the deputy crown prince, if you elieve how president al sisis rhetoric calling for reform of islam and seemingly having the grand mufti behind him. To what degree can or should the United States encourage mr. Ben salman, the deputy crown prince, be helpful in enabling he industrialization and the move away from oil and to what extent can we imagine the possibility of forging a collective Security Organization within the middle east that might really deter and in traditional ways avoid conflict between iran and its neighbors. So this is more than a threecredit course, but id be grateful for your comment. Thank you for your question and your past service as well. Lets start by saying that iran can never become a Nuclear Power. Iran is the Worlds Largest state sponsor of terror nd we should declare unequivocally that they can never get access to Nuclear Weapons. So much of the current short term and midterm crisis in the middle east is driven by the fact that people dont know where the u. S. Is going to land and have it known for five to eight plus years so you have a iddle east where we can talk in lots of Technical Details about how we got to the agreement that we have. I was opposed to this agreement. I think one of the things thats missed when we get straight to the fight about whether people were for or against the joint agreement is the fact that we stop talking about the broader erer sanctions regime against iran for all of the other things that they do. And we should recognize that when iran is sewowing the discourt theyre sowing all over the region, just to put one data stamp on what happened in syria. On the eve of the Syrian Civil War there were 21 Million People in syria. Only about 11 Million People in syria live in heir homes now. Estimates vary but around 450,000 people have been killed. Almost half of the 21 Million People have been displaced from their homes and bout half of that half has been displaced beyond their border, then you think of the millions that are bunched up on the jordanian border. I was with King Abdullah and he was talking about how many cool systems there were in jordan that had more syrian kids than jordanian kids in the school systems. Just try to imagine that wherever youre from, pick ny town or suburb in america and imagine all of a sudden a majority of the kids in that school with from brazil and the complete transformation of lowcal culture and politics and he risk of jordanian collapse, those kinds of pressures are all over the middle east and what did we decide to fight about a lot in the u. S. . Whether or not the 10,000 syria refugee number should be 10,000, should be zero or should be 60,000. We had a fight that was about symbolic things. That were important things as well. The u. S. Government is not competent to do the vetting of a bunch of people who may be infiltrating alleged syrian refugee pipelines and be intended jihadists claiming to be Syrian Refugees but we also knew that there were a whole bunch of women with breastfeeding moms with babies in this population and we were debating 10,000 versus zero versus 60,000 when none of it had anything to do with whether or not we had a long term vigs for the region and the role of the russians and the iranians in the destabilization of the region. Heres the simple fact. As the civil war was unfolding, our allies didnt believe our red lines were real and our opponents didnt think we meant anything we said either and that our red lines would be real. I think adult leadership in the world goes slow before you ever do anything that approximates drawing a red line. And if you draw a red line youve already plotted chess moves three, four, and five. So we need to rebuild a Foreign Policy where were credible and trustworthy and choose our objectives in a cautious but but if we choose them we mean them and our allies know they can rely on us. So many of the saudi and gyptian issues you mentioned are partly driven from a state of vacuum where no one knows where the u. S. Is going to land. Were out of time here so i wont comment on any of the likely policies in the Incoming Administration but were bviously at a personnel is policy moment. And i think most of us should be hopeful that the new president elect will be populating his administration with people who are cautious, responsible adult ss be who takes words seriously because our allies and opponents do and iran cannot become a Nuclear Power and our allies in the region should know that we would never allow iran to become a Nuclear Power. Senate or sasse, thank you for taking the time today. [ applause ] good afternoon. Myname is chris griffin. I ask that you kindly return to your seats so that we can begin our next conversation featuring general joseph votel, who is the commander of the United States central command, and moderated by Michael Ohanlon of the brookings institution. We will give folks just a minute to take your seats. A couple of courtesy reminders before you get there, once again, make sure your phones are set to sign on. However, do not necessarily turn your phones off. Feel free to join the conversation on twitter at hashtag fpiforum. If you are watching on tv, feel free to visit our website, www. Foreignpolicyi. Org. Once again, it is a pleasure to welcome general votel to the discussion. We have an excellent moderator in Michael Ohanlon, the codirector of 21st century security intelligence. He is the author f too any books to list in the time we have available, but ost recently would want to emphasize the 650 billion bargain, the case for moderate bargain, the case for moderate growth in americas defense budgeth i , whicghly recommend it. Mike, thank you for moderating today, and i ask you to join me in welcoming general votel. [applause] michael thank you, chris, and good afternoon, everyone. I will give a brief word of introduction. I