Giving you a frontrow seat to democracy. Victoria coats security adviser to donald trump. He joined the discussion to Foreign Policy. Topics included israel and gaza, continued u. S. Support for ukraine, china and iran and how Foreign Policy has differed from various administrations. The discussion hosted by the Cato Institute. Welcome, everybody. My pleasure to welcome you here this morning to the Cato Institute for our then future of gop Foreign Policy. Thanks to those who are here in person, thanks to those who are watching online and cspan and always thank tech folks by the grace of god made all of this happen and the conference folks to make sure i showed up where im supposed to be at any given time. For people who are watching online and have questions that they want toat pose to our panelists, you can use the catofp to ask a question on twitter or facebook or whatever the case may be. But i will just set it up that we have the gop is in the midst of a meaningful debate on Foreign Policy as global power and has luxury of choice and can choose more, it can choose less Foreign Policy and can choose more Foreign Policy in one place and less in another place. Theres a lot of room to run in terms of choice. You can index the debate by looking at, for example, two leading president ial candidates that represent two factions within the gop Foreign Policy debate. One emphasizing europe. That side frequently gets called isolationist, ugly word but that side of the debate argues that focusing on europe comes at the expense of other u. S. Interest that may, in fact, may be more important such as the u. S. Position visavis asia. The other side of the debate that as goes europe so goes the world. Everyone is, connected to everything else. So without u. S. Leadership the global order would collapse. I refer, of course, to the of 1952. Ial election theres some echoes of the debate that took place during that president ial election in the contempt the rare gop and i think we will do our best to kind of pull at some of the similarities and distinctions between these two moments in time. There are echoes of that past debate into today but i think there are a number of different ways of getting at the problem. If you look at the faction that says, the United States needs to play the leading role in European Security those there tends to be a generational split on that question. If you look at the people who are calling for a fundamental reorientation in the senate, for example, youre going to see people like jd vance, josh howley and rand paul and if you look at the people who have grand vision and liz cheney, mitt romney is retiring and the majority leader, Mitch Mcconnell is 81 and theres the generational divide that we may want to talk about. The american conservative has a larger role to play in the party that it has historically. The president of heritage it said it rankk and file donors down firmly on the restraint side. So both as a scholar and selfishly this is a very interesting moment to be working on restraint and u. S. Foreign policy. We have two very distinguished scholars here to talk about the nuts and bolts of the debate at that it is happening today. On the broader context in which it is happening. The first presenter this morning will be victoria coast who is the Vice President cap and shall be calm Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Previously National Security advisor and 2020. She had 2016 joined Donald Trumps is assistant to the president and director for Strategic Communications in 19 she was promoted to Deputy Assistant to the president deputy National Security advisor for the middle east and north africa, which will again be relevant to our discussion today. Previously she had served former secretary of defense donald trump fell director of research firstt personal office. National Senior Security advisor to senator ted cruz bachelors degree in art history from College Masters degree in Williams College and a phd from penn please do not ask me any questions because i will embarrass myself. In front of doctor coates progressed to be happy to talk with the william penn statute. That is just come up the pen statute may beat we could avoid that hopefully. We have branded bucket was a phd candidate in history at george mason university. He recently worked as an intelligence geospatial analyst with an gis and gia. Its got a in their. I also serve u. S. Army complete multiple tours to afghanistan. His Research Interests which are germane for discussion today include 20th century u. S. Military diplomatic history but u. S. Afghan relations the managerial state which is setting off the libertarian sirens and me and other people here in the room. Current Research Focus on the domestic politics of u. S. Foreign policy from 1934 through 1992. Again germane to our discussion today the evolution of foreign foreignpolicy attitudes within the Republican Party. His work w has appeared numerous outlets including responsible statecraft the Libertarian Institute antiwar. Com. Here in a batch of arts in history for the university of denver master of arts in history from george mason in 2016. So with that i think victoria, if you want to set the table for us a little bit today and tell us where you see things going. Sure, thank you very much for that kind introduction. It is good to be with both of you. And i appreciate everyone coming in person and joining us online. And on cspan. For this very timely discussion of a topic has been seizing us at the Heritage Foundation and the Davis Institute. This is sort of a conversation ive been having in different iterations from 2007 on. And i think what we have seen between the conclusion of the second bushbu term and what we e going into in 2024 has been a really radical shift in the way National Security policy is designed and executed. We have had kind of a remarkable series of almost screen shots within that period of time. Weve got the obama to terms in the record came out ofe that we have the trump term. We have again a very distinctive record and then now we are getting a full picture of what the by the administration Foreign Policy has brought on the world. Think well go into the historical roots of all of this. But there really has been a shift from the much more traditional caucus republican Foreign Policy to what i would refer to as a conservative National Security policy. O the way i conceived this in my brain because i am visual we are not hawks, we are not doves, we are owls i would reject the paradigm you have to either be an interventionist or an isolationist. I dont think that is applicable to the United States and the Second Quarter of the 21st century. We have to be able to doo better than just default to one of those two positions. And it really clarified for me in the 2016 republican primary when you had candidates such as jeb bush officer closely associated with his brothers Foreign Policy you go to rand paul who is the most formal libertarian and then at marco rubio was in the mix as well. Nobody bought either of those in the primary. I think marco won the minnesota carcasses the two candidates they came in first and second trump and cruz partial for both of them but they had fundamentally the same approach to internationalbu affairs which for trump summed up in America First. You serve the basic interest of the United States and build your approach from there. We can get into the relative successes or failures of thatt approach but it was one that was persuasive to the primary voters and then to the general electorate. I think that in many ways where werethe head of the american pee are. We could get into very specifics there but that is where i see things at the moment sprayis quickset is great, brandon give us low gloss on history here. How you are connecting gop to the gop of previous errors . It is important to note think history shows that meaning of conservative foreignpolicy is not