if at. >> what i am reading this summer number one is a book from a great international correspondent and michael takes new-line a wild firsthand tour of the neighborhoods where hezbollah dwells in and around lebanon from direct confrontation to being in

the middle of the 2006 war against a group of this is a thrill ride i cannot put it down based on a taxable work and he is a brave on the ground journalist. another book i have been dying to get to, a large book to take up my the time is the book of islamic anti-semitism from a preeminent expert on islam and leslie i love to dig into power faith in fantasy by israel's ambassador to the u.s. writing it before he was ambassador but a history of american involvement in the middle east and is a very timely to say the least the.

>> i am thrilled to be here if they do to the farm policy association what has played such an important role in my bankroll of what i do in what to think the colonel and all cadets who are here from west point. was point* is one of the most inspiring places i have had privileged to go to. every time i go there i am in off of the career these young women and men have chosen i can not start without saying thank you for your service to -- . [applause]

nato i believe this increasingly dysfunctional organization. if it continues to go the way it is now it will become rather inconsequential for security of europe and the united states. that is kind of the theme of my book and i also believe however that nato is extremely important in some way house to be redone so let me reveal the mystery of the book reboot or delete?" somebody said will you give away which one it is? i will do that. it is every boot. i think it is terribly important for young people to understand what nato was

in is so they can play their part to support people who are trying to change it. interestingly, the name that i chose "nato 2.0" reboot or delete?" ran into some difficulty with the on-line search engines to know when you search for a book you really like these other books of the other books were computer books do like your own computer? i think they are having that fixed. nato is one of those institutions set up after the second world war ii help keep the piece and to help reconstruct the world that had seen total devastation. and it has existed from that point* a strong anchor from

the american and alliance and it is my argument that it is now beginning to do the reverse instead of holding the two sides together but beginning to chip away at the relationship. that relate -- relationship, the transatlantic is enormously where we live in a time where china and brazil and india the galloping economies are the biggest markets in the world. but i like to start off to tell the audiences that today, in the 800 million people of the indicted states and european union produced almost two-thirds of the world's economic output. $14 trillion of sales are generated by these two economies.

they employ 4 million people just as europeans do. european investment contributes 10% of new york gdp. when the yorker out of 20 has of job because of the investment from the european union. that leaves the ultimate prize because these two regions are two of the few in the world that really understand what the position of the individual is in society and in government. three down. all of the things that we take for granted are ingrained in the dna. i would submit to you that keeping the relationship strong is extremely important. that is where but i started to think about nato where it

is coming from our headed i thought this is not working because it is that relationship that is starting to suffer. as you know, dado was set up 1949. it had a very clear purpose to stop the soviet union from invading europe. the best description i have ever heard of an aide who was the first secretary general who was last what was nato for? he said it is to keep the germans down in the americans in but encapsulate in the entire purpose of what nato was. they go through the cold war

and we end the cold war without nato firing a shot. the soviet union collapses, then the question is what to do with nato? by the way for this book i talked to over 50 people on both sides of the atlantic and all key military leaders from the european union and the political and military folks here in the united states. that is the background of the research we still have nato and what should we do with nato? people just did not think it through. we wanted to make sure these newly free countries of central europe and making a

wonderful point* to say you cannot leave these countries in the middle of one side and the west on the other and nato went from a very tight the knit group of 13 at now 28 countries. during that time by the way the bureaucracy expanded of 14,000 people 300 committees equal number of subcommittees so this has become a huge structure. that is whittled down by the way because one of the rules of nato is made by unanimity and to making decisions with 300 committees i don't know if anyone is the chairman

can handle that kind of a crowd. to see where nato has expanded to going through 1999 where they make the decision in washington to go anywhere in the world to fight a and we go along and i want to short circuit this but i want to bring you to 9/11 in which has the first description of the first and account but here we are 9/11 hood treaty that set up had a number of articles and article five israel key instrument that basically

says in an attack on any member of nato is considered an attack on all. it is the key article connecting to the defense of europe. it was flat on their backs. the only way to defend europe was with america. that is what this article did. after 9/11, the very next day nato got together and decided to invoke article five which had never been invoked before. to say we go to war with america our leader is an attack on all of us. but that story in itself is interesting. you should buy the book just

