 Well good evening. I hope you have all had a wonderful day today. I know I've had enjoyed it thoroughly and appreciate so much all of our fantastic speakers and appreciate all of you for participating and being here this evening. So I'm honored to introduce tonight's keynote speaker, retired four star general Michael Hayden. General Hayden was born into a blue-collar family in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at the end of World War II and went on to earn a bachelor's and master's degree in history at Duquesne University before entering active military service in 1969. I also know he was on the football team. I also know anyway so he a great a great time as a young man. So in addition to his four decades of service in the Air Force, General Hayden served as director of the National Security Agency, deputy director of national intelligence, and director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Today he is a principal at the Chertof Group, a security consultancy, and co-chair of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Electric Grid Cybersecurity Initiative. He also serves as a distinguished visiting professor at George Mason University School of Policy and Government. It is particularly notable that General Hayden in his three intelligence positions was appointed by presidents of both parties, presidents Clinton and Bush, and confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate with support of both parties each time. In his national security roles, General Hayden provided trusted intelligence information to advise presidents for relations and the military. General Hayden is known for calling it how he sees it and without a partisan agenda. He did not shy away from controversial decisions made in his intelligence positions, and since leaving government, as most of you have seen in the news, he's raised important security questions about positions and actions of both parties. And most recently, the New York Times selected General Hayden's best-selling memoir, Playing to the Edge, American Intelligence in the Age of Terror, as one of the 100 most notable books in 2016. And if you haven't read this, I highly encourage you to do so. But it is from the perspective of his current work at the Bipartisan Policy Center, in particular, that General Hayden will give his perspective on threats to global energy infrastructure, including cyber attacks. While our new world of the internet of everything provides wonderful benefits like improving productivity, reducing costs, and even the prospects for driverless cars, our cyber vulnerability is growing exponentially. Critical infrastructures that are the backbone of our economy and security are at risk. Our electricity system, fuel distribution, transportation, and communications. And as we learned so vividly during this past election season, almost everything can be hacked. General Hayden has received too many awards and honors to mention, but before I turn over the podium to him, I would like to congratulate him for receiving just last week the Air Force Academy's highest honor, the Character and Leadership Award. Congratulations, General Hayden. Thank you to your service to our country, and thank you for joining us at the Global Energy Forum. Please join me in welcoming General Hayden. Thank you. That was a very generous introduction by Sally. Almost all of it was hyperbole, except the part where she said, you're really ought to buy the book. That was right there. So as Sally said, the task I got when I began my correspondence with Carl was threats to infrastructure, particularly energy infrastructure, and special attention to cyber threats. We could be here all night trying to fill that box with that kind of tasking. So I'm going to tell you right up front, I just picked a couple of areas to look at. If I didn't pick your favorite one, I'll be here tonight and tomorrow. Come on up to me afterwards, we can talk about it. But I've got two main lanes that I just, what's the right word? I want to give you environmental conditions in these lanes. All right, I'm not going to go that, you know, if this, therefore that, and you need to go do this in terms of specific threats, but there are fundamental changes taking place that are shaping the threat environment in which you, your industry, and you personally have to live, all right? I'm going to use two tonight. And again, there are others, we can talk about them at our leisure later. So first of all, I've got this slide up here. One approach would have been just to kind of go around the clock here and talk about each one of these and how they are a destabilizing force in the world today, you know, start there about two o'clock with the fun-loving Kim family of Northeast Asia. Go around here to six o'clock to Vladimir Vladimirovich, and I am going to get to him before we're done, all right? But again, the choice is, let me give you some environmental conditions that are going on rather than, well, frankly, trying to follow the shiny silver object, trying to predict what's the headline tomorrow morning, back to more fundamental things. I've taken to, in doing that, actually just pause for a moment and give a slide that my army buddies would call the big hand little map slide, you know, where you get to go like that without any painful detail. Three macro statements that when I'm asked to talk about