>> tremendously kind and moving introduction. that i have a chance to spend some time with you. i think i lost the coin toss, so i am going to speak first.

i will try to do that very briefly because i am as eager to hear from ann as you are. so we are each year to talk about the book, and i think in many respects our books are radically different from one another. you can buy a copy of each one we are done and you can make up your own mind. but i actually think that the books are quite complementary and that each in its own way of firms the message of purpose of the other. my book is called a breach of trust, and the basic point of breach of trust is to to suggest that the relationship between the u.s. military and american society -- and i think justin just alluded to this is that basic relationships are pervaded

by dishonesty. historically we all support the troops. in practice, collectively we allow the troops to be subjected to cereal abuse as authorities in washington commit the troops to needless and unwinnable wars. this is an example, i think of what the larger and theologian dietrich von offer once referred to as cheap grace. it is grace said is unearned and undeserved and that has in essence turns a blind eye toward things that are fundamentally wrong or even evil. now, my book is kind of a history book and no way. it is a history book in a sense, as it tries to recount the changes in our basic military

system that have occurred since vietnam and evaluates the consequences of those changes. and the big change, of course him as one that occurred read the end of vietnam, the creation of the so-called all-volunteer force, which despite that frees you should think of as a professional army or to use the phrase that the founders of this republic would have used, a standing army. by and large, it seems to me, our fellow citizens today view the creation of the all volunteer force as having been a good and. certainly the creation of the all volunteer force has resulted in our reliance upon professional soldiers and tessin the effect of relieving citizens of any responsibility to contribute to the nation's defense and it has, in fact, lifted a burden from us as citizens, but one of the consequences of lifting that

burden from us as citizens has been to give washington a free hand in deciding when and where to commit u.s. forces. the american people effectively have forfeited ownership over what used to be called the american army and that army has now become washington's army. but in their use of that army, civilian and military elites in washington have proven to be both reckless and incompetence. the world's best military, we were told we have the world's best military, and by many measures there is no question that we do. the world's best military is supposed to win wars. indeed it is supposed to win in quickly and decisively. the end of the cold war along with operation desert storm back in 1991 left that expectation of

a military that would win quickly and decisively. but even since those days, particularly since the attacks of september 11th have to look radically different story. we know how to star wars, but based upon the evidence presented in afghanistan and other places, we don't know how to win them. we don't even know how in them. once begun, wars tend to drag on indefinitely. and it is important, i think, for us to recognize and acknowledge the extent to which the american people are implicit in this outcome, and this tendency because the american people now have defacto defined their own involvement in american wars in terms of what in the book referred to as the three knows.

the first is that we will not change. we will not change the way to live our lives simply because the nation as a war, and we will not pay. that is to say, we will not change our way of life karzai taxes, reduce our entitlement in order to ensure that the revenues provided to sustain the work conducted in our name, but, of course, we will not leave. put simply, war has become not our problem but somebody else's problem. as a consequence of that, as a consequence of losing control of our military, as a consequence of indulging in that torinos what we have ended up with is too much for and too few warriors. 1 percent of the population bears the burden of what has become, for all practical

purposes permanent war, and the other 99 percent of us are spectators. i personally believe that this distribution of service and sacrifice is not democratic. it is also not moral. it is, in fact, the inverse of the complaints registered by the occupy movement of a couple of years back, namely what we have is a 1% being exploited by the 99%. the side effects are likewise unfortunate. the disparity between washington's appetite for war and society's willingness to provide warriors has created an opening for profit-minded private security firms that are turned as mercenaries to enrich themselves even as they promote pervasive waste and corruption. now, let's acknowledge that war has always been a money-making

opporunity for some, but we live in a time when in many respects war has primarily become an opporunity for some institutions and some people to make money. president obama and his administration have at least partially grasped the problem. the president's administration has acknowledged that it is invading and occupying countries is a fool's errand. after flirting with nation-building during the obama afghanistan surge, it has devised an alternative way of war. missile firing drones, special operations forces provide the basis for what is in effect a campaign of targeted assassination. this obama approach has reduced cost. it cannot provide a basis for

coherent strategy. the obama doctrine for the war sets a precedent that may yet turn the war into a free fire zone. i hope there is an all turned into the all volunteer professional military that we have come to accept. national service could provide a way to revive the tradition of the citizen soldier national service means that all young americans will spend a service and country. serving in different capacities guy environment, the elderly, that dispossessed, improving the community in various capacities, but all would surf.

