of my mother and they were put into this American Bradley to be evacuated to safety because everyone in Ukraine all defenders know if there is a shell in you go inside the Bradley not outside because this is the place where you will be kept safe so we just have to explain that it's you know we're very grateful again for the weapons but they are produced here and we're doing it together and they are developing providing jobs here in the United States and it's also for the benefit of both of our countries you know we need the goods in order to defend our families but you're producing them here and third which is also very important you know we are defending not only us we are defending the whole European part which Putin has been very loud and clear that he wants to attack and he wants to he has problems not only with Ukraine he has problems with everyone who was able to to get out from this empire the Russian the Soviet or whatever you call it so he's threatened sometimes Poland he threatens definitely all Baltic states he was talking how the Finland and Denmark are no friends and stuff like that so you know right now we are defending other including NATO countries at a very modest I would say military budget and we are doing it ourselves we are not requesting any of our friends to fight for us it's we don't need other boots on the grounds we just need the weapons but if God forbid we fall and Putin occupies completely Ukraine and kills us all he will not be stopped he will be emboldened by this and he will inevitably go further and then unfortunately a number of NATO countries will have to help to defend other NATO countries so the fastest and the most efficient from the financial standpoint this is the minister of finance and me talking is actually to help Ukraine more to stop the war now while it's still in Ukraine so whether it's the moral argument whether it's the shared values whether it's the effectiveness and efficiency argument because it is in the U.S. national security interests to defeat an aggressive autocratic regime that not only attacked Ukraine let's keep in mind that they have attacked Georgia in 2008 that they have committed horrible crimes in Syria that they have poisoned people in the streets of the United Kingdom that they have interfered and send their Wagner sags into so many other places not to mention all the crimes that they have committed while they were in the form of the Soviet Union so many wars and so many so it's it's an all of our civilized people interests to live in a safer world which will return to the security architecture that we had after the World War II because that peace and again I do not imply that the peace was everywhere but at least the lack of a great war which would involve European continent has been a basis for the prosperity that we all enjoyed in the collective western countries and in some newly newly developed economies and we have to get back there as soon as possible if we want to continue delivering to our people to our citizens so I think you know when we explain it clearly to the American people they understand and they support so it's a task for all of us to explain it better so I see I keep getting these high signs over here I wish we could just keep going on I really I hope you come back first of all let me just say that because this has been a wonderful conversation I was going to ask you how many states you've been to but maybe that's we'll have that bet later how many states have you been to actually well not not too many because I'm trying to stay here this is the war is and I'm trying to travel for sure but I've been to California I've been to Ohio I've been to where did I go Massachusetts I've been to Pennsylvania I've been to Florida and New York of course okay but that's not we're going to Illinois I still have to come back to Indiana so okay that's right you've got to get back to Indiana well listen I want to ask one tiny question but it's going to have to be a short answer I'm afraid I did want to come back to this question on the ICC decision to charge Putin to charge the the High Commissioner on Children's Affairs big decision and obviously seems to have constrained Putin's movements what's your response and how has that decision affected the the efforts to repatriate Ukrainian children from Russia well first of all we are very grateful to ICC for taking that case for moving ahead with that case this is probably maybe for me as mother is the most horrendous crime of all so 19 more than 19,000 cases registered already in Ukraine the children we know have been abducted to Russia according to the estimates of our commissioner on on these issues it's actually 200 or 300,000 the Russians themselves themselves claim is even larger amount of children they rescued as they say but you know killing of Ukrainian children abducting them to Russia putting them into this one day adoption and they change their own laws to be able to put them for the speedy adoptions indoctrinating them putting them through what they are telling us the teenagers that we were able to get back through the re-education camps which sounds like from the book about World War II and what Nazis did to children is horrible everyone has to be punished for that and the fact that ICC ruled and indicted them is such a notion of justice and understanding of this problem so we are grateful for the U.S. government that is working with us on this issue we are trying to get back as many children as possible very difficult unfortunately we were able to return a very small number of them we are very grateful to everyone in congress you know there is a number of resolutions that submitted on this issue not only condemning but also calling for some actions with regard to how to do it it's a very difficult issue of course we need to win when we win we will know first of all for sure what is the situation on the occupied territories but also this is what we will start you know working more actively I mean we are working as active as we can but to have the win this of course is going to be a big part of you know our victory is to get all our children back what our first lady our president and everyone in Ukraine says always we will not rest until every child is back let's hope that happens thank you again Ambassador for joining us such a pleasure and an honor and I hope the audience will give you also a warm applause thank you our next panel which is the future of security in Latin America my friend and colleague Danny Rothenberg of ASU and also New America is going to moderate this discussion thanks everybody so we're honored to be joined by Ambassador Juan Carlos Pinzón so he was the former Colombian ambassador to the United States he was also the minister of defense and also ran for president in the country and he's currently the John Weinberg visiting professor at Princeton University so I'd like to start by just asking you to reflect a little bit on the context we're in now so in the post-911 era there's been a lack of a coherent and consistent U.S. policy towards Latin America I'm wondering if you think that such a policy should be enacted developed and if so what would be like the core principles that would motivate a policy like that well thank you then first of all a pleasure to be here and always great to be in this space it's the second time I get to be part of this wonderful conference that happens every year so good to be here well that question that you just made the eternal question in Washington and the eternal question in every capital of Latin America why is that it's so obvious that if we work together we will be very powerful and strong as a region and why is that somehow doesn't happen in a way probably the centers of power are very much related to geopolitics and economics so Asia Europe have been the center of focus for the U.S. for years and it's kind of everybody has taken for granted the South you know the Western Hemisphere as a whole probably the U.S. was very influential for years and you know in a way never had the need to you know go beyond but sometimes we forget about the potential of the region you know when we think about not North America or Latin America but we think about the Americas the hemisphere has a billion people more than that so it's an incredible huge market and this is the region of the world that probably is absolutely independent of any other if you will put all the resources to work it has water more fresh water than any other it has more biodiversity than any other it has more minerals than any other lithium copper gold you name it oil gas etc it has a region especially in the tropical center where we can have access to wind and solar power the capacity to produce food in the western hemisphere is second to none in the whole planet so what explains you know we cannot see it like that and make it operational like that and that's the big thing I believe we need to to think through the other part we should not forget is that Latin America continues to be a very young area of the world the average age is 29 still so there's still some time to develop a lot of opportunities in human capital education technology that if we were to combine I'm sure we'll have an incredible impact especially now but as we say this which is probably true 10 years ago 20 years ago you know even before we get to the present and we see new players global power competition is happening and players are seeing what I describe but not having America as this great partner with technology and education to contribute to the region and help us to increase our productivity the infrastructure but other players China Russia Iran Turkey or even you know regional powers like Brazil that are looking to partner through the bricks to other players so a big question is aren't we getting a little bit late for trying to do that well my answer to that question is I think we're on time I think there are many cultural reasons and historic reasons including the fact that we have democracy include the fact that here in the United States we have probably the fourth or fifth largest Latin American country of the world it happens to be here in the U.S. so the bridges are already on how do we make those bridges operate will be a big question but that's very important now my concern as we speak that I perceive the region going in a different way this narrative that I just provide is probably the one we would love to see but the region is shifting is going away from this story so how do we correct that so it's interesting we when Latin America was at the forefront of U.S. policy making on the news all the time etc usually was because of various references to security viewed as a security threat or viewed as security partners so in the last several decades we've seen other regions whether the Middle East or now China above all the security threat sensibility is what's driven a lot of the policy interest so do you think that what it will take for the U.S. to develop some sort of more coherent engagement with the region is some sort of pressing security threat and if so what might that be or do you not agree with that no I fully agree and this is a big point and we gotta go back and look to history there are three ways of viewers interest in the region probably we're getting into the fourth one let's make sure that this fourth one is really effective for the long term let me remind you the first time the U.S. really realized about the Western Hemisphere and the hemisphere look at you know as a whole as an important place to try to do things was prior to the Montreux doctrine and why did that happen because all of us agree at that time that we didn't want the European powers to come back so somehow we found this idea of the Americas for the Americans meaning the Americas not the United States of America but the whole Americans and Americans not only those that were born in the U.S. but all of us who were born in the Americas you know so that was the first time but then you know kind of we forgot the Europeans got into their own wars they fought for a hundred years you know in the end of 19th century 20th century but suddenly by you know the start of World War II there were two powers that were trying to project global power Germany and Japan especially Germany the Nazis did have ties in the South so that became a real threat to the United States that became a real challenge and suddenly there was a major effort to deny that power through military collaboration actually in the year 1941 the big response was this security agreement and that was the way in which that was prevented later on Cold War happened and during the 50s and 60s when we saw those guerrilla warfare movements coming to a region being successful in Cuba and suddenly having a guerrilla in every country of Latin America then came a new idea from the United States and it had two parts one was you know using the U.S. agencies to confront you know these kind of threats militarily and with other tools but also there was a social economic tool that worked very well and was you know somehow the Alliance for Progress from President Kennedy that somehow had an impact and create this balance that yes the U.S. can create progress and prosperity as time passes that was abandoned in a way and we forgot that in time by the end of Cold War I have to think that there was a good intention but never came to a real end which was trying to create this major western hemisphere market and that was this idea of creating the pre-trade market of the Americas but it never really ended as an opportunity so where are we today? Latin America was taken for granted the U.S. got very much engaged into the Middle East you know into Central Asia more recently is looking a lot to the Pacific and Latin America was taken for granted but now is being contested and somehow these powers are here again here's where we have an opportunity I see out of the geopolitical competition an incredible opportunity for the U.S. to go for this fourth wave of interest in the hemisphere and work hard but where