American Umpire (2015) - full transcript

Since World War II,
the United States of America

has been involved in
more foreign conflicts

than any other nation.

Presidents of both
political parties

have told us the United States

must umpire the
world's conflicts,

and that if the U.S.
does not do this job,

the world will not be safe.

- The international
system that was set up

at the end of World War II

is not functioning
as well as it should.



I think that the
world is fragile.

- If the United
States steps back

from the historic role we
placed since World War II,

the world will come
apart at the seams.

Yet the costs
of leadership are high.

In a world of rich nations,

why does the U.S. have
to shoulder this burden,

mostly alone?

- We made it very difficult

for other countries
to play a role,

because they don't
see the need to.

They know that we'll do it.

- American allies
are very, very adept

at telling the Americans
arguments as to why



the Americans must do
this, must do this project.

If you don't do it, no one
will, and the world will end.

- Why are we acting as
the world's policeman?

And I think the American
public really would like

to have an answer
to that question.

In this
hour, we will examine

the history and the future

of America's military
commitment abroad.

U.S. troops have been
coming home for generations.

Home from deployments abroad,

home from war.

Some reunions are joyful.

Others are filled with sorrow.

How did the security
of the entire globe

become the responsibility
of the United States?

- Well, I think that the
part that's interesting

about being the U.S., frankly,

is you're damned if you
do or damned if you don't.

- I know the American
people must ask

at the end of the Cold War

when we so
spectacularly succeeded,

and the Soviet Union collapsed,

and all of these great
new democracies were born,

why did we have to keep going?

Elizabeth Cobbs
is a professor and author

who's researched this
tangled question.

For 25 years she has
taught the history

of U.S. foreign relations

at universities in
America and abroad.

She's studied policy

and talked with
those who made it.

- The Chinese feel that
they have been maligned

and disrespected.

She asked the question,

"If democracy is spread
all around the world,

"why do we have to
keep defending it?

"Why do we volunteer when
other democracies don't?"

- I've asked this question
of myself and others

for many decades.

So I began to think that
there was a connection

between the way that
we operate at home,

the way we deal with
relations between the states,

and how we deal with
foreign countries,

and that reminded me
of a word that I found

in the federalist papers.

It was the word umpire,

and that made me
think about baseball.

You can't play baseball
without umpires.

They make the calls,

they decide what's
foul and what's fair,

who's safe and who's out.

- Out!

- The founders understood
that politics operate

at a lot like team sports.

The 13 states were very, very
different from one another,

and it could be a nightmare

to get them to play together,

and so what they devised when
they wrote up the constitution

was a federal umpire

to keep the states cooperating,

to prevent war between them,

to take down tariff
walls between them,

to impose a kind of
common citizenship.

The states were
not always willing

to reach that common compromise,

or to accede to the rules,

and so that's why an
umpire plays a crucial role

in the early days
of the republic.

- This had never really been
tried before in world history.

The idea of taking states
and putting them together

without one of them
trying to clobber

or conquer or rule
over the others,

but rather using a kind
of cooperative go between,

an umpire to keep
peace among them.

The system
wasn't perfect.

The Civil War was the
bloodiest conflict

in our nation's history.

But most problems were
solved without violence.

With an affective
federal umpire,

and big protective oceans,

the U.S. grew strong.

By 1890, the United States
enjoyed domestic peace,

and the world's largest economy.

War torn Europe was different.

It had no enforcer
of common rules,

and no common market.

There, bloody conflicts
repeatedly surfaced.

- The last thing
the founders wanted

was to get drawn into
Europe's continual conflicts,

and so they came up with
three basic principles

of American foreign policy

that guided foreign
policy for 150 years.

The first rule of
American foreign policy

was often called
Washington's great rule,

and it was the idea
that the United States

would always be
a neutral nation.

The great
rule of conduct for us,

in regard to foreign nations,

is in extending our
commercial relations,

to have with them

as little political
connection as possible.

- He said that we
should have economic

and trade relations
with countries,

but we should try to avoid

becoming drawn into
their politics.

- We were neutral, we
were reflexively neutral.

This is an old reflex.

Jefferson and Madison
had done it too

in the Napoleonic era.

United States
entered into treaties

throughout the 19th Century,

but no military alliances.

- The United States not only
wanted no military alliances,

they wanted no military,

and this was the second
founding principle

of the United States.

No standing army.

They didn't want a standing army

because they believed that

it always ate away the
resources of any country,

and that it was always
a threat to liberty.

It's what kings had used
to control the people.

- The idea was that we
would not have a large army.

It could be raised quickly.

Men would pull the musket
down from over the fireplace,

and they would go
off and do their job

then return there.

