>> GREETINGS FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES FLAGSHIP
BUILDING IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WHICH SITS ON THE ANCESTRAL LANDS OF THE NATKOTCHTANK PEOPLES. I'M
DAVID FERRIERO, ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES AND IT'S MY PLEASURE TO WELCOME YOU TO TODAY'S
AUTHOR VIRTUAL LECTURE WITH JANE HARMAN, AUTHOR OF INSANITY DEFENSE. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE
TO INVITE CHILDREN AGE 9 to13 AND THEIR FAMILIES TO TUNE INTO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL IN A COUPLE OF
DAYS TO MEET TEDDY ROOSEVELT. ON THURSDAY JULY 22ND AT NOON THE LATEST EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES COMES ALIVE. YOUNG
LEARNERS PROGRAM WILL BRING YOU THE 26th PRESIDENT AS PORTRAYED BY ACTOR JOE WIEGAND. AFTER A TALK ABOUT THE EXPANSION OF THE NATIONAL PARKS DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION, TEDDY WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
IN A WASHINGTON POST INTERVIEW JANE HARMAN WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE TITLE OF HER NEW BOOK, INSANITY DEFENSE. SHE ANSWERED,
IT'S BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND EXPECTING
A DIFFERENT RESULT. I HAVE SEEN HOW WE KEEP TRYING THE SAME THINGS AND WE DON'T MAKE THE
COUNTRY SAFER. SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR, CONGRESSWOMAN HARMAN CONTENDS, AMERICA HAS CYCLED
THROUGH THE SAME DEFENSE AND INTELLIGENCE ISSUES AND ITS LEADERS HAVE NOT REALIZED THAT THOSE
POLICIES NO LONGER FIT A TRANSFORMED WORLD. SHE EXAMINES WHY OUR FAILURE TO CONFRONT HARD
NATIONAL SECURITY PROBLEMS MAKES US LESS SAFE AND LOOKS FOR WAYS TO SOLVE THESE ISSUES. IN
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, WE HOLD A LARGE NUMBER OF NATIONAL SECURITY RECORDS, INCLUDING THOSE AMONG
CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS AND IN THE PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES. THESE ENCOMPASS RECORDS OF THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL, THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY AND PREDECESSOR, OFFICE OF STRATEGIC SERVICES,
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND MORE. I TURN
YOU OVER NOW TO CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN AND OUR MODERATOR, ABRAHAM DENMARK TO BEGIN THIS
IMPORTANT CONVERSATION ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY. DURING HER LONG PUBLIC CAREER, JANE HARMAN
SERVED NINE TERMS IN CONGRESS INCLUDING FOUR YEARS AFTER 9/11 AS RANKING MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND RECENTLY COMPLETED A DECADE AT THE NONPARTISAN WILSON CENTER AS
ITS FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT AND CEO. SHE IS RECOGNIZED AS A NATIONAL EXPERT AT THE NEXUS OF
SECURITY IN PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AND RECEIVED NUMEROUS AWARDS FOR DISTINGUISHED SERVICE.
SHE SERVED ON ADVISORY BOARDS FOR THE CIA, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, DEPARTMENTS
OF DEFENSE, HOMELAND SECURITY AND STATE.
JOINING CONGRESSWOMAN HARMAN IS ABRAHAM DENMARK,
DIRECTOR OF THE ASIA PROGRAM AT THE WILSON CENTER. Mr. DENMARK LEADS THE WILSON CENTER'S RESEARCH
ON GEO POLITICAL DYNAMICS OF THE INDO-PACIFIC AND CONTRIBUTE TO ITS INDUSTRY-LEADING ANALYSIS OF
U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS. IN ADDITION TO HIS DUTIES, AT THE WILSON CENTER HE IS AN ADJUNCT ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT GEORGETOWN
UNIVERSITY. NOW LETS HEAR FROM JANE HARMAN AND ABRAHAM DENMARK. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. >> ABRAHAM: JANE, CONGRATULATIONS ON THE BOOK. IT'S WONDERFUL TO SEE YOU AGAIN. >> JANE: THANK YOU,
ABE, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AT THE WILSON CENTER AND THANK YOU TO THE ARCHIVES,
FOR NOT ONLY FEATURING THIS CONVERSATION. I WAS LOOKING AT THE LIST OF WHAT COMES AFTER US
IN THE FUTURE DAYS, AND IT'S IMPRESSIVE IN THAT LIVE INTERVIEW OF TEDDY ROOSEVELT WITH KIDS, IS
SUCH A SPECTACULAR NOTION. WHAT A GOOD IDEA TO MAKE HISTORY COME ALIVE AND WHAT A GREAT PRESIDENT
HE WAS. AS WAS IN SOME WAYS BUT NOT IN OTHER WAYS, WOODROW WILSON, SOMETHING WE ALL LEARNED AND
LIVED AT THE WILSON CENTER. SO I'M DELIGHTED TO BE PART OF THIS. I ALSO SAY OFTEN THAT THE ONLY GOOD
THING THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THIS PANDEMIC AND MY FAMILY WAS LUCKY, UNLIKE SOME OTHERS, BUT
THE ONLY GOOD THING THAT HAPPENED TO ME DURING THIS PANDEMIC WAS THAT I HAD ENOUGH TIME TO FINISH
MY BOOK. AND IT'S SOMETHING I TRIED TO WRITE FOR YEARS AND I'M SO HAPPY I FINISHED IT. I CALL IT
MY FIRST AND LAST BOOK.
>> ABRAHAM: LET'S START THERE. I'M WONDERING, SINCE BEYOND THE TIME THAT
YOU HAD, BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC, I WAS HOPING WE COULD START BY HAVING YOU TALK A BIT ABOUT WHAT
MOTIVATED YOU TO WRITE THE BOOK. WHAT YOU THOUGHT THE WORLD NEEDED TO KNOW ON THESE ISSUES OF
WHAT YOU CALL THE INSANITY DEFENSE.
>> JANE: THANK YOU FOR THAT GOOD QUESTION. MY WHOLE LIFE
HAS BEEN POWERED, MY WHOLE PROFESSIONAL LIFE, BY MY INTEREST IN PUBLIC POLICY. I LITERALLY WENT,
MYSELF, VERTICALLY, AS A HUMAN BEING, BUT NOT VERY OLD, TO THE 1960 DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION WHERE I GOT
ON THE FLOOR,THERE WAS BASICALLY NO SECURITY, AND I SAW THE NOMINATION OF JOHN KENNEDY FOR PRESIDENT AND
I MET, NO KIDDING, ACTUALLY MET ELEANOR ROOSEVELT. MY LITTLE LIGHTBULB WENT OFF. I DID NOT COME FROM A
POLITICAL FAMILY. I CAME FROM AN IMMIGRANT FAMILY. MY FATHER WAS A MEDICAL DOCTOR WHO, FORTUNATELY, WAS ABLE TO
ESCAPE NAZI GERMANY. AT ANY RATE, FROM THAT DAY, I LOVED PUBLIC POLICY. AND I STILL DO. AND SO WHEN
I FINALLY GOT TO CONGRESS, WHICH WAS MY DREAM, RIGHT AFTER THE COLD WAR IN THE FIRST POST-COLD
WAR CLASS, THAT WAS 1992, I PAID A CLOSE ATTENTION TO PUBLIC POLICIES, ESPECIALLY FOREIGN POLICY
AND NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY, WHICH WAS THE BUSINESS OF MY DISTRICT WHICH STILL MAKES
MY FORMER DISTRICT, INTELLIGENCE SATELLITES.
AT ANY RATE, I REALIZED PRETTY QUICKLY THAT THE COLD
WAR HAD ENDED AND WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A DOCTRINE TO REPLACE IT. AND WE THOUGHT THAT WE WON. RUSSIA
LOST. AND TEAM RUSSIA LOST. SO EVERYBODY WANTED TO BE US. AND THAT WAS NOT THE CASE AND I'M SURE
WE'LL GO THROUGH IT IN QUESTIONS. BUT AS I WATCHED THIS MOVIE, I HAD NOT ONLY A FRONT ROW SEAT
BUT OCCASIONALLY STARRING AND SUPPORTIVE ROLES, I REALIZED THAT WE WERE MAKING A LOT
OF MISTAKES, INCLUDING MY MISTAKES.
