Transcripts For CSPAN3 American History TV 20141105

Sevenminute documentary on the theme, the three branches and you. To show how action by the executive, legislative or Judicial Branch by the federal government affected you in your community. Theres 200 cash prizes for student and teachers totaling 100,000. For the list of rules and how to get started, go to studentcam. Org. Up next on American History tv, author Elizabeth Cobbs hoffman describes consequences of United States role in world leadership. Asking, is america umpire or an empire. Miss hoffman argues that the u. S. Played the role of umpire since 1776 but also argues that umpires cant win. This program is sponsored by world denver. Its about an hour. Thank you so much, kay. Thank you all for being here. I cant tell you how pleased and honored i have be here addressing the World Affairs council. And especially because what i hope we will discuss tonight is i think one of the most critical conditions of our time. Which is youre not going to know it, because i didnt turn on the microphone. Good, youre human. Where is the button here, kay . No. The green light, right . The classic green light. So anyway, im here to discuss one of the critical questions, i think, of our times which is why the United States assumed the role of world defender after world war ii. And the question of whether we must continue this role indefinitely. Now this conversation springs from my new book which i hope is available outside. But also from an op ed i wrote for the New York Times last year with the title come home america. And this was subsequently the subject of a morning joe show on the same subject. And in the essay, i observed that everybody talks about getting out of the iraq and afghanistan. But what about germany and japan . And in essence what im trying to raise is a very fundamental question. Where do i go from here . Do i need to make more basic changes that turning point in our national history. Because i think in many ways, for me, and im a historian, that our nation suffered from a lack of historical self awareness about our role. And its the lack of historical self awareness that makes us a target and obscures and confuses our future choices. This is where history is important. Im kind of a cheerleader for history. Because history shows us the big picture. It gives us those longrange trajectories that help make sense of the mess and the turmoil of everyday crises. When i say everyday crises, im aware that that sounds like kind of a putdown. No. What i mean by that is that World Affairs have crises every day. So we need to understand the big picture which helps us make sense of our choices. To give us an example of what i ink of this kind of historical confusion, i like to go right to the top here. President obama said last year, when he was addressing our nation about the question of intervening in the Syrian Civil War, and he said at that time that the u. S. Has been the chief enforcer of International Law for the past seven decades. And then the president asserted, america is not the worlds policeman. Well, what do policeman do but enforce law, right . He also said and this was just a couple of weeks after that. He was addressing the United Nations. He said the u. S. Seeks the world in which state sovereignty is respected. But also in which sovereignty cannot shield a regime from outside intervention. This is a flat contradiction. The whole point of sovereignty is absolute authority within territorial boundaries. Now in a sense what the president is doing is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. What he is really saying is we are seeking a world in which sovereignty is subject to external checks and balances to protect individual human rights, much as the federal government operates in the United States. By the way, i want you to already be sort of listening. Checks and balances is such an american term. But in way this has do with the american view and also, i think, the american role in the world. Now i think that this kind of double speak isnt intentional. And i think we see it in president after president. So this is not a democratic or republican problem. Its an american one that we suffer from not knowing exactly what where weve come from and why. I think it reflects a lack of understanding about the structure of the world in general. And if we dont understand our history, no one else will. Because were the ones who write about it. Were the ones who tell people, this is who we are. If we dont understand it, they wont either. By the way, i hate to be a tease because i cant possibly answer all of the really Big Questions in 45 minutes and my idea here is to give you 300 years in 45 minutes. But i will do my best. Because the fact is that the u. S. Exercises a very unusual role. As the nation with the greatest and yet very limited power in the world. The power to determine outcomes in Foreign Affairs. When things go wonky, people ask, whats the United States going to do about it . They say, whats mexico going to do about it. Or france or iran. 95 of all soldiers serving op soil other than their own are americans. That includes u. N. Peacekeepers and troops. This sometimes creates new problems in the process. This raises very important questions and possibilities. For example, are we the worlds policemen . Or from another perspective, are we a selfimposed bully . Are we an empire . Seeks to dominate the world for its own geopolitical benefit and Economic Prosperity. Thats door number one. Door number two, are we, as many realists believe, instead the only power that stand between the world and armageddon between a ref repetition of the Great Depression or world war ii or even Nuclear Devastation of the planet . Is that our role . If thats true, must we play that role forever . Regardless of what it costs. What it costs our schools, infrastructure, domestic security, treasury. Our soldiers, are psyche. Door number three. Or is it possible and this is what my research suggests. Has the road weve been on for the past 70 years been a detour, a necessary detour on the main path to which World History has actually been heading since about 1648, and now is the time for course correction . If im right, then my book challenges us to transition to the next phase of our national epic. Confidently and affirmatively, learning from both successes and failures, indeed to objective, scholars must be as rigorous with the identifying what went right as with what went wrong. As i said, i cant get all of this material and get it all out there. But im going to come pretty close. And for that, youll have to read my book. Every author has to put this plug in there. So, im hoping you will. What american umpire does is try to take essentially 300 years of history and make sense of it so we can understand where we might go. So in todays talk i want to do three things. First of all, i want to tell you a little bit about why i wrote the book. As kay said, im also a novelist. I have lot of irons in the fire. And i also like to explain why i think the reigning scholarly paradigm, this is my second objective, be only why the wrote the book but the way of looking at the world