I do want to tell you that during the q a portion eight are on and ill remind you the time, this will be on the record. Good to see you. Thank you margaret. Congratulations on your book. I was saying when we were chatting, the last time i interviewed you we were on a vessel office tony when you are carrying out a bill to rebuild up to respond to russia. Exactly. It was an amphibious and it was part of what i thought was sadly necessary after quarter century, we did not have a warplane to russia for quarter century. Its interesting to reflect on. Enter the cold war when i started when i worked on conventional and nuclear, at the end of the soviet union did not do that anymore for about 25 years. Then it became apparent to me whatever six years ago or so that we needed for pain. Thats when we positioned forces in different ways in europe but the particular reason to go at the time, was because that was going to be the location for new Cybersecurity Centers for nato. And why until then, two reasons, its epicenter of hybrid work for of the russians trying between peace and the green man in cyber attacks. This is right after ukraine . Yes. For the estonians, they knew what the playbook was in russia. But the other thing is it is more advanced than the United States. Because it left for technological era, remember one of the guys i worked with is studying government and says i would as a student behind stage and you had checkbooks. I never seen a checkbook. [laughter] so they went right from electronic funds transfers and he never seen a checkbook before. There actually tiny country quite advanced. Those of the two reasons they were the Cybersecurity Center and that is why i was there in that era. In a great bunch of marines on board. I want to get to all of those because he makes it nicely together some of the geopolitics and thinking to modernize the u. S. Military. But lets talk about the war itself. You refer to it on inside the fivesided box of the pentagon. You see this is not a memoir its a users manual. Its exactly right, executive guide. Who do you want to be using . Do you have a suggested reader . First of all i hope that renews and readers, general citizens appreciation for the wonderful institution that depends and takes him inside. I like to read nonfiction and i like to read about a place ive never been or never will be that takes me there and tells me how it works and if youre curious across the river and want to know how troops are recorded or how 750 boeing dollars are spent war plans are drawn up or worse conducted, it is that. The washington audience will know at least part of the already from your own experience but probably not all of it. I just happen to be in every corner of the place in the course of 37 years. For a ceo, the Largest Organization in the world, for anybody who runs something may be interested in what it feels like to run the largest place in the world. I like to say the larger, if you take amazon, ups, mcdonalds, target and ge combine more are then a soft, apple, google combine. Real property if you put it together would be the state of pennsylvania. It is the largest enterprise on earth and getting your mind around the management which i did as a ceo and also the coo and with the weapons aspire. I think anybody has to run something when we all do even if its herself, its a management guide for another manager. I hope its an inspiration, i really care, a lot of people come and say and think about Public Service but i dont like everything i see, evil screaming and so forth. And it is hard to counsel young people but im a believer in recruiting. There has to be another generation for all of us. Who care about the country, care about the world and carry about our values in this whole project. What i tell them, its only government we have. When i joined in the 1980s i did not love everything that was happening either. But you cannot get on the street and shop for another one. If you dont like it get in the game. What happens, given the scope of what you described when you have the level of turnover that we have seen over the past few months at the pentagon and you dont have someone who is confirmed by congress. What does that do to the executive . It is not good. Heres good news bad news, the good news the department of defense is relatively speaking a place with a very strong deep keel. You have 2. 8 million professionals essentially in the military, and a place respond to good order and discipline. It will hold together, that is fine. But no organization, maybe even especially including the department of defense because consistency and order are so important can move forward without a leader. So it bothers me is that the place will fall apart, or will get in a position where we cant when wars anymore or anything like that, but not to keep moving you have to have a really competitive streak we have to say the best in technology they will not move forward. That is where the problem comes. Not having someone who has a sort of ability to say im senate confirmed, im here and i have a vision. Fortunately cut in half, and the president who listens to me. And i did not have to deal with that and none of my predecessors and my observations, when i first worked for weinberger it was quite clear that president reagan talk to him and they did not mean he won all the agency bottles and stuff like that. But he was always listen to and i knew it my boss, hes my bosses boss of bosses boss boss they listen to the department of defense and something, cheney, bill perry, on and on up to prisopresident obama. But i always got a shot. And he was very, very respectful listener. Sometimes air tamely so when you listening to somebody else. [laughter] okay come on they had their turn. They said their piece. You dont have to [laughter] he was extremely polite to listening to people. And its not clear that President Trump listens or is going to listen to secretary of defense. Thats a bigger problem than just for the secretary of defense. A passage in the book where he took