Transcripts For CSPAN3 National Security Priorities 20170124

Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright took part in this conversation. This is just over an hour. Its great to be here. Thanks to the institute of peace. I think everybody here probably knows these panelists so im going to be very brief and you have them in your program as well. Well start with secretary Madeleine Albright who served under president bill clinton as secretary of state from 1997 to 2001 following four years as u. S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Shes the founder and chair of Albright Stonebridge group, a global strategy firm, and a professor of diplomacy at georgetown university. Admiral james staveredes, dean of the school of law and diplomacy at tufts university. He served as commander of southern and european commands and as nato Supreme Commander europe. Admiral staveredes is the chair of the board of directors of u. S. Naval institute. Frederick kemp, my fellow ute. Frederick kemp has served since 2007 as president and chief executive of the Atlantic Council overseeing the expansion of its scope of work. He was an awardwinning journalist at the wall street journal, covered the collapse of communism in europe and served as editor of the wall street journal europe, based in brussels. And senator tom cotton. He has served as a republican senator from arkansas since 2015. His Committee Assignments include the select committee on intelligence and the Armed Services committee. After graduating from harvard law school, senator cotton left a legal career following the september 11th, 2001, attacks to serve as an Army Infantry officer including service in afghanistan and iraq. Welcome to you all. Our topic this morning is very simple. I have a very easy job because i have four very smart people here. And they have a lot to say. I have a feeling. And this is quite simple, and im going to start with you, admiral staveredes and go down the line. Tell me through your three National Security priorities for the next administration. Im going to start with one that may or may not surprise you. I think cyber is extremely important. And the reason i put it at the top of my list is because i think in cyber we have the greatest mismatch between the level of threat which is quite high and our level of preparation which frankly is quite low. In other words, we worry about north korea, but we have options. Were kind of prepared. We worry about what russias doing. Were kind of prepared. We worry about violent extremism. We have programs. In cyber were really not there. So cyber. Number two, id say broadly would be the return of great power politics. Its do going to return to the world stage of germany and japan. And above all in this century the rise of india. How we move those pieces around. Will be challenging. This gets into South China Sea and crimea. And Everything Else we face. Great power politics underlying disorder. And the third for me would be the continuing stresses and strains from violent ext which we tend to identify as radical islam and that certainly is a significant part but we also have racial challenges. Dylann roof is a violent extremist. We have political challenges, brevic who killed many people in norway. Under the surface of the great power politics and looming out there like a tower i think is cyber. Secretary albright. Well, i would certainly agree with all of those. And have my own kind of list. And a little bit different organization. I do think we have living in a completely changed world in terms of the International System and how we operate in governance questions. And the discussion as to whether its all state actors, i would argue that the presence of nonstate actors has added an awful lot of challenges especially since our National Security toolbox is set up to deal with states and not with nonstate actors. So the governance. The second i think is the challenge of how the great power rivalries go on. There i really do think that we have to be concerned about what china and russia are doing and then also as secretary kerry said, what is going on in europe. Those aspects and looking at regional problems that come up and bite you that youve not really been ready for. And then the third aspect has also to do with more process. There is no faith in institutions. And this goes a little bit not just to cyber but to information. I stole this line from silicon valley, but it works so well to explain it, is that people are talking to their governments on 21st century technology. The government hears them on 20th Century Technologies and are providing 19th century responses. And therefore there is no faith in institutions in trying to figure out how to deal with all of this. I have a very elegant term for this. The world is a mess. And that will let ordinary people understand what were saying. And i think that there has to be some way that we look at the institutional structure, and i think we need to be able to understand the following thing and i hope we have a chance to talk about this more, is Foreign Policy, National Security policy does not come in fouryear or eightyear segments. And no president comes in with a clean slate, and so there has to be a look at what is out there that has to be dealt with. And then the things that will bite you that you dont know are coming. Which leads us to senator cotton. Senator cotton and i have been talking. Very interesting the way you look at this. That we talk about three National Security priorities. Were not talking about necessarily threats. And you view those quite differently. Thanks. And thanks to the institute of peace. I cant disagree with the admiral or the secretary. But as martha said as i was thinking about the title of this panel, three priorities, not threats, threats are in some degree already expressed here. The great powers, russia and china, rogue nations like north korea and iran, transnational actors like islamic terrorist groups. Theres no telling what any of those are going to do over the next ten days, what theyre going to do in the first ten days of the trump administration. All those whove been in government know you often have to react to contact. But where could the new administration go out and make contact, take the initiative, set priorities that would fundamentally advantage the United States and strategic competition. I would say theres three areas in that and this is a good time to pursue them because a new administration is a time when people expect a new path and its a time when you have the most domestic Political Capital in working with congress. So first would be substantial increases in our defense budget. Maybe going back to the National Defense panel from 2014 which itself is based on bob gates budget 2012, the last time the department of defense budgeted for the