as i think most scholars adhere to is wrong. This refers to the u. S. As an umpire. Lastly i want to produce an alternative. This is a very persuasive explanation. And, in fact, people all around america are starting to call it the empire. I was watching jon stewart the other day. And my hero said, this big imperial nation. No, john youre wrong, but he hasnt called me yet. So i would like to propose in alternative explanation. Which in a nutshell is that world as a whole has devised new norms over the past four centuries. And that these norms are not just made in america. They are worldwide. But that under the press of catastrophic events in the 1940s, the United States reluctantly refers the long standing policy of political nonengagement, nonentanglement and adopted a function thats akin, but not identical to one actually used to playing among its own states, the role of an umpire, to compel acquiescence, between squabbling governments, in moments of crisis. At the time we did this, we were the only nation with a relevant experience and requisite capacity. So, why did i write this book . That is a long story. I wont bother you with the whole thing. But it goes back to when i was first interviewing to be a graduate student and i was interviewing for a scholarship. An Important National scholarship. I was very excited and nervous about the process and there was a panel of experts interviewing me. I was going into the field of what is called diplomatic history at the time. I was asked, young i was, why do you want to enter a dying field . Well, i didnt know it was dying until he told me that. I had to bunt quickly and say, well because we cant let it die, right . This is too important, subject of americas relationship. But he is right. As i discovered. As in the field of history dying, i think for a couple reasons. But in this cultural and social history became very attractive. I think the other reason, i think a lot of Young Scholars repelled by a field in which there was own only ever one answer to every question. Which is if you were look at what had happened in the world, the answer was pretty much america messed up. And so whatever the reason, scholars left the field and what happened is that political scientists took it up. And are mostly concerned with modern policy issues. Their knowledge of history is not deep. Thats not their field. And the historians who stayed in the field are historians generally who subscribed and often do generally subscribe to the idea that the american record is one long story of empire and imperialism. And that goes back to George Washington and ben franklin. But empire, i think, is a terribly misleading term that obscures challenges facing us today. And misdiagnosis, as we know, is often more dangerous than no diagnosis at all. With a misdiagnosis, you can make the wrong prescription. There are groups like al qaeda which also claim the u. S. Is an empire to which there is only one answer which is death to the empire. Or death to america. What i would like do is tell you about who some of these people are. Sometimes i myself even think, am i exaggerating this, that this is the reigning way of understanding the u. S. Role in the world, at least among my peers in the scholar community. I would like to run through a couple of titles for you. This book is by neil ferguson, a brit. Though he is at Harvard University. Cause of the rise and fall of the american empire. Another book, richard emmerman, from Temple University in philadelphia, empire for liberty. And from Benjamin Franklin to paul wolfowitz. Harvard university professor, charles mayor, american decendency and its predecessors. Simply named, american empire. Reality and consequences of u. S. Diplomacy. Or this is more of the basics. Empire the way of life, granddaddy of them all. This is actually the 50th Anniversary Edition of this book. Very simply named empire by michael hart and antonio negre. Some people put a positive spin on this. Saying the u. S. And europe has not just had the monroe doctrine, it is the Marilyn Monroe doctrine. As you can see. Shes not a blond but its the same idea. Or how about the empire trap, at Harvard University again. Now talking about the empire or in praise of empires. This is a historian at ucla. Now by the way, i want to suggest that this is not all criticism from the left, and sometimes people from the opposite side of the political spectrum will say actually we need more empires and we just wish the u. S. Were a better one. Thats another way of interpreting it. This is probably the most famous interpretations of the u. S. As an empire by johnson, who wrote this is now whats called the empire trilogy. I sometimes feel like im arguing against lord of the rings. This really is sort of the reigning paradigm. Out in interesting thing about this term empire is that almost nobody defines it with any precision. It is this absolutely sloppy catch all phrase thats used to describe everything from tourism and religion to Foreign Investment and war. Now i know youre saying, what doesnt she be a little more direct about what you dont like about that term . I actually felt pretty strongly about this. Essentially the term, to an important extent, its used to describe most every catastrophe in the world and any catastrophe with which the United States is associated as an outcome of our attempt to control and really exploit the rest of the world, as if this is the only possible explanation for americas mistakes or its successes. So to give you a sense into the peek of these books all youve seen are the titles. I want you to get a sense, whats the flavor of this criticism. Johnson for example described americas bases abroad and theu has hundreds of bases abroad as a striking evidence, quote, for those who care to look, an imperial project that cold war obscured. Andrew bacevich. Who is a conservative those some say he is so far right that he has come around to the left. That the intervention in iraq as he put it was, quote, a war for the imperium because the policy in total is to, quote, expand an american imperium. Again, this is not just a right wing, left wing thing. On the left, clearly left side, the lord socialist web says quote iraq was a predatory imperialist war. Carried out as part of a longterm strategy to reorganize the middle east to secure american interest. Another british commentator, tarik ali, he writes, quote, when people tell me that the american empire is weakening, i say, dont underestimate it. Europe and the middle east fall into line when the United States says this has to be done and that had to be done. The only sovereign nation today is the imperial nation. Now, this is not just in the ivory tower that these accusations are booted around. Very sadly after the great tragedy of the Boston Marathon last year, dzhokhar tsarnatsaern who engineered that bombing, his neighbors were interviewed and said he went around ranting about the american empire shortly before he set off the bomb that killed so many innocent people in boston last year. President obama, this accusation of the empire has been out there so prevalently since 2003, that not only did george bush but also barack obama, both