- We certainly disarmed
after the revolutionary war,

we disbanded the Union
and Confederate forces

for that matter,
after the Civil War.

Samuel Adams said
a standing army

will always be a danger to
the liberties of the people.

This was very different
from European countries

which maintained large armies.

- The Napoleonic wars define
a initial phase of a era

in the history of warfare,

where big industrial states

relied on mass conscription
of their young male citizens.

And the United States, for
almost that entire period,

is the big outlier.

It has no large
scale standing force.

- There was a third
founding principle

of American foreign policy,

and this was the idea
that the United States

should never intervene in
other people's problems,

that they should
solve them themselves.

John Quincy Adams best articulated this on July 4th, 1821.

America goes not
abroad in search of monsters

to destroy.

She is the well wisher
of freedom to everyone,

but she is the vindicator
only of her own.

- This idea that if the
United States goes abroad

and fights on behalf of others,

we will be drawn
into their conflicts,

and their conflicts
become our own,

and overtime that will
sap not only our strength,

but our values, our culture,

what it is that is
appealing to others

that they wish to emulate.

- For the first 150 years
of American foreign policy,

we operated on three principles.

Neutrality, nonintervention
and no standing army.

Sometimes there were
military crises,

but we responded in our own way

and on our own terms.

All the way through World War I.

President Wilson
declared neutrality

two weeks after the
war began in 1914.

America stayed on the sidelines
for nearly three years.

But the catastrophic
war dragged on.

Germany declared unrestricted
submarine warfare

to cut off supplies
to its enemies.

Neutrality frayed.

American merchant
ships were sunk.

The U.S. finally stepped
up to the plate in 1917.

Even then, Wilson made clear

that he wanted no part
of a formal alliance.

- Wilson again honoring the
old isolationist traditions

of his republic,

refused to make
the United States

a formal treaty obligated ally

of his comrades in arms.

The United States was
gonna fight alongside them,

but not exactly with them.

When the war ended,

America brought
every soldier home,

and reduced its
military by 90 percent.

U.S. even hosted the world's
first disarmament conference

to prevent future wars.

The major powers agreed to
destroy their own battleships.

Army bombers sank
the USS Virginia

off the coast of Cape Hatteras

on a calm morning in 1923.

- So, after World War I,

the United States did
what it had always done,

which was to return to
its founding principles.

The 1920s was a
very sunny decade,

and the United
States could afford

to ignore problems abroad.

Also, it had its own traditions,

which was a tradition
of neutrality

and not getting involved
in other people's problems.

Then almost
overnight, everything changed.

Stocks crashed, The Great
Depression swept the world.

- In The Great Depression,
countries like Japan,

Germany and Italy,

their leaders told their people

that the only way they
could restore prosperity

was through conquest.

And so Italy attacked
North Africa.

Japan attacked China.

Germany conquered almost
all of western Europe.

And the basis of
this was the idea

that only through conquest

could you really get the
resources you needed.

Now Americans, again, more
than ever wanted to stay

as far away from
that as possible.

- I think that this country
should heed the advice

of its first president,

and avoid all foreign
entanglements.

- Let them fight
their own battles.

They mean nothing to us.

- I think we should stay
out of this entirely.

Congress passed
five neutrality laws,

each stricter than the next.

But neutrality frayed again,

as the war got closer
and closer to home.

Britain alone
stood up to Hitler.

We shall
fight on the beaches,

we shall fight in the
fields and in the streets.

We shall never surrender.

In a last ditch effort
to stay out of the fight

and advert another world war,

President Roosevelt sent
letters to Hitler and Mussolini,

asking them to respect
the independence

and sovereignty of 33 countries.

To Adolf Hitler, this
message was a huge joke.

He recited the 33
names to the Reichstag.

From Sweden and Denmark
down to Iraq and Palestine.

The arrogant Nazis
merely laughed.

This was their only
answer to Roosevelt.

At the time,
the U.S. army ranked 19th in size in the world,

behind Portugal.

Congress reluctantly
approved a peacetime draft.

Our military had so few weapons

that some GIs trained
with wooden guns

and pretend tanks.

They substituted bags
of flower for bombs.

When Japan bombed the U.S.
Naval Base at Pearl Harbor

on December 7th, 1941,

and Germany declared
war on the U.S.,

America could remain
neutral no longer.

- Yesterday, December 7th, 1941,

a date which will
live in infamy,

the United States of America

was suddenly and
deliberately attacked

by naval and air forces
of the empire of Japan.

There is no blinking at the fact

that our people, our territory

and our interests
are in grave danger.

We will gain the
inevitable triumph

so help us God.

British Prime Minister,
Winston Churchill said,

he went to bed and
slept the sleep

of the saved and thankful.