do I see a big challenge? The challenges of security in the region organized crime organized crime is taking over almost every country of Latin America from Mexico to Argentina including definitely my country Colombia you will see the presence of organized crime in politics in power in territorial control and creating an effect in society of course that is very much connected to political realities inequality continues to be there corruption continues to be a terrible disease but unfortunately a response that Latin Americans have looked for of the need of change and the need of you know solving these major issues is not coming as a real solution it's coming from people that used to be during the Cold War era very much against democracy very much against the values that we share a free market and freedom they kind of have new clothes but are the same people but in essence they are trying to promote change they're not being effective socially and policy-wise and on the contrary chaos is happening more often in countries like Mexico like Guatemala like Honduras like Colombia even countries like Brazil, Argentina and Chile not to forget about Peru and not to forget about recent events in Ecuador are really showing that these models of organized crime politicians and all ideologies combine are not being positive for the region so yes we have this opportunity of the fourth wave but I think Washington and definitely as Latin Americans need to be aware of the challenges that we're confronting combine so essentially you've given us a good context for US-Latin American relations one of the defining features of woven into that that timeline is Latin America being the premier region or one of the premier regions for what's known as the third wave of democratization right the shift from authoritarian regimes to democratic regimes which came in with a great deal of excitement among many both in the academy and also on the ground and yet if you look at polling now a lot of the populations in countries those more democratic and less democratic in the region have quite negative feelings about the democratic process and often about democracy I'm wondering what you think helps explain that and whether democracy in Latin America has a rich vibrant future and if so what would guide it that way so the Gallagher poll just to prove your point shows that when you think about institutions worldwide as they are supported around 70 percent average worldwide in Latin America is below 50 percent so there's a you know a real challenge about the credibility of institutions to solve problems second when you think about democracy and the credibility of elections you have these Vanderbilt University studies the Latino barometer that is showing that Latin Americans are starting to distance from the confidence in democracy and starting or not to care about what system they have or even in some countries starting to support the idea that if it is to fight corruption you're ready to support any kind of autocratic system which is very worrisome and that somehow explains the reality of what we're getting we're getting more radical governments in power we're getting people that once they get to power they use democracy just basically to seal you know or to you know guarantee that they can do whatever changes so they move into more privacy concept of democracy so they use the votes to change institutions and that is happening more often so is problematic and I think that's something that we need to watch so you know these very victorious language of post-colonial war which meant we have the most democratic hemisphere after Europe well it's something that today is in question democracy is weakening institutions are having problems and with that you combine security another element of the of the world poll when you ask the question do you feel safe when you walk alone at night the area of the world that has the worst number compared to any other in the world is Latin America but another number out of the 50 cities that are most valent in the world 41 of those are in Latin America so people don't trust justice don't trust institutions and suddenly they start to trust either politicians that are promising crazy things or governments that suddenly provide some sense of security and some sense of solution so it's problematic and and and we see that we see the case of Venezuela a case of well Cuba is an all case but always problematic the case of Nicaragua and other cases in which democracy is not looking as we thought should be democracy can you think of a set of core principles or ideas that would motivate US policy towards Latin America there was a focus on democratization quite a strong push for all that and support in a variety of ways during that transition there have been other pushes at different times but what would pull the interests of the country together to have some coherent vision on the region and this we just have two minutes of just a short and focused response if possible well first thing I'm going to say I'm nobody to recommend the policymakers in Washington you know the US is strong enough and they have to you know find their responses but from my perspective you know being from the region and being a Colombian I perceive three things first I wish the US to keep being friend of their friends and not try to be so much friend of their enemies because that could solve problems in the short term could keep fires low but long term is a bad solution because suddenly you are allowing you know cases of dictators or total misbehaviors or in the case of Venezuela you know a government that is with a terrible record of human rights certainly validated so be aware of that you know the solutions of today can be very harmful long term and can give can give a very set a very bad example that's one but second let's speak on the positive what we're missing in Latin America human capital and infrastructure the combination of those two things create the concept of productivity productivity is stagnant in Latin America for the past 50 years when you think about East Asia that's the East Asian miracle South Korea Malaysia even China that's the miracle they were able to educate people and combine that with the right quality of infrastructure and certainly they were able to become more productive and innovative that's what we're not doing so if you are in the part of the world in which you have these young people with access to all these natural resources that we have but we leave closer to the place of the world that has more technology and more universities of quality than any other in the world that's North America that's the United States of America why is that we're not getting that spillover why is that we're not raising that level of education and somehow access to technology and infrastructure that's very important and that's denying as we speak an incredible opportunity that geopolitics are giving to the region the events of COVID and the events of the war in Ukraine have wake up this geopolitical all sense that you better have your centers of production at least you know in different parts and hopefully in parts that you can control so the perfect spot to bring all this production is Latin America why are we not getting all that massively because we don't have the skill labor or the logistics or even the political stability due to organized crime that I described before that guarantees the environment for companies to come and sit that's a big thing and that's something that we should be working on that would be ideal we can really focus on on both US policy and of course Latin American institutions private sector different kinds of leaders and hopefully governments but I see many of the governments in Latin America distracted with as I said all narratives and some of them very compromised with organized crime which is very concerning thank you so much thank you thank you thanks for Shape the Future the moderator is going to be Alexandra Stark who's an associate policy researcher at Rand she's also a fellow at New America and she has a forthcoming book about Yemen coming out relatively soon Alex I worked at New America until recently and so I'm thrilled to be kind of joining my former colleagues again today thanks so much for having us also thrilled to be exciting to be speaking with these two really interesting and exciting folks on the panel today we don't have too much time so I'm not going to give them the full introduction that they probably deserve and share all their accolades but just to let you know who we're speaking to in brief this is Dr Ruth Ben-Giat she's a professor of history and Italian studies at New York University and the author of Strong Men Mussolini to the Present and Lieutenant General retired Michael K. Nagata he's former director of strategic operational planning at NCTC and strategic advisor and senior vice president at CACI International so welcome and thank you so much for joining us today so talking about future international security threats and what kinds of threats the United States faces in terms of security is a hugely broad topic and I wanted to talk about what you see as the most pressing future challenges not necessarily the challenges of right now although we could of course be seeing the seeds of them developing but really the challenges that we're likely to face down the road and I know there are a plethora of challenges ranging from you know technology like AI and cyber to New York peer adversaries to nuclear proliferation to everything in between and we could spend a long time listing all those challenges so instead I'm going to give you a kind of harder version of the question ask what do you see as maybe the one most pressing threat that the United States faces in terms of security in the near future whether it's you know the most challenging or maybe the most intractable or most interesting problem and then I'd love to hear your thoughts about whether and what are the ways that we can kind of approach these these really intractable and important problems so I'm going to start with Ruth if that's okay what's the challenge you would identify Hi everyone so it's hard to have one challenge because they're all interrelated I think that demonstrating that democracy works and also making democracy appealing which it currently is decreasing in that category there are new polls both Afro barometer Latino barometer polls of young people who in high numbers say that democracy is would not be their preferred form of government and this matters because when we do not have democracy and we have authoritarian regimes that or electoral autocracies that depend on disinformation and repression we often have our ruled by disinformation on public health on climate change on the big things that actually affect people's lives and will lead to a ton of instability in the future so it's not that democracies are always stable and it certainly have democracies have created their share of coups and instabilities in the past but I'm quite focused on this so the US in particular it's no secret you know faces a kind of assault on its democracy from within now as well as from without and it was interesting to preparing these remarks to think back that the day that Joe Biden started his presidency on a very strong pro-democracy platform where he said explicitly over and over again we've got to prove democracy works that day of his inauguration China Russia and Iran held their third joint naval drill in the Indian Ocean and I'm also thinking you know about the concatenation of events where in the fall of 2021 if we think back to you know the climate that allowed the invasion of Ukraine to happen the Russian and Chinese ambassadors the pen to join essay that absolutely dripped with scorn it makes me very angry as first generation American to read it drip was scorned for American democracy which was followed by a joint statement by Putin and she you know and the the occasion was Biden's summit of democracy to which they were not invited and saying that you know the U.S. does not have a monopoly on democratic rights and the U.S. is creating global conflict and anti-NATO stuff though so this is this wasn't an invitation to the kind of instability that then you know came we saw with the invasion of Ukraine and I think that it was very striking to me as somebody who studies people who have often been underestimated in terms of their chaos potential the strongman that when the war first happened the Washington Post reported that you know some people in the White House this is a quote found it hard to wrap their minds around the scale of the Russian leader's ambitions it did not seem like the kind of thing that a rational country would undertake and this was a quote from a security leader and there were similar things that were said by by European officials so you know being prepared for all kinds of instability we have an uptick of coups we're going to have more you know again climate change and also autocracy fueled instabilities China with Taiwan they'll expect the worst and understand the logic and that applies also to the GOP just real quick I think I do not think that you can understand the GOP at this point through explanatory frameworks that are created for democracy I see the GOP as an autocratic party that's now dependent on the kind of autocratic tools of rule from propaganda corruption and election denial as a form of corruption and the threatened reality of violent so this too expect the worst and do everything we can to bolster democracy and that includes messaging that creates a kind of horizon of possibility that it can work because we are assaulted by psychological warfare for many years now since Trump came on the scene perhaps before that's telling us that democracy can't work thanks and Mike what's the the most pressing or kind of challenging threat that you'd identify first of all thank you for to you and New America for inviting me to be here it's an honor to be on this panel with Ruth you know when I first learned that this was this question you