singapore newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive the schedule of upcoming programs and open discussions book festivals, and more apple tv, every sunday and "c-span2", or anytime alignment book tv . org television for serious readers. >> book tv, every sunday and "c-span2", features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books, and a 4:00 p.m. eastern served as inspector general the department of defense of justice under president clinton george w. bush and obama and trump, corruption in the u.s. government role that inspectors general play in the democratic system in his book, watchdog a 8:00 p.m. eastern, forme navy seal, jeff clark shares his book, targeted they root but he is co-author scott back in the 1983 u.s. marine are responding in beirut is lives of 241 241

serviceman and then a team p.m. and afterwords, republican congressman, michael talks about serving of afghans as agreed braided hose military career influence his decision-making is about pt truth and viewed by political pentagon additional security recorder, paul mccreary, and watch book tv every sunday and c-span to come up to full schedule in your program guide, watch online anytime that booktv.org. >> without further ado, we turn it over to you and i have a couple of questions depending upon what you said and i think you i don't to save a deepening part what you say, and will open it up for questions on his microphone in the room. is being televised, if you could walk up and introduce yourself and ask a question make a comment if you feel free and is

the question also said that we cant record it and get the aud. without further ado, jeff bergner. >> thank you veryve much. please to be here at the american foreign-policy counseling a very well you have a president you know i go back long way and more years and neither one of us care to admit. very familiar with your work and your from washington small institution but you punch well above you wait and many good contributions to foreign policy. i am pleased to i be here. you asked for my begin my remarks that will talk about this book predict to begin by saying a few words about my career because as i understand it many ofob your interns and probably just the cusp printed figure out which careers are going to be like. i thought that maybe if i had a chance might be helpful to your

somebody else's careers are like. then once that, i can't remember if his imprint disclosure but he once said, ryan mackenzie everybody's life, is a combination of things in which you in for any plan and intended with one hand. and walk on the other hand is so that certainly the case in my instance predict i think it is the case in many other people in washington you might be familiar. and he went on to say, that he estimated the maybe you're planning your thinking and your attending maybe constituted more than half of your outcomes. maybe a little bit less than half.. if he actually believed it or not please try to talk to the

people who believed in that era that their whole lives were simply controlled by the outside had no agency urgency at all. it is today obviously. if you promise in my own career will illustrate that to achieve think. i began more or less your age is a senior in college with the thought that i wanted to be a professor and wanted to teach political philosophy and i wanted to write about it and teach about it. so when and went to graduate school in my me ma and phd at princeton and i continued on that was my course. happily, job open up an expensive affiliate university pennsylvania and that getting a job maybe the best job in the country. at that point in my field. that is really

pretty welcome that i was the mastermind ship things were moving along just as i had planned them. i found out after having been there for a few years that it really was not entirely and that at least in my department was looking for assistant professors fast tracks she is out starting again in the bottom two is clear that i was going to have to do something else. my first and natural response was to see if there's another teaching job somewhere. very few at v that point in thoe places i simply had no interest in being. so, i was really sort of excited in terms of my career plan. so then i my wife is back your summer, had been in washington dc this semester program our junior year in college hand internet is a wonderful

experience maybe some of the experiences that you mr. having. we met with members of congress and senior executive branch officials in the supreme court and i had a mini argument. you seem to be the words of my southern friends, this was like cotton fall class and then on top of that, is a very tense and edgy time in washington in the spring of 1968. kennedy was assassinated, martin luther king wasinin assassinate, there were riots in the will rest breaking out about 15 blocks from where were sitting today printed capitol hill was surrounded with sandbags. and the intensity of the experience when thought well maybe someday we would like to come back here if c we could. and so, being black and altogether vicious, we decided

we would take a look and see what doctor were here and so i applied places that i thought a phd would be useful. in a budget office in places like that wife's parents were from indiana and they formed. so just out of a complete mark my submitted aic letter of application to the office. that's how you doing those that he wrote a letter to steve miller did you hope to hear something back. no e-mail and so got a call back from his chief of staff with the time zoom by name to daniels and course went on to be director of the office manager a budget two-time governor of indiana, president of the university and so interview date with him and it turned out he was from princeton as well which was a

very nice coincidence. and he said his usual way, i thought i wouldn't see because wanted to see the creature like you actually existed. and i said but when he immediately said, let me somebody with a phd from an ivy league school was a conservative republican fantasy and even know if there was such a thing and so i said well and so you know i did he write, i was offered a job and thinking about it event, going to speak about my like you told me three years before, that i was going to be capitol hill staff guy, i would say i would not even know what it was when they do it much less that would be one but it turned out that i really actually enjoyed it a great deal. and senators a very intelligent upgraded mitch still has best and most sharp political instincts of anybody i've ever met and so, it's really wonderful place to be and so the

two years we are planning to stay here past and then i was still there for fiver, years lar i wish point we slept that i became chief of staff and something happened which was totally unexpected could never have been plan for. that isn't a short six years sooner one for me think member to lead the foreign relations committee. neverk before the no new things ever happen since. nobody could'veno expected that but became staff director of the foreign relations committee which turned out to be really thing the best that i had ever had before or after. is able to hire printed staff and i thinki that we put togetr the best foreign policy in town.

