peel that back you find more complexities, the ethnic element, you will find said different elements that create a bigger problem. so when you sort out your enemies and friends it is more complex in this environment. . . [inaudible question] >> and what is the deal with isis? >> i am trying to understand what he's trying to say. he didn't have a strategy. and what bothers me about that as there should be a middle east strategy and a strategy for syria and iraq and isis might've been a wild target that they didn't expect that they had to fit an overall strategy if it

meant that he didn't have a military plan were immediately responding to this, then that is not a strategy. that is an operational plan. so either he didn't have a strategy or he doesn't understand what strategy it is. either way, i'm troubled by the comments and it is yet to be explained and the strategy is not just a military action but how you employ diplomacy and your power of information and influence and economic power and it encompasses all of the elements of government in power and the building of coalitions and the forming of helping governance change social problems that might help you succeed. and in addition to a military, that is just one part of it and that's not a strategy in and of itself. >> yes, sir?

[inaudible] >> sir, i think that we need more of the people that we need and we need more captain ripley's and cross fries and you are right that for conventional war you can train people in 90 to 180 days and you can get very good soldiers to have a small war and i'm sure you've read this in the marine corps manual. and it takes the language changing and the training taking about nine months and then about six months of practice and you're talking about four to five years that captain ripley stated to me that he had to

fight tooth and nail to get him to train and he said how could he tell without that training or speaking the language and how can he tell the world marines to go in and commit suicide and give them time to blow that bridge? he couldn't have. my question is that we should have essentially a small more and a thousand bands, a million captain hoffman's and we should create this following the small wars manual and so i would like your comments. i have mentioned a lot of things and i know that you were in the

same position as captain ripley. >> what you just said is we are going to confront and of course this is on the cold war, we are going to confront communism in a different way because the unthinkable could lead to a nuclear war and that's not going to be on the table. we sought to keep our power drive, but we have to engage day-to-day on these communist inspired insurgencies. so he wanted to create a force that specialized in this and that had language training and he did. special forces grown larger and two special operations forces or all of them commit to this and each of them have special operations. and the special forces themselves are organized into

groups that specialize on parts of the world where they have the language training and they work day today and the specialized in that low intensity conflict that you talk about. in addition to that we created a whole another part to those who go to school to learn about the culture and the language throughout and when we first created them we had a problem. they couldn't get promoted because these were artillery officers and others that chose this as a second course and we found themselves not competitive for promotion. many of those i commended as central command and we really took on the services to say that these are valuable people and we have to have a promotion track. that has changed because they are successful in their own rights and able to rise through the ranks and you are right on with what you say and we have built into our system and

psychological operations of special forces and special operations forces and all of these commit to this and this reflects the times today but then what we have learned in iraq and afghanistan. >> do you and others play chess? if so, are there any strategies that could be applicable in a political military content enact >> i was asked today what is my proudest achievements and i said i never learned to play golf. and probably a number the mid-80s, we began to rise in popularity on many dimensions, things such as tabletop games and terrain models to very

sophisticated computer-based games and we have even mixed field exercise in computer-based and others in major ways and we tested our war plans through these systems as well. each of the services then combined in this capability, it's an elaborate computer-based aiming system filled with a lot of data to get in the the capabilities that we have and the potential enemies that we have. and after vietnam we were building the force and rehabilitating the military, one of the things that we felt strongly about is that we had lost the emphasis on us and we were not measuring success of our leaders and the officers and ncos and we become great administrators and each of the

services had created these tests, if you will. you are allowed to make mistakes and you can challenge yourself in this and everyone will be evaluated and that doesn't mean that there are times that you can drive things and we sort of had a renaissance in this and talking about maneuver warfare and more so than we had in the past and it was something that was sort of a regeneration of understanding what our professional wars are all about. so the answer to that question is yes. >> we did. >> i left it and it was thrown

out by the political leadership because they said i will quote donald rumsfeld. this was a war plan time and time again, adjusted every year, approved by the joint chiefs of staff, and it required 380,000 troops. why? because we knew we had to seal the borders and you had to control the population as he rolled back the regime and if you didn't seal the borders, all kinds of crazies would come over. and you have brilliant civilians with that analysis and intelligence gave us and it will be a liberation. a cakewalk. we can do this with 100 30,000

troops. and those flowers were ak-47s. >> if you were advising president obama about isis, what would that advice be? >> to give you the strategic framework, you have to drive isis out of a rock. if the airstrikes supported this, i was with them was desert storm and they need military support and military women and we are going to have to change that security assistance program because obviously we were devastated by the attacks. but whatever it takes, even if it takes us putting boots on the

ground remember the last that desert storm? where all the troops were on the ground and we have very few casualties? we played to our hand with overwhelming force and it is something that you hit them with a sorcerer hunters. the second thing is build up the iraqi military and what it would take in the support that is necessary and the third thing is the new government in iraq. this government, we had to put political pressure on and they have to be more inclusive. and the only way you will get them to stand up and fight is that they feel that they have something to fight for and tell

me what i'm supposed to die for. the next thing you have to do is part of it. why are we not at the u.n. getting a resolution for the authorization of the use of voice? this allows us to build coalitions and george bush, before he went to kuwait to knock out saddam hussein, which we could have done on our own, james baker bill to support. we work side-by-side and we built another coalition with the british and the french and even the japanese and others he contributed two. all because we have that international legitimacy of u.n. resolution and if it's necessary to strike into syria, i would do that as well. so these are the pieces that need to come about in the short

term. >> you have to have something to fight for. if you look back at capital one is the a corrupt government that isn't responsive to the needs of their ethnic group or religious group, why are they going to fight despite all the training and equipment that you give them? the key to make this happen, why do they fight for america? is a constitution and their something that we fight for and a way of life. and they have an ideology however corrupt and distorted.