these kinds of things, I feel compelled to make. As dark as I'm going to be for the rest of our time together, I'm old enough to remember a world actually more dangerous than the one we're living in. I remember Cuba in the missile crisis. I remember Soviet and American armor barrel-to-barrel at Checkpoint, Charlie. I remember going to the DEFCON 3 when we thought the Russians were shipping special weapons to the Arabs in the October 73 war. I have seen it more dangerous. I have never seen it more complicated. And if we wanted to sit here and parse out what's going on in Syria with Kurds and ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Turks and the Russians, never more complicated. And finally, I've never seen it more immediate. And that actually might be the most telling bolt on the slide for what we're talking about here tonight, okay? And by immediate, I just don't mean cell phone video that you're going to be able to see tonight from some unhappy spot with some unhappy event, although that's part of it. I mean when something happens over here, stuff goes bump over here substantially and nearly immediately. That interconnectivity is a big deal. All right, so I told you I'm only going to talk about two broad environmental conditions. In another presentation, when I lay it out a little longer, I call them tectonics, all right? And so I've got two broad tectonic shifts out there that are shaping security threats. This is tectonic one. So you all watching TV on your breaks here. You know, the Republicans are up in Philadelphia. All of the members of the Senate and the House are doing their annual get together to try to get kind of a mind meld on trade and deficit and entitlements. So I was at the one last year. The one last year was in Baltimore. And I was on the national security panel, all right? I was there with Mike Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security. A name I know you know. Ray Odirno, maybe not quite as familiar, but Ray had just left being Chief of Staff of America's Army. Ryan Crocker, one of America's most magnificent diplomats. We have sent this poor man to be ambassador to every troubled spot on the planet. He has been in Baghdad, Kabul, and Islamabad. He was in Beirut in the embassy and blown off his feet in the Beirut embassy bombing in the early 1980s. Ryan Crocker, me, and Bob Kagan. Bob is from Brookings, a middle of the road, highly regarded think tank in Washington. So we're talking there, trying to set the stage for the Republicans to think about national security issues. You're all sitting here very quiet. You know, I think you're paying attention, but you're certainly not rudely interrupting and raising your hand and jumping up and down. That's what Republicans do at this convention. This actually became a generalized scrum. First of all, the panel was too big. There were five of us. You had a moderator throwing questions. Then the members who kind of have a sense of entitlement, you know, a member of the House, a member of the Senate, they started throwing questions at us. Then they start going back and forth to one another. Finally, Kagan, the Brookings guy, all right, the political scientist. Bob just kind of levitates out of his chair raises his arms like this and says, look, what's going on is the melting down of the post-World War II American liberal Bretton Woods World Bank IMF World Order. Get it? And I had to thought, damn, that's good. Seriously, that is a very, very insightful statement. So the first tectonic is, well, things that you and I thought were permanent, like that post-World War II order, they're not. And I'm going to show you a couple other things that are melting away here, too. By the way, that post-World War II order, it's got stamp made in America on it. We did that. We created that 75 years ago. And as ugly as you think the world has been for the last 75 years, that is the most prosperous, most educated, healthiest, most peaceful 75 years in the history of our species. 100 years from now when we're back here at Vale and we're talking about big thoughts, we Americans are going to get a pretty good grade for this. But Bob's point was, this is going away, melting, eroding, largely by natural causes. The world on which it was based, the world it was designed to service has changed. Beyond that, and this is one I really want to share with you, this guy ain't helping. You can actually look at what Vladimir Putin has been doing. And you can actually, the best way to connect the dots of all the things he's doing is to accelerate what it was Bob Kagan said was going on. In other words, his strategic vision is to erode that world order I just described for you, faster than we can adapt it and accommodate it to the world in which we're in, get it? Now, here's the deal. Russia is not a resurgent power. Russia is a revanchist power, but it's not resurgent. And the people in this room with this industry probably understand this pretty well. I mean these guys are running out of just about everything they need to be somebody. They're running out of entrepreneurship in terms of the slice of the Russian economy that is state-owned enterprise gets bigger and bigger by the week. Certainly run out of democracy. Not quite running out of oil and gas, but at current prices and current technology available to them, running out of the abode to pull it out. And most fundamentally, they're