 Okay, should have a question coming up and that question is does the Pentagon have too much power? That should be an easy answer So we'll ask you to take a minute or two to answer that Looks like it's splitting. You can see it right down here the right for the panel members Still adjusting. Well, I have the honor. I'm Ben Franklin. I have the honor to Moderate this next panel. We have a great group of folks to talk to you a little bit different from what we've heard this morning So we have Dr. Corey shocky who's a deputy director of the International Institute for strategic studies She's also a distinguished research fellow at the Hoover Institute Recently and as the editor with secretary Jim Mattis of the book warriors and citizens American's views of our military She served in the NSC DOD and state for starters, but she's just getting going Major Matt Kavanaugh is an army strategist and a non-resident fellow at the modern war Institute at the United States Military Academy He wanted you to know that he's just completed his dissertation. How about that? Is that pretty great or what? He's earned a youngest strategist award from the army and his arm also army athlete in 2009 So he's the complete soldier warrior He has a got a book coming out in May, but he tells me it's out here called strategy strikes back how Star Wars explains modern military conflict To his right is dr. Janine Davidson she's president of Metropolitan State University in Denver She focuses on student success and better serving the university's 20,000 students. She also served as a 32nd undersecretary of the Navy, which isn't too shabby for a combat C-130 pilot So we talked about cross disciplines at Arizona State University. Here's cross service Leader and to her right is dr. Elliott Cohen a Robert E. Osgood professor of strategic studies at John Hopkins University School of advanced international study where he's taught since 1990 and his most recent book is the big stick And he served both in DOD and with the Department of State So our question is does the Pentagon have too much power? So we'll start on the right. What say you I? Don't know Let me say a couple let me turn it into a discussion of civil-military relations, and that's where we want to go with this panel by the way Thank you This is an academic privilege to hijack the discussion So I guess I just a few quick observations. The first thing is that Civilian suspicion of the military is baked into the nature of our Institutions, I always tell people on July 4th when I hope every one of you reads the Declaration of Independence in its entirety Including the boring pieces at the end That you'll notice how many of them have to do with what is summarized in one phrase He King George III has has affected to render the military Independent of and superior to the civilian power So there are all kinds of historical reasons for this which I'm not going to go into but I think it's very important to understand that a certain kind of wariness about Military power and military authority goes back to our founding. It's deep in our institutions It's quite reinforced when you have the depending on the way it is There are some features of the current nature of civil-military relations which have to do with The the personalities I think of our recent presidents and our current president I'll leave you to think about Think about that one some of it has to do I think just with the some fundamental differences between military people and Civilians which can actually be quite productive. I have a book on that separate subject, but I think the the big issues which I want to Just float for you is this They're really two big issues. The first is the United States made a decision Which is perfectly sensible and which cannot be reversed to have an all-volunteer force starting Let's say in the late 1960s. It's really the early 70s. It takes place Once that happened and once we decided that at the same time we would remain the global superpower We were setting ourselves up for a certain problem Where the military really does become a world apart in a variety of ways. I believe we've made that We have made that worse and in sometimes subtle ways to include some of the military's own recruitment Preferences and practices So that's that's one big one the second big one which I think is something for us to think about is we've been waging war now for 17 years those wars have been In most cases I would say either marginally successful unsuccessful Or simply uncertain and there is a long-term effect from that and I don't think we've thought Enough about that. I think we you know, we obviously think a lot about the stress that's imposed on the The sergeants and the captains there is stress that's been imposed on the general officers and that is that is consequential and I think that can that Contributes in a way to a certain kind of civil military divide. I'll just conclude by saying do I think this is a crisis? No, I think it is endemic to our system I think it's just we're going through a period where it's somewhat more inflamed than you So does the Pentagon have too much power to the generals the including admirals So by the way have too much power and I would say they have an immense amount of power they have First of all, I would say for three reasons number one because they have all the money the Pentagon has Way too much money compared to the other Agencies of government especially the State Department and even the Pentagon says so so that's one area of power another reason why they have a lot of power is because they have a lot of respect among the American people and now whether that's gonna sustain we can talk about further but You know compared to the Vietnam era We all