 Good morning My name is Clint Williamson. I'm a professor of practice at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and Also serve as senior director for rule of law governance and security at the University's McCain Institute here in Washington I want to welcome you and at this point introduce our host for today's event the president and chief executive officer of New America Ann Marie Slaughter Thank you Thank you, so welcome and welcome to the next president's fight against terror I can't really imagine a more topical conversation indeed I was reading the Times this morning and reading about The fight in Mosul and and think you know this is this is in the forefront of our minds internationally, but also increasingly Nationally as well, and I'm also thrilled to be doing this with ASU with ASU in Arizona and ASU in Washington with the McCain Institute for international leadership I want to say a word just about our partnership. We think it's really Unique to have a think tank and a major university partnering in Generating knowledge and then applying that knowledge turning things like our future of war project into instructional materials and then using those for students possibly for Online courses, but also of course working to apply that knowledge in Washington Which is what the McCain Institute and New America do directly, so I'm thrilled to be doing this I want to thank a few people and then I'll just give you three points because anybody from New America who knows me knows I can't actually say anything unless I give you three points about something But I want to thank you. I mean you're gonna you're gonna hear all day from many of the people Who put this together Peter Bergen our new America's head of international security project and the Fellows program? Peter Bergen who also has this gig at CNN, but really it's about New America And of course that you just heard from Clint Williamson You'll hear next from ambassador Kurt Volcker the head of the McCain Institute and many of my old friends Jack Goldsmith what former colleague from Harvard Law School Andrew Busevich Hina Shamsi Benjamin Wittes my Twitter fight club buddy Mary DeRosa icon Erdemir Nancy O'Call Raza Rumi Samuel Samuel Moyn and Doug Sylvester also the Dean of the ASU Law School Which a wonderful group of people who work together on rule of law and counterterrorism To bring those issues together in the way we must do for this fight So then I want to give you three points that I hope you'll think about during the day The first is two wrongs don't make a right and Jack Goldsmith is there to my right and he fought the good fight During the George W. Bush administration to make sure that the way we fought terrorism preserved our values And did not in fact vindicate their values So two wrongs as the mother in me says don't make a right and the second is We need to get past counter All right, everything is counterterrorism counter violent extremism counter narratives We're not going to win this without a positive Narrative and vision and people like New America's Nadia way dot are arguing You know you can't you can push back on their interpretation of Islam, but you need a vision of a secular Arab society in which everyone is free to worship and in which many of the glories of Arab civilization or Muslim civilization Much much writ large our forefront So it can't just be counter and the third is We need new tools and we need we need to analyze this problem I think more deeply than just counterterrorism or counter violent extremism What's causing the allure of Extremism or terrorism in the first place why are so many young people? Drawn to this vision. There are many explanations The one I favor is Sarah Shays' account of how corruption often triggers an extreme counter reaction as it has actually done with the Puritans in the Origins of this country and in many others But whatever it is we've got to get there and we've got to have tools that fight This problem at its roots and that is not military action So with that let me turn it over to Ambassador Kurt Volcker and welcome you all to a fabulous day Thank you Well, thank you, Anne Marie, and thank you to new America for putting this event together and hosting it with us and Let me echo Anne Marie's comments about the great partnership that has grown up between Arizona State University And in particular the law school New America Foundation and the McCain Institute We've done tremendous things together. We've shared a lot of things together One of the things we do at the McCain Institute is organize public debates about Key foreign policy challenges Peter Bergen took place in our most recent one in September about whether ISIS is winning or not And Marie actually took place in the very first one we did back in 2013 on the question of whether we should intervene in Syria or not. I won't tell you what side she argued. I Also want to say a word about the global rule of law and governance program that we've launched with the McCain Institute and with the ASU law school and the Dean of the law school is here with us today and What I would like to say about that is it is truly a unique program for law students and a unique program for creating an operational capability to engage in global rule of law and governance projects around the world We have Ambassador Quinn Williamson who will you who is here with us on stage Who leads that program? The idea is to create a specialization within teaching law for law students So they get a window into global rule of law and governance issues imagine that you're talking about lawyers working with Assistance missions overseas UN missions overseas AID missions international peacekeeping forces There is a demand for lawyers with skills in that area and this program is teaching those skills really a unique one in the country and With that we have Clint who is physically located here in the new America Foundation Part of the McCain Institute part of the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor school Who leaves that effort and it was created an operational capability to do things like train? Pakistani prosecutors train prosecutors from Sierra Leone Engage law students from Pakistan and this is a this is going to be a growth industry In the world and the McCain Institute is really delighted to be at the forefront of that On the substance of this like Ann Marie I can't resist saying a couple words about the substance because I was also involved in this at the end of the George W. Bush administration I was the principal deputy assistant secretary for European affairs John Bellinger a good friend of mine was the legal advisor at the State Department and following 2005 6 after some key decisions by the Bush administration to reframe and change some of its approaches in the War against terrorism including for instance closing the black sites that had existed We took it upon ourselves to work with European allies on the legal framework We created a so-called West Point group that John led that was getting