running out of Russians. This is a declining population, declining birth rate, but mostly because life expectancy has gone down. Now, Vladimir based his legitimacy in term one on, frankly, oil at over $100 a barrel and a sovereign wealth fund that was busting through the roof. He comes back for round, so the social contract is, hey, I may be a bit of an autocrat, but don't worry. We're going to be rich. He comes back for round two after Medvedev is president for a term. Oil is not where it is. His economy is deteriorated. How then does he get his legitimacy? It's no longer having to be autocratic, but don't worry. You're going to be wealthy. It's I'm going to be autocratic, but don't worry. You're going to be proud. And essentially what he is trying to do is to address historic Russian grievances. I heard him described as a patriot, not a Russian patriot, a Soviet patriot. His vision of his world is what you and I used to call the Soviet Union. He, bear with me for a silly metaphor, based upon the weakness of the Russian state, the fundamental flaws within anything that makes them powerful. You need to imagine him as sitting at a kitty chair at the kitty table. And over here, you've got people like us sitting at the big table in the adult chairs. He, and this is the purpose of what he's doing. He wants to sit at this table. He can't make his chair much bigger. So the plan is to make the table and the chairs over here much smaller. And what he has done is to, in essence, orchestrate an attack on all those things that make this table as tall and as comfortable as it was. He has attacked NATO. He has attacked the European Union. And he's attacked the Western concept of democracy, which is our most precious strength in this global competition. Sorry, long, long explanation, but I wanted you to get that. Other things are changing. That map up there, you're, I guess, you're right. That's the map you and I grew up with. Okay, that's one I certainly had in grammar school, high school, I had in college. They tricked us. They told me that was the map. Turns out it's just a map. All I want to point out is that countries we thought were kind of permanent, like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, they're gone. And then if you go to the map in the middle, let me just cut to the chase here. Iraq no longer exists. It's not going back together. The only organized military force in Iraq, as we speak, that is fighting on behalf of what you and I used to think of as Iraq are the 5,100 GIs. There is no other organized military force in that country fighting for Iraq. They're doing a lot of fighting, but it's for their particular part of Iraq. I'll say the same thing with regard to Syria. That country is disintegrated and is not going back together again. I was on morning job maybe six months ago. Secretary Kerry, former Secretary of State, was trying to push another ceasefire under the Russians and all the other players there. And I was being appropriately pessimistic about it. All right. I said it was a noble effort, but it wasn't going to work. And we're about ready to cut to commercial. I'm in D.C., the rest of them are up in New York. And before they cut to commercial, I said, Joe, I'm sorry, can I just say one more thing? Yeah, yeah, General, go ahead. I said, Joe, when Secretary Kerry pushed this plan, and it was a noble effort, futile, but noble, when he pushed this plan, he said, this may be our last chance to preserve a unitary Syria. Joe, that train is so far out of the station, you can't even see the smoke from the engine. This country is not going back together. That may also apply to Lebanon, and I'm convinced it applies to Libya. What I'm trying to describe for you here is that if you think of this as a polynomial equation, remember the things you have to solve in algebra class back in high school? You know, solve for x, solve for y. Remember, it used to have variables and constants, and then you went about solving for, yeah. There are no variables in this polynomial, I'm sorry, there are no constants in this polynomial. The things we thought were the units around which we could organize our actions turned out to be ephemeral. And so when somebody says, we need to change governments in Syria, Bashar al-Assad has to go and we got to kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of ISIS, that's actually a good idea. He should go and the other guy should die. But that's not putting these countries back together. I'm trying to give you a sense here of very long-term turmoil. And if that's not bad enough, how about this? In addition to all those borders changing and the post-World War II border changing, fundamental things that we have used to understand the global system are now jump balls. That picture, upper left, that's an artist's rendition of the signing of the Treaty of West Failure in 1648. That is the last great war of religion in the Western world. And at the end of that 30 years war, which was hideously bloody, at the end of that 30 years war, we in the West, by the way, we date being modern from 1648, we in the West decided that we're going to put questions of theology over here, and we're going to put questions of science over here. We're going to put coercive power of the state in this corner. We're going to put matters of faith over in this. In other words, we began to back the state out