preordained it could take many forms that might seem strange to us in the present if we look to the right it was led by robert taft of ohio. There were strident communists but they were rejected the liberal internationalism came with the early prosecution of the cold war as such they advocated for a model for the cold war that looked much more like fortress america and i think it is important to know their framework, the way they saw america and the world stemmed heavily from a a revisionist view particular of world war ii and for the manner in which the war ended. But more importantly is of the failings of american Foreign Policy over time as a product of American Action and not an action and that ran complete counter to us than the emerging liberal consensus that was the absence of American Power on the global stage that led to the rise of fascism and therefore the second world war. They are views became verboten by the mid 50s but nevertheless they carried them forward. That way of viewing the world from a conservative lens is largely lost to us because first they lost the political battle but more poorly the b loss the battle in the 50s and going through into the 60s. If you look at the history of the modern rights and its various flavors towards foreignpolicy had deeper roots than calmly appreciated. Modern age are more strident non interventionist especially if you look at grassroots they both use a vernacular to the veo describe american pouring policy than the early 1960s if you look at the base, that using the phrase the militaryindustrial complex which wells coined by eisenhowers kept alive in the 60s and 70s. It has widened into a97 place it is not been in decades. If we juxtapose the history that suggests conservative opinions on foreignpolicy are far more lasting and more commonly understood i think history shows conservative foreignpolicy emerge from domestic process it was not strictly informed by a reaction to events overseas no inherently global in its ambition. In going through some of the history was first constrained by the primary defeat of robert taft and later in july 53 the remnants were eventually ground down via attrition throughout the 60s so again when you look at the history shows the prominence of interventionist rings of conservatism be at the old guard unilateralism, reaganism or conservatism are more apparente than normative. Again generational turnover that we are seeing is not at all uncommon. That being said history shows the modern Republican Party is probably going to remain chaotic without a unifying figure to pik what i am a historian. [laughter] i dont look over the horizon too far without a unifying gear like a Dwight D Eisenhower without a narrative on recent foreignpolicy. And also without a foreign threats like communism was during the cold war on terror. I do not think that hypocrisy versus democracy framework is coming out of the white house. With 30 trillion in debt. Those are some of the similarities its important to o highlight less would make a model of the past to predict the future. Theres a regional basis at a time in which american politicse was highly sectional. They had ideas to go back to the founding of the country they had institutions built t up to imperialism the store with the spanishamerican war then reached the height during the wake of the great war. They had breath of a voter support they had a depth of institutional cover both in business but more importantly in congress. They had a confluence of interests that saw a Foreign Policy as detrimental to the interest but also the vision of what americas role should be. The pattern of dissent the more decentralized. They are even more rural than the old right was. They are aligned against social class is not an elite and similarly institutions are not quite there for theres been a lot of changes 2016. They certainly are not as robust as they were during the first of the 20th century. Also have a much heavier lift. They eradicate or redirect National Security and apparatus. And they also think there are susocial issues which can serves a impediment to their success the four coalitions with the counter person on the left particular issues like immigration and trade is also general difference of certain people on the left. Whatever comes next. That is very helpful. One things i let you both know the point of view of a scholar. Personnel is a policy and i think for my more trump friendsy and colleagues who say trump was in the right place and foreignpolicy from our point of view but at crucial junctures wasig undermined by people who work in the menstruation. We had for example james a jeffy said as a shell game we were hiding the number of troops we had in syria so that he did not know how my troops we had in syria and prevented the president from following through on his pledge to withdraw troops from syria. There are many, many of these instances. Myso might mort restrain colleagues will say a second trump term would be staffed by people assure the president s vision which is fill in the blank. You would see a more followthrough and more results. There is an effort to do that. To connect staffers to administration. May beat victoria, number one do you think there is a point to be made surrounding the personnel having a big impact on how policy is more wheat to get a Second Trump Administration that things will go differently in some way orou another . Quick sake and the second question first, absolutely. No matter what happens. I think this is a critical question. Particularly for any incoming Republican Administration. The fundamental bias of the bureaucracy in the federal government is liberal. It is just a fact. And amongst that group there are many patriots who do want to do what is best for the country. I was actually surprised by how many lasting friendships i forgewith these people. Be a great bonus. Because it will make cameen in with President Trump we had had the eight years of obama. Thats been such an unusual election. And so many of the former Bush Administration folks havent taken themselves off the table by the various letters and statements they had made regarding the president. So in a way we came in blind. Also the president has not been present before he had not served the government before. So it is not clear to him, he did not have a list in his head this is my secretary of state. This is my secretary of s defen. I think both of those initial pics were hugely problematic. I understand the logic behind them. They did not work out in terms of pertinent personality or policy implementation. The challenge the president hadd its National Security advisoror position. Because general flynn is the one who hired me was that when the president was t deeply comfortae with. In ways that parallel to Jeanne Kirkpatrick and reagan. She was the one he was comfortable with and for various reasons she did not become National Security advisor and heat want up with a rotating doorng folks because he could nt get suited mike it is such a personal relationship. The president did not of general mcmaster before. He did know john bolton a little bit but neither of them were close to him. Dramatically different is interesting to serve under both of them. And i think after impeachment when robert to brian kaman there is much a feeling of mnc which are in the president and that relationship never quite worked. What i would advocate for whomever becomes that we do have a republican become president next november that the full role as the president s mechanism to implement his or her will on this gigantic bureaucracy this big apparatus that has to be reconceived from a conservative viewpoint. The automatic response is to say make it smaller. I had this repeatedly with russ, not someone who likes make things larger. Butto that is the budget you should expand because that is your tool. The rest of you can its relatively small dollars not talking a lot of money