American military
help was on the way.

Resistance fighters
in occupied France

took courage as well.

- I grew up with a mother

who got into the underground
resistance movement

when she was 19.

She got arrested.

She was able to escape
and welcome the arrival

of the American troops,

just west of Paris.

And my mother
always told me that

when things really
look bad, really,

there is America.

Working together, the
allies gradually won the war,

and began to talk about
how to win the peace,

how to break the cycle
of repeated wars.

- Some rather brilliant
people looked back,

and what did they see?

They saw two world wars, 70
million people were killed.

- The World War II generation
looked around and said

it's a pretty crummy world.

We've just fought a second
world war in 20 years,

we have no way of
really settling issues

short of warfare,

so they established
the United Nations,

they went to Bretton Woods

and came up with
a monetary system.

Delegates from 44
allied and associate countries

arrived for the opening
of the United Nations

monetary and
financial conference.

Invited by President Roosevelt

to the first major
world financial meetings

since the London
conference of 1933,

to be discussed are plans

for the stabilization
of world currency.

- So they created
an architecture

that had the purpose of
creating a more peaceful world

where part of the formula
was that everybody

was succeeding economically.

So the premise was that we
were more secure in a world

where there was less potential
for a sort of conflict.

- The idea behind
the United Nations

was that of economic and
political cooperation,

and the United States
had no notion at all

of leaving its military behind,

and in so, in fact,
the assumption was

that we would do
what we had done

after every other single war,

which is to bring
our military home.

- Maintaining a large ground
force occupying Europe

and trying to straighten out

all the centuries of
European problems and so on

was not something that
they could easily imagine,

especially Roosevelt and to a
certain degree Truman as well

did not anticipate a globe-girdling military establishment.

But the
world was not stable.

Shell-shocked countries
in Europe and Asia

did not trust their
former enemies.

In addition, the Soviet Union

became increasingly aggressive,

setting up police states
on its western borders,

and pressuring
Turkey to the south.

When a communist backed
civil war broke out

next door in Greece,

London called
Washington for help.

- Britain was a kind of
lynch pin in southern Europe,

and they were there
protecting the peace,

and what happened is
they called up Washington

and said we're broke, we
can't do this anymore.

We are pulling out,

and if you want
Greece not to fall,

and which, of course,
if Greece fell

then Italy could fall,

and if Italy fell then
France could fall,

and this kind of
effect could cascade,

and so the United States
would put on notice

that if it didn't want a return

to an incredibly
destabilizing war,

that it would have
to do something.

So, what happened is
that Truman did something

he never expected to do,

which was to go
back to the Congress

and say we have to
return to Europe.

Alarmed at
the rapid expansion

of totalitarian interests
in Europe and Asia,

President Truman advances
a joint session of Congress

on our changing foreign policy.

- The very existence
of great state

by the terrorist activities

of several thousand armed men

led by communists.

I believe that it must be the
policy of the United States

to support free peoples

who are resisting
attempted subjugation

by armed minorities or
by outside pressures.

Should we fail to
aid Greece and Turkey

in this fateful hour,

the effect will be far reaching

to the west as well
as to the east.

The free people's of
the world look to us

for support in
maintaining their freedom.

If we falter in our leadership,

we may endanger the
peace of the world,

and we shall surely endanger

the welfare of this nation.

- And this is when the
Cold War really started,

and it not only, the
Cold War started,

but the United States agreed

that it would take
leadership in that war.

And so 1947 is the key
year in American history.

That's the year at which
George Washington's great rule

was replaced by the
Truman doctrine,

and the idea was not only that

the United States would take
leadership in the cold war,

but that it would really
step up to the plate,

and this defines American
history ever since.

Republicans, democrats,

every American
president since 1947

has followed the
Truman doctrine.

- Then the conduct of
U.S. foreign policy

after World War II was
informed by our experience,

our history, as the
umpire between the states

in our early days.

The one crucial
difference though

is that there was no
formal grant of authority

to the U.S. government to behave

as the federal government
did to the states.

- Was the farewell
founded in the Cold War?

Yes, I believe it was.

Was it a relatively simply
argument in the Cold War?

Yes, I believe it was.

There was a single focus,
there was one state,

and that state had
a lot of capability.

The Soviet Union flexed
its growing military power

in a blockade of Berlin,

trying to force its former
allies out of Germany.

West Europeans began to fear

for their own safety once again,

and urged the United
States to help form

the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization

to keep the peace regionally.

We will now proceed

with the signing of the
North Atlantic treaty.

NATO was
America's very first

permanent armed alliance.

- The old joke about NATO was
that it had three purposes.

To keep the Russians
out, the Germans down

and the Americans in.

