The latest book the dragons and the snakes todays event is hosted by the center for related one center for military and political power of studying different strategies policies and capabilities necessary to the freedoms threat security and prosperity of americans and allies. I should mention he is an advisor chaired by former National Security advisor Lieutenant General hr mcmaster. With economic and financial power and the center on sovereign technology and innovation to integrate all instruments of American Power to achieve Better Outcomes for americans and for our allies. Using nonpartisan poly institute we are a source of Timely Research analysis and policy options the administration, the media and the broader National Security community we take any government or corporate funding. This is one of the events we host please visit our website. Today we enjoyed on invite you to join the conversation we have no studio audience we are being cautious about concerns we are live tweeting so please feel free to put questions there. Started with a brief introduction of our panel we have David Kilcullen with authoritative voice on guerrilla and untrue on and conditional warfare and experience over the 25 year career with australian and Us Government and army officer and analyst and advisor diplomat serving as the professor practice at Arizona State for research and Operations Program by geopolitical analysis and related support to government industry and ngos. Now the director for the defense policy studies at aei previously at the International Institute for International Studies and the distinguished experienced in government working with department of defense and state as well as the white house a National Security council. Next senior director of military and political power serving as National Security advisor to members of the Armed ServicesSenate ForeignRelations Committee and 15 years us military officer during a black hawk pilot and assistant professor at west point. So for those who have not read your book so explain briefly the dragons and the snakes. This is a book about military adaptation by adversaries and potential adversaries at the end of the cold war. The title comes from the president one present cia director and incredible prescient guy if you read his testimony when he was going through his confirmation hearing and 93 he was asked the cold war just ended what will be the threat environment America Needs to face to the postcold war. We slay the dragon talking about soviet union but now we have snakes in the dragon is easier to keep track of so he has this vision of week states and failing states and nonstate actors some call snakes and suggests that the state adversaries will not be a big deal for the immediate future which i call the dragon so i am suggesting we have a period of nearly 30 years where im trying to trace the history. If you look at what has happened since then but the dragons have come back now we talk about russia turns out Vladimir Putin his aspiration was not to be a member of Good Standing that was not at the top of his to do list. We wanted to make russia a normal country and they said by whose definition . So russia had specialized with a pretty we cant and four years acting on both sides of the aisle republicans democrats and liberals and conservatives and as a chinese get rich they will get moderate and will be a Strategic Partner its not communism anymore they havent even all that all we were all wrong thats another dragon. Right i suggest the dragons are back but they have learned from this makes it operating in a different way. The Trump Administration is a National Security strategy so it does talk about the dragons in those terms but we call those revisionist powers. The snakes rolled powers as well as nonstate g hardy actors. The National Security strategy is to recognize those threats is that essentially saying the same thing . Is definitely going in the same direction as david but as of different ways he says in the book one thing i would love for people to take away from the conversation which i dont think we have centered our conversation with not just on this panel but generally as we talk about american strategy event on against the snakes and the dragons that this is the bridge of our success great powers were driven to the edge of the conflict spectrum because we are so dominant and high on that escalation matter. Nobody thought they could win a war against the western military and that is why they were driven to the edges. Moreover the notion that russia and china are revisionist powers they are rejection is powers. Russia has determined it cannot be successful on western terms has rightly pointed out they have taken a strategy working on the margin trying not to cross the threshold to provoke direct confrontation with the west that is a smart marginal strategy and indicates we are actually still in their mind dominant in the middle of the conflict that we try to achieve politically and judge the military opportunities we should acknowledge we start from the notion is just not going to be good enough he explained nicely in the book the adversaries have been much more adaptive and we need to limber up in order to remain the better of our own fortune. As a military guy there is a tendency to say lets do what we do well the first goal for thats great so help us by challenging us in ways that we are used to but then that just screws up all the plans that we have and the weapons we will design but that is exactly what they will want to