for that story. [laughter] that is the last am i will plug the book. sorry. the united states decides it will fight alone. and turns around to toe the nato allies that stepped up to the plate article v that such a good war and we said no. this is a real war take it easy when we need for you to come we will call you. that was the first side of the european side is something was not right. then let us move on. there came a time when by the way if you have not read about the account of what a few hundred special forces and armed cia people did, it

is worth reading that they destroy the taliban camps sending al qaeda running in just a few of them with a few calgary course charges and it is quite a story. but the united nations says nato took over the afghanistan campaign. and there we find another find of the coffee out. it turns out -- caveat. it turns out some allies simply do not wish to make more where there were no shooting battles. some did it one to fight unless they have helicopters there were all of these rules than pretty soon we started to see the folks who

wanted to send soldiers out to the field to have almost insulting checklist so this starts to develop in buy the way i am very careful when a make a statement about the caveat because i don't mean in any way to cut down on the bravery of the troops who are helping us americans out there. and the germans are not very willing to fight because of a historical precedent. it is very difficult for the germans to get over second world war history. please don't and feud any other motive into that. so now you have a copy ought with afghanistan where we're not prepared to use the allies because it is a different kind of four in technology have left them behind and estonia started

to do something the russians didn't like then there was a cyberattack that plan and the estonian government. no one knows of that came from russia. there is a good reason, but it hasn't been proven but within a matter of a day and a half is one of the most wired countries of the world with international banks, the post office and licensing groups, out. estonia was of a master of nato. 911. headquarters. hopefully are being destroyed. house? computers don't work. that does not work with article five it does not cover cyber defense.

another fault line. in moving along through 2008 russia and georgia. you may recall there was a test between russia and the country of georgia at that time. and for some reason i have never understood, the president of georgia thought he should pick a war with russia but they attacked with full force and before you knew it, russians had occupied a large part of the budgetary establishment my hunch about that war it was a curious to join nato and russia laid down the line in the sand. many of you probably know this but it is very different from the other countries and is directly were the interco part of

russia up. the ukraine used to be the breadbasket until the mongols came and russians ran up into the forest and then they say you will not come. we wanted to get the administration into nato and the europeans objective to that. and we basically said we give up saying you're almost as good as members and i am convinced that was enough for the president of georgia who is a columbia graduate practiced in new york with one of the most influential law firms and is well connected into a political hierarchy and not just to be off his rocker but they

really thought the calgary would come to the rescue. but we didn't. so my point* that i build up to is the fault lines with afghanistan and estonia providing a kind of security that to doesn't exist and i will just touch, when i spoke last year, at the end of the class q and day there re european cadets there there, why didn't nato give russia a tough time during the georgia campaign? i was trying to figure out how to diplomatically answer this when a german said me i answer? he said if you had done that you would be on your own

because germany has terrific ties with russia and a growing business relationships and you would have been on your own if you asked nato to do that. isn't that interesting? another one like that, france has just completed the sale of a helicopter attack warship. it took them 26 hours and that warship lets them do it in 40 minutes. think about that a strong member of nato disregarding the views and sensibilities of that eastern europeans to make the sale. we're not criticizing france.

to the central and eastern in european parts just quickly on libya which you may have questions later, i keep thinking will hold a bn war was a set up to eliminate the arguments in my book so i know that is not true by one of the biggest reasons is standardization. we always said ultimately nato people can fight together. the reading last week said people were running out of the laser-guided bombs. but guess what? the british and french aircraft because we thought if nothing else to do all of these things to switch

figures the u.s. navy invited me a couple of years ago to watch carrier operations that is some outfit. but i was having dinner with the executive officer who pretty much runs the ship and on the other side the commander of the fighters god. probably the 14 year or 12 year age difference so i asked the executive officer, what do you think about nato? my wife had gotten used to be turning to anybody what do you think of nato? and he gave me a picture about nato how we could never do without it.

this is the anchor of western security and over dessert i asked exactly the same question to the attack squadron if he says you have to prove to me what good this is. here and between two of the most senior american military officers and that is the reaction that i get from riverside that is when i realized maybe this is the area worth looking into. in 1998 the balkan war was just getting over. so the war is over and france and britain decide that this is shameful.

