 Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming Secretary Robert Gates and Mark Uptegrove. Well, given your previous stint here in Texas, let me welcome you by saying howdy. Thank you. We'd love to have you any time, Mr. Secretary, but you come at a particularly fortuitous time because there's a lot going on in the world, and we're very interested in hearing your views on this. A month ago, on October 7th, Israel was attacked by Hamas. What has played out since then, I think, has surprised many of us. But can you give us your view, your general overall view of what's happening in Israel and Palestine right now? Well, first of all, it's a pleasure to be back here. And on the UT campus, I remember giving the commencement speech here at UT Austin in 2012. And I thought that there would be demonstrators, partly because I'd just retired as Secretary of Defense, but even of more concern was I was a former president of Texas A&M. But happily, it was a very welcoming audience. I think one of the main reasons that this Hamas terrorist attack has had such a deep impact on Israel is that Israel was created, above all, to provide a place where Jews could live in peace and security from anywhere in the world they wanted to come. And the whole essence of the State of Israel is about that safe haven for Jews. And while there have been numerous wars, nothing has happened in Israel affecting the civilian population, women, children, elderly, and so on in its whole history. Anything like what happened on October 7th. And it's in essence a violation of the very pillars on which Israel was founded. And that's why the determination to eliminate Hamas as a security threat for all time, for Israel. And it's why, in my view, Israel and most Israelis, the Israeli government and most Israelis, are not much caring about what the rest of the world thinks until they have taken care of this problem in their view once and for all. And I think it's that historical context and so on that I think some people lose sight of in terms of why this is different from the Yom Kippur War or the Six-Day War or even the war at independence in 1948. I mistakenly said Palestine and Gaza, but is the solution ultimately one of two states, Mr. Secretary? And if so, how do we get there? Well, my opinion is that that is the case. The problem is that, you know, you talk to Israeli government officials and they say, yeah, we understand that. And we're dealing with the West Bank and we're dealing with Gaza. But who is going to represent, who is going to be the Palestinian government? Is it the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank at Ramallah that accepts the existence of Israel and works with Israel and has had joint security arrangements with Israel? And by the way, a footnote, we have trained, the U.S. military has trained many of the West Bank's security forces of the Palestinians. But is it the West Bank Authority? Is it the Palestinian Authority that I'm working with? I'm going to recognize. Or is it the terrorists in Gaza who have sworn to destroy the state of Israel? Which Palestinians am I going to deal with? Who is going to be the Palestinian state? And frankly, and I've watched literally three generations of American statesmen spend an incredible amount of time and energy and political capital trying to get to that two-state solution. But until that fundamental contradiction is resolved and you have a Palestinian Authority that governs both West Bank and Gaza and recognizes the right of Israel to exist, achieving that two-state solution will remain as elusive as it has since the 1973 war. Yesterday, President Biden received a letter signed by over 400 political appointees and staffers from over 40 government agencies renouncing our support of Israel and calling for a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can flow into Gaza. Let me break that down. First off, are we right in supporting Israel to the extent that we have to this point? Well, I think we are, given the nature of what happened on October 7th. I think that, and I will say that as this has gone on, the administration has, I think, leaned pretty hard on the Israeli government to allow humanitarian shipments into Gaza, particularly in the south. But they're fighting, I mean, I understand the sympathy and I share the sympathy for the non-Hamas Palestinians living in Gaza. And for God's sake, especially all those women and children and so on. But it's an incredibly perplexing problem if the whole strategy of the terrorists is to blend with the civilian population and to put their, store their arms and their supplies and have their headquarters under schools and mosques and hospitals. How in the world do you root this out? And there is no way that is not very painful, both literally and figuratively. What about the notion of a ceasefire? The reason that has been rejected to this point by the Israeli government is that it allows the terrorists to rebuild. Is that a fair assessment of what might happen if Israel were to allow a ceasefire? Yeah, there's no doubt in my mind that Hamas would use that time to consolidate their positions, to relocate, to resupply, and so on. I mean, you know, so the Israelis