 Thank you all for coming. My name is John Hamry. I'm the president here at CSIS and Delighted to have all of you here. Thank you for coming. I am just this is something we've been looking forward to for I've been at CSIS now for almost ten years and we've long wanted to be able to have a prominent security national security conference in Washington on really cutting-edge issues and this is the first year we've had a chance to do that and It's been made possible because of some very good friends from Finn Mechanica that said they would like to partner with us and help Us make that happen and so I want to say a hearty Thank you to them making it possible think tanks can't do this on their own But we are able to have friends that'll help us do it and so I'm very grateful for that Where's Simone? I wanted to Simone once you come up. I would like Simone Ben-Parade who is with Finn Mechanica I'd just like to say a few words of welcome, and then we will get on with the program Simone, please Thank you, John and thank you to all the CSIS team that Did an incredible job to make this event happen I'd just like to say a few words on behalf of Finn Mechanica and our chairman and CEO Pier Francesco Guardwellini that came from Italy I would also like to acknowledge the presence of the members of the board of directors and the seniorly defense advisory committee of Finn Mechanica that also came here from Italy As an international aerospace and defense group Finn Mechanica Believes that it's very important to support forums like these that Debate over the challenges that we have in front of us in the year to come and because of its deep level of Expertise we think that CSIS is a perfect partner to do to do this Moreover under the leadership of John CSIS has grown in reputation a lot and if you look at the list of speakers and panelists that we have today and First of all, I would like to recognize General Cartwright We have an incredible distinguished group of individuals that will address a wide spectrum of issues It is our hope that you live today with a better understanding of how we can collectively tackle The policy doctrinal and the technological issues presented in each of the focus areas I believe that it is also through events like these that Finn Mechanica and its operating companies Are committed to supporting military and law enforcement efforts of America and its strategic partners So again welcome and enjoy the discussion I was working up on the Senate Armed Services Committee back when we were debating Goldwater Nichols and Still can remember very vividly one of the big debates that the committee had and the debate was in trying to strengthen the joint chiefs inside the Defense Complex To create a vice chairman Position and then the real debate was is that the number two position or is that the number six position? And I will tell you this debate raged it raged for almost a day and a half And it was not entirely clear how it was going to come out and finally it did and I won't go into the into the details It was really fascinating It ended up with a commitment that the vice chairman would be the number two Position on the joint chiefs now I happen to personally think that decision Anticipated post cart right being the vice chairman and I should be careful because Pete I mean I mean I mean but but but but Hoss is that person that was envisioned. I think by the committee that was blends the kind of the Sophistication of the policy world and yet the operational discipline to do real things and to get real things done and I don't think anybody has done it better than Then general Cartwright He has served in so many different capacities and is trusted by everybody in Washington He's the one guy that I know that has just a strong credibility with Republicans as with Democrats and it's that sort of Credibility that's made him a lead thinker for all of us. So ladies and gentlemen It's my great presence privilege and honor to welcome general Jim Cartwright welcome. Would you please join me in greeting? So am I number six or am I number two? Some days you never Appreciate the opportunity it is Intimidating to look at This room full of people and and the experience that's represented here and And it's also, you know, gives you a little bit of comic relief to think that you came in this early for a marine but but What I'd like to do is take you through a A few thoughts that I think to some extent were addressed in The the quadrennial reviews that we have just gone through in the department and are still trying to wrap up and put a bow on As always Like the debate that John just talked about there's some fascinating discussions that go on There are some things that get left on the cutting room floor that are either just too hard Or we can't find the way to get to consensus and some things And that doesn't mean that they're not important And so forums like this and seeing some of these issues up I think are very important and these issues are not just isolated to the military And if I were to look at all of the activity that has gone on in these recent reviews in comparison to the Years and years of reviews that that we have gone through in the department This one is probably marked This set of reviews is probably marked in two ways that are unique The first is somewhat of a head slapper, but We're at war and so we're going through these reviews in stride of conflict Sometimes in stride of conflict conflict and sometimes Almost in denial of conflict and I'll talk a little bit more about that the second and probably the most leveraging is that we had Bob Gates Go across that divide with us across that transition And if you don't think that that's not powerful Then let me just walk you very quickly through the process in Washington and the way it works You get elected on January 20th You get sworn in on February 2nd you sign the first budget and You might have changed one or two things in it You spend a year going through reviews about what you think is important in your administration and by the time you finish them It's almost it is too late to affect next year's budget And so the first one you get is the third year's budget it