here. That is the change i would advocate for between a first and second term or whomever it may be. Brandon, any thoughts on the notion of a different republican or Trump Administration having different connection between the principal and the implementation of the policy . Thats a little bit out of my wheelhouse. [laughter] as far as a menu of options it has the most buyin the various factions of dissent amongst republicans and obviously thats going to run into a buzz saw people who want to maintain the status quo and what ever. There how many active are we directly involved in right now . What is going to happen after that is going to really be dictated by how the war in ukraine either grinds to ara hat for someone once up in victory. Europe is probably the thing with the most likelihood of having some sort ofe change. What that actually look likes is up for grabs. Victoria thats a good segue to the notion that has become a centerpiece of the conservative critique of neoconservatism or whatever we care to call it. This idea of tradeoffs. My understand the conservative inert critique there is a real and important challenge the u. S. Position in thehee world that s from peoples republic of china. Other Foreign Policy interests should be subordinated to that there are tradeoffs among regions, functions and services of the u. S. Military to say we cant just have more guns andnd more butter always forever in every context. What is your sense of the extent to which that view of tradeoffs a hierarchy of goals, brandon talked about the unifying theme that personified the cold war which was a struggle more or less liberal b capitalism and me and lesss communism. Is the sort of china focus a Real Driving Force . And can it conceivably unify around a different Foreign Policy . I would say yes that is a developing scene i was first introduced to this during the 2012 primary one is working for then governor perry i learned to spell affect what is that . And what had happened is george w. Bush ive been heavily influenced by his father who been ambassador to china among other things preside over the decision not to push back. And very much felt getting china into the wto engaging china economically was the way to go. Then it president bush had suggested governor perry resets a chinese industry, invite them into texas. And what he made a massive investment in by the 2012 primary that was a m problem people were already started to say hey there is something awry here. It became much more powerful in 2016. And then we got in and learn the extent of the problem briefly to what President Trump said the primary he was more hostile toward japan than china. This little bit of a product of the 80s. But i think once a a week wrap e grassed the scope of what was going on it became clear. We are going to be doing a lot of work on this year is the next generation of 5g is actually energy. Its called green energy thats being promoted by our current leadership which forces a reliance on china for theres no way to that domestically on the timeline that they set. That is going to happy the tradeoff of we decide that is a sowe want to do. These are issues of communication and energy that touched every american. When they see a china lens so that it does become a defining issue. It great. Anything there . The issue of tradeoffs is important. That is the essence of conservatism. But it has not been on the menu or in the forefront of conservative Foreign Policy since the taft. This was their concern and it was not just trading off europe for china but trading off american liberties at home for a truly Global Project it was also a concern for trying to make the world america it would cease to be america itself. Whatever comes next visavis china ill be interested to see how is it being framed . Iss it a means of containment fr own self interest are portrayed pretradeas a means to make chine americaer to continue this universal project abroad. At least i think the project in the middle east failed. To put it mildly. So if we learn anything it will be to have a more real conducting americanal policy. Lets get back to europe. Not in a metaphorical sense but literally. Theres an article in the New York Times in 2018 or 2019 that alleged President Trump was pretty intense on trying or wanted in some meaningful way to get the United States out of nato. This set might liberal International Friends into a tizzy. They are still kind of in the tizzy. I think brandon pointed out ukraine and may be europe more generally is the lowest hanging fruit for consensus among both conservative grassroots and Foreign Policy are people aspiring is consensus on china later in the middle east. But, do you see europe as a place where there is a green United States a segment taken for a ride by the europeans for several decades president s since eisenhower have been complaining about. Do you see Energy Around a fundamentally different approach in europe and may be to nato as an institution and a second trump term . Putting on my art historian cap, going back to rumsfeld he was ambassador to nato in 1974. I have gone through all of his papers. If anybody has any questions on the carbo issues cropping up with classified documents i am your girl. I know a ridiculous amount about this. He was writing back and 74 should then secretary kissinger this is ridiculous for the europeans are not paying their bills and for the not investing in their defense, they depend on us for everything. And oh, by the way we are up for war in vietnam among other issues. This is not in any way new. This culture of dependence is gone on for far too long. I understand why there is some nervousness in europe about having eight strongly armed one has historical memory that is not gone terribly well. We see that but at the same time have a collective economy thats roughly the size of the United States. When you have a war in europe, though smi looks, why should the United States be the lead donor to that war if we decide were going to contribute to ukraine and i am not a big fan of Vladimir Putin i do not put you at what him to win. Im ready to stop talking about ukraine its been a decade now. I am not in favor of just letting it go. But the president s and his repeated statements as much as it takes as long as it takes is a building up that assumption. When the president of the United States says that she do you you are forgiven for believing it. But the problem is that is not of his authority he can give us much as Congress Appropriates for as long as they decide to dc it. And as president before him is coming up against that reality he did not build a case for this war the American People and they are concerned about how it is being prosecuted. In terms of trump and nato the reason i was telling you a little bithe about the liberty last year iswas at that we actually went through all of the documents and speeches around the original decision to join nato which was a contentious decision. This was not an automatic thing. This is not flowers and candy. It was a big debate for this reason. My feeling is the last time i supported trump on that date out summer was the summer of 19 and at the end of that they came out and said we got more done and inthis summit than we have in 20 years because you are putting our feet to the fire. One can debate the nato opendoor policy to be want to bring more people and has been successful . A but an american president very strongly encourages the europeans to pay their bill could have a very positive effect on nato. The debate about joining innate it was right in your wheelhouse. Click too much of the history of the long history husband memory hold is not convenient to n present like a debate that lasted for many, many decades it was not controversy as a whole that opinion in the 1990s. I will be interested to see if what forces its issue is the recruiting crisis mother not be enough infantrymen to stay on the line