>> yes, ma'am. >> i'm interested in your comments on the war between israelis and the palestinians the just ended for the time being. >> i think that what has happened here is many ways you can come at it. we have signed on to be the mediator here. and we can't is given nine months as we just saw not long ago. and this requires working groups on the ground. the issues are called the final

status issues like the status of jerusalem, and many others and all sorts of issues. each of these requires extras from both sides and mediators and others to work out the details. the agreements that we have had in principle and the ones that have come about where everybody signed up to them, the people on both sides said what did that look like on the ground and what is now being? we've never done the details. we have a quartet that works this and there is a big absence on it. the arab league should be involved because they're going to have to sign up beyond just the russians and the european union and the u.s. we need to open up multiple channels of communication and a private channel in a formal channel and an unofficial channel to float ideas. when we would offer ideas and think creatively about these situations, i found that that was politically difficult for

the political leaders to even explore that in so what we do is you bring in retired academics and government officials and military and people say that that would be accessible. that we could live with that and i'm talking about a major restructuring over a considerable amount of time in the way that we mediate and bring these parties together. that needs to be done and this pick a big celebrity figure having them go out there and this is too complicated and i cannot mediate for your answer.

and you are here and it's a fact of life herriot nobody's going anywhere and they try to work it out. i have spent an entire day with them and i was sitting with them if they were sitting in a floor like this and they were asking me questions like this and finally one girl say if we kids can figure it out, why can't the adult map which was really hitting home to me and gave me this sort of focus that the focus is on the future and not on the past. because of you focus on the past

in principle, you can't get it done and you have to be creative and think about the future of those grandkids out there and what kind of future can they live under and how do you bring them together to he who they are, each other? they have to live under this and i would make one other point. >> their legacy, if you look at them who signed a peace agreement, killed by his own people. and he was almost killed by these people. you look at people who made a tremendous offer at camp david and those that reach out for peace are willing to take the risk in this part of the world and the legacy isn't there either. they are certainly not appreciated immediately after

and that is something that we have to change and it's going to take a lot of courage on either side to take the risk and may be to compromise as well. there can't be a solution where one side is a winner and another is a loser. >> sir? >> we know that the country is dysfunctional. the question is beside the middle east, do we know how things are. and don't you think also that foreign-policy establishments are also dysfunctional? >> the foreign-policy of the major powers and we are still

struggling to understand it and we still have a leadership role in the world. we can see the russians have stepped back into the cold war era in their decision-making. the chinese are causing problems in their own region and the superpowers are not acting like adult. not just our foreign policy, but certainly others. >> okay, i can take one more question. >> you make a really good point about these different entities getting into the mac's and coming up with a viable solution is going to make a difference. meanwhile, you have political leaders who are not willing to step out of the way, it seems, for this to occur. and so the idea sounds great, but how do you get people to relinquish their powers and sampling to give it up to the

intellectuals and to the people that have the best experience and can do this kind of thing to make it work. >> i would say that in democracies around the world, you are seeing this. look at qadhafi, look at where assad is now. and people in the streets are now beginning to either vote in the ballot box or vote in this square in some way. >> i'm thinking about iraq and you said that they have to have a purpose. but they are so dysfunctional they are just waiting to survive, that is what their purpose is today. >> we just saw the iraqis get rid of him. we see the elections, whoever is in offices the people who choose. but that system has so many political parties with the need to form political parties, it's

a dysfunctional democratic system. but the more political parties they are, look at how bad it is with us. you have a situation where it's even worse than the palestinians bifurcated and so changing leadership sometimes isn't always the best either. it has to be the right leadership with right motivation to be able to take risks and understand where you are going. finishing just on this point, a couple of this on both sides, israel and palestine, they took this plan and they sort of revamped a little bit. and they have an idea that instead of the leadership arguing about this, take the plan, flush it out, put it for a referendum on both sides and send it out to the people. can you live with this remark both sides rejected that and the political leadership rejected that. the voice may be in the decision going to the people.

that is why i was arguing with it. don't tell me what the borders are unless you show me exactly how this is going to work with the security. >> my suggestion -- my suggestion is that you need these working parties that do the planning, israelis, palestinians, americans, anyone else, because there's some issues like water distributions and others but nobody has ever drill down to that level. as they produce a detailed plan, not just an agreement in principle but very vague. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you all for being with us. we have copies of this wonderful book and we invite you to have your book signed. thank you all and goodst

objective of america's craft. this is one hour. [applause] >> well, thank you, john. open to the heritage foundation. peace has ever been mankind's desire and yet throughout history, the war has been a common practice. consider the major conflicts of the 20th century in which america has fought, including world war i and world war ii, the korean war, the vietnam war, the iraqi war and the afghan war and the cold war. in the wake of each one came the question, how can we make and how can we keep the peace with other nations. or are we doomed as in that 1984

novel to a state of perpetual war? one way is a basic principle of the reagan administration and the principal reason why the cold war ended on the bargaining table and not on the battlefield. another path to peace is to rely on statecraft, grounded in liberty and equality and articulated in the declaration of independence. sometimes the americans early statements approved military intervention overseas. and they took the lead from the adage that if you want peace, prepare for war. but how far have we strayed from these principles a map have we become the policeman of the world? with our laudable desire to extend freedom, has it adopted a policy of nationbuilding

regardless of the nation's wishes to rebuild. in his newest book, to making key piece, angelo codevilla argues that are 20th century and 21st century leaders have confused peace and war, as well as america's interest and the world's wishes. they have forgotten that they ever knew the lessons of the past and affected the wisdom of the founders. the doctor offers no easy answers and insist that peace requires that we make friendship with each other at home and avoid the occasional war abroad. our guest is superbly qualified to explore the many conventions of peace. professor of america's innovations at boston university, the warmer research fellow at the hoover institution and a senior staff member of the u.s. senate select committee on intelligence and ex-foreign

service officer and nabel on officer, the author of 14 books and reading publications here and abroad, professor of one of the sharpest minds in the realm of public policy. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in giving a warm welcome to the author of "to make and keep peace among ourselves and with all nations", doctor angelo codevilla. [applause] >> thank you. i hope to keep you awake. i will move to write this book by a commercial that i heard on fox news for the wounded warrior project and the commercial was a accompanied by a song that asked us to say a prayer for peace.