takes two years to deliver and you never see it if you have a four-year term Having a guy go across being able to stand up with him in ten and say this is what we were going to do And these are the big program changes they're going to occur and having that having four years to put that in place has hugely leveraged the department and That is a significant activity for us Let me hit just kind of three things the first is We are a nation at war and you can Sometimes ignore that the blessing that we have is that we're pretty much able to carry on in the country as if we weren't But you know if you look at Klaus witz and and and you look at their the trinity there of the army the people and politics We spent the first part of this past year trying to understand how we were going to wage the current wars and fights that we're in That question is going to come up again There is nothing in demographics. There is nothing in the Competition for resources whether it be water or climate you whatever it is out there that tells us that that We're not going to be in conflict for as far as we can see out into the future It's just it's just Everything is stacked up that way for a persistent conflict environment And the question is when you look at your military When you look at the politics of the nation and when you look at our people How are those three going to come together to that reality? How are we going to handle that? What's the strategy going to look like to move to the future? This the second piece that I think is somewhat more subtle, but but is equally leveraging is that Everything about this nation for the most part is an industrial society We we do it better than most and have for a long time our vertical Approach to to industry has been very successful, but we're living in the information age and The leverage is in the information age and all of the incentive structures in our law in our policies in the way we do business in our governance are set up for industrial constructs and Leverage and competitive advantage is in the information side of this equation And we're trying to reconcile those and be competitive in the world Whether it's in the military or whether it is in commerce is a tension that has not been resolved in this country yet in Law and policy Etc. Our first reaction in the military to a problem is go build something Okay, the problem is competitive advantage out there on the battlefield is in a 30-day cycle not a 30-year cycle Took us 15 years to design the joint strike fighter It'll take us another 10 to field it and then we expect 30 years of life out of it To think that that's going to maintain competitive advantage for the nation To think that that far back 40 50 years that we understood what the battlefield was going to look like when this when this vehicle is out there Misses the essence of where competitive advantage is going to be in the future and today And so we've got to come to grips with that The third area that I think is absolutely essential Is the economy? You know in in my role my role as the Lead for requirements in the department we have a saying that you know there are a thousand good ideas out there The ones that don't have resource behind them are called hallucinations Because they're interesting to talk about but they're not going to get they're not going to get to the foxhole with you and and there are any number of I won't name Recovering Comptroller's out there. Hamry that You know that will tell you that trying to do business You know in a world where resource constraints are going to be significant is difficult Go back to a gent by the name of fuller that that basically focused on the idea and Construct that if you're going to do grand strategy your first objective is to appreciate the commerce and financial position of your nation and This nation along with the world is going through a global economic crisis Okay, there is no precedent for Sustaining the deficits that we are in right now and are projected in our future and the ability to recover from them Has no real precedent We've got a significant problem in front of us and waging war in that construct Is something that we're going to have to understand and think our way through and so Secretary and I have spent the last two weeks At forums like this I'm saying wake up You're not going to have 300 500 ships. You're not going to have thousands of new aircraft Unless we change the way we're doing business Because just saying I need it and therefore it's important and therefore you're going to provide it is not going to go much further And you cannot build strategy in the absence of resource It's just a fact and if to do so is perilous for the country Let me just step down through the Reviews that we've gone through kind of hit the highlights of them hit the themes here And then I'll turn it around and you can come at me The Corgenial Defense Review mandated we do this at the beginning of each of the administrations The broad brush and review of strategy how we're doing I think for me the headlines in the Corgenial Defense Review are first Focus on the war in the fight that you're in Keep an eye on the most dangerous But you've got to focus your resource and your capability and your intellectual capital on the fight that you're in You can wish for another future But you cannot get there unless you can take care of the want the present Okay, and there's nobody that I know of out there that thinks that we're going to be done with the conflicts We're in in less than five to ten years We may be at them in different places and at different levels but we're going to be in what we're doing for the next five to ten years and so Ideas of trying to wish that away and thinking about a different world and you know There are all sorts of postulations out there. You cannot as a nation forget the war that you're in Okay, you must win that to get to the next one The second piece here is the realization that At least from the department's perspective, we have focused inward for most of our our strategy planning over the years Inward by that. I mean what is it? We're going to do as a nation How are we going to? deter Deny dissuade assure