we don't have many institutions to build or plan and run in the operation. never again. they met to on an island in france and came up with an agreement with the european union was set up there was a security pillar but the was put aside to focus on treaties with the capital markets and movement of people and bringing the continent closer together. nato is run by the border directors and a military committee then various other committees but those are the key structures so the europeans said it up a military committee and a

satellite center and all of a sudden the folks say what are these europeans doing? will they take away what nato is doing? will there be duplication? si u.s. at our direction also the u.k. setup ground rules to say this is okay but you cannot set up a permanent headquarters. a few launched a campaign you need to use said that the commander and they came to an agreement to work those out. that only lasted for one campaign. over the last 10 years europeans have spent 27 deployments from asia to africa under the common security and defense policy which is i should hasten to tell you most of these

happen very small missions. they have gone from asia to africa. two of them are key in how many know there is a naval force? operating off of somalia? it is twice the size of nato three years ago at the request of the united nations the european union will start a little over 3,000 people. thousands of miles into the center of africa of we spent quite a bit of talking to the irish commander and they were tested within the first week polish, french, in swedish special forces to open up the air strips with

the pitched battles deployed 19 months then they turn it over to the u.n. not the size of afghanistan what as general nash told me, if we can do it for a brigade we can do it for three brigades. the east -- the e.u. has just approved the 28 commission it is called e.u. f. collor libya to make the political decision to set up a level you are ready to go as a commander appointed and funded for three months and waiting for the when they get the call and put in a battalion into libya. we have not cover that as much as we should.

this is part of what i was doing there and once i really understood what was happening i said one of my standard questions became a as you can handle the security of europe on your own now? right? the answer would always be yes. one of my editorials a couple of weeks ago was to the fact libya gives america the ideal opportunity to give the political will. i think this strategic trans-atlantic equation has not been calibrated since

the second world war. there probably will never be a european army but as we have seen in some of the missions there is a very strong army of europeans. i would submit that is what it would be for quite a while. the whole canard about they don't fight and they don't negotiate talking to general scowcroft says don't let anybody fool you. when the interests are threatened, nobody can fight as well as the europeans. we can. made his future by itself the shelf life is very small.

also the europeans are quite interested in doing their own thing. i simply don't believe the united states and europe were totally in sync when it comes to security. i think the whole equation has to be thought out again. i just finished a report for the army war college speaking about the book to say can you recommend what we ought to be doing? that will come out in a couple of months. my recommendation is the president of united states get in touch with the leadership of the european union to start a project to bridge in a note to the european union. they are moving in the direction to call it altogether.

-- pull it all together. that is my story and i am sticking to it. [laughter] i am ready to engage on your command. [applause] >> i will be happy to call on you. raise your hand. thank you very much. my question is then made no bridge to csdp without isolating turkey? >> starting off with a difficult question. [laughter] for those of you or not

aware of the importance of this, there has been a tiff between turkey and cyprus over the island of cyprus. turkey is a member of nato but not the e.u. so there is always disagreement when they simply cannot get together because of the tiff over a tiny island. $1 trillion security relationship is stymied because of this. that is why i recommend the direct approach from the president to the leadership of the european union. i basically say this is what will have been. that europe and the periphery are the responsibility of the europeans. we want to be involved. we will always be involved

because of the relationship there should be a pillar of some kind within the european establishment. but what that should be should be worked out. because if we let it go, it will never resolve. with the bureaucratic fight going on 12 years. the security of the western alliance cannot stop. >> do we belong in libya of what you have just said is this a european problem? >> i have believed all along they should be a european problem. the buy the same token i don't believe we should be handing enough to say good luck. we are a part of the

transatlantic relationship so we should be there in a supporting role but i would that the european union handle it. if you don't know the president has just approved two hours ago, the deployment of armed drones over the be a. that is the latest news. we were talking earlier how easy it is to start things and how difficult it is to conclude them. to me and what do is tragic of the time it is we have people like the colonel and all of these wonderful people who will soon be in action. we have a military force that does what it is supposed to do efficiently

we need to think some more about the consequences the unintended consequences before we take action. >> i would like to know your idea to make a relationship more realistic is america supposed to mind its own business we compete many times the taken into consideration italy and germany when they don't

acted all with western and civilization because some personal connection. >> is this just local idea? >> we have long ceased to exist in the world to compartmentalize. i think there is no option but to engage dollar around the world. united states cannot. if you take our defense budget almost $1 trillion in how long are they fighting the taliban? they don't even have a defense budget. what is the meaning of this?