were going to start with I started writing a list of things that I wanted to talk about but you I don't want to inflict the list on anybody so I'm just going to focus on what I would put at the top of that list and that I'll give you the short version first and I'll explain a little bit more what worries me most is not one of our dangerous or highly competitive adversaries somewhere around the world although they are a significant problem you've already mentioned Russia China Iran North Korea these are all significant threats and potential adversaries to the United States but they're not at the top of my list either the top of my list is our own failure to adapt as a retired military officer I think I've been watching a steadily growing failure to adapt and in some cases an unwillingness to adapt grow gradually over at least the last couple of decades where I think this comes to a head perhaps most strongly is a failure to adapt to something that is literally changing the face of mankind and began in the arguably in the late 1970s early 1980s and that's the emergence of what we today call digital technologies I think one has to go all the way back to the period between the 10th to the 12th century with the emergence of what we today call gunpowder back then it was just explosive powder that the Chinese originally used for fireworks but rapidly became a weapon of war the emergence of gunpowder in my opinion literally changed the face on the trajectory of mankind for better and for worse I think digital technologies their emergence are doing the same thing and may be even more disruptive than the emergence of explosives many centuries ago and what I see in many places not just the United States but what worries me the most when I consider the national security challenges of the United States is our own ongoing failures our own ongoing reluctance our own ongoing risk aversion to embracing the fact that these technologies are here to stay they're going to become more proliferated less expensive and more powerful as every year goes by and we can either be at the head of that race by working much harder than we are right now or we can be a victim of that trajectory I know that's very uplifting but I'll stop there Thank you So Ruth you talked about the challenge of autocracies and kind of democratic backsliding I'm wondering what you see as the future of autocracies both kind of globally and maybe how the erosion of democratic institutions might affect the United States as well what does that future trajectory look like and what will that mean in terms of the challenges that we face Yeah we're at a very interesting moment on the one hand there has been a very it's not unusual in history but we're at a moment where the weakness the structural weaknesses the ravages from corruption and the toll of personalist leadership models is being exposed and we see this and sometimes it's an event like Russia invading Ukraine which opens the curtains but there are patterns these things and if you study them like I wrote an op-ed for MSNBC two days after Putin invaded Ukraine that this wasn't going to go well it was going to show up the total corruption of the military and there are parallels actually with fascist Italy that they're fighting with terrible outdated equipment bad rations because authoritarians don't care about their people they don't care they'll use them for cannon fodder and the resources get siphoned off to corruption especially if you have a kleptocracy I also found it very interesting in China the protests against the lockdowns which were protests against being dehumanized really and all these young people you know 79 universities had protests even changing pinks all in the matter had a protest so that's these are significant things and we're in the midst of a global renaissance protest look at in Iran places that never have protests of the scale or haven't had them for a long time so there is this kind of anti-authoritarian resistance and there also is weakness of these regimes that I think will be more revealed but these are also adaptable regimes authoritarian leaders are transactional there they do what they need to do to survive and so the Chinese are it's very interesting what's happening I don't actually like the term global south but it's very interesting to me that Lula who's a bit of a democracy warrior is partnering with the Chinese allowing them to have drones and surveillance things over the Amazon and so it's a very dynamic and changing situation and so autocracies also will adapt and so democracies have not this goes with what Mike was saying democracies have perhaps not been as able to adapt to certain circumstances and that is now showing up as well Mike you talked about the proliferation of digital technology and our failures to adapt I'm wondering again we could probably write a long list of the obstacles to adapting but what are some of maybe the primary obstacles that you see to adapting to really face this this challenge head on and how can we think about you know removing those obstacles or getting around them great question the list is long as you suggested including our own tendency to be highly bureaucratic inside the United States government that that alone is an enormous hindrance to rapid adoption literally of anything not just modern technology but that's not the our biggest problem and this is going to probably sound both facile and too obvious but I'm going to say it anyways that thing is true weak leadership weak leadership is our biggest problem and what I mean specifically more specifically than just weak leadership is risk averse leadership which is inherently weak leadership the you know someone of my age for example I cannot I cannot be a digital native I'm too old so so my ability to learn rapidly how to employ these rapidly these rapidly emerging technologies is always going to be less strong less reliable less agile than someone who's half my age but I should still try I should still try because this is the way the world is going and you can either swim with the tide or you can drown in it unfortunately because at the leadership level of most governments not just the United States government let's face it a policymaker in Washington DC you generally in their 60s maybe in their 70s they're not digital natives either so they are they are automatically handicapped by the fact they're not digital natives in a in rapidly adopting technologies they're not well positioned to understand but all it takes is courage all it takes is a willingness to try and a willingness to fail because a lot of things will go wrong but the alternative is to not to adapt and if anybody thinks that our adversaries and competitors around the world are going to be as either as bureaucratic which as I mentioned at the beginning or as risk averse as we are we're nuts they're visibly not they're willing to accept the failures inherent to achieve progress in ways that unfortunately American leaders often are not now there are many reasons for that I won't go I won't go on about that but the bottom line if we don't find a way to become more risk tolerant embrace the fact and it is a fact that the only way to get better at something is to periodically fail at it so that you learn what your mistakes are and you get better the next time if we don't adopt that in our adoption of and adaptation to rapidly changing modern technologies we're just going to be left behind I think so unfortunately we only have a few more minutes I know we could talk about this probably for a much longer but I'm struck that both of you have identified challenges that aren't necessarily traditional security challenges and that have to do both with domestic and the international and they kind of blend those two realms together and in a way that's really interesting so Ruth I'm wondering do you think that it's necessary for us to reform our own democratic institutions or to show shore up our institutions at home in order to be able to take on this global challenge of autocracy yeah absolutely and I mean let me say that one of the things that makes me most angry is excuse me mispronouncing his name Tuberville Tuberville there is you know active the GOP has become as I said an autocratic party a party that wants democracy to fail and is a party and excuse me a party that is sabotaging in a way that's a strong word U.S. military and and security power not knowing that you do it at home and it resonates in the world so it's not just Tuberville holding up all the military promotions which is just terrible it's Rand Paul holding up diplomatic appointments so that the U.S. remains without important diplomatic posts filled and so this is a kind of you have to put all these things together and it's an attempt to kind of reign in and have American power be absent be distracted by you know I call it garbage politics the things that Republicans are doing threatening to you know crash the economy the impeachments and this is this is kind of a resolute attempt on their part to obstruct American power in the world to the benefit of our adversaries Thank you and Mike I have the same question for you actually you've already mentioned the challenges of kind of bureaucracy and of leadership at home but I'm wondering are there other areas that you think of that we would need to reform or to shore up at home in order to confront these global challenges? Yes one automatically comes to mind it I think I could argue it's not just connected to my previous remarks but I think it connects in some ways to what Ruth was talking about in terms of the difficulties we're having around the world as I think everybody will recall you either learned it in school you saw evidence of it over your lives that you know America at least as far back as World War II has styled itself as the leader of the free world now everybody knows there was no plebiscite electing us to be the leader of the free world we claimed that mantle at the end of World War II but we had enough credibility with much of the world by the end of that horrible conflict that the term stuck other people other countries not everywhere not universally but many countries were willing to go along with the idea that America was the free world now why why was much of the free world willing to say okay you're the leader I will accept that in my view it's because the United States had established a tradition however imperfectly of being the most generous nation on earth we have abandoned that notion that that we should be because we're more powerful than anybody else we ought to be more generous than anybody else and by abandoning that tradition which we did hold onto for much of the Cold War but it's long gone now or at least it's a pale shadow of what it once was unsurprisingly the willingness and readiness of populations around the world to acknowledge us as a leader has been steadily dwindling now there are other reasons why this has happened but if someone were to ask me what's the single most important reason we keep calling ourselves the leader of the free world but we've abandoned the generosity that made it an attractive idea well thank you so much to you both I wish we had lots more time to discuss these really interesting intractable problems but thank you so much for this conversation today thanks to the audience and thanks to New America for hosting us my name is Colonel Carmela Scott Skelan I am a senior fellow assigned to New America this past year my research topic was Army Logistics in the Pacific I looked at logistics in the Pacific through three lands best Contestant Logistics Teranie of Distance and Modernization on Equipment in the Pacific just looking at these three aspects on logistics in the Pacific I just believe that the Army as well as the other services can get a lot of things accomplished as we look at the challenges in the Pacific so first if we think about contested logistics disunderstanding especially looking at some of the issues that we're currently facing and that the Ukraine looking at the importance of what's happening and lessons learned during the Ukraine's operation there are things that we can take away from so I think that the Ukraine is very have been successful overall because of some of the things that they've done initially with the logistics operations and so logistics has been around a long time and Army's wars can never be won because of logistics but they definitely can be lost because of logistics so when we start talking about contested logistics today's environment especially in the Pacific logistics will be contested across all domains so what can we do today to get prepared for that operation so when we start thinking about contested logistics in the Army lens we start to think how can we position ourselves what do we have now that we can position in the Pacific or globally across the world to ensure that we're positioned correctly to support the particular theater of operations so when we start thinking of those things what comes to mind is Army pre-position equipment so we start thinking about Army pre-position equipment what are those equipments that we have that we can use that can bring to bear in the Pacific theater operation that's important do we have the right equipment in the Pacific at the right time and can we get it to the right point of need when needed we have our seven sustainment support brigade that has those functions the Army watercraft associated with them so there have been studies on the Army watercraft so what we need to do when I say we meaning the Army how many watercraft do we really need to sustain in the Pacific theater how we maintain in those watercraft do we have enough so I think it's worth senior leaders kind of pulling that thread a little bit and doing it conducting a study to ensuring that we have enough watercraft and that those watercraft are actually being maintained maintained to a level that they need to be maintained and not just hovering around 37% because at one particular time the Army watercraft fleets were the readiness rates were