know that there's a thank you for your service culture out there that is almost a fetish at this point so that gives them an immense amount of power in a way and then Third in in this administration at least but I don't think it's just this administration We have we have senior military officers peppered throughout Other agencies and in the White House and now we have retired four-star in charge of the Pentagon as in a civilian slot Which I absolutely love General Mattis, but he is a general and you know when people out in the Society feel comforted by the fact that we're putting admirals and generals and especially you know retired four-stars in these sorts of positions or as the national security advisor precisely because They're worried about the president people like us who think about this a lot Should be a little worried. That's you know, I mean General Mattis Maybe the exception that proves the rule, but let's be clear that we're making an exception here So those are sort of three areas where I do think that the military has a lot of respect and a lot of authority a lot They're in positions of authority. They have a lot of resources. So thus they have a lot of power the bigger question is So what are they using that power and this is where I find you know for in ways that would worry us and This is where the sort of the ethos of the professional military officer is really something that we should be comforted by I you know now that I don't live in Washington anymore and people ask me these kinds of questions a lot I have to say to them you you have to understand how deeply embedded into the ethos of the professional military officer the idea of civilian control is And I think still remains That's something that is is nurtured in our educational system And I think it's something that we have to continue to discuss where the lines are so you have a lot of authority on the one hand But they're still immensely professional in that sort of Huntington sense of civilians are still in charge Okay, Matt So the last thing that I had something to say at last event was at Easter at my house surrounded by small children So I'm well poised to spot the kid at the grown-ups table, and that's me today. So sitting next to these giants I really appreciate the opportunity And I hope that you apply the same standard to me that I do to my kids Which is to say that as long as I don't spit up on myself or make a mess of things that Easter will be very kind to me The the original prompt for the panel was does do the generals have too much power? And you might not be surprised that I would say no That I'm sort of biased But it's a little bit like asking a servant on Downton abbey whether Lord Grantham upstairs Has given too much power to the servants and I think that servant response would be The servants have as much power as Lord Grantham thinks that we need And I think that discussions on civil military relations actually benefit from a downstairs perspective a bottom-up perspective because So much of civil military relations is presidents and prime ministers and generals and admirals And so I wanted to raise that downstairs perspective, which is growing partisanship within the military. So I think that we're at danger of losing our norm of non partisanship And I come at this not as a deep researching academic As someone with lived experience. So a year and a half ago. I was serving in a headquarters in Korea during the primary season and We would literally huddle in a bunker and watch on a screen During the debates and you could watch the partisan invective Eminate from the screen and divide the soldiers that that were there I stood next to a Mexican-American soldier and I could almost physically literally watch his skin crawl When I returned from that assignment to a place in Colorado a base that I won't name But I was greeted at my new desk not by a smiley friendly colleague, but by a continuous steady supply of Robo calls from one of the political parties because at my government phone at a government desk One of the previous occupants had been Aligned with a political party that shouldn't be the case. So I started digging into the numbers and In one generation we've seen a marked shift in partisanship within the military. So in 1976 when surveyed 55% of officers said that they were either independent or non-partisan or not affiliated with a party in 2009 the same question was asked and the number was down to 16% and I'm sure there's more recent figures in your book warriors and civilians behavior-wise when at surveyed in 2010 27% of officers said that another officer had tried to influence their vote in the 2008 election cycle and then Colonel Heidi Urban's study in December of 2015 of 500 West Point cadets and National Defense University kernels found that over a third Had observed or shared insulting rude or disdainful comments about elected leaders And then I'll I'll get past the numbers but one last data point. I think matters and that's elected retired officers endorsing elected or Presidential candidates, so there's sort of a moment of inception in the early 90s where we had one admiral Endorse one candidate then candidate Bill Clinton and we now expect that every election cycle There'll be hundreds of retired officers endorsing presidential candidates so there has been a marked shift in a generation and I Was just at a at a conference at West Point where we were talking about these issues and some very smart people said There's no crisis That absent a physical threat by the uniform military against the civilian leadership We don't have a problem But I think that's the wrong standard Just as peace isn't the absence of war healthy civil military relations is not the absence of an imminent