and that got me a bit angry. suppose, i said, to myself the you have been paying plumbers to fix your houses priced in the pipes still leak and someone said to you, say a prayer for your pipes. and he would say that god has nothing to do with my pipes. and i didn't hire got to fix my pipes. and they didn't do the job and there something wrong with the plumbers. what is wrong with the plumbers? and we hired statesmen to superintend our business of peace and more for the purpose of providing us with peace and instead they have given us or without and, which they have no intention of ending, war in which they have seen to continue superintending.

so what is wrong with that? why we have peace? well, that is the reason. they do not have the intention of creating this. but why don't they? well, because if you look at any of the u.s. governments academic venues, you will see that they preach what one might call the cliffs note portion of this, that warranties are not religious tangible and that international affairs is a seamless genuine with ordinary business and mutual destruction and that is not what the dictionary says. dictionaries are clear about what war is and what peace is a not so in fact much of this

today. hence, it is not surprising that our national discourse on the subject of war and peace is a still confrontation between the conservatives, as president george bush articulated in his 2052nd inaugural, a process by which try to secure the world freedom believing that we will not enjoy freedom ourselves. and many, of course, will never be great. and there's a libertarian illusion that we can somehow avoid the rest of the world. but the commonsense of common sense of the agency is quite against that. most recently wall street journal and "the new york times"

poll showed that a strong majority of the american people believe that the u.s. government should be less active in the world come of it at the same time that the majority of the american people wanted u.s. governments be much more assertive against america's enemies in the world. so the mainstream media but it is a contradiction in the american mind. but of course there is no such thing. the opinions of the american people reflect the wisdom of the ages, namely they went off to seek peace and stay out of trouble but they went to her and that he is by being terribly assertive against her enemies and we had failed to do that. my book is an attempt to

rekindle tension to the basic fact that the basic objectives and the natural objectives of this is the provision of peace. just as plowing fields is not an end to itself but an end to the crop that one wishes to produce. and we lead the life here at home that we wish to lead and the purpose of security and peace abroad to secure peace among ourselves at home. and it just so happens that the

failure to secure peace among foreign nations, it really does talk about the lungs contract loss of peace amongst ourselves. and so it is that sparta and athens destroyed their own domestic peace by failing to fight with the purpose of somehow bringing that fight to an end. in nature tells us that the purpose of women is to come to some sort of rest. some sort of natural purpose of this activity is a product of that activity and so indeed of the most active part of international affairs, which is of course war and rest in peace.

and so my book begins with a clarification but the nature of peace, namely that there is no such thing of this but only instances of it from time to time as any nation is capable of earning for itself. so all institutions of these are some of these pieces against somebody else's version of peace. and they are maintained only insofar as those that established it and there is nothing permanent about this. and the understanding that it's

not natural to mankind. and this includes contradicting the animal kingdom's tendency to regard other members of the species is troubled or natural prey. until only a few civilizations have understood and everyone has understood that the west is preferable to constant movement and that understanding comes from an understanding that mankind is one and that the

differences between, it was considerably smaller than any human being in any other species. but that understanding has christian and classical greek intellectual roots. embodying that understanding, of wars, was and continues to be a struggle. the clear leverage and of the composition is a christian one and you see it, of course, most clearly in the regard of his kingdom. his kingdom is not of this world

and god's kingdom is not of this world. saint augustine collaborated to that point. christians, he said, should be indifferent to the fate of the roman empire because the fate of individual souls is far more important than what happens to any group of people tends the primacy in thought of peace, which is the condition that most is conducive to men pursuing the highest potentiality and the highest purpose of which they are capable, mainly contemplation of service of the guard. in the same way, the thought disposes us to follow a we understand to be man's most

peculiar purpose, namely intellectual, that is also to be pursued most conveniently and naturally in a state of peace. so embodying that inside to practice structures and structures in practice has been the work of ages. and there has always been a contrary tendency even within our own civilization. beginning in the 15th century with the rise of europe's kingdom's that tended to equate this with the success of

monarchs who place their own primacy ahead and they conceived themselves as a natural state of war against one another. the modern political thought beginning with them, imagining nothing but the natural state of conflict and we did not see any goodness and the pursuit of anything other than primacy. whereas, of course, the natural objectives of statecraft on to be the pursuit of peace. why is that? because peace is what allows human beings to concentrate on

that which makes us most peculiar human. and this does not mean that the laws of nature and nature's god involved or include the fact that human freedom and human freedom, of course, implies the fact that some humans will be rapacious towards others and it makes it necessary for people to defend themselves violently more often than not. and so what it does do, to highlight what the christian thought is and the dog does is

to focus on the natural purpose of this. the american revolution was, in fact, a revolution against oath of the absolute powers of government and against the violent priorities of most government. ..