dipped as low as that 37% so we have to ensure that we are maintaining the level of our readiness for Army watercraft at a high level because we don't know when we may need those Army watercraft because when you look at modernization on the logistics side we still have enduring equipment so as we're modernizing and bringing new equipment online we're still trying to maintain Army doing equipment sets so that's a challenge for some of our low gestations out there and as we're bringing new equipment abroad ensuring that we have our maintainers that's trained and that they have the right tools to maintain this new equipment those are the key things that we have the right equipment preposition globally and this equipment is maintained and that is also exercise meaning that this equipment is being downloaded and that it is supporting joint exercises joint meaning all services allies and partners are utilizing this equipment you know the more we can touch the equipment it is being utilized this it's that muscle memory it's the people knowing and understanding what capabilities they have to bring to bear that combatant command and understanding that we have this resource that's associated with this theater that I can use so all of that is important when I start thinking about how we sustain operations in the Pacific when we start talking about new equipment being fielded in that theater dis-insuring that our maintainers are being trained to maintain this new equipment while at the same time maintaining their enduring fleets that we have so that's going to be equally as important and so as we moved to sustainment 2030 and beyond we have this whole predicted logistics that's on the table now so I know our AMC commander he's doing a great job with that CASCOM commander they're doing great they're predicted logistics so that's the wave of the future I'm excited about that I'm telling you logistics can't win a war we all know that but I'm here to tell you that logistics if not done correctly can cause a defeat so we have to pay attention to all those decisions and some of the challenges with logistics and we have to do the things now to get ahead of these challenges and confront confront logistics head-on and attack those things and I know that our senior leaders are doing that and again I'm just proud to be a part of that and I hope that my research and that when people kind of read the research in the paper to that they can walk away what you know some little anecdote to say hey you know just you know this this paper kind of highlights certain things and that's the hope of this like I say some of the things in in my research some senior leaders some of the senior leaders already working towards that but I just kind of wanted to highlight my 30-something years of logistics in the army things that I've seen on the ground that I felt like just putting it out in the paper hoping that senior leaders would read the paper that they can understand from my level I kind of went through the ranks from enlisted officer to a colonel in the army so I've seen a lot of logistics and again hopefully this paper will kind of knight people to to focus a little more on logistics and not let it be the last conversation for our conversation after we've gone through everything just understanding that logistics is very important and as we start talking about any type of exercise we should always ask ourselves hey where's my logistics counterpart if they're not in the room let's pause and let's find that G4 because this is important our next speaker will be David Sturman who is a senior policy analyst here at Future Security in New America also a research fellow at ASU's Future Security Initiative and you know one of the the key forces behind the book mentioned earlier called understanding the new proxy wars and he's going to be talking about the state of America's counter insurgency wars thanks Daniel so as mentioned I'm a senior policy analyst here and affiliated with the ASU's Future Security Initiative and I'm going to be talking about America's various counter terrorism drone and counter insurgency wars which are in a moment of substantial change right now as we all know the US withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021 and as far as we know at least publicly the United States has only conducted a single drone strike in Afghanistan since then that drone strike killed the leader of al Qaeda I'm not solid hearing beyond Afghanistan the number of US strikes whether you count it as a global total or whether you want to zero in on particular theaters is also at an unprecedented look however and in addition in October and October 2022 the Biden administration released new roles with more restrictive guidelines on the use of direct action outside of areas of active hostilities which was publicly released in redacted forms this summer but there are three important cautions that I want to emphasize and I think are important to understanding the state of America's wars today first well most strikes are at unprecedented lows the trajectory is not downward in every war US strikes are actually escalating in Somalia where the Biden when the Biden administration took office it paused US strikes in Somalia and many other locations indeed our count at New America where we tracked these strikes has the Biden administration conducting only four air strikes in its first year an office in Somalia and there were seven more in the first month or partial month under the Trump administration however this year which is still not over we have tracked 17 US air strikes in Somalia and a ground operation importantly most of these strikes are occurring under an exception to the new rules regarding US strikes the allowance for collective self-defense of partner organizations this goes to show the importance of looking at the trajectories in their particular conflict context that not only are there cases or at least one case where it is escalating but it is escalating and increasing and decreasing at various points in relationship to a specific ongoing conflict which is not purely decided by the United States second the decline in strikes that we've seen produces unprecedented reduction in strikes is a much longer trend than it is often given credit for there have been no strikes for example reported in Pakistan since 2018 so we're now at half a decade in Yemen there was an unprecedented spike in strikes to more than 130 under the Trump administration 2017 but what is often not told in discussions of the number of strikes is that the strikes then fell to be in line with what was occurring under the Obama administration in the late years and then actually fell to almost zero with a couple strikes against significant leaders at least according to our tracking by the end of the Trump administration in Libya US strikes actually spiked under the Obama administration why? because there was an operation to retake a specific city in Libya cert and that actually wrapped up before the end of the Obama administration and that involved hundreds of strikes and was led into a Trump administration ongoing with a couple occasional strikes that eventually petered out in Iraq and Syria there's often a lot of discussion of a major spike in strikes and casualties under the Trump administration and indeed there was an increase in the early Trump administration however it is also important to note that that aligned with the efforts to retake major cities in Iraq and Syria that were held by ISIS and were while there may be an effect of administration decisions and different roles regarding strikes was also in large part of product of a preset campaign that was already going on to crush the Islamic State's territorial caliphate finally and then what we see now this current reduction was actually prepared again at the very end of the Trump administration with very few strikes once territory ISIS's territorial hole was smashed again these examples caution against focusing on the particular legacy of administrations rather than the longer-term campaigns which often cross administrations finally we need to be cautious about what we know take for example Yemen where this year there were reports of a mystery drone strike in the government of Marib actually two that killed senior al-Qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula leaders do we know whether it was the United States? we actually do not Sencombe denies conducting the strikes however it could be a covert U.S. strike it could also be by a U.S. partner unfortunately the current setup of the way that strikes are confirmed or denied leaves a lot of room open for this kind of confusion and it's particularly important when we seem to see strikes that bear sort of markers of what could well be a U.S. strike in these two cases in January and February of this year specifically use of a technology the R9X or ninja missile that is believed to be potentially a U.S. signature targeting high-level al-Qaeda figures that could conceivably fit under the new roles even without a declaration that Yemen is an area of active hostilities and just generalize reporting from the region even as we have no acknowledgement from the U.S. side even anonymous claims regarding whether this was a U.S. strike similar issues regarding challenges of whether a strike is the United States or not have popped up in Somalia recently as well as in Afghanistan so in conclusion I want to leave you with three four points about this moment of significant change when the number of U.S. strikes and other operations has radically declined first just the intensity is declining and that's an important thing to know but the trajectory again is not consistent across every location and could well re-escalate in some conflict areas second the trend began well before the Biden administration and is in large part connected to the ups and downs of specific campaigns and should be analyzed thusly and third we just need far greater transparency to be able to know when strikes are occurring when strikes occur and they are not the United States and when they are U.S. strikes that undergirds the entire understanding of when the United States does or does not kill civilians but also major strategic questions and with that thank you our next panel is what is the future of Afghanistan with Peter Bergen and Martin Beck who you will introduce so thanks so much thank you sorry about our picnic program we are on the whole college we'll either fix it or broadcast that particular part of the program at some later date so we're very lucky to have Martin Beck here who was a former chief of staff for President Ghani he was in Kabul on August the 15th 2021 when the Taliban took over he was in the presidential palace and he was quite surprised when President Ghani suddenly disappeared he's also a fellow at New America and so there are basically three or four questions that we wanted to discuss let's begin perhaps with something that Martin mentioned to me this morning which is the National Counterterrorism Center put out on September 11th put out an assessment that Al Qaeda was basically more or less over in Afghanistan which is very different from an assessment in June the United Nations said that there were 400 members of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan some of them had positions in the Taliban administration some of them were collecting welfare payments from the Taliban so Martin so first of all what do you think about the claim to two days ago that Al Qaeda was more or less out of business that was put forward by the US government thank you Peter for having me I was surprised when I read about the report let me elaborate a little bit further the report looks sounds to me more politically teller in a way politically motivated to do with the US cycle of election so I have worked in the Afghan intelligence service back in 2015 from 2015 until 2017 I was number two in the Afghan Intel service in charge of the domestic Intel intelligence so I've worked closely with the CIA, MI6 with other agencies with our partners in Afghanistan actively against the Al Qaeda and other terror outfits my perception of or my impression of the report is that the report is based first main factor determining this report is the US intelligence communities interaction with the Taliban with DGI director of intelligence the director of intelligence mainly in Doha it happens as far as I know there's a channel to do with the with the Doha talk started this channel was established so they actively pass mainly exchange information and also time to time I assume there's some intel passes to the Taliban regarding the ISIS K like Daesh Khurasan branch so the Taliban's claim to the American is that there's a significant reduction in the activity of Daesh in Afghanistan so the verification mechanism I believe is the signal intelligence and so the signal intelligence of course shows a reduction why? as anyone who's have a deeper understanding of the Saudi Asia the terror landscape knows that the terror outfits there especially in the past two decades of American massive reliance on the technology they know how to avoid signal intelligence or other technical means so my understanding and also reports from the ground is that Daesh or ISIS K for time being they are not launching any attack against the Taliban that's what I've heard from many sources so there is a reduction so the talk about it or the reports we get from the ground is they are because recently after some high-profile Daesh attack against the Taliban the Daesh was under tremendous pressure and I think it's more to do with the signal intel the American pass to the Taliban so now Daesh is kind of reconsidering their modus operandi and they're going silent for a time being so that in a way that's silent or being a even some people talk of tactical ceasefire that shows a reduction of violence that's second so these two factors maybe if someone doesn't have a better understanding of the South Asia believe this is real so that Daesh is not a threat or it's kind of