that said, implementing requires that we, the people, first recognize how defective the military system is that we have come to rely upon. with that i will sit down and be more than happy to turn the podium over to hand. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, andrew. thank you to our house. i am happy to be here this evening and very honored to be -- the podium with one of our heroic historians. hundred and -- very, very different from each other and get complement each other in, i

think, some very profound ways. but whereas i support and use very practical suggestion or it seems very reasonable and practical if will live in a reasonable and practical country of national service for everyone my would like to carry the argument one step further. my solution would be that we should just not having wars all the other. [applause] national service to just fix the upper structure. we could begin with the commuter train headed by mayor would just

like to read a few paragraphs in the introduction of my book and then talk just for a few minutes about the process that i've followed through on to of try to tell the story to back up the little bit of argument i am making in his introduction. sooner or later almost every american comes home on a stretcher, and a box, and an altered state of mind. soldiers returned or fail to return to families who love them or try to come of families to recognize the more not, communities and help them or cannot. that is what this book is about. not the pointless wars which have gone on for so long that historians are already weighing in with their evaluations, using

words like shipwreck, a disaster, a tragic mistake. historian andrew j. basin which reminds us, it is the soldier who bears the burden of such folly. u.s. troops in battle dress and body armor home americans profess to admire and support in the price. i don't pretend to give a complete picture, but rather offer a series of snapshots of soldiers i met and the people around them, the caregivers and family members and friends to look after them when things don't go according to plan. they, too, pay the price of folly. i gathered these snapshots on military bases and in military hospitals in the united states and its war zones and in house is your town. they are not pretty pictures. they are what i saw.

perhaps darkened by the knowledge that nothing recorded in this book has to happen. one of we have to be trained for it. soldiers and citizens alike. we have to be trained for it. soldiers and citizens alike. and the wars of choice we were trained for. the wars these soldiers took part in need never have been fought. contrary to common opinion in the united states -- fairly recent. for more than 90 percent of the time that him as a live on this

planet most. many languages don't even have a word for it. turnoff cnn and reid. you will see. what is more, were is obsolete. those dishes don't make more -- war anymore, except when coerced by the united states to join some coalition. the earth is so small, and our time here so short, no other nation on the plant makes war has often, as long, as forcefully, as expansively, as destructively, as well as fully, as senselessly, of -- or is unsuccessfully as the united states. no other nation makes short. its business. this is not primarily a book of opinion, but that is my opinion.

i would like to be able to convince americans that that is an important opinion. how could i do that? when i was on the forward operating base in afghanistan, watched the patrols go out every day, sometimes i went with them. often they would come back, since we were and deeply troubled parts of the country. often they would come back with menacing who have been spirited away in medivac helicopters after having been wounded on the battlefield, and it would not return to base. then at the same time, one could read in american papers the heartwarming stories of young men who have lost both legs in afghanistan and wriggling on a mountain climbing trip with fellow veterans who also happen

to have lost their legs and those wars. was not this -- was in this wonderful? well, in a way, of course, it is a wonderful testimony to the courage of those survivors who have worked extremely hard to carry on with their lives in ways that we can not even imagine. but looked at in another way it is the most senseless kind of waste and win. why have we not heard the stories in between what happens from the time a soldier is shot down in the field and the time he gets to go climbing on his new titanium legs. that is what i set out to find out. room so i was able to get permission to embed on the medevac flights and in hospitals

that bring our own it home. and a major part of this book is simply a written account of what i saw and what i was told by the doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel who care for the soldiers in afghanistan, the regional medical center in germany, america's largest hospital outside the netting states, and eventually buy additional medivac flights to dover, delaware and then the hostels at walter reed in bethesda. and then in many cases, i followed particular veterans all the way home, met there families, heard what -- how the family was living along and

began to understand more fully how the injury of one single soldier and packs an entire family, and through that family an entire community and beyond. the mother of one veteran of the invasion who had been at home in the better mother's child for most of the last and years since the returns from the war calls that the ripple effect. think that is a word that does not begin to capture the full impact of that. and, you know, for years i have worked in afghanistan and other conflicts countries as in a worker, generally working on behalf of women and other civilians. of course, the principal injuries in both of these wars