believe many of you are familiar with his work around the country and world reas he was commissioned and world and world. He was world and world. He was commissioned in 1980 after growing up in st. Paul, minnesota. Went to rest point went to west point, spent a lot of time in various ranger activities early in his career and thereafter. Also a lot of time in europe, including in bosnia. Some backdrop in the kinds of missions that perhaps were slightly foreshadowed by that particular set of operations in the balkans that we have now seen him the preoccupied by in the 21st century with a lot of activity in iraq and elsewhere. Of course, he was the commander of special operations command, now the commander at central command. It is a real privilege, general votel. As you surely know, you are widely respected and admired, and therefore we are looking to you for a lot good wears them of good wisdom. I think many of you know that general votel has 20 countries to worry about in central command, a smaller number than the average command, but maybe a higher headache ratio per country, and herefore i think it adds up to a robust portfolio. If we could, begin with just a few countries, working from west to ast, if we could, starting with egypt. Luckily we get to hear from you when you testified in another forum, so i want to have a focused question on egypt. I know you ave had a lot of important collaborations with egypt, but it also strikes me as a country that we as a nation have a dilemma with in our relationship, because the leader of egypt is there by virtue of a coup, and we are in this uneasy position of not knowing how to relate to his government, how to influence his government. I would ask, how do you think through this issue of how to make egypt under presidency seat a full partner, not only in strategic counter missions, but every time when they are in flux hemselves . Mr. Edelman when i came into this position, i got advice. One of the common themes was, what is the Important Role of gypt in the region . The strong encouragement from all of them to make sure that egypt was one of the first countries that we visited, and it was. It was one of the countries we want to first. Went to first. I think the importance of egypt, i think certainly there are some challenges, as you have highlighted. I think the way that i am trying to think about egypt is through a longerterm relationship with them, what they have meant to us over a lengthy period of time. There certainly are some challenges that the president and his team are dealing with on a regular basis there, economically with security challenges. What i have tried to do is listen to what they are telling us and try to hear them. I do hear concern from them about ensuring that they are stable. That they have established stability within the security environment. I think that weighs heavily on them. I think that is a priority for them, and i think it is something that we have to recognize, that he is very concerned about making sure the country is stable. And then, i think we have to look at the elationship with egypt not just through the lens of the last couple of years, but over a much longer time, but it has meant to us in the past, but it means to us right now, and what t will mean to us in the future. I was reminded of the Important Role that egypt plays in the facilitation of our activities throughout the middle east. We just talked about the suez canal. The support we get from them for our ships and commerce and other things is extraordinary, and we get what i would describe as premium service. The head of the line privileges, if you will, in some cases, to move our resources through. Thats a key aspect. I think what we have to do is take a longerterm look at egypt. We have to recognize the importance they play in the region. We have to recognize the relationship we had with them in the past, and we have to continue to work through the current political challenges we are dealing with here and look longterm at them. They are an important player in the region. Hey have been, they will continue to be. They are the most populous country in the region. We have to recognize that. And they said it at a very critical point. Looking for ways to cooperate with them, looking for opportunities, big and small, where we can work with them i think is extraordinarily important. As we look at things like our presence in the sinai as part of a multiinternational force, i think we have been able to do things with them that have been able to ensure the stability of that mission, that critically important mission. I think we have to continue to stay engaged with them and look for opportunities to move forward with them, and we have to weather through the political waves that do take place. Michael one or two followups efore i start a swing to the Arabian Peninsula. We had a complicated. Bank in dealing with a collocated period in dealing with egypt from 2011 to 2013, and everything from the conflict desperately confusing signals about when president mubarak should step down to resident morsi and his period, i recognize that some of this is getting into the broader relationship, but you are arguably the highest level american official dealing with egypt, and therefore i know these issues are on your mind. The final question would be, have you seen consequences that affect the relationship between the United States and egypt from that 20112013 period and a harmful way that has pushed them away from us, and therefore there is not as much trust and cooperation as there might have been . Gen. Votel certainly we have. We have seen average to russia lately. I think that is some concern for us, and it is something we are to take notice of and look at what that means to us longterm. I dont know that that is particularly helpful to the things we are trying to accomplish in