Has a tv station in libya, its a disaster. The before and during and after, tons of failures, hillary clinton, if she decides to run, hope the American People speak the truth. Thank you. Thank you very much, i appreciate it. [applause] you are watching booktv in prime time. A reminder that every weekend, but tv features 48 hours of nonfiction books beginning it 9 00 a. M. Eastern. Find us unlike us online at facebook. Com booktv. Here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the expand networks. On cspan2 booktv saturday at 10 00 p. M. Eastern on after words, president of americans for tax reform grover west says that americans are tired of the irs and the tax system. Sunday night at 8 00 oclock susan butler on president sink when roosevelt and leader joseph stalin, allies during world war ii and their Unexpected Partnership beyond the war. And then on cspan3 lectures and history, university of Virginia College at wise professor Jennifer Murray on how civil war veterans reunions have changed. And then American History tv is live from the appomattox courthouse historical park, commemorating a coup the end of the civil war. This is booktv in prime time. Coming up next Bartholomew Sparrow talks about Brent Scowcroft and discusses the role played by the general and National Security and Diplomatic Affairs over his 30 year career. About one hour and a half. [applause] [inaudible conversations] at afternoon, everyone. I would like to welcome you to this afternoons session of the washington history seminar. For those of you that dont know, this mnr is a joint project of the Woodrow Wilson Public Policy program and the American Historical Association National History center. Hello, i am from George Washington university and im the cochair on behalf of the National History center of the seminar. As is custom, i want to thank the people who is this behindthescenes effort makes this seminar possible on a weekly basis. It is very logistical work that allows us to pull this off. I would also like to express thanks to the generous financial contribution and support support this activity. Todays speaker is Bartholomew Sparrow who is a professor of government at the university of texas. He is the author of multiple books including from the outside in the world war ii and the american state, and news media as a political institution. He has been a Woodrow Wilson center fellow and he is the recipient of the Franklyn Burdett award from the american Political Science association. Today he is going to be talking about his new book has been published by Public Affairs press and is called the strategists and the call of National Security. Thank you. Thank you for having me. A friend in washington is someone who stabs you in the chest. The irony is that he someone who has many friends. Its good to be back here in the Wilson Center and to be speaking at the offices of the National History center. My time in 2009 as a resident fellow was invaluable from making this project possible and i benefited from the intellectual environment and the many speakers and learning from the other researchers and administrators and staff. I would like to think roger lewis and the others who made this possible as well as pete in particular. And incidentally when i first considered what i would entitle the biography, there were few books. In the meantime these books are published with the same title. Another is a financial thriller and a nerd is advice on how to be the leader that your business needs. So much for planning. And what is interesting is that few in washington and around the country, let me start over, what is interesting is that many do not think that he has a strategy. That he is merely one of their advisors and National Security adviser to george h. W. Bush, and a longtime washington insider. And so for some the title may bring intuitive way. And so neither is he an abstract theorist in the manner of his claims and stages of growth. A world analyst in the matter of Henry Kissingers sweeping arguments and world order several of my interview subjects said they didnt especially think of him as a strategist. But one thing they regarded him as operating between the 40yard line. The u. S. And Foreign Policy officials alike including how they have spoken of his strategic sense. This is that he has kept this largely out of view and notably with the wall street journal in jordan with the Bush Administration not to rush to war against iraq. Brent scowcroft has written about 100 different ones over the course of a decade, and he has provided only a piecemeal and periodical and says a strategist. His vision is further revealed in this report but these two are focused on specific topics and limited by the short length. He has received second billing perhaps because of the alphabet, that many of us have experienced. There have also been published interviews with him and a journal article that he has written, despite the writing, the Global Vision has not been visible. At least not yet, i might add this is where the publication of his memoirs were felt since many are focused on his philosophy and worldview. He captures things discreetly almost always in small groups, oneonone, or in closed meetings. In particular experience has been his relationship with a former National Security adviser with whom he worked closely after nixons reelection and the two collaborated between 1973 and 1970s dublin in which kissinger called him his full situation. This has gone unnoticed by almost all the diplomatic historians and others who have written on the nixon and ford administration. But as his situation in the months before the resignation of nixon but that is only that of the president and the United States general Brent Scowcroft became his most trusted Foreign Policy adviser. The Reagan Administration then brought him to resolve this and later he investigated the irancontra scandal, he became the righthand man and early 2001, helping the intelligence reform advice on the latter issue that went mostly unheeded. He later worked lightly with the Foreign Policy team in their second term in Office Especially early in the administration. With the reddish conk lapsing and secretary of state his prime minister, callahans labor government for this rescue package backed by the United States and supported by germany and france come a great deal of money at the time, the trick here was they had to take these excessive negotiations secret way from the press so that it did not provoke a further run. Another of his situations talked about Ground Forces from central europe. Nato minus the u. S. In comparison to the warsaw pact minus the ussr would be to the Net Advantage and would take the initiative away. Bush eventually agreed to back scaled back version of the plan. He and his staff wanted to create an underlying condition that would make the berlin wall no longer necessary or significantly he was once a taken