whatever it is that the this week's buzzwords are how are we going to do that as a nation and The reality is we don't fight alone We don't deter alone. We don't assure alone. Everything is done in partnership Everything is done in coalitions and if we don't do our strategy Thinking about up and out instead of down and inward We will miss the point of the way we do business Okay Seems like a an obvious thing, but I tell you it is not We tend to go inward. What are we going to do? We have to have the only capability We have to fill every ladder on the wrong every rung on the ladder With the best capability in the world. We can't afford it nor can we do it? Okay, there are other very capable nations out there very willing to partner up We've got to make sure that our strategy is inclusive Not just acknowledges but in but brings in and incorporates the capabilities of those we're likely to be partnered with Okay, and people will immediately say oh you can't rely on that Well, I'll tell you one thing you can rely on is you cannot afford to do everything yourself Okay, we are not an island the The QDR really hit hard on those points building the partnership capacities Starting to understand how we're going to leverage The combined capabilities not only of our allies, but of our industry and of our academic resources These are two areas that we have not tapped well particularly commerce We tend to want to build and buy and field everything ourselves We want it to be the best that could possibly be out there and now quite frankly You know if pick your service we've got a ship on each coast. We got an airplane on each coast That's the direction. We're heading and they're the best in the world But there's only a couple of them and yet the world we face is a hugely Dispursed and diffused threat. We need to be in a lot of places We need quantity more than we need that high-end exquisite capability And if we can't figure out how to get to that then we're again We're living in denial of the world. We're in hoping for the world. We want to have in front of us the nuclear posture review Tied very nicely into the quadrennial defense review In the previous nuclear posture review, we came up with what was called the new triad It was the instead of going bombers submarines and and ICBMs We said offense defense infrastructure command and control things like that it was the acknowledgment that an offense-only strategy Would no longer work in a world that had a range of military operations against which The Destructive and lethal power was evenly distributed So you could get weapons of mass destruction with 300 ICBMs coming over the pole in the world We're living in you can also get weapons of mass destruction from the single terrorist And you've got to acknowledge that fact and you've got to acknowledge that one size does not fit all an offensive Only strategy will not work nor will a defensive only strategy work You have to be able to tailor it for the world that you're actually in not the one you wish you were in And so the acknowledgment in the nuclear posture review this time around was that things like missile defense things like Conventional capabilities things like command and control and infrastructure. We're going to be equally important in In in our deterrence construct Both at the strategic and tactical levels This is the how in this NPR of what was postulated in the last NPR And I have the opportunity to privilege the burden whatever you want to call of going across administrations But this has been coherent Now we're starting to have capability the ballistic missile defense review which followed on the nuclear posture review started to bring the instantiation of how we were going to do that both at the strategic and the regional view and How we were going to bring our allies into that construct? Okay That's if you if I go back just three or four years I Can remember how many times I went to the hill and to public forums and got built up my scar tissue over The missile defense system will never work. We can't afford it. It it it's not credible on and on and on to the last six months Going to the hill and the only issue is how fast can you build it? Do you need more money? It's the only system that I know that we have that I've ever experienced Where the moment something goes on contract. I got a deployment order against it That's how big the demand is out there Particularly in the regional construct So what is the right balance and how do we tailor our offenses and our defenses? How do we start to think about? What's the strategy? What's the grand strategy under that construct? How do you tailor it and how do you keep it adaptable? What we don't want to do is write any of this stuff in stone and then walk away for ten years That's just not the world. We're going to live in it's got to be adaptable It's got to be able to move through phases of transition for individual countries individual regions and For the global economy and the global world as it exists today If we don't do that if we can't adapt then it'll be irrelevant pretty quickly And we'll go out and take pictures of it and whatnot But it won't be relevant to the fights to the to the world that we live in we've got to be able to balance that We've got to be able to move it around and put it in the right places and put the right balance of offense and defense Together and we've got to have a construct and a strategy under which we're going to do that After after those two reviews we went into a Lot of work that was associated with the space posture Okay, that work is not completed It has been the most difficult of all of the reviews that we have gone through when there were tens in Space we kept it a secret Now that there are tens of thousands We're still trying to keep it a secret Nobody knows we're out there. It is kind of like Taking your fighter jet and saying the rule shouldn't apply to me I'm just going to fly through the traffic pattern in New York City because I'm in the military Okay, we're going to have to get to some level of regulation Okay, nobody wants to do that Okay, and so We're where I live in my last job and where I live in my current job you get up in