legal advisors talking through these issues and Let me just say this Terrorists by definition don't play by the rules As a result the rules that we created decades ago to govern the way we conduct warfare Is something that they ignore and something that doesn't give us as memory said doesn't give us the tools that we need to fight terrorism? effectively and the dirty secret in Washington is that the Obama administration has basically Played by the same legal framework that the George W. Bush administration created For dealing with the war on terrorism and the reason is we can't come up with anything better on our own We need to have a broader international framework that gets around the issue of it's not a conventional war It's also not a police Domestic action that we have to deal with we have something that is different from everything we planned on And we've got to create the new tools to do it that's going to be the challenge facing a new administration whoever it may be and they're going to be faced with the immediate immediate terrorist challenges from ISIS from other groups It's going to be on a global basis. They will be seeking to attack us seeking to attack our allies particularly France We've seen what happened in Belgium So it is urgent that we get our arms around the right way to tackle this problem for the long term So thank you very much. I'm delighted to be here as part of this event and I will turn it over to professor Goldsmith Hi and welcome, I'm Jack Goldsmith I teach at Harvard Law School and I'm also honored to be the Barry Goldwater chair of American institutions at ASU and I'm also honored to help To have helped organize this conference today I'm going to introduce professor base of it But I was asked first to frame the day a bit and since I'm a lawyer I'm going to do so in broad-based constitutional terms So we're in the 16th year of an armed conflict that began in September of 2001 It's the longest armed conflict in American history. It has taken up almost The entire two terms of two presidents now, so we're on the verge of having the third 9-11 presidency In those over 15 years, of course things have changed a lot The nature of the enemy has changed a lot the identity of the enemy has changed The geographical scope of the conflict as lawyers think of it has changed quite a lot and Our tactics have changed quite a lot to make to be much too simplistic We've gone from and this is I think that the way that the Obama administration has talked about it From a heavy footprint approach to a light footprint approach by which I mean That we're conducting this armed conflict today primarily at a distance using air air air fire Often from drones Special operations forces play a large part of it. They're not always at a distance, but they are stealthy We know very little about what our special operations forces are doing around the world We're also deploying cyber. We know very little about how those office of weapons are being used So this is a war that Americans really don't see in the way that they would normally see war and I'm talking about the legal conflict and It's also one where Congress has barely been engaged Congress authorized the president on September in September of 2001 to conduct It's used military force against Al Qaeda and and the other entities responsible for 9-11 and that Authorization still remains today the primary foundation for a global conflict and just to give you a And when I say a global conflict The remarkable thing is American citizens who read the newspapers don't know the scale of it It's it's really hard to know what the scale of our conflict is The president president Obama's used military force air force air fire in seven countries during his presidency at least seven countries If you read the war powers resolution reports that presidents occasionally send to Congress, which I do You could count and see that we have deployed armed forces in 15 or 16 countries We have very general descriptions of what they're doing in those countries in some countries We have a better sense than others But then there's been a new and new development that started in the Bush administration as continued in the Obama administration Of a classified annex to the war powers resolution So with that there's stuff in that classified annex that we don't know So we really don't know the scope of the war is probably broader than that Special operations forces we're told are present in 80 countries a lot of that is training But we have offensive military force being deployed around the globe and we don't really even as American citizens understand the nature of it and I think that this form of warfare. I'm not saying it's in it's what's it's it's its intent But it's by design the type of warfare that stays out of public debate because American soldiers are rarely being killed and A lot of it's taking place in secret So the public debate compared to the Bush administration has receded I think congressional and their attention has been intermittent at best the courts are engaged during the Bush administration Primarily because of Gitmo. They're not engaged in scrutinizing this war anymore So it's basically being run by the president the president of the United States and President Obama has been a surprisingly aggressive president in Expanding legal precedents to conduct war both in interpreting the authorization from September 11 and in using his own military powers to use force So basically we're in a situation where we appear to be an endless secret war with very little Domestic scrutiny and I put it to you that that's not a good situation for a constitutional democracy to be in Which leads to the next presidency So it's gonna be one of two people who are gonna be the next president if it's Donald Trump that comes with if he's commander-in-chief that presents Obvious difficulties, which I won't go into and I think they're apparent But the much more likely president is Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton has basically made clear both from her past actions And what she said on the campaign trail. I think she's likely to be a more hawkish president than President Obama So we're facing a situation where the probable next president is going to be more hawkish And she has these tools and these precedents for really quite expansive largely secret warfare So I want to suggest that that's where we are Several weeks before the election Okay, now I want to introduce our first speaker who is professor Andrew Bacevich. He is going to speak about President Obama's national security legacy Professor Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University He served in the in the army for 23 years. He went to the US military Academy He is my favorite one of my favorites I should say a critic of American legal and foreign policy I read his books as soon as they come out his most recent book is war for the greater Middle East He's an incisive and learned critic of US National security military affairs and he's gonna talk to us now