initiative away to think through this and what they wanted to achieve militarily strategically, economically, or via a set of things to reduce it, which also often meant getting the uk and france and germany to agree. Im a third example was the decision on the Brent Scowcroft commission to push their radical reductions in Nuclear Missiles and to reduce the number of warheads and reconvert or to download this. His argument, and one that gradually prevails was that rockets with up to 10 warheads were both more attractive as targets and more attractive as weapons that can be used in contrast to this. And in fact this is some of the logic. Other moves as a strategist were his insistence that iraq had to leave kuwait the first one in convincing bush and others in short order and his call to support the troop surge after 2007. And so what has allowed him in such a Security Policy. And when the visibility to keep his eyes on the ball . Military political economic, as deputy National Security adviser for National Security adviser proper. And as a professor in the air force academy, he has been able to and analyze to get a feel for this for the possible effects. Thinking about how these players and these were characteristics honed under this Major General also one of the developers of the single integrated Operations Plans and later working to further hone his sense of the International System and became more comfortable working with the press. While the same strategy has to be relevant, if he or she is on the frontlines, and his or her ideas are ignored, that person can be considered a strategist. He is renowned for his long articles on Foreign Affairs the sources of soviet conduct. And policymakers essentially and ignore him for the next five decades. And so the other aspect of strategy is operational. Where its hard to think of any other maker in recent times has been instantly influential indie expertise. And i was one slide behind, excuse me. And this has distinct roots. There are several distinct audiences and this includes military and intelligence and economics. Not only can Brent Scowcroft speak on these issues but he is also able to consider how they intersect. And then there is this drive coupled with ability. Where they have the ability to keep growing. Clearly receiving a fourth star had he retired when he became the National Security adviser in november of 9075. The third is this cordial and respectful personality, if we could comment about how easy he was to work with impressing not only with initiative and willingness to go the extra mile, that even if the ultimate decision did not go his own way, he had strong informed views and willing to be involved in strong arguments. One individual says he doesnt want anything. And he he can be very serious, reserved, and compartmentalized, hes also affable and is not above making offcolor jokes. Its along well with others, and he has a good sense of how to talk about his remarks, whether its academics military leaders, or young people. And some indications of the subtitle, i should say that it feels odd to be writing about someone that still runs his own business and their other prominent figures who are still very much with us so the situation becomes how does this work when we are provisional at this stage. Here i can say yes. Is the biography i wanted to examine and present the root and this includes a member of a very wellestablished family. This was one of the captains of the situation another is Richard Valentine who is also a missionary in india, and a founder of mormon sunday schools. And a third greatgrandfather arrived later by train and found food and dry goods and wholesale merchants, helped by the fact that he was an entrepreneur throughout the west for freight trains where they had to change engines and passengers had to switch from the unit is the victim Central Pacific and vice versa when traveling eastwest. And i cant go anywhere without seeing this that is what they have said that its too rough for them. By all accounts they have a happy and active childhood. With his sisters being poor in seven years older, he was in some ways an only child. Acknowledging that he never heard his parents fighting he commented that this experience gave him a distorted sense of his fellow humans. This is all very fine but what did these pleasant stories and nice family photos have to do with a Business Consultant and statesman . What they convey is just how secure that he was going up. Secure materially, socially, and secure psychologically. He had no status anxiety, and he was in because of a sense of deprivation or other impulse that motivated to leave this for west point and then joined the army air corps. But this is him here. And this sense of security makes a surprise attack on pearl harbor, following the near fatal crash of the north american aviation mustang at the age of 24 that much more serious, and then barely a month after the crash, he received word that his father died of heart attack at age of 57, lying in a hospital bed about the future he decided that he didnt want to be in the Family Business and the fact that this has a further implication, the biography is one simple scientist writing that we have no framework of the presentation of data, this makes a tough study and his records only partially available. We have the many histories and inside accounts with president ial administrations. And bringing perspective it is like one of these College Associates and relatives. And so exercising imagination as was commented, it is a videographer trying to envision being in someone elses world. Its a fools errand to be sure but this is surely to be fair means not just selecting the positive we have as well as one can in light of his or her personal and political circumstance. The final portion, the call of National Security refers to this call to military service whenever since age of 12 he read a brandnew book and he decided he wanted to go to west point. He would serve as commandant, or can the u. S. Military academy at lafayette college, and then go to west point. And then come back and teach others later at the air force academy. He carries his experience coming horrible plane crash in the painful death of his father, and so there are several in the administrations come as well as other purposes and working with strategy group, the Atlantic Council the council on foreign relations, and other bodies he also dedicated himself to her for his wife with type two diabetes, in large part because of the care or wherever it may be will allowing them to come back to work, getting back to work at 6 00 oclock the next morning and so only to wake up and find out more as regard to what had happened. Many talk about is who is serving as the personal individual for the discussion of particularly sensitive issues, working as a Business Consultant and 1977 through 1988, from 1994 through the present and serving