And in its essence
it did its job.

This four-pointed
star is the emblem of NATO.

- The jackpot question is why

did the economic
reconstruction of Europe

also yield a military
alliance that NATO

which became kind of the point
of the spear you might say

for what some people would
call the militarization

of American
diplomacy ever since,

that we've made a much
bigger bet on our military

as an instrument of
policy since World War II,

then I think the
architects of World War II

fully understood or foresaw.

Following NATO,
America gradually signed

defense alliances with
countries around the world.

Militaristic Germany and Japan
became peaceful democracies.

Encouraged by the U.S.,
they changed their focus

from territorial conquest
to economic development.

As historian Josef
Joffe has written,

the Germans found it
was more profitable

to polish their BMWs
than their jackboots.

- All of western Europe
benefited enormously

by the American sponsor order

because for the first time
in its bloody history,

you know, 500 years of war,

there was suddenly a
player in the game,

and who can protect
each against the other.

So this grand experiment
of European integration

where these arch enemies,
France and Germany,

suddenly link hands,

would not have been possible

without big brother
standing behind them,

ensuring each against
the risks of cooperation.

- Commerce followed where
that stability was imposed,

imposed by the Americas.

During the years
of the Truman doctrine,

nation states gradually
replaced empires.

The UN grew from 51 to
nearly 200 countries.

- What happened with the UN

was that every
country in the world

singed onto the premise

that a country deserved
the right to exist,

that every country had
the right to exist,

and that was absolutely
revolutionary

in all world's history.

- The great lesson of
American foreign policy

in the last 70 years

is that we've created in a
sense these global norms,

these global laws that basically
most countries adhere to.

I mean, that's the
great accomplishment.

Countries don't see much
purpose in seizing territory

from other countries.

- We had a security
and economic commons,

that was put there with
a lot of leadership

from the United States.

That doesn't mean we told
people here's this and this.

But when the United
States comes with ideas

and researches in a
problem solving way,

there's a response.

Economists
describe the second half

of the 20th Century
as the golden age.

Trade boomed, gradually
even communist countries

came to accept free markets
and world cooperation

as a faster, safer
route to prosperity

than dominating their neighbors.

The Berlin wall fell.

The moment Berliners have waited 28 years for.

The Cold War ended.

- So, when the Cold War ended,

the question became
should the United States

continue to exercise the
kind of emergency role

it had been playing
for 70 years.

How can you normalize this
world security system,

and is it time to
share the burden?

- The Truman doctrine guided
American foreign policy

from the end of World
War II into the 1990s,

and since 1991, the demise
of the Soviet Union,

and the ending of the Cold War,

the United States
has really wrestled

with the question
of what the next

overarching doctrine will be.

The United States

hasn't really come to terms
with developing a doctrine

for the long-term.

It's a fair question to say do
we need more burden sharing.

- Europe, as an economy,

is about the same size
as the United States.

So, it's not reasonable

to have one of them
providing the lion's share

of the basic
advancement and security

and the other one sort
of free riding on it.

- It's pretty obvious
that the Europeans

don't do enough.

- 95 percent of all
foreign soldiers

and sailors, airmen,
marines in the world

deployed outside
of their countries,

they're Americans.

When it comes
to world security,

the United States supplies
the cash, equipment and lives.

- American leadership thought
it would be front loaded

with a lot of American aid
to get things up and running,

and then the Europeans

would largely run the
show for themselves.

That hope is gone
absolutely unfulfilled

for now three generations,

and there's been a constant
badgering of the Europeans

over many years

to pay their fair share.

- Very frustrating for anybody

in our national
security community

to be working with NATO.

We're spending 4.5 percent
of our GDP on defense,

and the vast majority

of our allies in NATO
are spending two percent,

less than two percent,

one percent.

- Every year the
defense secretary

gives the speech to Brussels,

says contribute more,

and every year the European
defense ministers they'll clap

and they'll sort of say,
yes, that's a great point,

and they won't do it.

If we step back, will the
Europeans actually increase

the military
contribution to NATO.

They might.

They will to see themselves
as staging a threat,

but that's the big point.

They don't see themselves
as facing a threat.

There a reason they
don't spend money

on their military,

because they know
they live in a region

of great peace and security,

and they have a great
ally in the United States

who will help defend them

when they need to be defended

if that ever happens.

- We need NATO that
varies an interplay

between America saying okay,
we're still going to be there,

but hey, it costs so much.

And the Europeans should cover
basically more of the costs.

- We have to be very blunt
with other countries.

We cannot carry the
full burden for this,

and America has no
moral obligation

to do the impossible.

If what we're going to
do is break the bank

of every American tax payer,

if what we're going to do
is put our boys in the mud

to do what they
need to also have

their boys do alongside us,

then this is something
that can't be sustained.

