New book which is called the chessboard in the web. The most recent of several books that she has written. She is currently the presidency of new america. She was formally a director of policy planning at the state department informally dean of the Woodrow Wilson school at princeton. What is important although just some of their past assignments and a very illustrious career whats important in terms of todays discussion is that youll see in her background that amory is both a practitioner and theorist or as a teacher, professor of international affairs. Its an exciting opportunity to discuss her book. Lets jump and tell us about the thesis of the book and why you decided to write it now . It is great to talk to. And to be able to reflect on both of our experiences. As for policy practitioners ive been writing about networks since 1994. As a scholar ive been looking at how to look at how the world was moving from big hierarchal organizations or the world bank. An increasingly toward networks, government officials like finance ministers. Also big networks of ngos with the humanitarian disaster unc nongovernmental organizations playing an important role. When i was in government and you shared many of the situation room meetings, what was strike me as we knew there is a world of states and state reps and sometimes i arrive in china and russia, i think of it as the chessboard world. It is the world of how to we essentially beat our adversari adversaries. We think about a move that we try to anticipate the moves they make. That world is there an important. Equally important is the world of the web. The web of criminal networks including terrorists and arms traffickers in the world of business which is big Network Supply chains. In the world of nongovernmental organizations. I think of these as web actors is increasingly important actors. We dont have strategies on how to bring them together. This book is a book that says ever going to have a world of strategies and how to deal with conflict betweens dates we also need strategies on how to Design Networks for specific people. Who do we connect, how do we connect them and run those networks to advance our goals. This book is a stres part of th. Is a timely book very much. Just building on what you said in your opening remarks, let me just go to what i thought was an effective quote that to depth argument in the book where you say on pages nine and ten that whatever the future brings we need the ability and the tools top rate effectively in a different world where states still exist that have corporate criminal networks is a question of either or or that youre an idealist displayed in the web theres a question to both and how do you see that and how should the reader enter into the book back is back decades and decades among practitioners and students of the field that you been able to come out of. Its definitely both ends. Its a debate between realists and do we pursue our interest or values. Those i would agree are both overplayed. I strongly believe that we have to pursue our values and that is part of our interest. I would also say that we have to be able to put together chessboard strategies and web strategies and often its a question of shorterterm and longterm. When you have an immediate crisis with an immediate stay, if youre thinking about the middle east and thinking about what we do with iran or what to do about syria . Theres going to be an immediate set of choices that will involve other states. We push back, we try to cooperate and signal our willingness to cooperate, sometimes that works sometimes it doesnt. When you think about president obamas speech in 2009, new beginning with the muslim world, to really address the causes of terrorism and lots of other problems coming out of the middle east you need to build networks. Networks of entrepreneurs and civic groups, networks of muslim groups that are pushing back. That is where the web strategies commit. That is where you bring in business, civic groups and you design a network a particular way and run it. The question that leads me to raises someone they call page 37 of the book, the disaggregation of the state. As he just said its been arguing since 1994 is even looking at the networks. You say that the proliferation of the networks as a result of the disaggregation of the state, meaning that different parts of governments are peeling away from the chessboard model policy directed by the head of state and instead created networks of both private civic actors. The question i have is, as were watching debates play out now, i would argue the election of President Trump among things he argues as president and then as candidates a need to return american sovereignty. On the what we see most recently in the French Election where one candidate was arguing very much to pull back from here. You. The document she made at the time to reassert. Arguing that their best served by aggressively engaging the European Union. What is your sense of where this ebb and flow goes as it relates to the arc of the debate in the development of the Network Since 94 when you are making the arguments and digging into it. Guest thats a great question. It goes back, and the book i reprint that famous picture, you look at it and do you see an old lady or young woman. Some of us look at it say its an old lady and i see the big nose in the war. Host is going to ask about that because i saw the young lady and i dont know if that says something about me or what. I will leave that you and your wife. Some of us see the young lady and some see the old woman. My point is that you have to see both. To do Foreign Policy effectively you must be able to toggle between them. Because in some cases the state needs to be unitary. Before under attack thats no time for different Government Agencies the different citizens and corporations to be networking around the world. In those situations the president s commander in chief. Everybody