tv Sebastian Gorka on Foreign Policy CSPAN August 15, 2018 8:00pm-9:30pm EDT
8:00 a.m., alan bello talks about publishing authors from oath the political right and left. watch the tv, this week in primetime on c-span2. tonight on c-span, former white house aide sebastian gorka on president trump's foreign-policy. then a debate between u.s. candidates and the democratic primary for the massachusetts seven district. than a discussion about trump administration policies have the american bar association annual meeting. u.s.forum on foreign-policy featured remarks from sebastian gorka, former deputy assistant to president trump. he discussed the trump administration's national security strategy, comparing it to foreign policy in the obama administration. the westminster institute hosted the event. it is one hour and 20 minutes.
>> there are a couple of spots on the stairwell. people have said there when we had another overflow crowd. thank you for coming. for those who were here the first time, i'm the director of the westminster institute, welcome back. i usually start my presentations, and i will tonight, by saying unless you want your ring tones immortalized on c-span, i suggest you turn them off now. you should know that this is being broadcast live on c-span
radio, and will later be on c-span television broadcast. just a couple housekeeping notes on future events, on september 5, our next speaker will be robert spencer speaking about the subject of his new book " the history of jihas," which will be available at that time for your purchase. on october 3, we have ambassador sam brownback from the state department, former governor of kansas, former senator from kansas, who is the ambassador at large for religious freedom who will address us on that subject at that time. the speakerthe westminster instd the tonight, dr. sebastian gorka, is no stranger to this precinct. [applause] in eithern associated
a direct or indirect way since westminster institute began. for no every series -- for no other reason, his wife was the executive director for the first five years. [applause] the number of the fine publications you will see on the table are because of her work, the conference she put on, the papers that came from it, and the books she edited, including her own work and chapters by sebastian, as well. welcome back, both of you. dr. gorka needs much of an introduction. he is the former deputy assistant to president trump. on fox news and
many other networks. he is also the best selling author of defeating jihad, the winnable war, which is available for sale and the authors signature on the table outside. i'm sure he will be happy to sign the books for you. also the author of an upcoming best seller, and i know it is because go on to amazon and you will see it is already in the top 10 category. , foris why we fight covering america's will to win. remember the famous frank appel, this is the version we need now. has a deep academic
background, he has taught at national defense university, marine corps university, the institute of oral politics, and a number of other distinguished institutions, including the marshall center in germany for a years.of years. i'm not going to embellish his other compliments, or mention his 140 articles, monographs, and book chapters. i will leave that aside. i want to get to maximum time for him to speak, and for you to be able to ask questions about weight ask you kindly, until you have -- wait until you have one of the portable mics. you have to speak in it like that so everyone else can hear you. there will also be a boom mic from c-span following around. your questions are
immortalized in that media. please join me in welcoming sebastian your gorka, who will k about america's enemies, old, new, and the trump doctrine. [applause] dr. gorka: thank you, it is great to come home. to quote a good friend, who was margaret thatcher's speak -- speechwriter. it was an introduction my mother would have believed, and my father would have been proud of. it is wonderful to be back here. thank you for the amazing turnout and for the coverage we have. i have to mention one more book, not written by me. if you want to read the best are the way we are today, with regards to the arab and muslim world, you have to read robert riley's " the
closing of the muslim mind." it was mandatory reading for all of my students. takee never seen anybody deeply philosophical exegetical political issues and make them clear in the space of 350 pages. it really explains the threat we face from the global jihad movement. if you are not familiar with it, it should be available here. go to amazon and get your copies. twome begin with a story of americans. americalk about the between 2008 and 2016. then let's talk about america between 2016 and today. i'm not interested in who you voted for, i'm not here to give a political speech, i was a
politically commissioned officer of president trump, i am here to talk strategy. i specialize in counterterrorism. about strategic culture, what with the priorities for the last administration? what in fact happened? without political spin, just the factual statements of what happened in american strategic life during the obama years. how did it begin? it began with what even the left has turned the apology toward. the most powerful man in the world, the chief executive of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, because that is what america is. is a not a superpower, it hyperpower. nobody can come close to the power we have. that nation's chief executive
traveled the world to say that the serious things we suffer from, in many cases, derive from us, that america is the cause. whether it is global warming or climate change, whether it is a disenfranchisement of individuals across the world, political regimes that are unjust, it was america that was responsible. now, we are going to respond to that injustice, how? by actually building into the united states strategic approach, this is in the national security strategy of the obama administration, concepts such as leading from behind. for anybody who has taken philosophy 101, you cannot lead from behind. imagine if your first lieutenant said let's go jump out of the
trenches, i will lead from back here. you cannot lead from behind. or the other one, which was official administration policy, the concept of strategic nations. code, everybody talks about dog whistles, it was dog whistles for we do nothing because we are guilty. therefore, what? we allow others to take that opportunity, to take that advantage to fill the void created by a lack of american leadership. we justify it because of the guilt we have for all of these problems. what did that leads to? what did that advertising of america withdrawing from the international community lead to? o example, breaking one of the most important taboos
in western civilization. since 1945, we have said you do not invade somebody else's country to take that territory for yourself. 60 million people died in world war ii. we said you cannot do that, international law doesn't allow you to get your territory through use of force. russia did it. after what? after we signaled as a nation that we are going to cancel the missile defense system in central europe, that we will not provide the defense systems that our allies in nato wish us to deploy in that region. what else did we do? we had a withdrawal from iraq, a se, that ledu to a junior varsity team becoming the most powerful insurgency in modern history. that is a completely different lecture.