and too not otherwise it would been the second best if it existed well i probably would've hired her staff and so you know it's good we were members of the senate health past major pieces of legislation and the committee back on the raft again where he had fallen previous years number very closely with the state department and we tried as best we could to be supportive of their initiatives another everyone but most and really it was a wonderful learning experience and i thought about staying longer by then i'd been on the over several years and did not want to become what we used to call professional help raft spend my entire life and help. so i decided to go out on my own and join up with two of my friend us and we started a small relations firm. improving the average big smart

we thought we went on to quickstart iron some clients gradually we turn it into one of the better-known more successful washington lobbying firms in town. i hate to confess this but i became actually the seduced by when i was a professor you know going to the professor business to make money but at any rate, i stayed on for 18 years altogether. we made a very good run of it in my own defense and academic i did teach for 20 years during that time at georgetown one class each year on the graduate clash class on national security policy so i convinced myself that i was still somehow in academicc. so, i finally left in

2004, i sold my half of the company to my partner and susan either planned to health of the chesapeake bay is intending them to write a book that i been wanting to for a long time and out of the blue, got a phone call from bob selleck the state department and he was at that point deputy secretary of state. he s said, look, i told connie o be a t good choice to be secrety for legislative affairs my simple bob is a very nice thing thank you so much but i really was on my plant this point in time to move on and write book. bobwr difficult when said while this wrong answer. [laughter] and he said please just to be funny and long and short of it wasnd that i guess i didn't scrt to valley because she ended up offering me the job to be

assistant secretary and after somewhat complex process of my own, i began my serve in this position through out the second term of george w. bush and ministration from thousand five — 2008. it is very intense and complex job and we were charge try to get the state department to budget past each year. we were in charge of trying legislation in an apartment to pass. we are in charge of trying to stop bad ideas that can help that we didn't like by the way, there were a lot more than four and we were in charge of the treaties consented to the senate and as you probably know the tree very bigig business anymore these days presidents for do things by some kind of an executive agreement is just too

hard to get the senate to's consent tols anything pretty and also, to the numinous amount of her time, we think about it for nominees that they have to get comfort than any other cabinet department the smart cabinet has two other senior staff at the assistant level secretary level confirmed predict in addition because the constitutional requirements that they have to be confirmed predict we had a lot confirmations to europe. roughly hundred 97 investors in the average continuous, we are having 60 or so investors every year. so is it difficult and extremely unhappy and unpleasant job oftentimes there there was no and to the things that came up with no limits, some wonderful learning experience.

and i was glad i did it when it was over. the point, finally decided to plan to build a house on the chesapeake bay pretty escape washington which we did. so i began work on this long book project and at that point, suitable maybe i should teach of it again turned out that president of the university right there all in the process of selling business into an arts school intimate with paul and he said will yes, we have a teacher with other full time for a year and then after that, the next 34 years often on various courses on american government, foreign policy, global philosophy and whenever they talk commute to and that was very good place to

be. at that point again out of the blue the same way came and got a phone call the school public policy at the university of virginia and he was mine and when i taught in georgetown, about 20 years, i would always like to have guest lectures so student didn't just here for me but sometimes from other viewpoints as hard as that is to believe. in sum, this friend of mine whose political views were flat-out opposite of mine, but has to come and he was fairly well received by the students thing back year after year and so when he called he said the because the university of virginia return the favor. this some guest in his classes writing so isu said well sure i would be happy tod print one thing led to another teach full-time at uva in the spring

semester pretty so that brings us almost present time as you cn see, this complete mix of things which i have planned to do and intend to do and things which really were a matter of fortune and usually for all practical purposes good fortune so i would just encourage you as you think about your career, could you think about what you want to do and think about why you want to do it and what will make you feel fulfilled as joseph campbell said, follow your bliss think about what you want to do with your assets are how you would like to see your life unfold at the same time, be wide open to things which might come along that are not expected, even out of the blue is often those things are leased is good

is what you should be doing or what you are doing only that is one piece of semi- wisdom i guess. you think but also be open. now come the real thing that i want to talkk about today the second major piece of something which s i learned over 45 yearsn washington. it's a little bit different. the subject protect take up the most recent books that everything which was just published in april called plaintiff to say, americansm materialism where domestic policies and foreign policies andig intelligent assessments. missus others in the preface of the book, and 45 years and making reflecting something which i have learned throughout my whole career in washington. and again when i was a newly