the region, to push them into the arms of others. And so i think we do have to Pay Attention of that, and those are good examples of something we have seen most recently. Michael one last question, and the rest of my focus will likely be more military and security, but on the issue of egypt, i have noticed that president lcc has soft and a little in his crackdown on the brotherhood. At least he has taken president morsi on death row, which is important, but here he is, to what extent do these kinds of issues affect you and how you have to deal with egypt . En. Votel they are helpful to us. Frankly, i think the militarytomilitary relationship, like all relationships, has highs and lows, but i think it has remained pretty steady. I talk to general ghazi on a regular basis. Things like that i think helped getto develop the relationships and move help give us space to develop relationships and move forward. As i work with their military eaders, mostly through the chief of defense, i think he agrees with that, so we are. But one thing we are trying to do is get our exercise program back in place. As many of you recall, we had an exercise program called bright star that has long in a stable of Security Cooperation in the region. We stopped doing it in 2009 largely due to whats going on. But they agree and we agree that this is something we ought to investigate. So we are. We are looking for those types of opportunities where we can capitalize. Michael by the way, the format here, i get to have most of the fun. Chris told me i should ask questions for the first half hour, 40 minutes, and we will involve you in the last 15 or 20. Please prepare your questions in addition to what i cover. But as we think about one more country in that neck of the woods, i know libya is not within your command. However, thinking a lot about egypt, you are a key observer and participant in all things ibya, im sure. As the new administration prepares to come in to washington, is there any advice if you were asked, for example, how well our centcom and european command working together on libya, is there a need for a new kind of collaborative vehicle, or is the system more or less working . Would you have any thoughts their . Gen. Votel i think you are hating on ianan extraordinary point. At centcom, we have a tendency to think more globally, and i dont mean that as a critique of any of our partners, but we did have an approach that had soft forces around the world. I think the thing that is important to recognize for me as a centcom commander is that i am not in this by myself. The scenes around centcom, as you point out, libya, turkey, russia, india, sudan, the horn of africa, just as some examples, these are some areas that have challenges as well, so we have to think transoriginal. We have to look at transregional. We have to look at the threats. I think when we limit ourselves, our thinking, our operations, how we organize to bureaucratic boundaries, we limit our options to address the threats we have. I think there has been some very good work done, largely through the leadership of the chairman, to develop a National Military strategy that capitalizes on the transregional aspect of all our threats, but transregional, multifunctional, multidomain aspects of all of our threats. I think it is going to begin to change how we think about command and control and how we think about relationships in the various commanders. My advice to the Incoming Administration would be to build on that. I think its the right direction for us to move in the future. Michael thank you. Let me down go with the Arabian Peninsula and start with yemen, then work northward. I wanted to ask briefly about yemen, which has been an extraordinary conflict extraordinarily complicated conflict itself. Bersani friends our saudi friends have hopefully learned the same lessons we have. I dont want o put words in your mouth, but i am curious as to how you would see the evolution of the war in yemen in broad terms. We have a transition coming up in the United States, so it is important to think about the big story on yemen. Where is this conflict in its longstanding history, and what opportunities do we have to influence it . Michael it remains largely a military conflict between the Saudi Led Coalition and the former regime elements. It remains a military conflict. My personal opinion is that this is an area that will require a political solution at some particular point. What we are finding is we are finding both sides trying to use military eans to gain leverage to support their positions in political negotiations. Unfortunately, that sometimes for trex the process sometimes prottracts the rocess. It is a struggle for leverage between both sides to try to gain a leg up in any kind of political negotiations that will ultimately address the real problems. Michael is this a country where the United States should think about doing more . When i say that, i am using that in a vague, broad sense. It could be more of the special operations variety or more to influence saudi arabias behavior, or it can be more diplomatic flexibility, thinking about confederations instead of one new central government. Is there a case for us to think about doing a lot more . Gen. Votel i think we are doing a lot in all three of the areas you highlighted. Our excellent diplomats are well engaged in the cessation of hostility discussions and continue to provide a leadership role in that. I think we have seen that play out with the secretary of state and ambassadors in the region which are very engaged in that. We certainly have longterm ct interest in yemen. I would remind you that one of the most capable franchises of al qaeda still remains there, al qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This is an organization that has demonstrated capability to come after us in the