Transcripts For CSPAN2 Robert Gates Exercise Of Power 202407

Should the military be used for domestic unrest such as the recent protests . Should the u. S. Be terminating many of our arms control treaties and even contemplating resuming Nuclear Testing . Should the names of Confederate Military leaders be removed from u. S. Military bases and other statue be removed from our Public Places . To address these questions and many more, today we will have a unique conversation between two recent secretaries of defense, doctor robert gates and general james mattis. As a bipartisan secretary of defense, secretary robert gates served under president george w. Bush and barack obama. He is the author of a new book, exercise of power americas failures, successes and a new path forward in the post cold war world. Doctor gates is an officer in the u. S. Air force and spent 27 years in the cia. He served as the cia director and became the first career officer in cia history to move from entrylevel employee to head the agency. Secretary gates served as a member of the National Security Council Staff in four different administrations and for eight president s of both political parties. For his numerous professional competitions, secretary gates was awarded the president ial medal of freedom, the nations highest civilian award by president obama. Hes also a threetime recipient of the distinguished intelligence medal, one of the cias most prestigious honors. In conversation with insidious general james mattis. General mattis served as our 26th secretary of defense from 2017 to 2019 and is now the distinguished fellow at Stanford Universitys hoover institution. General mattis served over 40 years in the marine corps starting as an infantry officer. He later served as commander of the u. S. Joint forces command and nato supreme allied commander for transformation. General mattis directed the military applications of more than 200,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, coast guardsmen and marines and allied forces across the middle east as commander of the u. S. Central command. He commanded forces in the persian gulf, the war in afghanistan and the iraq war. Hehe has been outspoken recenty about the president s views of military troops in domestic unrest in washington. Please join me now in welcoming doctor robert gates and general james mattis for this very unique conversation. Host thank you it is a pleasure to be here with the Commonwealth Club, the club that has been devoted to finding truth for over 100 years. We all recognize doctor gates during his leadership role with a wealth of background. Secretary gates is my former boss, predecessor in office and inspiring role model. He was likened in one recent review is the rare footsoldier that rises to high command. Secretary gates, in reading your book, one that i would be reassured with required reading for president s and cabinet officers when they come into office, i was struck by you attribute in a large part of americas 25 year decline in status and prestige to the failure of postcold war president s and congress to recognize resource and effectively used what you call the arsenal of nonmilitary instruments of power. Can you explain this fundamental failure and the significance of the title that you chose for your buck . Guest first of all, thank you for participating in this and thanks to the Commonwealth Club for inviting me. The book began with a question in my mind of how the United States had gone from a position of supreme power, probably unrivaled since the roman empire in every dimension of power in 1983 to a country today that is set by challenges everywhere. I thought about how did that happen. How did we get here . So i began looking at all of the major foreignpolicy challenges they had and thinking about what they had done and what they had not done that contributed to the decline in our role in the world in our power in the world. We came up with a set of nonmilitary instruments of power that they had played such an Important Role in our success in the cold war against the soviet union and had largely been neglected and whether after the end of the cold war. At the time that we continue to fund the military, we basically dismantled all of the nonmilitary instruments of power power, from diplomacy to economic leverage to Strategic Communications and more. We can go into that later. And as i looked at the situations come at these challenges from somalia and haiti in 1993 and others right up to the relationship with russia and china today, north korea, it occurred to me we have failed in many respects to figure out how to compete with these powers outside of the military realm. And the reality is of the 15 challenges i write about, i considered 13 to the failures. Thats why in the title the word failure comes first. There are a couple of successes and there are some lessons to be learned from those as well, but we had a lot of problems during the 27 year period, and i would conclude by saying the war in iraq and afghanistan both began with very quick military victories and the problem that identified whether it was iraq and afghanistan were somalia or haiti or others was once we have achieved military victory, we then changed our mission. We then decided to move to trying to bring democracy and reform the governments of those countries and thats where we ran into failure. Host secretary gates, id like to go more deeply into what you just mentioned, the symphony of power. I got a few notes from your book, but can you give an overview of the type of instruments they were referring to anywhere they might be more applicable perhaps her most likely than using the Military Form of power. And if they are not played, why arent they. Historically, what are these instruments and what do you look to to bring to the forefront . Guest the coercive instrumentforefront . Guest co. Te instruments are the military and i would say also cyber. In my opinion, cyber has actually become the most effective weapon that a nation can have because it can accomplish military, political and economic harm to ones adversary. Its difficult to identify who perpetrated the attack. It takes time to figure out attribution and the more damage was done, the more important it is to identify where the ones or zeros came from and so, cyber is a huge player now in a way that has never been before. It