minted foreign policy staffer. and when the last senate delegation. and, if you knock therefore followed things very closely. i cannot remember if it was november december votes right at the end of 1978. and then january mid-january, but the country several months of uncertainty about what was going to happen and soon power and ron government ever sense. shortly after he came in i ran into an acquaintance of mine cia analyst i said to him how did youon guys get is also wrong how could you miss this after ron had gone from one of the closest

allies in the middle east to an implacable enemy more or less remained that way ever since you guys miss this. after all, just some country and right after his real was the closest ally in saudi arabia called the twin pillars oil producers and guardians of the gulf was sot much oil field western economies. in his answer i found was absolutely fascinating. and he said will you know, when the intelligence business are very good accounting things very good at seeing the material things and tangible things and think that you can count soon we looked they had so many thousand troops, and tanks shot has so many thousands of pages secret service and appear to us was nothing on the horizon that

jeopardize the power and i'm just as they have been but it is inin good shape and they were predicting that the show would be in good shape all the way to the mid- 1980s as far as i can seek. which off course, was not what happened shortly after the predictions wereon made, they advocated this out about this. it is me really throughout all the different jobs which i described to you. far too often when policymakers are looking at makingli policy, and rely too e heavily which mit call economic causation material causation the reason things happen are for material reasons. that's really what the purpose of this book is to explain how this came to be and it was not always as certainly always first

150 years that are country's history from 1789 up until the progressive era in the second and third page of the 20th century. now it came to be more importantly, how plays itself out in the messy policy and foreign policy and intelligence addresses mean will belabor my whole analysis on how we came to be other than just say it shorthanded came with the arrival of progressivism from europe and progressivism being essentially kind of help version of marxism which accentuates the importance of material things. if you're interested that come you can see in somewhat of a difficult analysis about all of this in the book but what i would like to do today rather is to give you some examples about it is i think an extensive

belief and material causation make our policies deficient in something economics importing who doesn't have a role coming is simply theeg beginning and ed of all of these so good to me just spend a few minutes five or six right minutes on domestic policy and foreign policy which is after all here and talk a bit about the intelligence agencies and assessments and try to demonstrate to you how i think this is the case of why it is the policies even though her belly very well-intentioned are often not altogether successful. hundred went to domestic policy, if you were to sit in the race on the help pretty executive branch but what we should do education policy for agriculture policy for santa whatever it is. everyone of these debates ends

up being premised on the question how much money are we providing for these particular jobs and tasks conventional wisdom uncertainly but the democratic party especially but also by a lot of republicans is that they all a depend upon many in the key to success is to provide more money and resources as always the answer. and so if you look at let me education policy as an example from you look at the education policy, this is the beginning and end of always sums haveio you who are educational payment this country which is often criticized as being not very good shortcomings in it. you provide more resources andou how you measure how could you doing how well or how sincere you are which are intending to improve in this country is how

much money are you providing money than last year. this is when you sit in these debates, just become so striking that you can hardly not see this because you're not looking for it. when you with the education policy, the interesting thing about it is truly no empirical evidence that this is true. there is some material inputs that are dealt teachers need schools and so forth, missing the beginning and that will wisdom about how you improve the educational attainment in this country into the country there are number of things generally want to help education policy does involve many adult sibling throwing resources the problem. these might include for example taking a look the family

structure in the united states. when you look at many families the parents have absolutely no interest in education provide little preparation for the children to go to school rated no particular fan of the teachers coming out of the teachers union is a a little bit ofp unfair wrap to labor thing off to improve that teachers are because while the kids come to school but they have almost zero vocabulary the annoying thing don't particularly care to know anything and put it on teachers is not right but family structure this is very important and likewise what is the quality of the teachers they hire likewise once exactly their teaching as opposed to somee of the things the past for education today or someone encouraging competition which always in every seems to produce better results. all of these things are

important. and you think you're going to solve educational attainment problems in this country, we double or triple the amount of money spinning still have my stomach would get the results you want for you too much you had wrapped around the notion that the only way to improve education is to provide more money and resources pretty so this is an example you can trace the same pattern over and over and all of the different departments andth debates on how do g we do make good policy. let me mention one other thing there other things about our domestic politics reliance on the notion of economic causation. and if you listen sometimes to people in the press congress particularly on the left, people will ask why is it that poor

people are working class people in this country whenever vote republican or for trump these days, how can that be. these people know their own self interest in amine is the left was to provide to use mitt romney's famous words, stop. what is the matter with people why can't they understand where their self-interest lies and seems like kind of a strata question in a way it was very interesting book written i think that it was 2008 men called thomas frank book was called what is the matter with kansas raises this very question of why is it exactly the kansas which makes because he knows about it, why is it so many indians are particularly ones not in the elite they are more working class what is it ever would vote