about President Obama's legacy. Thank you Well, thanks very much for the invitation to speak here. Thanks for the kind introduction my task is to Talk for 30 minutes so that we have something like 15 minutes for a discussion Before I vacate the stage. My problem is I have a 45 minute talk On the president's foreign policy legacy, so I'm here by gonna chop off the first third And what the first third of the talk? Discusses is what we used to call the global war on terrorism and and and it renders a judgment and the judgment that it renders is that President Obama has been a Disappointment as commander-in-chief. He ran for the presidency Telling us that he was going to bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and that he was going to win the Afghanistan war He's accomplished neither of those tasks. He will instead bequeathed to his successor those two wars Which which together or individually separately are the longest wars in our in our history more broadly? I think his distinctive approach to conducting war But professor Goldsmith referred to as the light footprint approach has had the paradoxical effect of Desensitizing the American public to wars perpetuation by reducing u.s. casualties and moderating financial costs as President Obama has done those factors drain war of its domestic political significance So that u.s. Forces are today more or less permanently permanently engaged in active combat on the far side of the planet Has become one of those things that Americans today simply accept like persistent budget deficits or periodic mass shootings After 9-11 George W. Bush told Americans to chill out and go shopping Under Barack Obama they have done just that and however at odds with the hopes and expectations that Carried President Obama into office. This forms an important part of his legacy You know as yesterday for a project. I was sitting in the Syracuse Airport bored out of my mind and Had the occasion to reread President Kennedy's famous American University address and odd conjunction perhaps also reread President Reagan Star Wars speech of what roughly 25 years later and what so striking is the reminder that in those days Presidents talked about peace the word they repeatedly used as the intended end of u.s. Foreign policy I'm gonna talk about peace anymore Even in a presidential election year. The fact is I think that Obama's performance as commander-in-chief Has been less than stellar a mess when he took office the greater Middle East will be no less a mess when he steps down And indeed and again as far as peace is concerned. We just don't talk about it So if you stop there, it seems to me President Obama has much to answer for true We may be grateful that during his presidency the United States has not suffered Catastrophes comparable to those that marred the term of his predecessor who was blindsided by 9-11 and then plunged Fatefully recklessly into Iraq, but that's a pretty low bar of success. I would suggest in the long run, however Obama's fumbling performance as a war manager is unlikely in my view to determine his overall reputation as a statesman with time as Circumstances evolve Unpleasant memories fade and judgments soften today for example even an ostensibly liberal Democrat like Hillary Clinton regards Henry Kissinger as a brilliant strategist His role in orchestrating the opening with China Eclipsing the brutal and purposeless escalation of the Vietnam War that he helped contrive While serving as Richard Nixon's chief lieutenant in the scales of history I would say sadly in the scales of history the Americans killed in Vietnam Well Kissinger was national security advisor and secretary of state count for less than the cornucopia of Asian trade and Investment that he helped make possible And I think President Obama may benefit from a similar phenomenon his his marks as Diplomat in chief Eventually compensating for his indifferent record as commander in chief Departing president will leave behind several noteworthy initiatives Mostly unrelated to our current wars that may emphasize may in time bear fruit And thereby elevate his standing in history granted the fruits could also turn out to be poisonous ones and in that sense Obama's reputation is likely to depend in no small measure on what his Successors do with the things that he inaugurated, but the remain works in progress. So under the heading of Obama's unfinished business Let me talk briefly about eight distinct issues listed here in ascending order of importance First Cuba Now cleaning up past mistakes and liquidating policies that have outlived their utility number among the less Glamorous aspects of statecraft. It's not the sort of work that wins you plaudits But like the proverbial guy with the broom marching behind the elephants in the circus parade. Somebody's got to do it President Jimmy Carter Was that someone when he negotiated the Panama Canal Treaty? Thereby relieving the United States of a vestige of colonialism Destined to become a source of ever greater controversy a necessary action Which Carter for which Carter received mostly brickbats from Americans angry that he was relinquishing our canal so too with Obama in Bringing to a close the the long us estrangement from Cuba the president did something that ought to have been done long ago Whatever the putative danger of fidel ismo back when the Cuban revolution was in its ascendancy that danger has long since dissipated Employing economic sanctions with expectations of overthrowing the Castro regime received more than a fair trial without evidence of succeeding After more than a half century the time for trying a different tack had clearly arrived Even if President Obama will receive no more credit President Carter did for the canal and even if sadly the Cubans opt to forfeit their hard-won sovereignty By converting their country into a Caribbean, Las Vegas Similarly in laboring to close down the US military prison in Guantanamo The president has sought to reverse the most egregious Unforced error of the post 9-11 era as Everyone I think apart from a handful of right-wing ideologues has long since recognized Guantanamo is a huge embarrassment Its existence exacerbating the very problem it purports to alleviate and closing it If it ever closes will then signal that the hysteria that gripped Washington in the immediate aftermath of September 2001 has finally passed Granted Republicans more interested in scoring partisan points than in actually fighting terrorism Have opposed Obama every step of the way and they continue to do so, but he not they is likely to receive history's ultimate vindication second item trade Popular support for free trade in this country is eroding best I can tell Previous deals such as Bill Clinton's North American free trade agreement have cost more American jobs than they created Globalization turns out not to be a win-win proposition after all So at least it appears to Americans struggling to make a living in surviving pockets of the post-war industrial economy By throwing support