Good evening everybody. I amrest for its injured schwartz. Our sheep or series i am andrew schwartz. Our series, we thank them for our support. Enabling us to make this possible. I would like to thank Texas Christian University and the i would like to introduce bob schieffer. [applause] thank you all very much. This is kind of a different take on things. Is to what we going to do going to talk about the state of the union. The president had his say last night. The pundits given their take on it. If this were a trial i was supposed this would be the point where we would call in the es. Ert witness no better place to gather sis. Rts than at cs irs c gives us a chance to show off our experts. Terri, a former korea analyst at the cia, former korea director at the National Security council, considered one of the world top experts on korea and she has a phd from the fletcher school. Dr. Cap hicks is our Senior Vice President and the Henry Kissinger chair director of csi interNational Security program. Principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy and plans during the obama nation. Academic prestigious and government posts and holds a phd from m. I. T. Heather connelly is a s. Nior Vice President at csi headed the team that authored the kremlin playbook. You want to read it. Gives you a real rundown. She and her team analyzed what the russians are doing across europe and you will find similar things going on there. Spots at thed state department. Assistance to the newly invented states. When the soviet union fell in, and down at the end joining me, one of the men on this panel. William William Wright should william reich. He was president of the Foreign NationalNational Foreign trade council. He served as a member of the u. S. China economic and Security Review Commission and he spent 20 years on capitol hill. Most of that time working with senator john heinz and later with senator rockefeller. Hat we heard last night this was the speech the New York Times described as remarkably devoid of new policies. That sounds a little harsh but when i went back and looked i discovered it was a full hour and to the speech before he proposed a plan that he wanted the congress to take up. This was the infrastructure plan. I thought what we would do just assert off, i would like each of how do you think it will be ourby our alleys allies around the world . Mainly focus on the Foreign Policy side. I think our allies will be surprised by that too. Bidsf them short on policy. It was interesting to me on what he decided to focus on. We can talk more about that later. It was interesting to me on what he decided to focus on the human i know that our allies or watching every word. Some news about u. S. Ambassador to south korea so im not sure they came away feeling feeling hopeful about north korea policy. The defense piece of this, there was none. There was actually a little more on defense than many other areas. Which im sure heather will try to fill that void in a moment. I had more to work with. Did put annt emphasis in the defense remarks on his desire to have congress very probably bipartisan supported viewpoint and one that everyone from inside the defense community, industry, allies, that was a positive message to hear. I think the downside is you went to focus on the Nuclear Aspect of how that may might spent and the need for nuclear modernization, broadly bipartisan agreed viewpoint. To any sensee it of why we would be seeking this new funding. He really focused on terrorism, the rogue states of iran and you might think you were in 2004 listening to much it was removed from the current discussions around National Security strategies. A lot of focus on the issues ofe states detainee policy and terrorism. Linked it to a large increase in defense spending. With a question if you dont follow these issues closely. If you do, you are left with a sense the president was speaking to the issues he thinks resonate with the public. Terrorism is the issue that resonates most when they think about why they have military, they are not serve connecting the dots to have that military is used. They just know they dont like terrorism. He has repeated as a president s i think it was really less an orchestration of strategy and more about how he wanted to appeal at a basic level to themes he is highlighted before it very was positive pressure was very positive. He told a story through the eyes of the american people. I think sometimes we forgotten to tell a story of why its important that we do the things we do. I thought that was very important. , andhat i did not like also did not talk about the world were living in. The president made passing reference to our arrival. Our great power competitors, what are we doing . How we engaging what were doing . The thing that was absent was allies. Theher that was zero. Resident there were no signs given to them. In reverse order. What i did not like on a personal level was all the bragging. He spent the first half an hour taking credit for some things he was responsible and some things he had nothing to do with. You get tired of it. What surprised me, and this is the devoid policy, i bump up again with. How a few proposals there were. Fun. Ly people would make it he seven different ideas in. Hat was a longer speech he had five or six things. He did not really talk about the environment. He did not talk about education. A lot of things that just werent there. He did not insult any of our trading partners. Downflected ive gone stairs with the pattern paper. Reporter was coming out to talk it been such a major topic of his. For the entire year. Affair ands an particular articulation of our views on trade. He did not go into detail or provide revelations about what fromto do huron and i want all of you to feel free to just jump in whenever you think is necessary. It dont wait for me to call on you. I think we have to go back to you, sue. Victor, who everybody