come out about this. And barack obama told the u. N. Last year, quote, the notion of an american empire isnt born out by americas current policy. We seek a world where a nation does not covet land or resources above nations. President said this. About an hour later, there was a commentary about this on democracy now, a Radio Station associated with the nation. And that time the commentator said, quote, obama basically came out and said the United States is an imperialist nation and we are going to do whatever we need to conquer areas to take resources from the world, unquote. I dont know what machine he put it in to get that translation out, but the point of that is that when you wear a certain kind of glasses or maybe a certain kind of hearing aid, you only hear it in a certain way. And thats why i think this is a terribly important conversation for us to have. And so, jon stewart and others lively say were an imperial nation, i say dont take that lying down. Or at least submit it to analysis. So thats why i would like to step now to talking about the reigning paradigm and the historical profession. And on what basis the United States is called an empire by serious wellmeaning, you know, virtue use scholars, many of whom are my personal friends. One of the bases for this is that the u. S. Was expansionist, you know, throughout the west. Here we are in colorado. So we know that story. The u. S. Expanded over native american nations. It went to war with mexico. Thats why we call the u. S. An empire. Other people say, no, no, no. The main reason to call the u. S. An empire is because of its 20th century military dominance, the bases that we have all around the world and the coincidentally not c coincidental spread of American Values, trailing along with those bases. Some people say thats why were an empire. Others will say, other scholars that it is 21st century economic dominance. How else do you explain it, right . It must come out of the imperial quest. Well, the thing is, the interesting thing is i was writing this book which Harvard Press brought out just last year. I thought, my goodness, when you take off these glasses and the hearing device that filters evidence, you actually find that theres a lot of evidence, obvious evidence that argues against all of these forms of interpretation. Lets take the first one. The u. S. Is an empire because it expanded across the west. That does sound fairly imperialistic. Especially considering the war against mexico. It sounds that way until you say, okay, what was the context of that . In fact, in the 19th century, this was happening throughout the americas. I like this particular picture because it shows what a crazy, crazy quilt latin america was after it declared independence. In fact what happened was there were 21 border wars, very similar to the u. S. Mexican border war in the hundred years following latin america independence. This particular one shows latinamerica before the war of the pacific when chile invaded north and took big chunks out of peru and bolivia. Very similar and justified in almost the same exact way as the american expansion. So if we want to call chile an empire or uruguay an empire, i say do it. But we dont. Why . Because those became nation states in the rights that citizenship are defined a different way. Theyre just a different animal. By the way, the chileans didnt just stop at butting up against the neighbors. It wasnt just chile, there were 21. They also expanded against native American People. Vast campaigns taken to dispossess native americans of their land. And you know, horrible event. We all know how horrific these kind of complains were. Very brutal and yet this is what nation states were doing. 19th century is the era we know of as nationalism and nationalism is often not pretty. Standard have changed offer the years. We dont call it empire because it is a little bit of a different thing. The other reason why we compare the United States to empires of the past is because of military bases. Now again that seems logical on the face of it. Except when you consider that when the United States has military bases abroad, it has it on the basis of the contractual agreement with the country that is the host country. And the host can kick us out. You know what happens when the host kicks us out . We go. Empires dont act that way. They dont. I like to show this slide because this is the years that United States was in france before our oldest ally kicked us out. After world war ii. They said yankee go home. Im not sure they said it in a nice polite french sort of way. Perhaps with a glass of wine. They asked us to leave and we did. Same is in the philippines and elsewhere the United States left after a period of time. And, in fact, everywhere the United States has intervened it has ultimately left, unlike other empires of yore. Now the other reason why people sometimes say, the empire is because of its economic prowess. I always like to say to this, consider one fact. The United States has the Worlds Largest economy in 1890. 1890. Before the first dough boy hit the shores of france. Before the United States joined United Nations. Any such thing. So americas economic story is a very different story from that of empire. And yet this is where we all get stuck. We say, yes, but the u. S. Is the primary guarantor of world security. Why do we get involved . Why are we involved in all these other countries . By the way, the japanese call this more or less the yoshida doctrine. Which trans lates more or less into let america do it. Why is that . This came out of world war ii. And in fact, one of the interesting parts of this story is that there wasnt one country, other than the United States, that was willing to sign a peace treaty with japan at the end of world war ii because of its behavior in that war. You think nazi germany was bad and it was horrific. Nobody is willing to sign a peace treaty. It wasnt until 1951 that australia became the second country after the u. S. To sign a peace treaty. Why . Because this all took place in the same week and a foggy week in san francisco. This is where the novelist comes out. I dont know if it was foggy. San francisco often is. But what happened is in the very same week that the peace treaty was signed with multiple countries with japan, that was at the end of the week. At the beginning of the week, the United States promised as you tral wra and new zealand that we would be there if japan ever rose again. Immediately after that the United States signed the new york japanese bilateral treaty that to assure the japanese we will do this for them. Please, you wont have to pick up a gun. We will be there all the time. That way nobody is worried. After that, everybody else was willing to sign a peace treaty to rehabilitate japan and bring it back into the modern world. Thats been at great expense to the United States. So we undertook this role and part of the reason i think that it is so hard for us to understand exactly how the world unfolded, is because what we do see is the fact that United States has influence has spread at the same time that theres been a spread of certain values, which we tend to call American