homeland, so we have to deal with that seriously. The ongoing conflict has been a challenge for us, to have some of the presence we have had on the ground before. But i think we have been able to begin to address that, certainly our Strike Program and other things continues to move forward in that. I know we continue to keep pressures through that, and we are working with a variety of other partners. We worked closely with the uae a few months ago on operation focused on al qaeda down in the makela area f yemen, and that was very successful. I think this is a good example of how the kind of approach that we will have to take an leverage. We look for opportunities, we tried to capitalize on that, and by capitalizing, we prevail as we move forward. Certainly, working with the arab coalition. We obviously are not providing intelligence support. We are not taking targets for them, but we do continue to work with saudi arabia and other partners to help improve their processes and the way they go about this and providing some training advice and assistance. I dont know that we necessarily need to be involved in the civil conflict taking place there, but of all the three areas that you pressed on, i think we have to kind of continued look for opportunities to continue to ush the gas pedal all of those areas. Michael if i can now turn to iraq and syria, i want to ask you about the strategies in both places, but first i wanted to see if you wanted to share any tactical updates from the battlefield. Im not asking you for a full classified briefing, but if there is anything specific that you want to mention that you think is worth highlighting, i would be curious about that before getting into the broader gen. Votel yeah. Heres the big idea about how we are trying to approach iraq and syria, that is to create momentum and pressure, and do it in a variety of different ways. Certainly on the ground with our partners, through the targeting of key leaders in the Islamic State network, through our targeting of threats targeting of their financial resources, looking at how we improve our capabilities to address the ideology and the narrative, the toxic narrative that comes out of here, and how we enable partners in the area to do this. What we are trying to achieve essentially, in a broad sense, is we are trying to present the Islamic State with a lot of dilemmas that they have to deal with simultaneously. That strategy, i think, is working. It is beginning to expose the tracks, and i think it is helping us with reducing the size of the physical caliphate. It is not just about the physical caliphate, it is the virtual caliphate that goes along with that has to be addressed. In many ways, we are doing that and will continue to in the future. Thats the big idea. In iraq, the main focus is on mosul. The Iraqi Security forces under the leadership of the Prime Minister are working in close formation with the Kurdish Regional government. They have put together a plan, and they are executing it with the support of the coalition. Its not a perfect plan, its their plan, and we have figured out ways to bring our coalition to do with these coalition capabilities to help them move forward. It will be a long fight emotional. I would remind you that if you look at the town of manbij in syria, it took us 71 days for our forces to take that area. Mosul is three times the size of that. This is a huge urban area, and the Islamic State had a couple of years to prepare their defenses. Its not going to be cakewalk, but the iraqis have a pretty good plan. They are executing it, they are making adjustments to it, and we are making adjustments as well with our support. That is the main ocus, and thats what we are trying to keep the focus on right now. Generally on track, a hard fight from us in mosul. In syria, we have now begun, as you have seen some of the isolation of the tom arauca. Here is an element of trying to synchronize both of these things while our partners on the ground are our partners on the ground may not be self synchronizing, the coalition is rying to do that. There is the element of putting pressure on the town of rocca. At the same time, we are putting pressure on the town of mosul. I think we are seeing good effects from hat. That will be a long fight as well. I would highlight to you that weve got to bang different forces weve got to bang different weve got two different forces. In iraq, you have special operations in the form of a recce surface, youve got police and other things that look similar to what we did. In syria, we are working with a much more indigenous force that picks up partners on the go and requires a different way of working with them. These are not equal forces. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. Ut what we are trying to do is make sure our coalition capabilities are matched to those of our partners, and that e are continuing to focus on momentum and pressure against the Islamic State in as many different places as we can. Michael one specific followup on that before i ask a broader question on those countries, it sounds like, if i heard you write, you would not want us to think in terms of a predicted date by which the most whole operation will be concluded. 