are allowing these few hour respites, I don't know, you can't call them a ceasefire, but corridors and periods of time. But it's a short enough period of time that granted it doesn't allow a lot of time for people to escape, but at the same time it's a short enough window that it doesn't allow Hamas to reposition themselves and cost even more Israeli lives. So your former boss, George W. Bush, recently called Hamas cold-blooded killers. Is it possible to negotiate with Hamas? Is it something that you believe Israel should entertain, the notion of a negotiated settlement? I believe negotiating with Hamas is as feasible as negotiating with al-Qaeda. Something you know something about. If, to what extent is Iran to blame for what's happening in Israel right now? I think a lot. I mean, I just, there is no question that Iran equipped Hamas, trained Hamas, probably helped plan with Hamas. And it's irrelevant whether they knew the day and the time that Hamas would strike, as opposed to having facilitated the whole thing. So they've got Hamas, they've got the Houthis in Yemen, and they have Hezbollah. And the real challenge, I think, for everybody is how do you keep the northern flank from erupting into a full-scale war? Now the Israelis have, as I've read, two full divisions up there. And I think one message of what they have done in Gaza is to send a message to Hezbollah, do you really want this? And frankly to the Lebanese, is this what you want? So far it's been limited to exchanges of fire. There has been some problems and a fair number of people who've lost their lives, both Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. But I think so far this has been limited to Hamas in Gaza. But this is, I think you need to step back and realize that at least for the medium term this Hamas terrorist attack on Israel is a big win for Iran and for Russia. It's a big win for Iran because it has paused, if not reversed, the reconciliation that was going forward between Israel and the Arab states. My understanding is that the Israelis and the Saudis were getting pretty close to an agreement that would have recognized, have Saudi Arabia recognizing Israel, which because the king is the custodian of the two mosques and so on has even more significance in the Islamic world than the recognition by the UAE and Bahrain and Egypt and Jordan and so on. That process has been put on hold. I think we have to hope that long term strategic interests will prevail and it will resume at some point. But for the time being, stopping that reconciliation is a big win for Iran. It is a big win for Putin because everybody is now paying attention to the Middle East. And nobody is paying attention to Ukraine anymore. All the debate worldwide and everything that's going on has to do with the war between Israel and Hamas. And Ukraine is off the headlines, it's off people's priority lists, politicians are distracted by the Middle East war. So again, for as long as that lasts, that's a big win for Vladimir Putin. Because frankly, at this point, we'll probably get to this. I think he believes that time is on his side. Iran has been a threat for decades now. It was one of the countries that George W. Bush identified as being part of the axis of evil. What should our policy be toward Iran? Iran is our enemy. Every president since the Iranian Revolution has reached out to the Iranian regime in the hope of beginning some kind of a reconciliation. Sometimes the Iranian president has shown some interest. But in the end, every single time, the Ayatollahs have smacked away the hand of friendship. I was there at the beginning of this. In October 1979, National Security Advisor Carter's National Security Advisor Brzezinski was in Algiers. And I was there as his executive assistant. His legislative affairs person also was there, a woman named Madeline Albright. And the Iranian representation at this 25th anniversary of the Algerian Revolution was the president, I'm sorry, the prime minister, the foreign minister and the defense minister of Iran, of the revolutionary government. They'd only been in power like eight months. And they sent word to Brzezinski they wanted to meet. And Brzezinski got Carter's permission to meet with him and I went with him as his note taker. By the way, in that meeting, which was in the Iranian suite, I learned that you literally cannot open peanut shells with one hand. Brzezinski, I got a dirty look as I was firing shells all over the room. Anyway, Brzezinski opens by saying, President has authorized me to say we will recognize your revolutionary regime. We will not oppose you. We will even consider selling you all the arms we had contracted to sell to the Shah. Because we have a common enemy to your north, the Soviet Union. This is the end of October 1979. The Iranian response was, give us the Shah, who was then being medically treated in the United States. Brzezinski repeated his line several times. The Iranians repeated their line several times. Finally, Spig got up, said for us to give you the Shah would be incompatible with our national honor. That ended the meeting and three days later they seized our embassy. Every president since Carter has tried this and they have all