It's not sustainable, it's
not manly for their countries

not to man up and
carry their own share.

- Their economies are
benefited from the fact

that they don't have to
pay for national defense.

We've been doin' it since '46,

so that's a long time.

Why would you suddenly expect
the Germans and the Italians

to say, oh, forget
that, let's pay now.

I just don't see it.

I don't see any European country

that would be prepared to
sacrifice any pension payments

to increase defense.

And their view is we can do it.

- There was real
hope and excitement

at the end of the Cold War,

that the United States
could begin to stand down,

and that the Europeans
would take upon themselves

their own security,

and the first test was
the breakup of Yugoslavia,

the Balkans.

And when a terrible
civil war broke out

that resulted in the
absolute slaughter

of muslim civilians

and all different
kinds of people,

ethnic cleansing.

What happened in the Balkans

was that the Europeans sent
witnesses and advisors,

but they were not
willing to use force.

They were not really willing
to put their men in harm's way.

- When President Clinton
came into office,

Bosnia was going on,

and the idea was
that it was Europe,

the Europeans should
deal with Bosnia.

Why should we get
involved in it?

The first President
Bush had said

he wanted to see a Europe
that was whole and free

and a peace.

One of my predecessors,
Secretary Baker,

had kind of indicated why
should the U.S. do this.

We would be getting reports

about the ethnic cleansing,

and people being
displaced and ravaged

and women being raped,

and terrible horrors going
on all over the place.

And one after another
people would come

to the different
ambassadors and say,

why aren't you people
doing something?

Because, ultimately,
we needed to deal with

what was unacceptable.

The statute of
limitations on war crimes

does not run out,

and it would have been
better if the Europeans

had done it,

but they weren't doing it.

- Back in the '90s,

I did a series of
lecture tours of Germany.

This was when the Balkans
were coming apart.

I remember in one forum
where a German asked me,

he said what is you
guys gonna do about

what's going on in Kosovo.

I said a lot of people
in the United States

wanna know what
are you gonna do.

They say it's in your backyard,

why are you looking
to us across the ocean

to solve your problem.

- We have been
touched by tragedy.

Yet, President
Clinton was ultimately

forced to intervene
in the Balkans.

He called the United States
the indispensable nation.

- America stands alone as the
world's indispensable nation.

- Historically, Americans have
always valued self-reliance.

It's one of our
fundamental values.

And we've created a situation

in which Europeans and other
allies are dependent on us.

And that's not
healthy for anybody.

- We have accumulated so much
global power to ourselves,

that we've made it very
difficult for other countries

to play a role,

because they don't
see the need to,

they know that we'll do it.

So I think this
indispensable nation talk

ends up driving a foreign
policy of constant activity,

and also of defining
your interests

in the broadest
manner imaginable.

- The notion of the
indispensable nation

is fraught is many,
many respects.

It conveys the notion to others

that they don't have
to pull up their socks

and handle their
own problems, right,

so, ah, you're right,
you are indispensable.

Come over here and be
indispensable for me,

and I can divert another
percent of my GDP

to building schools or roads

or any number of other things,

which I might not do if
I had to defend myself.

Valdimir Putin denies

knowing who the gunmen are.

- Russia gets
obstreperous in Ukraine.

These troops
were happy to tell me

they were Russian...

- A Russian.

- And what happens?

The Europeans run around

like chickens with
their heads cut off,

and they wait for the
Americans to show up.

The president announces
that he's gonna find

another billion dollars
in exercise money.

So I'm listening for

the chorus of Europeans saying
yes, and we will match that.

Yes, we will find
500 million dollars,

yes, we will do
much of anything.

But these are rich countries.

This is welfare for the rich.

Americans don't understand
they're providing welfare

for the rich abroad,

and you should scratch
your head about that.

We keep them as children
or as teenagers.

- The shared
responsibility is not good.

It creates a culture
of dependency.

Dependency is always dangerous.

However, it seems to be
pleasure both to the parent

and to the child.

- Nobody likes dependency,

and no parent wants a kid
in their basement at age 30.

We want them to grow up
and be self-sufficient.

Polls show important
shifts in U.S. public opinion.

Recently, for the
first time since 1960,

the majority of Americans
agreed it's time

to let other countries
get along on their own.

Polls also reveal
a generation gap.

Young people say the government

should focus on
reducing our deficit.

Older people believe we should
prioritize military spending.

- I think what this younger
generation has concluded

in the two wars that
they lived through

didn't yield the results
in terms of gains

for the national interests
that made them worth while.

- I'm not a dove.

You know, I supported
the gulf war,

and I supported drone
strikes, for example.