71 days times three is much of 2017 erratically. Could this be months theoretically. Could it be months more of time to Liberate Mosul . Gen. Votel it could be a couple of months. We will see. The Islamic State is fighting hard right now, but again, i think you have to look at the wear and tear that they are absorbing. The continued strikes, the continued pressure, the inability of them to move forces between their two major consequences. I think ultimately that will happen. But yes, im not in the business of giving dates for this. We are going to move at the pace of our partners and continue to keep the momentum going. Michael my broader question about iraq would be that a lot of people have said as tough as the fight is in mosul, it is a very serious business, no doubt, but also people have said it will be in a way the more manageable proposition compared to what follows the day after. Everyone from my olleague at brookings to general petraeus, many others have argued that it is building that multisectarian consensus that is going to be the challenge. I realize that is a job for a lot of people, mostly iraqis and the u. S. Government, not just you. One part of it that i think probably is within central commands purview is the issue of how we work with sunni citizens, sunni tribes, to build out either tribal orces, Police Forces and national guard. Do you see that proposition perhaps after the fight, and i just during the fight . General votel i do. Admittedly, it comes a low bit late. I do see some decisions taken by the Prime Minister lately that have provided the means to develop those sunni tribal elements to basically hold and be part of the security plan afterwards. I do see some progress. That is certainly something we will have to keep our ion and continue to encourage as we move forward. I absolutely agree with that. As we approach the plan for mosul, this was not just about the military plan. It was about the military plan, the political plan, the humanitarian aid plan. This was a mantra the came across the coalition and our discussions with the coalition of iraq and other partners, that all of these things needed to be addressed at the same time. And we will continue to work on all of these. We cant do one is not independent of the others. They are all very linked. I think we are turned to do as good a job as we can. Im particularly proud of the job the United Nations and others have done on the humanitarian side. They are handling what they are dealing with right now. Certainly, again, knock on wood here. I dont want to jinx myself. And it will become more challenging as we get more into the city. But they are handling it right now and theyve got to the right in place. There an external area level of cooperation between the Kurdistan Regional government nd the government of iraq. Both militarily and politically. They are talking on a regular basis. They recognize this same concern about what happens next that we do. Its not something that is unique to us. They recognize that. With the help of our diplomats, they are continuing to address that. Michael there is no progress on the Iraqi National guard, right . The progress you are talking about is please send tribal cooperation. General votel thats correct. Michael on syria, wanted to sk two things. One, how are we doing against the front for conquest or how i however it is redefined . A lot of people are confirmed a lot of people are concerned, the only plan against otherwise, it remains a formidable force. Especially in the absence of a plan or a promising plan, from my point of view, to share ower with the sunnis in syria. Looks like president assad is try to hold power. Hes got russia and the iranians and hezbollah on his side. It does not seem likely that he is sincere about a political transition. I dont detect any sincerity. Im what about the word the world in which we have made way against isis good but the entire sunni world is enraged against a saudi. And perhaps donald trump has said things that made us seem complicit. How does that war end without constantly giving alnusra and others an opportunity to regroup . General votel i think you are correctly identifying a key challenge for the Upcoming Administration as we look at this. In terms of alnusra, to get to your question, i would agree. This is an organization we should be very concerned about. This is al qaeda. And they have longterm designs. So we have to be very, very concerned about that. To the extent that we can, we have been addressing alnusra. Massively, trying to disrupt or their network, through eadership and addictions and addressing some of their key capabilities that contribute to that. And i think weve been moderately successful in addressing some of that. That said, ese are resilient organizations. And we should xpect that they will respond to this. So the idea of constant pressure is important. And i would bring you back to my first comment. This is an organization we have to be concerned about longterm in how we address that. Taking care of the Islamic State is necessary. But it is not sufficient to the challenges we are facing. Michael i realize that president elect trump is not yet in the white house and certainly the first advice you give him will be private, night in front of all of us. But nonetheless, let me ask is there a way to sustain at least some support for those moderate insurgent groups in syria that have been are important allies, that we feel a certain commitment, loyalty, promised to, who have helped stabilize the jordanian border, who have done other things, however modest and local, have nonetheless been important contributions and we really dont want to desert just because we decide to focus like a laser beam on isis. Do we magine managing to we imagine ratcheting back some of our support for some of the more questionable groups but stay loyal to the ones who have beegood friends . General votel i surely hope so. I certainly hope so. I can think of a number of groups that have been good partners with us and have done are bidding with support. We should look to do that. I hope that we will find a way to continue to do that. Michael moving right onto iran riefly and then we will finish up in south asia before we go to your questions. I want to ask a broad question about iran. Any particular updates that you want to give this kind of a group . It seems people are debating the future of the joint conference of action. Most people who watch it say that it is