Threat on the nation so the to me the problem really is that we Don't agree on a problem that we have a problem And it's it's almost as if we think that things could get bad, but we don't know how bad they could get It's as if we've all jumped off a building and we're arguing about where the cement floor is But we know that there is a cement floor and we know it's bad And I would remind everyone today's April 9th 153 years ago today general Robert E. Lee West Point class of 1829 Surrendered to lieutenant general Ulysses S. Grant West Point class of 1843 The Civil War was only so devastatingly possible because 27% of West Point graduates in the decades leading up to the war Chose politics voted with their feet for secession and then took up arms against the US government. So That sounds alarmist It's not meant to be but it's it's how serious. I think the stakes are with partisanship within the military Thank you to Cory. So there are a couple of different issues that people have been kicking around one is Politicization of our military and the other is policy influence of our military and I want to treat them separately on The most important thing anybody has ever said about civil military relations was Elliot Cohen during the election when he argued that it was really important for George W. Bush to win the election so that the military could learn to hate Republicans again Because you saw so much in survey data about military attitudes towards President Clinton and and the Clinton administration and what they were capturing was the military's abiding earnestness that that we should be better than this that values matter that and and American society is so much more tumultuous than that and you also saw it during the Bush administration Exactly what Elliot said would happen happened, which is military officers views became much more critical of the Bush administration and then when you had the Obama administration it shifted back again, right? So they the important news is that the military should always be skeptical about the extent to which our elected political leaders are trying to use them as socially valuable and politically valuable backdrops for their policies a Second thing I would say is that there's a reason that the public likes the military and doesn't like anybody else And it is that abiding earnestness the problem-solving they Please don't drag us into the big tumult. We're just trying to do What the country needs from us? That's endearing and if other institutions of American government would like to have that kind of relationship with the American public That opportunity is available to them They are simply not taking it and it's not just elected politicians if you think about the way Most foreign service officers engage on American foreign policy the reason people treat them like a Weird cultist priesthood is that they very often act like a weird cultist priesthood Instead of trying to explain to my mom why Afghanistan matters and why Pakistan is a more helpful to us in that regard the survey data for the book that Jim and I did on Civil military issues comes through very strongly that the public very much wants Politicians to do exactly what they are doing which is objectifying the military and Wanting somebody in a uniform right next to them to validate the choices that they're making And The as Janine pointed out Literally the only restraint on our military being much more politically active is the Professionalism of the military itself. It is their own professional education and ethos that holds that line Where it has eroded dramatically as Matt said is among veterans I disagree with Janine that Secretary Mattis is a general once you are not on active duty you are a veteran and Just as we shouldn't Exceptionally celebrate them and think they're uniquely qualified for these jobs It also shouldn't preclude them from making contributions to the Republic even after they've retired I am uncomfortable with the politicization with Endorsements, but that ship has sailed Moreover the American public very much likes Political likes veterans doing what both John Allen and Mike Flynn did Which is wrap their political candidates in the flag and validate their foreign and national security policy judgments What we see happening Peter fever's research and Jim Goldbeast research and Lindsay Collins research shows Very clearly that Public attitudes on the military are changing. They're becoming a lot more like public attitudes about the Supreme Court Namely, I like it when they agree with the policies I support and then I have dads about these guys when they don't support my policies The last thing I would say is that anybody know which country in the Middle East the United States has the highest approval ratings in It's Iran the country with which we have the least Engagement and that too is actually a secret to how popular the American military is because 50 years into an all-volunteer force Most Americans don't know anybody in the military and they may mistakenly believe that Matt Kavanaugh or JP McGee are normal normal representatives of the institution as opposed to superheroes and So there's a tendency on the part of the public to treat the military like they're all uniquely virtuous Perfect posture great citizens Instead of understanding that they are no better and no worse than the rest of the American public Because they are us and good civil military But the solution to almost every problem in civil military relations is treating our military like what they are which is us There was no problem in those opening statements. No controversy there. So to go a little further Not as late as a civil war, but during and after Vietnam There was a factor of lack of trust