reduced second on the question of al-Qaeda I think it's very naive to assume that al-Qaeda doesn't have a presence in Afghanistan or doesn't pose a threat to the global security so just looking I mean it doesn't take much time just looking at local media or follow reading news on Pakistan you will figure out what's going on inside Pakistan right now how TTP have increased this operation cross-border operation inside the Pakistan and that speaks for itself TTP being the Pakistani Taliban exactly yeah so again my conclusion is unfortunately this report or this assessment is more politically motivated and it doesn't match to the ground reality first and second to the two reports with the UN one in May which you mentioned the other one in July of the analytical support and the sanction monitoring team of the security council came out and talked the details about it yeah these UN reports are very thorough and they're based on member states reporting it's not just the United States assessment it's many states and I found them generally speaking to be the most accurate assessment of what's going on certainly that's available publicly and in one of the previous reports the UN said that Siraj Akhani who's the minister of the interior which is like running DHS FBI CIA is on the leadership council of Al Qaeda of course the Akhanis have been sort of co-located with Al Qaeda for decades so anyway I'm skeptical of the idea that Al Qaeda is sort of out of business now on the other hand you know they haven't announced new leader Eman al-Sawari was killed in July of 2022 in downtown Kabul he was living there with the knowledge of Taliban officials according to the Biden administration which kind of speaks for itself but the fact that they haven't appointed a new leader so what does that suggest to you or they may have appointed a new leader that haven't published his name well I think for Al Qaeda Afghanistan is now a safe haven and if anyone is like let's put us ourself in their shoes it would be very stupid to do anything at this moment it's at the best time I think they're learning from their predicates of presence in the region they're reorganizing building their bases and even reports of new other members relocating inside Afghanistan and at the same time they are trying to help this narrative of Taliban's are sticking with the Duhadi so I think it's a time of consolidation for the Taliban and Al Qaeda Al Qaeda members are in Taliban's intel service the director of you call GTI fellow director of intelligence in a few Afghan members of that Al Qaeda is actively there working and also some governors which was in the report highlighted my understanding is Afghanistan right now unfortunately have turned to a headquarter of terrorism yeah and the short term it would not pose an immediate threat to the United States it's already posing threat more to the region look the Pakistan already two cross border attack in Tajik style two ISK attack inside Iran originated from Afghanistan so the ground realities or the reports we get from the ground speaks differently yeah the UN report also said there are 20 terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan which I think speaks for itself and the other thing which is interesting about the UN report is the United States when it left the Taliban now have 70,000 armored vehicles more than 100 helicopters the UN report suggests there's 8.5 billion dollars of military equipment that was left behind the Taliban now has 8.5 billion dollars is more than the defense budget of a lot of European countries so the Taliban is very well armed there is no meaningful armed resistance I don't think I mean obviously you have Ahmad Shah Massoud's son leading the resistance but he's in Tajikistan and it seems to me as an outsider that the attacks that the what the armed resistance is doing is pretty limited to Panjir and isn't really that significant Am I what do you think about the armed resistance they seem to be getting almost no resources from any country they have some kind of presence in Tajikistan but this is not like Ahmad Shah Massoud's resistance to the Taliban before 9-11 where he had access to Tajikistan he was also pretty weak by the time 9-11 happened but he was in the country and he was obviously then helped we were able to ally with the northern alliance and overthrow the Taliban so what's your assessment of the internal armed resistance to the extent it exists if it would go a little further before answering this question I would like to address the Doha Deen which kind of killed any potential armed resistance so if you see the history of Afghanistan or the region mainly Afghanistan most of the you know say regime change or any things in Afghanistan is kind of foreign driven in a way unfortunately the Doha Deen undermined the afghan state which was built by American blood and regional afghan together there was a counter terrorism capability in place with the Trump administration and with the Biden President Biden's announcement of complete withdrawal kind of give a sense to the afghan that Taliban is the future so in a way we lost Afghanistan not through a military defeat mainly through policy defeat or political defeat so this itself killed an armed future armed resistance because afghans are survivalists you know much better than anyone else they always look the other day when I was talking with one of the freedom fighters this Mujahidin against the soviet he said something very interesting to me said during those days when you would ask an elders in a village like this who's in charge of this place are you with the Mujahidin or the communist regime the elder would say whoever controls this area this hell top I'm his subject so people are seeing the wind what the wind has changed now the way things has been with the Duhadil and with the continuous talk with the Taliban so afghans are kind of suspicious what's happening so they of course fed off with the Taliban but they're still seeing what direction United States will take it doesn't mean United States have to go back in a military way no in a political way what is the big game what is the bigger decisions so that's one of the major factor for the armed resistance any resistance inside the country to pick up first second after august 2021 some of former ANSF members and also some of former northern alliance launched some sort of resistance but of course it was difficult as you mentioned earlier logistical support the weapons and the way the Taliban came to the power it still is very small and unfortunately it has not been able to politically expand itself it's become very narrow in a way but the armed resistance is there it's not completely died but as a force is there beside that the women's of Afghanistan are protesting there are a lot of other forms of resistance but mainly I would say because I'm in touch with a lot of former ANSF members tribal elders and others they're looking for the how the when the politics change in Washington the reason why I mentioned Washington Washington is very important because from since 1979 our destiny has been tied with Washington so I think it's a lot to do with here and and it if things are not if people are not coming up in a massive protest doesn't work against Taliban we all know they have like what sort of regime they are but people are waiting with what the bigger politics become then they will decide so the Taliban right now you know they're well entrenched they don't face any real internal opposition they're well armed but things can change and so if you go back to December 2011 then Vice President Biden and Tony Blinken negotiated a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq three years later Obama sent American troops back into Iraq because first of all ISIS was threatening genocide against the Yazidis and then as we heard earlier today they they kidnapped and murdered Jim Foley and other American journalists and aid workers and there are still 2,500 American troops in Iraq today which interestingly is exactly the same number of troops that was kind of keeping a lid on things in Afghanistan in the beginning of 2021 so what do you think you say that Washington is obviously so important to kind of the way Afghanistan and Afghanistan see the world what do you think could change realistically you know are they this going to be there forever the Taliban or are the particular things that could change the politics either in Washington or in the region or in Europe or elsewhere where suddenly this kind of de facto acceptance of the Taliban as the as the government even though no government they're not recognized by any country but they are in charge what could change that situation well like they're people talk about many scenarios and that the way I see the activities on the ground and the way the Taliban came to the power all of itself as an umbrella is a threat to the region and global security and probably what I would suggest be kind of odd not fashionable in today's global politics because now it's more about the Bible of a great power competition but what I see is for the United States and also original countries to work together so from like the beginning if I we go a little bit in the history of course Pakistan initially undermined the US presence in Afghanistan for the war is reason after 2010 it was Iran Russia China they start heavily supporting the Taliban but today they already see it's becoming a threat look the incident in Pakistan the activities in the border of Tajikistan and the attacks inside Iran and also which one thing we don't talk is about ETI Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement which is the Uyghurs and it's a bigger number in the northeast of Afghanistan where I came from and from 2014 after the security transition they were the one who changed the security in favor of Taliban in the northeast so they're a threat to China as well so right now Taliban's are playing very smartly it's not in a way flirting with the China Russia at the same time flirting with United States so using today I was seeing the news they're giving a very rich carpet welcome to the new Chinese ambassador definitely it's it's very the message is very clear they're trying to give a message to the United States I think we shouldn't be a victim of this sort of play now United States has a lot of expertise on the region but the good thing is also region is also realizing it's a threat to them as well so the best way is back we come go we go back to the history after post 9-11 there was a consensus so on Afghanistan at least there's a consensus kind of forming a game so the best way is I think United States you stayed as a letter of free world and also is still as someone shaping the global politic and in the past two decades have invested a lot in Afghanistan more than one million American military and civilians served in Afghanistan the veterans are very active I see a talk with them on Afghanistan issues so probably it's ended for certain politician but it's not ended for the people so my suggestion would be before it's becoming too all I mean late it would be good for the United States to lead this and to form a consensus with the region and on a before Afghanistan become more descent into chaos in a civil war or this total groups becoming more consolidated I think United States has to use this leverage even Taliban are disparate for recognition but all this has to put a price maybe we need a constitutional order in Afghanistan where all the Afghans come together that could be bring peace and stability in the region also counter other terror organization so probably look idealistic but one of the way forward already everyone is talking United States talking separately Iran talking separately with Taliban Chinese everyone is doing their own bilateral security things with the Taliban so what I'm suggesting is maybe something bigger a consensus something we have to learn from the four decade if we say from 1979 or the past two decades listen learn from Afghanistan because that region the terror landscape in Saudi Asia is very fluid you know it very well than anyone else in this room how Taliban Al-Qaeda even the current leadership of ISSK they were former Taliban former Al-Qaeda they knew each other very well so we shouldn't say that the threat is not gone so yeah but so it's the problem with you know the Taliban is not recognized by any country and the last time they controlled Afghanistan they were recognized by three countries Saudi Arabia the Emirates and Pakistan but it's a I mean there's a policy dilemma which is 40 million Afghans who are many of whom are close to starvation there's no jobs the economy is completely collapsed and the Taliban are the de facto government so how do you deal with the government you know even whatever you do to help Afghans ultimately is going to help the Taliban right so how if you're you know if you're a U.S. policymaker it's tough because there's certain things you do want from the Taliban if you have dual nationals who are in Taliban custody of which I think there are several you're trying to negotiate their release you're also trying to you know make sure that Afghans don't starve how do you deal with the Taliban in such a way that you're not propping up the regime it's an interesting question because and also the dilemma exists yeah I mean already the reports are out around 28 million Afghans need humanitarian assistance in like life-saving it's it's just one of the biggest humanitarian crisis at the moment the fear the reason why Afghans are why saying of the engagement with the Taliban like why saying they're like they're whicers against engaging against the Taliban for reason because when we look back this theory like Doha deal what happened and they handed over of Afghan government to the Taliban same with Afghans a fair kind of an engagement or talk with the Taliban might lead in a way to their recognition or normalizing their gender apartheid regime yeah so the way forward is very difficult it's not easy but even the Doha deal being so flawed