failed. And frankly, I think those who believe that this theocratic regime can be negotiated with and that there can be some kind of reconciliation or some kind of a lasting arrangement. I think just does not understand that regime and does not understand the military power of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards that underpins that regime. So I've seen it. I saw it under President George W. Bush. I saw it under Carter. I saw it under Obama. Obama sent the Ayatollah two letters, the first month of his administration, urging a different kind of relationship. The replies were insulting. So if you can't negotiate with them, if you can't reason with the government, how do you marginalize them? How do you isolate them to make them less of a threat in the world community? Well, I think, first of all, now they have a friend in Russia to whom they are selling, to which they are selling drones and helping build a drone factory in Russia and so on and so forth. But basically you isolate them. And I think severe sanctions. I think it is potentially, and I don't want to pretend like change is around the corner, but there is a change in Iran. And I think that regime is more brittle than it looks. So in the past, when there have been protests until about 2018, the protests were generally around Tehran and around the universities. And so they'd call out the IRGC and put those down. But beginning, and I think it was January of 2018, all of a sudden the protests against the regime were all over the country. Including in rural towns and cities, away, away from Tehran. And people carrying signs, death to the Ayatollah, which must have sent some shutters because those are exactly the signs that they were carrying in 1979 against the death to the Shah. So now they're carrying them. But these demonstrations are in geographic areas that are basically the base of the theocratic regime. And that's where that resistance was when this young woman was killed a few months ago. The protests were all over the country. They're not just isolated to Tehran. They've taken a page out of Assad's book. They're willing to kill anybody they need to stay in power. But at a certain point, that doesn't work. I want to get back to, I want to talk about Russia, which you've just mentioned a moment ago. But before we go away from Israel, can I have you, what is your view of Benjamin Netanyahu and his policy in Israel? I have never been a fan of BBs. I first met him, and this is just, you know, kind of how old I am. I first met him when I was deputy national security adviser under Bush 41, and he was deputy foreign minister of Israel. And he came in to see me in the West Wing of the White House. And after he left, I went and I told President Bush and Brent Scowcroft. I said, that man should never be allowed in the White House again. I said, he is anti-American. He's very glib. He goes on the talk shows and speaks very well, but he's anti-American. Just my view. Despite the fact that he went to school in the United States of America. He grew up outside of Philadelphia. He went to Cheltenham High School. He's been experienced America as a resident. The thing to remember is that his primary interest is not necessarily America's primary interest. Because I think his primary interest is survival. Right. And I'm not talking about Israel's survival, personal survival. Why, Mr. Secretary, is it, there's been a movement toward isolationism in this country. And you mentioned our taking our eye off the ball in Ukraine. But why is it important for us to continue to support Vladimir Zelensky in Ukraine's attempt to stave off Russian invasion? So this is the first invasion of sovereign state in Europe since World War II. Vladimir Putin believes that it is his destiny to recreate the Russian Empire. Not the Soviet Union, but the Russian Empire. My friend Brzezinski once wrote, without Ukraine there can be no Russian Empire. And Ukraine is, as the Russians will tell you, where in the 10th century, 9th century, Rus' got its start, given Rus'. And so recreating the Russian Empire means, above all, control of Ukraine, Belarus, those three at least. But there is no doubt in my mind that if Putin were successfully to take all of Ukraine or install a puppet government in Kiev, the Moldova would be next, and then Transnistria. And then there is this corridor called the Suvalki Corridor that reaches out of Belarus up to Kaliningrad, which is the Russian sort of isolated outpost facing the West. It's very heavily armed, probably nuclear weapons there and so on. I think Putin would very much like to have that land bridge between Belarus and Kaliningrad. The only problem is it belongs to Poland and Lithuania. If he moves on the Suvalki Corridor, it means war with NATO. The most expensive thing a country can do is fight a war. