Weve heard that Michael Jordan was coming. Stand up. [laughter] but they cute all of you for your support. There is a reception there people there to show you to the rest of the building. Think you for your time. God bless. Uponudible conversations] nonfiction books and authors. Booktv. Org. Booktv continues now with Angelo Codevilla who says u. S. Leaders have forgotten that the Founding Fathers placed the pursuit of peace as the highest objective of american states craft and that this goal was lost during the 20th century and must be regained for the u. S. To thrive in the future. This is about an hour. [applause] well, thank you, john, and welcome to the heritage foundation. Peace has ever been mankinds desire, and yet throughout history war has been his common practice. Well, consider the major conflicts of just the 20th century in which america has fought; world war i, world war ii, the korean war, the vietnam war, the iraqi war i and ii, the afghan war and, of course, the cold war. In the wake of each war came the question, how can we make and more importantly how can we keep peace with other nations, or are we doomed as in George Orwells apocalyptic novel 1984 to a state of perpetual war . One way is peace through strength, a basic principle of the Reagan Administration and a principal reason why the cold war ended at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield. Another path to peace is to rely on state craft, drowned bed in the principles grounded in the aprils of liberty and principles of liberty and equality. Sometimes the americans, early statesmen approved limited military and political intervention overseas. They took their lead from the roman adage if you want peace, prepare for war. But how far have we strayed from these principles . Have we become the policemen of the world in our laudable desire to extend freedom . Have we adopted a policy of nation building regardless of the wishes of the nation we seek to rebuild . In his newest book, to make and keep peace, Angelo Codevilla says that our 20th century and 31st century 21st century leaders have con fused peace and war as well as the worlds wishes. They have forgotten if they ever knew the lessons of the past and neglected the wisdom of the founders. Dr. Codevilla offers no easy answers, insisting that peace requires that we make friendship with each other at home and avoid the near occasions of war abroad. Our guest is superbly qualified to explore the many dimensions of peace. Professor of emeritus of International Relations at boston university, a former Research Fellow at the hoover institution, a senior staff member of the u. S. Senate select committee on intelligence, exforeign Service Officer and naval officer, the author of 14 books and numerous articles and leading publications here and abroad and possessor of one of the sharpest minds in the realm of public policy. Ladies and gentlemen, please join many he in giving a warm heritage welcome to the author of to make and keep peace, dr. Angelo codevilla. [applause] thank you, lee. I hope i can keep you awake the next few minutes. I would move to write this book by i was moved to write this book by a commercial that i heard on fox news for the Wounded Warrior project, an eminently worthy cause. The commercial, the solicitation was accompanied by a plaintive song that asked us to say a prayer for peace. That got me a bit angry, quite a bit angry. Suppose, i said to myself, that you had been paying plumbers to fix your houses pipes. The pipes still leaked, and someone said to owe, say a prayer someone said to you say a prayer for your pipes. [laughter] youd say, well, god has nothing to do with my pipes. I didnt hire god to fix my pipes, i hired those plumbers, and the pipes are still leaking. They didnt do their job. Theres something wrong with the plumbers. Whats wrong with the plumbers . We hired statesmen to superintend our business of peace and war for the purpose of providing us with peace and instead they have given us war without end. War which they have no intention of ending. War which they seem happy enough to continue superintending. Why . Whats wrong with that . Why dont we have peace . Well, that, of course, is the reason; that they do not have the intention be of creating peace. Why dont they . Well, because if you look, if you go to any of the u. S. Governments academic venues, you see that they are, that they, that they preach what one might call the cliffs notes version of klaus wits; namely, according to them, that war and peace are not distinguishable, that International Affairs is a seamless continuum between ordinary business and mutual destruction. That, of course, is not what the dictionaries say. Dictionaries are quite clear about what war is and what peace is. Not so the u. S. Government, not so statesmen, not so, in fact, much of the academic literature today. Hence, it is not surprising that our National Discourse on the subject of war and peace is a sterile confrontation between neoconservatives who see as president bush articulated in his 2005 second inaugural is a process by which we try to secure the worlds freedom, believing that we will not enjoy freedom ourselves unless every other nation is free. Many, of course, will never be free. And a libertarian illusion that we can somehow awe void the res of avoid the rest of the world. The common sense of the ages is quite against that. Most recently a wall street journal New York Times poll showed that a Strong Majority of the American People believe that the u. S. Government should be less active in the world, but at the same time the same poll showed that a majority of the American People wanted the u. S. Government to be much more assertive against americas enemies in