while the question of whether you take a job when youre offered a job, and i said the president of the United States the answers only one answer, yes. Note that is false. The answer, you have to think about a bit. You have to say can i help this person succeed, that is what its about. And had to be true to your values as well. Those are the two things you have to do. But i would not know how to help this president because he does not seem to listen to secretary of defense. So that will be the other trick for somebody new, they make gift confirmed but somehow they have to establish a report with the president , otherwise all the value of the Defense Department, its a fantastic place and a lot to say about the world in a huge reservoir of expertise and knowledge. Not to be able to bring that to bear on the president of the United States. That would be really frustrating to me. And you dont see the National Security advisor running regular consultations or some of the process by looking in, i think is a process that is not connected to the president is what i think from reading but thats again from the outside can in. John bolton who are known to all the ministrations, that he certainly knows how the msc ran to invent the Current System which is a great system, i would imagine he knew how to outdo those. But he hasnt same problems, are you hitched to the man at the top or not and it doesnt seem to me he has either, he is closely hitched to the president , and that has to be frustrating. Lets talk about geopolitics. We started with russia in your trendy position for all the time. Where are we now in terms of russia as a strategic challenge to the United States. Do you feel that you left the u. S. In a position where it could push back customer. Is not likely to be a war is the thing you think about. But were is that they know if they start something with us they will lose. You said Vladimir Putin was not adequately deterred and continues to not be adequately deterred. In the city do we do enough after the 2016 election, you have answers planes they know. And i said if you want evidence of that look Vladimir Putin, does this look like a man whose been chastised . The question answers itself. And he is someone that ive known since 1993, they used to takees the back between clinton and nielsen, he has been around a long time and he is a considerable geostrategic thinker. I cannot agree with everything he says but he does not make history better, he speaks extremely well and writes extremely well. He says exactly what he means and people say, what do you think putin is thinking exactly what is saying. One of the things he wants to screw my country. And Everything Else we can talk about syria, terrorism, eastern europe, nato, whatever else, thats an arms control, these are important things and i know how to talk to people you dont get along with your agree to disagree recant and thats diplomatic life. That is okay but when one of the guys intentions is to heres the middle ground, that is what makes it difficult. But he is there, he is not going anywhere for a while and i think the russians and the chinese are the same. They respond to pressure from. When you hear from the chopper ministration that they are interested in exiting certain agreements like the treaty which is about to happen or reconsidering things like new start on warheads and maybe the chinese into three party talks to come up with any weapons deal. Knitting together those challenges, what do you think about that. Is that just Wishful Thinking or is that because itll never get done anyway. Itll never get done anyway. The second one is easier because theres no logic to the animal, they both complained that, player in that game so why would you get a room with two parties who are going to be very good at playing a democracy. At the same time were not going to get along, the idea that theyre going to gang up on the american, i never actually believed in that. Because they dont have any other interest, russias clinic this chinas link this, and they are going to be at each other a little bit in the far east and they have almost nothing in common except that they both do not like us. That is not enough to make a condominium out of. Respect to the first thing i think is more serious, we cannot afford to lose contact with the enemy as the phrase goes. But with russia, i think its important to keep talking, it is frustrating and im worried theres not enough strategic trade because they can think the wackiest things if you dont stay in contact with them and those of you seen russians and they told you what their Intelligence Services have told them about what is going on, its vile. So its not safe to let that run amok. At the sense yes me about the eye enough treaty and im sorry if this is an unpopular point of view because i know a lot of people dont want that to go away. But my view was a secretary of defense, i wanted more than they do. Because i was a ways looking on the other side of the fence at short range missiles which we were not allowed to have which i think of lots of uses for. In europe, asia and remember the chinese are getting ready to par with us all the time and we dont have anything to far back because were in some deal with the russians. And that does not mean im preparing and allah. And i dont want to walk but you cant forget they did violate number one and number two, i know what to do if im given that right attitude and i assume successors successor when know what to do as well so from that point of view, the Military Point of view it is not so bad. We can make good use of what we call conventional strike. You think that the design to do away with the agreements . Because youre sitting up in a possible round of threeway talk . I guess i think so, i think it is something that sounds good and says wow list take the big three and get them on the room. The global will bite on the hook. I dont think theres anything really there. In the meantime you do away with something that did take 30, 40 years to build in