as chair or cochair of the Blue Ribbon Commission study groups. So what important elements are not implicated in a books title and subtitle two well one is the momentous history that he was a part, playing a key role with many of the chief events in u. S. National Security Policy of the last 40 years as an adviser to Ronald Reagan and george w. Bush, for these chapters i add was rules to focus on a few principal then so does the u. S. Evacuation of saigon, the development of the u. S. And china relations the board investigation of the iran contra scandal, leading us to this 1991 gulf war and the decision to attack iraq in 2003, where many of the former colleagues and friends and allies were working for george w. Bush. And i also wanted to focus on his role in other important if less wellknown ways. The u. S. Government [inaudible] why Condoleezza Rice departed from the examples in by her mentor and friend on the following. And how Brent Scowcrofts roll and his role in pioneering the development of highranking officials turn to International Business consulting after serving in office. And other niches that did not effectively exist in the 70s. We were sort of keystone cops. After the soviets pulled out with disastrous longerterm consequences. The administration would handle the demise of yugoslavia and not more proactive. Finally the book titled is not give a a false sense of the international is. He accepts the world as it is and believes the United States should work with the powers. In pursuit of common goals for the promotion of international stability. So how does a study of skill cross life ands approach to National Security policy at present . A study of his career and the complicit comparison none of the president ial administrations reveals the importance of personnel and interpersonal chemistry in the white house both between the pres. And his National Security adviser and among a foreignpolicy principles. He learned from the difficult nixon 40 years and the irancontra affair. Accordingly it had to be closely coordinated. This meant establishing the trust in getting the buying of the principal for the deputy recommendations and vice versa. Furthermore what vietnam made apparent was that they had to make careful and close work with congress on the press if way if they were to be working effectively. In public appearances and orchestrating campaigns to pass legislation, sustained vetoes, approve nominees and approve other objectives. The Bush Administration did quite well considering it had to work with democratic majorities in both houses and an media and public tired of a 3rd term republican presidency. The 2nd lesson from the study of skill cross career is is indirect approach. One of his ways of diffusing problems was to think about how to undermine the cause so that the problems themselves dissipate to make nuclear war unattractive, to make the berlin wall no longer necessary to encouraging political and social reform in eastern europe. The same principle would appear to apply to terrorism human human and technological intelligence drones, covert actions special operations mail be necessary and have their place, but there is a place for addressing conditions that make a particular view of islam a pliable option. People have multiple loyalties and other views of islam are different. Neighbors, nationals, sick employment members of certain societies. And it seems that the society that hosts terrorists that this is the best way to remove terrorism. In terrorism. In my lifetime i imagine i would see the end of the ira apartheid command the soviet union, but shifting politics and diplomacy new Public Policies and Global Leadership made irrelevant. I suspect that lessons can be learned. The 3rd lesson concerns secrecy and accountability. When i asked generals go craft he said he was against the revelations with every fiber in his body. This is what i expected consistent with long time support. Surprised. Might have a salutary impact by starting a constructive debate among the members of congress, the press command the republic about legislative oversight, the operations of the Us Government and democratic accountability. Indeed in the recent report they were contractors. You might think this to be oldfashioned, but i suspect his argument would be if they attract the United States power and the road believe in the government. Recent revelations a recipe for cynicism but it reduces the legitimacy of the American Government to president s cannot make possible claims for the United States being a leader of the free world. The subtext is that the United States faces a real crisis in government. Record low Approval Ratings for the polls the congress. The turnout of the turnout of eligible voters in the 2014 midterm elections the lowest and 72 years in 1942 when many voters were dislocated because of military service and the massive internal migration because of revolutionize job market. A feeling of the wars in the middle east and afghanistan are limitless. Moreover, half of americans polled disapprove of president obamas foreignpolicy. In other words, there is a moral dimension to american politics that was clear during the cold war and clear arguably through the end of the soviet union and the 1st gulf war that is now missing. A declining us soft power is not in other aspects of American Culture and society which begs the question of american strategy when there has still not been anything to replace the containment of the soviet union. What is the United States for . Terrorism, extremism, some future group what hope does the United States offer people of the world . I we will leave you with those questions. Thank you. [applause] we now have a healthy bit of time for questions and discussions. We would ask you to wait for the microphone before you begin to speak and when you do you would identify yourself to the group. Lets start right back here. Thank you for that presentation. I look forward to reading the book. In my mind you left a gap between when his plane crashed in world war ii and when he took up as an officer and the pentagon and so on. Did he did he have any other active military experienced . He had a whole career. He could have gotten up to fourstar. He left. He he was put up for his 1st start when he was leaving the pentagon and invited to become mixes military assistant basically to oversee and handle the military operations of the white house which basically includes the transportation, medicine carpool, all of the logistics, all of the presence detail. Before that he worked in the pentagon for a number of years, served and went to the army war college, National War College taught at west point in the air force academy served in yugoslavia for two years as an at a command intelligence post and as an error officer. He worked there and overlapped a little bit and eagleburger would be theyre shortly thereafter. A bunch of different