can dismantle or disarm weapons. It can redirect and shut down infrastructure and countries, so its a very versatile weapon and it doesnt take the kind of enormous expenditure of dollars pour money that a Nuclear Enterprise or chemical or biological threat would represent. So i think cyber is a very important one and we have been pretty good at developing it for our military purposes, but i think that we have not taken advantage of it in an offensive way with respect to either political or economic targets. Another important instrument is clearly economic measures. These can be both carrots and sticks. The truth is as i make the point in the book, weve developed the sticks part of the economic instrument pretty well. Weve levied sanctions on any country that looks at us cross eyed, and its become actually very complicated for a lot of companies because weve got so many sanctions against countries figuring out how to do business internationally and stay within the u. S. Law and become a full price enterprise for these companies. So we got the sticks part down there pretty well. Embargoes, tariffs, sanctions and so on. Where weve fallen down and ones have real capability is how do we use economic assistance or our economy as an asset to encourage and induce other countries to do what we would like for them to do were to follow policies we would like for them to follow, whether its loans at discounts, economic concessions, trade concessions and so on. We are very good as i said at sanctions. We are not figuring out how we might advantage of someone dealing with us. President clinton and president bush were both very good with africa when they arranged debt relief for a number of african countries back in the 1990s and early 2000 is coming and that helped a lot of african countries, but that is a rare example of us using economic measures as an instrument of power. Strategic communications or, as we stick with the cold war, propaganda. How do we get our message around the world. The chinese have developed this to an extraordinary degree. Several years ago, hu jintao allocated several hundred billion dollars for the chinese to Strategic Communications network around the world. We on the other hand in 1998 dismantled the United States Information Agency and talked what we call Public Diplomacy into the corner of the state department. Various elements of the government to Strategic Communications, but theres no coherent strategy. Each kind of goes its own way, and they also lack the capabilities and reach that the chinese have. Theres a variety of other instruments, jim, but i will mention. Things like intelligence and how we use it with other countries, science and technology, our higher education, our culture, the use of nationalism as we are. Co. Watch russia and china interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Weve failed to use their own nationalistic feelings to help build their resistance to the chinese and russians and others are doing. Religion is an important instrument. We havent thought about it in that way, but religion has played a big part in international affairs, particularly since the end of the cold war. And all you have to do is look at the role of religion and motivating to see that it has real power. We need the military and cia but why dont we summon instruments of inspiration that are so strong in america . What is the reluctance to use nonmilitary . It is a tough question to answer. Part of that congress has been reluctant to font on defend the nonmilitary instruments going back to the end of the cold war. But congress wanted us to establish the us agency for International Development and president clinton stop that but still diminished usaid and to be starved of resources except a couple of brief periods during the george w. Bush administration but congress hates Development Assistance they are considered a waste of time if we spend money why not here at home and how that benefits the United States its a big part of the reason the reluctance of the congress and in all honesty the most of all for administrations to push for such funding. The irony for me as when the congress has become more resistant to military overseas they also refused to make non robust instruments i could take place of that military activity. You brought up the war in iraq and mentioned the change of mission or Mission Creep so we go into iraq and you write as happened so often is lack of imagination how to access nongovernment civilian expertise to strengthen nonmilitary capabilities they have no appreciation of the importance of the private sector as an instrument of power. First recognize that it has something to contribute and then figure out how to make it work. It frustrated all of us in the department of defense through all afghan war experience was the relatively few number of civilian experts we were engaged in nationbuilding with very few civilian experts in country making that happen. But at the peak of our iraq we had 170,000 troops in the country with 360 civilians and all of those in the entire country of iraq so one of the things that i propose that got no traction that what we could provide help with was helping both the afghans and iraqis in terms of improving farming techniques , taking care of their herds , and because they are both world countries. So i suggested to the state department go to the land grant universities like texas a m i knew what they were doing around the world as far as faculties working in inhospitable and insecure situations go to these universities and asked them to help and augment what we are trying to do many members are already in the countries so how can we help them and provide funding and we also had the advantage of the National Association of landgrant universities with a man named Peter Mcpherson from Michigan State also under president reagan to be a partner but nothing ever happened. Similarly to partner with the private sector is to figure out how we will counter the 1 trilliondollar program of infrastructure building ports and airports and highways and sports arenas around the world. A lot of them are White Elephant projects. That countries have to pay for and then sign contracts with china that they do the construction. We cannot compete with that through their state owned enterprises can find the cash to fund the projects. We just dont have that. We are not