 Final question, because this congressman, this chairman, America, you know, this is the battle between good and evil, and America is always on the side of the good. Is America always on the side of the good? No, we wish we were. Any time you, you know, values are a critically important part of American foreign policy, but also, so is realism sometimes. We look at our history. There's times when we've really erred on the side of, this fellow is on our side, may not be to our liking. I think there's a famous quote in American history. He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard. You know, our son of a bitch. And so, no, but more and more, you know, you asked a question about the use of force when it's appropriate, you know, there's just war theory and international law, and we try to follow that as much as possible. Can I ask a question and connect the two conversations before the movie and after the movie? Because the argument before the movie was to kind of try to re-Christianize Europe with the help of crusade and kind of wimpy Christianity that was associated with pacifism was kind of put down. What I wanted to ask then is, what does one make of, say, the claim of the Apostle Paul, which is a very, very famous saying, do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with the good, right? So, kind of, there's a fundamental framing of resistance within the moral frame of not just pursuing good but acting in a good way, right? Whether crusade is compatible with that would be my question to you, but to Mike as well. This history was narrated starting with the drive of Russians over the Soviets from Afghanistan. From your perspective, would that have been the case of trying to overcome evil with good? In helping the Afghans defend themselves? In this entire story that was there, is this the case? Is this how one overcomes in your judgment evil with good or do you accept this as a principle? That actually evil cannot be overcome by simple force but the evil has to be overcome with the good. The reason why evil doesn't thrive is if it is overcome by good. No, so I think it's both, but I mean if I understand what you're saying, would we have been better off if we didn't fight the Second World War? I think not. I think the world is a better place because Hitler and Nazi Germany are gone and the Japanese Empire is gone. I think the world is a better place because we won the Cold War in the west. I think the same thing about the war with the global jihadists in al-Qaeda that they killed a lot of Americans. I don't have any qualms about capturing them or killing some of them. I think again you have to use just war theory that you have to have a right cause, you have to have proper authority, you have to have a reasonable chance of success, you have to use proportionate means, but one of the core principles in international law is the right of self-defense. So the Soviets invade another country, does that country not have a right to defend itself? I think it does. This goes back to the conversation at the earlier, the earlier conversation at the first table when you asked why is good weak and if one considers the question in the framework of international relations, I think one of the answers has to be is that too many good people confuse goodness with innocence and goodness implies agency. If you're going to act against evil, then the word act implies that you possess the capabilities that are necessary to act efficaciously against evil, which means, and this is what I'm getting at, in order for good to be effective in the world, people who believe in good, and we can define that in a thousand ways, have to overcome a certain allergy to power that they sometimes have. I mean, one of the reasons, in my view, that the world right now is the most Hibisian place that we have seen since before World War I and why there is so much, so many atrocities and cruelties in the world committed by governments against their own citizens and against citizens in other countries is because the United States has quit the world. We are gone. Obama started pulling us out, Trump finished it, and basically it is springtime for dictators right now. Inaction will always bring trouble. Thank you. When you have a lot of... I do believe, I truly believe, even though I'm a guy who saw a lot of evil people and evil deeds with my own eyes and I survived through it, I truly believe that the mass majority of people are good and kind, and that we can all live together and we can all help each other. But when this huge amounts, huge crowds of good people see bad people saying bad ideas, radical ideas trying to attack the truth as a concept, as itself, to try to do all these harmful things and keep just asking them nicely or trying to somehow convince them that this is wrong and you should stop doing it and they keep on doing it and we don't do anything about it. That's how we lost. Inaction will eventually bring weakness and eventually will bring disaster. Syria was an example. We got sold out for the Iran deal. I spent Obama, Seoul, Syria as a part of the Iran deal to get his legacy passed. I spent a lot of time in D.C. I went to congressmen, I went to senators, to the White House, to the DOD, to United Nations, to the Security Council. I've been all over the place and unfortunately, unlike your movie, I didn't meet a nice congressman who will just take this on his shoulder and pass it on. There was a lot of good people inside the U.S. government that action is necessary in Syria, but unfortunately Obama sold us out because of his legacy. What does it take for us to become more humane or more simple? What does it take to finally have some peace in the Middle East? I have some experts around the table who can tell us when we will have some peace in the Middle East. Mike, what will be your strategy? So you make your president. We get Trump out and you'll be there. Number one, Islam is a great religion and great culture. We in the West are not at war with Islam. We are at war with a small group of global jihadists. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. There are about 200,000 global jihadists if you count generously. The strategy then has to be to deal with those 200,000, not try to alienate the 1.5 billion. That's precisely what the global jihadists want us to do. They want a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West or basically the Islam and everybody else. We would be stupid to do that. The Islamic states are our best partners honestly in this because ultimately it's an intracivilizational conflict. You know, we have to help them restore stability to their areas. But civilizational clash would be a disaster. If you thought the Crusades turned out badly, try this one on for size.