behind the Trans Pacific partnership Obama is therefore bucking strong headwinds The president touts TPP as quote Leveling the playing field for American workers in business so we can export more products stamped made in America All over the world that support higher paying American jobs here at home. Of course, that's what free trade proponents always say Now there is no doubt that international trade fuels overall Economic expansion, but today the operative question is becoming this one Who benefits and? Assuming that Congress approves the TPP. I think years are going to pass before a definitive answer to that question emerges And only then will it be possible to render an authoritative judgment on Obama's stewardship of the American economy third Russia Well visiting Moscow in 2009 President Obama called for a reset in US-Russian relations adding that quote the days when empires could treat other sovereign states as Pieces on a chessboard are over Well the proposed reset went nowhere and in the years since the geopolitical chessboard or the geopolitical chess game resumed with a vengeance Regardless of what Obama may have thought when vital interests are at stake Sovereign states make their own rules in Crimea Ukraine in Syria Vladimir Putin has acted without hesitation to secure interests. He deems vital Now some observers see in Russian muscle flexing evidence of a new Cold War taking shape And they urge the United States to dust off its 1940s playbook in this city where I think residual Russophobia flourishes get tough on Moscow is a cheap but reliable applause line Obama has taken a different tack Today's Russia is in his words merely a regional power It acts he says not out of strength, but out of weakness Or I think he might have added Russia acts in response to grievances Genuine grievances made more acute by the post Cold War expansion of NATO and the European Union up to Russia's own borders Well, I think in dealing with the Kremlin Obama has learned to play chess This has not occurred without missteps his administration's foolish promotion of regime change in Kiev Plunging Ukraine into permanent crisis offering one example of those missteps yet overall Obama has acted with circumspection Lines of communication to Moscow have remained open Where US and Russian interests align for example regarding the writing Iran's nuclear program Collaboration occurs Now to reassure nervous allies on NATO's exposed eastern flank Obama has offered Reinforcements, but the reinforcements have been quite modest the brigade headquarters in Poland small contingent Air Force contingent to To put a police Baltic airspace that is to say he has not panicked and he has not overreacted Without courting confrontation He has sought to signal that the United States still considers its NATO treaty obligations sector saying yet. He is also Properly, I think pressed free riding Europeans to do more to defend themselves In effect Obama classifies Russia as an annoyance impossible to ignore But not worth the bother of taking too seriously at a time when there are far more important issues at play in play Annoyance does not justify a major Reorientation of US policy priorities. So for Obama Russia is a second tier problem Whether this assessment will test will stand the test of time remains to be seen. My guess is that it will fourth China at the very top of the first tier Sitz Asia and especially China as competitor and partner in 21st century geopolitics. It seems to me no question surpasses this one in importance How does China define its ambitions and experts are endlessly opine on that question But I think the truth is no one knows indeed My guess is that the Chinese leadership itself may not have arrived at a common view Regarding China's intended future expected future as a global power Will Obama's response to this uncertainty has emphasized hedging Marketed as a so-called pivot toward Asia a deliberate reorientation of assets in attention to a region Arguably meriting more of both critics complain of a very long and very elaborate Windup that has thus far produced a rather slow and not very impressive pitch And indeed if the aim if if the aim is to restrain China Then results achieve thus far qualify as disappointing China does continue to expand its military capabilities and to engage in actions that the United States deems Provocative for example staking out territorial claims in the South China Sea I would note parenthetically in in in Washington's eyes US military activities in the region which occur on a vastly larger scale are by definition the inverse of provocative You know Obama's pivot is Spurring a realignment of power relationships throughout East Asia China's neighbors such as Vietnam of all people the Vietnamese see in Chinese behavior reason too cozy up to America It's geopolitics 101 albeit complicated in this case by the fact that the rising power That some in Washington wish to contain also happens to be America's leading foreign creditor fifth Iran The Iran nuclear deal Formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Represents in my judgment far and away Obama's boldest diplomatic gambit in conjunction with other leading powers Notably including Russia and China and despite fierce opposition led by the Israel lobby The Obama administration forged an agreement that suspends Iran's nuclear weapons development program for at least the next decade in return for Offering that nation an opportunity to reintegrate itself into the international community Well, I think that ensuring that Iran does not join the nuclear club is an unambiguous good Ending Iranian isolation however entails large risks and the jury is still out on whether Iran whether Iran will choose to play a Responsible role or whether it will live up to its reputation as a leading state sponsor of terrorism if the gamble pays off The gamble that Iran will choose to behave as a responsible player if the gamble pays off Historians may one day cite the JCPOA as the first step toward restoring stability in the Middle East and in that case The Nobel committee may wish to publish an addendum to the citation it prematurely awarded Obama back in 2009 The addendum will say something like see we told you he deserved the peace prize That said if the gamble fails and it may then the committee might consider simply revoking the award altogether 6th nuclear weapons During his visit to Hiroshima Earlier this year President Obama Affirmed his earnest desire to one day see quote a world without nuclear weapons The president thereby echoed hopes voiced by his predecessors going back to Harry Truman and indeed Who knows some of those presidents may actually have meant what they said Meanwhile, however a different Barack Obama impersonator Evil twin a different Barack Obama was directing the president to modernize the entire US nuclear arsenal When completed decades from now More or less on the 100th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima when completed decades from now The Obama program will have