budget control act went into effect and the sequester spending cuts took effect. Second would be a review of our strategic posture. Both the bush and Obama Administrations in their first year in office undertook a Nuclear Posture review. The world has changed radically since then. Both russia and china are accelerating their nuclear efforts. Chinas developing hypersonic glide vehicles. Russia is flagrantly violating the imf treaty. If Russian Media reports are to be believed, theyre developing an underwater drone that can deliver Nuclear Weapons into our coastal cities. So i think we need to fundamentally reconsider our nuclear and our Missile Defense posture. And then third, a domestic issue that has farreaching International Consequences is to accelerate the shale revolution in American Energy production. We are blessed to have a country of great innovators, of risk takers, of investors, of fantastic scientists, geology that permits shale production in a way that really almost no other country in the world has that combination. Thats helped us become a Global Energy superpower. Thats something that will give us more freedom of action throughout the world. In particular, though, it will put more strategic pressure on russia. So, when you think about priorities, those three, if the administration would pursue them. Whatever happens in the world, whatever our adversaries do, will give us greater strategic flexibility to pursue specific policies about particular countries and regions. Thank you. And fred. For decades already ive been stealing secretary albrights ideas. So let me first say i want to grab on to the world is a mess as a fact. And then the other fact, and it wont become more orderly unless the u. S. Gets more deeply engaged. There is no one to substitute for us. I want you all to remember where you were on this day because were at a defining moment in history. You can pick your date, 1919, 1945, you can go back to 1815 or 1789, but thats where we are. Couple that with one of the most fraught moments of history, which is a transition to a new president , new party with an untested president. We had that in 1961 with the youngest president of all time, john f. Kennedy, and we ended up with the bay of pigs disaster in april, with the failed vienna summit where the soviets decided the president was weak, with the berlin wall. And then a year later you had the cuban missile crisis. So that set the parameters for the rest of the cold war, but we almost had a nuclear war. Im not saying anything like that will happen this time. The cold war was at stake then. I think the global system is at stake now. So my big overarching roof is can we save, readjust, reinvigorate the global system of practices, values that weve always had. And then there are three pillars and these are my three issues. Europe and russia. I think it was terrific that secretary kerry pointed to the European Union because if the European Union becomes unraveled or becomes more dysfunctional you cannot have a Strong America in the world with a weak europe. It just doesnt happen. Theyre a cornerstone of engagement. And russia is pushing on that. Both of those things. We need reassurance for europe and we need russia to know there are certain lines that cant be crossed, redrawing borders, testing nato allies at the very top of the list. The second is then the middle east. Here i want to embrace a report that the Atlantic Council, Hariri Center has done, secretary albright and steve hadley, where they outline its not a crisis of the middle east but a crisis from the middle east where you have extremism and migrants being exported, again undermining europe. We cant deal with that in the short term. Thats to be dealt with in the long term with our allies. So redoubling and deepening our relationships with allies in the region. That means our traditional sunni allies. And then working over the long term to tap what secretary albright and steve hadley rightly saw as some very promising tendencies in the middle east as well. Entrepreneurship, something that can point to prosperity. And finally china. If russia is the biggest threat short term to the global system, china could be a threat over time to the global system. But its also a stakeholder now, and it has a huge amount at stake right now. We cant put ourselves into conflict with china if we want the global system to be reinvigorated, to be readjusted and survive. We have to do it together with china, along those lines, i really think we then have to double down our relationships with our allies in the far east. Because if were strong with our allies, with japan, with south korea, with others, we will be able to have a much more positive relationship with china. So those would be my three. U. S. europe, middle east, china, asia. Thanks very much. And senator cotton, i want to go to you on this. What do you sense Donald Trumps priorities will be . Weve all seen tweets, weve all seen things he said during the campaign. And since he has become president elect. But whats your sense of what his priorities might be in terms of Foreign Policy . He is going to make America Great again. And how will he do that . Well, some of the issues that i touched on are things in which the president elect campaigned as well. Substantial increases in military spending. Fundamental reconsideration of our nuclear and strategic posture. Oil and gas production. These are things, whatever the president elect says on twitter, whatever he says in media interviews, are not good things for countries like russia. Theyre not good things for iran or some of our other adversaries in the middle east. If you look at some of his appointees to the cabinet, whether its jim mattis or mike pompeo or mike flynn, these are not shy and retiring violets who have a constrained role of americas view in the world. I suspect that president elect trump as he said on the campaign trail and based on some of his nominations will take a firmer line around the world with a lot of our adversaries and try to project greater strength and demand more respect for the United States. Hell be less willing to make concessions without receiving concessions in return. And i think those are all good things. I think those are a good change after eight years of the Obama Administration in which the president said famously early on that he wanted to extend an open hand rather than a clenched fist. But sometimes the clenched fist has to precede the open hand. You know, i want to talk about the tweets for a second. Its obviously something weve never seen before, this number of tweets like this. Its usually a statement and very formal. But those tweets have moved markets. Theyve moved ford. Theyve moved carrier. How will that work in Foreign Policy . Can it move foreign leaders, secretary albright . Im going to try to be