do. The enemies are adapting and evolving and we are not because we got on track. The adversaries are employing the methods so in the end because the military is so effective looking at the russians are operating so cutting the state departments budget to anyone who are spent far more time to speak with the war fighters they want that development and diplomatic experts with the longterm sustainable political gain in the areas of diplomacy development. And one other thing which is a distinction what david wrote in the book and the National Security strategy argues it makes a narrow argument about America First nationalism and for those kinds of challenges they have rightly identified as the nss with those institutions and allies is a much stronger front with to confront these challenges and the two failings of the nss that first they are not actually carrying out the strategy, and second they have that conceptual mistake and then to diminish American Power instead of the fact that playing team sports is what we will do well which is relative to any adversaries but what has been tried by liability one of the great strategic assets. So when we had 100,000 plus troops and unless we have another 9 11 we probably will not go there again. But what we can do is to leverage those forces for air support. The American People need to understand the isis caliphate will still exist. With the 101st from those casualties. And we cannot implement the National Defense strategy so the allies that are working with a very small footprint i dont understand why President Trump isnt with this goldilocks solution 100,000 troops and as you say we are diminishing the Islamic State but also secondarily and tertiary we are keeping out one at bay the ambitions of russia so however when we talk about our allies the germans are not spending enough money for the benefits of retired soldiers. The turks are the second biggest military in nato i see them coming into estonia. I just cant imagine that. Those that have capabilities and that it is about i dont see them contributing and being allies they expect us to protect them with very little input from us. I do criticize in the book nothing is too big or unwieldy and threatening to rush about the same time to generate that unified effect and how that European Group with the nato but President Trump with the last three or four president has mad made. So that actually has had. And with that russian invasion of crimea. And where the germans began in 2016. They are going at it we believe this administration and maybe you dont will make germany and europe more dependent on russia than ever. And the program that people Pay Attention to. And people say we are a treaty ally. That is the difference with allies by treaty and those certain requirements and those on the ground. And the one of the points i make in the book is us dominance poses that adaptation challenge so chosen to focus on certain capabilities and let others led by the wayside. And the british have tried to cover more to keep up but they have less resources in each category. We have to stop thinking of a collection of powers as those joint capabilities. Not only the military allies but when we have a battlefield we need to have a way to translate that into a political success that have generals and helicopters talk about what they should be planning. But he said i want to win and that is my mission at usaid the National Endowment of democracy not so much to nation build with the jeffersonian Democratic Society but in the basic government so that is not a total failure corrupt. Its a good challenge. I was shocked at how little advantage the state Department Personnel system if you think about the American Army mostly what they are brilliant at is taking the bell curve so they look for young women who have the skills and they recruit her and train her. And promote not just by what she has done well but on the potential and broader challenges going forwards. Had brilliant american and diplomats but nobody ever teaches them to swim i cringe every time somebody argues for whole of government for anything in the United States because we have a government design not to do that. And instead of trying to make us culturally better than we are to build a better mousetrap entrepreneurialism. And thats what build on that. And then to pull the troops out if we had stayed there building the largest embassy in the world. And we had worked harder with the iraqis i will not call it nationbuilding but they are proud to vote. Would we be in a very different place . To broker and to put more effort to institutions of democracy. And people like john mccain if you think after 9 11 and it happened again when we left prematurely in iraq. And then very much as we did in 2011. Certainly not in the form that we found those that are about to make that identical mistake is the Obama Administration made in iraq. Before we come back go to the options you sketch out very quickly. That i like to be able to say them on the air. [laughter] so just embrace the stock one it just means something unpleasant will happen and trying to make the most of it. So embracing the suck strategy that us global strategy is the example of an empire like any other empire and then to have a soft landing with a successor. And by the way when president obama favored such manage decline paradoxically and then to execute the obama strategy President Trump and president obama but the problem here is for the strategy that has to be very interested in doing that that the chinese