SO THIS BOOK, CHRONICLES THREE DECADES OF MISTAKES
AND SUCCESSES, FOCUSED AROUND NATIONAL SECURITY. I MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE AND I
HOPE THAT CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ARE THINKING FORWARD AND THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT
THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS DOING RIGHT NOW THAT LEADS ME TO BE OPTIMISTIC, THAT THEY ARE
THINKING FORWARD AND WILL CORRECT SOME OF THE POLICY DEFICITS OF THE LAST 30 YEARS.>> ABRAHAM: THANK
YOU. YOUR BOOK REALLY CHRONICLES WHAT YOU DESCRIBE AS THIS SERIES OF FAILURES BY AMERICAN FOREIGN
POLICY LEADERS SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR. THAT WE WERE UNPREPARED FOR 9/11.
THAT WE OVER MILITARIZED OUR RESPONSE, THAT WE ERRED BADLY IN SUPPORTING THE INVASION
OF IRAQ. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS AT THE HEART OR FOUNDATION OF THESE REPEATED FAILURES OF THIS
KIND OF SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN?
>> JANE: WELL, I SUGGEST HUBRIS, LAZINESS AND POLITICAL
GRIDLOCK AS THREE OF THOSE. IT WAS INTERESTING WHEN THE COLD WAR ENDED, AS I ALREADY SAID, WE
WON, THEY LOST. INSTEAD OF LEARNING THE LESSONS FROM WORLD WAR II WHERE INSTEAD OF
JUST SAYING GERMANY AND JAPAN LOST, WE ARE GOING TO IGNORE THEM OR HURT THEM FURTHER;
WE INCLUDED THEM IN THE NEW LIBERAL ORDER. WE TOLD THEM WE WOULD PROVIDE FOR THEIR DEFENSE SO
THEY DIDN'T NEED TO DEVELOP A HUGE ARMY AND WEAPON SYSTEMS WHICH THEY DIDN'T. WE SET UP BASES IN BOTH
COUNTRIES. WE MADE THEM PART OF THE NEW WORLD.
THAT'S A LESSON WE UNLEARNED AFTER THE COLD WAR
ENDED AND AS I SAID, WE LEFT RUSSIA IN THE DIRT. AND THAT SENSE A GRIEVANCE WAS NURTURED FOR A
DECADE AND I THINK VLADIMIR PUTIN GREW UP ON THAT. THAT POWERS A LOT OF WHAT HE DOES. THE MISCHIEFS
HE MAKES AND THE ENMITY HE HOLDS US IN. SO ESPECIALLY IN THE 90s, BEFORE 9/11,
OUR ARROGANCE WAS ON FULL DISPLAY.
WE THOUGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT CHINA
WHICH WASN'T PART OF THE COLD WAR SPECIFICALLY, CHINA WOULD WANT TO BE US. SO
OF COURSE CHINA WAS WELCOMED INTO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION AND CHINA'S ECONOMY WOULD BE A
MINIVERSION OF OURS. GUESS WHAT? CHINA DIDN'T WANT TO BE US. AND CHINA'S ECONOMY ISN'T A MINIVERSION
OF OURS. AND CHINA GROWS DURING THAT DECADE. THE WILSON CENTER PROGRAM THAT FOCUSES ON CHINA
SPECIFICALLY, IS NAMED AFTER HENRY KISSINGER WHO WAS THE MAN WITH RICHARD NIXON WHO OPENED CHINA
TO THE U.S. BUT THE DIRECTOR OF THAT PROGRAM SAYS, CHINA ISN'T RISING, IT'S RISEN. AND IT ROSE DURING
THE 90s. SO WE MISSED THE RISE OF CHINA. WE ALSO MISSED THE RISE OF TERRORISM DURING THE 90s. THERE
WAS A BOMBING IN THE CAR PARK AREA OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN THE EARLY 90s. TWO OF OUR EMBASSIES
WERE BLOWN UP IN AFRICA. WE HAD A FAIRLY TEPID RESPONSE. THERE WAS A NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORISM THAT
WAS FORMED. I WAS ON IT. WE PREDICTED A MAJOR ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL. NOBODY PAID ATTENTION.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING, I CHRONICLE ALL THIS IN THE BOOK. WE MISSED A DECADE THERE. THEN COMES 9/11 AND
OUR RESPONSE WAS LOOKING BACK ON IT, AND I WAS THERE. I WAS PART OF THIS RESPONSE. ENORMOUSLY
MILITARISTIC. THEY ATTACKED US, WE'LL ATTACK THEM. I WASN'T AGAINST THE FIRST PART OF THAT AT ALL. I
THOUGHT WE SHOULD GO INTO AFGHANISTAN AND AGAINST THOSE WHO ATTACKED US. WE DID THAT AND IT TOOK
A WHILE, BASICALLY ONCE WE DECAPITATED OSAMA BIN LADEN, WE FINISHED THAT MISSION. BUT WE
STAYED. AND I'M SURE WE'LL GET INTO THIS. WE ARE STILL THERE ENDLESS WARS. AND WE ARE NOT ONLY THERE,
WE ARE IN IRAQ, WE ARE IN NUMEROUS PLACES. CONGRESS IS NOT ASSERTING THE OVERSIGHT AND
DRAWING THE BOUNDARIES IT SHOULD BE DRAWING. IT'S FUNDING THESE THINGS BUT IT'S NOT
DOING ITS JOB. ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OPERATES WITHIN
LIMITS. AND SO WE CAN GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT MISTAKES. JUST ONE PIECE OF GOOD NEWS
TODAY, OR I THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD NEWS. WHICH IS, WE TRANSFERRED ONE OF THE 40 REMAINING PRISONERS IN
GUANTANAMO BAY PRISON, LONG STORY ABOUT HOW THAT WAS SET UP WRONGLY IN MY VIEW - WE TRANSFERRED
ONE TO MOROCCO, HIS HOME COUNTRY. AND WE MAY BE FIGURING OUT A CAREFUL WAY TO CLOSE THAT PRISON.
WHICH, IN MY VIEW, SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PUT UP THERE AND WHICH WAS THE SCENE OF SADLY TORTURE OF A
NUMBER OF PRISONERS, AND WHICH IS A RECRUITING TOOL AND A STAIN ON THE U.S.
RECRUITING TOOL FOR
THE TERRORISTS AND A STAIN ON THE U.S.
>> ABRAHAM: SO SINCE YOU TALKED ABOUT - BROUGHT UP
AFGHANISTAN, LET'S DIG INTO THAT. YOU WERE A KEY VOICE ON NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES AT
THE TIME. YOU WERE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS ON 9/11. WE TALKED ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCES ON
THAT DAY. WALKING TO THE CAPITOL BUILDING. AND YOU WERE A PART OF THE VOTE TO
SUPPORT THE AUTHORIZATION USE OF FORCE. SO I'M CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS
ON BEYOND ONCE WE GOT BIN LADEN, WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. HOW DO
YOU THINK AFGHANISTAN COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN A WAY THAT YOU THINK LEARNS THE LESSONS OF HISTORY?
THE TERM I HAVE BEEN HEARING A LOT LATELY IS THAT THE GOOD WAR WENT BAD. SO TELL US HOW YOU THINK
->> JANE: IT'S A GOOD - YOU PUT THAT WELL. WE HAD FOUR PRESIDENTS BETWEEN THE END OF THE COLD
WAR AND JOE BIDEN. NONE OF THEM, BILL CLINTON, GEORGE BUSH 43, OBAMA AND TRUMP HAD ANY FOREIGN
POLICY CHOPS. AND WE PAID A LOT FOR THAT. THE LAST PRESIDENT WHO REALLY UNDERSTOOD FOREIGN POLICY
BEFORE JOE BIDEN, WHO REALLY UNDERSTANDS FOREIGN POLICY, WAS GEORGE H.W. BUSH. BUSH 41. AND BUSH 41
WENT INTO KUWAIT BECAUSE IRAQ HAD INVADED KUWAIT. AND WE ALL HAD AGREED THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A
BAD GUY. YES, LOTS OF BAD GUYS AROUND THE WORLD. BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY JUSTIFY A WAR OR
REGIME CHANGE, SOMETHING WE LEARNED LATER ABOUT IRAQ.