there are was things inside that could be used for a for a join or peace in Afghanistan something a joint government will emerge from the Republic or the Taliban so it's still the Taliban is taking to that deal they're saying we're committed to that so what happens to the into the Afghan side of it that could be revived second by whom by whom but by if international community because they're asking all the times financial support or recognition so any legitimate government in Afghanistan should have come out of the process so one of the process is this yeah that's what I'm saying is the United States has to put this condition because United States is the signatory of that deal that's not a popular deal in Afghanistan but it's better than nothing there's a framework in place so that could be used one way and the second there has been call as I mentioned earlier there's a need for a principle like principle engage why why the world need to engage with the Taliban for what that has to be clear that engagement only for humanitarian assistance or other things might lead in a way normalizing their behavior which is happening right now so it's better to have a better policy I think we have I don't agree with the other like saying we don't have many options there are options still there are many options on the the table and that are think the Taliban the way I know them I've been talking with them and we have found and talked they always think the world especially United States doesn't have a consistent policy said it will keep changing and keep changing so they're saying why we have to change they will change and they're right in a way because United States since 2001 has keep changing its policy in a way which has benefited the Taliban I think it's time for us to learn from all those past mistakes and there is there is still a way forward to correct the course of action we United States closed this embassy in Afghanistan in 1989 after the soviets withdrew that turned out to be a mistake we don't have United States doesn't have any kind of diplomatic presence in Afghanistan I guess it has a de facto embassy in Doha and maybe Uzbekistan but should the United States seriously consider reopening its embassy or should other Western countries I mean obviously China Iran they all have their embassies Pakistan should Western countries open consulates or some or if not an embassy at least have a diplomatic presence I'm understanding that that has the danger of normalizing etc I mean as the previous speaker Ambassador mentioned like validating the authoritarian regime sometimes it's said I say jokingly it's not to be good for to be too close to America and also as a big enemy you know it's dangerous for you I think that it's kind of the way you see America has always to have a tendency to you know punish its own allies and and rewards the enemy so on that point that following his argument I would say this is the least Afghan expect from I mean Afghans already angry with the decision of President Trump and by President Biden and and United States invests so much in that country a generation was coming up you know democracy was flourishing you were one of those generations yeah you were one part oh yeah thousands of like but I mean how were you on 9-11 I was in 9th grade right so you saw this whole generation come up it was connected to the outside world exactly and and the Afghan was connected and and I think it was becoming a source of hope a lot of original countries was jealous of that I think this whole thing shouldn't have ended the way it ended and we could have still with a little bit of maturity and patience a country to the kids of war like active American prisons you cannot end that in one night in one year so negotiation needs patience and also easily because I was a member of negotiating team and before that negotiation before the they used signing the Doha deal we warn the Americans in Doha in Kabul in Washington because I was part of a dialogue with the Taliban and the only leverage was the withdrawal we just United States just give it easily to the Taliban so on the opening I think no as I mentioned earlier the opening of embassies has to be connect to a condition to a thing otherwise you just validate your point you mentioned that you know the Trump what it is the Trump and Biden administration you know the Trump administration did the withdrawal deal with the Taliban kind of gave the Taliban everything they wanted and the Biden administration went through with it but obviously they're not the only political actors that made mistakes and so how do you grade the Ghani administration I mean you were President Ghani's chief of staff you were in the palace the day the Taliban took Kabul what mistakes did the Afghan did Afghan politicians make well I mean that is one of the main internal factor for the class if I would highlight the mystics we made President Ghani the style of governance and politics because he took or he understood to perceive the negotiation more personal he thought the whole negotiation is to remove him from power and took it more personal the rivalry of Ambassador Khalilzad and President Ghani in a way undermine the U.S. and Kabul relationship that's one factor and second President Ghani because in 2020 I left the government I was a member of negotiating team as I mentioned earlier he taught the oldest processes to boost him from power instead of he preparing for a a war without American support he prepared for a scenario where there will be a deal he's not there he has to object it so there he brought a massive change in armed forces didn't allow the armed forces to have nurture its own leadership so saying because army was already I mean Taliban also because we had a stalemate both side was tired of fighting so he's saying a deal comes like that if his interest is not included the army might impose that on him so he actively removed all the our best commanders best generals from the from the army corps from brigade from so a massive engineering happened in the army in our intel service in our police service in our local governance went after in April 2021 when President Biden announced a complete withdrawal didn't stick he was expecting Biden might change the policy of Trump but no he didn't he went with the withdrawal so everything crushed so we had warned them in 2019 in July 2019 after a dialogue with the Taliban we should not hold the presidential election because that is more bring more tension tension domestically the country is already facing an existential threat and the peace process are going so we need to be united but the old election was a major mistake that presidential election because no one participated and it should have shallow of the republic system and the country became more divided so I would say we are as responsible as here so President Ghani and all of us are really responsible for that I mean kind of he expedited the collapse of the republic the republic could recess the republic had resources the republic had a better armed forces so our when when this Doha deal was being negotiated we came with a with a theory that this deal will not bring peace but it's an opening for us so we should prepare for a time when Americans will withdraw then Taliban will have its we will keep talking but the talk will not give any result so because Taliban believe whether the American support will collapse so whether the American support we should be able to take the war in another stalemate then the real negotiation will start so we didn't prepare for this scenario that was one of we have time for maybe one question if there is a question there isn't I will thank Mateen Beck very for his insights and let's hope that some people are listening to the ideas that you have because I don't think the Taliban are going to be in power forever I think embedded in our DNA that they're going to make some mistakes they might start recruiting Europeans they might also engage in ethnic cleansing against the Hazars which they did in the past they might be attacks against an American target in the region that could be from traceable to Afghanistan so things can change and so anyway thank you very much so thanks for having me our next panel or rather our next presentation is a video called how is the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force approaching the future of security it's our colleague Peter Singer strategist and senior fellow New America professor of practice in the Future Security Initiative at ASU interviewing General Uchikura Hirawaki the Chief of Staff of the Japan Air Self-Defense Force it's my pleasure and honor to introduce General Hirawaki Uchikura Chief of Staff of Japan's Air Self-Defense Force his roles and accomplishments over three decades of service range from piloting F-15 fighter jets to serving as Director General of the Defense Planning and Policy Department to Commander of Air Defense Command but most important to me personally is that we were able to serve together when he was a military fellow in Washington DC and I got to know Uchi both as a friend but also witness how he is an amazing researcher and writer very appropriate to our gathering today and during that time he conducted research and wrote a white paper on how interoperability is about more than just technology it's about partnership and I think that's a relevant lesson both for the conference but also for the larger relationship between the U.S. and Japan General thank you so much for joining us we'll start now with a question from what's going on in the world around us General what lessons are you taking from what we've observed in the conflict in Ukraine? I am General Hirawaki Uchikura Chief of Staff of the Air Self-Defense Force for Koku Data High I'd like to express my gratitude to Dr. Singer who invited me to this historic future security forum I have changed my relationship with him since I was a fellow at the Brookings Institution it is my great honor to be here today on behalf of Koku Data High the views that are going to be expressed today are those of mine and do not expect the official policy or official of Koku Data High ministry of defense or the government of the town let me briefly talk about the lessons from the situation in Ukraine from two perspectives the first one is at the strategic level and it is the importance of deterrence to discourage aggression and the ability to respond in case of a contingency the biggest lesson that we have learned from Russia's aggression against Ukraine is that it is critical to maintain sufficient deterrence to restrain opponent actions we now see that when a country with strong military capability forms the intention to launch an aggression it is inherently difficult to gauge its intent from the outside and conditions under which threats may materialize always with this also while no nation alone can defend its own security here is the new implementation of the importance of not only strengthening our own defense capabilities but also enhancing interoperability which includes the corollity of aircraft and weapons and the connectivity of network that enable cooperation at a higher level with the ally who have the intent and the capability to respond to invasion in a coordinated manner considering both dataness and response perspective it is also necessary to reinforce cooperation and cooperation with the ally like my country and other the second few points is to form a operational level and it is the necessity of defense capabilities that can adapt to new way of warfare in the aggression against new plane hybrid warfare has emerged with a combination of massive missile threats by ballistic and road missiles a symmetric attack developing the space cyber and extra magnetic domains and with a man asset and information warfare with this in mind we have reached our recognition then it is urgent for us to build advanced integrated air and missile defense where we can combine kinetic and non kinetic means appropriately in the concept of IAMD it is also vital to strengthen passive defense capabilities to mitigate damage and ensure functionality through dispersion concealment and camouflage damage distortion and others as well as active defense capabilities such as air defense and ballistic missile defense when I participated in NATO exercise air defender 23 in Germany in June which focused on dispersion deployment I exchanged views and shared this definition with air chiefs from participating countries general as you look beyond you could other key trends that you observe shaping the future of security and in particular what scenario of the future might be the most challenging I think there are two key trends first there are the global trends known as geopolitical competition looking at the Indo-Pacific region where Japan is located for example there are a number of countries for the security concerns Russia has lost an aggression against Ukraine and shaping the foundation of the international order despite its permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council China continues to advance its unilateral changes to the status quo by force or such attempts in the East China Sea and South China Sea North Korea escalates its activities known as ballistic missiles have unprecedented fight decency and received with the development of nuclear weapons therefore it is important for Japan in cooperation and collaboration with other and like-minded countries and others to continue to demonstrate the intention and capability to guitar unilateral changes to the status quo by force and such attempts through our strategic alignment and the synodistic effects from our common effort based upon this idea the Kofu Jedi has adapted bilateral multilateral training with X signs with Australia India Germany France and Italy in the past year with the Japan-U.S. alliance at the cornerstone the security of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific are in several levels this phrase clearly expresses the recent trend the second trend is to view security as a comprehensive