polite. Let me just say that i am very concerned about the tweets and generally about the messages that are going out. And if i could say, secretary kerry said id invented the term indispensable nation. Actually president clinton did. I just said it so often it became identified with me. But there is nothing about that term that says alone. It means that the United States needs to be engaged and i think that that is a message we need to get out there. Not as America First but as america as a partner. There is nothing wrong with partnerships. I knricaow ame dont like the word multilateralism. It has too many syllables and ends in an ism. But the bottom line is all it means is partnership and understanding that the world as we see it in terms of the what you call the global issues that are out there, whether its terrorism or a disease or nuclear proliferation, those issues require partnerships. And so i do think there has been a system in place in the world for a very long time of how governments communicate with each other. How president s communicate with each other. How those documents are developed. Are they a part of some kind of decisionmaking process that does in fact reflect what the government thinks and that the congress thinks and what the American People think, and the tweets dont deal with that. In fact but if you want to shake things up, if you want a reset, if you really want to get someones attention, get taiwans attention, want to get chinas attention, why not . Let me just say, i think its fine. Disruption is a very interesting theory, actually. And i think it doesnt hurt. Destroying is not a good thing. And i think that part of the issue is, i think it is absolutely essential i said this. That Foreign Policy doesnt come in four or eightyear segments. Every administration, especially if its of a different party, tries to do things differently. But it has created great concerns. And let me just say one example is the transfer from clinton to bush. I was in the middle of negotiations with the north koreans. Bill perry just wrote about this. The decision was made by the Bush Administration not to continue those talks. I know would put north korea into one of the more dangerous aspects of what is going on out there. So i only use it as an example of the fact you may disagree with what president obama did. I may disagree with what president bush did. Actually, steven and i took a pledge not to talk about the past. But i think that it is what it is and it is essential that there be some understanding of what the track is, what the role of the United States is, how we became as a responsible power in cooperation with others. And tweets doesnt do it for me. Anybody else want to jump in on that . I will. I agree with secretary albright that if think of it as a diet. If your diet is exclusively shots of espresso, thats probably not a good thing. But as part of a fulsome diet where you are conducting normal diplomacy, you are executing agreements, you are negotiating treaties, you are moving military forces, i think an occasional shot of espresso can jazz you and actually energize things. Where i worry about it is i think of young officers, ill do a military kind of context to it. Which lets say a tweet appears that says hey, the next iranian gunboat that crosses the bow of a u. S. Navy ship is going to get blown out of the water. Which i dont think it was a tweet. I think it was at a rally. But youre very close. Because i did the story yesterday. Right. So what we need to recognize is that particular shot of espresso has an effect all the way down to that young Commanding Officer where he is or she is dealing with these rule of engagement moments. So you potentially kind of create this short circuit that goes from the ultimate commander in chief down to operators on the ground. I think it can be the same in diplomacy. It can work the same in economics. So i guess where i come out is an occasional shot of espresso okay, lets think about it, but it cant be exclusively your diet. I think you have a mattis there and others doing those kinds of things. Let me actually embrace the tweets. As you know, im a little schizophrenic here, a journalist and Foreign Policy analyst. And as a journalist good heavens, hes really just captured the news story every day and its pretty brilliant what hes doing. But let me then complement because i agree with admiral stavridis that the tweets have to be accompanied and what they have to be accompanied with is strategy. But you cant expect the strategy to be there yet. But its going to have to come relatively soon. Theres an unpredictability that the president elect has embraced. And on many issues that can be useful politically. On the global stage the u. S. Has to be predictable. Its allies have to know where it stands. Its adversaries have to know where it stands. Accompanied by tweets thats fine and could be highly effective. I dont expect the president elect to put on a bumper sticker, you know, save the international liberal order. But if he wants to be successful, heres the tweet i would have, which is i want President Trump to make global America Great again. And to do that he has to lay out a strategy that really embraces this order we created after 1945, when we had 50 of global gdp. Now we have 18 or 20 . That means we have to lead more collaboratively, we have to lead in a way that inspires people around the world so that they want to follow. And if he can do that and tweet every day how hes doing that, that would be a wonderful way because it can reach the entire world in that fashion. So i dont think you can expect a populist president , the most populist president weve elected since andrew johnson, to not be populist in office. But he can be populist and sustain the global system that has benefited also much at the same time. Senator cotton, do you think other countries need to know where we stand as he described it . And if so, where do you think russia thinks they stand at this point in time . I think like most countries around the world their view of the future of u. S. Policy has been somewhat frozen for six to eight months in the election and since the election as well. Again, donald trump has said that it would be a good thing if we had a better relationship with russia and we cooperated more on common interests. That would be a good thing. The last three president s at one time or another have tried to take that tactic and theyve been wrongfooted every single time. Im sure that Vladimir Putin thinks that he can wrongfoot donald trump again and advance his project as opposed to advancing americas interest in the world. Again, when you get back to the fundamental matters, though, in terms of our defense budget, the size of our navy, the nuclear modernization, some of the nominees that donald trump has chosen, i