structured that way but we have a private sector investing all over the world and how can United States partner with private companies and incentivize them to invest and bring jobs and Environmental Concerns and sustainability the end up being useless or saddle the countries with huge amounts of debt. We dont do much in the way to incentivize companies to move down the path and that is a resource we could make better use of. We have these churches and charities and others that do projects around the world whether in terms of health to get rid of diseases like the work of the Gates Foundation and others often they dont want to much to do with the government but is there a way we can augment their activities to work in partnership . And how do we Work Together . There isnt much done to move down the road. These are just three examples we havent been very imaginative to leverage our strength and translate that into efforts of what i would call shaping the International Environment to Server National interest. We dont have to be a altruistic it is the responsibility of the president and the government to advance American Interest in protect them around the world. But that means you have to shape the International Environment and these are the tools you can use. We have tried on many occasions to shape the environment not very imaginatively or successfully frankly. We have tried to help multiple countries gain peace and stability but columbia worked. Why does that stand out why did it work over failures. It was a success under multiple president s. In the nineties columbia was on the verge of coming on becoming a criminal state, a narco state. The fark was on the verge of taking control and the government but our efforts in working with the colombians to be successful in controlling and defeating the farc we had a very strong and honest person and president uribe was determined to beat the farc and he was committed to democratic principles and the rule of law and determined to lead the fight with considerable risk to himself surviving a number of assassination attempts. There already basic institutions in columbia they were week but had been established and we could help strengthen those institutions inside columbia including the police and the military but also the judicial system over the course of the colombian partnership the Justice Department trained 40000 judges. The third reason for success i give credit to congress. They limited the number of americans who could be in columbia at any given time to help the government we were limited 400 military and 400 contractors then that eventually rose at 800 and that was set. So they had to fight the fight themselves and we had to be limited to supporting them and training them to become better to carry the fight to the farc we couldnt take over the enterprise because of the limits congress put on us we were there in support of the colombian government and that was another reason for success it was up to the colombians to solve the problem we could help that we would it run the show for them. Also this plan had bipartisan support in congress and was funded over a period of ten years by three successive president s so we had the time to make things work with the bipartisan support to get the funding so for about 10 billion over ten or 12 year. , we help the colombians put down the farc and regain control of their own country. Originally it was sold as counter narcotics to limit the cocaine coming back into the United States. We try to bring cultural and political change the country to make it more like us to bring those democratic principles with honest government and without realizing we were trying to change thousands of years of history and the fact our own democracy evolved over time we are still facing problems created at the beginning of the United States with the race issues we are dealing with today. And we have been working on it for over two centuries. So thinking we force this to other countries is one reason why we have been involved in these wars but also from Winston Churchill and in late 44 he was approached of overthrowing the dictatorship and that was very supportive of the allies were trying to accomplish and they wanted him to install the democratic government he said democracy is not a harlot to be picked up on the street and the principal still exists, you cannot force a country to build a democracy. Iraq has a rudimentary democracy today they are probably the only democratic Arab Government in the entire middle east. That the cost has been extraordinarily high and a lot of the iraqis still do not believe that she had dominated government serves their interest particularly the kurds and the sunnis so there is a tough road ahead but the failures in these countries was trying to bring social and cultural and political change using the Nuclear Testing<\/a> . Should the names of Confederate Military<\/a> leaders be removed from u. S. Military bases and other statue be removed from our Public Places<\/a> . To address these questions and many more, today we will have a unique conversation between two recent secretaries of defense, doctor robert gates and general james mattis. As a bipartisan secretary of defense, secretary robert gates served under president george w. Bush and barack obama. He is the author of a new book, exercise of power americas failures, successes and a new path forward in the post cold war world. Doctor gates is an officer in the u. S. Air force and spent 27 years in the cia. He served as the cia director and became the first career officer in cia history to move from entrylevel employee to head the agency. Secretary gates served as a member of the National Security<\/a> Council Staff<\/a> in four different administrations and for eight president s of both political parties. For his numerous professional competitions, secretary gates was awarded the president ial medal of freedom, the nations highest civilian award by president obama. Hes also a threetime recipient of the distinguished intelligence medal, one of the cias most prestigious honors. In conversation with insidious general james mattis. General mattis served as our 26th secretary of defense from 2017 to 2019 and is now the distinguished fellow at Stanford Universitys<\/a> hoover institution. General mattis served over 40 years in the marine corps starting as an infantry officer. He