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to support others who are resisting aggression than to have to do it ourselves. We are facing a world that is more perilous, and we can come back to this in my view, than certainly any time since World War II and maybe even before. Because of a lot of different things happening all at the same time. We are spending three and a half percent of our GDP on defense. Under Ronald Reagan during his military buildup in 1986, we were spending about six and two-thirds percent. At the end of World War II in 1945, we were spending 88 percent of GDP on our military. So we're trying to get by on the cheap as far as I'm concerned in a very dangerous world. And if we can help Ukraine keep the Russians at bay, it significantly lessens the prospect of a major war with Russia. There's another aspect to it. If we don't have the staying power to stand behind Ukraine, that is a lesson that Xi Jinping will take to heart with respect to Taiwan. That if you just put enough cost in it and a little time, you can always beat the West. So stopping Putin in Ukraine is not only important in terms of preventing further aggression in Europe and the very real possibility of a war between NATO and Russia. But it also has the impact of helping to deter, in my view, Xi Jinping with respect to Taiwan. There are a lot of variables here, Mr. Secretary, including the continuation of foreign aid, including American aid to the effort. But as you look at how Ukrainian forces have done against the Russian military, what do you think the chances of Ukraine driving out the Russians are? I think the likelihood of the Ukrainians being able to expel the Russians from all Ukrainian territory at this point is pretty low. The question is, can they, particularly in the South, drive their way forward toward Militopol and the Sea of Azov that cuts off the Russian land bridge to Crimea and also gives Ukraine access to the Sea of Azov, both for military and future economic development purposes? I think that that is an achievable objective. I think that was the objective of their counteroffensive. But right now, I mean, even the Ukrainian Defense Minister has said this thing has stalled. And so the prospect is for this fight to continue into next year without a significant amount of movement on either side. And then the question is, what happens? Now, I believe Putin is convinced he can outlast the Ukrainians, the Europeans, and the U.S. He's militarized the Russian economy. They are now producing more military goods than they were before the war started in certain categories. They have, according to what I've read, 400,000 troops in Ukraine. They've probably suffered somewhere in the ballpark of 200,000 to 300,000 casualties. Just to put that in perspective, they lost 15,000 killed in 10 years of war in Afghanistan. So he has militarized the economy. The people believe they're under attack. He's turned this into a, the narrative at home is that Russia is under attack from a decadent and aggressive West. And the truth is, this is kind of how most Russian wars go. They start badly and then the Russians begin to mobilize. They get their act together after all the mistakes, after all the incompetence and all the sacrifice. And no one should ever underestimate the capacity of the Russian people for sacrifice and of that country to absorb huge casualties. Too many examples in history. So for all those reasons, Putin thinks he looks at us. He sees support for Ukraine beginning to fracture in Washington. He hopes that a president will come to office that he has a better relationship with after the 2024 election. So for all these reasons, I think at this point he thinks he can outlast us and outlast the Ukrainians. Evgeny Progosian attempted what seemed like an aborted coup earlier this year and then was killed soon thereafter. And that seemed to be a challenge to Putin's leadership. How would you characterize Putin's hold on power now? Well, it's huge and powerful and strong until it's not. First of all, I believe for a long time that Putin will leave office feet first, one way or the other. He became president because he was able to promise Boris Yeltsin that he would keep him out of jail and he and his family could keep all the money they stole. There is nobody in Russia today who can make that promise to Vladimir Putin. So I think what had to be the most worrying to him was not how close Progosian got to Moscow, but the fact that nobody stood up for him. How did Progosian and this small group take over the entire city of Rostov-on-Don? How did they take over the headquarters of the southern military district of Russia? And nobody fired a shot. So Putin's got a wonder about the loyalty of everybody around him and I think of the military. He is very interesting. I mean, you go back and you look at some of the pictures of him meeting with his defense minister and the head of the Russian general staff. And he's at one end of a 40-foot table and they're at the other end. I've read that he never sees more than one or two people at a time. You have to quarantine for several days or a week before you see him. Everybody is frisked, including his cabinet ministers. He's very, you know, this is an old KGB guy. He's very mindful of the threat to his security. And so like I say, I think the killing of Progosian clearly was a signal to everybody, don't mess with me, because these are the consequences. But at a certain point, you have to wonder. Now, the bad news is I and I think a lot of people who watched Russia and the Soviet Union for a long time is that if Putin