republican when they do this not know with their self-interest business seems like a very fair. you think about it printed is not a fair and neutral is a question that depends entirely on the premise that people self-interest are always monetary and always financial always material beings cannot have deep and true interest in financial interests and so whatt happens is that we would call these days, cultural issues from one of the better words, these are kind of dismiss is being read hearings. the fact of the matter is that people have all kinds of interest, economic interest for short but the nonimportant but they're not the only thing that is important for people more complex than i can make it beings.no

for more complex inou the care f other things. the faith country family, and it's not weird to think the people going to some degree passed under guess about some part of what they thank you so self-interest rather than simply economic places on whether or not they received more money from the federal government to read this is never like this for the first 150 years of our country's history. it was assumed somehow people fox was always material financial begin the sort of came in a think largely the progressive movement of the 20th century. one hundred years now by the way i make an argument and i don't know if you believe it or not

but it just seems to be progressivism is a dominant intellectual background the characterization of her country now. most all of the elites people to do the symbols numbers and works somehow material kind of a mindset of the progressive kind of mindset. this certainly true of the democratic party but it's also true of education institutions in true academia and true of the media and through entertainment industryt and most non- for profits of the council course but it is also true that many republicans who are somehow harmed this notion is well the back of the mind so i think that again, it is not the material thing that arebu unimportant to

but is somehow the notion that they're all imported is really conceit that comes from no one other than which way trace back to european even marxist notion that economics or what shape the most everything that occurs in white occurs. so maybe enough said about domestic issues. through a whole host of other side to this which i explore questions like why this tends to always over exaggerate or maybe just exaggerate what people thank you so importance of money in politics which i thank you so vastly exaggerated. most all empirical evidence points to what is being nearly as important as most people seem to think. and it also thanks adjust why

you have this government that has a lot of bills we do a lot of things but they're all concerned inputs, money, resources.it very little which might call concerned about results. to the contrary, virtually no intelligent congressional oversightab about anything and what passes for congressional oversight is something gotcha anything or somebody obviously is done something wrong and like the secret service or well but do take a look at the bills passed, the executive branch and congress overlook seriously what is this actually accomplishing and wasn't not accomplishing into the country isl all a question of measuring inputs rather than measuring results. the number of other things the

follow from thinking about it this way but in the interest moving along an opening this up eventually, let me turn here to foreign policy for a few minutes let me just discuss two aspects of the american foreign policy. first, take a look at the state department and his priorities. the state department budget don't know exactly what it is today but is something in the range of $60 billion. what you see is 40 billion of it goes to provide foreign assistance to other countries. fully one third over 20 billion goes to pay the salaries of all state department employees and americans foreign nationals 59000 people altogether. as the paper building or

buildings embassies in support coastay paper security of our officials and goes to pay for all the visa programs and stuff the paperwork travel all of the things that go into any diplomatic presence being able to conduct diplomacy in some way pretty woman with third pretty know about this other two thirds, is clearly all the question of providing financial resources to the countries. and i know a little bit about this i'm going to say this particular point it was like i guess onn the hill from 2005 — 2008, but thinking about it all in terms of which i do with this book it seems to me that what one could say that there are someei very useful good programs but they tend to be the ones that have aiv very specific objective very specific inan the goal clearly understood clearly

measurable pretty you take something like aquatics the plaintiff columbia a while back and change columbia country is virtually hearsay to becoming a normal country. most of the credit for this was due to thehe colombians themsels but american assistancess to columbia was an important part of it was important because it was clear but the objective wasn't clear what we were trying to achieve clear how we measure results this kind of program i think, make some sense. for example, proliferation strategy and times which counter proliferation strategy was very successful convention to be a free sample so working around but there are number of cases in which the case that the

assistance we provide very useful if you concrete clear objective measurable salts. was a very good example, the aids programs we have a very substantial commitment to dividing an opposing aids and such here in africa and this also is clear the objective is. it is clear trying to do and it is clear also that his measurable results in measurable most of the person that you could count how many lives have been saved by these programs. these kind of programs as well as essay providing some military assistance to israel because you know they need you want to help them to do it. i mentioned this in part because the reason that i'm late is because i capitol hill maybe is here today presumably asking for

this and programs like that make us an amount of sense the great majority of the foreign assistance programs are more amorphous than this and the goals are not measurable clear cut the more like probably going to do good when they encourage economic growth and we want to encourage development pretty now it's like they're interesting is over borrowed from biology if you think about it. human beings and other many beings live beings, they have the pattern of development in the go from embryos to babies small children to adults and something from the also does not come in and interfere, they have this most initial progression of development what is development program state department 90

tends to do is to assume there is such a thing like that also is for your patience and is a natural thing for countries to develop that way as to provide money, to simulate the staff. seems to be small is good for the countries where there is no development in effect tooo the contrary. you live in venezuela this was was a semi- prosperous country and no after several regimes including terms of material, you saw this movie theater. let them well countries don't necessarily go a certain way, you can go backwards overnight. this government is virtually its