of questions of faith. And we arrived at a compromise in the Western world as to how we balanced matters of science and matters of religion. All right. I could go on about this, but I want to talk about a lot of other stuff. We thought that was the solution. And in the age of European supremacy, we exported that solution. We called them secular nation states to the rest of the world. And we thought that that was done, 1648 solved it. All I'm trying to describe for you is it's now back in play. That blob in the middle of that map is the Islamic state. It is a state that's still functioning, not going to be functioning for a lot longer, but it's still functioning based on the premise that any man-made institution, the secular state, is on its face blasphemous because it puts a man-made entity between the creator and his creatures. Again, I'm trying to suggest you, we're getting back to fundamentals here. All right. You just saw on the last slide, right? I says that's Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the caliph. We have, as we speak, a great civil war in one of the world's great monotheisms. Islam, actually, the parallels are pretty strong. Islam is going through the struggle that we in Christendom went through in the 17th century. Islam is trying to come up with its balance between faith and reason. It would be arrogant for any of us to assume that our balance will be their balance. But we'd be on pretty strong grounds to say that this debate is going to be as ugly as the debate was within Christianity in the 17th century, where one-third of the German-speaking population of Europe died. All these guys have that we didn't back in the day is social media. We get to see the violence during this civil war. By the way, whether or not it's a civil war is a matter of debate in the American political system. Can you make out the titles on the books I just selected here? And then the question I ask, is this a war between civilizations? Remember the campaign language? They hate us. They all hate us. All right? Or is it a war within a civilization, a war within Islam? Frankly, I think it's the latter. I think we suffer if we identify it as the former. Those within Islam whom we don't want to win have as their narrative that there is undying enmity between their monotheism and ours. And I have no idea why then we would want to reinforce that by saying, yes, they hate us. They all hate us. The problem is fanatical Islam. There are great and serious issues within the religion, but it's more about what's happening within it than what's happening between it and us. Now, I get all the damage. I get Boston. I get San Bernardino. I get Orlando. I get Paris. I get Brussels. But I offer you the view that spillage from what is fundamentally a war inside, as I've repeat, this great monotheism. All right? So my point based upon the tasking that Karl gave me, what are the threats out there, is that this is going to be unstable for a generation or more. This isn't a modest correction with regard to governance in Syria or Iraq. This civil war, the melting of these borders, these fundamental questions are going to keep this region boiling for the next 20 to 30 years. I'm not convinced it means America's Air Force is going to be bombing and strafing here for the next generation, but it's not settling down. And just given the world's geological formations and where this is fundamentally happening, where this epicenter is, this is going to be a source of instability for your industry for as far as anyone can plan. All right? Second, second, Tectonic. And I actually covered some of this last year when I was here, so I'll speed through it. That's Brent Scowcroft. Brent's one of the great strategic minds we've ever created. And Brent was national security advisor not once, but twice. Ford and Bush 41. And Brent wrote an article about, pushed about five years ago now, April of 2012, in which he said, you know, when I was doing my thing, all the pieces on the board I cared about were nation states. And the way I moved them around was through what you and I now call hard power, you know, masses of men in metal. And what Brent points out in this article is really insightful, is that neither of those sentences, all I care about are nation states and the way I moved them around is through hard power. Neither of them are as true as they were when he was doing his thing. And he points out he was doing his thing at the height, Ford, and the back end, 41, of the industrial era. And what Brent points out is that in the industrial era, most things trended to strengthen the center. In the industrial era, you weren't a somebody unless you had strong centralized power. Now, in a different format, I spend 10 or 15 minutes on this because I think it's so important. But fundamentally, oh, here, how about this? I'm old enough to remember when making a phone call was such a difficult undertaking, you and I could entrust it only to a government or a government-controlled monopoly. Now, these cadets up here are saying, what is this man talking about? All right? But most of you in the room remember that. Remember an era in which complex tasks could only be performed by an empowered center. That's the industrial era. We are no longer in that era. We are in, pick your title, the post-industrial, globalized, worldwide web, interconnected, information-based era. And what