isis did that which no other jihadi group was capable of doing ever. from 1924, when the original was dissolved as the secular turkish republic was created, for the next 90 years what happened? jihadist groups, starting with the muslim brotherhood, said we must bring it back. that is the only way for human beings to live on the territory of the bureaucratic muslim empire. for the next 90 years, every single one of them failed. the brotherhood failed, even when they took over egypt. al qaeda fail, the taliban failed. it all comes to a junior varsity team, and what happens? they did it. from the grand mosque of mosul declared the caliphate, what was a concept, a reality spanning multiple countries of
mesopotamia, with 6 million people living on its territories , making a fortune every day through kidnapping, slavery, arms trafficking, counterfeiting. the caliphate was created during the obama years. created by the obama administration, but because of the lack of american leadership. the iran deal. i have to illustrate the deal with one analogy of comparison. transportyears ago, a -- a metro police officer in d. c., who was a jihadi sympathizer, wanted to send money to isis. this police officer met somebody who he thought could be the conduit for his sending $500 to
the insurgency. little did he know, this was an fbi asset. this police officer, once he made the commitment to send money to a terrorist group, was arrested, charged, and prosecuted, and sent to a maximum security prison, where he languishes today. he committed what is technically called material support for terrorism. for $500. the obama administration, at the time the obama state department listed iran as the largest sponsor of state terrorism, $140,ed 140 billion, not $140 billion, plus cash pallets for ransom money. if anyone in this room had sent $500 and been caught, you would go to a federal super max prison. that is the story of the last
eight years. that is the strategic culture that was enabled, from the rise of isis to the facilitation of a militant russia, to north korea perpetuating its programs to acquire ballistic and nuclear technology. onn it all changed at 12:00 january 20, 2017. [applause] not a political speech, a strategy speech, honest. we don't have eight years of a petri dish, but we have 18 months. we move the politics, -- remove the politics, and look at the milestones in the last 18 months. one of the proudest things as a nation we can point to is the fact that we unleashed our military on the scourge of isis. whether you like him or not,
steve bannon in the white house said we need a bumper sticker for this war, and the war is the destruction of the physical caliphate. that was steve bannon's idea, it was massively important. it gave us the strategic objective every pilot, every green beret, everyone about arab allies understands. hadlast commander in chief assured us that isis is a " generational threat," meeting my children, your grandchildren, generations of americans would have to get used to it because we couldn't defeat. donald trump, by unleashing our military, compressed a generation into four months. why?
because the isis physical caliphate is gone, it ceased to exist. that's quite remarkable, given that this is a multi-country insurgency that was the most successful jihadist insurgency of the modern age. in less than six months, at least in terms of the critical caliphate, it was history. we have not won, but in terms of sending a clear message to the franchise of jihadism globally, the message has been sent. look at the military subjects. i was looking at the military just to check on meetings we had one year ago. signed a newt has military funding order. before he did that, he signed an
increment to increase the defense budget, which has gone through. the increment by which we have increased the defense budget, just the increment, is larger than any other nato defense budget. had at say who it was, we certain chancellor of a european state in the white house trying to convince us that her nation is very serious about defense, serious about their commitment to nato. he said you do realize we are adding more money to the defense budget than you spend on it in its entirety? that is a metric. seriousness in defense. not only that, we have asked nato relaunch. i cut my teeth on nato issues 20 years ago. i worked on nato issues in the defense ministry.
hadde the alliance, we have a dirty little secret for about 30 years. it is called the freeload complex. nobody pays for the defense and we protect everyone. turkey was the largest nato nation, it was a serious contributor, biggest nato army, everybody else just wasn't serious. they said they would commit to percent of their gdp in two defense -- into defense, and six of them actually did it, with us included. the president solved a 30 year tea session ofe the east wing with the secretary-general of nato. read the analysis of how donald trump negotiates. it is very simple, but massively effective. you create a disturbance in the force, people get worried, they don't know what you are going to
do. they just say yes to placate you. -- don't try this at home, gentlemen, ladies, we know it works. a 30-year-old problem, because he questioned the validity of nato. he never said anything about dissolving it. inquestioned its relevance the 21st century. when donald trump does that, individuals realize it is not a diplomatic communique, this is serious. what happens, the secretary-general from the podium, 2%, you got it. on and on, north korea has been a problem for the last 30 years, in terms of the threat it poses to our friends and allies. think about the fact that we now had a commitment, forget about
recent report, pompeo is on it, but we have a commitment to denuclearize. this is the same country that one year ago was launching ballistic rockets over the sea of japan. forget the reports about which base, which factory is disassembling, this nation ship the remains of 55 gis back home. on the 65th anniversary of the armistice. they didn't have to do it on that day. that tells you something. when they decide to do this, on the actual enter bursary -- anniversary of the armistice that temporary halted the korean war. that should show you the negotiation style.