by the country and so there's no reason to think this that's not international thing and how this came to be was that a lot of models that were produced in stages of growth seem to be natural if you simply buddy here and here and here, you get economic growth predict any think that this is rather while not necessarily always very well-founded notion lies in the notion that economics that is needed above all the countries to develop. that'sse not entirely true. you can see it with venezuela. simply is gone backwards. there's no economic assistance that we could provide that would make the slightest bit of difference in terms of its future. the problem of governments, money and so, as i said in a

couple of other instances, than was thought that was the that we behave like this is a country, forha the first years from 1789p until several years before world war ii when we had the program and we virtually provided no foreign assistance to anybody this began to change the program and ultimately after world war t ii, more so with the marshall plan and turkey finally became fully institutional is a project. 19621 when the agency for economic development that it was created. since then, we proceeded along on the basis of these unspoken models in the way for the country to develop and it will naturally is he can provide more resources and provide more resources that will succeed.

some of the programs running in such a way that there's no prospect of being helpful. i am again well this is a result long experience of watching for this is in programs how they are provided in watching it rolled out the senior staff at the state department. you want how decisions are made about how much money the country age should be given neutral. and so, let me leave it at that. this is two thirds finally the principall at the state with the department currently let me

mention a second thing about foreign policy. there is a professor who wrote ana article couple of years bak in foreign affairs journal and he said that economic sanctions had become the principal tool of the american foreign policy anything is right anything he's absolutely right for me to guess how manyac of the numbing sanctions that we have in place currently, habituate underestimated every time. the roughly 11000 economic sanctions that we place right now against other countries and against other groups against other individuals and against certain systems and chips against any quasi- military thanks, everything. and t this also was not always e case. we did not really do economic sanctions as a country from 1789

all of the way up into the years just after world war i. they became understood in a more useful tool with foreign policy. we did and barbara's was in a while duringes war times is the economic sanctions being put against the countries and individuals this would not be foreign policy and did not become one of the post-world war i time and again, why well because the progressive movement the most in particular, thought that this was really a way that foreign policy would be successful to bete conducted. it could have been on this book, in which wilson said, when he was busy helping create the league of nations he said, the fully economic sanctions against the country is more harsh and

more severe penalty as a country and invading them militarily and seems to beab of cours ridiculous. nevertheless, there was an this was a possible tool of nations. that up to a predictably rocky start the nations decided they were going to sanction if they invaded ethiopia and threaten italy sanctions and italy ignore the front entirely and then they invaded. the sanctions initially and no difference whatsoever. i think that is something that one needs to think about in terms of our economic sanctions these days as well. it depends upon i suppose and what you're trying to achieve by the sanctions are justt trying o express your dissatisfaction

okay, that is one thing but if you think that sanctions are going to have such an effect as to change the policies of the governments want to be sorely mistaken,n. the really very lite evidence that the several works. but he had a going to change the whole foreign regime with sanctions, the most never works. so, missing there's not been a few cases where is working so very much involved in the sanctions against south africa and the regime. as a result, they were very specific and unusual reasons why that succeeded the most part, it does not succeed if your goal is to change policies and foreign governments change the regimes themselves. ... ways. down, forward, backward left, right, and it has not made a single bit of difference, far as

i can tell. and kim jong un's policies or his nuclear development program or certainly changing the nature of his regime, we are sanctioned. venezuela, again, backward upside again forward, backward, upside and down. the cruising along very nicely. i was is working out for you? it's not particularly working out actually. the reason i think people have such hopes that sanctions will work as a some emotion i could change your behavior with economic tools print economic means it is vastly overestimated as a useful tool. again, as i say it's a fairly recent phenomenon. when more current example look

at ukraine. we threaten russia with sanctions if you'd dare invade ukraine will put sanctions on you. and again as my kids would say, how did that work out? quickly invaded ukraine. russia's various kinds of various types. putin still at war with ukraine. these sanctions have had so far as i can judge notes significant effect at all. putin continues to do what he does is not necessary for economic reasons. but to the contrary he is an idea in his mind about russia which is not even an economic idea at all. they're very convenient tool if i was a real cynic which i might be. we could almost say why do we put so many sanctions in place?