But these wars just seemed,
for lack of a better term,

so stupid and so unnecessary,

and so undermining
of U.S. security.

I couldn't anybody
could possibly

think they were a good idea.

I hope that this
generations of Americans

will sort of say, no, no moss,

we don't wanna do this anymore.

- I think it's very hard
if you are a young American

to figure the United States is
spending so much on defense,

and is building hospitals
and schools and roads

around the world,

and schools and roads and
hospitals are in poor shape

in the United States in
many parts of the country

and there is real poverty.

- They see correctly that
much of the rest of the world

free rides on us.

We're the ones who tend
to take an active role,

sacrifice our soldiers and
our equipment, et cetera.

And so it's a frustration.

It's the sense we
gotta do these things,

but damn it, I'm
not happy about it.

American
spends more on defense

that Europe, Russia
and China combined.

We outclass the world
in military might,

but have lost our
lead in other arenas.

Around the time America
adopted the Truman doctrine,

we had the highest per
capita income in the world.

Today, we rank 17th.

- If we could save some money,

if we could avoid some wars,

are there problems at home

that we could commit
those resources to.

Some people would like to return
that money to the taxpayer,

because they think
taxes are too high,

and it's basically
corrosive American liberty.

Some people would
like to use that money

to improve the
educational system,

because they think
human capital,

better human capital is
the key to American success

in the out years.

Some people look at
American infrastructure

and scratch their heads and say,

this is in such bad shape

that it's gotta be actually

an inimical to our
economic efficiency.

Beyond the
short term costs

are long-term costs.

The peak year for
disability payments

to World War I
veterans was 1969.

The peak year for
World War II veterans

was 1986.

For Vietnam, the costs
are still rising.

The current estimate for the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

is four trillion dollars.

The financial aftermath
strains our budget.

With lower defense costs,

Europeans can give priority

to things like education.

- Our schools are
not competitive

with the people that we're
providing military for.

The U.S. trails
18 other countries

in terms of high
school completion,

but we're way behind in
terms of what kids learn,

and this is a real problem.

In the past we've been
able to rely on having

such a high skilled labor force,

and we are facing a world
that is very different,

where our competitors
are moving ahead of us

in fundamental ways.

America's
future leaders,

in business as well as politics

graduate college deeply in debt.

Education!

When
do we want it?

Now!

What do we want?

Education!

When do we want it?

In contrast
with students elsewhere.

- European students
don't pay tuition.

- We do not have a case of
students getting out of school

highly in debt.

- I travel all
around the country

talking with people
about this question,

and most people wanna know

is it time, is it possible
for us to draw back down

on our overseas commitments,

and there are two
sides to the debate,

and the side that we
hear often the most

is that it's too dangerous.

That if we don't do
this, no one else will.

- The United States
learned a very hard lesson

on September 11th.

That the real threats
to us were really

not necessarily from big powers,

but rather from failed states.

The terrorists of 9-11,

Al Qaeda came from Afghanistan,

the fifth poorest
country in the world.

- I do think that
the world is fragile.

I think that the
international system

that was set up at the
end of World War II

is not functioning
as well as it should.

- If the United States steps
back from the historic role

we played since World War II,

the world will come
apart at the seams.

- We have to maintain
some form of ready forces

in a world where time zones

have shrunk due to air
travel, sea travel,

and certainly in an age
when a couple of nuts

can cause industrial
level damage.

So, what you wanna
do with strategy

is set up shock absorbers

so you have the
fewest big regrets

when the surprise hits,

because there will
always be surprises.

Always.

- I'm the one in France who
said on the evening of 9-11,

today we are all Americans.

People thought generally that
it was a show of solidarity,

but I meant also
we're all targets,

and that's really
the way I still feel.

To me, our world is not stable.

- When you're under
the kind of pressure

that we faced after
September 11th,

every day after seems
like September 12th,

you go to work thinking that

something's gonna pop out
of a door, another attack,

another spate of violence.

Would I like to see Europe
in particular spend more

on its defense?

Absolutely.

It's an outrage
that the Europeans

have allowed their
military forces to decline

to the level that they have.

But I'm also not willing to
stake the security of the globe

and American security

on the hope that
they're going to do so.

If they don't, then we'll
just have to step forward.

- But the point is, I don't see

who's gonna step in and do it.

Who's gonna do it?

So, is it fair?

No.

Great nations pay a
price for bein' great.

That's one of 'em.

But there
is growing concern

that America is on
the wrong track.

Some say threats have
been exaggerated.

Security needs are
different from before,

and policies should be
recalculated in response.

- We need to
fundamentally rethink

the international
security architecture over

which we presided.

Now, for about
three generations.