dont think theres a clear signal being sent to moscow now from the trump transition team. We are going to open it up to questions very soon and Wander Around but i just want to get a little bit on, i know the threats, the priorities Going Forward, but how you view Donald Trumps Foreign Policy agenda or his Strategic Thinking in terms of Foreign Policy and whether you really have to define that. Throughout my career everybodys defined this is the clinton doctrine, this is the obama doctrine, this is the bush doctrine. Do you need that in every case or can it be a case to case basis . Admiral stavridis. I think its premature to try to scope all that out simply because the nominees that president elect trump put forward were not anticipated to say the least. I think if you go back 60 days ago and said were going to pick a fourstar general to head up the department of defense, another fourstar general at dhs, the ceo of exxon. All good picks, by the way. You never would have anticipated it. Youve got to see that team come together interact with mike flynn and k. T. Mcfarland, let them do the traditional nsc role and weve got to give them some space to shape the view. Knowing very well the two military officers as well as mike flynn, i think i can sense the kind of outline of where things are going to go. But we need to wait. Weve got to really get Rex Tillerson into the mix in a significant way as well. Just give him some space, lets see where it goes. But i do want to agree with both the senator and with fred that weve got to have a consistency in a view and so we should give them time to develop it but not allow ourselves to remain on the diet of espresso. Secretary albright, you brought this up. Mike flynn, general mattis, general kelly. A lot of retired military in there. Do you think thats an issue . I mean, obviously theyre leaders. They know how to get things done. But they go to the same schools. They have been in the military their whole lives. Is there a different perspective there for solving problems . Well, i do actually think that theres a different perspective. And some of it very useful if i might say. This might surprise people. But whenever i flew on a military plane, i would sit behind the pilot and i would see that even though they had taken off many, many times they would go through the steps every single time. Civilians dont do that. There is something very disciplined about it. Its very interesting, frankly. So i do think that there are some things that the military can input into the system. I think also and we talked about this. The whole issue of civilianmilitary relations i find fascinating in terms of teaching and in terms of how things are carried out. In your example about what happens to the people as they hear something from the top. So i am not im not opposed to the military people there. I think that its going to be interesting. What is the thing, though, that needs to be looked at is the process. I have been involved in the transition now a number of times. And obviously i was very interested in what secretary kerry said, how little is going on. It means it has to go on because this is turning over the crown jewels. And i think that the process that ultimately produces a National Security strategy or these documents in terms of a Nuclear Doctrine has to take place and it is the nsc that makes this happen, that brings the process together since 1947. And so im hoping that the time immediately, or already now and as the hearings go forward, that that process takes place because unpredictability occasionally is interesting. Constant unpredictability is dangerous. And so i think that process has to take place and the military and the civilians have to figure out how to operate together. It will be crucial. And i think we need to support that civilianmilitary relationship. At the Atlantic Council we deal with a lot of military brass, and i think that one of the things thats really impressed me is how the military invests in the education of its officers. If you want to have the most fascinating conversation you could ever have on military history and what the lessons are for today, then talk to general mattis or admiral stavridis. These are the people i have these intellectual conversations with. These are some of our best thinkers and some of our best strategists. I wish other parts of the u. S. Government would invest as much in military education as the military does. That doesnt concern me at all. One thing that will be interesting is who the president turns to for military advice at those crucial moments when hes going to have general mattis and general dempsey, both marines, sitting there, one of whom its his job and the other has done that until fairly recently. So there may be some complicated moments of that sort but nothing that i dont think that these people can sort through. Senator cotton, i have to say that covering all these wars for all these decades, the military wasnt just doing military duty they were diplomats as well and thrown into situations where they had no idea what was going to happen in a war that was going south early on in iraq and tried to turn that around and be skilled diplomats as well. I want to go back yeah. I certainly admire the military but i do think that we also have to respect the people that have been serving the United States as diplomats or as civil servants, people who have dedicated their life to Government Service and should not be viewed as traitors or people that cant do the job. And i was very proud to be secretary of state and see how hard the diplomats really worked. And the wall in the state department that had all the people that had died in Service Needs this is a very dangerous job, especially these days. And the combination of the military and civilians protecting each other and working on things together is very important. And secretary of state mentioned that the budget for the state department is 51 billion. The budget for the pentagon is somewhere between 600 and 700 billion. And that is something 050 and 150 needs to be looked at together. Thanks very much. [ applause ] we certainly have good words for career diplomats. I want to go back to the Nuclear Issue because you brought that up as one of your three priorities. Certainly you want to modernize whats already there. But what does this look like . What does the Nuclear Deterrent in your mind look like Going Forward . Its not the 60s anymore. We were talking also about walking over those missile silos out in wyoming and colorado and how 60s it feels, its scary. But talk a little about what needs to be modernized. I want to bring you in on this also, admiral stavridis. Its not the 60s anymore in part because Large Nuclear arsenals are no longer restricted to the United States and russia. One issue i had is it treated the United