positions. I talked to you about his multi locality earlier and this was one of the things that helped his experience and repertoire of skills like a Large Company he kept being cycled around in the air force was young enough and growing enough because he went to west point. The air force was just established and 48. He benefited from the fact that he was as one person here at the Wilson Center said benefited from the fact that he had a 40pound cranium and at the air force was young and willing to tolerate someone who saw his talent and brilliance and let him survive in his own ticket in a way that is hard to imagine now. I just want to no whether he gave you an indication of how his exposure to actual combat situations shaped his own thinking. And never had any command experience. Military attache duties. Never was in korea. Never was in vietnam thailand a west germany. Never even commanded the missile base or air force base. In the back right there behind. Thank you, bob halfway. You obviously have a lot of access to scowcroft. Can you tell us a bit about the kind of relationship that you develop with them . To what extent do you think he was forthcoming . What did he not want to talk about . How much if at all did you have access to his personal papers . Can you give us a sense of how your relationship with your subject developed . Yes. That is actually a nice question. As i write in the preface is started out with he was a little bit suspicious of me had not heard of me. Me. Before i visited with him he had a copy of my cv and wanted me to prepare a short talk about why it was necessary that his life be recorded and written and argue that i can do this and he agreed. The relationship developed where i think there was a cordial and respectful tone throughout. How forthcoming he was command let me just say that he was very generous only allowing me to interview him about once a month but he would give me other names and sometimes i would ask him to make the entree for for example, to talk to bush 41 or Henry Kissinger or dick cheney. They would call up his office. He would he would say, well blah, blah, blah. People were checking in 1st before agreeing to talk to me. Having said that for the most part he was quite forthcoming. Things he didnt remember. On occasion he would say i cant talk about that. Things that he did not want to talk about Current Business for obvious reasons head of National Head of National Security, National Security advisor also overseeing the community the plans and commissions covert actions. These things he did not talk about. Other times i would come back to issues. We did not want to talk about something and then we would come back. So he was always guarded, protective and that is consistent with him being very discreet behindthescenes. So so he was the opposite of valuable or discursive. Having said that i kind of try to get as much out of him as i could. I came back with questions from what other people said if there was a discrepancy look, i dont understand this, what is going on here. Kind of this cumulative process trying to get more out of him. As someone used to working on sensitive issues well, you show me what you know and i we will tell you how i can help you. I kind of had to know enough occasionally he would volunteer things. More, of course, but his but his childhood or yearly years and later. We had a relationship but the fact that i was a generation younger in some ways maybe that helped me but in some ways i think it was not. I remember reading an interview he did at west point for an oral History Collection and i was furious because everything she told this guy that he did not tell me but also his energy and how he was feeling would very. Sometimes he would be tired and not feeling well different ailments over the course of five years. Sometimes he would be more energetic, more upbeat, more cooperative. It was a relationship. I have a friend just finishing a biography of Robert Mcnamara command they really have this antagonistic relationship. He would say all sorts of things in the open and roughandtumble. Scowcroft was the opposite, genteel and reserved. Back here. My name is steven. Was go croft ever considered for secretary of state . Did he ever have any interest in that position . Yes. North yes about your question. No, question. No, he was not interested in secretary of state. He thought he wanted to be secretary of defense under bush 41. The 1st announcement that bush made may have been upon his election james baker secretary of state. His 1st wife died. Tennis. Tennis partners. They had this long, Good Relationship. That was his 1st appointment. So he was taking about secretary of defense, but then bush and baker persuaded him that National Security advisor would be more important and that he would have could have equal status in terms of nfc or other white house discussions. Even though he had done it before he thought, well maybe this would be good and realized that it really gave him a lot more power and influence. He and bush were just so close. A few months apart in age, both have been pilot starring the 40s in the same kind of background. Back here. I Teach Nuclear history. An officer in the pentagon something of a legend in his own right. Did the name wesley come into your discussions about . Of course he was the head of the Political Science department at the air force academy. But the fact is he is not mentioned by you. He came from the military academy. What kind of influence was there . I did not find much direct influence. He was at west point when scowcroft was there. The commute down to morningside heights. He was there. Later on it was because he was going to go to harvard to do some graduate work. They asked them to come in and 1st serve as deputy chair and then Department Head at the Political Science department in colorado springs. So he went there, they got along well. They are friendly. He later left. And so he is mentioned. I did not find a particularly strong relationship, but it is there. I would like to ask a question about the writing of a biography. I think the challenges of writing a biography of someone who is living poses a set a set of challenges that you dont have on the subject is not an that they can reflect upon the work you are doing and comment on it along the way. One job is to faithfully speak to the historical record and to provide an account that is accurate useful for readers but often times biographers reflect more broadly on the visions, visions, the character, the contributions of the characters that they are writing about. Here i sense that this is very much an admiring biography command i am wondering if you could offer us an example in the book if there is of where you step back and raise questions about either the judgment conclusion the strategy that the strategist put forward. It is mine. I actually have some differences. But i certainly do like and