we cannot do things on our own in the point* is well taken it is a matrix we need to work together. i totally agree. of funny story of the russian ambassador to nato. it is trying to get close to russia so they have opened at the ambassadorship it is not a full ambassador that he can attend some meetings having some coffee and dmitri is his name. i said would you think about the kinder and gentler nato? you will get close together? he leaned forward and said mr. kashmeri if your grandmother grew whiskers would you call her your grandfather? [laughter] the old russian saying that i guess.

>> you compare nato and the e.u. as being effective what do think about the u.n. itself? you say that you need a consensus where people from the periphery but does it work? >> i happen to believe the wynn largely works. first of all, those people when they think about the united nations think of the security council but there are large parts of the united nations. that development fund and

the reason we don't have pilates landing and speaking in french and so one is because all of the rule so there's a large part of the when we do not pay attention to the on the security council i think that is a very tough thing as people try to reform that for a long time i think it will be longer rather than shorter. but having said that it is nice to have a place for everybody is considered an equal to sit and talk. at least you can sit and talk would submit to mamadou if you do not have the when we would have to invent it. that is my view. that is how i feel and that is hugely important organization. i am glad it is in new york.

>> your first book brought fischbach in the united states because you seem to be undermining a traditional american british connection that encourages a more european association. i presume you still believe that? how would this coordination that you describe managed to rise above the royal wedding? [laughter] >> thank you for putting me on the spot again. i argued in my first book we have not paid enough attention to the european union as it was developed. we simply believed it could

not have been and my argument was we did not pay attention because we look at europe through very anglo tinted glass is. of it isn't good for britain we think it sent good for us. the "wall street journal" did not published an editorial on the arrow until six months before the currency came into existence. i would go all around the country my company used to do seminars on the euro in what integration would mean to american business and foreign policy and people thought i was crazy. when i first asked they would sponsor a series of lectures the near times said you mean you get more than two people? i theorize that families we look at europe with tinted

glasses. one of the best secretaries of state here working hit how is it i'm adair in a baggy

for those of you who are not aware this treaty talked the equivalent of the state department and obeying to them together with 1% in charge. this is not falling all into place we could see the politics if we take secretary gates and how long would it take? that is the direction in which things are moving how many people know the european union is the largest provider of aid in the world? winning hearts and minds of state department and defense department that naval force of the somalia they can sign

treaties the e.u. signed treaties of african countries when they pick up the pirates they turn them over there brings in consultants and computers and that is the holistic defense structure that is being created in europe. the europeans are a couple of steps ahead but they need that political will to know that we support them. so then at least give them more leadership.

what will happen if we let them? does anybody believe that besides me? >> >> i appreciate your comments very much. comparing nato and the european union to see huge structure to nato with the military structures of the european union growing up your conclusion was right to that taking added your book what about nato? >> i cannot give everything away. but first of all you are

aware i am sure the nato does not have of course, or a military. they do not even have money to run a war like libya. if you volunteer to fight in the villa you pay your own way. poland is helping in afghanistan. 2500 troops and pay $1 billion per year. that is one-tenth of their defense budget. csdp the organization does not have the military and nato does not have a military so the use the same europeans, tanks, planes, po lled one label off and put another on in off you go. now what nato has since paid is the defense organization everybody is plugged in so if there is more everybody can react but how many are

reacting in libya? out of 28 members six are participating of which four or three what nothing to do with attacking the ground. the zero rebels are complaining it takes a long time for nato to come up. do you know, why? when they call in a the strike if it goes to naples for the canadian general runs the forces. from there it goes to the strategic nato command outsider brussels and from there it has to political committees to clear. and then it is pass to go to the capitals of the countries to be approved. recalled general clark who had to climb zero wall to knock out those television transmitters had to go to those capitals then come back for the consensus by that time those transmitters

