 Good morning everyone. I'm Anne-Marie Slaughter. I'm the CEO of New America and it is my great pleasure to announce the opening of the fifth future security forum. This forum is, it's a community. I look out and I see many of you and I know you and one of the things that this forum does is put us all in close proximity so we see each other all day. But it is also one of the highlights of New America's partnership with Arizona State University. And when I started five and a half years ago, we were already partnered with ASU on Future Tense, which we do with Slate and ASU. But a number of us were thinking about the kind of big ideas that New America focuses on and we thought about why not think seriously and in a sustained way about the future of war. And we reached out to ASU and started really an unusual partnership, a partnership in which there are faculty at ASU and at New America where we have an online masters program, where we are a think-tank and an action platform and the most innovative university in the country innovating together. So I have to start by thanking President Michael Crowe who will follow me as to see this vision. And I also have to thank Jim O'Brien, who is, how do we describe Jim at ASU? He makes everything happen and manages to keep up with Michael, which is kind of extraordinary. The Future of War project is led by Daniel Rothenberg on the ASU side and Peter Bergen on the New America side. Over just at this forum and our other events over the past five years, we've had over 1,200 attendees and 16,000 live stream views and it is key to who we are that we are mixed reality, both on physical and virtual and we'll hear a lot about that today. ASU also supports the New America Fellows Program, and we've had some spectacular fellows including a MacArthur Genius Award winner. And then as I said, this conference every year is the highlight of our partnership. And this conference is I think really a different kind of security forum. Many of us go to many conferences in this town and other places thinking about national security in various ways. But what we've tried to do in this forum is to have a number of the same people every year. The leaders of our armed services have come back every year. And we value their voices. We value the fact that they see this as not just a place to talk, but a place to engage. We also think of this conference as exemplifying New America's mission. We are, our mission is renewing America by holding our country to its highest ideals. And I emphasize that, particularly on a day where we are talking about our soldiers and sailors and pilots, by holding our country towards highest ideal in an era of rapid technological and social change. We are only a few years out from America's 250th anniversary. America at 250 will look radically different technologically and socially than even America at the Bicentennial, which was sort of part of my coming of age. So what you're going to hear about today are U.S. military planning for space travel, how the future of proxy warfare is evolving, how to rebuild cities, after they're torn apart through contemporary conflict, how journalists are reporting from conflict zones, and the challenges that Congress will face as it shapes our military future. We also, we encourage your engagement with us on stage, but we also encourage your engagement on social media. So please remember to use the hashtag future security forum, follow our accounts, New America ISP, New America and also at future of war. Also, our lunch break today will feature a fifth anniversary video with highlights from our last four conferences, which include key quotes and polling data. Before I turn it over to President Crow, I also want to comment on an innovation at New America this past year, which is we have had our first Army Fellow, a partnership with the Army, brought us our first Fellow and Colonel Dennis Willie has been a member of our team over the past eight months. He's been extraordinary. And I have to say, as someone I've been in many institutions with military fellows and Colonel Willie has engaged everyone from early childhood to education more generally to future of work, not just our security community, but all of our community, which I think is actually very important for how the military engages our society as a whole. He's he's provided informal question and answer sessions. He's initiated a private tour of the Pentagon and really he's pioneered what we hope will be an ongoing relationship between people deeply engaged in the work of American renewal and our military. And finally, I want to thank our sponsors, Raytheon and BluePath Labs and also our partners, Defense One and the Global SOF Foundation. Without our sponsors and partners, we could not put on this conference. We also welcome a delegation from the Ecole de Guerre, the French War College. We're delighted to do that. And we want to thank our our donors, our supporters, the Open Society Foundations, Lisa McGarrel is here and also the Smith Richardson Foundation, Alan Song is here and we're delighted to welcome all of you. So I'm now delighted to hand over to President Michael Crow of ASU. He has been essential to the development of this partnership and we could not be happier to be doing it together. Thank you. Thank you, Anne-Marie. And good morning. About 15 years ago, we started changing Arizona State University on the following assumption that one of the things if we wanted a better future, regardless of if it was security or national outcomes or national competitiveness, we needed to start looking deeply at our institutions. And what we found was that the last thing that the United States needed was the further perpetuation of the existing institutional design. So we began an effort to create a new kind of American university. We call it a new American university, one built on egalitarian access, built on fantastic levels of academic excellence. And one built focused on impacting the communities wherever we serve, where we take responsibility for the outcomes of these communities. Now, this means all kinds of different things for us. But most importantly, it meant rethinking the design of the university itself. So we