were not doing anything real. we can take credit for being tough without actually being tough. this is all founded on two great reliance on the notion of economic causation the ability of economics and material things to motivatete people as a result these policies nowhere near as successful as they would like to say. sometimes they're counterproductive. i can give you a very not funny example when sanctions were completely and utterly counterproductive.am one example of that testament those are two ways in which i think the two fundamental normal

regular everyday policies of the state department are founded on notions excessive faith economic causation. let me turn for a few minutes i will stop byro promise. let me turn for a few to intelligence assessments. i should be clear in the beginningwh with him talking abt it when i'm not about there's two different kinds of thingsh t that does one of which is operations. the other iss analysis. there is direct as you can imagine often at great risk to to abigger part of the cia. and that i'm not talking about about the operation side of the house. nor am i talking about provision

of facts which the intelligence committee provides to decision-makers. if your privy to any of this information would be astonished we actually know. what t is the prime ministers sy to the foreign minister breakfast yesterdaystg. morning? here's what he or she said right here. or how many missiles does china have lined up against the taiwan straits? or whatever the case might be. what i am talking about is how you make something meaningful out of these facts. how do you do an assessment with the intelligence community how do you make sense of it. hear this comes in the form of the lowest common denominator statement from a combined intelligence agencies saying we will assess that. or we judge that we assess with moderate confidence whatever.

this is the way the intelligence committee attempts to understand what's happening or even to predict or not to predict what's happening. that is the part i am talking about. now i offer up a number of examples in the book about how these intelligence assessments have gone along. a person of already mentioned to you the case with the intelligence community all kinds of facts who's doing what to whom and all of that. what we could conclude from any of this the right thing and why in this case as i mentioned their focus on the balance of material b it's a marxist praisd by the way the balance of material forces between the shot and his folks on the different protest groups. there are others in the interest of time let me mention lest you

think what happens in the iran cases totally changed our ways we haven't. the question of the collapse of the afghan government. no one particularly stopped the united states left afghanistan. afghanistan was going to defeat the taliban. thegh real question was how long could the afghan government stay in f place and fend off the taliban? i suppose it's a case of possible deniable of our vietnam.nt in but, the intelligence community may be in retrospect flat wrong conclusion about all of this. arguing about the taliban could be held off at bay and the afghan government could take hold and defend itself and exist for 18 months, two years art

some to determine the future. based on what? based on the fact the afghan government left far more troops in the taliban. and by the way far more and much better weapons in the billions of weapons we left behind. there's a phone call president biden made with the afghan president soon before the government which you said look, you've got all the reasons to be successful.ro for more troops under your command than the taliban does.

if you have stated weapons. you should be in good shape at least for a while based on her own intelligence projections. again, how did that work out? when he left the afghan government collapsed almost instantaneously. it turns out there's more troops more guns and more weapons. there is a whole list of why things happen in the world. admittedly there was that. pick the notion that somehow count up and predict success based on the balance of forces. is not correct their other more complex things that go on to

explain why things happen. ihe mentioned in the book ernest hemingway's book the sun the sun rises one character asked another and how did you go bankrupt the character says two ways. first gradually than all at once. that's exactly what happened in an instant. all at once. these projections of the intelligence agency a little discouraging to see the director of the cia at that time talk about what an incredible success he had in afghanistan. their success they are more optimisticli of the various intelligence agencies from the airport optimistic the cia. this is not right. in order to become more current look of russian invasion of

ukraine. here there is some good news about the intelligence agency intelligence agencies predicted putin was going to invade afghanistan ukraine. in this far better the and this they were better than zelenskyy somehow thought or thought in his heart of hearts is invasion was not going to take place. just like we try to prevent russia from invading ukraine but the threat of sanctions putin invaded ukraine anyway. sanctions have not cause them to change his mind one iota ever since. but, at that point once they were corrupt about what putin

was going to do within their assessment was way off the rails. they subscribed us to do a number of people in the european intelligence agency the notion russia would defeat ukraine, 40s, five days. on the intelligence service were picking out apartments and so forth. point to create a public government there. some of formal part it's part of russia. and so this assessment that they made in ukraine would collapse in a very short period of time. was not wrong. what does it matter?

ukraine is going to hold off a russia for a while begin to change the balance of things. we might've provided more quickly more useful weapons to ukraine. that's a policy question beyond the scope here treat all i am saying is this assessment was way off the mark. just to conclude about this other than to say i can give you many more examples if you want. one acquaintance of mine who knows everything about intelligence said he went through a litany virtually no transformative events correctly predicted. the question is why? some for lackth of resources for sure that. wrong in different ways.

predictions are hard especially about the future. they all fail exactly the same way. exactly the samecty way the vas things that motivate human behavior certainly in putin's case strong economic motives to check ukraine. the fact russia has more troops, has more guns and so forth is making a difference.

all the other ones i mentioned in the chapter let me stop there and i do i feel like i was obliged to offer a few thoughts how we might improve the situation. guns and tanks and troops and so forth. that's all to the good. what they need to understand make the same mistake every time. i make a few suggestions or policy suggestions tope deeply

embedded in the american psyche changing this is going to be very, very difficult. i think this is something we simply have to acknowledge going forward. how limited the suggestion are in terms of making a big difference. i is suppose what i would argue of the 45 years in washington the summarize to think about what you want to do take it seriously consider it.