the world. Now, Mainstream Media read that as a kind of contradiction in the american mind. Well, of course it is no such thing. In fact, the opinions of the American People reflect the wisdom of the ages; namely, that one ought to seek peace, seek to stay out of trouble, but that one ought to earn that peace by being terribly assertive, terribly so against our enemies. We have failed to do that, and my book is an attempt to rekindle our attention to the basic fact that the basic objective, the natural objective of state craft is the provision of peace. We do not deal states ought not to be dealing with foreign nations in order to deal with foreign nations. International recommendations is not an end in itself just as plowing fields is not an end in itself, but rather an end to the crops that one wishes to produce. The purpose of International Relations so that we may lead here at home the life that we wish to lead. The purpose be of securing the purpose of securing peace abroad is to secure peace among ourselves at home. And it just so happens that failure to secure peace, to earn peace among foreign nations really does tend the bring about the loss of peace among ourselves. One of historys more pown i cant teachings poignant teachings from the pell to news january war is that sparta and athens destroyed their own domestic peace by failing to fight one another with the purpose of somehow bringing that fight to an end. Nature tells us that the purpose of movement is to come to some sort of rest. The purpose of any the natural purpose of any activity is the product of of that activity. And so the natural purpose of International Affairs and of the most active part of International Affairs which, of course, is war is securing rest and peace. Now, my book begins with a clarification about the nature of peace; namely, that there is no is such thing as peace simply, but there are only such instances of peace from time to time as anyone, as any nation is capable of earning for itself. All instances of peace are somebodys peace against somebody elses version of peace. And they are maintained only insofar as those who established it are willing to maintain it. Again, there is nothing permanent about peace just as there is naturally nothing permanent about any war. Now, the understanding that peace is a natural priority is not natural to mankind. Mankind is really no stranger to the animal kingdoms tendency to regard other members of its species as troubles or natural prey. Only a few civilizations have understood that only only one civilization, really, the judeochristian civilization has understood that peace is preferable to war, that rest is preferable to constant movement. And that understanding comes from an understanding that man kind is one, that the differences between peoples is considerably smaller than the difference between any human being and any member of any other species. That understanding has both christian and classical greek intellectual roots. Embodying that understanding in state craft, of course, was a, was and continues to be a struggle both intellectual and moral. The clearest elaboration of the proposition that the natural end of state craft is peace, of course, is a christian one. You see it in, of course, most clearly jesus rely to pilate about his kingdom, his kingdom, he said, is not of this world. Jesus gods kingdom is not of this world. St. Augustin elaborated that point. Christians, he said, should be indifferent to the fate of the roman empire because the fate of individual souls is far more important than what happens to any group of people. Hence, the primacy in christian thought of peace which is the condition most conducive to men pursuing their highest potentiality, the highest purpose of which theyre capable; namely, contemplation of service to god. In the same way, greek thought disposes us to follow what it understands to be mans naturally highest and most peculiar purpose. That is also to be pursued most easily, host conveniently, most naturally most conveniently, most naturally in a state of peace. Now, embodying that insight into practice, structures and practice of state craft, as i say, has been the work of ages. We finish there has always we, there has always been a contrary tendency even within our civilization beginning in the 15th century, the rise of europes kingdoms tended to equate goodness with the success of monarchs. Monarchs who placed their own primacy ahead of peace. Hence, monarchs conceived of themselves as in a natural state of war against one another. Modern political thought beginning with machiavelli and hobbs imagined nothing but a natural state of conflict and did not see any goodness in the pursuit of anything other than primacy. Involve certainly a crude fat of human freedom and human freedom of course implies the fact that some humans will be rapacious towards others and of course makes it necessary for people to defend themselves violently more often than not. But what it does to us again to highlight christian thought does is to focus on the natural purpose. The American Revolution was in fact a revolution against both the absolute power evidence and against the ireland priorities of most governments. This really must be very clearly understood that the American Revolution of establishing work handinhand with the revolutionaries privacy with the privacy of peace in the American Revolutionaries thought. Some arguments have been made by some conservatives that americanstatesman covered the americanstatesman of the founding era were concerned with peace because they were not Strong Enough to prevail a war that had they been stronger they would if in fact use the force of their understanding of the right way to live upon