restructured the institution. We eliminated more than 80 departments, colleges and schools. We reconceived its overall purpose. We evolved a charter to the university, one built on inclusion versus exclusion and the measurement of student success. One built on research that benefits the nation and benefits the communities in which we are embedded and one built on taking responsibility for outcomes. And so if we look around and we say that we have social unrest or social injustices or social inequalities or K through 12 failings or whatever they were, universities used to be of the mind that that was someone else's responsibility. And universities were usually so arrogant that they would say that was someone else's responsibility who's substantially stupider than we are. A kind of arrogant view. We no longer hold that arrogant view. We now take on these new structures and these new trajectories. I'll give you an example. For years, people have been saying in the United States that we need more engineers and we need more engineers that are women and more engineers that are minority students. And so people will say, OK, well, here's what we should do. We should keep all the engineering schools about the same size throughout the country. And what we should do is kick out as many men as possible and drive in as many non-men as possible. And then we'll have what we want. Well, no, that's not the way to do this. And so how do you then rethink everything? Well, we decided to rethink everything. We eliminated all of our engineering departments. We reconstructed them. We had 8,000 engineering students when we did this. We didn't have any technology platform. I'm using this as an example of what redesign means. And we took this engineering platform that we had with 8,000 students and we were a weed out school in engineering. 68% of the freshmen made it through and 32% didn't. They were weeded out along the way. We reconstructed everything around a new concept and a new design. And the new design was grand challenges instead of departments. The new design was ways in which we could attract people to engineering as an exciting problem-solving environment. Ten years later, not 8,000 engineering students, 18,000 engineering students on campus. Thousands and thousands and thousands of more women and minority students with a 90% freshman retention rate. And I won't walk you through everything that's involved in something like that, but it's about the design. So every project that we're involved in, from the design of the university to the design of the communities that we're, our relationship with the communities that we serve to the military that we serve with the hundreds and hundreds of projects that we have being carried out across all of the services to the things that we're doing globally with the US Agency for International Development and other things that we have going on. In our case, it's all about design. Now, when it comes to the future of security and the future of war, we think the same question should be, the same approach should be applied. If we are thinking that it's only about the debate about how much is invested, that it's only about the debate about the argument about this policy versus that policy or this approach or that approach, then we're making literally something that approaches a fatal error. It is in fact about the design of our institutions, the purpose of our institutions, and the continuous evolution of both the design and the purpose. If they remain the same, then the same outcomes will be the result. I was at a meeting here in Washington a few weeks ago where this notion of design began to really hit me. And so the meeting was one in which a number of really educated and really quite experienced individuals were talking about the future of our relationship with China. And I was astounded. And I am, I am a hawkish individual in general when it comes to the defense of our country. But I was astounded at the idiocy of their logic. They were taking the existing designs and the existing models and they were talking as if war with China was inevitable. And I'm like, have we not learned anything? Do we not have some means to rethink the fact that here in a post-World War II world, in a world in which we have rising economic capabilities in a world where we have all of this that's moving forward in a powerful way, wouldn't a new design for two economic superpowers be a way in which we might evolve a new concept of the future of conflict or the future of war where we would do literally anything that we possibly could to not move in the direction while still protecting our interests and protecting all of our assets and so forth, find out some way where we could actually do the first thing for the first time that humans have ever done, which is to allow economic superpowers to coexist without military conflict. Think of that as a design aspiration and think of what the design would be to necessarily move in that kind of direction. And so this notion, if I wanted to give you any idea and the reason that we do all the things that we're doing is that if we sit back in academia and just continue to put forth the religious fervor of the past in the way that people think about the way the world was or maybe the way the world is at present without a new conceptual design, then we're fools. And so my hope is from this meeting and other meetings and the group and the center and all the things that we're doing is that we're actually looking at new designs, new ways to move forward and new concepts, new tools, new assets, new approaches, new ways to cooperate, new ways to defend, new ways to protect, new ways to advance, new ways to respond, new ways to deal with complexity, new ways to address global climate change and all of the other impacts that we have that are impacting us and it will require new approaches. And so that's what this is, this notion of the future of security, security. How do we secure that? How do we find that? How do we make that happen? So on behalf of our institution, our 115,000 students, our 30,000 staff, our students from 195 countries, by the way, I just wanna welcome you all to this meeting and look forward to the discussion.