later served as commander of the u. S. Joint forces command and nato supreme allied commander for transformation. General mattis directed the military applications of more than 200,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, coast guardsmen and marines and allied forces across the middle east as commander of the u. S. Central command. He commanded forces in the persian gulf, the war in afghanistan and the iraq war. Hehe has been outspoken recenty about the president s views of military troops in domestic unrest in washington. Please join me now in welcoming doctor robert gates and general james mattis for this very unique conversation. Host thank you it is a pleasure to be here with the Commonwealth Club<\/a>, the club that has been devoted to finding truth for over 100 years. We all recognize doctor gates during his leadership role with a wealth of background. Secretary gates is my former boss, predecessor in office and inspiring role model. He was likened in one recent review is the rare footsoldier that rises to high command. Secretary gates, in reading your book, one that i would be reassured with required reading for president s and cabinet officers when they come into office, i was struck by you attribute in a large part of americas 25 year decline in status and prestige to the failure of postcold war president s and congress to recognize resource and effectively used what you call the arsenal of nonmilitary instruments of power. Can you explain this fundamental failure and the significance of the title that you chose for your buck . Guest first of all, thank you for participating in this and thanks to the Commonwealth Club<\/a> for inviting me. The book began with a question in my mind of how the United States<\/a> had gone from a position of supreme power, probably unrivaled since the roman empire in every dimension of power in 1983 to a country today that is set by challenges everywhere. I thought about how did that happen. How did we get here . So i began looking at all of the major foreignpolicy challenges they had and thinking about what they had done and what they had not done that contributed to the decline in our role in the world in our power in the world. We came up with a set of nonmilitary instruments of power that they had played such an Important Role<\/a> in our success in the cold war against the soviet union and had largely been neglected and whether after the end of the cold war. At the time that we continue to fund the military, we basically dismantled all of the nonmilitary instruments of power power, from diplomacy to economic leverage to Strategic Communications<\/a> and more. We can go into that later. And as i looked at the situations come at these challenges from somalia and haiti in 1993 and others right up to the relationship with russia and china today, north korea, it occurred to me we have failed in many respects to figure out how to compete with these powers outside of the military realm. And the reality is of the 15 challenges i write about, i considered 13 to the failures. Thats why in the title the word failure comes first. There are a couple of successes and there are some lessons to be learned from those as well, but we had a lot of problems during the 27 year period, and i would conclude by saying the war in iraq and afghanistan both began with very quick military victories and the problem that identified whether it was iraq and afghanistan were somalia or haiti or others was once we have achieved military victory, we then changed our mission. We then decided to move to trying to bring democracy and reform the governments of those countries and thats where we ran into failure. Host secretary gates, id like to go more deeply into what you just mentioned, the symphony of power. I got a few notes from your book, but can you give an overview of the type of instruments they were referring to anywhere they might be more applicable perhaps her most likely than using the Military Form<\/a> of power. And if they are not played, why arent they. Historically, what are these instruments and what do you look to to bring to the forefront . Guest the coercive instrumentforefront . Guest co. Te instruments are the military and i would say also cyber. In my opinion, cyber has actually become the most effective weapon that a nation can have because it can accomplish military, political and economic harm to ones adversary. Its difficult to identify who perpetrated the attack. It takes time to figure out attribution and the more damage was done, the more important it is to identify where the ones or zeros came from and so, cyber is a huge player now in a way that has never been before. It can dismantle or disarm weapons. It can redirect and shut down infrastructure and countries, so its a very versatile weapon and it doesnt take the kind of enormous expenditure of dollars pour money that a Nuclear Enterprise<\/a> or chemical or biological threat would represent. So i think cyber is a very important one and we have been pretty good at developing it for our military purposes, but i think that we have not taken advantage of it in an offensive way with respect to either political or economic targets. Another important instrument is clearly economic measures. These can be both carrots and sticks. The truth is as i make the point in the book, weve developed the sticks part of the economic instrument pretty well. Weve levied sanctions on any country that looks at us cross eyed, and its become actually very complicated for a lot of companies because weve got so many sanctions against countries figuring out how to do business internationally and stay within the u. S. Law and become a full price enterprise for these companies. So we got the sticks part down there pretty well. Embargoes, tariffs, sanctions and so on. Where weve fallen down and ones have real capability is how do we use economic assistance or our economy as an asset to encourage and induce other countries to do what we would like for them to do were to follow policies we would like for them to follow, whether its loans at discounts, economic concessions, trade concessions and so on. We are very good as i said at sanctions. We are not figuring out how we might advantage of someone dealing with us. President clinton and president bush were both very good with africa when they arranged debt relief for a number of african countries