>> of course, why?

because of something terribly remarkable the u.s. arm first forces after the last century have won a tremendous battle, every single major battle to which they had been sent. but yet, our statesmen have managed to lose every single piece that has ensued from those battles. when you lose the piece, you have lost the war. losing the war after losing battles is a natural, remarkable, nothing to explain but losing the war have to have won the battle is not easy. it takes a peculiar kind of talent to do that.

and it raises very important questions. how come? the gross answer is that it our mistakes have not been mistakes from detail but fundamentals. as vince lombardi used to say the difference between winners and losers is in the blocking and tackling. he would presume to teach these pros how to block them and how to block a tackle this would win championships. will neglect from these fundamentals but i submit to you what has happened with our foreign policy elite elite, they have missed the

fundamentals the foreign policy equivalent of blocking and tackling. this book is in a sense quite useless because in high and low affairs, those who are in greatest need are least likely to pay attention. this is what happens in most schools and certainly what happens at the highest levels. with the remedial courses courses, who are you? but reality says that all of the coherence, fails little

in the face of the resolve they put forth. consider these results, this was followed not by what woodrow wilson followed, but by greater strife and what has preceded it. a settlement has not yet ceased to kill. iraq is one of the creatures of world war i and what will happen there is still open to a very deadly contention. palestine, it was reengineered after world war i. and very badly. henry cabot lodge warned against at and said the

notion that we should fix the affairs and arbitrate between the two is deadly. but people assume themselves to be wiser sought that we should somehow become the arbiters of the world. and indeed the fact that we did not become the arbiters of the world became an item by which our foreign policy ruling class accused the american people of responsibility for world war ii. some of you may be old enough to remember the title

which was wilson made in 1944 and the head the was none at other than henry cabot lodge the movie was so outrageous that when franklin roosevelt showed it to winston churchill he walked out in a rage. but the point* was what every school child has learned that the american people were unfaithful to their great leader woodrow wilson and that started world war ii quite as much as adolf hitler but ruled four to it was certainly necessary to support staal

and in 1941 budget was most certainly foolish for him to maintain that support after the battle of stalingrad in 1943 that is when most battles had changed with the equation of power in the world that led us not to the piece that america's arms had one rather have a century of very, very dangerous cold war there after we are aware of the surplus of power united states brought against the soviet union against the communist forces of vietnam and howl of the power was translated to a loss after loss.

how come? because of a whole variety of ideas in which in all of the schools of foreign policy now concur our foreign policy establishment is divided into three major schools liberal internationalist, realist, a nd the conservatives and in fact, they have far more in common that divide them but also assume the rest of the world is ready and willing and eager to become just like they are, will liberal internationalists believe the rest of the world is ready to embrace the melamed and modernize so all we have to do is give them help for

modernization and they will become just like us. people believe the thirst for democracy will lead them to become just like we are rather realists believe the ruling passion of the world is one from the moderation the realization of the interest that all interests are compatible with lead everyone to cooperate with us. all of this is not true because it neglects the individuality of the nation's and the fact foreigners really our foreign that they have their own ideas of their own interests and it is

impossible for outsiders to shake the idea is there there's and they will develop them as they wish the best we could do was take heroin interest but yet the other things that are realists borneo conservatives liberal internationalists are united is that to the world has common interest. that impact all of our interest all of the cultures are commensurate poll. by the way not only nonsense in and of itself but contradicted by the way our foreign policy elite or the ruling class actually behaves. they will say they recognize

all other cultures inherently equal. of course. when they come in contact with ameritech culture, indeed, nothing but contempt for culture of the average american and. that is not a culture that they consider commensurable with their own. they do believe that they have a duty to reform the rest of the world. and a duty to reform the rest of america. i just had a conversation with one of the last president of pfizer's pfizer's -- advisers from

president bush and i asked how he felt about the outcome of the war and iran, which by the way, the bush to administration never had a coherent objective. he said it is true we really meant it to improve the quality of that society, but we underestimated how primitive those people really were. it occurred to me and i told him not only iraq but the rest of the world is filled with primitives. primitive defined as people like the advisers to our presidents and unlike our foreign policy establishments and i was going to say but did not have time that america

itself is filled with people who are ruling class regarded as primitives who would like to reform whom they believe far beyond redemption they would not think of themselves as imperialists as the british should to tell some of the customers they would people would never presume to tell muslims that the bill circumcision is a bad idea or things like that.