cost the American taxpayer as much as a trillion dollars The nation's nuclear strike force will have acquired by then better smaller and more flexible Nuclear warheads along with new bombers new missiles and new submarines to launch the missiles By then no doubt several more American presidents will have expressed their earnest hope of seeing a nuclear weapons-free world in short Pious rhetoric not withstanding Obama has affirmed the position to which his predecessors since 1945 with the arguable exception of Ronald Reagan have all Subscribed namely that nuclear disarmament poses an unacceptable risk to US national security Or to put it another way only the possession of a doomsday arsenal held an instant readiness to blow up the world Can guarantee this nation safety and survival? Now one can make the case that this approach has worked well enough thus far after all Since the dawn of the nuclear era the nation has evaded extinction And America has successfully if on occasion narrowly avoided being attacked by weapons that we created Obama is batting that a further investment in nukes will keep that record intact Should that turn out to be a miscalculation? Then the criticism heaped on his head today for allowing the Benghazi consulate to be overrun Will will pale in comparison? Seventh item cyber security operation Olympic Games the 2010 Israeli-American cyber attack on an Iranian nuclear facility was the Pearl Harbor of the information age like Pearl Harbor It inaugurated a new form of warfare, but settled nothing Americans once believed that preserving their way of life Depended on ensuring access to Persian Gulf oil an illusion Resulting in a decades-long series of armed conflicts from which the United States has yet to escape meanwhile, however Ensuring the integrity of networks business commercial military and otherwise has actually become far more critical To American well-being than foreign oil ever was And you have to wonder if authorities in the city says have ever so radically Misconstrued the national interest President Obama seems to grasp the significance of this misplaced emphasis During the first year of his presidency US cyber command became fully operational Attracting less attention than the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan It may actually outrank those wars in importance this latest addition to the Pentagon's stable of major Commands is charged with conducting quote full spectrum military cyberspace Operations although much of what the command does is classified. We know that those operations are both defensive and offensive in nature Americans today Me included take it on faith that cyber command has it act together and perhaps it does so far at least Despite a rash of hackings by antagonists abroad the nation's cyber defenses appear to be holding and We'll know immediately when they don't because the lights will go out and we'll discover what it's like to live in the 1940s And should that occur? Obama and others will have much to answer for eighth and last item climate change Remember this is a sending order of importance Cuba least importance in my judgment climate change most important The rapidly warming planet is not an American problem. It's a global problem, which has thus far elicited more lip service than action still President Obama provided much of the impetus behind efforts that culminated in the Paris climate deal signed last year by 196 196 nations among the signatories Importantly are the mega polluters like India China and of course the United States of America Obama described the compact as quote The best chance we have to save the one planet. We've got and it may well be Yet the progress it represents is tentative and partial Knowing that the deal would never pass muster with the Republican controlled Senate President Obama resorted to the dubious ploy of Characterizing it as an executive agreement rather than as a treaty thereby Empowering future presidents to opt out should they find it expedient to do so notably Donald Trump has dismissed climate change as a hoax while the 2016 Republican Party platform Explicitly rejects the Paris agreement Beyond that even if the United States and other signatories remain Remain party to the agreement the Paris deal by no means solves the problem actual implementation Poses vast challenges in the most optimistic scenario full compliance will not end global warming It will merely slow it real hope is Paris deal will contribute to forging a global Consensus that will that will provide a basis for further action now Put the best face on all of these Initiatives that all this unfinished business and you still left feeling That that Obama's legacy remains vaguely unsatisfactory Certainly his record falls well short of what his legions of supporters were counting on back in 2008 when they voted for hope and change When it comes to foreign policy, it seems to me. It's the absence of definitive Definitive outcomes that leads many to see Obama as a disappointment The end of the Cold War Had bred in Americans Certain convictions about the way the global order was was was henceforth supposed to function in an era that we claimed was to be dominated by a single superpower us Washington was going to call the tune Supposedly Adversaries were going to think twice about challenging the indispensable nation and They would face the wrath of the world's most powerful military if they made the mistake of doing so allies would tip their caps in Gratitude and perhaps even pay tribute and American values above all the ever-changing American conception of freedom would prevail everywhere Now although the the events of 9-eleven might have disabused Americans of such notions George W. Bush took it upon himself to reaffirm those expectations Taking down the axis of evil. He believed would demonstrate that the United States remains The engine of history that those post Cold War X expectations remained valid Indeed at the first glimmerings of success Bush went so far as to quite literally host a banner Proclaiming mission accomplished this declaration of victory. However turned out to be mortifyingly premature the banner wherever it is In some closet it would probably remain there for some time to come. Certainly President Obama Has shown no inclination to pull it out To attend to what President Obama has to say in the twilight of his presidency is to encounter someone who I believe is not persuaded that the mission as Washington defined it Back when history itself had a stand up ostensibly ended that the mission is a fool's arrow at fool's errand Which should be abandoned? Few others in this city as far as I can tell are even willing to countenance such a prospect To consider the possibility that maybe we're not the indispensable nation and in this regard as in others President Obama finds himself something of a lonely figure the era that began with the passing of the Cold War Had essentially ended by the time Obama came into office At the time neither he nor others understood this of course