national power which links the major functions of a country such as democracy and so on such as diplomacy intelligence military affairs and economy which is abbreviated at time to technological innovation when it comes to diplomacy and independence for instance it is it is critical to be able to communicate timely and acute accurate information through social media while discerning that olden city of conflicting information in terms of militarily telling the greatest because of level age space cyber and electromagnetic domains as well as capabilities supported by state of art technologies such as the use of unmanned systems and drones in addition to traditional militarily power from the viewpoint of geography geopolitical competition the most challenging scenario and when I opponent utilize this genetic means such as A to A D as well as cognitive warfare with the goal of intentionally encountering the cooperative and collaborative relationship between Japan and our ally and like-minded countries and others thus attempting to take advantage of opportunity to carry out unilateral changes to the status quo by force and such an attempt or at once side especially from a military perspective to then the scenario where if the wolf fighting war gets beginning in the space and cyber domain and the C5 I guess are achieved by functions due to unstable communications significant loss of difficult post-traumaticism accepting and existing assets are unable to respond in a timely and appropriate manner numerous missiles will be able to fly heat and land causing enormous tumor and material damage to the political and economic standard of state this would be the worst scenario caused by the negative effect from technological innovation it used to be high-sensical but now it turns out to be an operational reality exemplified by addition against Ukraine which is now widely viewed as an operational situation to prepare for General as you look at these trends you have a responsibility not only to respond to them but also shape the force of tomorrow in 2040 from today what capabilities might it have that it does not have now well um considering how we did that approach I'd like to share three big changes that we are anticipating that first change is the improvement of space of the the regional capabilities Japan's national defense strategy states that the Japan Air Safety Defense Force will be renamed to Japan Air and Space Safety Defense Force only three years have passed in the establishment of our first space unit and it is still at its initial phase I think it will possess stronger space capabilities by 2040 the second one is an enhancement of transitional air hours to defend the air domain changing our fighter unit as an example it is estimated that by 2040 we will operate approximately 150 F-35 including F-35B with starboard capability 70 upgraded F-15s as well as next generation fighter aircraft GCAP that we have currently developing the UK and Italy with this aircraft for Kujirata we have increasing capability and flexibility including the ability to operate standard of research the standard change is a progress with unmanned and automated systems in accordance with the defense build-up program for Kujirata we will continue to promote unmanned asset defense capabilities it is predicted that by 2040 in addition to the RQ4B already in place we will be able to operate some unmanned aerial vehicles linked to this fighter aircraft we will also promote the automation of various sensors and command control systems then we will conclude that to be more efficient and capable of performing more missions with fewer personnel first regarding space operations I predict that the Kujirata will possess its capability to carry out wide range of missions apart from space domain awareness both on the ground and in space secondly it is also expected when it comes to integrated air and missile defense we will be able to respond effectively to hypersonic weapons and missiles that requires on irregular projectiles at low altitude then we we anticipate that the Kujirata will possess standard of defense capabilities including the capability independently operate dynamic targeting which the U.S. military already possesses of course in order to prevent further attacks from an opponent by utilizing the standard defense capability it is also expected that we will have counter strike capabilities to mount effective counter strike against the opponent in each of those trends and capabilities we see a variety of new technologies General what technologies do you see as being key to the future? Key technologies for the future will be AI simulation using VR and AR and database access technology first AI technology was expected to be used in the military field that only to assist in command and decision making and to improve information processing capabilities but also to be equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles and used in the cyber domain furthermore to the range of AI represented by chat GDP is increasingly recognized as having a significant impact on social life in addition in order to win the battle where the combat situation will become even more rapid and complex in the future it is necessary to make quicker and more accurate decisions than those of our opponent AI plays a major role in improving the digital making process itself as well as makes it helpful to build a man on the loop system that allows humans to not oversee the digital making process second simulation technology using VR and AR is becoming increasingly important as a complexity of combat situations makes it more difficult to create the same situation in actual training and exercise high fidelity simulators that only enable mission decorsals but also contribute to SDGs by reducing the number of flights using actual aircraft third I believe that the technology to share sensitive information stored in databases with other military services and allies in VR time is a critical technology as a range of utilization of asset sensors expands at an accelerating pace interoperability betterings of beginnings to seek from network connectivity to database accessibility general I know as both a leader but also as a writer that you care deeply about the role of people in the organization so what new and different skills do you anticipate that military officers will need in this future I think there are two skills that military officers will need in the future first is a skill related to spirituality and digital making in order to control a battle where combat situations are becoming more rapid and complex it is necessary to ensure sparely or digital making by having commanders or staff officers make appropriate decisions more quickly and more accurately than the opponent therefore I think that the commanders who will make decisions in such an environment we need to acquire even more skills than they currently have to observe and orient information quickly and connect to their decisions and actions if we look ahead to the day in the near future when frontline commanders will be using wearable devices such as smart glasses to take command I believe that the skills required will become in extra campaign linked to IT details second is a skill related to mission command in a situation where combat conditions are becoming more rapid and complex it is possible that command and control may be cut off due to the jamming of communications where a commander can grasp information sufficiently detailed command in which detailed instructions are given to subordinate commanders for their actions is suitable on the other hand when the worst situation is uncertain and rapidly changing due to disruption of communications it is appropriate to take mission command dedicating decision maintenance and operational execution to subordinate commanders in a quota for the situation therefore I believe that officers will be required more than ever before to have the skills and the mental cabinet to deeply understand their own duties missions and to be able to command in a timely and appropriate manner even without the instruction and order from their spheroes General you have been very generous with your time and also speaking with us across multiple time zones we very much appreciate you joining us and sharing your thoughts thank you for our final panel today and thanks so much for spending your time with us as what is the future of cyber security our colleague Peter Singer doing an interview with General Paul Nakasone who is the commander of U.S. cyber command and also the director of the national security agency chief of the central security service so again thank you and if I tried to list all of general Paul Nakasone's accomplishments and his over three decades of service to the nation it would use up all our interview time so I'll just sum it up by saying that when it comes to national and cyber security he's been there and done that his roles have ranged from command at the company battalion and brigade level to assignments in the U.S. Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq to finally serving as both commander of U.S. cyber command and director of the national security agency since 2018 during what has been in arguably one of the most dynamic times in not just cyber security history but overall national security general thank you very much for joining us thanks Peter it's good to see you again so let's jump right in as you come to the end of your time in military service can you take us through how it started and evolved what were some key lessons that you've learned along the way Peter I was commissioned through the ROTC program at the end of the Reagan administration so I enter an army as a career intelligence officer really at the kind of the height of the Cold War and what I see is first of all the demise of the Soviet Union I see the rise of the Balkans and then I'm at the Pentagon on 9-11 and I think I would characterize everything in my military experience pre 9-11 and post 9-11 and so from the post 9-11 you know opportunities like many of my peers to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan but in 2007 I landed the national security agency to command a brigade and I just happened to be at a time in a place where cyber is taking off I've seen our experiences in Iraq where we were able to bring signals intelligence to war fighters in the front end and also seen in 2008 the penetration of our classified networks and so I'm there for the stand-up of U.S. cyber command so I guess a person that's been fairly lucky in their experiences through their career So let's look at what's changed over that period of time let's break it down what was the biggest change that you've seen within the military during that period and then secondly I'd like to ask you what's the biggest change in terms of the types of threats that you've been dealing with Oh so for the military again I entered the military right after Goldwater Knickles has been signed and I would tell you the dramatic change in our military is the ability to operate as a joint force I come into a service you know that's very parochial in the late 80s but by the 90s we have learned the lesson that it is all about being joint and the way that we're going to do things in the future is through a joint force and my experiences in Korea and Iraq and Afghanistan reinforce this idea that if we're going to have success it's going to be part of the joint force and with that comes this realization that with the joint force we're able to take this concept this tenet that we've always talked about intelligence-driving operations and actually make it real and this is what we have done really since I would say since about 2005 So when you said make it real can you give a non-classified example to illustrate that for us? Yeah I saw it specifically in 2006 2007 all the way in the mid-2000s in Iraq and Afghanistan when you had first of all our special operations forces and then our conventional forces take what is you know incredibly sensitive information from the national security agency and be able to utilize that a series of missions where they're actually able to drive their operations one mission, three missions, five missions sometimes multiple missions and a night and this is not just on our very elite operators but also on our conventional forces So let's talk about that threat side of things and the change in it so over the course of your careers you laid out you know you went from having to think about the Warsaw Pact Soviet Army to then Iraq to then insurgents Taliban to now great power competition Talk to me about how it's not merely the way the threat has changed but the way that you as a leader have to think about that threat I think the last portion is really important Peter because this idea of critical thinking being dynamic in your thoughts is something I've seen very successful leaders do throughout my career remember you know we come in with really a bipolar world where we're all thinking about the full to gap we transition to counterinsurgency violent extremist organizations and then we're coming back to great power competition where the lessons that you learn in the late 80s suddenly are coming back in you know the mid 2000s and from that I think that I would say is that you know your ability to understand you know what are your competitive advantages how do you think differently about the threat how do you apply our competitive advantages to the threat are what makes very successful leaders and obviously separates those that have been successful from those that have been less successful as well So we've got some folks listening who were around for that lessons from the 80s and the Warsaw Pact that are coming back what's a particular lesson that you see coming back from that period of a different kind of great power competition but there are some parallels Well I think you know we come back to deterrence right I mean deterrence is something we all study as we came into the military in the late 80s is something we practice I think we