have occurred among those civilians of the nations of we have invaded. i, having worked with those people for so many years, went to air for operating base to write a piece about women soldiers on that base and on myself on a base with four women and all the time a man of god -- they disintegrated before my very eyes. and i thought, there's a much more going on here than i have never been aware of. that is when i began to follow these soldiers and to understand what they go through them and how they're torn apart a sudden

and physically and mentally by the wars and how little understanding than 99 percent have of what they go through while there in the field and after they come home. i also depend upon small-town journalist in these countries it provided a lot of information fed the of -- and affirmation. the violence that they bring with them and that they commit against others and, of course, at an incredible rate against themselves. so this is available ramble of stories that did not have to happen. i kept it short. so i hope people have the stamina to stick with it and

read it and understand that this is not something that we can allow to continue. thank you. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> so now we will welcome your comments and questions. i guess people who have questions should come up to mike. we're both going to stand here and try to era field whenever you have got, but i told ann without tipping their of that up was going to close the first question. so if i may do that. you know, i write books sitting around in my office at boston university, sitting in my study, beautiful, and reading books and articles. it's a wonderful life that is

also pretty safe. and so my question really is why you do if you do and how did you come to do much to do? bearing witness directly and immediately to the things that you describe and very much putting yourself a risk and no way that you approach your work? how did you come to be who you are? >> i'm very nosy. [laughter] ira like to see what's gone on. very often what's going on makes me really mad. and when i -- when i get mad i start writing about it. so that is the short answer. all little bit of context for that is in the dedication to my

book. i finally made amends with my father by dedicating his book to him. he was a veteran of world war one highly decorated, came home, became one of those successful, small businessmen, civic minded, a well-respected in his community and, yet a violent and dreaded man and withdrawn man at home. a famous comedian outside that house a silent tyrant within it. i grew up under that shadow that followed my father to the end of his life. he led the age of 80 still having nice -- nightmares about the war he had fought. so after each of these wars we have -- we are reassured by the pentagon that it is only a small

number of returning soldiers who have any trouble reintegrating. and most go on to find careers. well, my father was one of those who went on to a fine career, but that was not the whole story. so i have never trusted those pentagon statistics command that is one of the things that makes me nosey enough to put myself at risk to see what is really going on. [applause] >> really quickly, if you can line up for questions here, if he had difficulty coming to the front, raise your hand and i will come around with of the microphone so that you can ask them or speak. >> i just have a quick question. is related in a direct way.

before the invasion, jim pal of the atlantic monthly row "was one of the most. [inaudible] articles i think in did not get as much publicity as it should have gone on what we do after we win the war. and the idea was -- the idea of the article was we cannot do anything because we do not have a military that as a peacemaking wing that can go and and fix the damage the we have already done with our super weapons and held out in constructing a new country. that is quite a task in itself. but it illustrates, if you look at that problematic to map the bombing of the country gives you the eddy of the task that faces

us, even if we do not have war. so i am just wondering what you thought, you probably read that article. no? >> i cannot remember what i had for dead three days ago. so i'm sure i care remember the article. but why was the united states military so unprepared for the consequences of overthrowing saddam hussein and suddenly being responsible for this country? the answer, i believe, has to do with the military response to failure and defeat in vietnam. and talk about the military and serving. the 1970's into the 1980's. this is a military that, above all else, the right thing, above

all else was determined to avoid a recurrence of vietnam, to avoid being caught in another ugly, unconventional and protracted war. hence, in order to achieve that vietnam avoidance, the mindset of the officer corps focus narrowly on operational questions, the overriding priority was to figure out how to win the battle. and there was precious little intellectual energy invested into the question, well, after you win the battle within? what comes next? what problems might be faced? i think it has played out in spades and the planning for operation iraqi freedom and the execution. it is clear that the commander of the u.s. central command, at

the time, general tommy francs very much of vietnam veteran, a product of the post's vietnam timeframe was focused like a laser on how to drive the -- drive to baghdad, destroy the iraqi army, and overthrow the government. neither he nor his bosses by secretary of defense donald rumsfeld paid sufficient attention to the question. ..