the morning and you go Okay, how many people are going to run into each other in space today? If we don't get if we don't cajole Plead with somebody to move out of the way in the next orbit cycle How many people are going to step on each other's signals, you know just simple things We're going to pass right to right left to left. I don't care We're going to have to get some sort of a management construct for how we do business out there And of course everybody immediately goes to the extreme on it. You want to take it over you want to run it What I need is a is a construct in which we can do business in a safe way out there And we don't have that today each of the countries that have systems that understand space situation awareness Keep it a secret. I don't want you to know how many are out there When I sat down with my counterpart from Russia Between the two of us in a room we got down to the point of on on this many fingers, which is marine math We could count the number of vehicles that we we didn't want to tell each other about Okay, we can work at that level Okay, but we've got to find a way to move to a shared Understanding of what's out there what the traffic is how we can advantage industry how we can advantage commerce In that environment because it's hugely leveraging and we're not the only ones out there anymore And we're not the only ones that want to compete in that environment and quite frankly By keeping it a secret what we have done is so disadvantage our own industry that we're becoming Non-competitive in this environment because we can't do what we need to do in technical and intellectual capital To go out there and compete in the global market Okay, our ability to build the components etc is lagging We got a few and we can be exquisite But but our ability to compete on the international market for commerce in space has really taken a hit The last one that I'll touch on is cyber We just went through the confirmation process for what was lieutenant general Alexander soon to become general Alexander and the stand-up of Cyber command this goes back to the earlier conversations about offense and defense There are generally three types of Activities that go out on in cyber that are considered threat. There's the hacker Kind of out there on his own or with a couple of buddies You know breaks in changes his grades, whatever it is There is the industrial espionage side of this equation trying to find competitive advantage wrestle it away from your competitor Whatever you're trying to do there and then there's the nation-state level Inside the United States probably more than the United States The acknowledgement at the national level that we are losing Intellectual capital competitive advantage our ability to do business Out there is recognized and how significant that those losses are in industry It's recognized no longer Can you afford to be attacked and then wait 30 days for someone to come up with a patch and And write it off to the customer You're you know the cost of those 30 days you can't do it so industry and the government Understand the threat and are ready to do things to make sure that the greater good addresses that threat But down here is the average civilian who maybe lost their ID one in ten of them Maybe had their computer compromised, but they have no sense right now That the threat is sufficient that they're going to compromise Personal privacy or any of the other things that they hold dear Yet they're not threatened sufficiently So we have this gulf in the country between those who understand and are worried about it and those who understand But do not put that worry at a level that they're willing to address We have an entire architecture globally that is based on defense only Point defense only so our defense is our viral virus protection software and our firewall Okay So if you're in uniform, what you've basically said is I want to have this fight at at my boundaries inside my country and I'm willing to wait for that and when it gets catastrophic then we'll address it and the question is is that the kind of declaratory policy we want to have Is that the kind of strategy that we want to have in this environment? Is it sufficiently leveraging that we are worried about it? Do you believe that this networked environment we live in is going to persist for years to come? If you believe those things then we've got to start to think about The validity of a Maginot line approach to cyber Okay, and I'm not advocating that the DOD needs to take over you know homeland That's not the issue here The issue is strategy the issue is the construct in which we believe that this environment which has become so leveraging so intensive in our capital growth and and and work That we're going to leave it to a home game It's free. You can you can attack it anytime you want and there's no penalty Is that is that the construct that we want to have we're going to have to think our way through that We do not have a declaratory policy right now for cyber We've got it for space. We've got it for missile defense. We've got it for nuclear strategic there's work to be done and And there are a lot of sides to this argument There's a lot of sides to this and any place where there is this much money There's going to be controversy So Please solve that before you go home Thank you for this opportunity. I'm happy to go in any direction. You want to go in the question and answer, but I think this is important Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we've got two microphones positioned here and because of the size of the audience We really can't move around so I'd ask you to come up to one of the microphones If you have a question that you'd like to put to general Cartwright We've got about 10 minutes that we're going to be able to do that So just go ahead and grab a mic and I'm going to let them the general feel the questions Now general Cartwright in lieu of what you want to do in terms of combined capabilities Are the current ITAR restrictions in allowing us to cross-flow this information to keep the capabilities realistic? Or do they need to be amended as well to allow us to have that capability in a combined