they would not forcibly reform our society's what do they want to do? they want to build nations with a minimum of force although they will use some force, and not war of maximum rhetoric now theodore roosevelt's was not like these folks who call this kind of thing with peace with insults the worst of all policies. it does not result in anything other than making enemies but the foreign policy establishment does not understand that because they have wrapped what they

do in a cloak of language that appears to make impossible things possible. for example, they speak of an international community as if there is such a thing that existed. but of course, the bedrock, the foundation of international life is something called sovereignty. which means every government has the unquestionable internal practices boy back to the treaty of 1648 it is the sole judge every

government reflects its own egos and the those of the people what happens when they clash? you read any of the classics , and quickly come to the realization that is the arbiter but that is not what our foreign policy establishment believes that a war remaining killing on a massive scale destroys the enemy's capacity to resist resist, they don't believe

that accomplishes anything the only saying it changes in the antagonistic, what is it? what is that? perhaps it a little bit of force and a lot of bribery. when that doesn't work what do? you try some more or you find an exit strategy. what does that mean? it means figuring how to get out without looking too bad. in reality that sends you up with more than you started with who by the way by then

have developed contempt for you. which of course, is highly dangerous. this language works -- warps their understanding of the tools of international affairs. for example, take the term soft power. we realize is that the prestige counts in for a lot like reputation and very often unless with sit-in

potency 1/2 to do anything to get your way. and the forces a when who ride into town and then to be decapitated because they know if they did not do that , they would certainly be tortured to death that was king is gone reputation so people said if he will kill us, tell us this way. what do people do now when confronted by mayor akin diplomats? they certainly a don't say we will it give you whatever you want. rather what can you give to us?

what can you give to us and exchange? and if american troops come in and, we don't have to fear that kind of campaign of guinness, and and they know they can take pot shots at them and relative safety. reputation really does matter with concept of soft power does not reach that part of a concept of soft power which three read about in detail boils down being perceived as being nice it moves people to do what you want. we all know this is not true

but yet to this is what is taught in our schools and in fact, a reflection of the highest levels to be nice moves people. thus calling it you're up the superpower of soft power. if you show yourself sufficiently harmless, people do what it is that you why didn't someone on the other side show some self to be terribly frightening and harmful why people we'll turn away that is like the ideology. submit in reality it is something else just like the people being moved by

honor, a fear, and interest. that is not what joseph talks about. interest, by the way the least of these powers, honor is the second most powerful because it does lead people to sacrifice our lives for the rights, the wrong, to avenge themselves on what to do the right thing. fear is the most powerful and it takes a lot to overcome fear as pointed out to us and as we know. and a few things can

overcome fear. one of them is the fear of god. joseph nye really does teach at harvard he is a representative of our foreign policy clasper you can read his book on soft power and not to read one word about john paul second did and his role of the fall of the roman empire. because of john paul you had 1 million people in central square at warsaw chanting we want god we want god if you can imagine the feelings of the commune is due the told up in their offices above the square watching 1 million people yelling we want god.

fearing the pope just might say something that would lead them to go gets the atheist tormentors. but but it is not recognized or taken as seriously. that to a certain politicize belief in god has led to a number of muslims to want to kill muzzles then recognize the fact that a certain lack or a belief in god prevents the american government from from taking those threats seriously in regards to

diplomacy the foreign language policy establishment would have us believe this thing called diplomacy exist and exerts power regardless of what it says we're contact is seductive. in fact,, it is not. words, that we all know are meaningful, not for the harshness of the south of for the reality is you can say whatever you like you have no reason to think

anybody would believe you. shakespeare's line that i can call up spirits better fast the deep in the answer is so can i. but will they answer? [laughter] will they come? you can promise the foreign government anything you want to be anything you like but a person on the other end we'll say whether the chances of that happening? the essence of all of this cave in the 1960's when the u.s. government invented the concept of a declaratory policy but applied and other

grounds as well. what is declaratory policy? and as opposed to a real policy? this is our declaratory policy. nice to hear about that tully about the real one what is the evidence that what you're telling me? that you are in fact, going to do the things that you say you are going to do in this or that circumstance? we're is the evidence? it has to be possible. and in the book a point* to an example of good diplomacy

who very simply made offers the other side could not have used. such an offer is defined by asking far less from one that is not able to compel. the person that was asked would be happy to comply with a request of which he knows is less than what could be compelled by the force that they had that was in excess of demand was called solvency. force that is inferior to demand that is greater is called bankruptcy.

and bankruptcy is just as discrediting from international affairs as it is in finance. then of course, there is the concept of war itself. what is this thing called a war? is it reasonable? is a reasonable insofar as you plan to make and only insofar that the operations that you design, were they to be successful, actually bring about the piece that you want to live with.

designing operations because they might be pleasing pleasing, designing operations for any purpose other than bringing about one all for peace, is senseless. but to put it most plainly, you should know what good their deaths would do you if shooting percents abn north carolina find somebody else to shoot. or must be conceived to bring about peace of the

rise there is no point* otherwise there is no end. the purpose of all movement is ultimately rest. what is the state of rest? these are questions that are not asked by our foreign policy establishment nor do they ask you should secure the home front? it is terribly important. homeland security every time we go to the airport we know about homeland security. bled against whom are we being secured? everybody. that means nobody.