Values. But i dont think that we need to explain this as being part of a plot for the United States to rob others of their autonomy and their resources. The reason for that is because the very same 70 years, makes you think the United States has had its most creative influence is the same point of time in which sovereign countries are autonomous countries, able to make their own decisions, have quadrupled. And the great Economic Prosperity in history. So what is the alternative explanation . All right. Phase three of this talk. This is why i wrote the book. This is why i think the other ideas are wrong. What is my idea . I think that one way, the best way we can explain the spread of American Values is because they are not american. We need to understand something about the world. What World History show says that spread of useful techniques of human governance and Economic Production have always spread outward from the point of outward from their point of origin. But a lot of the values, some did not originate in the United States. Even though that did, they spread out because other people wanted them. Not because they were coerced in any way. To give you an example, about 30 years ago, if anyone said to you, you will all have a computer in your pocket in 30 years, you would be thinking, oh, my god, how will i walk with a computer in my pocket. We now all have computers in our pockets. Not because apple to coerce anybody to buy the iphone. People line up to buy the iphone. We have these devices from Silicon Valley to siberia. In many ways, what we have to compare this to is the fact that there are other monumental changes, which we dont deny and similarly human governance has changed. To give you a sense of this, i think this is have similar to transition from the paleolithic to the neolithic. What defines the stone age is the fact that they didnt have farming. When farming was invented or discovered, plants were hiberdized. No one who to go around forcing farming down anyones throats. They were like, whoa, farming. Thats better than hunting and gathering. Another epic change in human destiny was the Industrial Revolution and nobody has to go around saying you must drive a car now you chinese person. No. People want cars and they want machines because of the valuable things they bring to human life. We dont go around saying, when we order a sandwiching with saying i want a turkey sandwich on reye bread. This is just absolutely true, in fact i know it is true. That a similar epical transition has gone on in human government. And the United States has been a big part of that. So have other countries. The United States became a big part of the transition, which is a transition that took place over many centuries from the empires that competed militarily toward capitalist republics that compete economically. Its just the world we have. And it hasnt forced other people to do this. Rather they elected to. But it was also a big part of it because it embodied so many of these kinds of characteristics. In a way, stature grew because, like the iphone, it was cool. Now to give you a sense of this, the latin american republicans after the United States was formed, 20, 30 years after the United States was formed, latin american countries they werent countries yet. Colonies began to break away from spain and portugal, they all declared themselves republicans. Did the United States make them do this . No we were just this little teeny tiny country. In fact they went one better than us. They took the ideas and ran further in some ways. They abolished slavery, 40, 50 years before the United States did. Also declared a republic. Did we make them do that . No. Nevertheless, the United States is important because they show Different Things could be done. Things that had been talked about for generations upon generations. The United States shows that could you have a chief executive who retired after a designated term. Also it was possible to create a durable peace among competing states and which would be on some basis other than a volatile balance of military power and, thirdly, that you could have open commerce across borders. If you want know why the United States was wealthy by 1890 in global terms, a lot of it had to do with open commerce across state borders. We had the European Union long before they had the European Union. So in any case, what the United States did is they showed different kind of pipe dreams that you could actually realize. And what was said by a french observer at that time, in 1830 he was such an interesting fellow. He knew washington. He knew jefferson. He was there on the ground when the revolutionary war was occurring. He was also the diplomat for france to arrange the louisiana purchase. Hen he came back to see america in 1830. He was so he said, i saw a former president walking along the sidewalk. He just thought that was the most amazing thing. He said the government of the United States has no model in ancient or modern times. So what the United States experience demonstrated is it demonstrated possibilities much as magellan demonstrated that the world wasnt flat. Magellan didnt make the world round. He simply circumnavigated it. So my book surmises there were three, in a way, swren acre principles that were part of what happened. I called the access arbitration and transparency, i think it is better than life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Because those have too much of an american flavor. These are really world values. The transition by which nations replaced empires. This happened and this happened over a period of many years. Really it begins with the treaty of west in 1648 when the europeans basically kick out Papal Authority and say, no, we are states unto ourselves, and it continues through the breakup of the soviet union in 1991. Its a long process, but it does happen. Now what do i mean by these values . I would like to explain it briefly because we are coming up on the time deadline here. I like to begin with adam smith. Who wrote the wealth of nations in 1776. He talked a lot about the fact that if nations were open, that if trade could proceed in an open way that not only would society become freer, but it would become more personally fulfilling and also more prosperous and wealthy. This, we think of the hidden hand of the market and all of that. The idea of access. But my more modern example is this fellow, ping. If you want to talk the about the principle of axis, we have to talk about china. Those who talk about the United States as an empire, they often talk about the open door u. S. Policy towards china in the 1890s. But the fact was that the United States not only advocated open, equal markets for all fortueigns in china but also the maintenance of chinese sovereignty. A possibility that china would become like africa, divided up into parcels and parcelled out to europe. And the u. S. Always defended chinese sovereignty. And in fact thats kind of what got us bombed at pearl harbor because no good deed goes unpunished. China did close itself off for 40, 50 years. What they found, however, is that by closing off all access to the west, they actually were becoming poorer