in the military in Part that when America's men and women are treasure were drafted to fight in that war They weren't employed properly. The truth wasn't told HR McMaster rights is booked their election of duty We're transitioning to an all-volunteer force and so there's a very much of a lack of trust in that institution It has been rebuilt Are we in a position of that trust being lost with you get a 716 billion dollar budget without a whole lot of scrutiny and out a whole lot of justification where the other departments of government Are fighting for every dollar we we see surveys where parents say they don't want their children to serve in the military And and as these military leaders either enter in the fray as retirees or Take key positions in the government if they don't do well is trust gonna erode because this is a huge factor I would believe in this this balance clause which writes about the balance between the people the government and the military is Trust a problem or going to be a problem. Well, I I guess if I could pitch in on that I think it's important not to conflate too many different things You know, I'm not happy if parents really are opposed to their kids going into military service On the other hand what I'd like to see the Pentagon treated skeptically absolutely. I mean, I keep on thinking of that phrase I've loved wisely and therefore not too well You know skepticism is an important thing. It's also important to remember You know, this is not just sort of the outside looking in it's also how the military behave one of the reasons why You know, the military came into rather bad odor in during the Vietnam War You know, it had to do with the five o'clock follies in Vietnam or briefings of things that were clearly untrue Promises of the end of light at the end of the tunnel, which didn't really look like that And and so on and so forth as I said, there's you know A healthy norm would be a certain amount of friction Certainly a healthy amount of Skepticism that's that's built into the system that we can live with and if I I'll just say there's so much to say on this I'll just say one thing. I think and I first I thought these were wonderful Really wonderful statements all of which I agree with Except for a couple of quibbles with Corey, but that's an old story that the There's a lot that we could do to reestablish some of the connections between the military and the society and You know that includes really making sure that there's a bit more of a military presence around the country So one thing I'll just pick on the army. I've always thought it's a terrible idea that the army is Concentrated into these mega bases like Fort Hood or God help you Fort Polk Those of you who've been to Fort Polk know what I'm talking about Fort Benning which in one ways are very convenient, but it means take my own part of the country New England when I was growing up Fort Evans was an active military Installation when I went through ROTC. That's where we did our drills. It was there. It was part of the community There'd be people going back and forth. It's why it is economically completely inefficient to have ROTC programs at all kinds of Educational institutions around the country if I understand why the military likes to double down on places like Texas A&M Which can generate oodles and oodles of perfectly qualified officers But it means that you're you're making sure that there's a whole generation of college graduates that don't really know anybody Who's in military service? Well, I think if we're interested in solutions We should be looking at that I think Matt Kavanaugh's point about it going bottom up is really important for diagnosing the problem It's also important for Thinking about remedies and that's that is the sort of bottom-up solution. I'd I'd be very much in favor of I don't necessarily think that well I think that the main issue is that The vast majority of Americans are sort of checked out They're not just checked out on the military because they don't serve in the military or know someone who serves in the military Or know someone who knows someone who serves in the military. That's one part of the problem But they're also sort of checked out on foreign affairs as well And so whereas in the Vietnam War, I would assume people we know people were watching this on TV every night Because they knew somebody that was over there and so they were deeply interested in it and Number one number two the media were covering it today the media covers the palace intrigue of the White House, right? So the Americans that I talked to are very there It's a it's it's a very foreign thing to them the the culture of the military and even international affairs and so they would have to be paying more attention to Be more to have more scrutiny and I you know all of us have all of us have probably this person in their family But you know my my brother who's really smart, but doesn't study this for a living He's all sort of like my Napoleon's corporal because he'll come to me and he'll say things like What the hell's going on in Iraq? You know sort of like I mean I've been trying to keep up It just seems like we're kind of screwing it up and I mean he's a smart person. He reads the Economist He keeps up and and you know, but doesn't affect his daily life And so he you know to the vast majority of Americans Whether they trust the military or not trust the military to execute its mission abroad is one thing whether they're gonna let their Son or daughter join the military is another thing and those things are somewhat separate, but they're they are A like in that there's just this sort of lack of of awareness So I think I think ironically it leads to just sort of like I guess it's