were to disappear from the scene tomorrow, he would probably be replaced by somebody even more hardline, at least for a while. So we're going to have to wait a while, I think, and maybe quite a while before Russia finally gets a ruler who actually cares something about the Russian people and wants Russia to cease being a pariah among nations. The Russian troops are clearly expendable and the numbers are sky high. What is the morale look like among Russian troops and how does that factor into the Russian militaries will to win this war? Well, I think the morale of the Russian troops is about like it has always been, which is terrible. I mean, they've got lousy food, lousy rations, lousy equipment, lousy training. A lot of these, you know, you read a lot of the things in the Russian press and so on and social media. A lot of these kids are being sent straight from recruitment to a few weeks of training and then thrown into the front lines. And so, you know, my friend Condi Rice said she thinks probably a million young Russian men have left the country and they're probably among the best and the brightest in the country. So in many ways for this war, Putin has mortgaged the future of Russia. I mean, look at all the companies that have not just suspended operations. Western companies have suspended operations in Russia. They've divested their out. And if oil and gas is the sole source of real income in Russia, the departure of Western oil and gas companies and above all the technology that they bring to helping the Russians exploit old fields or difficult fields, I think is huge for Russia's future. What do you see, Mr. Secretary, as the greatest threat to America today? I think it is that, I mean, I could go the domestic route, but I'm not going to. I think the greatest threat is that we do not have a, there is not a clear understanding in the country of the multitude of challenges that we face all at the same time. We have not faced an aggressive adversary in both Europe and Asia since the Korean War. When China finishes their military, their nuclear buildup, which they, which is now underway, within five or six years Russia, China and North Korea together very likely will have twice as many nuclear weapons as the United States. We have never in this, in the last century faced a country like China whose economy is so large and so integrated into the rest of the world. They're the largest trading partner of over 120 countries in the world. They either own, operate, or invest in 100 ports in 60 different countries, including a couple in the United States. So their economic power, their technological prowess, their scientific capabilities, their strategic communications, they're spending billions of dollars every year in communicating their message about the fact that we are on the decline and they are on the upswing, they are the future, security assistance, and so on. So there's China. We have a Russia and China that for the first time since the 50s are really working together. Only this time China is the big brother. But they are collaborating on a narrative that has great appeal in the global south, which is about the bullying of the West. If they don't like your policies, they'll impose sanctions on you. They're not investing in you like we do, particularly in the case of China. They won't give you security assistance like we do in the case of Russia. And right now the global south is taking a pass on this competition between authoritarianism and democracy. And so I think as I look at the world, the biggest danger is that we don't understand that authoritarianism has far deeper roots in human history than democracy. And democracy is a fragile thing that has to be defended. And it always has to be defended because the default position it seems to be in a lot of places is authoritarianism. And so I think we don't have an appreciation in this country, first of all, of the fragility of democracy and that it must be defended. And that there are real adversaries out there of great power and great determination who truly believe that the arc of history is moving in their direction, not in ours. I think that's, and the truth is this is a place where I hold all of our political leaders at fault. Franklin Roosevelt wrote a long time ago or said, the greatest responsibility of a statesman is to educate. And it's the responsibility of the president and the members of Congress to help educate the American people about these issues and about why our role in the world is so important. And why our acceptance of our global responsibilities is not altruism, it is in our own national interest. It's for our protection, or as W. Bush put it, better to fight them on their ten yard line than our ten yard line. And I think that's one of the things that concerns me the most is that there is no discussion in this country right now of what I've just said. So why is that, why are those discussions not happening? You wrote a book you came to talk about on this stage called A Passion for Leadership and you talked about what makes a good leader. It's a failure of leadership and I would say both Republican and Democratic. It is because everybody is so consumed with political warfare