and he but in even so over the course of two terms Obama quietly fashioned himself Into the first president of the as yet to be named era in which we now find ourselves One of this era's abiding characteristics is that authority and responsibilities are being dispersed The emerging order is both multipolar and radically decentralized as a consequence decisions made in Washington No longer determined the way the world works if indeed they ever did I Think President Obama actually gets this in the remarkable series of interviews that formed the basis of Jeffrey Goldberg's Mistitled essay the Obama doctrine The president offers a nuanced appreciation for the complexity Defining this post post Cold War era In his conversations with Goldberg the president suggests that doctrine itself is part of the problem Washington's fixation with doctrine Inhibits its ability to address complexity Obama goes out of his way in in his discussions with Goldberg to express his disdain for the foreign policy establishments hide bound playbook as Obama called it Granted 30 years ago. Certainly 60 years ago the playbook retained some value But today I think I think Obama believes The perpetuation of the play playbook offers evidence of advanced intellectual sclerosis Obama's fate however at least for now is to be judged According to criteria that derive from the obsolete playbook Years from now I expect historians will judge him by a somewhat different standard and they may see his chief failing The fact that while recognizing that the that the playbook had become outmoded He he was unable to persuade others in the political class to recognize and embrace some alternative to that playbook Throughout his life Obama has demonstrated a striking aptitude for mastering whatever environment in which he happens to find himself He learns he adapts. He's a quick study After two terms of on-the-job training He has acquired a remarkable grasp for the intricacies of 21st century statecraft Now that he is Ineligible for election to the presidency He has everything required to fill that office with great distinction Now that's irony for you. Thank you very much Pardon me Yes, absolutely Yes, so I just said I love your eight things But it's it's really striking. You never mentioned the war on terror That's not one of your or however. We're gonna call it first five pages of the talk that I skipped over I'd be glad to give them to you Well, I guess I guess the question is where does it fit in those eight challenges, which I think are masterful and lay out Exactly what the next president has to face and what he has to do, but where would you put Afghan al-Qaeda? Countering I mean I sold sort of that threat Whatever the name is in those eight In in your your hierarchical first thing I think I would distinguish between Isis I sold and the larger problem of Whatever the politically correct term is these days of violent jihadism My own view would be that the threat to the United States posed by Isis is Relatively insignificant There is a tendency in some quarters to act as if Isis poses an existential threat to the United States It just flat out doesn't I don't know what the current order of battle is the current order of battle is being reduced on a daily basis, but Peter knows probably better than I do Isis probably has what 20 25,000 fighters is that 15 to 25,000 fighters. They've got no Air Force. They've got no Navy. They've got no weapons of mass destruction They have very little heavy equipment. They've got a shrinking resource base. They have no Significant allies, you know, we're not talking about the Wehrmacht here Isis does pose a threat to The powers in the region poses an existential threat to Iraq could pose an existential threat to Iran to Saudi Arabia And it seems to me that in that regard with regard specifically to what to do about Isis our our task is a diplomatic one of Getting parties in the region to recognize the extent of the threat that they face and Persuading them. This is this is difficult. This is not easy Persuading them to set aside their differences with one another at least temporarily So as to make common cause with the immediate threat They could solve their problem again. I mean, it's not the Wehrmacht were Saudi Arabia and Iran and Turkey and whatever Iraq is to to Co-operate with one another in this regard It seems to me that the problem would be solved the problem of Isis would be solved rather Expeditiously, I think and now that no that that argument Reflects my larger view the argument made in my book America's War for the Greater Middle East That our military efforts in this region and my narrative doesn't begin by 9 11 my narrative begins in 1980 that's that's the date when we begin militarizing our approach to the Persian Gulf and and its surrounding area My reading of the record of US military intervention since 1980 is that This is a fool's errand. This is a counterproductive exercise. We're not we're not we're not making things better We're making things worse And therefore it seems to me a it's it's past time for us to acknowledge the failure of US military policy in the region Only if we acknowledge that there's a become possible to have a serious discussion about what alternatives may be I mean you touched on on that a little bit in your in your in your three points But it it does seem to me that to the extent that we can on the margins on the margins Have some effect on the direction of events in the region. It is not going to be through US military action You can go until 1015 Okay Yes, sir Warren codes retired from the International Monetary Fund your discussion of the TPP Didn't touch on the global political dimension or its implications for American leadership in that system. Could you address that? I'm not quite sure I understand the question I mean so so yes, the United States since World War two has been a leader and trying to create an open international Global economy the TPP. I guess one would argue Reflects a continuation of that decades-long effort More than that many of us see the TPP's importance more in the Pivot to Asia and Our leadership role in that area then we do the economic aspects now I have to say, you know, I have not thought a lot about it in that context And perhaps I'm too much a prisoner of what seems to be our political debate in this season which tends to focus on the domestic implications of Continuing to pursue this this vision of an open International order, so I don't have a I don't have an answer for you. I got to think about that and I appreciate the fact You're gonna make me think about it There's somebody in the next to the aisle halfway back Thank you. Good morning My name Mohammed Samman, I'm the MC in America. I'm the founder of Syria advice Center base here in Washington, DC We know a lot of what ISIS down there in Syria in Iraq. I Agree with you that their capabilities on the military side on the ground on the battlefield is diminishing Significantly, but when you go global, it's quite scary. Yep. Those people those