being implemented reasonably well with the it is at least be complied with. Both sides complain about the other on specific detail. General votel i would share your assessment. From our perspective, it is not my job necessarily to monitor that. But i think it is being implemented appropriately. I think it is addressed one of the threats that we needed to be concerned about. The bigger concern for me is the jcp has not changed iranian behavior. It has not changed regime behavior. The other comes learns we have about the broader iranian threat problem remain. Whether it is cyber activities, the use of sir derek of surrogates, lethal aid, missile capability and other antiaccess capabilities in the region, or whether it is there a professional and aggressive activities in the persian gulf. I think these are all things that remain very, very concerning to me. Again, as we one of the principal interests we have in this area is chokepoints. The criticality of those. The straits of hormuz are an area that are certainly the close watch of iran. My concern the that it will spread to and what that means to us in the future. I am concerned about the continued malign activities of iran across the region. Michael would you describe hat level of malign activity as relatively steady since the signing and initial abomination of age i can offensive plan of action initial, pensive initial copperheads a plan of ction . General votel in yemen in the country of iraq, we look at 100,000 plus Shia Militia Group embers that are there. I think iran has been has had some role in raising and developing. I would say it is a little bit of an uptick. Michael let me ask about afghanistan and pakistan and then open things up to others as well. On afghanistan, president obama decided to hold the force levels steady at roughly 8400. Again, a few of us at brookings with a few of your predecessors and friends, we suggested there should even be a broad range of options considered by the new administration that could even imagine a few thousand more forces from the United States and coalition, as well as maybe some expanded authorities and the use of air power. I dont know if you want to comment on whether we should have a broad review of that type that would consider multiple and separate options or do you feel we are in a steady path you are comfortable with . General votel nothing is on Cruise Control in centcom. I would encourage that we dont take that approach. We should all be looking at what is happening out there for opportunities to change your footprint, whether it is increasing or decreasing. In general, i think we should always be looking at what is happening out there. I think they president s decisions have been very fortuitous to us. The decision to stay as opposed to going at a 5500, which is where we would generally be right about now, and keeping it at a much higher level, around 8400 come i think it was a very wise one. I think its at a very strong message to the coalition, a strong message to the Afghan Forces and the people and afghanistan. And the a 30s that have been granted to us i think it helped us immensely and the authorities that have been granted to us have helped us immensely. And we can keep that going as we assess the environment to keep the afghans going. I think the i think afghanistan is a country worth fighting for. As well as a military member who went with the first wave of forces in october 2001, i remain hopeful about it. I know it is a very challenging environment. And there is a lot of things to address there. But i think its important for us to see this through. Michael how would you describe how we are with battlefield tribes in afghanistan, especially in the last one to two years . Theres been concerns that the taliban has temporarily occupied [indiscernible] last years and taken some excerpts this year. There are some areas in the released where they have always been in flux, but maybe a little less favorae to us at this juncture. I personally detected a systemic collapse either. It seems like 5 or 10 of the country have shifted in terms of opulence and an territory. I dont know if that is a Fair Assessment or if there is a way you would describe the last one or two years. General votel i would describe it as an equilibrium in favor of the government. There has been a number of attempts by the taliban as part of their strategy this year to try to seize a bike relations center. They certainly attempted it on a number of times, maybe seven or eight times since august. While they may have gained some initial success or a foothold or Something Like that, the Afghan Forces with support of the coalition have been successful in addressing that and bring it back into the fold of the government. I am concerned about the casualty rates the afghans are taking. And we are addressing that. I think, as we look not to move from one season to another here, we will i think general nicholson has done an excellent job at looking how we can refit and address these challenges with our capabilities to keep the afghans moving forward. I think they are holding their own. And as president gone he described to me, 2015 was a year of survival and they did. This has been a year of kind of solidifying that a little bit more. There is certainly a challenging security situation out there. I agree with you. That does fluctuate 5 to 6 either way. But the better part of 60 is under the control of the government of afghanistan. Five did 5 to 10 under the direct control of the taliban. And the rest is uncontested territory that we will have to continue to work over. Michael i realize this may be etting into a detailed uestion and best ask general nicholson. But deed but do you see in the trends . General votel it is improving. I am encouraged by my interactions with the chief of defense and the minister, who i think are