china, the u.s. navy is making sure china does not inhibit the free flow of international maritime traffic around the asian waterways. china has now been subjected to the beginning of a 301 trade investigation for the theft and force acquisition of u.s. intellectual property. this is a complete lecture by itself, but we have facilitated the rise of a nation that wishes to displace us. not necessarily destroy us, it's no soviet union, but the one belt one road strategy is about replacing america by it the 100th anniversary of the communist revolution in 2014. just go home, plug it into your search engine, this president will not allow -- we gave him a series of briefings after he came in, he understood
what china is doing. this president will not allow china to displace america, at least not on his watch. then we have the russians agents, some of the stiffest international sanctions we have ever seen. not only that, but another comparison. crimea anda invaded took the territory for itself, the obama administration shipped night vision goggles and blankets. shippedinistration has javelin antitank missiles. the idea that the russia collusion delusion is so absurd if you just look at that one measure. response to the two poisonings in the u.k.
after that event, in accord with our british allies, this president expelled more than 60 russian diplomats from this nation. germany, the great powerhouse of europe, did what? expelled six or three? four maybe. exterior versus a number you can count -- 60 versus a number you can count on one hand. turkey, serious sanctions imposed. syria, the launch of cruise missiles to make sure that that regime doesn't use chemical weapons against women and children. the conspiracy theorists out there, i cannot discuss it, but i saw the intel. that thefirm to you president reasons were exactly what the president said they were. i can't go into details, but we usedupper servitude as to
those weapons, and who we were attacking. coa,anceling of the jp another incredibly proud moment for me. the president consulted me in the white house after the white house on this issue. this was bad not only for us, it was bad for israel, bad for regional and global security at large. it is now history. lastly, with regards to the middle east, something not well understood or adequately appreciated, what the president did in riyadh. it is very interesting to watch, i suggest you watch the video of the president's riata address to the heads of state to the arab and muslim world. this was tough love, this was not a protocol speech. in that speech, to the assembled leadership of the muslim world, the president of the u.s. said
you must rid your places of worship of the extremists, and you must rid your society of the terrorists. as one arab woman told me, three weeks after the speech, she said that is the speech we have been waiting for for 17 years. [applause] why is the video interesting? you think this 6'3" tough guy from queens going into the actle and reading the riot would create bad luck. watch the video, it is fascinating. they pan around the audience as he is delivering this tough speech. if you think about how i pitched it, you think the negativity, the body language would be rejecting, on the contrary.
cc is beaming, king abdullah is beaming, this is what they need. what happens within 10 days? the gcc says we are all guilty, we have been mucking around doing things we shouldn't have been doing it, one of us has worked. and we're going to boycott cotter -- qatar. that is geopolitics, that his leadership. from one speech leads to one of the biggest advances of global jihadism being dealt with by its own arab-muslim neighbors. statecraft in the classic sense of the word. what is the trump doctrine? what is the strategy? i've got some bad news, there are no labels, there are no categories. this is not a man that fits into
the theory book. i had to study it, it is all garbage. you cannot split the world into no liberal, realists, the world doesn't function like an ir textbook. what the president has brought to the table is the love of a nation, melded with pragmatism. he is the arch pragmatist. within that, he has some polar points that have helped his navigation. the two most important points are number one, the world is a safer place when there is american leadership. a very simple statement. when there is american leadership, it is good for everybody that loves good things. firt principles, the founding principles of the republic, representative government, human rights, dignity of the
individual. when american leadership is asserted, these things are strengthened. with another very important fixed point for navigation, with a very clear understanding that intervention for the sake of interventionism is wrong. we are not here to go gallivanting around the galaxy imposing our rid on other human beings. that's not what 1776 is about. it is about people fixing it for themselves, yes? if we can help them from a distance, ok? iraq, and palestine, in the original of what the bush administration did, is antithetical to this president. he will never change his mind on that. this is a 72-year-old man. the idea he will go soft on the base or betray the base is not happening. these are his instincts.
i met him for the first time in 2015 in his offices in trump tower. he said the same thing then as he does now. it is very enlightening. go watch his interviews from 20 or 30 years ago. this guy hasn't flip-flopped on any issues, trade, china, iraq. he has had the same principles for decades. that's why he has been such a success in the last 18 months. else is key to his practice? diplomacy is something very important. multilateralism is not valuable, because it is multilateralism. likewise, there are no sacred cows. alliance, orthis this arrangement, has been doing things a certain way for 30 or 40 years doesn't mean it is
correct. the president is prepared to throw up the tables at any point if he thinks it doesn't make sense. cut afghanistan, he straight through the boilerplate .c. swamp and said this is an true. when you are talking about a functioning afghan government, it is just not true. gumption, a certain and he reject it -- it was in whereeech two weeks ago he said -- the people are not the elite, you are the super elite. what does he mean by that? he understands americans are defined by a common sense
attitude, it is results oriented. he has applied common sense, a result oriented strategy to whatever it is. before started the speech, what about the trade war? what about treating allies the way he is treating them? those kinds of allies, such as the eu, that have an almost quadruple tariff on u.s. vehicles going into the eu summit in comparison to be -- to how we tax their vehicles, those kinds of allies? those kinds of allies to the north of us that impose him a 300% tariffs on american dairy products? who started the war? friends don't treat each other like this. what he is saying is no sacred cows, and i'm going to have a global reset button. not a cheesy one that is mistranslated, i, going to have -- i'm going to have a real
reset button. it is about equitable relationships that make sense. that is the encapsulation of his strategy. at the end of the day, it is american interests versed. with a little caveat from the marine corps. when i was in the white house, i used this marine corps motto. i think it is very apt. has supplied free members of the administration, three marines, same division, which has a certain motto, no better friend, no worse enemy. is the trump doctrine. with regards to pragmatism, i will go on an example. look at my field of interest, counterterrorism. a good caserism is
study for how common sense has to be applied and we have to reassess the approach strategically. at the moment, if you look at the rod data, think of these numbers. , allntelligence community of it, spends about $6 billion on counterterrorism. that is one third of its budget. while the trump doctrine says it is at the right ratio. the third of the danger to our nation today, emanating from ago,rism, maybe 20 years but not today. you look at the budget for counterterrorism in general, it is $100 billion. is that the level of the threat we face? 9/11 changed history, but it may be an outlier. we now know from documents that bin laden never expected the towers to fall.
