All around washington but nonetheless reflecting a real divergence and breadth of thinking, experience and approach. In thinking about these kinds of conflicts with a lot of broad strategic expertise and also a lot of Field Research and handsonexpertise. This struggle is at the new American Engagement Initiative at the Selikoff Center at the Atlantic Council. He has a longstanding scholar, many will know him from his years at the Cato Institute and his most recent book is hes, war and liberty. He is also a former navy officer and is in many ways one of the great skeptics and contrary invoices in American Foreign policy and strategy thinking today who has prolonged time and were pleased to have them with us se in this event read chuck and logan Catholic University is at that center for study and statesmanship, used to be cato as well and is recently written an important article in defense priorities call the case for withdrawing from the middle east and is an advocate of minimizing us monetary footprints and in some ways i think its fair to say that a broad level of progress all of us are advocates of minimizing the footprint to the extent possible as much as todays debate or conversation and it will have a little of itthe flavor of both is just how you do that and how much engagement is reasonable and desirable or to what extent is around in some places with some degree of presence at least the least bad option for American NationalSecurity Policy and getting into that kind of topic with real expertise on south asia is my friend and colleague, maria also who is s an expert on both afghanistan and pakistan, wrote an excellent book a couple of years ago called pakistan under siege. One of the best modern studies on pakistan and i recommend it to anyone and ask many of my students in recent years to read it. She is a David Rubenstein fellow and continues to work on the broader south asia pakistan afghanistan theater as well as nigeria and shes also interested in education and influences peoples fl attitudes toward the state and extremism and finally a good friend and colleague beth brown who has done some of the most extraordinary research ive ever witnessed or read about without throughout much of the world including certainly in the Central Command theater, broader middle east. Of the places where shes done or most impressive Field Research in somalia and afghanistan. Where she is famous or not just hunkering down and a relatively safe green zone to those places which is where you will usually find me if im ever in a place like afghanistan but in the field talking to people, seeing whats happening on the ground remarkable bravery and a lot of preparatory work to make sure that she can get out into the field in places where she will be able to learn so much from her work. She is an ongoing and very active expert in all matters afghanistan, pakistan and brookings but continues to research as well. Drug trafficking, pandemic disease origins, wildlife markets in places like indonesia, china, brazil, mexico and elsewhere. So were delighted to have you join us as well in the audience and we will look forward to your talks in the latter part ofthis discussion. Wanda will have to leave us a few minutes before two but were going to start by my posing a broad question about what have we gotten right and what have we gotten wrong in the last 20 years or so in the middle east and then ill have a similarly broad question foreach panelist thereafter. But on the second round here with us than both of you and your questions so again, very pleased to have you herewith us today and chris, without further ado , the floor is yours my friend. Next to brookings and the institute for monitoring this event. I think that my remarks will be mostly to try to set the concept that i think is helpful and every once in a while to ask how is it that we got here and how is it that were referring to the forever war. Was it truly a forever war or did it start somewhere . Can i speak candidly, it did start after 9 11 and you all know why. I think if you sent to someone on september 10, 2001 at 19 years hence the United States would be spending 5. 5 trillion, would have lost the lives of over 7000 american citizens and women, 52,000 wounded, perhaps an equal number of 7000 or more contractors killed, the project has good data on this. And perhaps 800,000 civilians killed in the various orders initiated after 9 11. They would be surprised i think and say how did this all happen and again we go back to the wereason why it all happened was because of the terrific trauma of the terrorist attacks on september 11, 2001 and the way the United States and other countries around the world reacted after that horrific event. And i think that sometimes, from time to time policy is what it is and policies dont change unless someone changes them. But its part of the reason why we have stayed on this path is because the political incentives to make the dramatic change have not been sufficient to do so. And people come along, i recall that john kerry in 2004 said that he thought that terrorism should be reduced to a nuisance problem. He was viciously attacked for not taking it seriously enough. Even people like john mccain or Mike Bloomberg at various stages said the terrorism problem had beenexaggerated and sometimes he got away with it and sometimes he didnt. So i think its helpful every once in a while to ask if this money spent, lives lost, is it necessary to keep the United States safe, is actually necessary to reduce the risks of future acts of terrorism and so far i havent seen any better assessment of this and my former colleague john mueller whose a fellow course and longtime professor at Ohio State University who is coauthor with mark stewart but back in 2013 estimated that for the cost of what weve espent on counterterrorism since 9 11, we would have do believe that those Counterterrorism Measures were responsible for stopping roughly 1667 times square type attacks. An attack that was attempted back in 2010 in other words work such attacks every single day. And if we dont believe those various measures that had been taken over the broad rubric of the war on terrorism and the forever war are actually essential for useful in stopping both sorts of terrorist attacks, i think we should wonder whether trillion dollars, 5. 