and poorer. Deng xiaoping did a 180, not because china lost the cold war, not because china ceased being communist after its own definition, but because Deng Xiaoping saw china falling through the cracks. He initiated a policy called opening up. 3 million chinese have been pulled up out of poverty. Often people ask me how can we trust china . And i say we dont have to necessarily trust china, but we can trust the process. The process thats made it in the selfinterest of nations like china to open up their markets and compete with others. The principle of arbitration is also very old principle. This picture is the treaty peace of westphalia of 1648 in which the idea maybe, maybe, hmm, how about this . Instead of nations warring with each other to advance their interests, maybe they could arbitrate their differences and that would be a better not only a more moral way of getting along in the world but actually a more profitable way of getting along in the world. The peace of westphalia, but the formation of the modern United Nations is the culmination of this ageold dream that predates this u. S. By 125 years Something Like that. But the United States has an equivalent of it. I like to point to the Constitutional Convention because america was a little weird well, america still is weird, but part of its weirdness was that the idea that you could have states that were neighbors and normally the traditional idea was that your neighbor was always going to be your worst enemy. Why . Who is going to steal your stuff first . Its your neighbor. Look at ukraine and russia today, its your neighbor you have to watch out for. The United States formed a kind of arbitrational if thats a word process by creating a federal government. Designed basically to corral states that otherwise might come to blows. The last principle is the principle of transparency. I like to show Mikhail Gorbachev here because transparency serves arbitration, it serves access. You cant have either without transparency, but this is certainly not just a western value today. Glasnost was the policy of gosh ba shove who benefited for his own country because they had lost the cold war. Have you noticed that the swiss have been in trouble in recent years because theyre nontransparent in banking . Who ever thought wed see glass windows in a swiss bank fault. But the one criticism you can make of anybody is you are insufficiently transparent. Oh, thats not good. This is truly an international value. The outward spread of these that tools for selforganization explains the spread of American Values without coercion. But it doesnt explain why the United States got involved, why the United States jumped with both feet in 1947 into the role that we continue to have today. And i think that the answer is not just an answer which naturally enough will say, well, world war ii and the cold war and the soviet union seem to be on the verge of nabbing western europe, everybody else was devastated. Who was going to take up this cudgel, so to speak, and all of that is true. I dont know if you remember, the british were on war time ra rations until 1955. They were on rations for butter, cheese, meat and other basic food. The cricket has gone out. Thank you. In any case, the United States did this for reasons that go beyond simply the historical moment. Theres something in our dna. Theres something in our dna. And it goes back to this word empire. It was a word that our founders used to explain what they were trying to create by creating a union of sovereign states that would prevent ultimately these sovereign states from falling out amongst each other. So in the federalist papers, they explain this. And if you read the federal eyes papers you will see such quotes, john jay one of the authors, in disputes between the states, quote, the umpire would decide between them to compel acquiescence. Unquote. Alexander hamilton said the federal government would be, quote, an umpire or common judge to interpose between the contending parties. Here he noted that athens and sparta did so much worse stuff to each other than persia ever threatened because tiny states butting up against each other develop such intense rivalries that can easily lead to violence. James madison said, what better umpires, quote, could be desired than representatives in congress . And so federalists created what they call an umpire, a higher sovereignty with the job and the coercive responsibility that imperial metro polls had played throughout history. But in this case without a hierarchy. And so new states could come in on the same terms as everybody else. No state could expand its borders into another state, a sister state, so to speak. And the federal government in extremis would intervene if crisis, truly existential crisis happened. You can count on one hand the number of times the federal government has done this. Because its dangerous. Its dangerous out there. The whiskey rebellion in 1794, the nullification crisis of 1833, the civil war of 1861, the little rock integration crisis of 1957 and so on. And so today the United Nations enjoys a status which is very similar to the u. S. Before we had a constitution, which is to say that there is a union amongst states but the u. N. Security council has himmed powers of enforcement, it has no powers of taxation, no army, no navy. So how can it exercise this umpiria lg . Part of what happened after world war ii when the u. N. Fell on hard times and the u. S. Was pressed, truly pressed by its lies, not the soviet union but the other, to come in and fulfill this role, the United States had some experience in the role. Explains why when france told us to leave, we did. Because the umpire is not there to take the place of the states. Its there to facilitate the functioning of the states. So what has been the consequences of all of this for the United States and the world . Because being an umpire is a dangerous and difficult job, and the consequences when you get it wrong can be terrible. Whether its south korea or south carolina. Because our worst war ever was in south carolina, began in south carolina. So the results have been mixed. In many cases the United States got it right and in some cases we got it really wrong. The the u. S. Held the line in west berlin and that turned out very well. South korea as well were Still Holding the line in south korea. We held what looked like at the time a similar line in South Vietnam and that was a terrible, terrible mistake. Terrible disaster. And weve had to make a lot of terrible and hard calls. In iraq in 2003 we misdiagnosed weapons of mass destruction. In iran in 1953 we misdiagnosed the threat of communism. Yet in the same time we did function as an empire not an umpire. I like to cite the suez crisis. We defended the territory of egypt, we threw our best friends france and britain out of the game and we allowed things to resume. With did not take the place of the sovereign government of egypt. What happened after world war ii is that the world entered what historien wras call an economic golden age, all kinds of historians and economists will tell you this. And its also true that in every decade since the Second World War violence between states has gone down in every single decade since 1947. Now, what have the results been for the United States . Those are the results from the world. Some bad, some actually quite good, dramatically good. Well, one of the problems for the United States is that we have become the defender of all. Our best allies, our very best allies spend 1 to 2 on defense, we spend 4 to 5 . 