has to be on the same page. When were really under threat, and again i would say dealing with north korea right now or when you are working with iran there were many contacts through the government, the department of energy played an important role, its what i will call a unitary state. Somebody was in charge and everybody was on the same playbook. At the same time, in a globalized world and interdependent world, our networks are a great source of power and advantage for the United States. The fact that our corporations are doing business around the world. The fact that our movies and entertainment are seen around the world. The fact that our universities are attracting students from all over the world and running campuses abroad. Again, our civic organizations like inept networks abroad. We have to be able to do both. The second to segregate estate is a very academic term. It means that our cities and states are able to engage others. Right now Climate Change, california on the cities of new york and chicago, and los angeles, they are actively networking with their counterparts abroad to fight Climate Change. They can do things on the ground are similarly if you find the terrorism. You want the ability to help build educational institutions and businesses in states that dont have opportunity to fight the longterm causes of terrorism. So you have to toggle back and forth. Sometime you need to be unitary, all hands on deck crisis or conflict state. In others places its important that you stay open to the world and able to participate and network. Host its great that you brought up californian Climate Change, that the times reported last week and maybe even yesterday the things that the state of california and Governor Brown are doing as it relates to work on climate, even convening a meeting of ministers of the government of mexico, administer to the government of canada in california strikes me as a remarkable case. The question is, d. C. Risk . Is that ultimately, what is the risk in the for u. S. Policymakers or use it interest . Or, is it just a function that it just is a world as it is. If california were an independent country to be the seventh largest economy in the world, or Something Like that. Its just this way california has so just live with it. D. C. Risk there . Guest absolutely. This is an old question in the Supreme Court has revisited it several times. Im sure therell be another suit right now about what individual states can do. Early on the Supreme Court informs or issued a ruling that said states cannot engage in treaties with other states. California cannot actually create a nafta, formally with the government of canada and mexico. On the other hand, and again this is happening in the 1990s were governor started leading trade delegations to china and other parts of asia for their states. California actively intervened and issues going on in the e. U. Is a lawsuit brought about that about californias taxability. Californias power was upheld. Again this is back to seen the United States as both the unitary country and a country 50 states. At the same time we benefit as a nation having our state be able to afford to relationships with other countries or states run the world. Think about the sister cities network. I think chicago has more sister cities than any other city in the country. All of our big cities have those relationships, that is a form of soft power. That is people learning about the United States and helped with trading culture and the flow of ideas. But what you need to make sure is that a state or city cannot get you into trouble. The reason the founders insisted the Foreign Affairs power be located with the federal government was that they did not want states refusing to pay british creditors. The states were sympathetic to american debtors after the revolution. So its a balance, i tend to favor more autonomy for states and cities because in the web world you simply have to allow more independence. I am mindful that you would not want california making a deal with china that might imperil our defense capacity or undercutting other states economically. Its a remarkably diverse system as we dig into this, i want to come back to some of these case studies. I want to dig in for a couple more questions on networks themselves. The fitting of someone who has been looking at this for a long time ahead of anybody else i know Mark Zuckerberg talked about this, i guess you know something about him creating a powerful network himself. You break down Different Networks and i think the reader will be quite engaged by the. I want to pull out one example that you talk about networks but in each of the networks you bring up you highlight the importance of diversity. I think that is pretty interesting. As you have hinted in your remark so far a Network State ultimately is going to be a diverse state and there is strength in that diversity. Page 134 you write that in the context of a task network their best carried out by small, diverse but cohesive groups, diversity of Team Members Provides multiple talents and perspectives while small size builds trust and spirit for the group to act as one and adapt to circumstances. If my memory serves me you try these conclusions out of a set of networks the former colleague of ours, highly decorated officer in the u. S. Army used to carry out different counterterrorism. Im interested if you want to spend time on the differentiation of networks that might be interesting but im also interested in the concept of diversity. One could argue the debate that we referenced in this country and in europe between those who want to stay in the European Union and those in the brexit vote who want to get out, there is a debate about diversity threatening something particular about them on the chessboard, something they identifies uniquely their own, the question i have is a little bit about the question of sovereignty. You argue its both a