in europe . Right now but the army and navy are about 25 short or Something Like that. Eventually will there be a material problem that forces a realignment there . It will be interesting to see. Just that crisis alone shows that a complete lack of faith but a lagging faith amongst the generation of people whove traditionally signed up to go. To duty in europe and elsewhere. I have to hearken back to 1949 senate hitting when dean atchisons assets in a states role in nato and in europe would involve quote substantial numbers of troops over there as a more or less permanent contribution to the development of these countries capacity to resist and he responded indignity that quote the answers that question said it is a clear and absolute no 70 odd years later here we are. Is still temporary, right . Its nothing more permit than a temporary Government Program that is right. I wanted to ask also for throwing up to questions from the audience this is a pretty event this client to be interactive is a little bit about institutions. Brandon and i were riffing on the app formally known as twitter the other day about Michael Glennon book National Security and double a governmen. We have talked a little bit about institutions that were for example trying to reorient u. S. Policy towarded europe. There is 70 years of institutions not necessarily nefarious reasons but institutional interest reasons be opposed to that or it would make that more difficult lets it. To take agency out of and of course in the context of President Trump there has been r discussion about this question of the schedule ask employees to mention the nsc is a place ofme the president can employ the people the president wants to employ routing at the state department or the Defense Department would be a broader issue. Glenn sets it up as is government that says we will have a congress and eight judiciary and a present the congress and the president will get elected and can pan the policies they want to pursue. Then the government will follow the policies and the laws enacted by the congress especially in the National Security realm. The prerogative of the president. Prerogatives of the president. In response to this suggestion that President Trump used schedule f to reorient bureaucratic agencies, there is a sense that the bureaucracies do not work for the executive branch, that they are their own from institutions that exist on the basis of what authority is sort of unclear, but come at a superficial level, if you work for the executive branch of the government, the person at the top of the president of the United States and so the policies of the president of the United States is people ought to be diverted to. But in this madisonian institution against the truman Night Network which really tickles my libertarian nerve, being the bad guy, i was interested in the place where the president kind of has authority. They work geographically near me. I see them all the time. There was definitely attention in the first administration. You mention one way to build that up. Any take on connecting or detaching that from the controversy or anything . I am a fan of the schedule. I think that is a reform that has been long in the making. A lot of my friends some of them openly liberal democrats in thee bureaucracy like it. A goodtually think it is idea and that it would give them more latitude. We had a couple of folks in the Trump Administration who would get a detailed over for a period of time to the nsc who wound up becoming political appointees giving up their career status because they wanted to staym longer. I think that reform is deeply necessary in terms of what the nsc does. I think that needs a total overhaul. We still have an entire directorate that spent most of its time on hurricanes because of katrina. That was a catastrophic failure and needed to be gotten after, but you do not need aid director at this point for hurricanes. We are good at it now. So, in a lot of the stuff that kind of accrued like barnacles during the global war on terror, thats all still there. It doesnt need to be. Theres things they do not do like energy. The decision was made to disband in 2020 the group that did energy policy. That is deeply necessary. Now, and also in terms of international economics. Na so i would say more broadly about the government the agencies i would like to most get after would be doe and commerce both of whom have massive capabilities and authorities that are not currently being deployed and would be frontline agencies against china. So, figuring out how we do that. Theres been interesting discussions with senator cruz who is now the Ranking Member oe the Commerce Committee about what that would look like being both mindful of the free market principles and the desire to preserve those. But the economic might of the United States is may be the most powerful weapon at this point. So if china is weaponize in it, do we have to. That will be the question. You juxtapose theou growth of the bureaucracy yelling stop as a project versus trying to unravel you and maybe marie weve parts of the democracy and it seems harder than the former but take on comparing and contrasting the two. Thats tough. I will say when i worked in the Intelligence Committee it was interesting to see people who presumed there was always going to be a next mission for the resources even while wewo were n the midst of fighting afghanistan. It was always this assumption there was going to be a next mission. There was never an end. I would hope if there is a differentho mindset of what the difference of the policy is that it would have some sort of impact on this almost inevitable sense that theres always going to be somewhere so i would be interested to see in the years ahead of theres changes at all to either personnel changes or changes in the material conditions that forces the government to make the hard choices. Let me through this open to the audience for some metaphorical grenades. I will call theres a microphone floating around somewhere back there. I will call on you and if you can wait for the microphone. We will go right down there and then down to the front. I am old enough to have beeni a student at georgetown in 1971 when the senate for an entire week was wrapped up in the debate that you have been reviewing. At that time the amendment proposed it to be cut in half. It was overwhelmingly defeated but i was wondering if my interpretation of the argument against it still applies today. Ive not heard it. Senatorrd fulbright, senator nelson and all those people lost to history. If the United States reduced its troop commitment to europe, europe would turn neutral and become a giant neutral zone because europeans if they saw c the choice of cutting back social benefits at six weeks vacation or their defense spending and we keep those benefits and that was my interpretation that they would become dominant because they need the United States military to protect them and if they dont, we will have a big neutral zone. It was dominant in 1971. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Lets take the one from the gentleman, the mansfield amendments and then this question. Intelligence analyst and former diplomat. So, putin finally gets his act together, breaks out of his corner, moves along the coast and to succeed zach taking odessa after a horrible battle then theres 100,000 troops in by the end of the year mulled over a is toast. People believe as you do allow for the possibility and it sickens me that i have to vote democrat to make absolutely certain that that scenario never happens. What in gods name has happened to the domino theory in the Republican Party . Reality has happened. As those i think its not in argument many people are making. Its been a festering wound up for a long time, but i think its important to start with the u. S. National interest in europe and then build out from there. We entered world war i and world war ii and fought the cold war a little too aggressively for a little too long to prevent the country from dominating europe, from becoming a regional hegemon in europe. The problem that many of us have with the Administration Policy in ukraine and beyond is that it fails to start from that premise. If they were to dominate europe, it would need to take a shot and germany. My attitude is if we are clear about what the u. S. Interest in europe is and then build the policy out from there, stop from egbecoming a regional hegemon in europe is not difficult. They are anxious about what is going on in the ukraine on the one hand and on the other hand they would love for the russian soldiers to stretch their supply lines 300 or 400 miles longer so they could get a shot at them. Sort of piggybacking onto that, im not in disagreement with you. Im not in favor of the putin victory. I would like to counter it. What i can do is with a think tank i a dont have a magic ball or crystal ball or anything like thatat but i can only make the policy recommendations i think are practical and i cannot force this president to do what i might have chosen to do in the summer of 21 or 22 and said okay this isnt a three day war. There is an opportunity here. Get the allies in a room and say who has what and how are we going to wrap this up. Nothing like that happened. When we look at the supplemental that the president still has for 60 billion additional dollars per ukraine is not persuasive ta me and you add onto that. I dont know that its going to get you where you want to go on this particular issue because i dont think this administration has any intention of winning this war. I think we also need to be a former mind of what putin is giving up right now in ukraine to the mansfield point, i think the fact that europe is no longer like a single monolithic object. The changes that happened for example. The gdp for defense there are points of light of countries that are recognizing the skills, the threat and responsibility to counter a threat that is in europe. The problem is that the biggest economies at this point germany and france are not there and have going on ten years its over nine years and they made some noises early early last year that were encouraging and then they reneged on it and said they cant possibly do it. There are countries that would belie that argument about europe and thats where i would put my focus. We had to the ambassador here so i have to speak up for the french. The french have been trying to lead this debate in their own idiosyncratic way. De gaulle left the command and developed their own Nuclear Deterrent et cetera. You have the president of france saying nato was braindead talking about strategic autonomy which my understanding if you are autonomous it means you are independent of the United States. We didnt like that but this idea of a european leadership is very and currency and they may have been slowly moving in thats direction but i think theyve been at least flirting with this idea of leadership and on the mansfield amendment and at the end during debate, no one will defend europe because you cant or wont. Somebody that wrote a paper about this theres a real tradeoff. Americans like reassuring our allies. We like telling our allies that we will be there in may but the downside of reassuring your allies as they may be reassured. If you reassure your allies you will do what is required for their security but incentive is left for them to take the lead on their own security, not much many of us argue. So too much reassurance can be a bad thing if what youre trying to do is redistribute the burdens of defense. A bit of uncertainty, not being reassured might be a good thing. Theres this history of appeasement in the domino theorh that only holds this side of the story in 1939. America got involved before that and continually tip the scales of the security arrangement so the longer we stay there applyingnt these assurances, the longer the powers to not do it so how long must this go on. The question must be broke and the answer came to be forever because economics exist and at some point we will send ourselves into oblivion. To take a question from my former professor, dont blame him for any of my opinions. At texas a m, where is the overlap between nationalism and restraint. Now we have the problem of defining nationalism and restraint. Its true theres been a growth of nationalism and explicit express nationalism and i think you can make the case george w. Bush talking about making the world not just to save her abouw a better. Fe there was a nationalist element to that the United States this principle actor with a kind of remake the world in our image. Aboute. The nationalism today is kind of as we get too deeply involved in various parts of the world we might not make the world in our image, but the world might remake america in its image. So do you have a sense on wherewith the problem of definig nationalism and restraint, nationalism plays in the current conservative Foreign Policy debate. The immigration story is quite clear on the policy aspect. What was on my mind the way that issue a little bit like energy is becoming central to any Security Policy you have to deal with it. Its now sort of routine to say we are the children of immigrants. And also to the china is she a real quick, theyve got a demographic problem they cant solve they are going to lose half the population by the end of the century because they did it to themselves. And theres not a population thats scrambling. So in a way we have a waiting gameav on our hands which is interesting for the restraint crowd what you want to do is avoid a conflict over the course of the next decade then youll have massive advantages if you can do it in the way we havent sent ourselves into oblivion in the meantime. So but for immigration to be effective it hasef to be orderly and legal. The approach thats been taken for the last three years has been anything but. 75 are somewhat concerned about whats happening in terms of immigration. Thats where the nationalism is going to come into play yet if this is going to happen we would like to have it happen in a certain process. Looking at the past and then trying to see that because the policy can set very quickly. Then there was a kindd of synthesis in the interwar period that there were going to economics and arms control and we are going to stay away from europe but looking into world war ii there was this more restrained version of nationalism that american identity while it is universalist and people can assimilate to it, its rooted in institutions and history andin even that very idea has become controversial. How do you have restraint in the world in which the Foreign Policy on both sides of the aisle divided by the free flow of labor and capital. Im going to throw this out there. I would like to know what theoo future of the Foreign Policy looks like and respect to israel, gaza and of the land war erupting which obviously is threatening to become a broad middle east conflict. I understand the impulsive conservatives. Of trump in 2016 but the America First overlay what does that look like in a republican congress, ever possible Republican Administration we do have some conservatives who are out there talking about american interests saying that the strategy as it exists now does not benefit american interests. We have Tucker Carlson saying that and colonel doug mcgregor. Do you see that having any purchase with republicans moving forward . Escalatory potential u. S. Israel relations generally and those are the best to. I think kelly points this out. Unfortunately i am online enough to know theres a Tucker Carlson ben shapiro thing happeningch about the u. S. Israel relations, but again for a nerd like me that likes to think i have a dog in the fight, i like debates but is there any chance of sort of policy implications, do the debates bloom