States as if russia was our only strategic competitor in the Nuclear Domain as opposed to china being a rising competitor and having the advantage of being free of all constraints. Thats something that we have to account for, that china continues to expand its Nuclear Arsenal and russias modernizing it and changing its doctrine and rhetoric around the Nuclear Doctrine as well as countries like north korea and india and pakistan and one day i hope not iran. Domestically in terms of our nuclear capabilities, what that means is reinvestment in all legs of the triad. We need to develop a new missile system, groundbased strategic deterrent. We need to have a higher class replacement submarine and the new b21 bomber. Congress is committed to this. This is part of the commitment president obama made to pass the new start treaty. This is something thats going to depend very heavily first on donald trump but especially jim mattis as secretary of defense. To drive those programs forward, to make sure were getting best value on time delivery requires very capable management. This is something bob gates wrote about in his book about his time as secretary of defense that its only the secretary of defense who can drive a program that fundamentally important. You dont want the b21 to end up like either the b2 or the f35 has. You know, those are decisions that were made 25, 35 years ago when i was in grade school. B21 decisions are being made now. And we want to make sure these programs are effective. What weve heard from donald trump in terms of the ill be right to you, admiral. In terms of military budgets. Adding ships, adding people, adding that. Tell me just briefly, if you will, whether you think the budget what does budget align to in terms of threat . Well, so, the reason people go back to the gates budget is it was the first the last budget done before the budget control act put arbitrary caps on the department of defense. That was the last time the department of defense engaged in fullon strategicbased budgeting as opposed to budgetbased strategizing. It also was a time when the world was not nearly as dangerous as it has become over the last five years. In my opinion we have to take into account the security threats that our country faces. And its not just the military, as secretary albright said. Its our diplomats. Its our Intelligence Officers and so forth. But whatever the threats that our country faces, we have to find the money to counteract those threats. Theres many important functions of government that we need to fund, but we have to take into account their budgetary constraints in my opinion we need more ships because of china . We need more ships because of china but we need more ships because of russia as well. We need more ships because were a global superpower that is largely a maritime power since were in the new world and most of these threats were talking about is in the old world. And getting back to 350 ships, to which donald trump is committed, to which our navy has said they want to pursue, is fundamental to our ability to project power into the old world, to deter a great power war as our navy has done for 75 years. I certainly agree with that, and im happy to see an army captain speaking so well about the navy. Thats well done, sir. I can see why youre in the senate. I want to quickly give a shoutout. We talked a lot about military. Weve talked a lot about diplomats. I want to draw a line under those who do development. U. S. A. I. D. , our ngos, the peace corps. Many of them stand in risk every single day. And that is also part of our security and also an underfunded part of our security. Break break. To your question. I agree completely with senator cottons analysis, both of the overall Nuclear Peace and the larger d. O. D. Budget. I will draw a particular line, and you know, i stipulate, im a navy admiral, so here it comes. But the ohio class replacement. Because it is the invulnerable leg of the triad. At least invulnerable at this point. I think is of particular value. I do support the triad, not the dyad. But i can tell you from experience those ohios need replacement. And thats the ultimate bank. Last thought. Bill perry, whos going to be with us today, has a book out, relatively new, called my journey at the brink of nuclear war. And it is a terrific book about his feeling that we are edging back toward a world in which the use of Nuclear Weapons is far more imaginable than it was over the previous decades. I think thats deeply worrisome and needs to be part of the conversation. And its also sadly a fundamental reason that we need to continue to have that deterrent. If i could just add, this is exactly the point im making about a new posture review. Its not just kim jongun who rattles the Nuclear Saber regularly. Its Russian Defense Ministry Officials and flag officers. They talk expressly about using Nuclear Weapons, tactical Nuclear Weapons to offset their conventional disadvantages. This is something that regularly happens in the russian language press, often not reported in the western press, but its this kind of change that we have not seen for the last 25 years that is reminiscent of some of the most tense periods of the cold war that demand us to conduct this kind of thoroughgoing review. Fred, and then were going to go to questions. Very short comment on admiral stavridis comment on development, which also is partially aligned with secretary albrights reconfiguring of budgets. Part of the problem is that we development has become a part of geopolitical competition. And is strategic but we dont think of it as strategic. And in the 60s, interestingly enough, kennedy did look at it that way. And we saw it that way during the soviet period. But its that way again. So these are strategic expenditures in development. And they have to be aligned with National Strategy. And somehow over the years this has become separated. So i think there has to be a double down on development and it has to be seen again in geopolitical strategic terms. Heres the good news. Its incredibly inexpensive compared to the necessity of buying the highend military systems. These are really penny on the dollar investments. And i will tell you, i spent seven years as a Combatant Commander in two theaters. I deployed many, many ships, aircraft carriers, destroyers, cruisers, submarines forward. Perhaps the most impactful deployments i ordered were of hospital ships, comfort, mercy. Thats part of our security. You said that very well. Thanks very much. Lets open it to questions. If youd please introduce yourself when you stand. You have the advantage of being in the front row here. Good morning. Mark mabry, i wanted to ask a question of admiral stavridis. You raised the issue of cyber. Also the other panelists. We have a lot of initiatives in the government and private