inside our country and winning inside the country that they're losing sight of what we're losing outside the country. That, that I think puts us, I just published an article in Foreign Affairs, the title in early October, and the title was the dysfunctional superpower. Can America deter Russia and China? And the final sentence was, the peril is real. And I don't think our politicians across the board are, they're too busy fighting with each other to communicate the lessons to the American people that the peril is real. Why are we seeing a slip in democracy here at home? Why are we seeing our Democratic principles erode as manifest on January 6th, 2021? Well that's probably the basis of some big conference at the LBJ school or the library. But I think it's a combination of things. I think it's, I think first of all it's, it is the fact that over the last 30 years, our, our politics have become so poisonous. You know there was a time when, when you're, you would vote and argue against your opponent on the floor of the House or Senate during the day, and then you'd all go out to dinner at night, or you'd play golf on the weekend. Now people don't talk about their opponents, they talk about them as enemies. These are our enemies, these are enemies of America. And it's not just, it's both the hard left and the hard right. And, and it demonizes everything. And then when you have, you know, when I was growing up there were three TV channels. And now you got a zillion and you can find that corner of the internet or streaming or whatever that echoes what you want to believe. And you never have to think about an opposing point of view because you don't have to listen to all those others. I think social media is a, is a factor. Which I think actually interestingly is one of the reasons so many politicians are worried about AI now, is because they think they missed the boat when it came to the potential danger of social media to society. So I think, I think the answer to your question mark is very complex, but it boils down to people losing sight of the fact that we're all Americans and we're all in this together. And like Franklin said, we're either going to hang together or we hang separately. And you got to figure out a way to compromise on issues. I mean the whole system fails to work without compromise. The Constitution itself is a bundle of huge compromises. And the designers planned it that way. And so if you don't give a little, if you don't compromise, then you're at war. And what people inside the Beltway are losing, and my fear outside the Beltway as well, is the understanding that the only way the country hangs together and moves forward is by each side being willing to give a little. Are there quick wins to that end? What can we do to ensure that we are on that road on a short-term basis through quick wins that we can all agree on? It's hard for me to come up with one off the top of my head. I think where it starts is in particularly the donor class saying to people who want their support, yeah, okay, well, here are my terms. And my terms are, you've got to be civil. You've got to reach across the aisle now and then. You've got to get something done instead of just stand up there and make speeches. And if you do that, I'll write you a check. Now this is a plug, I guess. Anyway, without naming names, I have given to a political action committee that to get its support, you have to have been a veteran of either Iraq or Afghanistan. You can be either a Democrat or a Republican. But to get their support and their money, you have to agree to a set of terms. And there are four or five. But basically they are, you've got to reach across the aisle. You've got to co-sponsor with somebody from the other party, at least one piece of legislation. And we'll endorse you and give you a check this election, but next time around, we'll be checking to see if you did what you said. That's what donors need to be doing. We touched on China, but I think we'd be remiss if we didn't talk a little bit more about that threat. You mentioned Vladimir Putin as wanting to be Vladimir the Great and to recreate the Soviet Empire. What does Xi Jinping want? What is his goal? What is his motivation? He also has a sense of personal destiny. And it's his destiny that China be a world power, maybe the world power, and that he gathers the traditional Chinese lands, primarily Hong Kong and Taiwan. And if he brings Taiwan back under the mainland, then he earns his spot in the Pantheon next to Mao. But you've got two leaders, Putin and Xi, who are cocooned by yes men and have a personal sense of destiny. And who think they've got the upper hand. And what I argue in this article is they both have made some big miscalculations. So what do we need to do to make sure to change that calculus in their minds that they got the upper hand over us? How do we demonstrate to them the risks and the dangers of making another miscalculation, whether it's in Europe or with respect to Taiwan? And that goes back to all that we've been talking about. But I think I personally, to say something relatively positive, I actually believe that the likelihood of the Chinese launching an all out invasion of Taiwan is very low