Brent points out in this article as the industrial era pulled power to the center, the era in which we now live pushes power to the edges. Things that we used to be able to only get from an empowered, powerful nation state are now within the reach of groups, gangs, actors, and even individuals. And for the most part, that's a wonderful world. You and I are incredibly empowered by it. One more silly. I'm old enough. I'm old enough to remember I used to have to put a shirt on, drive the car, park the car, get out of the car, go into a building, and talk to a human being to get my money. Okay? All right? I'm old enough to remember only two nations used to take pictures in space. And only one of us did it well. And if you're of a mind when you go back to your rooms tonight and use the Wi-Fi here, you can go on Google Earth, look at North Korea with imagery of sufficient resolution to tell me whether or not Kim the youngest is stacking a table-dung missile. Do you see what I'm saying? Whereas the one era pulled power up into the center, this era pushes power down into the edges. And for the most part, we love that. But I'm also old enough to remember I never lost any sleep over religious fanatic living in a cave in the Hindu Kush. And this era of empowerment, this post-industrial era, the pushes power down and out to the edges has created an entirely different kind of threat for you and me. Things that we thought could go bump in the night, no, things that were really bad, the real big bump in the night that was only within reach of a malevolent nation state are now within reach of sub-state groups, gangs, and actors. And these three things here are all expressions of what it is I just told you. Terrorism, transnational crime, and what I'm going to spend most of the rest of our time they gather on, cyber attacks are all the product of pushing power down and to the edges and empowering individuals, individuals who now are able to visit damage on us of a type that used to be only within the reach of a powerful nation state. So we've begun to deal with terrorism and now we're trying to deal with one of the things Karl asked me to talk about, what's the threat coming to us from the cyber domain? Lots of things can go wrong. I won't dwell on any of these. It's just kind of a category of sins in the cyber domain. Many of you probably experienced some of these. All of you have read about all these. What can go on in the cyber domain by sub-state groups, gangs, and individuals? Now I get it, nation states can do this, but it doesn't require a nation state to do it. It can be done by criminal gangs or just that last group. That's my way of describing that 400 pound guide the current president said was doing the hacking. That isolated individual who is talented enough to actually wreak harm on all of us. By the way, this industry in particular should fear that vector of threat because this industry more than most I talk to is iconic in its image to the rest of the world and your existence may be sufficient for people in that last group to feel as if they need to punish you or to disable your enterprise. So we've seen a lot of this. You read the paper, you've gotten into these. This is a big one. This is a movie, Zero Days. Alex Gimney documentary. I'm in it a bit. This is the cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz, where someone, not further identified, someone launched a weapon comprised of ones and zeros to convince a whole cascade of centrifuges at Natanz, about a thousand of them, to spin at self-destructive speeds while the controllers were looking at their data and fundamentally being told there's nothing interesting to see here. And they didn't know that these centrifuges were destroying themselves until they began to hear the snap, crackle and pop from the centrifuge hall. It's just an example that in this domain, a weapon, again, comprised of ones and zeros, created great physical destruction. How about this one? Been in the paper a couple years ago, Sony attack, I'm sorry, North Korean attack on Sony, North America. Now, to be fair here, there's a modest amount of good news. This was a horrible movie. And because of the Sony attack, we didn't have to pay to not watch it. But picture this was done by a nation state, all right? But picture, again, what am I trying to, the instability, the newness, the disruption of the world in which we're now living. A nation state conducted a cyber attack against a North American based enterprise in order to punish it and coerce its behavior. That's really different. And I would suggest to you that Sony, North America might not be the only industry that would be attractive to actors out there for this kind of coercion. And then we got this one. I don't know. Have you been reading about this out here in Colorado? Yeah. This is the Russian Federation, hacking the emails of Colin Powell, John Podesta, the Democratic National Committee, the Democrat Committee for Congressional Candidates as well, stealing the emails, then weaponizing the data and throwing the data back through WikiLeaks, through a site the Russians themselves built called DCLeaks, putting internet trolls out there to highlight the data, to bring it forward into the consciousness of the world, but particularly you and me in an effort, back to slide three or four, in an effort to accelerate what Bob Kagan was talking