respect him. That was nice. To write about someone i held in contempt would not be much fun. But i. But i gave some examples and talked about the misjudgments, yugoslavia. He actually thought he and eagle berger had been theyre lawrence of macedonia. They thought they knew more about yugoslavia than the folks in the state department and intelligence. They they looked at the evidence of melissa vision what was going to happen in these brewing nationalist separatists and that they did not respond well to that i spend a half chapter on afghanistan and the blowback that is in many ways kind of the root of terrorism and al qaeda. And so i talk about how they after the billions of dollars in the years from brezinski and carter to the Reagan Administration to support the mujahedin and to supply them with weapons and a. Following to the different rebel groups that was the soviets leave a kind of afghanistan is in ruins all these refugees, refugees wrecked towns from the soviet actions as well as from the fighting. And so it is kind of this by water now. And so that is an example. I think they mishandled. They later i thought this was too political. He is criticized for his caution and to guarded, sees a downside. There was something to this. Something to the pitfalls and what might happen but he is also very nuanced and analytic and smart, not but most people want something a little more you know, quicker and uplifting, something, something shorter. They want a song to sing, as it were. He and baker and bush were not very good at this. It this. It was nothing like tear down this wall or axis of evil or nice messages these messages, but some easy way to get a handle on this world that was happening. I. I spend a good bit of time talking about this. The cold war ended and he is a little lost. There is a young teenager and pearl harbor happens. Soon after that well, a few years later you have the jailing of the cold war and how this defined his career. I dont know if they were reelected. Maybe it was too short a time. And for them to really have any kind of systematic transition. A quick followup. You know how he responds to the book itself with a particular criticism he raised . With regard to yugoslavia or afghanistan in your discussions and debates was the push back . Does he come to share your view that these were not perhaps the best moments this is take to his earlier views . No, i mean, they are he sticks to partly the view that Congress Caused the war which i think is kind of taking the symptom for the cause. But for the most part i would present him with information or with a question about something and he conceded on yugoslavia, the panama to come on the end of the cold war yugoslavia, that they kind of mishandled stuff. He was very candid up front about it. Make this faster. Dane kennedy from the National History center. For someone who is such an inside player and discrete the oped that scowcroft wrote about iraq and that you mentioned at the beginning of your talk was sort of startling, i think, for a lot of people. I was wondering i was wondering if you could say a little bit more about that sort of how that his view of the issue fit into his larger Strategic Vision and also what kind of impact that oped had on his subsequent relationship with people who he was very close with before that. I think i think it is a pivotal event. In some ways as i begin the book it is contrary to his personality and not being behind the behindthescenes command we know he is close to 41. Yet mentioned about his colleagues and friends working on for 43. So why would he do this . He had been on television twice having expressed the same perspectives, he had written other oped for the Washington Post after september 11 in october and early october 2001 and in early 2,002. His position was well known. The reason why he wrote it and writes these opeds he has written about a hundred he thinks there is a voice missing. A debate that is incomplete or for whatever reason there are options yet to be explored are some perspective is needed he will weigh in but usually he does not need to do that. They are covering those issues already. So he will only way and if he feels it is called for. There is kind of quality control. What effect this had is it instantly made him hated by the republicans, persona non grata in the administration. A very difficult time for him. He did not say exactly but alluded to it. And it was very awkward. How it came about i spent some time on this because it is interesting. George w. Bush, George Hw Bush put w bush put him up to that which was not the case. They were in very close touch, new each others minds, but scowcroft gave an appearance on meet the press with Bob Schieffer and his colleague and partner in the scowcroft group, arnie cantor, saw this and said hey, said, hey, thats pretty good. He wrote it up and sent it to the wall street journal so knowing that he faxed a copy to the senior bush who faxed a copy to connie rice and then ran and command she got on the phone with him and yelled at him. He says she got taken to the woodshed and denied knowing about his position which was not the case. And and so it made things difficult, but what was interesting is that later on he was in support of the surge. Well, where are we now and what do we need to do . In this situation we cannot withdraw. In the 2nd term he worked closely with rice, hadley and then when gates came in after the 2,006 elections he worked very closely with gates and so you have this guy who has been rejected and spurned, but he keeps he stays pretty unflappable and then works for the administration in subsequent years which, to me suggests just how you know, secure he was. I mean, does not read his own press. A friend of his read it said he liked it. He has not read it yet. He does not read his own press. Maybe just military discipline or something. This exposes a deeper rupture within republican foreignpolicy circles. This division. Opposition early on and then sort of he comes back in. Is that a reflection of the fact that the neoconservatives have less influence later on . Could you flesh out where the different groups within republican foreignpolicy life . He says that he calls himself a rhino now republican in name only. Even though he was closer to carry or obama on foreignpolicy, he supported foreignpolicy, he supported the republicans at least nominally because he felt he had to. He would not endorse mccain in 2,008 because of so many of his advisers being neocons. Again, he has this combination of dove and talk. He believes in a Strong Defense and having clear sanctions and sort of the use of military force and intelligence, covert actions , but at the same time he believed in the dove in the sense that he believes in dialogue as mentioned with the plo or with iran or formerly red china. He believes in negotiation and so he believes that an International System is better