he was surprised, just like rosie o'donnell was surprised flames could melt steel. bin laden did not expect 3000 people to be killed in 123 minutes. outlier, ine an terms of terrorist capacities against the u.s. nevertheless, 9/11 illustrative flaws in the system. the cast-iron separation between domestic intelligence and federal law enforcement lead to certain things such as what? two the hijackers on a watchlist that was not transmitted to another agency, applying for a visa in the embassy istanbul, and receiving their visas. the system was broken, and the system needed to be fixed. the separation between external and internal threats, is the world today, can you categorize
threats in a way that puts some of them in a box that is external? some of it in a box that is internal? who gave him the permission to kill his fellow serviceman? american yemeni sitting in yemen, he was emailing and asked them i did be -- am i to be declared to the middle east and have to fight muslim muslims, can i instead kill my fellow serviceman before i leave? the blessing was given, which is in the post shooting report by the director of the fbi. don't read the army report, read the judge's report, which has the email traffic. where does that threat fit? it doesn't fit into our boxes neatly. also a state of imagination. to think about how enemies that
our nonstate would use certain achilles heels aspects of our system against us. lastly, the thing we built our work on, and which was part of the logic for the westminster institute, knowing the enemy. we used to really know our enemy. when it was the germans, soviets, we had people who had been to german academies. when a person who wrote the victory plan was a german major who actually attended the german academy. it is a lot easier to beat the nazis if you have attended those colleges. the cold war, that is predicated on the amazing case study on containment policy which can be traced back.
a man who had studied russian and soviet culture for years before washington said to them]]]] -- said to him why his uncle joe behaving how he is? he explained why the soviet union must destroy america, must destroy america, if it is to be true to its ideology to its totalitarian soul. we forgot to do that. the 1990's eradicated our concept of knowing the enemy, we didn't know who the enemy was for a decade. a friend of mine said this was the era of strategic malaise and confusion. there wasn't a clear understanding of who the enemy is, and who we should understand. what happens? we're slapped in the face on 9/11 and wake up to cultures we do not well understand. we have to reapply a pragmatic approach. today, as one example, the most
important aspect of counterterrorism, the threat analysis officially inside the and ministration, with regard to terrorism in america, now consists of four things. homegrown violent extremists, people that are radicalized here. the leveraging of social media, how the enemy uses media to recruit, indoctrinate, and provide certain aspects of commander control. the question of returning fighters, american who have gone to fight jihad, and have come home. they haven't committed a crime in america come but they kill people in mesopotamia. lastly, the remaining issue of domestic terrorism. those terrorists are not jihadist, but can still post a threat to america. those are state-of-the-art. only one of them have to do with anything outside of america. compare that to 17 years ago. 17 years ago was all about guys from abroad coming here to kill americans.
in the space of less than a generation, even just the counterterrorism, has changed considerably. that's why it is a good thing we have a new commander in chief applying a pragmatic approach of reassessment. katie does a lot of work with domestic law enforcement, i have trained thousands of state local, federal law enforcement agencies. if you ask a law-enforcement officer today, just get out of o talk to a g law-enforcement officer. they are not really worried about jihadists. they are not the number one threat. they're concerned about gangs, the opioid crisis, the effects on their communities. here are some numbers. the national institute for drug
addiction monitors these issues. 65,000 people die a year from doug overdoses -- drug overdoses. within that, just the opioid, the fentanyl, the chinese counterfeit opioids, more than 20,000 people. that is a trade war where china is smuggling something into america that kills almost seven times the amount of people killed on 9/11. this is why we appraisal is always justified when it comes to strategic assessments. s, local lawer enforcement wants to know about active shooters. howdy secure local schools? practice. one area that i'm going to put out because i wish to stick a
flag in the ground. whenever we have not come to terms with in the 1.5 years since the new administration began is what we used to call influence operations. what we are calling now interference. this isn't about a meeting with donald trump, jr. in the trump tower, it is about what china and russia, and iran, north korea, and other states are doing every day as we sit here. in many cases, facilitated by american actors wittingly or unwittingly. the fact that google alone is helping, has been convinced by certain actors in beijing to assist the regime in the censorship and potential persecution of its own people. that form of influence upon our
private sector is bad for all americans, not just people in china. when you give that kind of power to a competitor that wishes to replace you, we have to go back to the idea of how you deal with what we used to call active measures. we have to take seriously the subversive tools that nation state actors are still using against us, and now in sophisticated ways. i will close on this. what do you need to know about how commended to reach and where he is going? it is very easy. first, read the national security strategy. it was written by a colleague of mine. the first national security strategy worthy of that title since the end of the cold war. it is not boilerplate, it is a serious expression of what america holds dear, and what we
will defend, and how we will defend it. that is a big technical, technical approach strategic document. before you go to bed, read it, watch the speech. the presidents warsaw speech. it will go down, mark it now, as one of the most important presidential speeches of the modern age. video, andtch the understand what it means when we have a president who uses ideas and talks about good confronting evil. we haven't done that for many years. think about the fact that he talks about what our polish -- with our polish conrad's bleeding and -- comrades leading and dined together. it wasn't easy for us, but we insisted with the warsaw government that the president