WE DECIDED WE HAD TO GO INTO KUWAIT TO PUSH
SADDAM HUSSEIN BACK INTO IRAQ. WE WENT INTO KUWAIT AND WE TOOK CARE OF IT. AND WE PUSHED THE IRAQIS
OUT OF KUWAIT AND AT THE END OF THAT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH SAID, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. HE DIDN'T FLY A
FLAG ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER THE WAY HIS SON DID, WHICH WAS A HUGELY HORRIFIC PHOTO-OP FOR
WHICH HE HAS NEVER LIVED DOWN. BUT ANYWAY, PAPA BUSH NEW THE MISSION WAS COMPLETED AND GOT
OUT AND WAS URGED, GO FURTHER, TAKE OUT SADDAM HUSSEIN. HE SAID NO, THAT'S NOT THE MISSION. SO WE
UNLEARNED THAT LESSON. WE WENT INTO AFGHANISTAN. THERE WAS A VOTE IN CONGRESS SOON AFTER
9/11 AND EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS, SENATE AND HOUSE, BUT ONE, BARBARA LEE,
WHO STILL SERVES, A VERY IMPRESSIVE WOMAN WHO REPRESENTS BERKLEY, CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS
A PRETTY MUCH ANT-?WAR BASTIAN. SHE VOTED NO. BUT EVERYONE ELSE VOTED YES. BUT THE MISSION WAS
GO AFTER THOSE WHO ATTACKED US. AS YOU ASKED IN IN YOUR QUESTION, WE DID THAT. UNFORTUNATELY, WE
MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET OSAMA BIN LADEN THEN IN TORAH BORA - LONG STORY ABOUT THAT. AT
ANY RATE, WE DID GET HIM 10 YEARS LATER IN 2011 IN PAKISTAN WHERE HE HAD BEEN HIDING OUT.
DURING THAT TIME AND SINCE THAT TIME, I THINK THE JUSTIFICATION FOR STAYING IN AFGHANISTAN HAS BEEN,
I WOULD SAY, AND I SAY THIS WITH TREPIDATION SINCE GENERAL DAVE PETREUS WHO PLAYED MAJOR ROLES ALL
THROUGH THIS TIME, STRONGLY DISAGREES WITH ME AND IS CO-CHAIR OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL AT THE WILSON
CENTER - AT ANY RATE, I THINK WE WERE - THERE WAS MISSION CREEP. AND WE DEVELOPED A DOCTRINE OF
CLEAR HOLD AND BUILD, WHICH MEANT CLEAR OUT BAD GUYS, HOLD THE TERRITORY AND THEN PRESUMABLY WITH
THE AFGHANS IN THE LEAD, BUT WE WERE IN THE LEAD, BUILD OR REBUILD A MORE PLURALIST DEMOCRATIC
LITTLE D SOCIETY IN A PLACE THAT NEVER HAD ONE. AND SO, WE'VE PROPPED UP A LOT OF THINGS
IN AFGHANISTAN AND WE ARE STILL DOING IT. AND I THINK THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN WHO WAS -
IT TURN OUT - NOT ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT SOME OF THE SURGES THERE, HAS DECIDED PROPERLY THAT
WE NEED TO CHANGE THE MISSION. DOESN'T MEAN END OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH AFGHANISTAN, BUT IT
MEANS CHANGE THE MISSION, REMOVE OUR TROOPS. KEEP OUR INTELLIGENCE RESOURCES NEARBY
SO WE KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. DEFEND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES. DO WHAT WE
CAN TO HELP THE MIDDLE EAST REGION. TRANSITION TO BETTER GOVERNANCE, ET CETERA.
BUT NOT KEEP OUR FINGER IN THE DIKE AND PROP UP GOVERNMENT OR A SOCIETY - IT'S REALLY NOT -
I DON'T WANT TO BLAME THE GOVERNMENT. I DON'T WANT TO BLAME THE AFGHAN PEOPLE. BUT PROP UP A
SITUATION WHERE THE INTERESTS OF THE U.S. ARE NOT CENTRAL. THEY HAVE TO WANT PEACE. THEY HAVE
TO GO AFTER IT. AND I HOPE THEY DO.
>> ABRAHAM: SO LET'S DIG INTO THAT. THE WILSON CENTER IS
JUST GETTING STARTED WITH A NEW INITIATIVE LOOKING AT THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR WITHDRAWAL
FROM AFGHANISTAN. AND IT'S OFTEN BEEN SAID THAT FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING IS OFTEN CHOOSING
BETWEEN A BAD OPTION AND A LESS BAD OPTION. AND THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO EXPECT THAT
AFTER THE U.S. AND THE COALITION PARTNERS LEAVE AFGHANISTAN THAT THE TALIBAN MAY MOVE IN. IT
ALREADY SEEMS TO BE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE WITH- DRAWL WITH THE ATTENDANT IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS, CIVIL RIGHTS AND STABILITY IN THE REGION.
SO TO YOUR MIND, ARE THESE - IS
THIS STILL THE LEAST-BAD OPTION OR DO YOU STILL HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT OUR WORK IN
GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY IN AFGHANISTAN WILL PREVENT THE TALIBAN FROM TAKING OVER?
>> JANE:
IT IS THE LEAST BAD OPTION. THERE ARE NO GOOD OPTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN AND THERE HAVEN'T BEEN . AND I CAN'T THINK
OF A TIME WHEN IS THERE WAS. LET'S REMEMBER BACK IN THE DAY THE SOVIETS WERE IN AFGHANISTAN
AND THEY WERE PUSHED OUT. CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR. CHARLIE WILSON WAS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND
HE HELPED WITH U.S., SEND U.S. ARMS THERE, FREED THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN. LET'S
UNDERSTAND THE TALIBAN IS NOT THE ONLY GROUP OPERATING IN AFGHANISTAN. IT'S A VERY TRIBAL
PLACE. AND THERE WAS THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE, WHICH THE LEADER OF WHICH WAS TAKEN OUT JUST
BEFORE 9/11, SADLY IN A TERRORIST ACT. BUT THERE ALSO IS NOW AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN.
THERE IS A MILITARY OF 300,000 PEOPLE, I'LL SAY THAT AGAIN. 300,000 PEOPLE WHOM WE HAVE TRAINED
OR HELPED TRAIN AND EQUIP. SOME OF THEM ARE VERY COMPETENT. AFGHANS ARE VERY GOOD FIGHTERS. NOT
JUST THE TALIBAN. AFGHANS ARE VERY GOOD FIGHTERS. SO WE ARE NOT LEAVING THE SURFACE OF THE MOON.
WE ARE LEAVING A SOCIETY THAT HAS BUILT SOME SUCCESS. WE ARE LEAVING GIRLS AND WOMEN WHO HAVE EDUCATION FOR THE FIRST TIME.THAT'S A HUGE PLUS. LET'S GIVE THE AFGHANS CREDIT FOR THAT. LET'S -
NOT US. THE AFGHANS. AND I ACTUALLY INTERVIEWED AT THE WILSON CENTER, SEVERAL WOMEN WHO WERE ON THE
TALIBAN NEGOTIATING TEAM TO REMIND PRESIDENT TRUMP DECIDED WE WERE LEAVING AFGHANISTAN. THE
U.S. CONDUCTED A NEGOTIATION WITH THE TALIBAN. I STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE GOVERNMENT OF
AFGHANISTAN WAS LEFT OUT OF THAT. BUT AT ANY RATE, WE HAD A NEGOTIATION AND SET A TIMETABLE, WHICH
WAS SUPPOSED TO MEAN OUR TROOPS OUT BY MAY 1. BIDEN EXTENDED THAT AND NOW OUR TROOPS ARE OUT
ALMOST NOW BUT CERTAINLY BY SEPTEMBER 11. BUT AT ANY RATE, THERE WERE WOMEN ON THE TEAM. THE
TALIBAN TEAM. I INTERVIEWED THESE WOMEN. THEY SAID WE ARE RESPECTED. WE ARE MEMBERS OF THE
AFGHAN PARLIAMENT. WOMEN WILL NOT GO BACKWARDS. WOMEN WILL HELP BUILD THE NEW AFGHANISTAN.