back in the 1990s and early 2000 is coming and that helped a lot of african countries, but that is a rare example of us using economic measures as an instrument of power. Strategic communications or, as we stick with the cold war, propaganda. How do we get our message around the world. The chinese have developed this to an extraordinary degree. Several years ago, hu jintao allocated several hundred billion dollars for the chinese to Strategic Communications<\/a> network around the world. We on the other hand in 1998 dismantled the United States<\/a> Information Agency<\/a> and talked what we call Public Diplomacy<\/a> into the corner of the state department. Various elements of the government to Strategic Communications<\/a>, but theres no coherent strategy. Each kind of goes its own way, and they also lack the capabilities and reach that the chinese have. Theres a variety of other instruments, jim, but i will mention. Things like intelligence and how we use it with other countries, science and technology, our higher education, our culture, the use of nationalism as we are. Co. Watch russia and china interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Weve failed to use their own nationalistic feelings to help build their resistance to the chinese and russians and others are doing. Religion is an important instrument. We havent thought about it in that way, but religion has played a big part in international affairs, particularly since the end of the cold war. And all you have to do is look at the role of religion and motivating to see that it has real power. We need the military and cia but why dont we summon instruments of inspiration that are so strong in america . What is the reluctance to use nonmilitary . It is a tough question to answer. Part of that congress has been reluctant to font on defend the nonmilitary instruments going back to the end of the cold war. But congress wanted us to establish the us agency for International Development<\/a> and president clinton stop that but still diminished usaid and to be starved of resources except a couple of brief periods during the george w. Bush administration but congress hates Development Assistance<\/a> they are considered a waste of time if we spend money why not here at home and how that benefits the United States<\/a> its a big part of the reason the reluctance of the congress and in all honesty the most of all for administrations to push for such funding. The irony for me as when the congress has become more resistant to military overseas they also refused to make non robust instruments i could take place of that military activity. You brought up the war in iraq and mentioned the change of mission or Mission Creep<\/a> so we go into iraq and you write as happened so often is lack of imagination how to access nongovernment civilian expertise to strengthen nonmilitary capabilities they have no appreciation of the importance of the private sector as an instrument of power. First recognize that it has something to contribute and then figure out how to make it work. It frustrated all of us in the department of defense through all afghan war experience was the relatively few number of civilian experts we were engaged in nationbuilding with very few civilian experts in country making that happen. But at the peak of our iraq we had 170,000 troops in the country with 360 civilians and all of those in the entire country of iraq so one of the things that i propose that got no traction that what we could provide help with was helping both the afghans and iraqis in terms of improving farming techniques , taking care of their herds , and because they are both world countries. So i suggested to the state department go to the land grant universities like texas a m i knew what they were doing around the world as far as faculties working in inhospitable and insecure situations go to these universities and asked them to help and augment what we are trying to do many members are already in the countries so how can we help them and provide funding and we also had the advantage of the National Association<\/a> of landgrant universities with a man named Peter Mcpherson<\/a> from Michigan State<\/a> also under president reagan to be a partner but nothing ever happened. Similarly to partner with the private sector is to figure out how we will counter the 1 trilliondollar program of infrastructure building ports and airports and highways and sports arenas around the world. A lot of them are White Elephant<\/a> projects. That countries have to pay for and then sign contracts with china that they do the construction. We cannot compete with that through their state owned enterprises can find the cash to fund the projects. We just dont have that. We are not structured that way but we have a private sector investing all over the world and how can United States<\/a> partner with private companies and incentivize them to invest and bring jobs and Environmental Concerns<\/a> and sustainability the end up being useless or saddle the countries with huge amounts of debt. We dont do much in the way to incentivize companies to move down the path and that is a resource we could make better use of. We have these churches and charities and others that do projects around the world whether in terms of health to get rid of diseases like the work of the Gates Foundation<\/a> and others often they dont want to much to do with the government but is there a way we can augment their activities to work in partnership . And how do we Work Together<\/a> . There isnt much done to move down the road. These are just three examples we havent been very imaginative to leverage our strength and translate that into efforts of what i would call shaping the International Environment<\/a> to Server National<\/a> interest. We dont have to be a altruistic it is the responsibility of the president and the government to advance American Interest<\/a> in protect them around the world. But that means you have to shape the International Environment<\/a> and these are the tools you can use. We have tried on many occasions to shape the environment not very imaginatively or successfully frankly. We have tried to help multiple countries gain peace and stability but columbia worked. Why does that stand out why did it work over failures. It was a success under multiple president s. In the nineties columbia was on the verge of coming