use some beautiful central location for the speech, but he do it right next to the warsaw uprising. it took several weeks for that to happen. it was important that he did it right there next to the monument and statue of those freedom fighters coming out of the sewers to reassert the sovereignty of their nation. think about the fact that in that speech, the president mentioned the event on june 2, 1979, which the then polish administration refused to televise, where one million human beings living in a captive squarestood at victory to listen to the first-ever polish pope and chanted we want god. there is a reason it is in that speech, why? the warsaw speech is the reassertion of america's proud
judeo-christian values. it's a statement that we will stand by these values, we will represent these values, and we will stand shoulder to shoulder with any other nation or community that exposes those valleys with us. israel, that is not to the detriment of others. if you wish to be our partner and you share our interests. the jordanians, egyptians, anybody else, we will be your friend, but we are fundamentally a judeo-christian nation. let me read to you just two sentences from the speech. the first one is a very somber question to his audience. the fundamental question of our time is whether the west has the will to survive.
do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? do we have the desire and courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it? like ourt used words civilization, even under the bush administration, especially under the last administration. then he closes with this. west doesight for the not begin on the battlefield, it begins with our minds. souls."s,, and our today, the ties that unite our civilization are no less vital and demand no less defense than
that shred of land on which the .ope of poland once rested our freedom, civilization, and survival depend on history, culture, and memory." quite a different approach to the world. thank you. [applause] thank you so much for a brilliant speech. thank you for your work inside the white house and defending our presidents. collusion, please comment.
boss.ill quote the just in the oval office, the two of us, june of last year. purpose,re for another the president was agitated breed he looked at me and said " they will find nothing because there is nothing." that is the end of the story. the fact is russia collusion occurred on the democrats side. act agenton-farrar who has admitted in a court document in the u.k. that he hated donald trump, who was paid millions of dollars by hillary's lawyer to provide unsubstantiated russian propaganda in opposition research that was used by a man
fired yesterday to acquire a warrant to illegally spy on a u.s. national. we have a certain culture in america that is a product of 1776. we have no internal security service. the fbi is not mi5. we don't have that. the fisa glock is a very serious instrument. it is replaced where un-american can be spied upon if you prove very strong evidence that they are a foreign agent or working for a foreign nation. you can't do it for opposition research provided by somebody who packed the document with russian propaganda. not over, the firing yesterday the significant indication of what lies ahead. that is veryt fisa
disturbing. the far larger scandal that has any relevance is the unmaskings. the idea that hundreds of americans, maybe some sitting in this room, were retroactively reverse engineered, in terms of their identity being exposed. it signals intelligence that was used to surveillance of people, but they were caught up in the net. ambassador, samantha rose, unmasked the identity of hundreds of u.s. nationals in one calendar year. we haven't heard the and of that story yet. thank you. i was wondering if you could try to pull it together a little bit.
so many people wonder what is the nexus between the islamists and the open border globalists? what is there and gain -- end gain? dr. gorka: there is this irony that you have the progressives marching down the streets of london next to the people who wish to impose sharia law because the first person who will be lined up against the wall is not the question or the is, that will come later, it the hard-core atheist. they are higher up on the list of bad guys to be dealt with by someone who believes in jihadism or implementing shary law in the sense of the form. it's a worldview overlap, so simple. the jihadists have one connection, they hate everything i mentioned in the warsaw speech.
you don't have to overthink these things. don't look for hidden masterminds talking to each other across the globe. they hate everything judeo-christian civilized nations stand for. he,her you are baghdad michael moore, that is the overlap. great question. how theentioned containment policy was a product of reassessment that occurred as -- in the early stages of the cold war. don't you believe once the cold war ended, we should have had the strategic assessment and? --then? what president trump is doing is carrying out the three decades overdue strategic reinvestment -- reassessment, and is the first president since ronald reagan with a real strategic vision. >> that is a great idea for an article, thank you. [laughter]
the negative aspect of 1989 -- i remember watching as east german with little chills were taking down the berlin wall. the trouble was not one shot was fired across checkpoint charlie. there was no kinetic victory, not on the aircraft carrier forcing them to sign a peace treaty, there was no unconditional surrender. owercommunists gave away p in a very subtle way that they would come back sooner to take it back. there was no requirement for strategic assessment. the 1990's.d in we didn't know whether it was arising in china -- a rise in china, ethnic conflict, weapons
of mass destruction, it was a mess. there were throwing research money at us because we didn't have a clear idea of who the enemy was. the new national security strategy is the beginning of the reassessment. what ronald reagan did wasn't a strategic reassessment of the threat, it was a reassessment of how to deal with the threat. what he did was took containment and said with the afghan containment, which has dominated our strategy, has been proven to be a failure. now we are going to shift from committee -- contagion to roll back -- containment to roll back. it was an operational change in approach. maybe that's what we are witnessing now. you have me thinking, thank you. >> some of the things in the news,, it is hard to pick one thing. i want to propose a couple of
things to you. aboutntly heard something the incident at the town over in afghanistan. with isis being crushed, what are the odds of the taliban being crushed? then you have the soviets on our east coast, closer than our military wants. what are we looking to do to try to address dealing with them? then you have the struck people. is anybody going to go to jail? >> the last one, yes. i don't think high-ranking members of the administration will, but i think individuals of a level will face legal jeopardies. i think people will be charged. will they go to prison is a function of the court system. but there are people who are in big trouble for their corruption at the highest levels of the doj and fbi.