NOW, I UNDERSTAND THE TALIBAN BOMBED A SCHOOL FAIRLY RECENTLY AND KILLED A NUMBER OF GIRLS, AND I DON'T
CONDONE THAT AND I HOPE THAT'S NOT THE FUTURE OF THE TALIBAN. BUT THE SOCIETY IS BIGGER THAN THE
TALIBAN AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST BET ON GOOD FIGHTERS, EDUCATED PEOPLE, FIGHTING
FOR THEIR COUNTRY. THEY HAVE TO WANT PEACE IN THEIR COUNTRY. WE CAN'T JUST PREVENT THE
ABSENCE OF WAR IN THEIR COUNTRY. THEY HAVE TO WANT PEACE. AND I THINK A LOT OF THEM DO.
>> ABRAHAM: ONE OF THE PIECES THAT I REMEMBERED FROM THE WAR IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN THAT
ECHOED IN MY MIND WHILE READING YOUR BOOK, WAS SOMETHING THAT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ROBERT
GATES SAID. I WORKED FOR SECRETARY GATES DURING THE LAST YEAR'S OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
>>
JANE: GREAT MAN. HE IS WONDERFUL.
>> ABRAHAM: IN 2008, HE WARNED THE DEFENSE BUREAUCRACY AGAINST
WHAT HE CALLED, NEXT WAR-ITIS. SAYING THAT WE ARE IN A WAR, WE NEED TO WIN THAT WAR BEFORE WE START
THINKING ABOUT FUTURE. THAT KEPT COMING TO MY MIND BECAUSE YOUR ARGUMENT HAS BEEN THAT THIS WAS
THE WRONG FOCUS. THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE FUTURE A BIT BETTER. SO IN TERMS OF SECRETARY
GATES'S WORRY IN 2008, ACCORDING TO YOUR BOOK, ACCORDING TYOUR APPROACH, WAS HE WRONG?
>> JANE: NO, HE'S RIGHT! LET'S REMEMBER BACK IT UP A BIT. EISENHOWER WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT, WARNED IN HIS FAREWELL
SPEECH AGAINST THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. WELL, WHO SUPPORTS NEXT WAR-ITIS? THE MILITARY
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, WHICH ALSO DOES A LOT OF GOOD THINGS. AGAIN I CAME FROM A SPACE DEPENDENT
DISTRICT AND A LOT OF THE CONTRACTORS THERE ARE HUGELY HELPFUL IN BUILDING OUR STATE-OF-THE-ART
SATELLITES AND SPACE SYSTEMS. SOME OF WHICH ARE FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES. LET'S UNDERSTAND THAT
ALMOST EVERYTHING WE DO THESE DAYS DEPENDS ON SPACE. BUT IT ALSO DRIVES OUR MILITARY.
SO GOOD ON THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL SPACE, AEROSPACE SPACE, BUT GATES RIGHT. AND
HE HAS WRITTEN A BOOK RECENTLY. WE HAVE TALKED RECENTLY ABOUT HOW WE OVER MILITARIZED OUR
RESPONSE TO 9/11. HIS BOOK IS REALLY GOOD. AND I TAUGHT A SEMINAR AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
LAST FALL AND AS I WAS FINISHING THE BOOK, ONE OF MY GUEST SPEAKERS WAS BOB GATES AND IT
WAS EXACTLY ON THIS POINT. SO HE WAS RIGHT.
HE LEFT GOVERNMENT SOON AFTER THAT. GUESS WHAT?
AGAIN FOUR INEXPERIENCED FOREIGN POLICY PRESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE THE ABILITY, IN MY VIEW, TO REALLY
STAND APART AND THINK ANEW ABOUT WHAT IS OUR POST-COLD WAR STRATEGY. AND I'M SURE WE'LL GET TO THIS BUT I THINK JOE BIDEN IS THE FIRST PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE HAS THE EXPERIENCE, ALSO HAS THE A TEAM
AT THE READY TO DO THAT, TO STAND APART AND THINK ABOUT WHAT SOME OUR NEW STRATEGY. AND PART OF
THAT STRATEGY IS ENDING ENDLESS WARS IN A WAY, HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL HELP THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRIES
WHERE THOSE WARS WERE, BUILD THEIR OWN PEACE.
>> ABRAHAM: THAT'S VERY INTERESTING. IT BRINGS ME
TO ANOTHER ITEM THAT YOUR BOOK RAISED FOR ME, THAT YOUR BOOK DESCRIBES HOW AMERICAN POLICYMAKERS
KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND IT MADE ME THINK ABOUT THE PERIOD AFTER
THE WAR IN VIETNAM. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SHIFTED AWAY FROM COUNTER INSURGENCY LESSONS AND
CAPABILITIES, SAYING WE WOULD NEVER GET OURSELVES INVOLVED IN THAT SORT OF A MISSION AGAIN. WE NEED
TO PREPARE FOR THE HIGH-END OPERATIONS AGAINST THE SOVIET UNION. BUT AFTER 9/11 AND ESPECIALLY
AFTER THE INVASION OF IRAQ, WE FOUND OURSELVES IN A COUNTER INSURGENCY OPERATION THAT WE WERE
UNPREPARED FOR. NOW WE ARE LEAVING AFGHANISTAN AND MANY, INCLUDING MYSELF, ARGUE THAT THERE ARE
CHALLENGES IN CHINA AND THE ECHO OF THOSE TWO DECISIONS I THOUGHT WAS PRETTY STRONG. SO
IN YOUR SENSE, IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR BOOK, DO YOU BELIEVE WE ARE MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES
AGAIN OR DO YOU THINK FOCUSING ON CHINA IS THE RIGHT - >> JANE: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
DID WE LEARN THE LESSONS OF VIETNAM? LET'S START WITH THAT. WE CERTAINLY DIDN'T LEARN ALL THE
LESSONS FROM VIETNAM. AGAIN THAT WAS A MISSION CREEP EXERCISE IN SO MANY WAYS. AND IF YOU WATCH THE
EXTRAORDINARY KEN BURNS DOCUMENTARIES ON VIETNAM, YOU CRINGE. I LIVED THROUGH THAT WAR. I WAS
OF AGE, BARELY, BUT MY CLASSMATES STAYED IN SCHOOL AND AVOIDED THE DRAFT AND A LOT OF PEOPLE
DIDN'T. AND YOU LOOK AT THE FOOTAGE AND YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY WERE UP AGAINST AND WONDER WHY WERE
WE THERE? AND YOU READ BIOGRAPHIES OF PEOPLE LIKE RICHARD HOLBROOKE WHOM I KNEW WELL. HE RUFFLED A
LOT OF FEATHERS BUT HE WAS A BRILLIANT DIPLOMAT. WHO WENT THERE FULL OF HOPE AND CAME AWAY SO
DISILLUSIONED ABOUT WHAT WE WERE DOING. SO SEGUE TO NOW. PROPERLY AFTER 9/11, I THINK OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY FOCUS WAS ON COUNTERTERRORISM. WE WERE TERRIFIED AS A NATION T - I'LL RAISE MY HAND, ME TOO, THAT WE WOULD
BE ATTACKED AGAIN. WE DIDN'T SEE IT COMING. THERE WERE WARNINGS. DIDN'T PLAN PROPERLY. WE HAD
TO PLAN AND FOCUS AND GET IT RIGHT AND WE DID THAT AS A COUNTRY. WE DIDN'T HAVE A SHRILL PARTISANSHIP AROUND FOREIGN POLICY AND ALL POLICY WE DO NOW. IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS HORRIFYING TO ME AND
THAT'S IN THE BOOK TOO. AS A COUNTRY WE FOCUSED ON COUNTERTERRORISM. I THINK WE STUCK WITH
THAT A LITTLE BIT LONG BECAUSE AGAIN, REMEMBER, WE MISSED CHINA'S RISE AND IT WAS - JIM MATIS
IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, AND HR McMASTER, THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO CAME UP WITH A NEW NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY -
WHICH SAID WE WILL STILL FOCUS ON TERRORISM BUT WE WILL ALSO ADD CHINA AND RUSSIA. AND THEY ARE NOT
THE SAME THREAT AND IT WAS A RENEWED FOCUS ON CHINA. I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. GOOD ON MATIS AND
McMASTER. AND GOOD ON BIDEN FOR KEEPING THAT. AND ADDING A FEW OTHER THINGS. I MEAN BIDEN
IS SHORT HAND FOR WHAT BIDEN IS DOING HERE, HE IS TAKING THE FOREIGN OUT OF FOREIGN POLICY.