dont want to do with the russians cant do i it. And i think the basic ambiguity and contradiction a President Trumps thinking on one hand he wants america to be great also with the manage decline to make America Great again youre trying to make america and denmark at best. The president wants the United States to get credit without doing the work. And that is the key to a failing strategy. My whole career i have worked for batter one better allies in the nato allies i would love to train the nato allies on trade them but i cannot find a better set of American Allies and that leaves you with a choice does the United States challenge everybody better than they do or do we step back that others will step forward . And those who step forward will not do it on the terms we will want them to do it on. And to sustain the large the beneficial environment. And one reason why they are stepping out more effectively in response to President Trump and you guys need to do more. And by the way if you dont do more now everybody says oh yeah. So now there is a new one sense and with that russian invasion of the european allies. And then to codified of the treaty. And i understand the desire to pay more and then with that effort to article five with that responsibilities that is designed to prevent you are encouraging russia to be far more costly to you are incredibly shortsighted. They have all said you need to pay more but to imply on article five to be shortsighted and contrary to be crash on congressionally mandated. I agree with that i understand why President Trump did what he did but in july 2014 there was a blank check to the hungarians that drag the war into world war i and it is worth thinking about have we not made article five a blank check but to make it a dead letter. A more complex messaging. And with that fundamentally defensive commitment i dont think anybody believes nato allies would back germany up on that. And that they each make to each other and to worry about it galloping off. And eighties 80 percent russian. 100 percent estonian many of them are ethnic russians. Why would Portugal France and germany so im not defending the point of view but that has to be somewhere between the two. And with the russians doing the tank on tank invasion of western europe and it is highly unlikely what is much more likely what is happening right now. And specifically they are being targeted to undermine the political negative a day. Im just quoting President Trumps point of view but i think it is a stupid idea but as we think about russias relationship with the nato but russia has the colony of greece almost entirely oil and gas with very serious internal problems. But then they just act in the organized fashion. And the critical differences. But to organize and aggregating. In that fashion. And saying how it belongs to any policy of russia and with those neighbor sovereignty. And then to blame nato expansion but putins goal to reassert the words russian dominance and with their share of influence but there is no reasonable definition can we say that is a threat. Mentioned that. They Work Together to defend that. Its really important thing what they were trying to do, internal resilience against brad and corey were talking about. Lets talk about option two. Option two is doubling down. Fighting to win against all adversaries. We do what it takes. Lets what we do. The commitment duckling don start of that but its a little narrow we keep on doing what we are doing now, we just do it harder. We spend more money, we get more fighters, we exploit our existing dominant narrowly defined conventional warfare. I argue thats probably not going to work because while i agree with cory about the asymmetry and that strategy, with respect to china is that these guys are pursuing a combination strategy. For example, chinas built an entire new class and knockout a carrier the 2500mile rate on the move. Why are they still failing carriers . Its cheaper and quicker to build or summary which they are also building. I suggest in the book, building carriers to keep those. In order to keep us on the effort and expense in our traditional areas of governance. While simultaneously striking from beside. I think its worth member doubling down means doing more of what we are doing now, suggesting we cant get out of the business of doing conventional warfare, art enemies would just move into space. We got to do more different. I agree with that. The chair of Institutional Innovation at the Stanford Business school has a good book called winning through innovation, he talks about why is it that successful businesses cant innovate . It seems to me extremely applicable to the challenges western military is facing now which is that when you are successful, it sort of doleful hunger for disruption. Its hard to let go of 11 aircraft carriers if thats the way you imagined. Thats with they for after exactly. And gunfire aboard ship. My favorite military strategist, 19th century american soldier by the name of mckenzie was successful on the indian frontier again and again in the fundamental election. What are our adversaries doing right . How do we run the effect of their success by doing Different Things . I think its a powerful case in the book that weve gotten dumb and lazy because we are so successful. We are simply being out innovated in basic ways that we just need to up our game. Our culturally advantage in this regard. I make a similar argument through the lens of adaptive biology. Weve become sort of fat and lazy and at the ri