5 trillion might have been better spent elsewhere and more portly might have wondered with her ehundreds of thousands of lives lost along the way were these people would still bealive today. Very much for excellent framing of the questions. Now id like to turn to delia and asked, i know youre no fan of unnecessary deployment to the broader south asia or afghanistan theater ive also read enough of your work to know that youre not of the view that pulling out now would be the smartest decision either i wondered if you could tell us a little bit about your thinking on both afghanistan and pakistan and how we should think about them in the context of the socalled forever wars andthe incoming by ministration area over to you margaret. Thanks mike. Yes, exactly. I think im more gains in the forever war but on policy options, in washington, both increasingly framed as a choice, i know that we should lead better now and we choose staying forever, i think that an untold framing. Th i think theres a middleoftheroad option that forgotten about and thats that we should commit to maintaining a small presence in afghanistan. Until about the deal between the taliban and kabul is achieved this will take a few years, maybe even five years. Ak but thats the hope. During the debates, other painstaking process of negotiation between thetwo parties. Though im not saying that the deal struck in february should be abandoned. Im working within the gray area of the deal as they are and the fact that the conditions were put in place not been met today. So until a pc is achieved, my argument is that it benefits both artists and the United States. This kabul leverage to negotiate the best possible deal is kind of with the comment and crucially try to forbear gains in human rights. And and a good outcome for afghanistan was america, both in terms of our objective of counterterrorism but also in terms of america and the region because we should be clear that any core outcomes in afghanistan down the road will be seen as americas failure and the failure of this forever war. I know that thinking of that war as a forever war is unhelpful because the war has ground down for america but we would be at west end 2 to 3 percent of the height of our resins there. And so all this terminology serves is to make us a politically charged question and unnecessarily politically charged. Id also argue that saying that nothing good can come of gains misses a window of opportunity that we have a with the start of the negotiations there because there are peace negotiations but if we leave now, if we dont leave now that we will fall into that in afghanistan to a greater degree and i dont think thats necessarily accurate. On the contrary if we do leave now the cost is high and we should be clear the future looks grim if we do leave now and dependent on violence and civil war and its ultimately about the sentence, not to sound too grim but thats what it looks like. Just two more points quickly. I think President Trumps decision to wind down troops to 500 which in the last few days is, the conditions for doing this have not been met but hes weakened not only the american position butthat of our allies. And so kabuls position and the only party this benefits is the towel. Then biden comes into power in january he has little room to maneuver and i think the ability to have leverage over the taliban, the ability to pressure the taliban as we need to do the comes thatmuch harder. Perhaps its a possibility that this can be done in thwith 2500 troops. My sense is hes going to increase troops right away not in terms of the first decision we take but thats unpopular but i do think that as President Biden in 2021 thinks a few thousand troops more are what we need to ensure a better outcome, then you should take that decision that if we need to go up to id 4500 again and we should make that decision and we may eventually. The word on pakistan, i think the question of afghanistan has been central to our relationship with pakistan. And of course i found action have affectedhow the war in afghanistan has gone. But i think the last two years and have been on for pakistan. Its been awful in the Peace Process and the relationship between the two o companies so i argue that the best time for us to have a relationship with pakistan is afghan he saw as sumptuous because the people of afghanistan, we can focus on other things in that relationship. Whereas with afghanistan defends due to history was lost, country would become a proxy war and a number of other countries will get done in that pakistan might as well and that is not a good outcome for anyone. Delia, somewhat. The next welcome any stage of the conversation in regards to the topicbefore i welcome argument your paper. So the floor is yours my friend. So much. Thank you for monitoring moderating and install the panelist for participant really happy thanksgiving and as happy as it can be for everybody is watching. Chris is argued that something has gone wrong with the forever war. We dont know how much longer theyre going to go on. They quite clearly failed to achieve the aims that we gradually expanded over time. S i think you can tell a different story where in 2002 you say it was a blow to al qaeda and sent a message to the al qaeda and taliban i want to expand on the what chris said because as you mentioned in your paper i would argue that the so thto achieve their aim that we failed greater honor. He felt power with global and so i think what will animate my remarks here is an interest in trying to situation the greater middle east in a broader strategic, context. When i look at was traditional measures of power. If you look at the greater middle east it seems about 3. 