okay. They're doing alright, right? They they seem but they have good posture and you know So I don't see you I don't see that sort of lack of trust yet So I would actually echo dr. Cohen's point most of the in part because I'm from st. Paul, Minnesota and It was strange for me leaving high school to go to a school like West Point I felt Awkward or it you know it was you know people were excited But nobody really knew what it meant and I sure didn't know what it meant other than four years of unpleasantness and I that's my start point sort of actually when we're talking about maintaining a trust relationship with the American public A trusting relationship is give and take is Equivalent on some level. It's not fawning and I actually I think it was almost a year ago maybe some of you are familiar with a professor at the Naval Academy named Bruce Fleming and he's an English professor that attended the Naval Academy's graduation and wrote an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun there was incredibly critical of What he believed was over adulation and over praise Of the sacrifices of the midshipmen to graduate that day Setting aside the fact that it's a graduation day and hyperbole is kind of the norm you tell graduates how Perfect they are that day When I read it, I actually got upset I could feel like heat coming under my skin like probably a little bit like right now and my My my gut reaction was born of the fact that I had just come back from the tour in Korea that I mentioned which was unaccompanied and It was a very difficult year. I don't need to dwell on that But one example is that I tried FaceTime with my Four-year-old and she got so upset after we hung it up that we never did it again She couldn't differentiate the screen from why dad's not home so I took this General statement of the military not being special personally and I shouldn't have and when I Came down off of my high horse. I recognized and I I wrote as much later and realized that I Would absolutely agree that we're not special Particularly because my parents my mom's a special education teacher in a high-poverty Part of st. Paul was she's retired now and dad signed up for the TSA as soon as he could after September 11th, so I'm well aware that there's a lot of folks out there in this room even mostly probably that that serve something larger than themselves and that you service to something higher than oneself is not Special to the military, but I would say that it's also fair to say that what we do is unique I had just learned Admiral James DeVridis mentioned at a thing offhand that he had spent 11 years at sea which made me feel like my One year of heartache with my family made that a little bit less Painful, but and then of course senator McCain his five and a half years I think in Hanoi and So I I wish that as the relationship goes that that we were treated less special and And more just distinct or one way one flavor of service Although the free bag thing at airports is cool The public has an enormous amount of trust in the military moreover the Surveys that we did for warriors and citizens show that the public While knowing nothing about the American military Nonetheless gets a lot of the big issues in civil military relations, right? So for example, they hold the elected political leadership Responsible for whether we are winning or losing the war and that's appropriate because our elected political leaders are the people who aggregate our societal Preferences and determine how much blood and treasure and political effort to put into the war Where the trust issue? I do think is dangerous Maybe not more so than in other times, but but still worrying is that What we saw in survey responses from political elites is a growing distrust of military advice a belief that the military is political and gaming them and and this is where veterans being so politically vocal as John Allen and Mike Flynn were Effects the active-duty military because it creates the perception that these guys are all political actors And just waiting to be unveiled and that they are not giving Sound sensible military advice and that's absolutely not what our active-duty Military leadership looks like to itself So there is a fair amount of friction at that level But the civil military the civilian the norms of an unequal playing field That Elliot so beautifully has drawn out in his work also hold right that The elected leaderships got a right to be stupid and wrong because they're the elected leadership and And it doesn't matter the military is Unquestionably subordinate and the military views itself as unquestionably subordinate But the political leadership ceases to think of them in that way and that's I think where the friction is coming now Thanks, we're gonna go to questions just a minute. I'm gonna ask one more What's the role of the active-duty admirals and generals vice the retirees? Regarding strategy budget media and the political process. How do you see? What should be separate and what's mingled because sometimes when that Military leader comes on the news at night and uses their title Americans may not differentiate between that so what's the role between the active-duty serving guard reserve Team H and uniform and the retirees Cory. I know you've got thoughts on this. Let's go this way this time. What do you think? so the public uses retirees as a proxy for the active-duty and Veterans who take a political role Bear culpability for changing public attitudes about the military and very often in politicized and negative ways what? what lieutenant general McMaster as an active-duty national security advisor Defending the president's comportment in the meetings with the Russians for example That may be very