with regards to russia, it is not new. they have been buzzing our ships, planes, cross lines since a that the greasy -- since they had the capacity to reach us. russia is not our friend, but they are not the soviet union. antistatist, that has -- it creates disturbances to exploit them for their own benefit. whether it is eastern europe, the middle east, or asia. this is a nation in massive decline. 600,000 people die in russia every year, more than are born. that hasone horse one export, energy. that is for internal consumption. -- the question is off. the taliban is not a threat to america. the taliban is a very
introspective entity. even when it declared the caliphate, it was afghanistan, it wasn't bigger than afghanistan. taliban is only a threat is it hosts global actors like al qaeda that was to execute operations against us. with regards to taliban, i go back to the very important question of strategy, why should we care? why should we care about afghanistan? i don't like dictatorships. i like it when people are free. it is not our job to free everybody. you go back to october, 2001, and ask yourselves why did we deploy special forces and cia assets in october? it is to make sure -- it is not to make sure schools are working or the soviets couldn't finish getting the road built, it is one reason, to major that these of real estate in central asia is a used to execute mass casualty attacks on u.s. soil.
and of story. -- end of story. not a lot has changed in the last 18 years. the taliban is only a problem if what the taliban does affects us and americans on american soil. strategy is about prioritization. taliban is not a high priority unless we see what we saw happened 20 years ago reoccur. thank you. . >> thank you so much. we have a domestic insurgency in this country led by the muslim brotherhood, but including a much broader span of groups and organizations that we would call the islamic movement. what is the trump administration doing to educate, train the top levels of u.s. national security, the intelligence community, and on down to local law enforcement that actually have to confront this in their
own communities to teach them about the brotherhood and how to confront them? >> i don't know what they are doing at the tactical level to train. if you read every single if you go back to the joint sessions with congress. this is when he went soft. 448 hours, people thought he would betray all of them. and what did he do? he stopped and a middle of a sentence, stare at the camera, and said radical, islamic terrorism. there were some people involved with making that happen, but it has not changed. he did again, and again in his
rally last week. i cannot answer what is happening down the tears of the federal government. but the point is that the sluice gates that was welded shut for eight years, because you were not allowed to use like would like that, has been blasted. you need to have top coverage to do what you are talking that. you do not get better top coverage that the president saying in every speech radical islamic terrorism. with regard as the muslim brotherhood, we cannot discuss that here. but don't worry. next question. [laughter] >> you set the taliban is not an issue, but iran certainly is. with everything else you spoke , in his speech on october
13, was perhaps the second most spectacular speech of the last several years. where he denounced the jcpoa. days, the kurds decided to hold a vote. we basically abandoned the kurds. shortly after that, we had iran invading, people were dying. we have abandoned some of our best friends of their. matter of -- i know some state department say it is not really involved. sebastian: nobody says that. nobody who knows anything about that says that. >> iran is acting with impunity. said that if the kurds want to hold a vote -- is there a change now? are we going to go back and try to reestablish relationships?
>> at the beginning of the administration a year ago, there was a significant problem. i promise to the president i would not criticize serving members of his administration. but rex tillerson does not serve but rex tillerson does not serve him. rex tillerson was a disaster. kurds,u spoke to the like i have spoken at an event on capitol hill shortly after i resigned, they would tell you they were the same table they were speaking do under the obama administration. change at simply not the people who had represented a bad policy. that said, the kurds did not do themselves any favors. the referendum was badly timed. justave a new president,
working out with the restrooms are in the building. but do not expect full throttled, full throated support from us with that kind of jumped the gun timing. so not a clever move. i'm not going to predict the future of that relationship, but this administration understands what the kurds have done. people incent minded the region. saints, but the ministration understands the sacrifices they have done. expectation is that under mike pompeo you will see a significant change in attitude. >> thank you for your comments.
a point of stating that we do not have much of an interest in afghanistan. most of us would agree. comment how made a an american general, law enforcement is overwhelmingly concerned about gangs, and the opiate crisis. you can add onto that fentanyl. how the population might get this into the opioids and the killer is heroin. as you rightly noted, 65,000 americans die per year, which is more than were killed in the entire vietnam war. a were conducted over 10 years. i would offer up a war is being conducted on the united states now. irregular war, and china is playing a part. because the fentanyl came from
china, given to the mexican drug cartels. and that is what is killing americans. sebastian: your point is taken. but it is not afghanistan or china, but absolutely. that can factor into the strategic analysis in a nations import to america. but to say that afghanistan or china is. it is a form of warfare, absolutely. next question. >> one of the many rackets china is running is getting developing countries deeply indebted and then going to world banking organizations like the imf, or , which arervices then subsidized by the united states and other organizations. meaning that we are paying for china to install itself, particularly military bases.