into the escalatory potential notot for nothing but the year on issue is looming as well so the potential fors escalation and seems to me to be a pretty strong consensus among the gop on the issue of iran so there seemed to be ways of pushing that question. Thanks for the question. Historically the United States has been engaged in the middle east for one reason. Its energy. We have over the years needed at that energy. The relationship is now radically different and you look at the Carter Doctrine from 1980 and at this kind of declaration the United States will guarantee the free flow of energy out of the gulf. When we came in and 2016, preserving the open streets remained a pillar of our middle east policy but that was an an imperative. I came along and said i might not want to close it down, but is it really an imperative at this point in 2017, 2018 to keep that open . P you could argue that it would be good for business. So that relationship changes fundamentally when the United States is one of the Energy Producers with the russians and the saudis and when im asked to i want to partner with and that a group that is a pretty easy answer to give, so there are reasons to be engaged if you want these producers to be talking to each other with radically different systems but you can coordinate. We did it on the iran sanctions. The reasons are now different, but as we look at whats happening now in the most dangerouss part is because of what goes through the red sea and i dont know when we see this start to manifest itself having to take a long road. Its going to be even more a problem so i think but the approach that we are taking right now which is completely defensive. Its going to keep happening. Nobody seems to be a good shot. The former head of centcom in the last weekne or two and at te centcom commander a great sense of affinity and there was a paragraph in that piece that basically said if you dont want to have a forward leaning policy in the middle east, thennt just leave and i think that was a weird thing that was different than 15 years ago in the journal it would have been full steam ahead where that paragraph said if you dont want to do this then dont dog people through the region to be shot out with no good end. Im looking at Small Victories for myself. There was a small victory. The u. S. Israel, u. S. Iran conservative attitudes are not set in stone. There was an evolution there had been long streams of criticisms of u. S. Israeli positions and it wasnt until they were the supplier of arms so if possible to have some nuanced critiques about the relations from that standpoint. That is going to be the toughest. The easiest way to ease tensions. Do we have a consensus on the panel if we are talking about conservative consensus, europe and asia are a little easier in the i middle east in this narrow sense and the broad sense. The problem the ongoing gatewaye for that it is the limited space between east and west and china is reactive. If you decide youre going to back off of it entirely and not influence the Energy Producers that are not engaged with his thistrial, how long is that goio last . If somebody has to be trying to run the middle east us or china better us. Lets go back to someone here with Peaky Blinders hat on. If we go back to ukraine about the contentious history of the domino theory and the desire among many to not allow a victory but we need to allow europe to defend itself. Those debates have largely been absent from the gop primaries. Its whether or not a gop president should actively encourage ukraine to seek the settlement with russia and the contenders suggested that they would do just about so from the strategic standpoint how do you see or how would you like to see the next republican president approaching issues of natural resources, Strategic Resources in Eastern Europe such as deepwater ports, increased production, nuclear energyea facilities. How should the United States if its not engaging in these warse or promoting them contend with the shifting of resources and russias ability to currently acquireen them . You had me going until that last part. It doesnt result in russian victory or ukrainian victory but some model therein and whatnd would be the implications from that . Ist that fair . Let me start with of the entire approach to the problem. They said early on all of the decisionss about military issue, military initiatives, whether or how to engage were up to ukraine. That was the situation in theat National Security adviser put it. Our job is to support them in that. So that is the way they framed the problem publicly. At the same time early in the war, they asked for a nofly zone which would have amounted to the United States shooting down russian airplanes over and thereby entering the war. Theyve been saying all of the initiatives on the problems but in practice theyve been making decisions that strongly suggest ukraines interest is larger in ukraine then the u. S. Interest which sounds to be insulting to alternate in front of a public audience. The idea that the u. S. Interest in ukraine is more limited than ukrainians interest in ukraine. Its just not something anyone would have said five yearshi ag. It seems to imply that its right for the United States to outsource its policy on ukraine. And i think if it is the case which it clearly is that the u. S. Assistance to ukrainean has purchased ukraine survival not to make light of the appalling and heroic sacrifices the soldiers fighting for their country have made. But if its kept them in the fight that purchases not the right to tell ukraine what to do with the right to enunciate our interests in ukraine which again i think are by definition more limited. If you want to take that penny and try to apply it to the ambitious strategy and throwing putin into the hague but it may not work out there. I dont favor the United States telling what it has to do but enunciating the conflict which is limited so they can take that information and decide how to use the assistance which is limited in keeping with our interests in the conflict and i think the administration has made a hash of that with of the rhetoric that is the world historical weve been saying the future world order will be decided in ukraine. The future democracy. Its very fair for the ukrainians to see the future world order is at stake. Maybe you should give even more. So i think theyve had this phase of overselling rhetorically and under providing so that has made me squeamish for going on two years now with respect to the policies of making clear that they are limited. Rather than this total support and then the question on the brink of no support lobbying back and forth which i think is not a model of super coherent policy. S its how you reconcile the rhetoric with what is actually going on. And if the interest in wrapping this up is on terms that are favorable, i am not opposed to having this turn out well for us. But that has never been articulated and that is where we are starting to see them crack in the congress because it is hard to make a compelling case to a resident on the board of why we could spend all this money depending ukraines borders but we cant get our own borders under control. We then get lectured that these are distinct issues we have to see them separately but the voters dont. So, if they are as you said voting politicians into office who are going to make those decisions, the views will be reflected and i dont think they are rational. In the fall they said the ukrainians kind of have some wind in their sales. They chewed back more territory than anyone had a reason to expect and you want to enter into the negotiations when you appear to have momentum going which again is almost a kind of observation and he was roundly shot down by among others his boss who said essentially shut up and he did but theres the growing sense maybe they shouldnt. They said to take these games, take