they simply -- to that declaration of independence is very clear that the revolution was to secure the americans' rights which are common to all men in all places, including their right to to self-government regardless of

nature of that government. the americans were also clear that they considered themselves, especially in the thought of john adams, they consider themselves peculiar blessed in having the kind of moral habits was made possible that way of life. they did not expect that those would spread quickly, if at all. in fact, they noticed that even in business efforts to spread that for of government foundered on the fact that the rest of the world was really not attuned to american -- to the kinds of habits that the american people have enjoyed and that these habits existed precariously

among americans. in the american focus on peace went wrong with a thoroughly conventional and, let's say, proper understanding that statecraft requires like everything else in human life requires a clear to a destination of independent means, that what must make sure that thought that one has asked that means to secure what every claims one makes and that one ought to make no claims other than the claims that one is able

to support. this, of course, is no different from the notion that one ought to half in the end the money necessary to pay for was purchases, to presume to have certain goods without the right to pay for them to his at the very least quixotic. so both of these insights, the necessary co assassination, and the priority of peace really was behind the paradigm of international relations of the founding generation most clearly by john quincy adams. in the monroe doctrine and in the explanation. the monroe doctrine, contrary to

contemporary misunderstandings thereof had nothing to do with asserting any kind of sovereignty over the americas, but rather it was a statement of priorities on the part of the americans. a statement of priorities that came not from john quincy adams but which john quincy adams summed up on behalf of the founding generation of which she was the last member. that consisted of the realization that what happened on the other side of the oceans would concern the united states relative result -- relatively

little. of course john quincy adams was perfectly aware that had napoleon been able to consolidate his mastery not only over europe but england as well and had been able to dominate the russians as well as the european continent it would impose a tremendous danger to america, and had europe as a whole, had the whole alliance been able to control all of latin america, that would impose a tremendous danger to the united states. but he believed that there was no danger of that happening and, in fact, that the monroe doctrine was promised -- premised on his confidence that this could not happen and that there were enough contending interests within europe to keep that from happening.

had it been otherwise, the monroe doctrine would have been different, but it was not. it was formulated on the basis of his near certainty that no single power could dominate eurasia and therefore threaten the united states. abraham lincoln, who was -- who follows john quincy adams, would have been a follower of john quincy adams during his one and only term in the house of representatives and his secretary of state william seward literally worshiped john quincy adams knew in his bones that the -- as he stated in

1838, of the powers of the -- of europe disposing of the world's treasures could not by force make a track on the blue ridge are taking a drink from the ohio in a trial of a thousand years. the problem, as lincoln side, the problem that america would face would be not so much the threat of foreign nations but rather they growing enmity among americans, a tendency of americans to regard each other as enemies. the issue of slavery, of course, being the greatest of the causes, the pretexts for that. but realizing that to my has had george washington, that there

are many, many causes for strife among our own people. of course, george washington had pointed out he had experienced that americans divisions over foreign affairs were a major cause of this loss, this fatal loss, is potentially fatal loss of among the american people. and so abraham lincoln policy, domestic and foreign policy regarding peace and war always was aimed primarily at safeguarding and then somehow restoring this among the

american people. of course, he faced a problem in the worst of circumstances when, in fact, doing so required defeating for one part the american policy which had taken arms against the other. and the it -- and yet we see from -- especially from his second inaugural that abraham lincoln aimed above all at the unity of the country, and restoring their french. unfortunately for america, the people who govern america after lincoln's death engaged in a very different policy, one which can best be described as america's first venture in nation building, remaking the

defeated south. first of all, considering the defeated south as a defeated nation, which lincoln was absolutely blows to do. and then reshaping it according to some thought, some ideal or at least better way of life. that, of course, turned into an occasion for continuing violence , continuing ill feeling among americans, held feeling which lasted a hundred years and which some in our time are attempting to revive for their own purpose, the very same reason why the radical republicans of the 1860's and 70's in belgium for their own

political advantage and for their own self-image. nevertheless, the priority of domestic peace returned to america, albeit slowly man until there was put in jeopardy in our own century, the 20th-century by woodrow wilson's adoption of the notion that as he said in his address the february 1917 that the american republic existed for no other purpose, it had no other reason than to somehow

improve the rest of mankind, not only to improve americans', lesser americans, but the rest of our kind. now, this, of course, this notion violated a whole bunch of principles. first of all, there must be a correspondence between ends and means, what possible means could affect the improvement of mankind? how in heaven's name, by what power on earth can any one improve mankind? is it, indeed, possible to change human nature? is it, indeed impossible to change anyone's culture but one's own or much less anyone else is? common sense says no. american statecraft in the 20th-century says yes.

we can and we should try. we must be if we are not we are not an exceptional nation. one might add we are not an exceptionally stupid nation. but, in fact, so much of american statecraft had 20th-century was premised on that. examples of the opposite of theodore roosevelt's common-sense maxim, they are very much a story of the 20th-century. perhaps among many examples to my book explains what secretary of state charles evans hughes did in 21, the famous washington treaties in 1921.

the famous nine power treaty reaffirmed and brought international agreement on the perennial american objective of guaranteeing china's independence and territorial integrity. at the same time the washington naval treaty committed the united states not only to a thorough reducing of its naval power as to give to their make clear superiority in the western pacific but above all it committed the united states to refraining from fortifying gorman the philippines. this, of course, guaranteed that japan not only would have more ships in the area but that those ships could take out american bases very easily. well, what do you think japan

did? do you think that japan refrained from any attack on the independence and territorial integrity? no, of course. quite the contrary. what did the government do? well, nothing. rather actually something far worse. secretary -- franklin roosevelt secretary of state for ten years abraded japan, and sell to japan for what it had done in china. building up the u.s. fleet or from fortifying manila and kuala and so as lincoln would put it, the war came.