can you address what our options may be to address that cycle? sebastian: i think the presidents asia trip is an indication of what we will do. i spoke to various representatives in the region. the victims of fake news are everywhere. fake news is not just a domestic phenomenon. in asia and europe, they actually believe some of the things they say that the president. what they continue to do is reassure our friends. to give them in another scenario by which to plan their future. australia,ok at china is literally buying australian members of parliament.
there are scandals that have erupted where people have found to be basically taking massive loans from individuals and corporations linked to the politburo in beijing. what the president is doing is saying that your long-term future is not tied to these actors and you need to stop worrying. he went to small countries to reassure them that america is back. with regards the broader issues beyond diplomacy, what the president has done to those who are paying attention, the west coast and silicon valley have not fully internalized it. but they are sending a clear message. we are not going to facilitate the rise of a militant china. i go back to google. to open theed world's most powerful preeminent artificial intelligence research facility.
but not in politics, but in cambridge massachusetts. in beijing. the arguments that the president is breaking down is the one that kissinger sold us many moons ago. that's an economic liberalization of a dictatorship must be followed by political liberalization. it is not sure. that you demonstrated can economically become a complete powerhouse and be just as you were before. so it is breaking those myths that will be very important, because we cannot continue to facilitate the rise of china. over here, this gentleman. assuming that what will happen in november is actually going to change congress.
assuming the congress the administration winds up with is a little less shy and retiring and more cooperative, you have any opinion on what initiatives the administration may push? >> more initiatives? in regards to what issue? >> that is what i am asking. what issues with a attempt to get through. sebastian: the wall. the president is never going to back down from the wall. the prototypes have been chosen, small-scale building is being done. but it must be financed by the hill. moreld expect to see policies implemented with regards to china as well. i would see more action with regards to iran.
more targeted sanctions, not just against the regime am of the key, individuals, and organizations. that is the only section that really works. not by a general sanction on aluminum, it is by making sure that his best buddy can't go ski. that really hurts dictators, when you make the travel of their friends difficult. me, the keyor metric, is the wall. if you want to get political, i have a very disturbing metric about capitol hill. how many hundreds of republican congressmen are there, hundreds. how many have supported him? seven. you can all live with a are. are.ow who they hundreds.
this is their president, as much as it is ours. but these are gop politicians and he is a gop president. so there is a massive disconnect, and what november doesbe a test of is capitol hill understand that donald trump won the election despite the republican party. not because. [applause] if they understand that, they will do well. because politics have changed irrevocably. that is why poland does not work anymore. -- polling does not work. there is no trend donald trump has not broken. he took the old way of doing business, shredded it up, and then jumped up and down on it. realize, that is the
question. thank you so much. i don't have a question, just more of a message for our president. from many ofthanks us who are pro-life. and we want to thank him for his major statement at the last pro-life rally, defending the unborn. we won'tal opinion is seek peace on earth until we and violence in the womb. the other thing i wanted to bring up is a work for the university of virginia and was so proud of president trump bringing back on a warm beer to be with his parents. and don't have the irony of this last weekend, where there is all this outrage about heather
hyers. who was not even hit by a car. there is not all this controversy about auto being taken to jail in korea. and yet, there are all these protests and stuff over another person. but please, thanks to the president for many of us. sebastian: anymore questions? on anything? >> if i may. however powerful the united states may be in conventional terms, which is why the threats we face are not calculated and are asymmetric. iran,missiles and china,
and the satellite missiles. instruments they disable the effectiveness. could you comment on that issue. sebastian: i wrote an article before i went to the white house that you can find online. it is called how america will be attacked. russia, and china's use of irregular warfare. you are absolutely right. anybody who deigns or dares to attack us conventionally will be crushed in nanoseconds. it is just stating a fact.
we have 12 nuclear aircraft carriers. 12. do you know how many china has? powered that it bought secondhand from ukraine. you would have to literally be suicidal to get into a stand up over conventional engagement. do not say the u.s. navy, because they are so excited about going to war. it is not going to happen. and the air force wants dogfights like top gun. it's not happening. but because of that disparity in our capacity conventionally, it is not just terrorists that use a regular means. -- a regular means. all of the other nations have used a regular means already. look at crimea.
they wrote a report on russians use of hybrid warfare. i do not agree with the phrase hybrid warfare, but what they documented in the analysis, think about this, those who do not understand paint crimea as the ukrainian government negotiate with the eu, and suddenly flat had to do. it is documented in the open source, russia's operation to take crimea was cracked for about 9-10 years before they deploy the men. they were co-opting, writing, and otherwise subverting he offices of the defense ministry, the interior ministry, and ukrainian politicians for almost a decade to make it possible for them to swoop in. that is our regular -- i rregular. if you look at what china is
doing, you can download the whole book. two senior colonels in the chinese system. they wrote the book unrestricted warfare. warfare is theirare guide on how you take down. if you are david, have you take down the line. they have written a boat with a -- book with it. you have to be careful with chinese open source publications, but amongst the propaganda is interesting doctrine on how you treat conflict. the key similarity between the russians and the chinese, they have different philosophical when it comes to as a strategic attitude, both nations see war as a permanent state of being. that is not how the pentagon thinks.