about, the erosion, corrosion, collapse of the post World War II order largely created by American liberal international thought. I should add to, there is no doubt that the Russians did this. And a fascinating study watching, by the way, if we had done something like this, and I would be the last person to claim we've never done anything like this to somebody, all right, but if we had done something like this, we would have called it a covert influence campaign. This is the most successful covert influence campaign in human history. And the motive seemed to have shifted. It was, first of all, just mess with our heads. And then it was working so well that I think they decided, well, let's punish Hillary Clinton because actually, Vladimir's got real complaints about Hillary. She was very critical of Russian elections in 2011. Let me be very straightforward. He hates her. And so he was quite happy to use the emails to punish her. And then they thought she was going to win, so then they kind of slid in their motivation to use the emails to make her a weaker president when she became president, to kind of erode her legitimacy with all the towing and throwing in the emails. Then finally, probably late September-ish, October-ish, it's pretty clear they made the decision this other guy might win. And it seems pretty clear they began to put their thumb on the scale. Now let me quickly add, the current president of the United States is the legitimate president of the United States. And whether or not that thumb on the scale affected one vote is unknowable, and so we're done talking about it, but I'm just trying to describe for you how disruptive this new universe is in terms of trying to create the kind of stability you need for your industry to prosper. And here's just another example of using a cyber weapon to create physical effects. It's about 13 months ago, the Russians turned out the lights for three-quarters of a million Ukrainian homes. So where are we now? Where are we going as a nation? This is a quote from the president-elect at the time. If you look at the bottom half of the slide, it sounds tough. We're going to launch our military forces to protect us in the cyber domain, but I think frankly it's a really bad idea to launch DOD on this. This is not in their wheelhouse for lots of reasons, technological, legal, even political-cultural. Our government has been late to need servicing your needs in the cyber domain. It's not our government's fault. I was in that government 39 years. I try to do this. But because of our sensitivities about our civil liberties and our privacy, there are powerful pushbacks against really empowering the government to, let me use this phrase, walk the beat in the digital domain. Janine and I, my wife's here with me, we're doing a lot of traveling, but we live in McLean, Virginia. So imagine we're going to get home Monday. So imagine Monday night I can't sleep, right? And I go out to the front window upstairs and I look out and I see a Fairfax County police car going by in front of my house and that police car puts a light on my shrubs. I can tell you my instinct at seeing that is, I like that. That's my tax dollars at work. I like the fact that Fairfax County is protecting me. Now you imagine whatever it is you think the digital equivalent is, and there is no one in this room can say they're happy with that. You know, do you really want the government patrolling your network? And the instinctive reaction from Americans is, no. Which then means that in terms of actually defending ourselves in this domain, the private sector has an incredibly powerful role to play. And I'm just going to end with a few thoughts on the private sector and the role they need to have. Yeah, so you're probably wondering why I've got Ulysses Grant and Robert E. Lee up here. I can make it work. Give me a minute. When the Department of Defense issues an execute order, there's a paragraph in there called command. And fundamentally it says, you are the supported command and you are the supporting commands. All right, get prime, secondary. In the Civil War, when these guys wrote orders, they would say something like, sir, sir, your core, sir, your core is the main body. And you gentlemen, you will conform the movements of your core to the movements of the main body. You get the relationship? With 39 years in government, I thought that the main body in keeping America safe in the cyber domain was the main body responsible for keeping America safe in physical space, the government. I am now convinced that this domain is so different, the dynamics I've been trying to suggest to you, so disruptive that actually the main body in this domain is the private sector. And if I go back here and you got President Trump saying, I'm going to launch the Starfleet from the Department of Defense to defend us, actually I think the right answer is for the Department of Defense and the rest of the federal government to tuck themselves in behind the private sector. And to be supportive of the private sector in terms of empowering, removing impediments, giving them broader legal authority, sharing information more quickly and more readily, and so on to make the private sector all it can be because for lots of reasons they're going to want to lose this bad one cyberspace. With regard to your infrastructure, my emails, your websites, the private sector is on