around here thought was going to be the ambassador to south korea, we learned he is not. What is the deal . What was this about . Let me just say victor is not only as a colleague, ive known him as a longtime. As an Intelligence Analyst i used to brief him. I used to see him when he was a policy maker at the National Security council. Have been more experience and qualified u. S. Ambassadors to south korea. This is a shock to everybody particularly with our south korean allies. Victor has expressed his views strongly. The administration is calling it a bloody nose. If there is a daily limited strike on north korea we are going to make our position clear to North Koreans they are dealing with a different koreastration that north is not going to retaliate and that will lead them to get back to the negotiation table. A big assumption to make. Victor laid out a case why hes strikes. Ilitary he wrote an excellent opinion piece on Washington Post. Aboutl green also talking this kind of containment strategy. That we dont have to respond militarily. Robust missile defense, i do hethis was a policy worked with the white house under the Bush Administration and i just know that at this stage, something came up. South koreans are shocked and dismayed. Its only been a lead been a year that south korea has dealt with no ambassador. Thefact that its not like doctor was meant to be an engager. Style, he is not hawkish enough for this administration. There are some concerns with south korea. Alliance management and how to get South Koreans more comfortable. Panel, isask the there such a thing as preventative nuclear war . I thought we went through all of this a long time ago. I dont think i would describe it as Preventative Care war. Its probably not useful to talk to much in the theoretical because there is the possibility that you see a strike coming and you want to respond to prevent a crisis. What kind of a strike could you make on north korea . I do not want to be put in a position to argue for a strike in north korea. Getchallenge, as you through what those possibilities are, there are none that are riskfree. Oryou want stricken airbase a site where you thought weapons of mass description might either a Missile Launch or a site that would be for the harder you thought there were weapons of mass destruction. Lets say you want to distract the command and control installations of that might be all kinds of things but it might be a facility at which they have. Etection systems the challenge is how do you think North Koreans will respond. That is something you have to think about with any adversary. You tether into each adversary. Difficult to play those scenarios out in ways. If you think the North Koreans are rational, why that would drive them to drop the pursuit of Nuclear Weapons which might seem highly rational in order to determine you and if you think they are irrational, you ramp up the chances of an escalation. As victor pointed out, i think sometimes we become desensitized to the idea that things happen over there and there are things here. One of the things he did well was to point out there are over 200,000 americans, 30,000 u. S. Military but then lots of civilians that work median soul or the family, we have there all around the world. To head up and place. Cracks just to point to victor. It piece. This would be a Major Economic shockwave through lanes. Nt trading it is the unintended consequences when you make contact with the enemy your plan goes completely awry. Frankly, we dont have the support of allies for that action. Think theres greater collective support on maintaining maximizing the pressure and having us provide that extended deterrence. We have to do patient and the and third with this option have a lotmuscular to say about this. S entirely wrong section it is difficult to do in north korea has experience with evading them. It illustrates the point you just made, heather. If you can get everyone else marching with you on Something Like that, which the Obama Administration did successfully everybodyf you give. Oing the same thing arabic weve run up a string yet. Aobably could do more lot of the stuff they need comes in bipolar. We couldilling make more progress than we have so far. Analyst for 10 years. One thing we do not know is how kim jongun will react. Cannot assume is going to retaliate or not. You just dont know. The result is something we dont have a handle on. What we think is too crazy or a national, he cannot be deterred or detained. If we think he is rational enough to not retaliate there something of a contradiction. After his rational or irrational. One more question. One of the things that struck me in the speech last night when he said we will not make the same mistake of previous administrations, what was he talking about . He said compromises and concessions led to aggression by north korea. That is vowing not to make mistakes of that. I think hes laying out the negotiations or dialogue with north korea will lead is not really on the table. He said hes going to meet with he said concession and compromise did not work. It focused on maximum pressure without elaborating on that policy and a focus on to privity of the regime. I felt he was making a case to think he is making the case for future you brought up the part about trade. The administration has pulled out of the tpp. I dont know very much about trade. What is the strategic fallout of that . As we are talking about allies, being together. Is the fact that we pulled out of that and we are the only people not out there anymore because is designed to stand at the open together and they have banded together. Does that help us from a standpoint of National Security. That one was a root about the u. S. Role in the pacific. A lot of access issues. A lot of games particularly for farmers and building a stronger rulesbased trading system. It was about the u. S. Presence in the pacific. The signal