IT WAS TRUE, I DESCRIBE THIS IN THE BOOK, AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS I WOULD SET UP A CARD
TABLE AT FARMER'S MARKETS IN MY DISTRICT IN WEST L.A. ALONG THE BEACH BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE
CAME OUT AND IF I HAD TOWN HALLS, I WOULD ALWAYS JUST GET THE NOISEMAKERS ON EITHER END WHO
WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT WHATEVER IT WAS. IN A FARMER'S MARKET I GOT REAL FOLKS WHO WERE
BUYING CARROTS AND I GOT TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY. SO ONE OF THEM, THROUGH ALL THE YEARS,
WHICH WAS MIND-BOGGLING TO ME WAS, HOW COME 50% OF OUR BUDGET IS FOREIGN AID? HELLO. POINT
001% OF OUR BUDGET MAY BE FOREIGN AID AND PEOPLE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND AT ALL WHAT
WE WERE DOING OUTSIDE OF THE U.S. SO, WHAT BIDEN HAS DONE IS TAKEN THE FOREIGN OUT
OF FOREIGN POLICY AND HE SAID, IF WE WANT TO BE SECURE IN THE WORLD, WE HAVE TO BE SECURE
AT HOME. OUR FOREIGN POLICY HAS TO FOCUS ON CHINA, RUSSIA, FOREIGN TERRORISM PLUS THE PANDEMIC, WHO
IS MISSING THIS, CLIMATE AND DOMESTIC TERRORISM. AND THAT IS A DOCTRINE THAT MAKES A HECK OF A LOT
MORE SENSE. AND CHINA IS STILL UP THERE MAY BE AS THE TOP THREAT IN THE BUNCH, ALTHOUGH I THINK
DOMESTIC TERRORISM IS CLIMBING FAST AND THE IF YOU LOOK AT DEVASTATION THROUGHOUT THE U.S. AND
NOW GERMANY AND EUROPE, CLIMATE IS UP THERE TOO. AND WE STILL HAVEN'T RESOLVED THE PANDEMIC.
SO I THINK BIDEN HAS AGAIN GOOD ON TRUMP FOR FOCUSING ON CHINA BUT BIDEN IS NOW DOING THAT BIG TIME
AND THE ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN YESTERDAY BY OUR GOVERNMENT, I THINK DEMONSTRATE THAT WE ARE TRYING
TO BE VERY INTELLIGENT ABOUT THIS.
>> ABRAHAM: SINCE YOU RAISED THE DOMESTIC POLITICS
AND YOU TALK ABOUT IT A LOT IN YOUR BOOK, IT'S NO NEWS TO SAY THAT AMERICAN POLITICS IS
VERY POLARIZED AT A DEGREE, SOME SAY A DEGREE, WE HAVEN'T SEEN SINCE THE CIVIL WAR. BUT YOU HAVE
ALWAYS WORKED, AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, YOU ALWAYS MADE A POINT TO WORK IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION. AND
PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS ALSO BEEN VERY COMMITTED TO WORKING IN A BIPARTISAN WAY EVEN TO THE DEGREE
OF GETTING SOME CRITICISM FROM HIS BASE FOR INSISTING ON ENGAGING WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT HOW WE JUST NEEDED TO BE BIPARTISAN, I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD TALK
ABOUT YOUR SENSE OF HOW THE PARTISANSHIP DRIVES THE TENDENCY TO KEEP MAKING THESE MISTAKES,
TO - THE FAILURE TO ADJUST, AS YOU SAID. BUT ALSO IF YOU HAVE A SENSE OF A REALISTIC
WAY THAT WE CAN OVERCOME SOME OF THESE DIVIDES ON ISSUES OF FOREIGN POLICY.
>> JANE: I'M
HEARTBROKEN ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENED IN CONGRESS. AS I SAID EARLIER, MY DREAM WAS TO BE
ELECTED TO THE U.S. CONGRESS. AND I REMEMBER THE NIGHT BEFORE MY FIRST TERM STARTED,
WE WERE IN STATUARY HALL. STATUARY HALL IS A CIRCULAR ROOM OFF THE HOUSE FLOOR
WHERE THERE ARE STATUES OF ALL KINDS OF FORMER LEADERS THAT TOOK A BIG FIGHT TO GET SOME
WOMEN IN THERE, AND NOW I THINK WE HAVE TAKEN AWAY A FEW CIVIL WAR GENERALS. I'M NOT EXACTLY
SURE WHO IS IN THERE ANYMORE. BUT AT ANY RATE, THE THEN SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, TOM FOLEY, HAD
A DINNER FOR THE ENTERING CLASS, ALL OF US, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. AND SPOUSES WERE THERE.
AFTER THE DINNER WE WALKED ONTO THE HOUSE FLOOR FOR THE FIRST TIME AND ON THE WALL WAS WHAT IS
CALLED THE SCOREBOARD. IN THE SENATE YOU VOTE IN PERSON AND YOU RAISE YOUR HAND. AND MOST
PEOPLE CAN REMEMBER JOHN McCAIN IN THAT PHOTO GOING THIS WAY ABOUT, I GUESS IT WAS SOMETHING
TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE. MAYBE IT WAS THIS WAY. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH WAY BUT HE WAS VOTING FOR HEALTH CARE.
BUT AT ANY RATE, THE SENATE VOTES IN PERSON. THE HOUSE VOTES WITH A CARD IN A SLOT. AND
YOUR CARD SHOWS HOW YOU VOTE YES OR NO SHOWS UP ON THE DASHBOARD - ON THE WALL. SO ANYWAY, WALKING
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, SEEING THE NAMES ON THE WALL, SEEING MY NAME THERE, I JUST BURST INTO
TEARS. IT WAS SUCH AN AMAZING MOMENT AND MY LATE HUSBAND HAD THE SAME REACTION. IT WAS HUGE HONOR TO
SERVE THERE. AND IT WAS A HUGE HORROR TO WATCH OVER MY NINE TERMS THE HOUSE BECOME MORE AND MORE
PARTISAN. I'M NOT SAYING IT WASN'T PARTISAN AT ALL ON MY FIRST DAY, BUT TWO YEARS LATER, NEWT
GINGRICH WAS ELECTED SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. THE REPUBLICANS GAINED CONTROL AFTER DECADES AND NEWT
GINGRICH INTENTIONALLY WAS PARTISAN. HE SAID SO.
HE INTERVIEWED ME FOR HIS BLOG FAIRLY RECENTLY
AND I ASKED HIM ABOUT IT. HE SAID I HAD TO DO IT. WE WOULD OTHERWISE NOT HAVE KEPT CONTROL
IF I HADN'T BEEN PARTISAN. AT ANY RATE, SO THERE HAS BEEN A SLIDE INTO PARTISANSHIP.
THERE USED TO BE THE OLD ADAGE THAT PARTISANSHIP STOPS AT THE WATER'S EDGE AND EVEN THOUGH THERE
WAS PARTISANSHIP DOMESTICALLY THERE WASN'T IN FOREIGN POLICY. NOT ANYMORE. AND PEOPLE FEEL
FREE TO CRITICIZE THEIR GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY ARE ABROAD AND CRITICIZE EACH OTHER. AND WHAT
DOES THIS DO? IT MAKES THE INSTITUTION BASICALLY UNABLE TO SOLVE THE KINDS OF PROBLEMS I'M TALKING
ABOUT IN THE BOOK. AND ALMOST ANY OTHER PROBLEM.