manner? I think both the secretary and I have been at the last two weeks and that we've got to go at that State Department agrees that we're putting people together The difficulty will be When you start to get beyond inside the administration of working our way through the congressional side the legal implications Working our way through constituencies that you know when we're a competition Somehow is it envisioned to be advantaged by those activities? We've got to we've got to break these walls down we've got to open up the ability to compete and To go out into other markets and find best-value Benchmark etc in a way that we're not allowed to do today. I mean it's just essential Hi, I'm Jennifer Brinkerhoff from George Washington University And I wanted to press you a little bit more if you could say something about the civil affairs Capacity of the military and what your review is saying for that. Yeah Civil affairs has been an area that has been under resourced for as long as I can remember and The bulk of it for the past 10 or 15 years, I think it has been in the garden reserve which The good on that is that we tend to get people who actually work in that area And bring real skill to the job But the demand seems to you know has exceeded the capacity to go out and recruit to those areas If we leave the demand in place we incentivize it better We'll we'll get the quality what we have to do now is that my sense is it's not bring it into the active force because then You'll get somebody who gets you know six months worth of school and now as an expert Versus somebody who's actually been a practitioner out there I think what we need to do is start to understand how to recruit and set the rules and the laws in the garden reserve so that the The type of work the type of incentive brings those people in Finds a way for them to come on a regular basis that is acceptable to their employment scheme inside the United States But sets us a quality of work as we would call it and an expectation of employment That is different than what is set by the standard garden reserve, which is break glass and I'll come and get you It's not an emergency We need these people out there day in and day out and we need a capacity that is far greater than what we have today We're trying to grow it. We're still growing at the onesies and twosies and we really need to grow at a much larger scale General it's wonderful to hear you speak again. I'm mitzi worth. I'm with the navel postgraduate school thinking into the future Which I tend to I've been listening to a lot of people say the biggest national security challenge we face is our educational system and We've had defense play a big role in getting us to look into the future about education But the point that keeps getting made over and over recently is that we have to start at the third at age three and That's sort of a hard game for you to get in but we have to somehow get the country to understand how important it is in building the human capacity to basically face the future and gives us the people we need for national security as well and I'm not sure there was a question in there, but I'll answer it anyway I'll focus more on the uniform side of the equation here, but you know in a 30-year career we send an officer to school three times and 30 to 50 percent of that school is making sure that you still know how to put the uniform on properly can stand an inspection and things like that Rather than sending them out to industry rather than sending them out to benchmark against a much broader range of understanding, etc The Department of Education right now is saying that in a in a four-year college education after the third year 30% of the first year is irrelevant by technology. That's a three-year PCS assignment for a commander. So the agenda that you bring in to your squadron battalion, whatever in the third year of your command Most of your agenda has become irrelevant because technology is eclipsed tactics techniques and procedures Competitive advantage have all eclipsed it in the world that we live in the education process in the military is not keeping up with the realities of the World that we encounter when we go out there at the transaction point And so we've got to figure a different way to do this and we've got to understand The expectation that we have both on our officers and are enlisted and be able to give them educational and intellectual Advantage on the battlefield as well as the physical prowess Hi, thanks for fielding questions. My name is Jeff Abrams and with the arms control Association I've been trying to figure out how to frame this question about military capabilities and what How you think about what we need to hang on to what we need to protect moving into the future and how you make those Decisions given our desire and need to work with allies and they may have different approaches So in particular in terms of things, you know, our organization says maybe we don't need any more cluster munitions and landmines There's a big humanitarian and international and a lot of our allies have sort of moved away from those items is their Desire to sort of go along that path And then I also think the United States wants to maintain capabilities and let's say UAVs and other technologies And they want to stay ahead of the game and maybe not want to share those things moving forward So how you decide in this environment will be recognized me to cooperate What to hang on to what to try to hang on to exclusively and what to maybe jettison that maybe we don't need anymore Yeah, let me just take those two examples the the idea of munitions that are not in in growing quarters of the world are becoming Activities that we don't want to participate in they may be effective as lethal agents, but they are They have a social and cultural bias against them for for good reasons The the reality is and we tended to live for several years and in a mindset of this is war You know put that stuff aside. This is war the reality is war back to Klausowitz is about the politics It is about the people and so if you ignore that then your ability to actually wage and succeed in conflict is Lost because