the possibility of coming and when you don't expect. and by the way, which i have not touched on i thought it was important not to make enemies gratuitously's. rather to treat people as decently as you can bring yourself to do. in interesting ways. it's true with my liberal friends to adapt with success often it's very helpful reasonable and fair minded about things. our current republican nominee

is gone along with out this particular virtue. i think for the most part i found it very helpful. and finally, think if you will about the problems trying to addressed not all of them are amenable to throwing money at that kind of solution. it. could improve academic performance of our children. think about it think about things like that. take a look think about what you should be doing what congress should begr doing some kind of oversight. not just the inputs. all of the economic sanctions we put in place against other countries there is not one single agency and that government or congress that's in

any study about the real impact at the treasury department which is most of the sanctions. not white house not congress not some congressional committee. nobody. it's all about inputs you could advantage yourself if you thought about a little more with that they are achieving the results you want. not just whether you are providing more inputs. i guess we will stop there. thank you again for hosting this. i look forward to your questions, your complaints, your objections. wonderful tremendous food for

thought. i'm sure there are tons and tons of questions. for me the big take away because were rising public intellectuals is the fact the current political system in particular d prioritizes the non- tangible that leads to very dangerous strategic strip surprised. here at the american foreign policy council we spent a lot of time look at things like strategic culture and ideology. anyone who ised well-versed in a allrussia's imperial now neo- imperial ideology would've been better place to understand for putin is not just about the material. and the middle east what we have seen over the last nine months as a consequence of the fact i

rejection this group refused to allow trickle-down economics from an ideological to a political actor. this is what you're highlighting is very important. for everybody that's beginning in their careers i think it highlights the way you could make a market for. >> bless you for doing what you're doing. i would just say you are all beneficiaries of that. once. >> let's open it up for questions. step up to the might come introduce yourself and have at it. >> thank you. is it on? thank you very much for coming here.na ii really enjoyed it. nathan myers i am from kansas

thank you for mentioning kansas butjo i go to benedictine collee majoring in political science and economics but my question was you talked about how we think too much in terms of material that the material view of the world which comes from the progressives from the explanation of the world everything is motivated by material factors. you look at history you look at life, not economic. we are going to be in politics and policy positions intelligence and whatnot how can we influence a policy for people to w think or just the country n general to think more in the homo politicos.

and again how can return to power? what you're exactly right. i guess i would say through more common sense looking at things on the west and east and everywhere. people looked at other countries andde understood not merely an economic terms but often political terms. in fact you see this today with russia. there are people who still argue putin somehow invaded ukraine for economic reasons. and i just don't see it. it seems to me it's been a very expensive. project on people alo say therefore we need to give putin an offramp and showre them how charming the interest economic interests of election people's not really the problem.

he needs to be defeated you're going to get him out of ukraine. the harder question you ask is how can we encourage a broader i think it's right to say political is a more broad category of economic. that's why as anderson implicit political philosophy. it seems to me that's that discipline that asked them arerg deep and serious questions how we organize ourselves that consist of non- is what's making money alone consistent. i confess i cannot offer to you an easy way to do that. as a host of smaller suggestions that i make. for example it would be an excellent thing if members of congress would put in place a structure to follow on oversight

and investigations of what it is they have done. the way to do that i suppose is to make every piece of legislation passes also subject to exploration of some kind. this sounds like a right wing project. but it isn't. this idea of sunsetting legislation was actually originally a left-wing idea to try to free up policy from the baneful effects of big business and the government working together. there are a lot of places this makes sense for example economics in those areas. we passed a resolution which is all fine. head has a seemingly endless

life may be some kind of term live limit on education agriculture would require at least congress and the executive branch to look at and see what they have done to consider how it is exactly this would work. i think the answer any fair-minded person's estate the answer of any is it may work in some ways but there's other ways it hasn'tan worked. and so that is one suggestion. institutionalizing on a certain way i hope the intelligence are working in terms of theirir review of their procedures. especially since afghanistan and ukraine is another. but again, i would say this is

perhaps small compared to all of the sudden the skills of falling off our eyes we are going to somehow look at things and a more broad and to understand this economic pain comes into place with these notions that's all kinds of people we solve all problems. it's you somehow everyone has enough you're going to solve every other human problem problems of selfishness and pride and every other human

motivation that there is? not likely. and so i see a few signs to be honest. but not altogether. maybe people are beginning to understand but not everywhere. and looking at on the conservative side of conservatism which seems to me to have a stronger record than i had for example with barry goldwater in 1964 you have all kinds of places and institutions and publications and media and so forth some of these broader natural rights oriented traditions. there's that.

i think there's some on the left that are coming to a? whether economics if you look for example of climate change this is not in any way, shape, form anything to do with economic development or providing any more for people in fact it's usually providing less why? the overarching noneconomic question of global warming. so you see it in that way. this whole transition from equality to equity also seems to me to bsi may be the economic domination things will only take us so far and not further. in the sense that he quality is part of the liberal try to provide more for everybody and more people. where as equity has nothing to

do with that. it has to do with sameness it could be at this level or at this level or this level. and so it's more of a question of justice d it's more of a political question. what do we want to do in a broadway? there are others i point to that i think suggest maybe there are some forces that suggest economics is not the beginning and end is something answer to every problem. fully confess and plead guilty to the fact i have not got the magic bullet to make people think more broadly in political terms instead of economic terms which they seem to do in the policymaking business. >> thanks. thanks for ther indulgence. >> ask any other questions?