Europe seems, by
historical centers,

quite stable and really
not a source of threat

to the stability of, the
security of this country

or the stability of
the world at large.

- War between France
and Germany or Britain

is simply, absolutely
inconceivable.

Relations with
Russia remain tense.

But Russia is not
the Soviet Union.

It's a smaller country.

Today, Germany, France,
Britain and even Italy

have bigger economies
than Russia.

- It's not the only country
with nuclear weapons in Europe,

it's certainly not
the only country

that could fighter planes.

The Russians on their best day,

probably themselves
could only put

about 10 divisions in the field.

They've got problems everywhere.

- I expect better
of policy makers

who say that we live in
the most dangerous time

in their lifetime

or the most dangerous
time in world history.

That's not true.

It feels that way sometimes,

if you don't make a
conscious decision

to actually think
about where we were

20 years ago or 40 years ago.

Or 60 years ago.

And I think if we allow those
fears to dictate our policy,

it will lead to us taking steps

and doing things
that in retrospect

we will regret.

- Americans are more
likely to be killed

by their furniture

than they are by a terrorist.

They're more likely to be killed

by a TV falling on top of them,

or falling in the bathtub.

We focus on the terrible things

that happened in Iraq
or Syria or elsewhere,

and we ignore the reality of
the world that we live in,

which is one of extraordinary
peace and security.

Extraordinary relative
peace and security.

It doesn't mean that
all wars have ended

and there's not still suffering.

But the reality is that we
made extraordinary progress,

and I think recognizing
that reality

is really the most effective way

to have a better foreign policy.

- The question really
is are we over doing it.

Is there more military
spending happening

than America needs to ensure
its safety, secure, and safety,

its territorial integrity.

Are we spending more,
are we doing more?

I believe that we could
spend less, do less,

and spend those resources
on something else.

So why
don't we spend less?

Has fear gotten
the better of us?

- Fear serves pretty much

the entire national security
infrastructure if you will.

It serves politicians,
it serves pundits,

it serves defense contractors.

Human rights organizations...

Everybody sort of
has an advantage

in escalating the
sense of a fear,

because it allows us

to devote more attention
to their issue.

Everything in foreign policy
discussions in this country

drives us to a position
of more activity.

- American allies
are very, very adept

at telling the Americans

arguments as to why the
Americans must do this,

must do this project.

If you don't do it, no one will,

and the world will end.

Well, the Americans
should basically say,

the world will end for
us or for you, right,

and if the world
will end for you,

then I actually think
that you will do more

if you have to do more.

There are also many
problems that an outside force

simply cannot solve.

In these cases,
military intervention

can make things worse.

If we've learned anything
from the major interventions

that we've made since World
War II in Korea, Vietnam,

Iraq and Afghanistan,

no matter how much military
muscle and might we can muster,

our ability to really
rearrange the political culture

and institutions of
foreign societies

is very, very limited.

- The intervention in Iraq,

I have to classify that

as just a catastrophic
foreign policy failure.

It's the best military
that's ever been fielded

in the span of world history.

It is Thor's hammer,

but the problem
that you have then,

is see, Thor's hammer is there,

and then every problem
that you look at globally,

it's a nail to be dealt
with by Thor's hammer.

And the costs are severe

when we are engaged
in an intervention

that's not well
politically informed.

- One of the things we know

is that self aware,
politically self aware groups

really rankle at
governments by outsiders.

And even the impression of
governments by outsiders.

They just don't like it.

- And basically, as I
look back over these wars

into World War II,
Korea, Vietnam,

Iraq, dear I say Afghanistan,

stick Somalia in
there somewhere,

other expeditions.

When America goes to war with
murky political end states,

then you end up in a situation

where you are trying
to do something right,

but you're not sure if
it's the right thing,

and suddenly you end
up with a situation

where the American people
say what are we doing here,

and what kind of people are we

that we do this sort of thing.

If you don't know what it is
that you're going to achieve,

then don't be surprised
that eventually

you've wasted treasure, lives,

and the moral authority
of the United States.

- When we discuss
threats abroad,

often the first argument
is that the Americans

have to go somewhere
and do something.

People forget that the
United States of America

has big oceans to
the left and right,

and we can put many,
many layers of defense

between us and trouble,

which means that we should
think very, very carefully

before we go out to try
and meet the trouble,

to lance the boil the
cauterize the wounds,

'cause it turns out that

these kinds of
offensive strategies,

necessary in some cases,

are nevertheless quite
fraught, quite expensive.

- Where do we stand 70 years

since the start of
the Truman doctrine?

Things have changed
dramatically.

World war no longer threatens,

bombed out countries
are now prosperous,

and they are peaceful
and they are strong.