chessboard and a network but, is there pushback on this trend because people are feeling their sovereignty right away in certain things they dont identify as their this powerful diversity, maybe theyre entrenching, is that a fair conclusion or do you see a different one . Guest i think that is right. Let me start at the end and then work backwards. To oversimplify, you have states that are more close to more homogeneous. At least over ten years, 50 years you think about this great wave of globalization we have been through that starts in the 70s and 80s and takes off with digital technology. Suddenly the world really is a web. Look at the map of the internet we are all connected and you cannot see national boundaries. That process brings all sorts of benefits but it also has it brought its lots of immigrants and changing cultures, lots of suddenly new ways of working and being that many people find quite frightening. One of the ways of understanding our politics and european politics is this desire to close backup and be a chessboard state. We are france, the United States, britain, this is what defines us. This is our people these are customs and here we are in the world stage. Again, you do have to Pay Attention to that. Part of that is real anxiety at a way of life that was familiar and comforting and that you can be proud of but many people feel is slipping away. You have to Pay Attention to that answer our ability to defend ourselves as a state. The other way to understand it, it is the countries that have the most diversity internally and are most connected to opportunities and ideas abroad that will force the most. Again, this is not all good or bad, some people will hear them say like being connected to countries where there are criminals like drug runners are again arms traffickers, or terrorists, we dont want to be open to those countries. Those contacts and networks bring danger. Fair enough, you have to protect against that. But those connections also bring us exports. In talent, and the diversity that brings us new ideas, all the people who study innovation sailor, innovation and creativity comes from the collision of unexpected things. Therefore all the same people who grew up in the same place in think of the same stuff are less likely to come up with something new that when you reach out to those who dont know so well and expose yourself to new ideas and put those together with your older ideas, that is the magic of the spark of creativity. When you look at that from the perspective of a country, the United States, a country that has connections all around the room through culture and business and people in educational system, in the world of the web that openness is our greatest asset. In the world of the chessboard we have to be closed enough to protect ourselves. Host im persuaded by the argument. But, i think one of the most powerful thing in a well argued book is the argument you make based on sam mcchrystals experience which youre not talking in terms of a Broad International geographic geopolitical question, although he is leading other remarkable units in foreign countries. It seems to me in reading this book that general mcchrystal would argue on the individual tactical level what you just argued on the interstate strategic level. Is that a fair reading of his experience . Yes. Its a great example. I wanted to write this book in 2011 after it came out of government. We taught a course called making Networks Work and i have been writing about networks for decades. I wrote an article in the atlantic about a working family and it got knocked in a different direction. While i was working on issues of women and men and work, their k the book, a team of teams. I was thrilled because he describes being in charge of special forces in iraq. He has to fight al qaeda in iraq and he opens with this description of an attack in the very quickly the people involved figure out what happened and reconfigure and repair the damage to their network and then go on. You are reading it and you think he is describing our special forces, hes not. Shes describing al qaeda and iraq and send that kind of flexibility, adaptability and nimbleness was characteristic of the al qaeda and iraq network that we cannot match it. Even though our special forces is the most nimble part of the military we are to hierarchal. Then he takes special forces and first takes a command of teams, he was on top and there were different groups, the Logistics Group and Communication Group and he figures that had to make that command into a team of teams, where his different groups, each one connected to all the other groups, but in ways that are flexible enough so the network can become one big entity where everybodys connected to everybody else. He describes the strategy of shared consciousness. Then it can come back together and this team of the different teams. Each of whom can act independently. That is a strategy hes uses on the battlefield and as a business consultant. Its a great example of thinking strategically about the type of network you need for a specific task. I describe it as a task network and i could talk about scale networks. His is a very compelling concrete example of the idea of a strategy of connection. What struck me as an aside in terms of our time together in the government is that in the military it seems that the experience he talked through of general mcchrystal was not the exception but rather the rule. The military had a remarkable way of after actually each of their undertakings so as to ensure their trying the best lesson in making themselves that much more number. Seems to me that comes through in your book for the big strategists they say too often now we have strategists that are stuck on one side or the other of this divide between the chessboard and the web. Sometimes maybe the Public Perception is that our armed forces are strictly chessboard actors when in fact, they are precisel