deciding against from whom to secure yourself as important as a sighting your enemy at war and it is the same thing. precisely the same thing. because it is about profiling? absolutely. you have to decide who would is you are worried about. there is a good reason why israelis are not worried about orthodox jews blowing up their empires and a good reason for us not to worry why they do not allow our airliners and generally it would be just as prudent not to worry about, and grandpa but it would be terribly terribly useful to worry about people from certain countries or a certain

religion of peace blowing up our airplanes or other places. but that is common sense and certainly not part of our foreign policy establishment they would have us use intelligence. a man of many flaws one of his favorite saying this is intelligence is not to be confused with intelligence. [laughter] right now we have and intelligence that cost us

did that tell you 15 out of 19 hijackers on 9/11 were saudis? no. you did not need it for that. perhaps do you needed to tell you that every arab government supports the

causes for which 9/11 was perpetrated? no. you do not need it for that the there. what do you need it for? well, you need them to tell you about the whereabouts minor players in afghanistan. or iraq. but why do you need that? sapporo's -- suppose you kill the minor players would that give peace? no. why are you spending all of that money, all of the effort for that? let me. it in a parentheses, they don't do a very good job of that either because i'm sure

you remember the last december 30th a man walked into a meeting at the cia base in pakistan i'm sorry, afghanistan, and blew himself up together with the number of cia folks. what is to be remembered and our media has forgotten is that mahan is supplying cia with information will the basis of that information these drones carry michigan -- missiles to be targeted we have been killing people killing

people in pakistan on the basis of information if in fact, are working on the other side. how many other such people are there who have managed to hold on to their feelings have not blown their cells of but have continued to supply erroneous information? i don't know. but i did work for the senate intelligence committee for eight years and did not have counter intelligence and i can tell you intelligence without counter intelligence is worthless and that is the problem of the foreign policy establishment leading us back to the beginning that offers a remedial

course that it is useless because they will not study. they will not be brought back to common sense. of what use is it? this brings us back. which aims to put a box that teach common sense into the hands of the next generation and perhaps they will look at results and say what our readers have done with the vast resources have done

done, perhaps we could do better and look into old ways and here is a buck that teaches us these old ways. and begins by saying there is nothing new in here. absolutely nothing new. but here i try to say that to i help you find it interesting. thank you. [applause]

>> we have time for questions. >> [inaudible] >> in excellent year. could not happen better spent your lecture reminds me of a book from far too many years ago sitting on the bookshelf i cannot remember the the author i think it was politics among nations. >> yes. >> he was a realistic and perhaps vacaville leann and his approach but i get a hint of a degree of isolation that you cannot change character getting

people to comply also the business and a very strong defense and willingness to use it when necessary. is that correct. >> knows are. [laughter] of the question is what did you detect in my presentation a bit of isolationism because of my statement that some problems are in solvable and that one ought too not imagine the simply change the world? my answer is certainly not. nor is a realism in this since of the first question.

my point* of one focus is on one's own needs, one's own problems successfully one would have done a lot but doesn't necessarily mean not involving the rest of the world but doing so when necessary for one's own purposes is not a question of isolating oneself but focusing on one's own needs for example, contrast dieter rose about was woodrow wilson bridge rd. cedar rose about took the panama canal and was in favor of the annexation of hawaii and pr.

but he wanted the outer works to be set to woodrow wilson invaded mexico invaded several nations in the caribbean for the purpose of improving them. bass they differ purposes neither was the isolationist in fact, isolationism it was a matter of a different perspective henry cabot lodge was not the isolationist very much for a

variety of involvements, but he wanted to be involved from the purpose of the united states of america, not on behalf of any attempt to reshape the world. lake of lot of other realist he believed and wrote all men have the same motives he called his universal motive power. everybody wants to maximize power that ain't necessarily so. some people are moved by desires other than for power and he does not understand and does allow feliz

morgenthaler in his original edition does not allow diversity of human murders but we do know that people act point* differently happen to be their own. next? i remember reading or hearing somewhere back in the 1920's head of the american and communist party said that the mayor can be below never ever go for a socialist but liberalism they will buy it every time. and here we are after 40 or 50 years of liberalism down in washington given to us by people with those sick resume is and i believe with

a current document in the white house would be well advised with his secretary of state to invite you down. [laughter] to give a discussion to those folks back to you make a lot of common sense. and my question is, with regard to the upcoming election, we see a large tidal wave, tsunami, of the tea party inspired republicans. do you think that after november and january and hopefully the republicans can gain control of the senate, do you see any possibility is of any common-sense being restored

to the american government? >> , of course, a given that you have a tidal wave of public opinion that is as least as important or more important than any particular electoral results, what are the chances this quote drum up some incense into our ruling class with regard to foreign or domestic policy. and but the answer is no i don't think it would drum sense into them but diminish their power somewhat and will most certainly increase their fear and that may