while people are having conversations and talking to each other rather than because they have to live together which is what they found out with the soviet union and china. We all have these weapons and have to find ways to coexist. You cannot coexist without talking to people and staying in touch. Back here against the wall. Wait one moment until the microphone gets to you. Thank you. John lewis gaddis biography of canon. Interconnected, his political and other activities. The deepest insight into scowcroft that you can connect with his, you know contribution to american foreignpolicy in american politics. At one point he said to me, there is this gets to his dedication. Maybe it is the duty, duty, honor, country of west point, but dedication to the United States to ms. Patriotism and combined with this discipline. He told them there is no reason ever to be selfish. While. What about when you get sick . Well, okay. But to think that i mean he really is a lot in terms of Foreign Policy and National Security. Its what he enjoys talking about in his off hours with deputy bob gates are after they left office. So it really is this how quite exceptional in that regard and quite exceptional in an extreme case, if you will in terms of Political Science terms of social science terms that he is not representative of those people. So you have this kind of background where he does not really seek although he has done well. Well. He does not need to be a social player like kissinger just happy. Completely dedicated by the United States and a a believer in a way that maybe is a little bit oldfashioned but is kind of consistent with growing up in ogden and utah and having this community that came from all over western europe and the United States into this area to have a committee of believers. Control of his ego. High. James wilson from the state department. I enjoy reading this wonderful book. The question about the relationships between bush and baker and bush and scowcroft and the three of them together. There was a line that come my interest on page 493. You say, during the 92 campaign that scowcroft is the one who asks baker to come back to run the campaign. And you see that you bush could not ask his friend directly. He would then be conceding he needed jims help. I find that weird. Obviously it just seems like a real thing to me. It also gives back. We we get into 89 suddenly and scowcroft is bushs best friend. Baker is bushs best friend people in this administration and it does seem to work in 89 to 92. Previous iterations there is this tension between these different principles that can cause a huge problem. How do you think what is the relationship . How we remembering it as may be a more rosy situation over time . I wonder if i wonder if that came out in talking with scowcroft and others. The 1st issue about why bush would ask scowcroft to ask bigger about him coming from the state department to help the campaign they are intensely competitive. Always thought he could be a a better president do better. If you are so smart how come you are in president. And they have rivalries. Tennis both kind of these exuberant texans. The baker was actually very ambitious, immensely capable very charismatic in a way probably more so than anyone else in the administration. And scowcroft was completely different. He did not really care if he looked rumpled were about how he came across. He would never again to leak anything or think he knew the president s mind. I think they are both best friends with the president. A very different relationship. Some ways there was always the problem of the staff officer, the subordinate officer helping out his principal or superior to undertake some task and to undertake the task as well as one could would be to take their own project and wrestle with that project in figure out that this is what you need to do the because you are working for your principal. I think there was this selflessness, this lack of ego that was missing with baker. So they are both best friends, but different kinds of veterans. It was interesting that scowcroft wrote where is my clicker . He wrote im going to go back to the book title. Sorry about this. Here we go. He wrote the book with scowcroft, now with baker not with brady not with you know not with dan quayle. [laughter] and scowcroft was the only one of his friends who would buy a condo and move up to be around. So there was kind of a real i mean, they i mean they really several people talk about how they just adored each other. They complemented each other in a way that baker and bush complement each other in other ways. Bush and scowcroft. It was when bush was head of the Republican National committee before he was ambassador to the un and they got to know each other at meetings and stuff and work closely with bush was liaison to china in 74 75. And so he was of course kissingers deputy. You have you have to remember he is kissingers deputy National Security adviser but from september of 73 on scowcrofts de facto National Security advisor. And he is differential. And kissinger was still often leading foreignpolicy but in terms of making the government running figure out what shaped policies to take, this was typically scowcroft. Really the partnership. Right up here left side of the table. Lori altman at the Wilson Center. I believe you said that scowcroft was in the Nixon Administration head of the military operations including the medical office. Did he have anything to say about nixons health or drinking . He did. He just said that nixon was not a heavy drinker but when he drank it affected him a lot. You tell stories about when he would give more repressed and reclusive as watergate worsened and that he would sort of haul off by himself and maybe invite kissinger to have a stake with him or something. But waited night he would give scowcroft bizarre orders that scowcroft will ignore the next morning. And so there was a little bit. Again, very discreet and protective and for the most part got along well with nixon and came to csi that we dont see. I talk about this in the book. There was a doctor jekyll side to nixon but it was when he was not feeling insecure. There were occasions when he was not. There were other stories that he ordered nuking sending, sending out the nukes and the defense secretary said he would not take the calls and were taken the next morning. I think Hagan Kissinger put out the word in the last month that the military was not going to take orders from the president. His theories as to why he changed personality. I we will talk about that little bit. I dont know the exact reason. I think i am convinced it is not just cheneys conservatism because he is always has always been a conservative and a believer of strong executive power and president ial discretion. It may have been Something Like perhaps the federal judge or Supreme Court justice when in power in your position may be