this momentum and we are going to keep going otherwise. At the administration continued to urge or permit at the very least maximalist goals and we saw there was a tremendous amount of bloodshed for a trivial amount of territory and that is the tragedy. It allowed understandable impulseso to take root. Lets go to more questions. I am curious about parallels between world war ii and whats going on in ukraine now because there were isolations. Im wondering what if pearl harbor how world war ii might havew turned out. How much does all the money was wespend an hour of organ adventures reach the United States . Certainly our hardware money doesnt but what percentage of all this congressional donation to the rest of the world actually leaves the United States . That is a valid question of what might have occurred and we should be mindful of that as we approach the problems that of did happen. We cant go back and trace ann alternative history at this point we dont know what would have happened. I think it is certainly something to take into consideration, but i dont know that we could send extrapolate absent the equivalent of pearl harbor. But to me thats not a Straight Line and to the second question, the numbers exist and if you go to the Congressional Research services they have all that information. The notion that ukraine is this wonderful opportunity to modernize all our stocks while no americans die, a whole lot of ukrainians are dying and that is in an persuasive argument. There was a debate about whether over committing, we defeated nazi germany and built of the soviet union. This was at the center of the old riot particularly in east asia. If weve given up some territory we should do it and that seems appalling to us because we constantly think about american war with of the context of surrender and world war ii was abnormal in that sense. We must stop thinking in the frame of world war ii because had the United States negotiated a punitive piece of some kind. Yes you would have had to make a deal with the devil but its always a tradeoff. So again had the United States tried to broker a peace it could have been a different scenario that unfolded after. As long as we shackle ourselves to these paradigms of world war ii, we will always be constantly launching our results further. To extend with the question a little bit, is it good for the economy and ive had the great misfortune to look at this literature at length. There are some suggestions in the context in certain countries into the Multiplier Effect that the government spends a dollar on defense spending and there is literature that says in most cases that doesnt happen. And i think that as we have these discussions, it shouldnt be relative to Economic Growth. It should be to the welfare of americans, the wellbeings or would that money have been better left in the private sector. What it had been better spent on something else. So i think part of the problem there is that the o literature misconstrues the nature of thee problem. Its not about Economic Growth its about welfare but i wanted to not miss the opportunity to complainai about the not incoherent but the effective defense spending on Economic Growth. I see someone behind the light there. A lot of todays conservatives fashioned themselves constitutional literalist when it comes to executive warmaking where they favor aer rematch for the commanderinchief. I think thats out of whack with historical examples with senators taft. Can we talk about that evolution perhaps and the commanderinchief . I remember when barack obama had on the campaign trail really kind of civil libertarian answers to the war powers the president held and after having taken office, it really worked a number on you. I wonder if that may be a general problem between candidates and incumbents but do you have a sense of the conservatives its a very active discussion particularly on the house side it focuses on the syria issue and how many years will be have this troop contingency that actually applies to it. And i think that is the problem i dont think we can read too harsh on them that was a difficult time and they needed to do something and something was done. But the problem is that flawed vehicle has become the foundation for an entire architecture of authority that some you might question but its all kind of grown on this foundation that is in and of itself problematic because it doesnt give us authority to take action against the iranians for example and is that something we want. So i am in kind of the repeal and replace camp but i think broadly this isnt well understood. The president declared of the td line is crossed and then we have a furious debate about what the congress is going to do and the line he continues to use about senator cruzs he stopped us and wouldnt give us any authority. His point was okay this bad thing has happened. The line has crossed. I dont want to do a pinpoint strike. Thats the word used at the time, or something incredibly small if youre going to restore the credibility, do not use the Armed Services of the messaging device. Use them but then appliedus to s and tell us what you want to do. I remember because we were on the Armed Services at the time they sent over something saying tell us what you will authorize. Im like i cant do that. You need to tell us what you want to do and then we will tell you if weit are going to authore it or not but thats what you can get into in this situation and subsequently it has been easier to say i have authority so im not going to mess with that pesky congress. I think thats a really, really interesting issue that we need to work on so that we can take action when we have to. Very much about the legislature there was a speedbump in congress and gave away the authorities time and time again and then they disappeared in the mid70s right at the moment they were starting to talk about the president ial power. Frankly they want action so its going to take a fundamental shift of what we expect and its going to take a congress that wants toth do congressional thanks, to legislate or not to legislate and take its power back. A century ago it wasnt. There were democrats opposing wilson and tr and mckinley so trying to get some kind of congressional oversight to me that is a pretty tall order. In the interest of fighting on the day you can put me down as a repealing and dont replace. Im going to go to this at the end. I know everybody in the audience apparently today. Daniel mccarthy from modern age. Since my name is mccarthy i think i will name names to be. The name i want to bring up his victorian england. We talked about personnel being policy. It seemed she crops up whenever we have a Foreign Policy crisis under the george w. Bush administration and Obama Administration she seems to have a way of hanging around despite changes in republican or democratic administrations. So it would be interesting to hear about the kind of power and influence someone like that yields and how they are able to maintain influence in government. You can comment particularly on victoria new linda or some other figures who might be seen as important in what many call the deep state. It is a problem and particularly for republicans coming in without a terribly orderly transition or folks cleared and ready to go in, she has a very broad bipartisan base here in washington and that is very powerful so she has folks from both sides calling in successive administrations and there is an argument for people that have been working on these problems to know them intimately, and therefore will add value. I think we found largely that was not the case but it wasnt a value added on a number of different topics and shes f far from o the only one. It would be wrong to single her out if we just eradicated her that would eradicate the problem. And i am not calling for her eradication in any way. But i do think that is the challenge to the next conservative