85 to 90 of our Defense Budget goes to the protection of shores other than our own. As our muscles bulge, everybody elses muscles atrophy because thats what happens with muscles when you dont use them. This shows you aircraft carriers. We have close to a couple dozen. France has one, china has one, et cetera, et cetera. We were first in per capita income in 1950. We are 17th in per capita income today. We are 50th, 50th in the world in life expectancy. The u. S. Had a structural trade deficit beginning in 1971 and weve been a debtor country since 1985. Our trader balance was 420 billion a year today it is 400 billion a month. We remain a prosperous and vibrant country, but we dont have to remain the only umpire of the world. Former defense minister peter mckay has called for allies to help share the burden. And i think we need to hear more. And we need to do more to create the expectation that its time for others to not just step up to the plate but step behind the plate as the umpire. This wont be easy, but it is impossible. Tragedies, tragedies will occur as World History amply shows but the most stable system is one that all nations work and most are prepared to defend. Realists are unrealistic in thinking america can and should do it all. Those who describe america as an empire is naive in assuming that only washington want ors writes the rules. The other problem with the use of the word empire is that umpires are never popular and by definition they cant win. Thats bad enough. But to call ourselves an empire, to volunteer for this label which is one of the most pejorative in the last 100 years is to put a large kick me sign on the back of ourselves. Umpires do make mistakes. Theyre never entirely neutral, their field of vision is imperfect, and they cannot win. But no one wants to play the game without them. Understanding the need for better, more equitable more sustainable mechanisms of global enforcement allow us to have better conversations here, in denver and around the world about how to make this happen. Because good leaders develop new leaders. Places responsibility squarely on europe and other regions that benefit just as much as we do from a Peaceful World is not a matter of cowardice or decline. It is a matter, it is a test of our courage. Thank you. Thank you very much. And i think janet is going to take some questions or im going to take the questions but shes going to help me. Well, i like to think ive solved everything and well, thank you very much. I havent had a chance to read your book. And you may have referred to this. But when you talk about the role of umpire, could you explain to role of the cia in that . Could you also just talk a little bit about assassinations . And we can talk about all those around the world. And what is that role . What is that role of america . Absolutely. And the word umpire its not a perfect term, obviously. And an umpire in a ball field doesnt have a secret Service Running around, et cetera. No, in the United States whats happened is the United States took up a security role. And sometimes we played that very badly and sometimes we played it very well. I tried to give you i think theres measures that suggest that overall its gone well. Its gone disastrously in some places. One thing its certainly done is bring us right into the thick of all the ageold forms of enforcement. And enforcement is rarely pretty. And as we know, you know, Police Officers today in america, you know, theyre armed, citizens around them are armed, it creates very ugly situations. And the United States has had a policy well, we ruled assassinations out, then weve kind of ruled them in. Its been back and forth, but it certainly has created some very ugly scenarios. I dont think those are inconsistent, however, with the idea that this is what has been a part of modern enforcement, whether thats true of the interpol, you know, most nation states especially those of any size do have secret services and do have intelligence services. Actually, again, the other weird thing about the United States, which goes back to the transparency, the United States is the only country im aware of in World History that created a secret agency and then announced it. In 1947 the United States passed a National Security act. And we said, were starting a spy agency over here. Now, by the way, when did britain acknowledge the existence of mi6 . I think it was 1994 or 95, australia another very transparent enlightened nation acknowledged the existence of sis, secret intelligence service, in 2001. So spy services really are a part of the modern world. But the United States is this odd hybrid. We try to do it in ways that are consistent with our values, at the same time its obviously a tough situation. Other questions . By the way, ive got to tell you, i myself am shy about questions. I know you do not believe this. But when i sit in your seat im always thinking, well, that sounds dumb, oh, i cant ask that. If you ask any question, ill be totally thrilled. I have one. Thank you. After your very interesting and provocative introduction, what happens now . Where should we be going . Most of us are not as well read or being such comprehensiveness to it that i thought you had some thoughts maybe on our future . This is where historians fear to tread. But i am treading this in territory now. To me, it seems selfevident that if you have the world system that rests on one pillar, thats just not as stable as a system that has multiple pill pillars. Both Franklin Delano roosevelt and harry truman fully expected that all american troops would come home from europe at the end of world war ii. That the United Nations would take upon itself this role of coordinating what would be a difficult bumpy process as Winston Churchill said, the worst thing about fighting with allies is not fighting with you know, is not fighting alongside allies. So there was an expectation that the world wouldnt be a perfect place. But that it would be on multiple supports. That all got kicked out because of what happened at the end of world war ii. There was too much devastation across asia and europe for that to be practice tickal. So 70 years is, i think, enough. I know this is hard. And its frightening, but thats why i say we need history to see trajectories. We can say, listen, were not the only ones whose interests are at stake here. In fact, i said this to a european friend once ho was giving it out to me as usual about we americans were such bruisers, et cetera. You know, dion, we can probably afford better than almost anybody, if anybody was going to be kind of a target community not trading with the rest of the world, we could roll up our carpets from europe and to az why and probably be more selfsufficient than most countries. He got the most shocked and horrified