sector to enhance cyber resilience. We have a few International Activities focused on improving, if you will, relations, expectations, norms of behavior. Given the audience and the focus id be interested in what the next Administration Needs to do to raise the game in this Important Mission area. Thanks. Ill give you four or five things. Its a list of 20. I strongly support dividing the National Security agency from u. S. Cyber command. So you have two senior individuals who can focus on two very different missions, very big span of control. I think thats happening. I hope the new administration follows through on that. Secondly, we need more International Cooperation and work on this. Were quite good. Many of our allies are very good. Within the bounds of propriety and confidentiality we need to think of how we can learn more from, for example, the israelis, from the french who are pretty good, et cetera. Thirdly, we need better interagency integration. I would argue that includes eventually a cabinetlevel voice to focus on cyber. Its such a fundamental backbone to our society. Our vulnerabilities are great. We have a secretary of agriculture, a secretary of interior. Wheres that cabinet voice on Cyber Security . Could it be part of the director of National Intelligences role, for example . And lastly, better private cooperation. The real brains in that operation are out on the west coast. We need to bring them together, better private public cooperation. And are we late to the Cyber Security game here . The way to think of it is, go back 100 years and think about aviation. We were just at the beginning, we had used planes a little bit, commercial flights were just starting. Were kind of at that stage in cyber. I dont particularly fault or blame us. Were still kind of on the beach at kitty hawk, i think. But we have to go faster, because the cyber threat, the internet of things will go to 25 billion devices within five years. The acceleration demands us to go faster than aviatioaviation. I think we are behind on it. The question is, what is the organizational structure for it . Im not sure that a cabinet role is the right one, but it does need to be within the National Security Decision Making system. And especially since its divided a lot of different parts of the government, and needs an intelligence part of it. So, the part that i say fairly frequently these days, reorganization is its own monkey works, takes a lot of time and attention. And we need to focus on the substance of this, as quickly as possible, rather than trying to decide who is in charge and who does what. Senator cotton, how can Congress Help during this transition period . Do no harm. Thank you, doctor. We passed cyber legislation last year that was a step in the right direction. Im not sure its all the way we need to go. But going back to my point about development of new delivery systems, where the ball is primarily in the executive branchs court. I agree with what the secretary said, when you have a problem with our organization, if your organization is a government and the solution is moving around boxes and lines, youre probably wrong. The solution is probably better leadership and a changed culture. And i agree with what the admiral said, were kind of at the dawn of the cyber age. The people working on this problem in the government are the best people in the world, we have peer competitors who can hold at risk things that we hold very dear. One final comment . Simply to put it in a military context, 100 years ago, we had an army, navy, and marine corps. Today, army, navy, marine corps, and we may need another branch. We may be thinking back and say, gosh, what were we thinking . Youve each talked about sequestration levels of the defense budget, and about high bang for the buck development. Coming at a time of incredible economic stress, huge debt. And im curious to hear, where will this money come from . Where would you see the priorities for reducing budgets to take care of this today . Ill defer to the ways and means committees for that. Hopefully well have economic growth, and you can always find some savings in the department of defense. I read there was 125 billion in savings, i dont quite buy that number. But bob gates found 400 million early in the Obama Administration. He wasnt allowed to reinvest that in the military, as he was promised, but thats an example. One of the things of a top priority, accelerated oil and gas production. The good lord put oil and gas in a lot of places where the federal government owns places. So, we can generate some revenue for that. And there are ways we can find the revenue we need to meet the threats we face around the world. Im not saying its going to be easy, but i think both parties, at least the democrats i work with, recognize that. Next question. Right here. To go from the heights to something specific, if mr. Putin continues his aggression in ukraine, should the new administration renew sanctions in march . If it doesnt, senator cotton, should Congress Pass legislation asking for sanctions . I suspect Vladimir Putin will continue his aggression, i dont see him leaving there anytime soon. So, i would support the extension of sanctions. I would support a whole suite of efforts to apply more pressure to russia, so they know, and they know that costs will be imposed when they cross over those boundaries. The report that the director of National Intelligence released last week about russians hacking the dnc and john podesta says this is a clear pattern, but there has been a significant escalation in the scope and reach and you wonder why putin thought he could get away with that. Thats just one example of the crimes and transgressions that have been introduced from russia. Not in any particular domain, but across the board. Can i just add a point . Go ahead. Agreeing with the senator, but slightly different. A russian proverb, when you hit steel, withdraw. There hasnt been a lot of steel, we should confront where we must in cyber, syria, and ukraine, for example. And we should find zones of cooperation. And there are potential ones out there. Counterterrorism, potentially in afghanistan, where our interests align. Perhaps in the arctic, maybe trade control. So, confront where we must, but cooperate where we can. And the fallacy, is the idea that we will create a grand, strategic bargain with russia. That will not happen, i dont think. Well have a transactional relationship with some steel. I want to hear what you think about russia. I think we need to be tough, but also, we need to persuade our allies, the sanctions need to be renewed by our allies as well. So, not just America First, saying how were going to do things. I am concerned about some of the ways, the discussions about russia have taken place during the campaign, making it seem as if