mostly to east and southeast asia. The United States was determined to stay there and be an effective counterweight for anyone who wanted to achieve longevity. The only way to read from cost i think pull a you can go anywhere in southeast the smaller countries on the periphery because they are smaller, dont see themselves as having a lot of choice in the matter but to develop a closer relationship with china in economic terms but also in political terms. Not only pulled off to send the signal that theres been no replacement strategy. Theres been speculation last week he said maybe we will rejoin antibush trying to figure out what is that mean. If he says of multiple times maybe theres something there. The optimistic view is maybe hes listening to his National Security advisers who must be telling him you have no leverage strategy and you torpedo the good one. You need to come up with something. Of of course, he will not go back to an obama thing. Every administration tends to assume everything from the predecessor was bad. This one has done that to an extreme. So they had to come up with something else. Maybe they are in the process of deciding maybe we should restructure and come back into it. But as he pointed out, the reaction of the other 11 has been, well, that is nice if you want to come back, but were going ahead and on our terms, which are not quite the same as what we negotiated. They dropped some things. The things they dropped were in the intellectual property area, stuff that we want, that our companies want, that are not going to be there. Weif we go back in, i think pare some of the security damage, but it will be a weaker agreement and not as economically beneficial for us. Mr. Schieffer do you think we can make better trade deals than what we were getting ready to get in the tpp . Secretary ofthe commerce was telling the japanese, look, you are just not 37. 5 tariffwith on imported beef. Apparently he was unaware that tpp takes it down tonight percent tariff on imported beef tariffs that down to 9 on imported beef. He says he wants a better deal, but i wonder if we are going to get a better deal. At we were talking about thsy this morning. He never talks about the deficiencies, what we did not get. I do not think anybody really knows what he wants that would be better than what we have got. The reality is that these things are negotiations. Nobody gets the whole roast. If youre lucky, you get 60 of the loaf, and if youre really good, you get the other guys to think they did better than you did, whether they did or not, if you are a good negotiator. There is a superb negotiator and a great closer that i have had differences with, and i think he got just about everything he could get out of those guys. We can ask for more. If you look at the nafta negotiations, were asking for more. I would be surprised if we get it. Mr. Schieffer do you think there is any real possibility that he will pull out of nafta . I mean, i am from texas, so we have quite an interest in that. Be the biggest loser if we do pull out. They have so much at stake. I went to a meeting today with the Business Community about that, and there is kind of this feeling that we are over that hump, that there has been this parade of people going in to the white house saying dont pull out, economic disaster, political disaster. The shortterm losers would be agriculture. They have got the most to lose, and it is the most immediate and all these red state people have said dont do it, big mistake. Brusca, all the these places. The governor of michigan has been adamant about this, that what he wants to do is not going to begin for the auto industry. My sense is that, grudgingly, the president has kind of come to the conclusion that maybe they are right. Risk. That at great there could be a tweet tomorrow morning that says were pulling out, but i think that we are over the hump, at least for a while. The round in montreal that ended on monday was civil. The other sides engaged. There is now talked about a negotiation over our demands. Were not going to get what we want, but at least it is going forward. I think we have kind of put that one on the site for a while. But he seems to think that the best way to get a deal is to, you know, pullout, and that will intimidate everybody. You know, maybe that is true in the real estate is missed, but these are countries that have their own armies. The have got their own rules that they have to adhere to. And they have got their of politics. Mexico, and the opponent is doing very well in the polls. It is not as simple as he thinks it is spirit mr. Schieffer as he think it is. Mr. Schieffer i want to broaden that out, the fact that we now have no one confirmed, still, after a year to be the butssador to south korea, that is more and more the case. Has this begun to affect our policy yet . Going to let heather answer because i have done a panel with her i4 and she is outstanding on this. I have done a panel with her before and she is outstanding on this. When you have a missing state department, what happens . Pull outtions on our of tpp, and really in the state of the Union Address, we have no positive agenda anywhere. We have a negative agenda we will pull out spirit we will have a military strike. But we have no positive what are we doing . A positive agenda that diplomatic strategy when you have a fully engaged Foreign Policy and a state department that is vibrant and engaged with ambassadors a place, and were using all of the tools, diplomatic. Tools diplomatic tools. We are convincing countries to follow our lead. Without that infrastructure, we cannot do that. After year one of the administration, we still do not have that functioning state department and Networking Infrastructure to support a vibrant u. S. Foreign and security policy. It is missing, and countries are moving without it. On tpp, no one is waiting on us. The 11 have moved forward. European union and j