>> hello. first of all, thank you so much for yourmy talk. it really enjoyed it. i am an intern and also student. i look a lot at around for a lot of what you are saying about the sanctions there very interesting. and what you're saying about measuring tangible versus intangible is very fascinating. so my question is, to what extent do you think sanctions have been intangible questioner. >> i'm sorry. >> to what extent do you think sanctions could have it intangible effect as opposed to a tangible effect? i know positively or negatively for example by undermining public support for a regime. by making ground conditions a lote worse. or on the other side possibly strengthening the regime because a belligerent cause against their own interests? anded yes what are the intangibe effects. >> i'm not sure i entirely

understand your question. i think some of the programs we run for example, which seem in a way to run somewhat parallel with the american foreign policy council that we run a democracy promotion programs or programs that encourage looking at broader political questions and ideological questions. these are all to the good. compromise and similar trips to talk about a democracy and election is him and all of that. the current president happens to be a good friend of mine part one of the characters i often invite as a guest lecturer by the way. and so i think there is a role from what you call public

diplomacy. which is done trying to teach other ways to think about how you organize yourself. or your political party how you run a campaign, how you do elections. i am not sure if i touched it all on what you are asking? >> yes, i think so. >> i think there is a big role for places like the council to cause you to think more deeply. and to look at what might be the real factors involved in why things happen the way they do. and sometimes they're economic. sometimes they are not. >> intosa that point you talk about economic sanctions there is an outcome in iran is a perfect example. it could be an economic success

but strategic failure. they can draw down resources the change the long arc. yes that is exactly right. and simply giving around $6 billion. that boggles your mind. so i agree. you can certainly generate suffering another country. to change policy with the regime. it can don't own lives pretty well. drinks what it once, eats too much, i also and the elites.

i don't care with their populations think. therefore it's on us as we think about them and what motivates them to try to understand them better. and again at the risk of being broken record it's all but economics. oxo think we have time for one more. one more question? i am alec, i'm a hoosier prime r on behalf of the great people of indiana thank you helping our senator and getting governor daniels a good start offiefe in life. the question is going to ask you. how we focus on the material and the economic aspect is obviously

deficient in a lot of respects. the non- economic factors, do we start to venture off into questions of values or subjective evaluations that may be the reason we focus on economics is because we can agree on it? it's measurable once we started to get questions to bring up by ron and changing iran, and we start to enter into what do we want iran to even look like? so maybe we kind of except the devil we know and stick to that economic approach. >> is an excellent question to which i would first ask you a question, where you from indiana? >> i come from noble tin county. over quirks we have all kinds of family. >> eta boy. [laughter] >> you touch on a very subtle

and interesting question. again american government that is not trying to spout problems by handing out money they are trying in some way to shape the ideological character of theou country. i don't think were in any danger of that. which trying to shape the ideological character and let's fix north korea at let's change that value system with a brush and so forth. i think we need to be much more carefull of not replacing an economic understanding of things. with some kind of ideological indoctrination. it simply replacing it with a fair look about what is it that can produce a policy that makes

changes that are r real and thoe changes have to be ones that have democratic support we agree are important. everyone would agree improving educational system is a good idea. too far in the direction of saying here's how we will improve it will teach everybody all this ridiculous stuff. that becomes an issue. i think you raise a very solid question. who to w say value more on the side we are on. so thank you for that. >> thank you. >> i'm cognizant of the time. thank you so much. please join me in thanking him. [applause] >> thank you for coming to

american foreign policy council. we are small but mighty on capitol hill as for those of you watching at home if you are interested in ouran work see isn my debby debby w.afdc.org. thank you. perfect. thank you very much. appreciate it. [applause] >> be up to date and the latest in publishing book tvs podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases. plus a bestseller list as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews but you can find about books on c-span now our free mobile app or were ever you get your podcast. ♪ weekends on c-span2 an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents in america's story.

on sunday @booktv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes in these television companies and more. including ♪ ♪. ♪ where are you going? or it may be a better question is how far do you want to go? and how fast you want to get there? now we're getting somewhere. so let's go. let's go faster. let's go further. let's go beyond. ♪ along with these television companies support cspan2 as a public service. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