useful to the president. It's actually quite bad for the army as an institution And so it's true with active-duty military folks in very politicized jobs my own view is that Active-duty people in those kinds of roles are both too political and not political enough They are so political that they cause people to think about the military differently and in a more politicized way and They are in almost every instance. I can think of not political enough to be really good effective politicians and so so it's typically not helpful retirees You know, they are changing people's attitudes. They are making policy people think differently about the military and it's making policy people hesitant to To bring military active-duty leaders into their confidence to tell them what they really think To have that kind of open and free-flowing exchange that good high-level policy requires. So yeah, I do think it's problematic Matt you've written about this. What do you think? Yeah, I'm gonna sort of sidestep the active-duty generals and animals part But the retired community I think that it can be a very powerful tool Dr. Shockey just mentioned for example that the American public there's a gap in knowledge and understanding about modern war It's in part why the book on Star Wars and strategy to be honest But the I think that it can be a very powerful tool in helping the American public better understand and get better informed on very important decisions that frankly involve a lot of People's lives I've gotten to know Lieutenant General Mark Hurtling. I served with his son in Iraq I got to know him through that and he's with MWI as well and he's an analyst a military analyst for CNN and He takes that role very seriously and is very careful tries to be as careful as humanly possible about the remarks that he makes and ensuring that he's speaking on matters of policy and not Getting into terrain that's makes life problematic or difficult for people on the active in the active force That being said there is The the presidential endorsement problem, and I think it is a problem continues to grow and fester and There there is skepticism that that genie could ever be put back in the bottle. I Am hopeful that it could Because when you consider that there are seven thousand roughly seven thousand retired generals and admirals out there walking around the United States The fact that 500 endorsed in the 2012 election cycle and about 200 in the 2016 election cycle Tells me that there's that's the tip of the iceberg And I'm hopeful that the rest of the folks that are under the surface of the water that want to uphold the principles of the profession would Be more vocal about staying neutral But there's work to be done on that Yeah, I think it's another manifestation of The amount of respect that we have for the retired Generals and admirals the the uniform military that people do look to these retired retirees to help them make sense of Foreign affairs and national security So it's another sort of manifestation of the of a type of power that they do have and they have to Recognize that I'm not so sure that as a community They've really got their heads around that responsibility the way they have their heads around the responsibility of civilian control as active duty members I just think this conversation is really starting to pick up a lot more because of the trends That you that you speak of and so that the one thing that really I find troubling is The politicization of these groups of retirees. It's like a competition among the presidential candidates to see how many they can collect and That the that these senior retired military officers allow that to happen is a little It's a little troubling to me. I mean my own father's a retired two-star. He's 80 now almost and You know, he he gets Everybody wants, you know, they don't really care who he was or what he did in the military You know, he's a supply-core naval officer He wasn't a huge strategist They just want his name on the bottom of the sheet and I find that really distasteful And so that that that's really troubling Yet you endorsed a political candidate and you would deny your father that No, I mean, I do think there's something fundamentally different about about admirals in generals They have they have a level of respect from their 30 and 40 years of service That is not the same as even if you get out as a major you're not it's not the same. Yeah, no one's gonna Yeah You know, you know, it's I do think it's a little different I think one of the wisest things that Corey pointed out though was this this issue of the polititization of an active duty officer and the HR as an example that You know, he's in an awkward position because that position Requires someone who's a political animal and that's an uncomfortable and unfair position to put a three-star And you pointed that out of I mean last year and I think that that's a really important insight Okay, I don't have time to be diplomatic. So First thing I've yet to meet a retired general or flag officer who says just call me mister They go by general or Admiral Secondly, there is a big distinction between what is legal and what is right legally they can endorse people They can do all that stuff. I once in an op-ed said it's also perfectly legal for them to go off after Retirement and become pole dancers in Las Vegas Which got me angry emails from a couple of general officers and then I have to report a bunch of emails from colonel saying let me nominate a few I Think that I think the truth is most retired general and flag officers understand that they have a special kind of status and actually are quite careful About it, but the fact is I believe they have responsibilities which go on afterwards I want