Nations have proliferated.

Some of them are
really poorly governed,

but you can't fix all of
their internal problems

with outside force.

In fact, nobody
can but themselves.

Playing umpire comes with risks.

Umpires struggle
to be impartial.

- You missed him, he's safe!

They become targets.

- We don't want our umpires

to be partisans for
one team or the other.

- He's safe!

- The catcher was in position,
you're out of position.

You've been out of
position the whole game.

Umpires have a
limited field of vision.

They're not always right.

When conflicts arise,
it's good to have company,

and spread out the
responsibility.

In baseball, umpires
back each other up

and share the hotspot.

- And I think the United States

has precisely the same problem
in the internationalist fear,

that the easy cases
aren't the important ones,

it's the hard calls,

and that's where we get
ourselves into trouble.

- We are not the only power.

I think we are still the most
powerful country in the world,

but we are not alone,

and it goes back
to saying initially

that there's nothing in
the word indispensable

that says alone.

The problems that are out there

require cooperation
from other countries

and from international
institutions,

and the question is how
you motivate the others

to participate.

- If you look back on
the last seven years

of American foreign policy,

the most extraordinary
thing that America has done,

had everything to do with
the international system

that we helped create.

We helped create the
World Trade Organization,

geared toward international
peace and security.

Liberal democracies
have to a large extent

become the norm.

How do we improve that?

How would do we
solidify those gains?

- We're aiming for
a more complex world

in which the function that
the United States performed

in the past 70 years

is gonna have to be
performed by cooperation

among major powers,

and they will have to
include China and Europe.

- Are we spending too much,

or carrying a heavier
share of the burden?

We are, but we don't have to.

We do not have to.

We're simply not
doing those things

that could inspire leaders
to take some of the burden

off the Americans.

But there are folks out there

who will stand by us
if we'll just let them.

- Here's what we
think should do.

We're going to give you
the keys to the car,

and it's time for you to basically police the neighborhood,

and it doesn't seem
to be a lot to ask.

I talk a 10-year phenomenon

of handing over the
keys to the car.

This strikes me to be a
fairly conservative glide path

to responsibility.

It seems to me that in 10 years

we could probably get
the Europeans accustomed

to running the show
for themselves.

- We tend to be so self-critical

that we forget about
our accomplishments,

and accomplishments are
what you build upon.

As Washington and
Jefferson understood,

it's our economy and our ideas

that are the foundation
of American liberties,

not the gun.

- When I was the
ambassador in Afghanistan

I had an opportunity
to travel down

to this village in
southern Helmand province

where we had a company
of about 120 marines

who were fighting very hard.

These tribal leaders then
went on a walk with me

around their village,

and they pointed out
a irrigation system

that had been built by USAID,

U.S. Development Agency
in the late '50s and '60s,

they asked me if I knew some
of the peace corps workers

that were there in the 1960s,

and I flew back to
Kabul that night,

I was unable to sleep,

and it came to me.

The sad part was that
none of those marines

will be remembered.

Who was remembered was the
development agency decades ago

that built that
irrigation system.

It was the peace
corps volunteers.

If we're going to
remain influential

and persuasive,

we're going to do it
through our culture,

we're going to do it by
setting good examples.

We need the sword that
the marines and the army

can draw and have to bring
to bear from time to time

in a very dangerous world,

but don't lose sight
of the fact, ever,

that the strength of the
United States of America

is in our political system,

and it's having
a vibrant economy

that helps to persuade
others around the world

to be with the United States.

They set the example,
I wanna be like them.

- I think the policy lead
and the American public

agree on one thing.

They all want the
United States of America

to be a secure state

so that Americans could go
on about their business.

The difference is
in what they think

needs to be done
to achieve that.

Given that immensely
favorable security position

that the United States
enjoys inherently

on this rich and wonderful
and productive continent,

defended by this
fantastic military,

it's not so easy
to make the case

that security problems abroad

are major problems
for the United States.

American people should be
asking hard headed questions.

It's perfectly fine
to ask the question,

what's in it for us?

- We honor those who answer
the call of their country.

They fulfilled the policies
laid out by the presidents

Washington and Truman,

and the world that they
fought for is here.

The first and second phases
of American history are over.

There's no major nation
that threatens the peace

of the entire world

as happened during the Cold War.

Yes, there's terrorism,
and it's a problem,

it's a serious problem but
it's everybody's problem.

So, the question really
becomes how can we best lead.

And good leaders
develop new leaders.

They inspire them and they
hold them responsible.

The stakes are high,

and the time is now.

Our founding fathers understood

that the world needs umpires.

The most stable system
is one that everybody

is prepared to defend,

not just the brave men and
women leaving home today

for distant shores once again.