you're trying to influence somebody's mind At the end of the day on the other end of the equation about what you keep and what you don't keep and the value of UAVs Is an example and whether or not we want to allow that technology to get out to others I May be in the minority in this opinion But but where my head is on this is that the platform is not where the leverage is Okay, and so denying Allies the ability to have the best of your platforms whether they be UAVs or something else really is kind of It doesn't work to your advantage all that well it really isn't protecting anything our competitive advantage in the UAVs Is really in the sensors it's really in most of our platforms today. It's the sensor It's the weapons it is not the platform anymore the platforms just eclipsed in their value in the first five or six years And they become obsolete It's the intellectual capital our ability to upgrade them our ability to turn them fast enough to be inside of the adversaries Decision loops that's where our competitive advantages and not Selling them out. They're not proliferating them to our friends Really doesn't help us it disadvantages us because then they can't really be true partners in some cases So we've got to think about that problem differently. And that's that's my opinion General hi Thanks for your remarks. I'm Bruce McDonald at the United States Institute of Peace and had served supporting the strategic posture review Commission one of the recommendations that the Perry Schlesinger Commission made Besides all the things talked about a nuclear was in the area of space and it talked about the importance of maintaining stability in space number of people have written and commented on that deterrence is one mechanism to do it and I wanted to ask you how Yous would see deterrence Theory which is in which in the space dimension has not been developed developed very much how you might see that work and Especially given what China has been up to in the last few years What the implications are of that for the United States? Particularly in the offensive their offensive capability area In theory When you look at an expanse And you decide how you want to either employ an offensive biased or a defensive biased Strategy the larger the contested area Generally the more friendly it is to an offensive type of construct because you're not trying to do point defenses every place It doesn't take as many assets That Because of the back to some of the questions that came earlier has socially culturally Everything else no weapons in space. No capability in space is really what people have talked about The more we populate space the more contested it becomes you can say the contesting may be just over competitive advantage in the Commercial environment or otherwise, but the more resource that goes out that the more likely we're going to have it The more we build competitive advantage to be able to be global and to be able to have eyes ears and Communications on a global basis the more important it is to our nation to have an assured capability in space The question is what's the right balance between? Defense and offense in Space that is what the debate has been about internal Where do we want to be in this discussion? My sense is there is not going to be a great tolerance for a significant offensive Capability in space, but quite frankly you don't necessarily have to be offensive in space to have an offensive capability about space Much of space resides on the ground Silly as that sounds that that's the reality and so what we're trying to understand here is what would a declaratory policy Look like for space and that debate is out there and it's rich There are many countries that are building counter space capabilities Most of them have reside on the ground that makes it a little easier, but their effect is in space And so how are we going to do that? How are we going to have sufficient space situation awareness to be able to understand what's happening to us? And quite frankly to make sure that we understand when it is just an anomaly on the spacecraft versus some other man-made Activity so that requires at least a sensor system out there and an awareness system that we don't have today and that we're Quite likely going to need to move to the question is do we want to move to it unilaterally? Or would we like a more holistic approach with our allies with others to get us all into the same? Okay, let's understand what's going on out there Let's understand when somebody does something bad who it is so we have attribution and what our remedy opportunities are I think that's where the debate is starting to center, but it's it's front and center right now Thank you I'm mindful of the need to get the general out of here if you can give me a 30 second question and a 45 second answer We can get one more in please Doug Brooks. I'm with IPOA which is the Association of the stability operations industry My question is really on stability operations. What is the future of that? We have an amazing Capability within the military today. I mean look at the photo here in terms of working in small wars and everything the Marines have Their small wars handbook, but what about the whole military? They're going to continue to maintain this capability for the future What are the plans on that? I Don't think there's anything in our future that says this is going away anytime soon. And so this is the classic how many You know bomber squadrons you want versus how many people do you want associated with stability operations and and that end of the range of military operations And it's a question of balance. It's not a question of either or and so the balance right right now is moving more towards The what used to be called the lower end of the spectrum, but stability operations influence operations You know those types of things that help our partners help themselves And and I don't see us moving away from that anytime soon. The difficulty here is The competition for resource people want to build the high-end What we need is the low-end it's the war we're in and in the bias towards it that we're trying to drive Thank you very much for the opportunity