on becoming a criminal state, a narco state. The fark was on the verge of taking control and the government but our efforts in working with the colombians to be successful in controlling and defeating the farc we had a very strong and honest person and president uribe was determined to beat the farc and he was committed to democratic principles and the rule of law and determined to lead the fight with considerable risk to himself surviving a number of assassination attempts. There already basic institutions in columbia they were week but had been established and we could help strengthen those institutions inside columbia including the police and the military but also the judicial system over the course of the colombian partnership the Justice Department<\/a> trained 40000 judges. The third reason for success i give credit to congress. They limited the number of americans who could be in columbia at any given time to help the government we were limited 400 military and 400 contractors then that eventually rose at 800 and that was set. So they had to fight the fight themselves and we had to be limited to supporting them and training them to become better to carry the fight to the farc we couldnt take over the enterprise because of the limits congress put on us we were there in support of the colombian government and that was another reason for success it was up to the colombians to solve the problem we could help that we would it run the show for them. Also this plan had bipartisan support in congress and was funded over a period of ten years by three successive president s so we had the time to make things work with the bipartisan support to get the funding so for about 10 billion over ten or 12 year. , we help the colombians put down the farc and regain control of their own country. Originally it was sold as counter narcotics to limit the cocaine coming back into the United States<\/a>. We try to bring cultural and political change the country to make it more like us to bring those democratic principles with honest government and without realizing we were trying to change thousands of years of history and the fact our own democracy evolved over time we are still facing problems created at the beginning of the United States<\/a> with the race issues we are dealing with today. And we have been working on it for over two centuries. So thinking we force this to other countries is one reason why we have been involved in these wars but also from Winston Churchill<\/a> and in late 44 he was approached of overthrowing the dictatorship and that was very supportive of the allies were trying to accomplish and they wanted him to install the democratic government he said democracy is not a harlot to be picked up on the street and the principal still exists, you cannot force a country to build a democracy. Iraq has a rudimentary democracy today they are probably the only democratic Arab Government<\/a> in the entire middle east. That the cost has been extraordinarily high and a lot of the iraqis still do not believe that she had dominated government serves their interest particularly the kurds and the sunnis so there is a tough road ahead but the failures in these countries was trying to bring social and cultural and political change using the United States<\/a> military. Our role should be to encourage democracy as we did the colombians and encourage them to move toward democracy but to bring that about overnight contributed to several of the failures which is a lack of imagination and frankly just being too ambitious i argued against the intervention in libya i didnt see we had any National Interest<\/a> at stake. You have two quotations that highlight the challenge of americas role in the world. One is to make the world safe for democracy and this is Woodrow Wilsons<\/a> approach or with John Quincy Adams<\/a> should america be the well wisher for their freedom and independence of all but only champion of her own democracy . So when you are confronting events in the world that may not be a vital interest but as we watch the and people on the streets of hong kong or other places where they try to bring about democracy but there are autocrats to say not on my watc watch. Where does america go forward . And when by using the symphony of powers and how do we do this . What is that look like in your vision . John quincy adams has another quotation in the same document we shouldnt go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. In other words to go look for trouble. Wilson and John Quincy Adams<\/a> have to coexist. From the beginning of our republic we have seen ourselves as the city on the hill as an example for the rest of the world to follow. As part of foreignpolicy to do all we could to advance the interest of democracy and reform of Political Rights<\/a> where i draw the line is using the military to make that happen. You cannot force a country into democracy they have to be developed one of the lines we all used with having one election is not synonymous it is based on the rule of law and institutions and the role we can play to help them develop this is where the civilian part of these instruments of power is so important because our people helping them develop their own institutions and encouraging those developments. Usaid and private foundations in the United States<\/a> funded a huge number of nongovernmental organizations in russia in the 19 nineties to encourage Democratic Institutions<\/a> and the rule of law it is evident those were working in the 2000s is Vladimir Putin<\/a> eliminated all of the ngos to work in russia. At some point there were thousands and thousands and now just a handful so we could use a variety of tools including intelligence capability and covert action the cia covert action played a role to take on the communist regime with free institutions that support solidarity to the Catholic Church<\/a> and Pope John Paul<\/a> ii cia and the American Labor<\/a> union you have these instruments to encourage those to bring democracy for their own country to help them strengthen those institutions but its us helping them not trying to force it on them. But you noted the state run economy and money going into certain places that could never repay it and develop some degree and with those sovereign decisions. Hand it weakens us in this competition that china will the china model which is clearly