we have known very little from that in our time. in fact, what we have been doing ever since much of the cold war has been to redouble our commitments while reducing our forces. you may have noticed that there was some trouble in ukraine to nine. well, that follows from the fact of ukraine has disarmed. why has ukraine disarmed? the united states government under both democratic and republican ministrations prevailed upon ukraine to give up the world's third largest stock of nuclear weapons. how? well, buy a guaranteed from the united states. well, it was not exactly well

worded but it was interpreted by everyone as a guarantee of ukraine's independence and territorial integrity by the united states of america. now, of course, the united states of america watches as ukraine is being gently torn apart by the russian president. and i emphasize gently because he is not actually invading it openly but rather is grabbing enough power within it to manipulate the west and to take over all of ukraine. this is confirming the world's ever growing opinion of it as foolish, week, toothless, and able to be taken. what are we doing with regard to the fact that china is increasingly extending its power

over the western pacific? well, queer sending a few trips to the philippines, not nearly enough to protect them, of course, not nearly enough to protect anything, while making loud noises about renewing our commitment to our allies in the area. precisely the same mistakes as in 1921. which mistakes can be expected to have the same results? starting in the 1980's and 1990's, the united states has been suffering from a tax on various terrorists. several times and most summers led by george w. bush declared a

some kind of talking war against these terrorists. not the u.s. go has failed to identify who is causing the war, preferring to pretend that this war is being waged by a few roads whose identity we really don't know except for ben alarm and a 200 or so people who were with him in this thing called al qaeda, most of own are not quite dead. end neglecting, preferring not to understand that a whole civilization is being marshalled against us. by who?

that does not require intelligence. it does require intelligence. and who might that be? well, we know that the palestinian authority school books and that the united states and, of course, the jews naturally for all sorts of terrible things which in a good muslim ought to protest violently. we know that the sect of islam does the same thing and does so with the money of saudi arabia, the emirate's. the money and the support of the leading personages of these

places. common sense might suggest that these authorities withdrew within have some say about these activities. common sense might suggest that were these activities to be curtailed we would stand a far better chance and that curtailing those a activities might be more worthwhile than shooting individual trigger polers. no. the u.s. government prefers to pretend that it really is a matter of the few roads. and so of war has continued. year after year, and now we are in the second decade of the war. that, of course, has brought the

american government to tear the disrepute around the world, but it has done something worse, far worse. it has brought upon this country the homeland security department and the modernization of police in america. this behemoths lives by the proposition that it is impossible to know who the enemy is and therefore it could be anyone. you, i must be assisted until someone decides, we don't know who, the you and i perhaps are not terrorists. now, we already know that human

beings tend to focus their energies and hatreds upon people they like the least. we know that the u.s. government , like any set of human beings, has in fact already taken measures against and treated as terrorists were threatened to people whom it dislikes politically, socially. leno's that it is difficult for u.s. beans resist. and we know that they are -- that has the government's power to enforce its dictates gross those will be ever more difficult to resist. and so we conclude by realizing

that the failure terror current peace has, in fact, brought war home amongst ourselves. and we ask ourselves how can we stop this? we can stop this by realizing what we have been doing and by returning to common sense. i wrote this book so that the people could trace our civilizations primary primacy and peace, how our government was set up, in fact, on the basis of pursuit of the primacy, how focus on that primacy was

lost and how it may be regained and i commend it to your attention. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, questions please from the audience. we have some microphones, if you will please identify yourself and direct a question at speaker . everybody and reflect. >> i want to ask you, since you have made peace the theme of your book, many people believe that peace should be pursued through a project called global governance and through the creation of a supranational institutions in which nations would surrender sovereignty to

this larger though often unaccountable institutions or creations. would you comment on that? >> well, is easy enough to do that. you simply enlarge their jurisdiction and then their quarrels within that jurisdiction are no longer called international wars. they're just all civil wars. that does not affect the reality it simply changes the name of what is happening. unless, of course, one establishes a really powerful, supernatural -- supranational authority in which case you call that violence police action. again, you call things by different names. in the latter case the violence will simply be worse.

>> could you say something about how to the nature and substance of education in the united states has enabled a change of mindset? >> excellent question. my previous book the title of which was advice to of presidents has a chapter entitled you as the dictionary. the problem with american education is that it teaches people that it is not necessary to use a dictionary, to use words in their proper meetings. dictionaries teach you that words should reflect reality. american education has disabled

generations now from contact, from understanding language in a way that allows you to contact reality and as disabled it for reasoning. the dumbing down of american education makes all sorts of good things impossible or at least very difficult. i don't know how many people could have followed the argument i just made. why? because it takes an attention span laundry than a few seconds. the american educational system destroys attention spans, among other things, as well as historical knowledge. >> my name is mary. i am an independent observer and

researcher. we are talking about peace, but i am getting the impression that you are actually promoting are justified war. and i think you have -- you are making an error in making the assumption that the natural state of species is to stay in the natural state of conflict, provincial conflict. as a matter of fact there are studies. i don't remember the name of the psychologist, but it was presented to president lincoln. mike harris said to my don't remember the name, but aid to state specifically that the natural state in a rational society, especially an educated society like america -- and i think we are and a higher state

of education around the world now, that the natural state of the species is actually to protect got to love your offspring into protected. i guess maybe that is an impulse that is more common to women and that the natural state and you are promoting or justifying his based in the fact that there just have not been enough women in positions of power specifically because they were very ignorant. there were raising their children. they were poor, under the control of man who do have a more natural, i guess, propensity, one might say, to fight and to control, to endorse in their pleasures. and my take on why we are still

in this horrible state all over the world -- and you brought of ukraine where i lived, almost uncanny that this should all,. the reason why there is so much conflict right now is probably linked to quebec and to canadian currency and production. you know, i think monetary policy is one of the biggest issues that nobody talks about. and, of course, this linguistic debate with russian and ukraine. the same language, the same people. well, i am not making a question i am making a comment. i don't agree with the premise. >> man. >> is an addiction.