other nations. There is precisely zero evidence for that in the thought of the early americans. I would simply be the declaration of independence is very clear that the revolution was secure for americans right which are common to all men in all places, including the right to selfgovernment regardless of the nature of the government. The americans were also clear that they can figure themselves peculiarly blasts in having the kind of moral habit, which made possible by way of life. They did not expect the habits was buried quickly a federal. In fact, they noticed even indigenous effort to spread the american form of government founded on the fact that the rest of the world was really not too two kinds of moral habit that the American People had enjoyed in that these were habit existed precariously among americans. The american focus on peace went along with the fairly conventional and proper understanding that steep craft acquires, like everything in untruth of life requires a clear jealous concatenation of evidence it means that one must make sure that one has the means to secure whatever claims one makes and make no claims others in the claims that were disabled to support. This of course is all different from the notion to have in hand the money necessary to pay for purchases, to pursuing certain goods that the ability to pay for them except the very least quixotic. So both of these inside, unnecessary contact to nation and the priority of peace really work behind the paradigm of International Relations at the founding generation. Most clearly set forth by John Quincy Adams in the top dream in the explanation therefore. The monnot doctrine, contrary to contemporary misunderstandings there a to contemporary misunderstandings there a had nothing to do with asserting over the americas, but rather it was a statement of priorities on the part of the americans that came not from John Quincy Adams, but which john and cnns summed up on behalf of the founding generation of which he was the last one. Not consistent of the realization that what happened on the other side of the ocean would concern the native state relatively little insofar as its concerned, with simply concerned them. Of course, John Quincy Adams was perfectly aware of the argument made at the time that had napoleon been able to consolidate his mastery not only in europe, betting line is so inherent in able to dominate the notions as well as the european continent, that would propose future mendes danger to america. And had europe as a whole, had the Holy Alliance been able to control all latin america, and i would propose he nor ms. Danger to the United States. In fact, the monnot. Turn was premised on his confidence that this could not happen and that they another witness contending interests within europe to keep that from happening. Had it been otherwise, his formulation of the monnot. Turn was formulated on the basis of his near certainty that no single power could dominate eurasia and therefore threaten the United States. Abraham lincoln, who i spoke followed John Quincy Adams during his one and only term in the house of representatives and his secretary of state William Seward later they were shipped John Quincy Adams knew in his own diocese stated in 1838, all of the powers of europe disposing of the worlds treasures could not by force make a track on the blue ridge or take a turn for the hato in the trial of a thousand years. The problem is lincoln by, the problem that america would face would be not so much the threat of foreign nations, but rather the great enmity that was growing among americans come with a tendency regard each other as enemies. The issue of slavery of course being the greatest of the causes, but realizing i cite George Washington that there are many many causes are occasions for strife among our own people. Of course, George Washington had pointed out she had experienced that americans divisions over Foreign Affairs were a major cause of this loss, this always potentially fatal loss of friendship among the American People. And so, Abraham Lincolns palace e. , domestic and foreign, policy regarding peace and more was always primarily at safeguarding and then somehow restoring this friendship among the American People. Of course he faced the problem in the worst circumstances when in fact doing so required defeating the one part of the american polity, which had taken arms against the other. And yet and yet, we see especially from his second inaugural get Abraham Lincoln aimed above all the unity of the country has restoring up friendship. Unfortunately for america, the people who covered in america afters death engaged in a very different policy, one which can best be described as americas First Venture in nationbuilding, the remaking of the defeated south, first of all considering the defeated south as a defeated nation, which lincoln was absolutely loathed to do. And then reshaping it according to some thought, some might feel or at least better way of life. That of course turned into an occasion for continuing violence and continuing to feeling among americans. Fulfilling, which lasted years and which summon their time are attempting to revive for the very same reason why the erratic republicans of the 1860s and 70s indulged that feeling mainly for their own political advantage and four their selfimage. Nevertheless, the priority of domestic peace return to america albeit overly unsellable is put in jeopardy and narrow century in the 20th century by which her wilsons adoption of the notion diocese said in his dress of february 2, 1917, that the American Republic existed for no other purpose, has no other reason than to somehow improve the rest of mankind. Not only to improve americans lesser ame