you know lost a little bit of our operational knowledge of it you know as counterterrorism violent extremist organizations played out and now it's coming back but I think what's different and the way that I've seen it in cyberspaces it's not necessarily that our you know what we do have changed but how we do it needs to change and so when we think about deterrence how do we use information differently how do we use intelligence differently how do we use our technology different to you know be able to signal to our adversaries of our capabilities So let's go into that area that is fundamentally different because you know literally it didn't exist back then which is having to develop cyber strategy so you've been part of doing this at both an organizational but also a national level first what do you see as the essential elements of cyber strategy Peter I've seen four different cyber strategies from our department 2011 2014 2018 and now the the latest one that's coming out in the coming weeks really successful strategies first of all are able to depict the strategic environment in which we are in okay that's one of the things that's necessary for strategy but the big piece that I think successful strategies have is being able to identify the one way or the one mean that we're going to get to our ends much more successful let me give you an example I think 2018 is a watershed moment in terms of the way that Department of Defense approaches cyber everything up to that we were relatively passive we'd have an intrusion we would lose data we would have an intruder in our networks and then we would go to to clean it up in 2018 we said this is going to stop we are going to have a much more proactive approach this is defend for this is an idea of operating outside the United States to be in constant contact with our adversaries to understand what's going on for us cyber command this is persistent engagement informing and acting and so to your question is you have to describe the strategic environment but importantly describe exactly the ways and the means that you're going to get after to make a difference in what the strategic environment is telling us today so that's a really interesting that you've been there to witness and been part of the creation of multiple different strategies so I'd like to ask you I'm going to put on my professor hat I'd like to ask you to evaluate not the strategy itself but how we build strategy what does the U.S. do well in terms of the building of strategy and what do we need to up our game on when it comes to this building the process of developing strategy and cyberspace I think the U.S. military it does very well at a doctrinal approach a methodology upon which we build a strategy we've done this we have a doctrine that identifies how we do it as army officers learn this in Leavenworth you learn this at the army war college you learn this in your joint force training it's very laid out I think we write a lot of strategies I think the challenge that I see with strategy right now is that we tend to be so siloed within the military that we forget that there's you know there's other means upon which we can accomplish our outcomes how do we look differently at the interagency how do we look differently at the intelligence committee how do we look differently at the private sector these are all incredibly important in the environment in which we live today particularly in the domain in which I operate which is cyberspace if you're going to write a strategy you're not talking about the private sector or you're not talking about international partners what's the value of the strategy going to be I would say probably less than what you're hopeful and so I think the challenge that we have is we've got to think broadly about how we're going to bring different players into and make them a part of our strategy and ensure that we you know and somehow incorporate their contributions or what we need from their contributions to be successful on our own ends thank you so you're at an important moment of transition both for the nation but also for you personally as you look back what are you most proud of in your tenure at cyber command and the NSA and in turn are there any areas of unfinished business so to speak personally I would go back to 2018 and it's a russia small group I come out of my confirmation hearings knowing that there's going to be a safe and successful election midterms in 2018 or there's going to be a new commander and a new director of NSA and so we got after it very quickly we brought together the best of NSA in U.S. cyber command he said hey this is our end we're going to get a safe and successful election for the midterms in 2018 and what really kind of grew from that or a number of different ideas that set the course for us at both our agency and command things like hunt forward operations you know today we've done 50 different operations 23 different countries 77 different networks with partners to hunt for adversaries this is an idea again that's you know akin to our defend forward our persistent engagement it also brings in this idea of the private sector so on the fall of 2018 we say hey we found all this malware let's look at a you know a civilian company to see if they've ever seen this malware before so this private public partnership is actually demonstrated then and so what grows from the Russia small group is first of all in the agency this idea that we need a cyber security director and a year later we do that what grows from that is that hey what we are doing is not going to change we're going to do signals intelligence cyber security and cyber operations at both our agency and command but the how is dramatically different we're going to operate in the unclassified space we're going to operate with public sector partners we are going to be able to publish things like cyber security advisories that we release to the nation in the world this is different and this is all from the Russia small group let me talk a little bit about unfinished business for us I've talked about China as the generational challenge for our nation our current generation our children our children's children it is a different nation in terms of the competition that we are experiencing now with China as we look to the future my sense is that we will continue to have this very very high level of competition but if we want to ensure that the future is one where we're able to protect our homeland and continue to protect our allies and partners we have to address the challenge that is China the diplomatic information military economic power of this nation is different than we've ever experienced in terms of the agency unfinished business for me is really focused on our people in the next five years we're going to hire half of our civilian workforce we have to think differently about talent management how do we onboard people how do we train people how do we do hybrid work how do we look at things like well-being that is you know akin to what we saw what we needed during COVID-19 and then on the command side the unfinished business for us really is getting to sustain readiness our optimal has increased dramatically how do we take service like authorities and blend them into what we are doing and get the experiences of a force that is always ready and always able to continue to do multiple missions at one time this is the unfinished business for us Peter so as you know I work in that space between both non-fiction but also sometimes fictional future so I'm going to ask your help can you paint a scene of what cybersecurity and cyber warfare will look like 10 years from now what will be the same what might be different let me begin with what I think the same is I think success in the future will always go to the nation or the activity that has the best people and are able to leverage the people and being able to apply those people in a manner that gets sufficiently to the end state that they're trying to reach that's not going to change I don't think that the nature of warfare is going to change in terms of being violent and bloody and incredibly challenging for a nation state but here's what I think is going to change the fact that speed is going to change dramatically we see it in our domain what was once weeks had become days what has become days have become hours in the future will be down to seconds in terms of what we're going to have to be able to process what we're going to have to be able to do secondly my sense is that partnerships are going to change if we are going to be successful particularly in the domain in which I operate cyberspace we have to have a much broader range of partners we have to have partners that are not only within our government but are within the private sector that are international partners that are academic partners that allow us to get after very very tough challenges in a very quick manner and the last thing that I think is going to change is is obviously I think we will see you know a continuing challenge with regards to how do we leverage the technology that is so quickly changing what we're doing whether or not it's artificial intelligence machine learning whether or not it's encryption whether or not it's future quantum these are the things that we're going to have to master as first of all a joint force and then obviously as policymakers as well so you've been very generous with your time so I'd like to close by asking one last question that in many ways is you know behind the scenes for some in the audience particularly those at the start of their careers is there advice that you would give to someone just entering the field of national and cyber security tips for for how to thrive in the way that you have so I think I'd begin Peter with the idea that treat your work as both as a profession and as being a professional one of the things that I think I've been the beneficiary of has been really a career of continued education and whenever I was moving towards another rank or a new job it seemed like the service had sent me back to further training this is part of being a professional and being a profession I've also had the great fortune to work with incredible leaders people that really set the tone both in the policy making and also the operational force you know a series of different folks on the joint force a series of folks of army leaders whether or not it's been Keith Alexander or Stan McChrystal or others they have really kind of shaped this idea of what a professional does and how they operate the second piece is that I've learned from my experiences that one of the key things that you have to bring to your work is passion it's passion I mean you get up in the morning and what you do matters and you feel as though what you do matters and you get excited to go to work obviously some days you're more excited than others but the key to success here is that find something that you're passionate about and when you find that passion you know continue to continue to look at being a professional and enhancing the profession and the last thing I would share and this is probably a bit parochial but I think many in many with my experience would say the same thing it comes back in many ways to small unit leadership when you're a rising cadet before you get commissioned one of the things that they do is they teach you to be a small unit leader a fire team leader or squad leader and those lessons have never really left me set the example lead from the front establish and maintain standards being able to articulate guidance clearly moral and physical courage you know it seemed like at the time when you're learning those things okay okay I got it but every single job every single day that I spend here within the agency and command I come back to the same principles and so small unit leadership really was among the most essential things that I learned early in my career thank you for joining us today thank you to our colleagues at Arizona State University thank you to US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute we will share their insights on lessons to learn from Ukraine in an upcoming video thank you to the James W. Furley Legacy Foundation also for joining we're pleased today to continue ASU and New America's partnership as the Future Security Initiative I look forward to seeing you next year and to turn it over to my colleague Daniel Rothenberg who's going to thank specific folks at ASU and then I'll close it out yeah thanks for for spending some time with us today and we have this unique partnership that binds Arizona State University you know we're the largest public research university in the country with New America this innovative you know forward thinking think tank and we link we're linked not just by doing events and things like this we have structural connections where we share resources share team members have folks work together in all sorts of ways that we're quite proud of and I really want to thank ASU leadership because the university set up a situation where we can do interesting entrepreneurial things that are not typical for for universities President Michael Crow, Chief of Staff Jim O'Brien have opened the the event for us today of Pat Kenny our Dean a Magna and a host of Dean of Social Sciences and our school director Ganesh Murat Teskur and then we have a whole other team of faculty and staff that are just essential to all the things that we get done so thank you so much thank you Daniel Rothenberg for being you know this partnership started with me and Daniel nine years ago and it's expanded since want to thank New America's president Paul Butler Peter Singer for doing a lot of those videos Jason Stewart, Candace Rondeau Lillian Corral, Shannon Lynch Hila Rasool Ayub, Brian Hatfield Joe Wilkes and I want to particularly thank Molly Martin who did a huge amount of work on this and David Sturman who also did a huge amount of work on this and also Angela Spidlat so thank you for joining us you get some kind of reward for staying the whole day if you thank you