substitute for common sense to some extent. but to learn, that takes your ability and i don't think our ruling class has learned and then meeting of the word humility. certainly they have lost in subjected the united states of america to grievous losses domestically as well as internationally. but i don't think i have seen any humility in the pages of "the new york times." i don't see any humility in the "journal" of foreign affairs. i don't see any openness too other points of view are very, very little. the ruling class reaction is typified by the republicans trent lott who said when the newly elected folks come, we

will call them and they will try and succeed to some extent but not succeed otherwise. ultimately coming to answer your question, this election cycle is by no means a tsunami because i believe something radical has happened to american public opinion in the last three or four years the bush administration having been as much response was the obama administration, that they are not led by the sharpest knives in the drawer. [laughter] >> giving illustrations that pointed to do negative performance of the state department and intelligence department, can you give us

any positive like theodore roosevelt put in a positive or any other nation in the world today that as you observe them, appear to be showing the positive traits of the foreign policy? >> yes. imc and a passionate admirer of john quincy adams. i cannot think of an american and that showed prudence and wisdom and the understanding the peculiar needs of the needs of america as much as john quincy adams. he was holidays followed by william seward, washington and other statesmen who did their best to follow him.

up through theodore roosevelt we have had a run of also bans including george of the bush. i cannot think of a more succinct nation of the founders' view than george bush statement that america will not be free until the rest of the world is free meeting we will never be free. as for the effective foreign policy in our time you have to look at china consider their fast internal problem i would not want to be the chinese leadership right now sitting on top of a summary

volcano how that will develop nobody will say but seeing as they are, they are playing their hand in east asia as competently as any geo politician would come to mind as nea geo politician would want, namely strengthening military control over the periphery while conducting a masterly diplomacy with regard to the united states and japan and

meanwhile intimidating the lesser powers and a very subtle game in korea. 812 look at machiavellian, effective teethirty diplomacy, look at china. >> you seem to indicate american involvement and that the problems in palestine i thought it meant for the british who handle that with the bell for declaration that would you tell me what is the american involvement? >> i apologize if i gave you the wrong impression. what i said henry cabot

lodge warned against our involvement in that situation you are quite correct it was the british to crafted jordan of failed to help their clients to feats the turks during the war and what the wahhabi defeat which made it necessary the establishment from iraq. this was a british. and of course, the failure to support that, again, we're not the only power that has

practiced diplomacy. [applause] >> host: realistically speaking is there at prospect weapons onear the planet? >> guest: i think so we have lost our utilities that the cost of $50 billion per.s. year since obama announced it is the official u.s. policy is just a matter ofm working al security relationships standing ind to the way. >> host: is regard to working out thoseo relationships could we comei to agreements with countriesd like north korea and iran whoe seem to be on the path

to making their own weapons? >> they do because that is the only way they feel they can defend themselves against the major nuclear powers like the united states but each of themc hasd security if we can find a way to satisfy, we like north korea to be an ally of the uniteda states and they have beena saying that over' 40 years and will like us tor build the nuclear power plants to replace the electricity wein bombed -- destroyed with bombing during the korean war. >> talk about under sadam hussain how can the story of the bomb program grow even if they did not have anyf bombs if we have not found any so far? ar >> we went into the first world war arguing they did which we did dunno buty afterwards when the atomic agency when did they found al

huge effort seven richman -- uranium they cleaned it out and so did the iraqis they retired of having our people walking around so they blew it out but did not keep records when the second tont push cameg around it was resolved to settle there was noh proofe they have not reconstituted the program but it was fully cleaned up by 1988. >> host: you also talk in the book of the scramble ofer what was left over of the soviet nuclear arsenal? >> guest: is not so much the arsenal that the lowe's salamis director said to be they have never suggested ase our bonds due andc they know where there's our earst ears-- there's our but itmat was the materials thembs, plutonium because the whole. country was a prison camp and inouye to get the thingswn out when the walls came down

we went into spend a lot of money but the real effort helps them to put their materials under lock and key. then former senator estimates 60 percent of those nuclear materials are guarded but to we made a good start. >> host:r earlier today had a presentation at theval national book festival andut tell us about that and during the question andwhat answer point* what was foremost on the minds of the people asking questions? >> guest: we went through my new book "twilight" of the bomb to talk about the serious issues and amazing cops and robbers stories that came out but ultimatelyfi what i talk about is a very serious question it is usual

question today trying not to, figure out to build upon this is as much of a threat to like the united states if we have 5,000n bombs in our'r arsenal we tend to think that is okay but it is the basic imbalance of the world that we maintain our arsenal but other countries can.i that is the issue i discussed and how we get at zero. >> host: the "twilight" ofs: the book -- of the bomb. . .