for the next number of years. First of all, they're just not ready. You know, an operation to invade Taiwan is significantly larger than D-Day and would have to cover twice the distance over even more turbulent seas. And the Chinese haven't exercised this. They don't have the equipment. It's a huge operation. Also, she's got a wonder. I think, you know, he's just fired his defense minister. He's just who he appointed eight months ago. He's just fired both the head and the deputy head of the rocket forces, probably all three for corruption. He's been fighting corruption in the Chinese military since he came to power 10 years ago. He's got a wonder, especially as he looks at Ukraine, are my generals any better than those? Is my system just as corrupt as theirs as I worry it is? And what are the implications of that for fighting? They have not fought a war since 1979, since they invaded Vietnam and got a bloody nose. There isn't, with the firing of the former defense minister, there isn't a single Chinese general that has combat experience. So, and then, you know, I think she had to be surprised given this narrative of decline in the West. She had to be stunned by the speed with which Biden was able to bring together the coalition of democracies and the magnitude of the sanctions they were able to impose on Russia and how quickly they did it and the magnitude of those sanctions. And then finally, what if the Taiwanese fight like the Ukrainians? So my view is he definitely sees bringing Taiwan under the mainland as his destiny and his goal, but he's got a lot of tools and some time. And so I think the likelihood of an invasion. Now, this is kind of, of course, the kind of prediction that comes and bites you in the ass the next day when it starts. But I really believe that. And I think most of the people that I know and talk to believe that as well. So clearly, so much of our ability to overcome these formidable challenges in the world center on American leadership. You've known Joe Biden for over 30 years. You worked with him in the Obama administration. How is Joe Biden doing in his presidency? Well, I would say it's a mixed picture. The line from my book duty that gets quoted back to me all the time dating and I wrote and was published in 2014. So nine years ago was that that I thought Joe Biden had been wrong on every major strategic issue for the last 40 years. So I will say this. I think that the departure from Afghanistan was a disaster. The attempt to renegotiate the nuclear deal with Iran was a big mistake. And particularly the willingness to pay six billion bucks for humanitarian purposes. Not remembering that money is fungible. I think that on the other side of and I think he's been slow to approve important weapons systems for Ukraine. The decision making process has been very slow. Now, on the other side of the ledger, I think that his his sending the intelligence people to Europe to warn that the Russians were preparing to invade was brilliant. I think his assembly of the coalition to oppose Russia and to support Ukraine was masterful. I think his reinforcement of the quad with India, Australia, Japan and the United States was important. His encouragement of going forward with the Abraham Accords and also the Israeli Saudi deal was also very strong. And I think his alliance building and reassurance have had a real impact around the world. So, you know, if you weigh all that together, I guess I come down that as they once said about Wagner's music, it's better than it looks. Or sounds. Given how well you know Biden and have known him through the years has anything about his administration surprised you? Not really. No. I have some students in the audience, Mr. Secretary. What message would you sound to them about what they can do to ensure a better future for America? Well, it would be not to be discouraged by what you see going on in our politics. You know, George HW Bush once said public service is a noble calling. And, you know, I was in public service when we went through Vietnam, when we went through Watergate. We've been through tough times before. And we've been through ugly times in our politics before. But we keep moving forward. We keep moving ahead. And, you know, we everybody or too many people focus entirely on our flaws as a nation. But the one thing that I think differentiates us almost literally from everybody else is that no other nation has started with such high aspirations. Recognizing that it could never meet them all, but has worked harder to try to do so. And we aspire to live up to our ideals and nobody works harder for that. And the only way you do that is by individuals being in the process, being engaged, and trying to move things forward. So for students and particularly those in places like the LBJ school, the Bush school at A&M, and elsewhere, don't get discouraged by everything you see and hear. I've been through that process a long time and you will never meet better people than you meet in public service along the way. Ladies and gentlemen, we were joking backstage, but I think you all agree with the fact that if anyone deserves $77 million for leaving Texas A&M, it was Secretary Robert M. Gates. Thank you so much.