>> i don't think you heard me correctly. i did not say hobbes and machiavelli were correct. i simply stated that that is one of the premises of modern thought. and that the american founders disagreed with that, disagreed with the notion that mankind is naturally a war. the point is that mankind is neither add or norad peace inherently and that such peace as exists and such is the product of specific decisions and specific orientations. it is true that some kind of governments tend to be more warlike and others.

and that is not necessarily meaning that dictatorships are inherently more violent than democracy. that simply is not true. it has never been true. as far as women are concerned, there is a reason why the greek tragedians made the furies female rather than male. as far as ukraine is concerned the reasons for the enmity between russians and ukrainians has something to do with the fact that the russians killed ukrainians by the tens of millions and that there is not a household in ukraine that does not have memories, bitter memories of the russians.

>> thank you. it is in january 2017. their is a new president in the oval office. it is the first day on the job. you are there to advise the next president as to how to deal with the rise of an entire american non normative liberal bloc of superpowers. >> speaks softly and carry a big stick. >> i've wanted to just ask, and given their really awful situation that we have in

dealing with this very murky sort of war against terrorists, addressing what would seem to be your tough criticisms of homeland security and those operations, it is obvious enough that there are domestic threats that need to be dealt with. what does make sense? >> profiling. profiling. that is how the israelis do it. to be perfectly explicit, but the profiles are and how they are to be pursued. explicit profiling is subject, as it should be commented democratic debate about what the

threats are and how they had to be dealt with. what we have now is so necessarily a kind of bill live via a hidden, arbitrary profiling. and you, because of your months sociopolitical standing are as likely to be on the wrong end of that profiling as anyone else. the profiling simply depends on the appetites of those in power at any one time. it ought to be -- profiling really is another way of declaring war check my declaring who the enemies are. declaring who the enemies are and how they ought to be dealt with is the same chance as declaring war. the founders placed that function clearly in the hands of congress simply because they

know that war and peace are the business of the people, not of some set of leaders who are not subject to the regular checks by the people and that it requires deliberation, public deliberation and votes. >> you have made some very interesting points during your presentation, some might agree in some of them not so much. the fundamental principle is that statecraft should be to bring peace. and you said speak softly and carry a big stick. now, let me ask you, whenever the united states negotiates with another country, a very

turbulent issue, for example, let's take a run. it says the military option is on the table. now, within the country if we're negotiating and tough situations and i say here is my position, you better take a position comparable with minor i will kill you, it is almost -- is that -- what part of that? >> well, it depends what it is you are negotiating about. if you are negotiating about something which involves a threat to your life to me it seems to me that you do this or perhaps i will kill you makes a great deal of sense. now, it does not make sense if you say such things and don't mean them. that makes no sense of all. as we -- are supposed you are

referring to the threat to bomb the nuclear-weapons facilities. that, to me, makes no sense of all because that is not war. that is simply a discrete act of violence. war is a set of tax that are reasonably and to bring about peace. it merely bombing the iranian nuclear side would do no such thing, no one has ever suggested that it would. there is an argument to be made for war with iran. an argument in falls doing whatever it takes to get rid of

the current regime, supposing it would bring about one that is friendlier. there is an argument to be made for such work. there is also an argument to be made for saying, okay. what is it that you really want from us? what are you willing to give in return. there is an argument for that. we are doing neither of those things. it may be possible to resolve whatever differences we have on the basis of a of course number two. that has not been tried. it may remain not be possible. and it is certainly possible fifth base for peace with the indian people on the basis of support against this regime. but that thought process has not been entered into the debris that is the kind of thing that i'm talking about.

>> extraordinarily thoughtful exploration of some very difficult to find some of the basic questions of our time by a very thoughtful expert analyst. this is his book. it is available outside for $20. we encourage all of you to buy at least one copy and then that ends of would be happy. but think we will be doing in outside. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in thanking him. [applause]

>> welcome, everyone. tonight the committee for the e republ republic hosi republic >> host:ing a -- hosting a debate on the war and it could not be better timing. here below we have john yoo on the left. john was deputy assistant attorney general for the office of legal council in the bush justice department. john wrote a number of key legal memos supporting bush's post-911 counter terrorism policies. and bruce was associate deputy

attorney general under president reagan and also was chief policy advisor to rand paul during the 2012 presidential campaign. and harvey stand up. he is going to be our moderator. he is currently dean of the national war college. harvey's last government job worked for the director of national intelligence. thank you. [applause] there wasn't a single founder who doubted that going to war was the most important decision the republic could make. the war powers is the most important power was war threatens the republic. since the executive has more

incentive to go to war than the legislature the founders placed the power to go to war with the legislature not the president. the founder that understand war better than any other founder was george washington. he gave a long farewell address and spelled out the policy. washington said we should stay neutral in foreign wars, shun military alliances with all foreign powers because they would entangle us in their wars, to support neutrality washington said we should be leery of overgrown establishments and we should not borrow more money than we can pay off and avoid political factions. sounds pretty good to me. i am sticking with george.

but let's see what our speakers have to say tonight. harvey, why don't you come up. you are the moderator. we will do ten minutes each. bruce you go first, then john, and then harvey is going to ask questions of the panelist and then we will open it up too the audience to talk. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for coming. i want to thank the press club for being so generous. i wish they could do this with bruce's microphone. there it is. good evening. thank you for coming out tonight. i want to thank the press club for being generous and the

organization to do this. we have done this a number of times. john and bruce and myself. first i have to make the statement i am with the war college and the american bar association senate committee and national security. but i am here on my personal capacity and not representing those organizations per se. we think it is important to have events like this and you could not have two more experienced debaters. we will have ten minutes on each side, five minutes of rebuttal, i will pose a few questions that may have been raised by the speakers. can i borrow a pen, somebody? somebody have a pen up there? and then i think what we want to do is get the audience involved and what i encourage you to do as a law professor is ask short,

crisp questions. this isn't an opportunity for political opportunity or to sha sharpen the debate. it is a timely issue i will point out that has great historical legacy and real con' comtemporary power. brucex start out. all of those seeking to destroy liberty in democratic nations ought to know war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it. those words were written in democracy of america over 150 years ago. the founding fathers werecogniz that fact. james wilson talked about putting clogs in the arteries of war and that is why virtually every member of the constitutional convention and radification debates understood