look on your face. You wouldnt go home, though, right . Because the fact is that the money that we all pay and the lives that we spent and the families that we risk are ours, and so when people say, what are you going to solve in pakistan next week . How are you going to correct isis in iraq the week after that . I think we must begin to say, what are you going to do . Because honestly, its your homes that are going to be bombed and its your lives that are on the line because its so easy to sit back. I think chinas a good example of this and south korea. What are we doing there 60 years later . Were upholding an armistice. Theres not a peace treaty and theres not a peace treaty because we make it possible for that armistice to go on indefinitely. Id love to see peace there. But obviously 60 years of doing the same thing isnt producing that. Maybe these countries which are now prosperous, thriving, democratic counties in the case of south korea and japan, maybe theres more they can do and maybe theres more that china can do because we always get to be bad cop if china gets to play good cop. And its time to start reversing those things. But i think that unless we begin to step back others wont step you. Its a frightening process. We have the tiger by the tail. Unless you establish a goal, you will never get there. Youve touched on what my question was, but you know, i think after afghanistan and iraq, most of us, including me, wanted to say, lets just look at our home. Lets look at what we can do for america. We have a lot of needs here. Lets just stop this. And then isis comes along. And im looking at russia and the ukraine. And im thinking why are we involved in what russia does with the ukraine . I mean, is that any of our concern . Isis is a question mark right now whether they really are a threat to america or not. So if you would comment a little more about that, i would be i would love it. Yeah, well, these contemporary crises are always frightening. Im involved in making a documentary right now on the question of the balance between guns and butter. What our foreign involvements do in terms of our ability to invest here at home and how we can balance those things out. I agree, i think we have a concern because were a part of the world and the United States is very vibrant member of the international community. Supports the u. N. , is a big funder of Many International institutions and that would and should continue, but i think its time to start distinguishing more clearly between existential crises which in fact the entire global system and things which are regional in character. As horrible as they are, as terrible as they are. I like to compare the syrian war with our civil war because they happened at the same time. There was actually a Syrian Civil War at the time of the american civil war, and what happened in the Syrian Civil War of that period, 1860, was that the europeans were horrified. You know, at the bloodshed. And they decided should we intervene . And they did. They sent troops, they stopped the bloodshed. In the american civil war, by the way, about 10,000 syrians died. In the american civil war, 700,000 americans died. The europeans looked on that conflict and oh, god, should we intervene there, a humanitarian nightmare . They didnt. Our war burned out. It eventually burned out. And its sad and tragic as it was, just even accomplished an important task. It was a very tragic war for us. Im not sure anybody intervening in that could have changed that for us. The Syrian Civil War continues. So intervention isnt always the best thing. Yes. Hi, thank you for your discussion tonight. It seems that much of your opinion follows along and supports the Obama Doctrine, if im right, that we are strong, we are leaders. We dont necessarily need to intervene or intervene with warfare. We are already intervening with our ideas and our our influence. But there in the ukraine, right now putin is not renegotiating the borders of the ukraine. He is choosing to bring to escalate it with the military. How does that fit into how should we respond, how should the u. S. Respond, how does this fit into this new Obama Doctrine . Several questions going on there. As a part of this work im doing right now in this documentary as i mentioned we interviewed the general that took over for david petraeus, jim mattis in iraq. One of things he pointed out was very wise, our enemies will bring us the opportunities for coalition building. You dont make peace treaties with your friends, you make peace treaties with your enemies. We need to make coalitions with unusual partners whether in fighting isis or the crisis in the ukraine. And theres never going to be a good moment to say we stepped back, you guys need to step up, because theres always going to be a flash point. But we have to start somewhere. We have to begin that process. Is the Obama Doctrine, per se . Actually i think the American People are showing, as one lady here just said, not just what we call the war weariness. I think its a kind of wisdom, honestly. Theres been a poll thats been taken since the early 1960s asking should we intervene in the rest of the world or let the world get along as best it can on its own. This is a question that the pew polls have put together. The number that we should let the world make its own way for the first time its above 50 . Thats not just a democratic sentiment. In fact, ironically, kond da leeza rice, george bushs security adviser was famous for saying in Foreign Affairs before the election in which george bush was elected, although that was a disputed election we wont go there, but before his inauguration, she had said its time for american to not take on every human crises because people will see us as an empire because we need to let people take care of their own dirty laundry. Then we were presented with a crisis, 9 11. And in the case of 9 11 when theres an existential crisis that hits us here at home, you can see why its important to respond. But something thats 8,000 miles away where there are a lot of other competent, prosperous, decent, democratic nations surrounding that area who can weigh in if they choose to and if they choose not to, then shame on them. Does that affect us . Do we need to go in there and save it . No, and, of course, the odd thing about the end of the cold war is it gave us more people to defend. Before we knew there was an iron curtain. Everybody back there had been left behind the lines. So sorry. But at least we dont have to defend them, too. Now the cold war iron curtain goes up and now weve got all the others on our laps. Part of the problem here, too, by the way, this is a larger question than actually sanford institution Hoover Institution discussed this with condi rice who my understanding is is coming to town here in denver, which is very lovely. She was confirming something id just been thinking about as a historical problem. But one of the things that happened is nationalism has taken hold. As empires have disappeared. Its like when predators go away, prey proliferate. We got more deer when you got rid of the grizzly bears. So theres no empires. The number of small nation states keep growing