>> crime wondering if you are familiar with that paper and your thoughts on that? has raised try to figure out the answer where do you see the leadership? who do we support to make this happen? >> if war is not the answer, then what is the question? what is the question? we could struggle with the war part by don't think about questions that would

take us to a different level. i am not familiar with the papers that you mentioned on security but i would like to say that if you talk about a seeing a long enough you think it is the most important thing in the world in the whole world thinks so and america is under the delusion whole world talks about more insecurity like we do. nothing could be farther from the truth. nobody talks the way americans do. in norway security is talk about all the time. what they be by security is what do we need to do for schools and health care system and their jobs to really provide security for our children? everything that is done is

done with the eye to make security for the children. what that means is all the basic fundamental concerns of life are provided for by civic arrangements so that you are not worried about your home or your job or your health care and then you can be free to live your life in a secure country. that is the secure conversation we need to have here. the kind of conversation we never have time to have here because we always talk about more. that is my opinion. [applause] >> we were in the front when restarted and i said what side do you want to sit on? i said to pick. she said i like to sit on the left. i said that's fine.

i like to sit on the right because i am actually a conservative. to the point of the question , where i do stinkweed differs substantially -- where i do think we differ substantially, as a catholic i believe the original solid -- sen in our nature we're fundamentally flawed. and peace is probably beyond our capacity to achieve and to my mind a more modest goal is more realistic to minimize the occurrence of four except in circumstances where the highest values are

at risk with no alternative. but to resort to violence in order to you defend or achieve those things. even than, always always always be cognizant of the fact war occurs in the realm of chance and the consequences that stem from more will defy your imagination. therefore, no one needs to be extraordinarily cautious, careful, and weary and actually i think this is where we agree that somehow or other particularly since the end of the cold war although we could trace it to the beginning of the cold war, we as a people are political leaders in washington have lost sight

of these historical realities in are far too casual. they are oblivious to the adverse consequences. they work under the most optimistic assumption that it will be easy or cheap and once you achieve that goal then all of your problems will go way. from a conservative perspective i am the one that says no. there is no reason to think along those terms so we should be cautious and minimize rather than expect we can eliminate conflict entirely. >> first and foremost, thank you for your insights on these issues. professor andrew bacevich

struck with your comment from the change of the draft of the of military force and the fact it had on our citizens and concept of citizenship with the fact that today it seems citizens seem to be attached -- detached from policy and identify as consumers so beyond returning to a project of national service or a draft or thinking about all the other factors that lead to a citizen disengagement, if i could get both of your perspectives how do we really engage citizens as responsible members of the policy and how to be get them this stems from the fact that people do not perceive they have skin in the game the way they did during the draft or other

period of our history so how do we start that historic sense of citizenship and has been lost over the last 30 or 40 years? >> it is of great question. i think implicit in the question is a recognition that at some level of problem is cultural. how is it the 99 percent are willing to sit by to allow the 1% to fight these never-ending wars? what does that say about the 99%? but then to say what do you believe? the answer is we are americans.

we believe in freedom we are exercising your freedom and in some respects the of volunteer force is a testimony to the concept of freedom. you want to serve? good for you. my argument has no political salience but the claim that we stand for freedom deserves very serious examination. again because i am a conservative i believe that freedom should mean to live in accordance with what is true. that presumes one can identify to say i will live

my life in pursuit of fact but to my mind what has happened to lover country over the last 34 years is they have given up on the notion there is such a thing as truth or yours is as good as mine. this has created a sense of moral confusion where the default definition tends to be the one that is the cheapest to find in in terms of consumption doing whatever i want tuesday night then wednesday morning. but then you have to show up for work. but the notion that freedom could have some larger configuration has them loss.

how to get the american people to ring gauge in that conversation i confess i do not know but to my mind that is where the real need is. >> i would like to respond by saying to cut the american people a little bit of slack, it seems americans are so busy worrying about all those things that i referred to earlier how do they pay their rent, will they get a job or get their home back? everybody scrambling around fed is the antithesis of freedom captive to a social system that has broken down because the country in my view has devoted all its energy to the military

industrial congressional complex than the whole process uses the war a machine to shift from the public treasury to the pockets of the already rich then coming back and cutting whatever services might have given some relief to the general population and given them time to think about art i lucky to be an american to live in a country like this? the kennedy slogan of now i can think about what i can do for my neighbors and my country that i have some security to do that. you talk in your book about the fdr strategy and his guiding set country through this second world war in ways that were successful

militarily and also that brought in richmond to the life of the country and and fall to everyone in the war effort in the ways that united the country so that i hope i am not distorting your view, we came upon a better all-around where where we prosecute now impoverish the country in every one of those ways and left the country worse than it was before and if you project the cost ahead, with the trillions of dollars it will cost just to care for the returning wounded soldiers. what chance will americans have for what inspiration will they have to involve themselves in this?