lord actons corruption of power. On the other hand not on the other hand but another theory and this was possible , we know that heart surgery and heart attacks can affect people personality. A mental fact. Think there is a name for it it is possible that he is somewhat of a slightly different person after some of these incidents. What happened and what prompted the discussion. He makes recommendations to cheney it will not be intellectually honest and practical and a way that he was has defense secretary, not as he was as minority leader in congress. Trained to be a phd, does not get his doctorate, doctorate, but always seems to be a straight shooter and very quiet keeps to himself but always with integrity. Scowcroft found how he handled intelligence where they had a view about reform because it was not doing very well over the clinton years, morale and arranged for the cold war which is now over. That was one incident. Another was just kind of the lead up to the gulf war and how that will be handled information about yellowcake and wmds and so forth. He was spending and cooking and looking like a bad a bad lawyer trying to get whatever facts he could to make his case. This is unlike his earlier behavior and i dont know what the explanation is but it was not his conservatism or decision to act. It was his character and personality as a decisionmaker that had changed. One followup the proximate cause was a comment by a princeton academic about how you need to hit the arabs with the thick stick between the eyes and that cheney was mouthing these sentiments. Yeah, sure, sometimes you want to use force and make sure people no there are serious consequences but to think that this is a policy prescription and that cheney was repeating he seems to be kind of racist and unhelpful. Right next to you right down here. There at the center. Lets go back to a comment that you made about in the the cold war in general scowcroft not feeling so comfortable with the new world and its disorder. Could you talk a little bit about what you learned about his feelings toward europe . In a number of conversations i had with them the europeans are pushing for greater application there are starting to set up a European Defense organization. Absolutely opposed all of that. The principal instrument for dealing with europe was nato. So that seems to be in attitude from the cold war that carried over and did not change. I think that is exactly right. When i looked at the white was german reunification under nato so critical in fact, we should not college or reunification we should College German reunification under nato, because i was the key. From what i read in all candor was the nato rather than having a separate western European Union or Franco German alliance rather than that it to allow the United States to have dominant influence. And this is what they wanted and arguably you could say it is kind of under that is for nafta. The pending nafta treaty and knowing that germany would reunify in fear of a european trade group. And so i think and he also said this in other ways europe, he saw europe and the United States having shared philosophic and Cultural Roots since the 17th century and said that he thought that they were in some ways kind of the you know, you know i think the United States is the natural leader of the world and that europe would be a partner in this, necessary partner. I think that nato gave the United States from to have a dominant influence. On this side of the table up here. A peer. Thanks. From the Wilson Center. You discussed that he talked about the nfc system as he ran it as National Security advisor and in particular views of the people who worked for him. What was rather unhappy with him later. I just wonder about that. Am sorry. The nfc system and how he talks about that, discuss how he found that and then in particular any views of his you know the people who worked for him on the nsc staff. They there views of him or vice versa. Vice versa. A large part of the book and one of the things i ask myself why would a political scientist be writing a biography going to from the general to the particular. It is kind it is kind of antithetical to social science. But one of the things that i realized the answer to your question this really gave me a handle on issues i was interested in exploring, how we organize National Security and how the interagency process works and how you juggle the state department, treasury intelligence agency, white house, political motives all the things that factor into National Security and how it can vary so dramatically between administrations. Someone whose career spanned several administrations and allowed me leverage. So i talk a lot about the nfc system and what he learned. And one of the things when he comes in and takes over from nixon who is now security advisor he quickly changes things. He improves morale hires women, gives them white house mess privileges starts having regular meetings with them. And he is just much kinder. You get a lot more out of people if you are nice to them rather than yelling at them all the time. And yeah. More willing to put in the long hours and do the work that is needed. There was a certain style for management which meant delegating and using what talent he could. So you so you have a lot of academics, policy people some people from the state department and other agencies and he was kind of a mentor to gates. A mentor to rice of course Condoleezza Rice a mentor to hadley in the bunch of others. In in some ways there is this continuation of kissinger to scowcroft and then a lot of subsequent talks with top officials. I am not sure if that answers your question exactly but he was very attentive to this. One of the things a good National Security advisor is able to do is figure out how we will make decisions and that what level and how that will work. I mean, some would say the Current Administration is micromanaging. The 370 person nsc doing too much of the actual substance. They had a very lean staff and one, of course, where there was commandery and in general pretty good trust between despite the competition. They were kind of suspicious over the plans about reunification of germany but despite that they were able to you you know work and have this Lean Organization and really include and work pretty directly with different agencies and their deputies whereas if you do not do that then the defense or state department are disaffected or you get crosscutting policies and so forth. Something that is an important thing i spend a lot of time on. Absolutely. A number of historians at the end of the cold war 89 90, critical of the pause. The long review of bush one trying to figure out how to approach all of that going on in europe. Is scowcroft key to that . Are you able to eliminate why this pause lasted so long if it did back was scowcroft instrumental in that liberation . He is a big part