authoritarian. Women to take a moral stance as we look at our role in the world. And by the allies or even moral sovereignty. Where do we stand in this competition . And as much as we love it and in the history of the world and a unique force for good is still flawed and were seeing the results of that most of the cities the last few weeks but we do stand for some things and its not the accident on Tiananmen Square<\/a> in the spring of 1989 that the Chinese Students<\/a> erected a statue the goddess of liberty that looked a lot like the statue of liberty in new york harbor and the hong kong protesters are waving the American Flag<\/a> not an accident that during the push back on the Iranian Regime<\/a> a few months ago after they shot down the airliner that they had painted American Flag<\/a> on the steps of their schools and people were Walking Around<\/a> the flag to not step on it. The rest of the world knows we are flawed but also knows but to consistently try to get better. We know what we believe in and we work every day to make actions coincide with our belief in what we profess to admire in democratic countries. We do need to be a model and frankly were not a very good model right now politics are paralyzed whether immigration or education or infrastructure. We still have to battle racial injustice. But we are trying and other countries recognize that and as we profess our ideal in the ideology is and to be admired around the world. But the 2008 and 2009 economic crisis and the one that they wanted to emulate. Economic inequality is a problem with the economic model they want to follow. And the names they called each other would fit today in their campaigns. And the inability to get big things done because they are frozen at the federal level. Everybody seems to forget what makes the system work is compromise. Right now president xi is pointing to all the problems we have here at home economic and political and he is arguing to the rest of the world that the chinese model. And then they have this incredible 21st century infrastructure and we get things done. Our model is the one we should look to and there are countries that look at the chinese and say may be their approach is better than the american approach. There ideology and belief and capitalism with a lot of repair work to do here at home. And america stands for freedom and human and Political Rights<\/a>. That is our ace in the hole we just have to work to make that more credible. But right now we have a competition in the world that will go on for quite a while. And the conflict between democracy and authoritarianism. I think the only lets left in the world is in china or france or if you american universities. Communism is dead but authoritarianism has deep roots that is the danger. We defeated it twice and then to address the problems to move forward as a country with our ability to defeat authoritarianism will be at risk. Its a very long answer but i believe and to propound the ideology it is not a liability. And what that represents to others so how does america do it . We learn something from it and acknowledge we have to improve and we roll up our sleeves and do it. The paralysis prevents the last part to roll up the sleeves and fix things at this point. Knowingly have young people watching watching washington dc why should they go into government and going through good times and bad what you say to the young people watching today about Government Service<\/a> of what i consider to be the very hard work and noble work to build a country . Why should i follow doctor gates to put my lifes work in . At the end of your life you dont want to look back and see you only lived for yourself. George h. W. Bush, once said the only way to have a full life you must have some measure of public service. Public service has never been easy. We get focused as we were just headed into the heart of the vietnam war in 1966, join the National Security<\/a> Council Staff<\/a> a few months before nixon resigned, i used to tell people joining at that time was like signing up as a i cant on the titanic after hitting the iceberg. Watergate, the seventies, and more. You have to believe in what we stand for as a country. And to play a part to make us better no matter how jaded or tough someone will see on the outside and in her heart of hearts with the romantics and optimist to believe we can make it a better place to live. Is the only place you can service at the federal level. What we have seen with the coronavirus and then the state to leadership. You dont have to go to work for the cia. I hope you do but you can work at the state level and to help fellow citizens. And their rights as citizens what you never hear anything is what they talk about is their obligation. Anyone who puts their life at risk it doesnt seem too much to ask of others regardless of age to find a way to serve the country at some level. One of the things i have seen there is an extraordinary degree of volunteerism in high schools and colleges and with young people today than most my age which is now the Largest University<\/a> in the country i have land the military with millions of young people and then with the idealism and then they stopped out volunteerism as they have been to get on with their lives. You dont have to be fulltime to make a contribution. I notice in my own hometown and with cove it keeps many home because they are vulnerable we have High School Kids<\/a> volunteering to come in. , world war ii marine it doesnt have to be a perfect country to be worth fighting for but always be improving. We need people to fight for it. With the local School Districts<\/a> or city council. And it has to do with us military are we in danger of the military being used as a tool of intimidation . And in some confidence it is the strength with the retired senior military. And with Lafayette Square<\/a> and the appearance of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Every single one who loves to use the military. So they want the military to be the backdrop. And what happens with Lafayette Square<\/a> and with the benefit with the apology to be at the wrong place at the wrong time but also the acknowledgment it was not the right thing to do. And in all fairness and they didnt know what they were getting into. So with that pushback against the politicalization of the military and the reassertion to