[applause] >> i know you mentioned this. ims off more. i know all the soldiers and professors were west side students students of today could be soldiers of tomorrow. in history class we learn about the revolution of world war i or world war ii. do you think if we there about modern war and open the minds of the students of the futures soldiers to change their mind, how could we change their minds? they could be a lifesaver.

do you have any stories of kids or what they think about the parents that come back from more? i came from my country too risque for a and i am in the country i feel peaceful let you stay at or -- war. >> let me try the first part of the question that dealt with a history that we've learned to. last night i flipped on the tube and the longest day was on tv.

older folks remember that movie and it lasted about one day. it included every male star in every part or another. john wayne, the henry fonda fonda, all about the d-day invasion. and to a tale of heroism of the zero where life is stroke how hollywood decided to portray the german officers as true gentleman who did not like adolf hitler. the point of that is the history that we've learned is talked in our schools or shown on prime-time television is say history that tends to emphasize a world war ii.

, a civil war and the revolutionary war to some degree. whatever one can say about the conflicts of their political purposes and their consequences, they are of a different category van the war's of our time of today. what we need is a different historical narrative that the concerns and issues that will matter to you, as a citizen of the to first century, will not be shaped in my judgment. to put it bluntly, of the lessons of world war ii hero are pretty much irrelevant to an almost

counterproductive. the lessons of for that we need to learn are probably the lessons of conflict from vietnam's through the present day. they don't tell the story of purposefulness of victory or ideals they tell of morally ambiguous story. is not as satisfying the far more relevant. we need to tell a different historical story to take away different lessons that are relevant to the present moment still mb to jump off from the question what can we tell the students to give them a different picture of four? i want to give everybody here a take away assignment.

researching for my book i visited schools in the boston area that have jay rotc in the classroom and if a student in boston schools or the ones that i visited it role in the jrotc that they may do at the age of 14 and 15 they would be excused from taking american history altogether and will learn nothing about american history except what they are taught by their teachers about -- by their teachers that are with all due respect, looser retired colonels. [laughter] you laugh but i'd like to bring the seriousness home to you by saying that at the veterans day parade you will

also see you rank after rank of children who are members of the jrotc marching down the street with their guns and flags proudly getting ready to enlist in the military. the recruiters are in the schools anyplace else we would call it recruitment of child soldiers and that is not what we call it here. so going into your schools to look at what is happening, you will see why a young person asks such a question because so many young people right here in the schools of sin city are getting a very different message and in my view are being strongarm to comment shanghaied into the voluntary. [applause] -- military. >> my question refers to use

the notion the current wars are going on indefinitely. i was in the of military during the vietnam and those career soldiers at the time that i spoke to what was going on with various conflicts including vietnam's, they said generally favor to obtain raw materials, resources. i have watched the progression of subsequent wars we simply assume to clearly they have to stay there to either maintain the flow of the resources is or at least stayed there to prevent somebody from getting the resources.

i just wondered if you would comment on that? >> i think there are always material territory resources that provides one explanation for a conflict. i tend to think that explanation is not sufficient. there are certainly people that i you quite strongly as say one word answer to why we invaded iraq and the answer is oriole. i don't think that is true. i do think if not for the fact that we have a culture and economy that demands he made it -- immense quantities of cheap energy combined with the fact intel

quite recently the persian gulf region contained some of the largest oil reserves we never would have cared what went on in that part of the world. that said, i would argue and the ambitions and the rationale within the bush administration why invading iraq was necessary go far beyond simply wanting to get the wheel. in some sense if all they did was get the oil it may make them seem more reasonable but they really would undertake a project to transform the world to put the united states in a position to direct the course of events with the

massive swath of territory. there was so much confidence of military power they seriously believed they could rearrange the lives of 1.4 billion people to sue to us and our way of life. my favorite quotation post 9/11 period i will only get it partially correct, looked it up donald rumsfeld press conference on september september 18th, 2001. one week after 9/11. he said, we had a choice. either we could change the way we live which is unacceptable. where we could change the way they live and we chose the latter. that is what the iraq war and the larger so-called