only congress, not the executive branch, could initiate warfare. what is that makes war so threatening to your republican demeanor? first the power of the government focuses in the executive. it wrenches the customary separation of powers and principles. congress and the judiciary are reduced to ink blots. we can see today the president claiming power during the so-called war against al-qaeda, isis, iraq or otherwise. the power to kill any american citizens on his say so alone if he declares them a danger. the most awesome power entrusted

to anyone. it is a final decision. that is not the only awesome power the president yields in times of war. think of the power of surveillance disclosed by edward snowden. shortly after 9/11 the power claimed the power to intercept e-mails and conversations of americans international without statutory authorization whatsoever. and then we have the detention without trial at guantanamo bay. these are examples, i think, of how the powers of the presidency climb during war time and presidents never surrender the power back. there is a secretary i think wrench in the system during war.

and that is customary transparency. the heart of the idea government by the consent of the government. government by consent of the government is mocked if the people don't know what their government is doing. how can they give consent? you find discrepancy between hot the government does and what the people would want if they knew what was going on and that is shown with edward snowden's disclosure. every since 2006, the american people were ignore -- ignorant of the meta data program. but with the disclosure the american people are alarmed by the fact the nsa was collecting meta data on every call they were involved in. no exceptions.

and the collection was made that any of the data was volved in crime or anything. whether it was revealed to the public they were agast and it was the public that pushed the president to issue orders and follow with provoking hearings. a lot of conversations you have had over the right to be left alone you had because of edward snowden. not because of congress or the executive. secreceracy i believe leads to misguided decisions like the bay of pigs where the cia was forecasting that the people would rise up and it was a

fiasco. "the new york times" was said to link the bay of pigs before it happened. but besides from that it is as a basic principle that we in the united states are sovereign and we get to decide our own destiny and how does that occur if we don't know what the government is doing? that is a key attendant of all wars. a third major deof wars is it cripples civil liberties. safety is viewed as supreme. the right to be left alone, due process, we have military that will combine the prosecution and adjudication and we have surveillance not just with the nsa but increasing the use of surveillance drones to watch where we are going when we walk

outside, we have a sense of government programs that are initiated by the president through his claimed executive authority we are still clueless about. snowden didn't have access to all of the spying and it is probably true there are additional intrusions we still don't know about because of the secrecy and during war time to avoid everything and say it is safety. that is not what the founding fathers believed in. it was captured in the 1763 address made to the parliament. this was the spark of the american revolution. it shows you, i think, how distance we have been from our roots when we think and listen to these ringing words. the poorest man in his cottage may bid definance to all of the

forces of the crown. it maybe frail, the roof may shake, the wind may enter, the storm may enter but the king of england can't enter. thing of how our lives are today compared with the understanding of the right to be left alone. there is a 4th principle i will address and that is we believe that it is more acceptable for us to take the risk of being the victim of injustice than to be complicit in it. we don't want to take stupid risks but let me explain one situation where the point is grade graphically. there was a hearing made by alan grayson which featured a

9-year-old daughter from pakistan. he relayed her 68-year-old grandmother asked her to help pick vegetables. they were out picking and once darkness appeared in the sky, then a humming noise, she began to run and thought see heard screams. she looked at her hands bleeding and tried to get it stopped and couldn't. then she looked and her grandmother was killed by a drone. sometimes it is impossible, in escapeable in war time, but that is another reason why we try to resist going to war accept in self defense authorized by congress. >> thank you, bruce. bruce has painted a rather bleak pictures. [applause] >> of executive excess. and john what is your response to this argument?

>> greetings, everyone from people's republic of berkeley. i enjoy the chance to come to conservative cities like the washington, d.c. i want to thank the committee and bruce fein and harvey for putting this event together and having me come along. i have to confess, i am not an expert debater and i have never debated in an event like this where we are presidential candidates. >> but you plan on running? >> i wish more candidates would say that during the debates. let me start saying i think bruce has won this debate. he won it in 2008 because at the time we elected a president that stands for much of what bruce

stands for. he elected a president that told the boston globe he didn't think the president had the constitutional authority to used armed forces without the permission of congress or self defense. as president he withdraw from iraq and afghanistan and we didn't intervene in syria. on drones and surveillance, which he is unhappy about, those are policies met with congressional support and approval. if the complaint is the president went on these adventures alone that doesn't characterize the way it is. congress has voted to support them. i don't think it has resulted in a good policy if you look at the results of the president we have now or the policies that bruce

has defended. we are right now confronting a terrible terrorist threat. i think it is worse than it was six years ago. i think we should ask ourselves whether we are more secure now than we were six years ago. i think the threat of isis in iraq is much worse than it was when we had the change of administration. the reason i disagree with bruce's argument is because i think it is a mistake in view of presidential power. in brief, my rue view is the constitution gives the president the power to respond quickly in the face of crisis, war, emergency, unforeseen circumstances. he talked about george washington in the beginning of our proceedings.

george washington issued the neutrality proclamation and said it was his authority to define the country and keep the united states out of war between britain and france. this was seen, by his critics, as a terrible grandizement of presidential power. or take lincoln in the civil war. he responded, not like his predecessor, who most think of as the worst president in history, bucannon said i should ask congress what to do about the secession crisis and congress, for those of you who have worked there you can predict what they did, congress setup a committee to investigate the problem. i think there is still a meeting in the cabinet.