every year, the maps have toy about changed. The problem, problem, good things about it but one problem with that is when nation states are competent nobody picks them off any more. The herd, so to speak, and so what happens is you have a lot of small nation states. And we all applaud that, but at the same time the fact is that not all these nation at a tista competent to run their economies, they struggle with internal cohesion, thats increased the number of possible people we have the defend because they have a right to selfdetermination. But why us . Why almost only us . Thats not right. And i dont think its not just not right, i think its not sustainable. Its not practical. And we americans are practical people. Yes. With respect to nuclear proliferation, how do you see that issue evolving in the future and why does the role of the United States or any other country that is in your thats such an excellent and complex question about nuclear proliferation. And thats the kind of issue where we can say, this is an existential issue, this could lead to the destruction of major cities, it could lead to the devastation of the entire planet. So there american leadership, using the soft power that we have, putting forward a better example than we have done at times continuing efforts that were made during the, you know, during the period of detente, during the presidency of george h. W. Bush to dial back on nuclear arms, i think that those are incredibly important initiatives. The United States will be and has been an excellent world citizen in most ways. Some ways weve been terrible. Whos perfect . And sometimes its been with terrible consequences, but the fact is we do need to exert leadership on this kind of question. You have to distinguish between the Big Questions and the small regional ones. Just a question using analogy of the swamp and the alligators. I think we can all agree on the longterm goal and the movement of history, but right now people in our government are saying we should bomb in syria regardless if we have boots on the ground at not to bite the head of isis. Others are saying dont do that, let the locals take care of this. This is not our problem. So we have a dilemma, and maybe tomorrow night were going to hear what is going to happen. But from your perspective, if you had to make that decision now, im hearing you i think i know where youre going to go but i dont know that because i dont know you. If you had to make that decision right now, do you bomb the head in isis and in syria without boots on the ground or say, look, you guys have to step up. Weve done our part. What would your decision be, call in the air force or say pull them back . If it were me, and im an unelect individual perhaps for good reasons, i would say absolutely you people need to figure this out. Not because its not bad, but first of all isis is not going to invade new york, all right . Okay. They might try to bomb a new york tower. I mean, bad stuff happens. But the fact is that the sunni shia divide, which is part of what thats all about, the caliphate is a sunni thing, the shias hate it. They need to figure that out. And there are sunni governments which are not stepping up. There are shia governments which are not stepping up. And if we go in there to solve this problem, which is an important problem, but if we go there to solve it for them, it will probably not solve it. We started that process in 2003. It has not gotten better for the most part. Despite heroic sacrifices. Yes. Bill clinton has said that his biggest regret of his presidency was not intervening in rwanda. When do we as a powerful, rich, wealthy nation have a moral obligation to intervene in a humanitarian crisis like genocide . This really comes under the rubric of what the United Nations is now calling a responsibility to protect which was, as i understand it im not deeply familiar with this, but this was canada initiating this motion and essentially the United States gets nominated to take on the responsibility. Again, thank you, canada. This responsibility to protect is important. Obviously, this goes back to the holocaust and the belief that we should not allow things like this to happen again. Part of this goes back to the problem of the proliferation of nation state, small nation states where you do not have imperial power which has some responsibility for policing the local populations. I know thats bill clintons greatest regret. I think that other african nations had a much greater responsibility. Not only did the United States under clinton apologize for not helping this country which is maybe 6,000 miles away. But i think maybe i cant remember the other maybe it was holland, but somebody else also apologized. I did not hear an apology from the organization for african unity. I did not hear an apology from the arab states. I think that if we believe as a World Community that these things are important, then we must put the responsibility on the World Community. And again, you know, for us to take the shame of having not done that, i think just ups a little more everybody elses expectations for all the problems that the United States should, shoulda, coulda, woulda solved. So it is tragic, and my heart goes out to these people. Victims of isis to ukrainians, really, really does. As a historian, you get very involved in the lives of the people who have suffered historically. My heart is engaged now. But i think that longterm solutions, not bandaids, are local solutions. I think thats a terrific mace to stop. I think i thank you. Im not sure. What i am sure of is that you have given us a whole new framework to analyze our thinking against and its going to be tough. And i will also say if you missed it last night and you want to hear a different point of view, go online and look at don lemons interview last night on cnn. He has a fairly different point of view particularly about isis. And it was interesting to me to hear you tonight having heard him last night. I think we all thank you so much for coming to denver. And we hope youll come again soon. Thank you. Here are just o few of the comments we se rently received from our viewers. Calling to comment on a debate i saw between bruce fein and a man named john hu regarding the declaration of war and the war powers act. Quite interesting to watch the legal debate and it also demonstrated some of the ineptitude of the neo con proposition that in the beginning of any war the president is the ultimate hearsay of the countrys ability to go to war. I would like to commend cspan2 for airing the information from the writers on grief and the military. It was excellent information that gave depth level interaction and dynamic and nuances and the reality, for instance, that posttraumatic stress disorder can climb up and can be resolved if you continue to try various interventions. I think American History tv on cspan is one of the best programs available. I wish we could do it more than once a week. And continue to let us know what you think about the programs youre watching. Call us 2026263400, email us at comments cspan. Org or tweet us cspan. Like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. The 2015