general. Things take so long to make in the real world, and its so easy to take them apart, i am a conservative by nature, i am always suspicious when something has been around for a while is getting dismantled. And that does not mean im not ready to charge into the future, im not a scientist, technologist, it was very big on the Defense Department but i did not take apart things readily. Im happy to build new things but taken apart things is, unless you really, really have replacement, that is risky and things take so long to build, you can do a lot of destruction and no time in washington and im a builder, i like builders in the lot of builders is he an audience, it takes a lot of patience and people who take stuff apart, im a little suspicious about that. Along those lines if you look at whats happening on the potential unraveling of the international the poem on a agreement, when will the flashy yellow turn for you. What do you think is actually happening right now . On the nuclear front, i am less concerned perhaps that people might think for the following reasons. Ill come back to the and what it meant and what it did not mean. But what he did, as you all know it forced the readings that they maybe regret this now. And ruin the reactor theyve been putting their toe in the water. But they have a ways to go to get back to even where they were by thwere. That was under in a very determined circumstance where they were starting with what they have been which is not what they have now. Theres more than a year rubino in the early years in the agreement that in putting their toe in the water, they dont want to get the chinese, the russians and the europeans on their backs. What worries me, in the u. S. China think, with that and not that we are going to go with work with one another because our president said he does not want war and he said that consistently and repeatedly whatever anybody also said. And the radiance i dont think any position, you know the area better than i do see you know better on this to margaret, i dont think there no position, certainly not a position in military strength, and international or political strength to dig Something Like that. So is not intentional were either. That was baser risk in the assyrian situation is something unintentional. We are up against each other so close, in the gulf, they need enough of an anchor, of something players up. I was in office when ten u. S. Sailors were detained by their meanings for reasons i happen to be us going into the territorial water and navigating properly, to put it bluntly. This is in the middle. It was no better time, but over very visible negotiation, its not like a time where the trading insults are not talking at all but imagine what were doing in the Defense Department, peter cook remembers us very well. We are spooling up very fast. And sub defense is a big deal. Taking americans, iranians taking americans, the blood is getting up really fast. Importantly, john kerry could ultimately on his cell phone and get adult leadership and get this thing settled down real quickly before we could get out each other. That kind of thing which is possible everyday, we took this into a rain and territorial waters. But theres no counterweight now. Who isnt going to come from, how will they get resolved and thats an ugly baby one day. Because everybody remembers the remaining hostage drama so thats what bothers me, more than intentional war or the nuclear think. I worry about more with the United States and around that theres a spark in the grass is so dry. I want to ask you, china and north korea as well. When you lost the ministration did you feel i was Unfinished Business customer. It was frustrated with the North Koreans but i been dealing with them since early 90s. So on the grandfather, father progressively getting worse. [laughter] that had been attempted diplomatic outreach. Yes but the progress in 1994 there were some in 1998 there were some, 2006 after they exploded the first bomb, and cohen powell give it a try and i have to say i thought it was a part of this in the past particularly in the first two also the third one. The Obama Administration did not try basically, i think president obama put words in his mouth but my inference was he did not think it would go anywhere. And what he did which is grateful for was back me up in my immediate criticism. So we did deterrence and defense and deterrence means having forces and are okay forces that are so obviously capable of destroying the nor north korean regime that they cannot possibly imagine that they wont lose a war if one starts. And defense is our missile defenses, and those are controversial. And i was undersecretary, the weapons i was doing this will defenses in alaska and california and people were saying you can amber the russians or they dont work and work are you doing this and ethic the stance of the time was somebody in the North Koreans are going to get there someday of the path they are on and i dont want to be defenseless when that happens. And so he did, so we are not defenses. I object to talking to them no, i cannot tell you i exactly get what is going on. All the president s that i observed deal with north korea starting with bush one, refused to meet with the north Korean Leader unless until an agreement resolves because they knew to meet, an american leader to meet and north Korean Leader was a gift to North Koreans. They crave that. And if youre negotiation with someone you do not give anything for free. The ministration would argue all the past attempts have failed. So why not nuts not a technical point you dont give something away for free. To me it is not negotiating to give away something for free. Its okay if you want to have a meeting, with the North Koreans everything is a transaction. So its in general like that. So dealing with them you say you do this all do that and if that works out then ill do this and you do that. Thats how everything has to progress but i would not give them a meeting. I would not advise the president t