of it. Like many administrations they are intent on distinguishing themselves from their predecessors but more than that and more importantly they thought that with the meetings in reykjavik and with this kind of new detente that gorbachev and reagan seem to be having they thought it was going down the wrong direction and they were not sure what the endgame was and were worried. We seem to have this generation and better relations. And the gorbachev is saying the right things but at the same time the soviet union was supporting afghanistan, cuba el salvador, angola, cambodia lots of places around the world that had not renounced the revolution to overthrow capitalism had not done anything to reform the economy. Yes, there is talk up her striker. And there was so you think about very little or nothing have been done with the conventional and nuclear forces. You think about the cold war , the ideology and military forces and foreignpolicy none of this it changed. And so they came into office and realized that what was going on thinks in some ways to what had started, this was credit due to the Reagan Administration. They realized that they had not done anything about the things that they really cared about the possibility of Nuclear Warfare and actually having new kinds of regimes and eastern europe. So they developed they had a series of what ended up being six different talks. They gave one and ham shrank and detroit, one in one in college station, a couple in the boston area, one in germany they kind of laid out the steps they wanted to take decided that they wanted to meet and have a summit with gorbachev only when they are ready and had a vision in place. Okay. His speech is about how he wants to reform soviet society and he believes in democracy and is not believe they say he is not going to have a solution. Well, he is saying these things. How then do we affect these in ways that matter and is not provoke a crackdown against job to cut which off and the advisors. Our alliance with japan relationship for the 1st time the administration visits china before it visits europe. And as for japan he does not have because the usjapan relationships were so established he said it was one of the most if not the most difficult relationship in terms of understanding the japanese, and they are just very different worldviews and views of hierarchy and democracy and so forth, but he also said it was a very Good Relationship and what mattered for him was the strategic side in cooperating on intelligence and Nuclear Weapons and so forth. He was not concerned really at all about the threat about the value of real estate all the things, japan square that was fine. And the other issues treasury, commerce. He did not spend a lot of time handling japan. We talked a good bit about china. A huge outrage. Congress how the administration was reacting. We have to keep going. They really went the extra mile to not alienate china. And later on they were able to use that relationship to have china not veto some of the un resolutions for the war. But also they are aware that they were kind of he viewed democracy and the reform in china and an indirect product. If there is Economic Growth and there is more that would more openness and globalization, more involved the political reform will come in the United States or other countries to be more to be more exorbitant regard to be more counterproductive. And there is a huge market they didnt want a new bamboo curtain. How things can go south that they did not keep things open and realize they had good historical reasons to resent the west and the United States. The picture that emerges in your talk is of a man who is patriotic, hardworking disciplined, efficient and decent. You also used a phrase moral clarity of the cold war and it was in this time the scowcroft drive the most. But the notion of the moral clarity of the cold war one could question maybe at 40,000 feet it looks clear if youre in the weeds its a little murkier. You mentioned the family jewels. Imagine the irancontra situation. You look at the cold war the human debris is massive. Where does he stand on these issues are how to see reflect . Is this just Collateral Damage because this is about right and wrong . Does he have thoughts about these things . If so what is his take . In that sense he is kind of a political strategist. If need be he was prepared to be ruthless. He signs off. You know he supports vietnam. A lot of things. So it is kind of the priority of the us soviet rivalry but there is also awareness of kind of the limits of american power. He is very cautious and you have to be very careful about where the United States intervenes and when it ask. He is inclined to be a little more he would act on occasion or did agree with certain acts, obviously the iraqi example. But he is kind of modest. Modest. That is where he differs from the neo conservatives are some of the people now clamoring for the United States troops on the ground and so forth. Up here. Amanda. The National History center. You have talked a lot about his admirable personal qualities. Qualities. It seems one way to gauge his effectiveness is to ask whether or not he has been able to be influential as a role model in encouraging other people to be willing to listen to reevaluate and so on. Has he been able to encourage any of those behaviors . I think to the extent with hadley and gates for sure. I think also he has been active in programs with students and interns at his own firm but especially at the Atlantic Council but also with the Aspen Strategy Group. He established fellowships at the scowcrofts school of diplomacy i think it is called. So there is certainly that. What effect they have had so far is hard to know and i dont explore that but he feels very fortunate to have lived a life a life that he hasnt feels that he has to pass these down and has one daughter, one granddaughter. He is intent on trying to nurture especially at the Aspen Strategy Group the Atlantic Council and getting people and meant touring them. Most of these people are probably still fairly young 40s tops 40s tops with maybe the exception of the hadleys and gates but there is some of that absolutely. Our last question here in the back against the wall. You talked a little bit about how were the conditions that he thought extremism and terrorism sort of come about or i forget the word. Can you talk a little bit about his thoughts on extremism or how it comes about . I did not really talk to him about that. I did not talk about the roots of that. I came one of my concluding comments because of his belief in tackling these problems and directly. Certainly i think he would see if there is some great problem he would want to have a multiple pronged effort and have forced but also force but also how clear repercussions and deterrence but also want to find ways to have portable water and create jobs and do those things, too