criminals are Way sophisticated and smart, you know, and what worries me really is that we are not Responding to that threat Creatively we need to be more proactive on that and I believe the next administration and that's the theme for this good discussion today Really need to think about it in that context We would they really need to be creative and proactive dealing with this horrendous threat. I'm in favor of creativity Thank you. I have to say that my expectation is that you will be disappointed Regardless of who wins the election. I don't think Donald Trump is gonna win Should he do so? All bets are off I expect that Hillary Clinton will win and my own judgment would be is that She she shows remarkably little by way of creativity she believes in the Playbook that President Obama Disparages and I agree that her her commitment to that playbook makes her in all likelihood She'll be a far more hawkish President than Obama, you know what my To me the most significant episode of her tenure as Secretary of State was the Libya intervention of of 2011 I don't pretend to know How the decisions were made that led to that decision to To bring about regime change in Libya, but at least when you go by the press reports It appears that she was one of the principal promoters of that Escapade famously Saying in public when a Gaddafi was murdered We came we saw he died with a sort of smugness That I find repugnant But but more to the point the consequences of that intervention turned out to be Quite negative indeed creating a space for a new ISIS franchise to take root in in Libya so And although she has expressed regret for certain Actions on her part for example voting in favor of the Iraq war To my knowledge she has not expressed any regret About overthrowing Gaddafi or even any real awareness about the negative consequences of that action So so I'm with you. I'm for creativity Don't hold your breath There's some all the way in the back the gentleman with the Tie clip on I think thank you My name is Andrew flown and I'm with the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy I wanted to ask and I'm gonna ask you just to speak up a little bit because I can barely hear you definitely I wanted to ask how you evaluate arguments made by some that the next president's Foreign policy should be centered around the use of USAID and Solving problems before they end up militarizing. Yeah, you know, I'm for creativity I'm for solving problems before they arise I don't know a hell of a lot about development But the little bit I know persuades me that In theory, it's great in practice. It's difficult. I mean when when I Along with so many of our fellow citizens Discovered Afghanistan after 2001. I mean one of the things that I didn't know about was back in the 1950s We had a we the United States government had a very substantial program of Economic assistance and development in Afghanistan That to my understanding sort of a briefly showed some signs of success, but that has long since Vanished since 9-11 I saw a figure the other day about how much we spent in Afghanistan trying to Create a functional nation-state with a with a decent economy It's upwards of a trillion now, wouldn't it something like that not nearly as much as we've wasted on fighting the wars But but something like a trillion dollars far as I can tell Been money down a rat hole sad to say So so solving problems before they emerge through Economic development programs is something I would happily sign up for if I saw any evidence that That approach worked As far as I can tell the evidence is hard to come by you know There's something magical about when Nations take off When I was a young person it was a suit it was taken for granted that places like South Korea would forever be backward countries With no significant economic development ditto for Taiwan Certainly ditto for China Over the past 30 40 years we have seen the extent to which Development can happen at a spectacular Rate It's not clear to me that the United States plays much of a role in making that happen it has to do with conditions internal to the country to Commitments made by governments to to mobilize Entrepreneurship and and and and and and then you see it So not I've just not persuaded that we have much of a capacity to reach into a country and make that happen Yes, ma'am. Hi, you mentioned early on in your talk that past president specifically Kennedy and Reagan We're able to use the discourse of peace right to rally the American public And I was wondering if there are obstacles today to using that same discourse It seems that people who talk about peace or viewed or disparaged as being weak on security. Could you address that? Well, I think that's true You know there Well, it's true You know Hillary Hillary Clinton would not have won the nomination would not have won the presidency If she portrayed herself as something other than the hawk that she is That's what you need to do I think to to get elected in this country to any kind of a substantial office So, you know, it would be great if we had a peace party or even if we just had one party that was skeptical of Armed intervention, but we don't we have two war parties Republicans and Democrats pretend to differ on these matters, but they but they don't there's no significant I give I give talks to so-called peace and justice groups with some frequency and They're always the audience wonderful people and they all look like me I Mean it's almost a hundred percent Over sixty if not over seventy 90 percent White The peace and justice movement sure the heck doesn't look like America and That's a very sad fact It's very sad that That that we the people Accept the The the elimination of peace as an ultimate goal of us foreign policy But it's a fact it happened and it's a deeply regrettable one Yes, sir about Clintons I'm not mistaken Clinton president Clinton had the least amount of our soldiers killed prior to maybe Roosevelt An actual combat action. He had 76 people killed total 75 people killed one in combat 74 in terrorist attacks, which I believe would be Correct and the but the question is is the Arab spring happened in and in February of 2011 the Brits and the French were begging us to be part of Libya And at the end of March after Gaddafi left it was a year later. They they voted for their first government So would you say it was better to have a Dictator or someone I mean if they can't handle the room government, you know, I get that but they did vote for their own government Hey, if maybe I'm missing the papers. Are you suggesting that Libya is a stable democracy today? Oh, no, okay. It's better to have it. I mean Yeah, I it'd be great along with creativity and and solving problems before they emerge if we could have the world be Consist of liberal democratic states It doesn't Given that if the choice is anarchy versus stability I'll take stability Regime regime regime change in Libya produced anarchy No, that's there's been a civil war in Libya for the last couple of years I'm You and I