Future of warfare. There has never been a Silver Bullet solution to war. You had the submarine. You had the southern. You about the bomber, the radar. You had the machine gun, the tank. We have to recognize our future adversaries are going to have some capabilities we have now and be able to disrupt what they perceive as our strengths. What are our answers to that . I think its a balance joint force who can play rock, paper, scissors with anybody. Rose Anders Fogh Rasmussen and h. R. Mcmaster when we continue. Theres a saying around here you stand behind what you say. Around here, we dont make excuses, we make commitments. And when you cant live up to them, you own up and make it right. Some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where its needed most. But i know youll still find it, when you know where to look. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Rose all 28 nato Foreign Ministers concluded a twoday meetinmeeting in brussels today. It is the first time the group has met since russias annexation of crimea. In response, nato has suspended all practical cooperation with russia. Has also ordered draft measures to strengthen its defenses and reassure numerous Eastern European arkansasalize. Joining me is Anders Fogh Rasmussen, natos secretary general. I am pleased to have him back on this program. Thank you very much, mr. Secretary general, its good to have you back. Youre welcome. Rose tell me what you mean when you say nato suspends all practical cooperation with russia and that it means certainly that no more business as usual . Would you elaborate . Yeah, we have decided to suspend all political and all military and civilian practical cooperation with russia as a response to russias illegal military action in ukraine. So it means that a number of cooperation projects, where we have coomented with russia, will now be suspended. Some of them will continue, but without participation of russia. Rose youre waiting for russia to withdraw froops from the ukraine border. When do you expect that to happen . Well oorkts difficult to speak about expectations here because we have seen a very determined russian action in crimea, but we urge russia to pull back its troops, to live up to her international obligations, and engage in a constructive dialogue with ukraine, sooner rather than later. Rose do you believe that the russians will withdraw troops from the border . Have they given you any indication they will . No indication whatsoever. We saw some media reports that the russians might have started withdrawal of some troops, but we have no information that can confirm this information. So what we are witnessing is a very massive Russian Military buildup along the ukrainian borders, and we have no indications that they have started withdrawal. Rose and so what else can nato do . Well, we are focused on the defense of our allies, collective defense is a core task for nato, and thats why we have decided to enhance our collective defense. We have enhanced air policing in the three baltic states. We have deployed socalled awacs aircrafts to improve surveillance over poland and romania. And you have also seen more naval presence in the black sea, and now we are exploring how we could possibly further strengthen collective defense. Rose and what might that include . That might include an update and further development of our defense plans. It might include enhanced exercises, and also appropriate deployments. Rose do you believe the russians are listening . I do believe they are listening. I think they have no doubt that nato allies are strongly determined to provide effective defense and protection of our allies. And that implies a deterrent effect in itself. Rose this comes at a time that there was some withdrawal from nato, some people even questioning its mission and the relevance. Do you think that this action by the russians will revitalize nato . No doubt that people in nato nations have seen now with their own eyes how important it is to have the worlds Strongest Military alliance to ensure effective defense and protection. You have seen people in estonia, latvia, lithuania, poland, and other of our newer Member States express gratitude that they actuaactually joined our alliane some years ago. Rose the president has said this is not the beginning of a cold war. The Russian Ambassador to the United Nations told me its not the beginning of a cold war. Do you believe it has somewhat possibility . I dont think we could or should think about a cold war because the cold war time was another era where we saw the soviet union leading a bloc of communist countries in the world. Thats not the case here. Actually, we see russia quite isolated. What we see, however, is what i would call old sovietstyle thinking in the kremlin. Rose in fact, you have said the crisis in ukraine is calling into question the very principles upon which we have built the modern europe. Yes, indeed, we have built a europe whole, free and at peace. A europe where each and every nation has the right to choose its own path, including alliance affiliation, and now russia has put into question that fundamental principle. We have seen russia redraw the european map by force, and we have also seen russia put into question the fundamental principle that each and every nation has an inherent right to choose its own Security Policies. Rose but im still unsure what happens if they do not move their troops back or if they take a more aggressive action in ukraine. If russia were to intervene further in ukraine, it would be an historic mistake. It would isolate russia further internationally. We have already seen russia quite isolated. Recently the United NationsGeneral Assembly had a vote on the crimea question, and only 11 countries in the world supported the russian position. So russia is already now quite isolated. And if russia were to intervene further in ukraine, it would have grave copsquences for, consequences for russias relationship with what i would