 Thank you very much, Jim. Thank you very much, Anne-Marie. None of this could have happened without your support, so thank you. Welcome to the Future Security Forum 2021. It's our seventh annual forum. My name is Peter Rigg. I'm Vice President of Global Studies and Fellows at New America. Also Professor of Practice at Arizona State, where I co-direct with Dan Rothenberg, the Center on the Future of War, which we're in the process of renaming Future Security Institute. 20 years after 9-11, more Americans have died of COVID than have died in any of our wars combined. Since World War I, more than 600,000 Americans have died, and unfortunately, we probably will surpass the number of Americans who were killed during the 1918 flu rather soon, which I believe I think was 675,000. Obviously, the population in the United States was smaller at the time, but nonetheless, an important kind of milestone, unfortunately. Then, of course, we have the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the kind of humanitarian disaster that is unfolding there, the human rights disaster that is unfolding there, the strange kind of, who could have predicted that a member of al-Qaeda would have a senior cabinet position in a foreign government, which is exactly where we are today in Afghanistan, with the appointment of the Minister of Interior, Siraj Akana, who's described as a leader of al-Qaeda by the United Nations. And then, of course, we have domestic extremism. We have an event on Saturday in Washington, D.C., where I'm sitting, which may pose a real threat to, again, to members of Congress and to others in the Washington, D.C. area, which all calls for a kind of re-examination of what we consider to be a national security, 2005, I am a re-runner process at Princeton, where it began with a quote from George Cannon, which is, I think, a very good quote from 1948, and I'm going to sort of paraphrase it, essentially, you know, national security is our ability to continue living our lives without interference from foreign powers. Well, today, we can kind of update that and say, without the interference of foreign powers or internal kind of powers or outside forces, such as COVID. So in an effort to kind of rethink national security over the next 20 years, Heather Halbert and Alexander Stark of New America have produced a video. Heather is the director of the new models of policy change at New America. Alexander Stark is the senior researcher with political reform at New America and an expert also on kind of the Gulf monarchies and their proxy warfare strategies. So let's go to the videotape. Here is redefining national security over the next 20 years. 20 years after 9-11, as we pass 600,000 COVID deaths in the United States and four and a half million worldwide, U.S. forces wind up the longest American war in Afghanistan and domestic extremist groups rise to unprecedented levels of activity. What does security mean to Americans now? For the seven decades that followed the end of World War II, U.S. leaders across partisan and generational lines shared a definition of key threats to national security, even when they fundamentally disagreed about how to respond to those security threats. In the years before September 11th, 2001, and for the decade that followed it, Americans across party and generational lines identified international terrorism as a critical threat to U.S. security in the post-Cold War world. The entire world has seen for itself the state of our union and it is strong. The top list of threats from that period also included nuclear proliferation, U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and concerns about U.S. debt to China. Terrorism, nuclear proliferation, energy dependence, and even great power competition. These are all threats to society as a whole that come from outside. Framings of security that strategists in the 1970s or the 1870s would have understood. But as the 21st century dawned, Americans became increasingly concerned about issues that we might not even have thought of in national security terms a decade or two prior. While long-standing security issues like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and the rise of other great powers still register. In 2020, Americans identified issues like the COVID-19 pandemic, the global economic downturn, domestic violent extremism, political polarization in the United States, and foreign interference in U.S. elections as critical national security threats. As President Biden took office, Americans told Pew Research that they shared one top security priority across party lines. But that priority wasn't something that our national security tools and theories are designed to address. It was jobs at around the same time. And as has been the case since 2019, Democrats picked violent white nationalist groups as the greatest security threat to the United States. Only 3% of Republicans agreed. What did Republicans see as the greatest threat? A rising China. Political division around national security issues mirrors broader trends in the American public. Both policymakers and mass publics increasingly disagree about what even constitutes a national security issue with little overlap across partisan divides. Whether someone identifies as a Democrat or Republican tells us a lot about whether they would prioritize dealing with global climate change, reducing immigration into the United States, or maintaining the U.S. military advantage as a top national security priority. This has profound implications for the future. Researchers usually assume that a nation must have a foundational public consensus about what constitutes a threat in order to conduct effective policy. How should we think about building security in a country that doesn't have a shared conception of the threats we face? We can begin by digging deeper into those divisions and learning important lessons about how race, gender, generation, and other identities shape Americans' understanding of security. In recent years, for example, scholarship has identified a gender gap across party lines. Although women tend to report greater concern about security threats, they are less likely to support the use of force than men. A number of studies just released or in review identify lower support for military interventions but higher support for Pentagon spending and the military as an institution among black respondents in the United States as compared to whites. Other research appears to identify links among tolerance for non-American casualties, the race of the victims, and the race of the respondent. The rising leaders of 20 years from now are today's Gen Z, young people born in 1997 or after. Some evidence suggests that the most diverse generation in US history is less affected by partisan polarization and has a more unified view of the world than older generations. But young Americans' views on security differ significantly from their elders. A 2019 survey found that Gen Z are more likely than not to say that US global leadership makes the US less secure and to rank human rights, climate change, and global poverty as more important security threats than competition with the rising China or international terrorism. What can policy leaders do to rebuild the concept of security that garners a strong core of public support? Learn lessons from domestic efforts like criminal justice reform that built support across ideologies and identities. Make policy like the highly diverse country that we are and listen first, because successful policy won't just be for Americans, but also from Americans.