I WAS UP IN THE SENATE YESTERDAY FOR LUNCH WITH
SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS, WHO BLURBED MY BOOK AND WHO WAS MY KEY PARTNER WORKING ON INTELLIGENCE REFORM
IN 2004. WE ARE IN DIFFERENT PARTIES BUT VERY CLOSE FRIENDS. SHE HAS BEEN WORKING HER HEART
OUT OR HER HEAD OFF. SHE LOOKED SO EXHAUSTED, I SAID GO HOME AND GO TO SLEEP. BUT SHE IS
WORKING ON INFRASTRUCTURE. LISTENING TO THE DEBATES ON INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE IS A
PROPOSAL BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS FOR HARD INFRASTRUCTURE REFORM, BRIDGES AND
ROADS AND THEN THERE IS A SECOND PROPOSAL THAT IS MORE PARTISAN.
BUT ON THE FIRST PROPOSAL, ALL OF
A SUDDEN IT LOOKS LIKE THE WHEELS ARE COMING OFF. AND MY GOODNESS! IF WE CAN'T SOLVE THAT, HOW
IN THE WORLD ARE WE GOING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH GUANTANAMO BAY PRISON? HOW ARE WE
GOING TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE OR LIMIT THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN FUTURE WARS?
HOW ARE WE GOING TO COME UP WITH REALLY GOOD RULES ON DETENTION AND INTERROGATION? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT CYBER? OH, MY GOD. SO I DESPAIR. I THINK IT IS A TRAGEDY FOR OUR COUNTRY THAT
WE HAVE BECOME SO TOXICALLY PARTISAN.
>> ABRAHAM: I WANTED TO GO BACK TO CHINA, WHICH I
THINK YOU BELIEVE, I BELIEVE, IS THE NEXT BIG CHALLENGE. AND WHAT YOU THINK - AND THIS GETS TO
SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU MAKE IN THE BOOK. WHAT DO YOU THINK WE CAN DO, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE
CHANGES YOU THINK SHOULD BE MADE IN ORDER TO MAKE OURSELVES MORE SUCCESSFUL IN A MORE COMPETITIVE
DYNAMIC WITH THE COUNTRY LIKE CHINA?
>> JANE: YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS THAN I DO, ABE. AND SO DOES
ROBERT DAILY WHO HEADS THE KISSINGER INSTITUTE AT THE WILSON CENTER. YOU ARE BOTH VERY THOUGHTFUL. AND YOU HAVE FOCUSED ON THE INDO-PACIFIC, WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN UNDER UTILIZED BY US AS A KIND OF BUFFER AGAINST CHINA
FOR YEARS AND WHICH THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION SAYS WILL BECOME INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT AS WHAT
IS CALLED THE QUAD, WHICH IS AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, INDIA AND US BECOMES MORE ASSERTIVE IN THE REGION.
AT ANY RATE, WHAT DO I THINK? I THINK THAT HENRY KISSINGER AND NIXON DID A BRAVE THING
TO OPEN CHINA AND TO OPEN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA. I THINK IT CHANGED OVER TIME. AGAIN I THINK
WE MISUNDERSTOOD - I THINK HENRY KISSINGER WOULD SAY THIS. HE IS ONLY 98. HIS MIND WORKS VERY
WELL. AND HE IS STILL THINKING ABOUT THIS. SO I THINK WE MISSED CHINA'S RISE AND I THINK WE
HAVE TO RECONSIDER OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA. WHAT I THINK IS, THAT CHINA BASHING IS NOT A
STRATEGY. AND BOTH PARTIES IN CONGRESS DO THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS. I THINK THAT BEING TOUGH ON CHINA
AS THE U.S. WAS YESTERDAY, IN THESE INDICTMENTS AND THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT - WITH NATO AND OUR
ALLIES IN EUROPE, IS A GOOD STRATEGY, BUT ALSO ENGAGING CHINA ON CLIMATE AND OTHER THINGS WHERE
WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AND COMPETING WITH CHINA WHERE WE NEED TO. I THINK - I DON'T KNOW THAT
- I WAS ASKED THIS YESTERDAY. WHAT DOES THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN THE U.S. WANT? THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY WANTS TO TRADE WITH CHINA. IT'S A HUGE MARKET. IT'S ALSO A HUGE PLACE OF MANUFACTURING.
NOT THE ONLY PLACE. SHOULD WE DO MORE MANUFACTURING AT HOME? YES. BUT SHOULD WE BUILD
THE WALLS AROUND FORTRESS AMERICA? AND BASICALLY HAVE NO TRADE WITH CHINA OR WITH COUNTRIES THAT
TRADE WITH CHINA? I THINK THAT'S A TOTALLY WRONG HEADED STRATEGY AND I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO
EXECUTE GIVEN THE RISE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE WAY THAT NATIONAL BOUNDARIES ARE NOT THE SAME AS THEY WERE BEFORE.
SO NEW ON STRATEGY. CONFRONTATION. COOPERATION AND COMPETITION. ALL THREE AT
THE SAME TIME IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO. AND THE WILSON CENTER FOR ONE, ESPECIALLY THE UA,
BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR ASSIGNMENT FOR TONIGHT AFTER YOU PUT YOUR KIDS TO BED, HAVE TO THINK AS
CREATIVELY AS POSSIBLE ABOUT HOW TO DO ALL THREE AT THE SAME TIME, AND DO THEM ALL WELL AT THE
SAME TIME.
>> ABRAHAM: I'LL GET WORKING ON THAT. SO ONE OF THE PIECES THAT CAME TO MY MIND
AS I WAS READING YOUR BOOK WAS YOU MENTIONED HENRY KISSINGER. IT REMINDED ME OF ONE OF HIS BOOKS THAT
DOESN'T GET AS MUCH ATTENTION AS THE OTHERS BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. DOES AMERICA NEED A FOREIGN
POLICY? SOMETHING HE PUBLISHED ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO. HE TALKS A LOT ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FUTURE
AND HAVING A SENSE OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS A TREMENDOUSLY
INTERESTING SOCIOLOGIST NAMED FLOTELLA, WHO HAS TESTED THE ABILITY OF EFFORTS PREDICT WHAT IS
GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE OF THE FIELD, BASICALLY FINDING THAT EXPERTS ARE PRETTY LOUSY
AT PREDICTION. SO YOU AND I BOTH THINK THAT CHINA IS THE NEXT BIG CHALLENGE THAT WE NEED TO
OREINT TO. BUT ALSO OUR CRYSTAL BALLS AREN'T NECESSARILY INFALLIBLE. SO AS WE GO AHEAD AND
CONTINUE TO TRY TO DRIVE THESE INVESTMENTS, HOW DO WE GUARD AGAINST RISK OR DISTRACTION IF
THERE IS INSTABILITY IN AN AREA OF THE WORLD THAT WE THINK IS LESS IMPORTANT FOR AMERICAN INTERESTS
THAN THE INDO-PACIFIC - IF AFGHANISTAN STARTS TO FALL APART AND PEOPLE START CALLING FOR THE
UNITED STATES TO RE-INTERVENE INTO AFGHANISTAN. WHAT ARE THE - YOU THINK BEST ARGUMENTS
TO AVOID WHAT YOU WOULD SAY THIS INSANITY, JUST GOING AT IT AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH NO - WHAT
DO YOU THINK WOULD STOP US FROM GOING DOWN THAT ROAD AGAIN?
>> JANE: I THINK MOST OF OUR FOREIGN
AND NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY CERTAINLY IN THE LAST THREE DECADES HAS BEEN TACTICAL. THERE IS
A PROBLEM, LET'S GO THERE AND FIX IT OR LET'S GO THERE AND NOT FIX IT OR NOT GO THERE AND NOT
FIX IT. WE HAVEN'T HAD THIS OVERARCHING STRATEGY. WE HAVEN'T. AND WHY WE NEED THAT IS SO THAT WE CAN
PUT THE PROBLEM INTO A CONTEXT AND DECIDE WHAT WE NEED TO DO. WE CAN'T INTERVENE EVERYWHERE.
I HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN HOW WE ARE HANDLING HAITI WHERE THE PRESIDENT, APPARENTLY LOTS OF WARNINGS
DURING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND I ASSUME THE FIRST 6 MONTHS OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IT WAS
A VERY PRECARIOUS GOVERNMENT. WE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH. THE PRESIDENT WAS JUST, SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS INSIDE
PARTICIPATION BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT. THE PRESIDENT WAS JUST BRUTALLY MURDERED AND WE WERE ASKED
TO INTERVENE MILITARILY. WE ARE NOT DOING THAT, SO FAR AS I KNOW. BUT WE ARE TRYING TO HELP STAND
UP A NEW GOVERNMENT AND WE ARE CONSULTING. THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH A BIDEN FOREIGN POLICY THAT
BASICALLY SAYS OUR FOCUS HAS TO BE ON CHINA, RUSSIA AND WHAT I JUST SAID. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE
ARE UNINTERESTED. IT'S THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE. THEY ARE A NEAR NEIGHBOR. THERE ARE A LOT OF
HAITIANS IN THE U.S. AND SO FORTH. BUT THAT'S TO ME A MATURE RESPONSE. SO THAT WOULD BE MY ANSWER.
INTERESTINGLY, HENRY KISSINGER AT AGE 98 YEARS YOUNG, HAS WRITTEN A BRILLIANT ARTICLE ABOUT
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. AND I REMEMBER SITTING NEXT TO HIM, I HAD THE DELIGHT TO SIT NEXT TO HIM
FOR 10 YEARS ON THE DEFENSE POLICY BOARD WHERE WE SERVED UNTIL LATE IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHEN
HE RELIEVED US OF RESPONSIBILITY. NOT JUST ME, BUT ALSO HENRY KISSINGER, MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, ERIC CANTOR WHO USED TO BE IN THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE AND MOST OF US. GO FIGURE. I REMEMBER WHEN THAT TERM CAME UP, AI AND HENRY SAID, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS. AND SURROUNDED HIMSELF, NOT BY ME BUT BY SOME REALLY BRILLIANT PEOPLE. AND
BY THE WAY, WE HAVE BRILLIANT PEOPLE AT THE WILSON CENTER IN OUR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM LED
BY MEG KING, WHO ACTUALLY NOT ONLY UNDERSTANDS AI BUT TEACHES TO CAPITOL HILL STAFF. BUT HENRY
WROTE AN ARTICLE WITH OTHERS, ERIC SCHMIDT IN THE ATLANTIC MAGAZINE ABOUT AI AND WHAT KIND OF
THREAT IT POSED. MIND BLOWING. HE TAUGHT HIMSELF ABOUT THIS FUTURE THREAT AT AGE - HE WAS PROBABLY ONLY 96 AT THE TIME. RECENTLY I HEARD HIM ON A ZOOM CALL HE WAS ASKED ABOUT WHAT THE ARE THREATS
IN THE FUTURE AND HE SAID, CYBER AND AI. HE DIDN'T SAY CHINA. HE SAID CYBER AND AI BUT CHINA HAS
A MAJOR ROLE IN BOTH OF THOSE. SO IT MIGHT BE CHINA. AND HENRY'S COUNCIL ON CHINA IS MORE
MILITANT THAN IT USED TO BE. HE HAS SPOKEN AT THE WILSON CENTER, SEVERAL TIMES SAYS THAT IT'S IMPORTANT NOW
TO BE TOUGHER ON CHINA. NOT AS THE EXCLUSIVE FOCUS BUT THAT CONFRONTATION HAS TO
BE A PART OF OUR TOOLKIT.
>> ABRAHAM: AND SO WITH THE FLAT DEFENSE BUDGET,
OR RELATIVELY FLAT DEFENSE BUDGET, AND CHALLENGES ALL OVER THE WORLD, IF WE ARE
GOING TO BE COMPETING EFFECTIVELY AGAINST CHINA, EVERY DEFENSE POLICYMAKER OVER THE LAST
FEW ADMINISTRATIONS SAY IT MEANS WE HAVE TO ACCEPT RISK IN OTHER AREAS OF THE WORLD.
ESPECIALLY IN CENTRAL ASIA, MIDDLE EAST, AFRICA. BUT AS YOU SAID, WHEN SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS, THERE
IS AN INSTINCT IN AMERICAN POLITICS TO GO FIX IT, TO GO HELP. SAMANTHA POWERS TALKED ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT WHEN SHE WAS A JOURNALIST. BEFORE SAMANTHA BECAME A POLICYMAKER. DO YOU THINK
- HOW DO WE INTEGRATE THAT HUMANITARIAN INSTINCT AND THE ETHICAL ASPECTS THAT FOLKS WITH NORMATIVE
ASPECTS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY WITH THE MORE HARD NOSED IMPULSE WHICH SAYS, NO, THAT'S NOT OUR INTEREST.
WE NEED TO KEEP OUR EYES ON THE PRIZE? HOW DO WE SQUARE THAT?
>> JANE: THERE IS A WONKY TERM
FOR POLICY JUNKIES LIKE ME THAT IS CALLED, WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PROBLEMS
LIKE THIS, IT'S IMPORTANT NOT JUST TO TALK ABOUT HOW BIG IS OUR DEFENSE BUDGET. LET'S UNDERSTAND,
IT'S BIG. I THINK THE DEFENSE BUDGET IS ALL ABOUT TWO COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT
ADDED UP TOGETHER IS OUR DEFENSE BUDGET. IT'S BIGGER THAN THE GDP OF MOST COUNTRIES, ET CETERA.
700 PLUS BILLION DOLLARS. IT AIN'T SMALL. AND OH, BY THE WAY, THE SO-CALLED TOOTH TO TAIL RATIO,
THE FIGHTING HARDWARE PART TO THE OVERHEAD PART. THE TOOTH IS 30% AND OVERHEAD IS 70%. SO ROOM FOR
IMPROVEMENT. AND SOME WOULD ARGUE THAT WE KEEP INVESTING IN LEGACY SYSTEMS, AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND
SUCH, WHICH ARE VERY VULNERABLE IN FUTURE WARS, ESPECIALLY IF THOSE WARS ARE ABOUT CYBER AND AI.
JUST SAYING. WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT MEANS THAT THERE ARE OTHER RESOURCES OF GOVERNMENT THAT COULD BE
AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN THE HARD POWERED RESOURCES OF THE PENTAGON. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BIDEN
HAS PLEDGED TO DO OR IS DOING, IS TO INVEST IN SOFT POWER, TO REPLENISH THE STATE DEPARTMENT,
WHICH WAS BASICALLY HOLLOWED OUT BY TRUMP. APPOINT, VERY CAPABLE PEOPLE TO REPRESENT US
AROUND THE WORLD, INVEST IN FOREIGN AID AND OTHER TOOLS OF DEMOCRACY BUILDING AROUND THE WORLD
AND RESTORE OUR ALLIANCES. THAT'S WHY THIS RECENT ACTION AGAINST CHINA IS SO IMPORTANT. I MEAN,
WE DID IT WITH EVERY COUNTRY OF NATO AND THE EU. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE MEETINGS ARE IN
PERSON OR VIRTUAL LIKE THIS MEETING, BUT CERTAINLY A FOCUS ON THE QUAD AND KEY ROLE THAT INDIA CAN
PLAY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. WE ARE USING A WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT APPROACH AGAINST AND WITH CHINA.
REMEMBER PART OF THIS IS CLIMATE SO THAT'S NOT A CONFRONTATION. THAT'S COOPERATION. AND THAT IS
TO ME, A MUCH MORE SENSIBLE AND EFFECTIVE WAY TO DEAL WITH CHINA AS IT IS, NOT CHINA THE BOOGEYMAN
THAT SOME ARE SABER RATTLING AGAINST.
>> ABRAHAM: I'M COGNIZANT OF THE TIME. WE JUST A FEW QUESTIONS
LEFT. I'M KEEPING AN EYE ON, FROM OUR FRIENDS AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, THAT THEY ARE GOING
TO BE SENDING US QUESTIONS AS WELL. I WANTED TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF THINGS. WHEN I ASKED YOU
INITIALLY TOWARDS THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISCUSSION WHAT'S AT THE HEART OF THE INSANITY DEFENSE
ISSUES? YOU SAID HUBRIS, LAZINESS AND GRIDLOCK. AND THAT MADE ME A BIT DEPRESSED BECAUSE I
DON'T KNOW ABOUT LAZINESS BUT I THINK THAT WE ARE STILL SEEING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
HUBRIS AND GRIDLOCK IN OUR POLITICS. DO YOU THINK THAT'S A RIGHT READ OF WHERE THINGS ARE?