are talking to pass each other. I think I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Yes, they did Okay. Oh, oh, I see so the so the your argument is that we overthrow the dictator There is an election and now it's their problem in other words we don't we don't we don't need to examine the aftermath of our intervention beyond the date of the election and Have see that there were somehow responsible for the consequences of overthrowing our Responsibility ends when they elect their government in your view. That's not a view. I would agree with I see Okay, I got it Yes, ma'am in the along the aisle there I'm following up on that question about peace given the current political situation and given the fact I agree with you as somebody who's in peace groups that they don't look like America and they're they're older than they should be Do you see anything that could reverse that trend? Well, I I mean my argument has been in in more than one book That there will be no substantial change in our approach to you foreign and national security policy Until we the people demand it and and that's why that that's where the Obama light footprint really And it's not that this is part of some conspiracy, but it has such nefarious Implications Because we we now are a country where war has become a normal condition and We the people accept that More or less unquestioningly and as long as that continues to be the case given the constellation of power in Washington given the fact that both of the main political parties are Committed to a militarized foreign policy Change isn't gonna happen unless American people get fed up. I mean I'm struck by the fact that The American people retain a capacity to get fed up and to demonstrate their anger on matters like, you know Black Lives Matter or the the Occupy movement people people Can get uppity? But we're not uppity when it comes to our Militarized and costly and Unsuccessful approach to national security policy Yes, sir Burke-Wides. I'm a pro bono advocate on on these issues I Want to go back to your and by the way I? Agree with almost Everything you said I thought it was brilliant articulate, but with regard to the fundamental issue of intervention In this town when things like Syria and all the devastation come up The left and to some extent the right view Every time we intervene is making it worse if doing anything But there is a central group that follows the the concept of Responsibility to protect that at some point humanitarian situation is so bad. We should go in and Given your overall approach. I'm wondering if still on a case-by-case basis You gave any consideration to what the Secretary of Defense CIA and State were recommending early in the Syrian situation of not combat troops But using Tomahawk's drones to at least crater the airfields and so forth. How long does it take to repair an airfield? aren't half and to destroy Sirius Air Force capability for the kind of bombing and then what then what what's the next step? I'm gonna say, okay. We were done now Me one has to think through you know, what's what is what what is the next step? And I have strong views on this matter and my strong views say that when I look at the the the pattern and the Consequences of US military intervention in the Islamic world Everywhere from Libya to Afghanistan With very very few exceptions we've made matters worse and Therefore when we confront Humanitarian disasters like the one that has been unfolding in Syria and we ask ourselves. Well Does the United States have some kind of a moral obligation to do something? I? Say yes But let's do something that is actually effective Not something that sort of makes us feel good. Look we cratered the airfields and frankly it's not that I mean It's not that difficult to figure out what we could do that would be effective in providing assistance to the people who are being Dispossessed what what would that be bring them here? The Angola Merkel solution Germany think about this folks Germany is Saving a million lives By admitting a million Refugees to Germany we have if I'm not mistaken admitted 10,000 President says he'd like to make that be what another 65,000 next year or something like that He can say that he's not going to be president But 10,000 versus a million That's an effective response that is within our capability to do if we actually chose to do that But the fact of the matter is and you know it and I know it our fellow citizens don't want a million Syrians coming into our country and therefore when we get you know We feel all this angst about the need to do something Then cratering airfields or dropping bombs or sending in special operations forces are doing drone strikes Is a way for us to persuade ourselves that we're actually doing something meaningful Even when we're not you sir and I think this is gonna be the last question because we're almost out that puts a lot of pressure Thank you very much for a very very thoughtful Talk I'd like to ask perhaps a more more Personal question more curious. I'm curious congressman Seth Moulton presented what I thought was a Also a thoughtful, you know kind of proposal in terms of Iraq policy for for for the US and since you're in Boston I wonder if you know him. Do you talk to him? Did you have anything to do with he's not my congressman? He I live south of Boston. He's he's the member from the North Shore. Yes. I know him. I know him and do you Sort of advise him. Do you talk? I mean, did you have a hand? It's not the guys. There's some sneaky There's something I don't I don't mean a sneaky. I mean, yeah, I mean I I Might I might actually see him tonight I'm giving a talk back in Boston and I got a call from one of his staffers and I think there's a good chance He's gonna come to my talk. So I see him from time to time. He's I think a he's a terrific guy B I think he's got an incredible future In front of him if he plays his cards, right and because he's real smart I think he's gonna place his card. He's not gonna spend the rest of his life as a member of the House of Representatives So he's a really somebody to watch if you don't know Seth Moulton's I got to be about 35 something like that Harvard graduate Marine Corps veteran tours in Iraq and Afghanistan Eloquent thoughtful Very much a critic of the misuse of American military power very much a critic of our current military system That is to say our reliance on The so-called all-volunteer force which he believes and I believe is one of the factors contributing to the public's willingness to tune out Wars because they're not not engaged. So He he is one of those Who who believes that we ought to have some form of national service in this country? That is to say that all young people will Spend a term of Service to to country or community in some capacity Maybe in military service. Maybe not but as a way to enrich the definition of citizenship and as a way to Reconnect the American people to to the military. I'm glad to see this Thank you. Well, thanks very much. I really enjoyed it appreciate