president is identifying the folks who actually will help you and removing the ones that will not. And it doesnt even necessarily means firing. They go back to their home agencies. Theyey dont get the promotion, whatever it is. But thats again, something the schedule will help you with his making that less of a sort of perpetual problem. I will make the more general i probably disagree with her today is monday so its notto usually worse getting into the proxy fight with her here. But i do think the question where is accountability in the. S u. S. Foreign policy is a good one. I wish we could ask the sec. Defense. Secretary defense. We cant ask him now. How badly do you have to screw up to be written out. That is a more happy our way of putting things. So i do think that its in part a function of the extent to which the United States is secure if somebody screwed up very badly and we lost a chunk of arizona i like to think that there would be consequences for that. About weve screwed up pretty badly over my professional career which started in 2003, and most of the people who were handed their fingerprints all over those disasters just left the Republican Party and became democrat. I dont know if thats enough of a purge to meet the bill, but if you look at somebody i dont want to name names but you know the people im talking about. But i do think its a real problem for us that all this stuff goes on and we can go down the laundry list of them. Who paid for the libya escapades. The libyans, people that were sold after the market a change of gadhaffi who was a bad guy and replaced him with ten governments in libya now. And i think that we, americans, get hopped up on something. Its easy to get us energized and exercised and then we lose attention. So i would ascend that not only to lament about the lack of accountability in the Foreign Policy community but also as a warning to aspiring foreign governments or the next. Its easy to get our attention, but its hard to keep it. If you get it and we go in there and break china, we leave a lot of times. You might be looking avenue as we do that and the same people will break china somewhere else in five or ten years. I think that is both the lament for those of us that work here that you can keep score until you are blue in the face and the players stay on the ice and keep playing but also a warning to the world that again, getting americas attention could be easy but keeping it can be hard and if you cant keep it, a lot of ruin can happen. We have time for one more from the audience, and i want it to be somebody awesome. I feel like the next person that raises his or her hand is going to be awesome. There he is. Sir, right down there in the front. With regards to Foreign Policy since world war ii with eisenhower and nixon Foreign Policy in the country had been in the israel lobby very openly even up to now. The cabinet i think we got the gist of the question the sort of u. S. Israel relationship and how thah has kind of shaped the u. S. Policy . Thats exactly it has not been u. S. Policy. It has been interest of israel, not interest of the United States. I think weve got the question. Let me take it and broaden it because i raised a similar scenario in the context of ukraine where i dont want to say that they have no influence in the United States. It clearly, does, but weve doe something similar with ukraine. We failed to say we are this country in the western hemisphere, the northern part of the western hemisphere. We are more or less an insular a maritime power. We dont really fear conquest from the canadians or the mexicans. Thats aon good thing. We have interests in ukraine and israel and china and nigeria or wherever. But we failed to start with a clear delineation of those interests its almost like starting the movie in the middle land weve been involved in the ukraine war and therefore how do we advance and better our position for the ukraine war . E theres a u. S. Israel relationship thats extremely close. In many cases speaking for myself here i think we do things that are foolhardy from an American Point of view. Out of a failure to sort of separate the u. S. Interests from the interest of kyiv and the interest of tel aviv and the interest of wherever so maybe a generalization from the question about the lobby that i think could have its own policy forum or book, its been written about, is to say back to the nationalist point we should start with we are proud, americans from a certain placen and have interests that overlap or not in ways with saudi arabia. We are having a debate about brokering the normalization of relationsis reps between israel and saudi arabia. Saudi arabia, not a great government. Not nice guys. Toni put again the claims department, so what about that . A slowgrowing nationalist ought to be able to say and i remember when America First launched the Foreign Policy views andy almost thinks its kind of been all to say America First when we make trade policy and nominated a Supreme Court justice or do thisa or that or dont on immigration. Every legislator in their own mind is putting America First. It will be good for the wto or they believe what they are doing is in the interest of their own country. The perplexing thing about nationalism has been that failure of where the interests are about whether its kyiv or wherever to go down the road of fusing ourselves with the National Congress or whomever, and thats the perplexing thing that i think is more generalized. I think we probably would disagree very strongly, not you and i but the question or on the value of the u. S. Israel alliance which i think is extremely valuable for all those reasons. But i agree thats not being clearly articulated and in a dispassionate nonmoralizing way, and i think making thatas case for why this partnership is important, what weve invested and what weve gotten out of it, where our interests align would be helpful and healthy for both of the United States and israel and i think going into 2026 which is when if we decide to do another memorandum of understanding for another ten years we need to go into the negotiations with of that context that this is what this arrangement if we decide to do it is going to achieve. I think that also is critical this year for dealing with taiwan. Thats going to be the next flashpoint of some brilliance and if we back into but the way we backed into it ukraine weck could do the same thing again. Making it clear we cant want it more than taiwan does. What we are willing to do and what we expected of them in terms of benchmarks and what we expect partners and allies to do but i think working on that now is critical. America first obviously has a lot of baggage into phrase used by people that had much more odious views than say part of it is because there are no actors in this town who want that to be thee only narrative of that phrase. They dont want you to know in the whole oswald case he was one of the cofounders of naacp. The whole notion of particularism is loaded so we think of ourselves as universalists to the max. But we have hit a brick wall. Should we try to make the middle east, and i failed catastrophically so we are the point is this tension but we also want to recognize hes come back at a significant cost. Let me think the audience for attending and those watching online or on cspan. Please join us upstairs for sandwiches and cokes. [applause] [inaudible conversations] along with these other Television Providers giving a front row seat to democracy. Homeland security secretary discussed efforts to remove noncitizens from the border in texas. He thinks customs and Border Patrol for the services and urged congress to pass legislation of 60 victims and provide additional resources. He discusses efforts to partner with mexico on border security. He visited the border at of congressional efforts to impeach him. Thank you for accommodating the change in location. Joining