what have this beautiful phase zero, phase one, phase seven operations. we go to war, it is like ordering off the list. our adversaries look at war as a way of life. are always at war. sometimes it is economic sometimes political, sometimes it is assassinating somebody with a chemical weapon, that is war as well. your point, we need to do exactly what we did in the 1940's and 50's. where is jim hannibal? one thing that jim can attest to , and i'm going to get a congressman to do this. i want a survey, because they spent years in the jp system, i
was a professor. of all theee a list professional military academies and staff colleges and war colleges in america. and i want to see what courses ,re taught on chinese warfare pakistan warfare, russian warfare. like until you that when i was in the system, it was a very short list. potomacd examine the with courses on the balkan wars or peloponnesian. stuff that is actually relevant to our guys today, not so much. the sub strategic level, if you go to places like the special warfare school. it is low. so we need to get back to knowing the enemy.
any more questions? >> we would like to leave sometime for books before we have to close. please forgive me if there is not time for further questions. thank you for coming tonight. >> today the white house announced the president has revoked the security clearance for former director john brennan. sarah sanders made the announcement and explained the reasoning he hide it at her daily briefing. afternoon.
i would like to begin by reading a statement from the president. as the head of the executive branch and commander-in-chief, i have the unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nations classified information, including by controlling access. today, in fulfilling that responsibility, i've decided to revoke the security clearance of john brennan. former head of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their government service so that they can consult with their successors regarding matters about which they may have special insight and as a professional courtesy. neither of these justifications supports his continued access to classified information. at this point in my administration, any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with mr. brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his
erratic conduct and behavior. has conduct and behavior tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due. that call intoy question his objectivity and credibility. in 2014, he denied to congress that cia officials under his supervision had improperly accessed to the computer files of congressional staffers. he told the council of foreign relations that the cia would never do such a thing. the inspector general, however, contradicted him directly. concluding unequivocally that officials had indeed improperly accessed congressional staffer files. recently, he told congress that the intelligence to the did not make use of the so-called steel dossier in an assessment regarding the 2016 election. an assertion contradicted by at least two other officials in the intelligence community.
additionally, mr. brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts, about this administration. mr. brennan's line and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly the mostent to access closely held secrets. broadly, the issue raises questions about former officials maintaining access to our nation's most sensitive secrets long after their time in government has ended. is particularly inappropriate when officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate political attacks. any access granted to our nation's secret should be in
furtherance of national interest. to this reason, i have begun review the more general question of access to classified information. review, i amis evaluating action with respect to the following individuals. james clapper, james going, michael haiti, sally gates, stroke, andpeter security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked. and those who have already loss clearance may not be able to have it reinstated. it is for the foregoing reasons i have exercised my constitutional authority to deny mr. brennan access to classified information. will direct appropriate step of the national security council to make the necessary arrangements with the appropriate agencies to implement this determination. with that, i will take your questions. >> i want to ask, but first a follow-up on that. it seems like everybody you
mentioned has been a political critic of the president. is he going after political opponents? >> know, there were others that we deemed necessary. we can certainly take a look. you can watch the rest of today's briefing at our website c-span.com --.org. at 8 p.m. on c-span, senators joni ernst enters pearson gillibrand at the senate finance committee on paid family leave. we have been exploring how new parents could elect to receive a benefit to social security. in return for receiving benefits , participants would be for the collection of their social security benefits upon retirement. through the working complexities, but i am hopeful we can craft a policy that will benefit most families and those who need it the most. >> the family act is really affordable.
it is about the cost of a cup of coffee a week, for you, and your employer. two dollars a week on average for all employees. is not a great deal of money to know that if your mother is dying, you can be by her side. if you have an incident, you can be there. >> on friday at 8 p.m., maggie haberman talks about covering the trump white house. >> the relationship between this white house and the press is, as i said, more and less of what you see. whether it is sean spicer or sarah sanders on television. they are combative, they are often futile seeming. and they have transitioned from what has always been a typically adversarial nature media covering government into something more openly hostile. >> watch on c-span and c-span.org and listen on the free app. sunday night at 8 p.m.
eastern, historian john furling talks about his book apostles of resolution, jefferson, pain, monro, and the struggle against the old order in america and europe. >> if they could come back and and see thatoday the most important play on broadway now and for the past several years is a play that hamilton andxander vilifies jefferson and ignores paybne. and could see the amount distribution of wealth in the united states, the amount of money that suffuses american politics today. fear that manyor of these things that are going on in the united states today bore an uncanny resemblance to the england that they had revolted against. at 8 p.m.night
eastern, on c-span's q and a. congressman michael capuano who represents massachusetts seventh district faces a primary challenge boston city councilmember ayana presley. that election will be hand all september 4 -- held on september 4. they discuss health care, justice reform, and president trump. >> the final debate between incumbent u.s. congressman michael capuano and challenger ayanna pressley. it is the final chance for the two democrats to make their chance for the voters in an of action that is drawing national attention.