they are kind of a benign operation, when they are not. And we need to look at what the hacking has been about. What the role of information has been, russia today, a number of different aspects of the information aspect of this. But i think we need to be tough. And at the same time, looking for areas where we can cooperate. But there has to be diplomatic activity to make sure the sanctions are renewed. Okay, question over here. Senator cotton, you talked about the need to increase military spending. Before you came, secretary kerry talked about putting a couple trillion dollars into iraq and afghanistan. I think most americans would wonder if its a question of investment. As you say, there are superpower threats, threats like iran, north korea, nonstate actor threats. And there are any number of things we could use military instruments to address. As you look around the world, what do you think we need to use military instruments to do more of, and what do you think we are currently using military instruments to do that we should be doing less of . Well, my preference would be to use military force as little as possible. No one who has seen combat would like to send our sons and daughters off to combat again. The trillions of dollars in iraq and afghanistan was on military operations. I would like to see an increase in our base budget to deter those kinds of conflicts from happening in the first place. Too often, our military is pressed into things that are not core military operations. We talk about the role that our soldiers did, but its not with the skills they learned in basic training. We didnt just have air force and army, we had state, usda, a. I. D. Id like to see more of that. Us apply all the other levers of National Power to all the problems we face, so we dont have to use the military to do things that are not in their skill set, and detracts away from things weve had to use them. Can i just add one thing . Go ahead. I totally agree, and i want to pick up the secretarys theme of allies. Nato, despite the fact that we need to get our european allies to step up and spend the 2 of their goal, but japan, australia, we have resources in our Alliance System that we can tap, if we can execute alignment of purpose. Not always a given, but thats another place you can draw resources and potentially lessen the burden on u. S. Troops. And i mean in places like iraq and afghanistan, i think its a great benefit for our security to have them in places like japan, south korea, europe, for our defense. We have alliances not because were a charitable organization, but because we have interest in having those relationships, and to have the drootroops deployed. There are some questions about moving them east into europe, more so than now. But having the deployed troops in a steady state is a big benefit to our National Security and it saves money. And you talked about priorities versus threat. Immediately when Donald Trump Takes Office on the 20th, and none of us can really predict, but theres lots of signs out there. What do you think the first crisis or threat might be . North korea . Secretary albright . I dont want to jinx anything you cant predict, but i do think that, i hope that the, when hes president , and he gives his inaugural speech, its very clear about where america stands, and in fact there is a comprehensive Foreign Policy speech. I do think the threats will come from nonstate actors in a variety of ways that are harder to deal with. As we watch what the terrorism level is, and has been in turkey, for instance. I am nervous with north korea, were dealing with a nutcase on that other said, and he may take advantage. Notice i said, we cant predict, but i asked them to predict. Its what we do. Its a period of time when your adversaries test, and allies hedge. So, if were not clear on, for example, ukraine, we may find putin testing. If were not clear on the question of sanctions, you may find the germans and others hedging. So, American Leadership and predictability is absolutely crucial at this point in time. As much as i would like to have the administration take time to develop a National Strategy document, on the other hand, they have to start developing National Strategy ideas really with the inaugural, and flesh them out before. I think the greatest dangers come if we dont have a strategy. Then you get into north korea, where certainly nonproliferation is key. And its also an opportunity if you can work with north korea to sort it out. What an incredible opportunity, working with the chinese to take on this global menace. And north korea, that was a tweet, its not going to happen, theyre not going to get a Nuclear Weapon to reach the u. S. Are we talking a preemptive strike . I think our adversaries are scared of donald trump, like china and russia, are unlikely to test us in the early days of the administration. I think putin is more likely to play possum or rope a dope. Declare a cease fire, or north koreas history of erratic behavior, and islamic terrorists, the two most likely challenges that a new President Trump would face in the early days of his administration. I like to quote bob gates, in productions like this, our record is perfect. Weve never gotten it right. So, everything you said wont happen. I fearlessly say, i see something maritime happening, it could be iranians going after one of our destroyers in the arabian gulf. I could see china pushing in a maritime sense, a soft tug in the south china or east china sea. I agree that russia will take a wait and see attitude. And i think it will those limit are. Senator, youre saying you think some are scared of donald trump. Let me ask you this then. We heard secretary kerry earlier said the red line thing, that didnt matter, there wasnt really a red line, they paid consequen consequences. Is that in a sense, okay, whatever you think about that red line, whether in fact they were allowed to cross or not, that isnt in the adversarys mind anymore. They will have donald trump, whos made some pretty powerful threats, if you will. I agree they are frightened of president elect trump trump because he is unpredictable but they will seek to remediate that by defining where those lines are. Whether this administration will shift those lines as a matter of tact tactics, i dont know. Well know more when that National Security team comes together. I think this will be a fundamental conversation they will have. Early on, i think there is a danger of isis related attack on our homeland. I think they would like to do that early in a trump administration. Then the question is whats the trump reaction to that. As with akd in 9 11, isis is weakened right now. Isis has lost territory. It is becoming more dangerous outside of its territory and in the west and potentially the u. S. Its not just the danger, one has to