very serious individuals, are well experienced. And they are looking at things not just from a good capital sense, but are from a value sense. What you do with and how you do things. Im very encouraged by that. I think they police is an area where we will continue to look at the ime am encouraged by some of the things that the president is doing to address corruption in the ranks. There has been the removal of some corrupt military leaders in the past and i think that is well received. I think it sends exactly the right message, that needs to be sent. Michael my last question will be on pakistan. Its a big country. And a big challenge. So i will ask one big, broad question. You can go wherever you wish with it. He just sort of the overall trend we see in afghanistan. A transition in the military leadership has been on schedule. There has been ongoing citizen leadership that has been overturned by cu herod but there is by coup. But there is also support for the taliban care debate in the ease, to finally extend your zone of immediate concern and responsibility to go right up to the border with india, there is a low grade ongoing skirmishing with india right now. How would you describe ongoing trends with secured relations, u. S. Security relations with pakistan right now . General votel it is one that is complex but is vital to us and ebbs and flows. We may be we have been maybe for the last couple of years at a lower point than we have been in the past. But i think this is a relationship we have to have and we have to maintain as we move forward. I am encouraged by the transfer of leadership that has taken place here. It was good. Again, theres a lot of potential ways that could have gone. But i think it with the way we would have hoped it would have went. Beginning to develop a relationship as we move forward. I think it is important with all of our partners across the region here that we take the time to talk with them and listen to what they are telling us and to make sure we understand the situation with granularity. We cant always look at things through our american eyes all the time. Have to understand with her concerns are, what their interests are, and how we try to balance we have to understand what their concerns are, what their interests are, and how we try to balance that. So weve got to look at how we balance that back and forth. It will remain a challenge, a complex relationship, but a better relationship as we move forward. Michael thank you. Remarkable expertise. Im honored to have had the chance to ask questions. Lets start by kieran the back. Wait for the microphone and introduce yourself before asking general votel a question. What are the implications of the right Iran Nuclear Deal . Eneral votel thanks for the question. Im not sure what all the ramifications are. As you know, that is an agreement put in place by a number of nations. I wont presume on that. I dont know. I think it is addressing a concern right now. So i dont know what that would mean and how that will be absorbed by iran if we did that. I think we will just have to wait to see. What are your intelligence [indiscernible] Nuclear Arms Race [indiscernible] concern going into the indiscernible] general votel i think we are always concerned about those types of things, and not just on nuclear arms, the conventional arms in a race that is not healthful to a new thing that we are try to do here. This is something we will continue to watch as we move forward. But i think we just we have to lead to the new administration get in place here and get up to speed on what is actually happening. Im confident that we will have the ability [indiscernible] michael there is a icrophone. Thanks. Daily beast. The Incoming Administration has signaled that it would work with russia to find a resolution to the conflict in syria. The u. S. And russia have had professional military relations in the past come a ot of cooperation, crosstraining across operations. What would that sort of cooperation look like . Could Russian Forces help to the conflict assads forces and keep them apart from u. S. Operations . General votel the deconfliction piece happens right now. It supports our efforts. It is not coronation. It is not sacred as asia. It is not collaboration. It is a it is not synchronization. It is not collaboration. I think it is working for us right now. T is a complex area. So we have to continue to look at that and make sure that we are keeping that properly updated. Again, this is a political decision here that may or may not be addressed. As a meadow terry as a military professional, we will look at what happens here and look at how we adjust to that particular situation. In terms of the deconflitction stuff, that happens right now. [indiscernible] general votel in fact. It is already a challenge for us. Northern syria airspace is a ongested area. So we are finding our way through that right now, through our deconfliction process. This is something we are concerned about supporting our military objectives. We are also concerned about supporting and keeping our forces safe. So we will look at how we do that if there are some changes in how we do this. Michael over here, please. And then we will go over there. General votel divine conservative. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. General, a question concerning iran gain. Theres been reports that iran is advancing not the military ways, but through influence and politics and ulture in america what are the plans, if any, to counter this advance . General votel thanks. I think that question is probably better answered by admiral i think this highlights the concern about iran. I think we have to look at we cant confine or look at iran through just a Nuclear Program or this or that. We have to look at what they are attempting to do. Iran has a place in the world. And iran