president lincoln read his powers broadly, maybe more broadly than many in the south thought, he raised the army, put it against the south and issued the emancipation proclamation a few years later without the support of congress. congress never authorized or approved of the emancipation proclamation. it required the 13th amendment to validate the freeing of the slaves. and he did it with his executive power. franklin roosevelt passed a series of neutrality acts to keep us from the conflict in europe. president roosevelt aided the allies, prepared the country for

war even in direct conflict with the statues. i can roosevelt was right and it would have been better for the country and world if we had entered world war ii earlier. i would contrast to buchanan who responded to the wars the way bruce laid out which is let congress decide. the president is there to execute congress' policies. i think that has led to the worst problems in foreign policy. i am not arguing the president's power has to be large and great at all times. it depends on the circumstances. i think president nixon is someone who tried to execute presidential power when the times were not calling for it. let's look at the constitution itself. why is this the case?

i think bruce talked about directly about constitutional text but i assume this argument is based on the declare war. congress as the power to declare and i would assume bruce says only one congress has decided can the country go to war and then the president can use his power as commander and chief to lead the armed forces. i think that is a mistake in view. i think it reads too much into the anti-executive atmosphere of the revolution. the people who wrote our constitution actually thought the revolution had gone too far in reducing executive power and sought to restore some kind of balance. when they said in the constitution, executive power of the united states was invested in the president, that would have drawn on the discussions of what was the executive power under the theories of john locke and thinkers that influenced

them. they made it clear that the reason you have an ex cuteive is the legislation has many members and is hard to get agreement. when the framers went to the american people to seek radification of the constitution that is how they explained the presidency. it was a controversial topic in that day. most countries today don't have presidency. they have a parliamentary system. what the president said, h hamilton in particular, said he is there because he can be swift, decisive and secret when the times call for. hamilton said what are the

powers listed and one of the ones he gave, the most important, was the administration of war. i am not saying the constitution makes an unchecked executive who can do whatever they want. but when the courts use their power to struggle with the president for control over policy this can be talked about. this was the framers i had in the federalist papers. that each branch was given tools and constitutional weapon to fight each other. if congress doesn't want to use the powers that is not a constitutional fault. if the congress doesn't want to stop president obama from bombing isis that is not a defect it is because they are choosing not to use their power and the primary one is the power of the purse. if congress doesn't want any war

to occur they just need not to fund it. this was perfect in the 1780s and 90s because there was no standing army or navy. the president would have to go to congress and say build me the military. today we have military that is designed conduct wars in other countries and that is at the design of congress. congress has created a military designed to prevent war from ever getting here by fighting in other people's country. i only have time is up. so to a law professor that means i have ten more minutes. so let me conclude. i think we should have concerns about executive power but i don't think it is from foreign affairs. i think many are concerned about president obama's use of domestic power and the use of laws the selective use of the irs and so on. there i think he is in violation

of the constitution. there domestic affairs of the presidency were not designed to play the leading role of initiatives. the president is supposed to enforce the laws congress passed. i think conservatives and liberals make mistake thinking a narrow presidency at home has to be abroad or a powerful presidency at home has to be powerful abroad. >> john envoked hamilton, federalist 74 and 70. and so, bruce where do you stand with hamilton and madison? >> i think it is fair to say those who drafted this believed executive power broad was the

most dangerous because war was the most threatening to liberty and secondally that was my congress was entrusted with that decision. george washington, aside the neutrality proclamation, he said only congress can authorize law. thomas jefferson went to get authorization to fight the barbary pirates and james madison made it clear in his writings as a member of the house of representatives and communicating with the president himself to fight the war of 1812 that the reason congress was entrusted with this power is the executive has the way of benefiting from the war. all of history shows wars begin with executive officials. john jay and federalist four

points out they have al terior motives and i think it is fair to see those who are primary and draft the constitution all agree only congress can authorize war. if you want to declare war it is something else. but the fact is when they thought of the option of executive power unilaterally they said the president needs to respond to repel sudden innovations.

he recognized it was tainted are unilateral action. i would dispute the idea we had all of these great things happen by giving the president unilateral authority. take for example, vietnam, there was a solution that said the president can go to war if we wants. we have a vietnam memorial with 58,000 names and people wonder why they died? we were stopping them from regression in the south china sea what did they die for? as john kerry said before coming secretary of state and entering the senate who was going to tell the last soldier in vietnam what he died for? who is going to tell the last

soldier in afghanistan what he died for? president obama didn't remove the troops from afghanistan. indeed he initially increased them. they are still there today. what happens in 2015 no body knows but that ought to be the decision congress makes. i don't think because congress is exercising its responsibility that makes presidential lawlessness. we have a third branch of government called the federal judiciary which should step in and appropriate fines. if the two branches advocate their responsibilities for court can hold it unconstitutional. pursuant to executive order, president roosevelts created concentration camps for 120,000

japanese citizens based on the intelligence they got from general dewit on the west coast. even there though was no espionage they said treason was on foot because they were hiding what they did. the supreme court got the cases and folded. they made a great statement at the outset saying racial distinctions are odious but not in time of war. i don't think we can wash the hands because congress and the president don't understand their responsibility. >> bruce talked about a jud

judiciary that loses it's way in war, what is your view? >> first i think that it might be an artifact of the modern time to assume the president in his most war like are pacifist and we should give them a check. we have lived with congress has been the more war like and presidents have been the ones not wanting war. we have had five declare war and the war of 1812 and 1898 were wars where congress was more war like and the president wasn't. to say we have to have this entire system that was worried about the executive alone being to be war like and congress being pacifist is mistaken. second, i think there is going to be mistakes in government decisions and always mistakes in wars. so what i think bruce is

focusing on and harvey's question raises this and he is talking about one kind of error. those of you not interested in science can leave. social science call this error number one. wars like iraq or vietnam and bruce thinks afghanistan fits into this category. those are wars where we should not have gone to war. the framers were worried about type two problems which are wars we should have gone to but didn't and world war ii is an example of that. i think the framers didn't want a paralyzed government and i worry creating a system like the kind bruce is in favor of,