global war on terrorism was all about in the eyes of the architects. we will change the way they live so we do have to change the way we live off. so the stakes certainly included who owns the oil and can use it but partly. >> also in an end what andrew just said in the course of talking to veterans i talked to a great many who are be integrating into civilian life and it has presented challenges because as one of them put it to me as i'' in my book as representative of many, we know too much. we have spent to where the

wars are and to other countries and we have seen no other people live in and we have seen the price other people pay for the american way of life. we know things that americans need to know but they don't want us to tell them. they don't want us to speak. she talks about if you go with a minor complaint to the ida they will drug deal. we are their worst nightmare of the crazy events from vietnam come back again. >> as a former history she is ripping apart so i

disagree with you about something we may have learned from world war ii the way the nazis accused their living wage for their war like end. it occurs to me further that the point in time i don't know if after world war ii, the then it war department suddenly became the defense department, a complete reversal of roles. would you endorse a movement to restore the of link wage of four department versus defense department? [laughter] >> yes. >> i would like to second that.

[laughter] >> i heard a story of an army brigade in the early occupation of iraq that instead of fighting the insurgents directly like reading houses in the middle of the night they work to improve the community, opening markets, making the streets clean to make life livable and let things the people be happy. i believe this may have been from david petraeus but eventually that unit was shifted out of the area of the neighbor heard they were patrolling and replaced with a unit of a conventional approach of kicking in doors in the middle of the night. i think we don't consider there are people of both sides of the gun. would you agree?

what about society at war? >> let me focus on the first part. it is true. petraeus in the immediate occupation, i was not there. based on reporting come in rupert -- appears to other commanders of his grade he had a more pro-active approach to try to rebuild rebuild, prevent the complete disintegration of civil society. i am not in a position to evaluate the facts. but i will say i am not sure how much effort along those lines would have been necessary to achieve the objective of preventing an insurgency to have a peaceful occupation for this

reason, the people did not want us there. they did not want to be occupied. they did not want to be tutored how to run their country or put it together again. if on the one hand we could say his approach is a bit more and light into than those going in to kick down the door approach at the same time there was an error against, a paternalism that was implicit in what he was saying. you people need us here. we are here to help you. . .

>> we are now too two past the last question. [laughter] >> this is the third pass the last or whatever but going back to the rumsfeld press conference and going back to as the regions who have a different idea of what security is you know, to me it's the policy that has changed and america has this policy of hegemony the world's policeman and so we have you know war is still the continuation of politics by other means. i don't think we are starting

wars out of some kind of accident. we attack countries that get out of line and those guys really think that the best way to keep the world at keys and prosperous is for america to make the peace and so to get to a different place we have to change that international security system whether it starts with schools or whether it starts with the united nations some other way of keeping people safe, that's what it's going to take. your comment please. >> thank you. who can argue with that? you are right. >> well, i mean i'm going to repeat myself but going back to the history question, why, why do our leaders or more broadly our elites, why are they committed to this project of

hegemony which of course is a term they would never use. it it's because of the overarching importance attributed to the lessons of world war ii. that is to say we must lead. there is no one else who can lead. if the united states fails to lead then the consequences will be disastrous. we will have another world war ii. there will be another nazi germany. there will be another holocaust. there will be more people who will instead of facing evil will of peace and therefore invite a greater to catastrophe so these are the lessons of history that are constantly recited as if they are universally up bookable truths and they make it difficult if not impossible at least in the sphere politics to introduce other truths that are

somewhat more complicated and would suggest that our interest and arguably the world's interest would take a more modest view of our role in international politics. it's hard to get a hearing from that alternative perspective. be people really look with great anxiety on the united states. they think we have gone crazy and people fear what's going to happen next. the close call with syria. where are we going to go next and it seems that the american war machine doesn't even need the excuse of natural resources anymore. it just needs to keep the war going so that it can keep transferring that money to the people who are profiting off of all of this. the greatest war profiteering in

history according to the studies coming out from bernie sanders and others. well, there you go. [applause] >> thank you very much. enjoyed the visit. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you all very much. there will be books for sale in the back. [inaudible conversations]