3 percent of world gdp is on its way down because of oil prices, closer to three percent but the world gdp is depending on how you can take between 3 and a half and five percent of the World Population and no country in the region can forget power outside the borders. Iran cant conjure saudi arabia, saudi arabia, iran, the idea of original oil on his back. Sometimes we have these discussions, what should we do, how can we put the iraqis back in syria and this paper says what do we actually need from syria in a broader strategic contact pipe next. In looking at that i threw on the word on our seemed moderator Michael Hamlin to try to get a handle on what we stand on the persian gulf mission, the sort of broader middle east mission and its not an exact science as everyone knows what on the order of about 70 billion a year in peacetime in addition to the 5 and a half trillion dollars chris mentioned if you can rack, afghanistan and the post9 11 wars. At real money. Thats basically the sort of argument to say 70 billion a year to this . I looked at what we worry about the greater middle east, what are the concerns re we think this resource expenditure warrants. What are they after action mark and i basically concluded that oil is real and terrorism are the main things, their deeply in nonproliferation is a reason that we can talk about i looked about what we worry about when it comes to oil markets. What we worry about when it comes to israel and what we worry about when it comes to terrorism may conclude that having 50, 60, 70,000 troops in this part of the world is not necessary to protect what are actually limited threats to those interests and im happy to go into those in the q a because this is an extremely bitesize version of the argument but i think the central problem here is that the United States has had so few internal and external constraints on its Foreign Policy, its been able to spend a lot of money, almost Unlimited Money times on both mefunds and the absence of strategy is about choice and the countries dont have any need to choose their strategies have become extravagant and i think thats part ofthe problem. Justin, peggy. One quick clarifying question before i go on just to make sure that i understand the soul of your analysis and the term middle east as it used in many different ways. When you talk about 3 to 3 and a half percent ofWorld Population, that your definition of the middle east . From the eastern med to afghanistan, including afghanistan but not including turkey. I have to go back andlook at turkey. One way or another 10th of a percentage point. Thank you for those and now honda over to you and your intriguing on this issue likeeveryone because again , youve been such a soul work of the afghanistan conflict that i believe its fair to say you explain in this market that you have decided these process requires a look at the us military posture and a different approach and of course i very much eagerly anticipate your thoughts on somalia as well so my friend over to you. You might. Leslie, a bit on the comments and its something that justin phsaid. Thats when these things we think about us military engagement, in situations such as afghanistan, somalia or iraq, is to think not solely in terms of the developments and in the us interest and dividends on the ground but also be politicals. This is rarely done in us strategy where once engagement is launched, the predominant way looks at how to make the missions succeed. Rwhether its a military mission or other mission. The second fact that we often go into is thinking that a part of us interests including a very real counterterrorism interest imply boots on the ground. This is us military deployment and this is particularly true about every us interest such as human rights, us economic context. As well as the other geopolitical competition. Those are all very very important interests and we dont want to see us policy lose those interests and frankly those values. This is where we are symptomatic and those are important interests and objectives does not mean they should also be addressed to the deployment particularly. [inaudible] the third point i would make is that there is a real risk of policy that rarely falls into the trap of the tyranny where if you look at engagement and say you have these model efforts we would want to focus on the much more psychologically uncomfortable, much more emotionally uncomfortable utility and marginal cost so ta when we spend 14 billion each year on maintaining our military deployment in afghanistan, we have to ask where else could we put that money . That amount of money could prevent biodiversity degradation around the world. It has significant impacts on preventing a pandemic and a more crucial impact on preventing the pandemic and we see g the devastation of economies, we wouldnt have uthat with development of this period. Yet rarely if you look at the efforts, we also went into couple of the analysis of marginal utility marginal cost with prospects for success and how those change all the time. This is in my view the thing being that we should be applying to the decisions on how we gave engage rather than the notion that strategy looks a certain way always for that scrutiny of rights and affected interests of certain military deployments. Let me come to some of the specifics that you asked very quickly y in afghanistan. First of all i want to emphasize in both afghanistan and somalia even if one mixes that the withdrawal of us forces is right, that doesnt mean withdrawal also be spent at one moment is particularly like area for example somalia is among the top of parliamentary and president ial elections. Can easily end up mbin violence or in the entire region, the tensions between member state governments are at an alltime high drawing us right now as opposed to wasting federal months to get the elections simply quickly amplifies an enormously combustible situation. There is no need to do and i look forward to that policy. Im asking what is the marginal effect, the marginal utility of those deployments. As we wind up a few comments on afghanistan. I agree with the analysis that the you pres