point. This is an important one. This is putting an exclamation point and highlighting in yellow what I just tried to say to you. You all familiar with San Bernardino and the iPhone and Director Comey and Tim Cook and you got to bust the encryption, I got to get into the phone, remember all that? Yeah, okay. Would it surprise you that Mike Hayden, Mike McConnell, former director of NSA, former director of national intelligence, Mike Chertoff, former secretary of homeland security, Dave Petraeus, former whole bunch of things in the military, and Keith Alexander, also a former director of NSA, all of us sided with Apple. Now that, a lot of people instinctively said, what? What? Jim Comey had a good case. In order to do his job, he would be enabled by getting inside that phone. But we ultimately said, we're not sure that's a good idea. Not for civil liberty, not for privacy. I mean, the guy was dead. There are no expectations of privacy for dead people, all right? And it wasn't because we didn't think the government had the right, didn't have the right to do it. Of course the government had the right to do it. Get a warrant. Tell them to open it up. We objected to the demand on purely security grounds. Director Comey had a strong security argument to get into the phone. If you have believed what I just told you, if the private sector is on point for keeping us safe in that domain, then you should think three or four times before even for legitimate security reasons in physical space, you make it harder for the private sector to do what I've just suggested to you is what only they can do to keep us safe in the cyber domain. That argument I just gave you has really gotten a fair bit of traction in DC. And so I'm just trying to suggest to you that this put the private guys on point is actually gaining some energy. President Trump appointed Rudy Giuliani to former mayor of New York appointed Rudy Giuliani to head up a 90-day look at how we do cyber. Giuliani has made it very, very clear that he agrees with what I've just told you, that the secret sauce here is to enable the private sector. Now the government has a role. There are some things only governments can do. But I guess the homily for the industry I'm addressing here tonight is you're going to be more responsible for your personal safety in cyberspace than you've been responsible for your safety in physical space since the closing of the American frontier in 1880. And you're going to have to turn to American industry more often than the American government to give you what it is you need to keep you safe there. This is just a classic risk equation. Risk is equal to threat times vulnerability times consequence. I can use it for aerial combat. I can use it for automobile insurance. It's just a constant risk equation. All I want to suggest to you is that the private sector is going at it in each one of those factors. By the way, you all quickly notice this multiplication, right? So if you get any one of the factors kind of hugging near zero, you're kind of okay. The history of cybersecurity, again, I'm talking private sector, has been in the vulnerability reduction, you know, McAfee, Symantec, firewalls, passwords, hygiene. That's good. Keep doing it. I talked to Kevin Mandia. Kevin owned the Mandian Corporation bought by FireEye. Kevin was a captain when I was a two star. Hey, Kevin worked for me. He's done very well. All right. Having sold Mandian for 1.5 billion to FireEye. All right. But he still talks to his old boss. And when I talked to Kevin about V, he says, boss, if you do V perfectly, the vulnerability reduction, you're going to keep 80% of the bad people out of your network, which is a good idea. But you understand what the other side is, right? 20% are getting in. So now where private industry is, they're in consequence or consequence management. It's presumption of breach. They're getting in. Get over it. Quick, quit whining. Defend yourself. Where V is about prevention, C is about resilience, recovery, discovery, response. And then there is private industry over here with regard to threat. Now in physical space, threat is about threat reduction. All right. You punch the guy back so he can't hurt you. Hard to do in cyberspace. What we're seeing in T in the private domain, private sector now is not threat reduction, but threat intelligence. And there are amazing companies out there who can provide you and your industry cyber threat warning of the kind that looks very familiar to the former director of CIA and NSA. In any event, we could dwell, like I said, we're speeding through a lot of stuff here. It's hard to get all of this into a box. The private sector is active in all of these. And you as an industry need to interact with that private sector to make yourself more safe in this domain. Again, the first instinct is don't turn just to the government. All right. That's the last slide. I'm looking for something happy to say here and not thinking of very much. All right. But again, remember where I began. I wanted to give you a sense of environmental conditions. The two big ones, cyber domain remains a very vulnerable domain. And the longer we go in this, the more I'm convinced that the secret sauce, the answer, the best response comes from the private sector, not government. And the other is the melting down of things we thought were permanent. Not just the structures we had out there, but the tools we had to preserve the structures are going away. So it is going to be a very turbulent 20 to 30 years. And unfortunately, the epicenter of the turbulence is going to be in a part of the world in which this industry is very, very much involved with that. I'll stop. I think it's how we got a few questions. I'm happy to take whatever use you've dished up. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. That was fabulous. First question. How has the export of Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia impact or how is it impacting the civil war in the Middle Eastern civilization? Yeah. So this is back to the civil war in Islam. All right. And talk about Wahhabism, which is a particularly fanatical form of Islam. I almost get emotional about this. I mean, I'm a pretty tough guy. I'm a security guy, right? But if you look at what is going on inside this religion and know what has gone on inside, for those of you who are Christians in the room, what has gone on inside Christendom 400 years ago, you can see really, very powerful echoes. And we've decided, we're going to separate the secular and the sacred. Islam got that now as a jump ball. So the Wahhabis are one group in that internal debate within Islam that really demands that which we in the West rejected in the 17th century, that really demands that man should be governed only by God and manmade institutions shouldn't get in between. I'm going to get a little theological and philosophical on you here. I apologize. All right. The three monotheisms, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all come out of the same desert. We're all people of the book. We're all children of Abraham. They're powerful, common roots. Christianity got washed through the Greeks as it came out of those deserts. And so we in Christianity, depending on a denomination in different measures, we in Christianity allow a fair amount of space for what you and I would call human intervention, human reason, even in questions of faith. Islam doesn't get washed through the Greeks. Islam remains that fundamentally transcendental religion that came out of the came out of the desert and remains in the desert. So this debate is going to be very, very difficult. Wahhabism is over here on one side and it remains to be seen where it goes. The fundamental departure point for all this is 1979. In 1979, you had the Iranian revolution, a fundamentalist regime taking over what at that point had been a very successful secular state. You had the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. For them, that's the secular against the sacred. That's Christianity against Islam. And you had the occupation of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Wahhabist. The occupation of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by these Wahhabist fanatics was so upsetting to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia that in my mind, they made a deal with the devil. They essentially said, there will be nobody to our religious right. In other words, the way we're going to handle Wahhabism is we're going to put our arms around it and we're going to hug it. And therefore they will not be a threat to the monarchy and to the kingdom. I think the Saudis now recognize it is what I told you it was, a deal with the devil and they're trying to unstick themselves from it. And that's part of the civil war that's going on. A related question. So on your maps of where this civil war was taking place, if I'm not incorrect, the boundary was on the Eastern boundary of Iran. And there's Afghanistan, there's Pakistan. There are also other nations with a large Islamic population. Are they all in this sort of same civil war? Or are those spillover? And are the boundaries going to grow? So what's happened, all right, in the last four or five years with ISIS, the spread of ISIS, Boko Haram in Nigeria is what you just described. That which had been confined to a relatively small number of actors, al-Qaeda largely in Pakistan, Afghanistan grows to Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Chad. And what you've got now is the geographic spread of what it is I'm trying to describe for you, this grand struggle inside this religion. Overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly all the dead people who were made dead by this struggle are Muslim. The number of what you and I would call Westerners, all right, who have been killed by this, significant by our standards, Paris is awful, Brussels is awful. But it's a very small fraction compared to the deaths inside of Islam. And it's that fight is spreading and spreading. And let me get a little political on you. So when you're approached to this struggle, which should be taken on some existential historical tones for you here, when you're approached to this struggle is we're going to bomb the blank out of them, and then we're going to come home, that's not going to solve this. This is their issue. We can tuck it in here, we can tuck it in here, we can influence it there, we have a right to defend ourselves, I don't mind the bombing. All right, but this is going to go on until it's resolved within Islam. Well, you know, we've come to the end of our time. So there are questions that didn't get answered, but we will forward those on to you. Okay. And anyway, thank you so much. Thank you. Wonderful. Thanks.