remain a political it is like that bright red line to not get involved of partisan politics. And then the president s oppose the use of the insurrection act to use regular military troops domestically is that with the are many and the National Guard<\/a>. And that is the killer enemy. It has many purposes you are likely to see the National Guard<\/a> handing out food at the food bank or sandbagging or help in a Natural Disaster<\/a> we can see them fight in afghanistan and iraq. They are trained in crowd control, they are from the city they are deployed. They have to take off the uniform and go back to work the next day dealing with the people they may have been facing in a demonstration. They are citizen soldiers with a different approach. I didnt see anything in Lafayette Square<\/a> or any of the others that are taking place that i didnt think could have been affected one effectively handled by local Law Enforcement<\/a> and augmented by the National Guard<\/a> and people need to understand was no need for troops. It is heartening because every once in a while there is a situation that reminds you of principles as people take a breath and a step back and cooler heads prevail. But to go back to the themes in your book how should the us reestablish itself through its allies . And any objective review is a network of allies to put troops in the field. How do we reestablish with our allies talking about things being tarnished is pretty clear a lot of allies are partners dont have that same degree of confidence as we look to the future. It seems like Winston Churchill<\/a> has a possible when the only thing worse from having allies is not having allies and this is one thing that disturbs me of our current foreignpolicy with a unique American Asset<\/a> that i discussed in the book. Russia and china have to allies and people have a history of working together. Nobody pressure allies harder than i did to increase defense spending. That doesnt mean we walk away from them if they are unsuccessful at doing that. But just to take it out of the military. And then to make those structural changes the way they operate to work with foreign businesses and investors and then on our side of the table right now the europeans in the japanese and australians. We must change make changes and the chinese love to deal bilaterally because they can intimidate them. They hate a multilateral situation arguing with them with their policies and the countries telling the ministry of defense how offensive their aggression actions in the South China Sea<\/a> but i dont understand the unwillingness in washington right now to understand that and actually a change of rhetoric and then to consult with the allies to present a strategic case to adjust our position to take into account there is nothing sacrosanct 25 or 35000 troops in germany and may be there is a reason to move those two poland or somewhere else but that should flow from a discussion from our allies and the strategy of what is behind it and not leave the impression weve made the decision to take 9500 troops out of germany because the president is annoyed with angela merkel. When Condoleezza Rice<\/a> tells generals and admirals she waved her finger at us i didnt realize it was 18 inches long when she wanted to make a point and she said remember gentlemen we will do things with our allies not to our allies. Echoing your point exactly. The person was to thank you for your leadership and your servic service. We can respond to that part we dont care if you are male or female or republican or democrat were not interested in he went to bed with but this person goes on to say is there anything you missed working in washington dc . It is the opportunity to interact with the young people in uniform. I was joking before the era was probably the only person in washington going to iraq and afghanistan for rest and relaxation. To see the 22 yearolds men and women who are out there who are doing their part in the desire to help them and then to fight the political fight and washington i spent a lot of time in washington they went through everything with the for confirmation process not all of them are a lot of fun. Nothing like picking up the Washington Post<\/a> on your driveway in the morning wondering what disaster will face you that day and what is illegal you have to deal with and really that was a special treat. And with a colleagues that i have there is enough amazing men and women and i do miss that interaction but thats the only thing that i miss. This is a pleasure and to study the history so there is one enduring lesson with one last question. So what is the lesson and hopefully we will read it again . But those who wish us ill she would be making a historically bad decision to underestimate american resilience and the ability to solve our problems to fix what is wrong or make progress toward a more Perfect Union<\/a> that we have. The other lesson that goes back to the constitution to remember the constitution itself is a bundle very significant compromises it only works with compromise and that everybody has to come out again and we are all in this together. Nobody gets their way all the time in every way. So how to compromise how to move the ball forward. Reagan was one of my favorite president s and to be pragmatic and the attitude is that if she could get on he could get 60 percent from the congress he would take it pocket and go back again to get the other 40. He always tried to get everything he wanted been understood he couldnt but half a loaf is better than nothing. I wish are leaders across the political spectrum would remember that lesson from american history. And then it is critical its good to see you again even add a social distance. And with that postworld war ii we encourage you to buy a copy and said its your elected leaders and we also express our appreciation to everyone joining us online we have a wide range of virtual programs please visit the website for information this meeting is adjourned welcome to the Hudson Institute<\/a> were here to talk about the kill","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia601908.us.archive.org\/16\/items\/CSPAN2_20200821_044700_Robert_Gates_Exercise_of_Power\/CSPAN2_20200821_044700_Robert_Gates_Exercise_of_Power.thumbs\/CSPAN2_20200821_044700_Robert_Gates_Exercise_of_Power_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}