ARE YOU A BIT MORE OPTIMISTIC THAN I AM?
>> JANE: LAZINESS, INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS. I DON'T
MEAN THAT PEOPLE DON'T COME TO WORK. THINKING ANEW ABOUT PROBLEMS UNLESS YOU'RE
HENRY KISSINGER IS VERY HARD FOR FOLKS. AND THEY DON'T. AND THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT FOR
EXAMPLE, I SAY IS IN THE WIDGET PROTECTION BUSINESS. MEANING THAT IF OU'RE IN THE OFFICE OF HELICOPTER WINGS, YOU WANT
US TO BUILD MORE HELICOPTER WINGS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HELICOPTERS ARE THE MOST USEFUL - I THINK
THEY ARE USEFUL BUT JUST IT'S A RANDOM TOPIC. AND ABE, YOU WORKED AT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.
YOU CAN'T ESCAPE THIS. I BET I SAY AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS I WAS IN THE WIDGET PROTECTION BUSINESS.
I FOUGHT TO KEEP THE PRODUCTION FACILITIES IN MY DISTRICT. I FOUGHT TO KEEP THE SO-CALLED L.A.
AIR FORCE BASE, THE PURCHASING ARM OF MISSILES AND SATELLITES FOR OUR DEFENSE IN LOS ANGELES
BECAUSE IT WAS A ECONOMIC ENGINE AND I ALSO THOUGHT OUR UNIVERSITIES PRODUCED THE BEST AND
BRIGHTEST PEOPLE TO WORK THERE. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
YOU KNOW, IN SOME WAYS THAT'S VERY PROTECTIONIST.
I'M SAYING THAT THERE IS A LOT OF INERTIA. I SHOULD HAVE ADDED INERTIA. BUT WHAT ELSE IS
THERE? THERE IS A LOT OF TALENT. OKAY LET'S CLOSE ON SOMETHING MORE HOPEFUL. I KEEP SAYING
ABOUT CONGRESS NOT JUST THAT THERE IS GRIDLOCK, BUT THAT THE BUSINESS MODEL IS BROKEN. NOT ALL THE
PEOPLE. I JUST HAD LUNCH YESTERDAY WITH THIS VERY IMPRESSIVE EXHAUSTED REPUBLICAN, SUSAN COLLINS,
WHO HAS BEEN THERE, SHE IS NOW IN HER FIFTH TERM, REALLY HARD ELECTION. SHE IS THE LONGEST SERVING REPUBLICAN
WOMAN SENATOR IN HISTORY AND WOW! SHE, LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS BUT SHE'S IN LINE FOR A MAJOR COMMITTEE
CHAIRMANSHIP IF THE REPUBLICANS BECOME CHAIR BUT MAJOR RANKING POSITION IF THEY DON'T. I'M
TRYING TO BE NONPARTISAN HERE. MY POINT IS, SHE IS EXCELLENT AND THERE ARE MEMBERS IN BOTH
PARTIES WHO ARE EXCELLENT. THERE ARE ALSO SOME MEMBERS IN BOTH PARTIES WHO ARE DISRUPTIVE. LET'S
LEAVE IT THERE. I WON'T CHARACTERIZE THEM FURTHER. BUT THE BUSINESS MODEL NOW IS BLAME THE OTHER SIDE
FOR NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM. BECAUSE IF YOU WORK WITH THE OTHER SIDE, YOU ARE BIPARTISAN. AND IF
YOU'RE BIPARTISAN, SOMEBODY WILL RUN AGAINST YOU IN A PRIMARY BECAUSE OUR PRIMARY SYSTEM, IT DOESN'T
WORK THIS WAY EVERYWHERE BUT IN MOST STATES, REWARD NOISE, SMALL TURNOUT. THOSE ON THE FAR LEFT
AND FAR RIGHT MAKE A LOT MORE NOISE AND THEY TURN OUT. AND SO WE SEEN THIS MOVIE MANY TIMES WHERE
THE MORE CENTERED POLITICIAN LOSES.
SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET PRIMARIED, IT'S A NEW VERB.
YOU DON'T WORK WITH OTHER PEOPLE SO YOU'RE NOT ACCUSED OF BEING BIPARTISAN. AND I WAS SAYING
BEFORE THE SHOW STARTED THAT I HAD A PRIMARY MY LAST THREE ELECTIONS. SOMEBODY FROM THE FAR
LEFT, I WAS ACCUSED OF BEING A TRAITOR AND A SPY, ET CETERA, AND IT'S NOT A FUN EXPERIENCE.
I DEFENDED MYSELF AND I WON EVERY TIME. I DIDN'T LOSE. BUT WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE? THERE IS
A CRITICAL MASS OF PEOPLE NOW SERVING THAT PUTS COUNTRY FIRST, COUNTRY OVER PARTY AND THAT'S A
CHALLENGE. AND SO THERE ARE SOME AND THAT GIVES ME HOPE THAT THERE ARE SOME. I JUST HOPE THAT VERY
GOOD PEOPLE WANT TO SERVE IN THE FUTURE AND DON'T LOOK ELSEWHERE BECAUSE IT'S SO -SO MUCH
GRIDLOCK. MY WHOLE LIFE HAS BEEN FOCUSED AROUND POLICY AND TRYING TO HELP SHAPE GOOD
POLICY OUTCOMES. BUT I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS, THE ARTICLE I BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT
WILL RISE TO THE CHALLENGE AGAIN.
>> ABRAHAM: JANE, I WISH YOU WERE STILL AT THE
WILSON CENTER FULL-TIME. I WISH YOU WERE STILL IN CONGRESS FULL-TIME. IT'S A PLEASURE
TO SEE YOU. IT'S A PLEASURE TO HEAR YOUR VOICE AND CONGRATULATIONS AGAIN. IT WAS A TERRIFIC BOOK
AND A TERRIFIC READ. I ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY - A TERRIFIC READ - I ENCOURAGE
EVERYBODY ON THIS VIDEO CALL TO GIVE IT A LOOK. I THINK IT MAKES A VERY IMPORTANT
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE AND I HOPE IT WILL BE A WORD OF CAUTION AND A WORD OF INSPIRATION FOR
PEOPLE SHAPING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY FORWARD. WONDERFUL TO SEE YOU.
>> JANE: THANK YOU FOR ALL
THAT. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUING SERVICE AND TO MY OTHER COLLEAGUES AT THE WILSON CENTER,
WHICH IS A GREAT PLACE. A SAFE POLITICAL SPACE I ALWAYS USED TO SAY. AND THANK YOU TO THE
ARCHIVES NOT JUST FOR HOSTING THE CONVERSATION BUT FOR REMEMBERING AND REMINDING US OF OUR HISTORY.
THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE EXTRAORDINARY. AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF FOLKS HAVE
NEVER READ THEM OR DON'T EVEN WANT TO READ THEM. I MEAN SHAME ON THEM. AND IT IS SO GOOD THAT YOU
ARE TEACHING OUR HISTORY TO YOUNGER PEOPLE WHO FORGET IT AT THEIR PERIL. THIS IS A GREAT UNIQUE
COUNTRY AND MY PARENTS, MY FATHER WAS AN IMMIGRANT AS I SAID, MY MOTHER CAME FROM OR BORN IN THE U.S.
BUT FROM AN IMMIGRANT FAMILY. THEY THOUGHT AMERICA WAS THE BEST PLACE ON EARTH. AND I STILL DO. BUT I
WANT US TO LIVE UP TO OUR IDEALS AND I WANT US TO BE WORTHY OF THE GREAT PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY SERVE IN OFFICE. I SALUTE THEM. ON BEHALF OF A GRATEFUL COUNTRY, I THINK THEIR SERVICE REALLY MATTERS. SO
THANK YOU, ABE. SEE YOU SEEN.
ABRAHAM: THANK YOU, JANE.