as a whole call the western world and that would also have a very negative Economic Impact on russia. Rose as you know, many people believe russia may respond and change the number of troops it has on the border. But few people believe that they will withdraw from crimea. Is that your position . Well, we will not recognize the annexation of crimea. Its illegal. Its illegitimate. Of course, facts will on the ground are that russia has occupied crimea, and also taken steps to include crimea in the russian federation. But the international comient will not recognize that illegal act. Rose you just had an extraordinary meeting with the 28 Foreign Ministers, the members of nato there in brussels. Is there a collective judgment about what president Vladimir Putin is up to . Yeah, i think his goal is quite clear. He wants to reestablish a russians fear of inference in the former soviet space. Thats what thats what it is about. Rose and will he get away with it . Well, i think in the long run, he will not because in the long run, you cant suppress the free will of people, and it is a basic right that each individual nation can choose its alliances and its Security Policies freely. It may be that russia can take steps as they have done in crimea, in the short run. But in the long run, you you cant suppress people that way, and thats actually the oldfashioned soviet style of thinking, and in the long run, he wont succeed. Rose do you believe a diplomatic solution is possible, and if it is, what would it include . Well, obviously, a political and diplomatic solution would include a recognition that crimea is still a part of ukraine, and if russia has concerns as regards the treatment of minorities in ukraine, there are numerous ways to address such concerns in a peaceful, political, and diplomatic manner. Rose mr. Secretary general, thank you so much. Its a pleasure to have i back on the broadcast, and i hope we can continue the conversation. Thank you very much. Its my pleasure. Thank you very much. Thank you. Rose Major General h. R. Mcmaster, he is command erp of the armys Maneuver Center for excellence in fort benning, georgia inspect in 2005 and 2006 he led the third cavalry in iraq. He also directed the joint Anticorruption Task force in kabul, afghanistan, from 20102012. Last month, secretary of defense hagel. He will oversee the armys think tank which focuses on the future of warfare. I am pleased to have Major General h. R. Mcmaster back at this table, welcome. Charlie, thanks. Its great to be with you. Rose you as well. Tell me what your new responsibilities are. Its a privilege to continue to serve in any capacity but its particularly exciting to join an organization who makes sure our army is prepared as part of the joint force to deter conflict, to response to crisises and if necessary fight and win in future wars. As americans we dont expect to, and we ought not to have fair fight. So we want to give our forces every advantage we can give them. And so the first order of business is to sort of lay a strong Conceptual Foundation that defines the problem of future war, and then how we have to preparure forces to fight and win in future armed conflicts. Rose are we now prepared it fight two warlz at the same time . I think its been clear from public statements recently tha that that that old Defense Strategy of being able to fight two wars simultaneously is no longer feasible given the size of the force and the capabilities and the projections for the defense budget. So the key is, as general oderno or the vice chief of staff has spoken about just in this past week, we believe our army can do the minimum to summit the current Defense Strategy, which is to fight one major contingency operation, hold on to another one, and be able to respond to that one later, at a force size of about 450,000, but thats really cutting it close there. Of course, there are dangers that well fall below that level. But, of course, as military officers we dont make those decisions. In a democracy, you get the army that the people are willing to pay for, and its our job as general officers and leaders to do best we can with those resources. And make sure we do right by the nation and do right by our soldiers. Rose let me talk about something you write about with interest and this why i think general petraeus liked and you people like me who like to read what you say. The first is revolution in military affairs. What do you mean by that . This orthodoxy of the revolution in military affairs, it really gained a lot of momentum in the 1990s, and it actually set us up for a lot of difficulties we had in both afghanistan and iraq. This is the idea that advances in technology, and in particular, communications technologies, information technologies, computing power, precision are you of munitions had made war wholly new and future wars were going to exhibit a high degree of discontinuity with all words that had gone before it. The saw. Was the application of these technologies to war would make war fast, cheap, efficient, and allow us to dominate any opponent. I mean, the lpg surrounding this orthodoxy was pretty arrogant. Rose a lot of that came out of the gulf war from 91, did it not . It did, it did. Rose we had such a superior military force. We did. And i think it was a misunderstanding, though, of the result of the gulf war throad a lot of it. The conventional wisdom came in the wake of the gulf war, the abilities and potential in the gulf war were going to be decisive in the future wars. They undervalued the training and professionalism of our force, which gives us a tremendous advantage, along with the technology. It also undervalued the iraqis approach to the war. I think are you can say there are two fundamental ways to fight the u. S. Military asymmetrical and stupid. And i think the iraqis in 1991 chose stupid. Many fought with great courage and honor but they were overmatch nevada ways they could not even imagine because they had at war with the