to do I do want to pick on the active duty thing. So I spent two years with that cult What did you call them a bunch of cultists? Swipe at my diplomatic brethren and arms Who are really the foreign service who actually are quite misunderstood and quite selfless and in some cases extraordinarily courageous In a way that I was a senior official in the State Department and I can tell you having spent a lot of time in the deputies committee that Friends of mine and the joint staff had absolutely no problem giving me terrible advice about foreign policy They were extremely free with it They would respond nearly as well if I gave them Probably terrible, but maybe not advice about military affairs So I can find myself to asking awkward questions, which made them mad instead I Think it's very important to remember that just because you're a general does not mean you have good foreign policy judgment Right. In fact, it often means you're a terrible foreign policy judge. I'm not joking You know the greatest strategist supposedly in the United States Army was a man before World War two was a man You have never heard of Stanley Embeck He was you talked about America first. He was a real America firster He was against any kind of aid to Great Britain his judgment about the world was awful And I've met plenty of general officers whose foreign policy I've used I believe were not particularly well-informed and not particularly helpful That's not an argument for having, you know bright lines of separation in it is in the nature of policy making That they'll be given give and take and back back and forth, but I think that you know what Senior level military leadership gives you it gives you expertise in whatever your field is You know, do I trust admirals to be experts in counterinsurgency? Not so much, you know What I want general frankly to be running some major fleet problem. I don't think so There's so there's a specific area of expertise and there's a kind of general leadership Experience and and gravity that that goes along. I believe with those experiences. It does not necessarily Translate it can but it does not necessarily translate into expertise on policy There you go. Okay. How do I question? Right there Please Hi, Austin Bird Army National Guard So two questions first. I think we've asked the wrong question should be Have we given the Pentagon too much responsibility? Have we asked the military to do too many things and with all that has come the power Second thing I would say is at the grand strategy level. Is it not essential for our admirals in general to be a Part of policy making and absolutely in politics Anybody Well Okay, so the first one. I mean who else is going to run military things if not the Pentagon a And be a lot of the missions that we assume. Well, boy, that's not military business Actually, it is military business and historically always has been I would just point out military governance As one which we fell down on in the biggest possible way in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 I mean, I remember getting fingers in the chest for my rate General officer friends when I became temporarily diplomat Why isn't the State Department here running Basra or something the answer is, you know Hurricane Katrina goes happens the mayor of New Orleans doesn't say please send me three ambassadors as soon as you can The military the military has the resources it has the manpower It has logistical expertise to do all kinds of and I don't think they're being asked to do things Which are inappropriate particularly if you know anything about military history Grand strategy. I have a problem because I don't really believe it exists But the fact of the matter anyway is that in normal governmental processes the military is absolutely heard You know, if you have NSC meetings Secretary's gonna be there chances are the chairman will be there Deputy's committee meetings. There'll be the J5 the J3 The problem is not that the military voice doesn't get heard trust me and even dereliction of duty HR's book Which is a good book There's a problem with the premise which is that somehow LBJ didn't know what the general thought He knew exactly what the general thought. He just didn't want to listen to them. That's all right And that is his prerogative which is his prerogative or was right, so I mean we both written on this But I mean I think that the it isn't that the that the military is not at the table And it isn't that they're not saying stuff It's that the civilians and the military talk a different language and they don't understand each other and that is probably a Problem of education. I mean we don't have any control over where the civilians come from and where the and how they arrive at this table We have to do a really a much better job in helping them have this this dialogue that you call the unequal dialogue Because at the end of the day the civilians get to make the call whether they listen to the military or not and that Presupposes that they understand right and so I think that's that's and I'm with you on grand strategy, too They also lead different lives, and I think this is a really important thing if you're as you're a general officer You will probably never really have anybody yell at you, or it'll be rare You'll be treated with more and more deference the further you go up If you're a politician or for that matter professor The higher up you go the more people you have every day in your face saying you're an idiot Different ways of interacting with people I think Okay, since we're between you all and lunch We're gonna break for lunch and you the panelists will be around Let's not any of us be yelled at as idiots, and I want to thank the panel for a great job