game out how one responds so you dont actually play into their hands, by overresponding and acting as a recruiting tool. Question over here. My name is shelly peterman, in context of this broad discussion, the United Nations has not been mentioned yet. I would like the panel to speak to the role of the united nat n nations in National Security and developing partnerships and supporting development and mass movements of refuges and others. Secretary albright. Let me say or say ambassador albright. I am a believer in the u. N. But it needs some fixing. There is a new secretary general who actually is an ekxpert on refuges as well as on governance. But the question is how the United States is going to support the u. N. It does not work without the United States. I think we cannot have influence on the u. N. If we do not pay. Its a club. The dues as well as the peacekeeping operation. All i can tell you is when i was there we were working on refo reforming the u. N. At the time, we had not made up. The british, malcolm riff kin in the General Assembly session delivered a line they have waited more than 200 years to say representation without taxation. I think to have the kind of influence we need, we cannot, if i may say, to congress, not have resolutions where we say were not going to take part in the United Nations or have the president elect talk about the fact its a club where people talk a lot. People at the u. N. Work hard and people sent to the u. N. As ambassadors are there because they are capable of making decisi decisions. The u. N. Needs a real reform. The Security Council itself is like the rubix cube. When we were there we were suggesting germany and japan become permanent members of the u. N. , leading of the Security Council leading the italians come ing to me, saying, thats not fair, we lost the war, too, not a Great Campaign slogan. Out of 15 members, five were europeans. Id go to a european ambassador and say i need your help on x vote and he would say i cant help you, the eu doesnt have a common position. Two days later id go back to the same person, can you help me now . No. Because the eu does have a common position. Its that kind of issue that needs to be dealt with which is reform but it requires american support. If we give up on the u. N. We have lost one great tool of governance. Do you believe everything she said and agree with that . Not every single word. I can say the u. N. Is in the doghousen congress as they are in arkansas and much other states and the country and theyre blade running support for congress. It is an outrage the United Nation s Security Council passed that antiisrael resolution last month and outrage we continue to allow russia and china block resolutions for what theyre doing in cover in syria while letting the israel resolutions pass and there will be a discussion of the United Nations role in the world and other nations. Im president of the American University of nigeria, located in northeast nigeria. Can you tell us what some of the National Security priorities are for this fast growing continent . We have very vibrant African Center Atlantic Council. The head of that certaintier, dr. Peter fam is concerned we are not paying attention to some very negative evolutions in afri africa, particularly focused on congo right now. You could also for europe have a high grant wave from africa to europe have a migrant wave from africa to europe that dw f dwarfs syria, the consequences of that. We were talking six of the fe t feastest 10 growing economy is in the world was africa and is true, now, you have a few directions in place for africa. For all the priorities we listed you cant turn away from that. That could turn out to be a black swan in different ways that saps your attention. Thank you for all the wonderful questions. With a final question we have a few minutes left. Thats when you go forward and think about National Security and think about Foreign Policy, what is the moral responsibility that we have as nation . How do you define that when you look back on the war in syria and barrel bombing of civilians. Where do you use that . What does it mean . How do you go forward . Youve certainly dealt with it, admiral. Let me start with you, secretary albright. I believe we need a moral Foreign Policy. I believe this is an exceptional country. That doesnt mean exceptions are made for us, which has to do with torture or a number of things illegal. I do think the u. S. Can and needs to be a moral leader. I also do think what has changed in this world now as a result of information that we know what is going on everywhere. What our responsibilities are when people are beingest nickly cleaned or genocidal for no reason other than what they have done and for who they are. It is hard to explain to the American People. One of the things i talk about what i call the karzai effect. Bottom line, there are a lot of americans and allies that died in afghanistan. Not only did president karzai not say thank you, he blamed us for a lot of the problems. I think it is going to be part of our jobs, those interested in National Security policy, to spend more time explaining what americas role in the world is. I am a believer in americas moral authority and leadership with others see. Im dean of graduate relations. We spend a lot of time discussing idealism versus raims in american policy and we have whipped around like a weather vein in the last 100 years. Life is not an onandoff switch. You dont just do realism nor do you constantly turn your military into the peace corps with guns and send them forth into the world and do only soft pow power. Its kind of an reast and you have to dial it in. Not real or hard power. Were not going to negotiate with the islamic state. The long game takes you back a bit and find that balance between hard and soft power and balance between idealism, which matters deeply at its core. You have to overlay it with realism. Can we do everything and carry the burden . Do we want to be the worlds policeman . No. Ill close with allies. Were very lucky to mav likeminded nations in europe, australia, new zealand. Our pool of allies and growing pool of friends, i think, in the end, can help us ease that burden and put it in the right place. Youve been on the front line, know how hard it is, youve looked the enemy in the eye. You also know certainly from your constituents, this country is tired of war. How do you balance that . I would say the moral imperative of United States Foreign Policy is the prosp prosperity, safety and liberty of the American People. As an elected official, wish my fellow manuel and serve my fellow citizen. The question is what means do you use to achieve those ends. What the admiral said there are a lot of means. Not most are military power or at least the application of military power, the cultural