iranian from 8088. You had the infantry walking at them. And now you had armored formations that could five fireand move forward at the same time and force forces that were confident and well trained. These aspects of our overmatch i think were underappreciateed. Rose who has fought the best asymmetrical war against the United States . Gosh, i think all our adversaries have tried to some degree or another. And you can go back, obviously, to the frontier wars and the wars against native american tribes which were fundamentally asymmetrical. I think you can look at the fights weve had in the philippines, during the philippines insurrection, fundamentally asymmetrical. Rose asymmetrical means . Its common sense. If you see the enemy has certain strengths, you dont want to impale yourself on that strength. You want of i want to go around that strength and take advantage of weaknesses. Rose most revolutionary forces are asymmetrical. They are because they come at the problem from a military weakness so they have to organize military operations in a way that allows them to strike at strengths and make contact with us and fight us on their own terms. And also, they operate on multiple battles grounds, all of our enemies do. Rose did the insurgency in iraq have that capability . What was striking about this insurgency and i think as well, also the insurgency in afghanistan is that they continually evolved, based on how they saw our responses to their actions against us. For example, initially the iraqis, the iraqi insurgency was really driven toward inflicting casualties on us and they thought we would leave. And saddam handed out copies of black hawk down. Kill some americans and theyll leave. When that didnt work, they attacked infrastructure, make people miserable, draw pools of popular discontent from which you can draw strengths. And then they began to attack neighborient forces. And ultimately, they formed an alliance of convenience between former saddamists and jihadist organizations associated with al qaeda. This is when zarqawi came into the picture. And their strategy became to perpetuate and accelerate a sectarian civil war, create a chaotic environment, and out of that chaotic environment, try to establish controls in certain territories. Rose but the surge drove a wedge between that relationship. It did. I think ultimately we responded to that evolution of the conflict. We were behind. I think we were behind in the beginning, mainly based on ignorance of the problem set there that i think had quite a bit to do the orthodoxy, the idea we would in the future be able to conduct what was called at the time rapid, decisive operations, neglecting some of the continuities in the nature of war its political dimension of war, the human dimension of war, wars inherent uncertainty, war is a contest of wills. I think we went from ignorance i think we went from ignorance to denial to a certain extent. We didnt want to conditional this was an insurgency and a threat to our vital interests and consoldaylight the gains in the iraq and get to a sustainable outcome there consistent with our interests. As the insurgency continued to evolve, we didnt maybe adapt fast enough. And i think when you saw that adaptation was toward the end of the 2006, beginning of 2007, when it was clear the dominant feature of the war in iraq had become this very struck thive sectarian civil war that still had a problem of insurgency associated with it, still had a problem of transnational Terrorism Associated with it. But them we were able in 2007 to reassess the situation, ask the right questions, and then develop a strategy and an Operational Plan to address it. Rose is it fair to say and i dont that the modern american text pook o textbook on counterinsurgency came out of the iraq war . I think so. But there can be no textbook i think this is where people get confused sometimes. Counterinsurgency did you write a manual. We did write a manual but in our Army Doctrine helps you conceptualize but doesnt give you the answer. Its like von claus said, military theor senot to accompany you to the battlefield and tell you what to do. Its just like an old professor prepares a student, but then the student has to go on and make his own way. Its not designed to give you a strategy. So i think when some people criticize i think now its become very fashionable, almost conventional wisdom to say, that didnt work. The counterinsurgency theory didnt work. Look at what happened in iraq . It was never meant to be a strategy. So it can help you request the right questions. Can you help you access previous best practices, but you have to understand each these problem sets on your own term . Zero dark 30 say fallacy, and we know what that means. Ill have you tell me. The idea that specialops can take care of everything. The danger of these fallacies is they confused vital capabilities for strategies and for the answer to future wars. So just as the rm a assumes you can solve the problem of future war by applying firepower on to land from the arrow space maritime domains, its zero dark 30 fallacy is all you need is a global swat team that can do raids against enemy organizations and you can do it efficiently for relatively low cost. And what special Operations Forces do is amazing. Theyre keeping us safe how is it different from what you just said . , of course, the enemy has a say and our enemies apply countermeasures to all of these capabilities. I mean, theyre traditional concealment, intermingle with civilian population. There are technological countermeasures. And all enemy organizations are not the same. So we, because of our global interests and because of our vital interests and those of our key partners and allies, you know, can be place at risk by nation states and the fielded forces of nation states, and these networked organizations that are quite dangerous because a lot of these organizations you can look at hezbollah for example in syria . In syria if you look at alinous r