had stopped working. so we believe they are mired this luscious 5:00 nobody was there. where is everybody? it is by 15 pm. isn't there a war going on somewhere? yes it is true. it is the most successful military alliance in history but we need to take a look at this. there is a disconnect between the military side and political side. i fully agree the europeans are not all there but they are pointing in a direction

with heavy-duty missions and also when not move along that way? >> i am not sure there is a solution. i am not sure nato has found that a solution which is a cyber best practices centers set up but there are 35

people that work which is a good start but we have a four-star general who runs a cyber command and billions of dollars so this is a huge problem provide don't think we can solve it by ourselves how we just need to keep plugging along. there is no short-term answer i don't know the answers your question but we just have to go along. if a 12 year-old can get up to deny a -- put in denial of service attack on a computer they can do it. how many 13 year olds are there? with the estonian it attacks the question was when you take out the computers rethink our doing this?

one that was attended -- identified ran control over cairo. this is a huge lead difficult issue we have to keep plugging away at it. >> in light of a global recession have of three when the european body or csdp to pursue independent policy of the united states? >> that is an excellent question. of the u.s. defense budget is 700 billion crown numbers of which 150 billion is iraq and afghanistan. the european union countries

this security budget is roughly 240 million euros. that is roughly about 380 million of round numbers. take the iran and afghanistan war zone they have global responsibilities and take that budget out and i would submit the budget's are not that dissimilar the european union countries 2 million people under arms they're not trained like the military almost 10,000 battle tanks are 15,000 aircraft sunday our nuclear power powers holding a potent punch. that is how i would answer it and i think there is even more reason because the

president has proposed in a think we wind of somewhere of 400 billion over the next decade so would now be nice to get our partners in europe to share that burden with us? i think we need to give them that plush. >> if by a me for one piece of business i have been a member of the fda for some time. and i recall i start all my speeches by looking at the first row to connect with our vice-chairman. i always start my speech is by looking at her and beginning my speech. she was the most international minded person

and dies suddenly last and week. and i was totally totally shocked so very brought us along to where we are recognized for what it does in the non-partisan economic environment and i would be remiss in saying that we miss you. i just want to say that. [applause] >> on behalf of everybody here i want to thank you for those tremendous insights causing us to reevaluate our assumptions which is a healthy activity and i hope you accept this modest token of our appreciation a coffee

mug. >> with pleasure. [applause] at this time, in by two in buy you upstairs for a reception, a book signing and i think we could look forward to continuing the conversation upstairs. thank you very much. [applause]

i like to weigh in on the fundamental confucius. if you think about what a warrior is, a warrior is a percent to first of all, chooses a side. the warrior knows these are my people and those are my and me. he would risk his life and limb to stop the people who are trying to do of violence against his people. a policeman will risk life and limb but they cannot choose sides. they have to be on this side of the law. it is called corruption. we have fundamentally confused the role of four years with the role of police they were trained to oppose another side into a

situation where no agreed upon law. that the people who are inside will tell you that they agree that those who are trained as four years into a situation where there is no agreement. it is justifiable to cut off a woman's years she has humiliated her husband. which what are we dealing with? second come if you have policeman who are trained they are generally more proud -- more richard infantrymen are young. would you take the 19 year-old and sent him to a troubled neighborhood with the automatic weapon? not likely he will do a good

job to go up against the enemy. he knows who they are he will do the magnificent job. that is what they do. the time and time again people who are trained one way with nine of the requirements it is a force multiplier for about you have this devastating moment when they suddenly realize and worry over the fact that the north vietnamese army unit to is infused with a sense of purpose-- purpose with a devastating observation that kind of clarity is of the past and the marines killed people that left off of feeling that was tried to be ignored but this cycle of this

dynamic came quickly detach itself from larger strategic missions especially those with ambiguity and counterinsurgency. >> it is the interesting parallel between the and not in the war in afghanistan but think of world war ii my father and my own goals of lot in are making progress? yes. we took wobble can now and -- the guadalcanal and it was clear what we were doing. and then it at the end of it is not clear. how we measure success in two body count? i am clear in my own mind that body count is a bad measure of success. first while it is a moral. the warriors' job is to stop the other side from using violence and when it stops doing