Speaker 1: One of the president's closest advisors is Jake Sullivan. He
Speaker 1: was the nationals curity advisor and the second youngest person
Speaker 1: to hold that job at the age of forty three.
Speaker 1: I sat down with him recently here in the executive
Speaker 1: office building to discuss a wide range of international issues
Speaker 1: and national security issues affecting the president and our country.
Speaker 1: So let me get right to the heart of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: If I could ask you, is there any chance of
Speaker 1: a resolution in Ukraine matter anytime the foreseeable future? Any
Speaker 1: possibility of a truce or some kind of agreement that
Speaker 1: you think could end this war in the next few
Speaker 1: months or so? You never say never. There's always a
Speaker 1: chance and we've been clear from the beginning that we
Speaker 1: would support a diplomatic solution that vindicated Ukraine's right to
Speaker 1: sovereignty and territorial integrity. But the odds of it in
Speaker 1: the next few months, I think, are quite low. On China,
Speaker 1: the President United States has not met with G G
Speaker 1: Ping for covid related reasons, but there isn't possibility they
Speaker 1: might meet in the upcoming meeting. Do you have any
Speaker 1: plans to have a UM agreement or any kind of
Speaker 1: proposed settlements of any issues that are now ongoing between
Speaker 1: the two countries, or is it just more more or
Speaker 1: less and meet and greet with no advanced planning of
Speaker 1: any great consequence? Well, right now there's no meeting planned but,
Speaker 1: as you say, they will both be in Bali, Indonesia,
Speaker 1: for the g twenty in November and it would afford
Speaker 1: an opportunity for the two of them to sit down
Speaker 1: in person. Actually, despite the fact that they've spent a
Speaker 1: huge amount of time together when Joe Biden was vice president,
Speaker 1: they've not met in person since President Biden became president,
Speaker 1: and that's because Si jimping has basically not left China
Speaker 1: in two years due to covid nineteen. So this would
Speaker 1: be their first real chance to sit face to face
Speaker 1: and talk through the full range of issues in the relationship.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't expect major agreements to come out of that,
Speaker 1: but if they do actually sit and again that's hasn't
Speaker 1: been decided Um, I would expect that we would see
Speaker 1: some progress on some issues where the two countries interest
Speaker 1: DU align. As we talk today, it's come out that
Speaker 1: President Putin will be meeting with President Shei Jiping, most
Speaker 1: likely somewhere in Europe not too long from now. was
Speaker 1: that a surprise to you, and what do you think
Speaker 1: they're going to be talking about? Well, it's not a surprise.
Speaker 1: President she and President Putin have met frequently over the
Speaker 1: course of each of their tenure and in fact President
Speaker 1: Putin went to Beijing earlier this year and met in
Speaker 1: person with president she in February when they rolled out
Speaker 1: this new partnership between the two countries. So I think
Speaker 1: that they'll talk about the full range of issues in
Speaker 1: their relationship. But I would note two things. First, before
Speaker 1: president she goes to Uzbekistan to meet with President Uh
Speaker 1: Putin on the sidelines of another summit, he's going to Kazakhstan,
Speaker 1: and Kazakhstan is a place where actually China and Russia
Speaker 1: compete for influence. So it's an indication that this is
Speaker 1: a relationship not without its complications. And then second, China
Speaker 1: has actually stood back from fully getting in the hind
Speaker 1: the Russians when it comes to their war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: We have not seen them provide large scale support in
Speaker 1: terms of weapons or industrial scale efforts to undermine western sanctions.
Speaker 1: So from our perspective, this relationship is something that bears
Speaker 1: close watching, but again, is not without its complications. As
Speaker 1: we talk, if there's also reports that North Korea is
Speaker 1: selling weapons to Russia, was that a surprise to the administration? Well,
Speaker 1: what it indicates actually is that Russia doesn't have a
Speaker 1: lot of options. It appears to be running short of
Speaker 1: its own munitions. It looks around the world and doesn't
Speaker 1: find a lot of countries willing to sell it munition,
Speaker 1: so it has to look to states like Iran and
Speaker 1: North Korea to get ammunition and other forms of weaponry
Speaker 1: to be able to sustain its conflict in Ukraine. This
Speaker 1: is not, in our view, a demonstration of strength by Russia.
Speaker 1: Now the negotiations with Iran to restore, if that's the
Speaker 1: right verb, the nuclear agreement is ongoing. It's been going
Speaker 1: going for quite some time. Do you see any resolution
Speaker 1: of that in the near future, and not in the
Speaker 1: coming days? Uh, the Iranians have come back with a
Speaker 1: set of counter proposals which we are still taking a
Speaker 1: look at, but it doesn't suggest that an agreement is
Speaker 1: uh imminent right away. That being said, we do believe
Speaker 1: that there still is a pathway to a compliance for
Speaker 1: compliance returned to the J C P O a. We
Speaker 1: will continue to work on that with our partners, particularly
Speaker 1: our European partners, and if Iran is prepared to do
Speaker 1: its part to get back into the J C P
Speaker 1: O A, we stand ready to do so. And as
Speaker 1: we talk, the new Prime Minister of UK has been announced.
Speaker 1: Previously involved in foreign policy. H Have you met her before?
Speaker 1: I have met her before. I've met her here in
Speaker 1: the White House, right down the hall from where we
Speaker 1: are right now, when she was foreign secretary. She's transitioned
Speaker 1: from being essentially their secretary of state to being their
Speaker 1: prime minister and actually just yesterday President Biden had the
Speaker 1: opportunity to have a long phone call with her just
Speaker 1: hours after she had assumed her new position. And do
Speaker 1: you expect any change in the UK US policy as
Speaker 1: a result of her becoming prime minister? At a foundational level? No, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, this is a special relationship. The two of
Speaker 1: them reaffirmed their commitment to the strength and vitality of
Speaker 1: the U S UK alliance and I think on all
Speaker 1: of the major issues, whether it's Russia or China or
Speaker 1: iron you'll see the same kind of Um, deep consultation
Speaker 1: and engagement between the two countries that you've seen before,
Speaker 1: regardless of whose president, regardless of whose prime minister. So
Speaker 1: I don't expect that there will be any fundamental changes
Speaker 1: in the relationship. But you know, there will be issues
Speaker 1: that we have to work through, of course, as there
Speaker 1: always are. Now, as we talk, the U N General
Speaker 1: Assembly will be meeting not too long from now in
Speaker 1: New York, as it does every year. Um, do you
Speaker 1: think the U N has still a useful purpose in diplomacy,
Speaker 1: because it doesn't seem to be able to solve any problems?
Speaker 1: Ongoing war problems that we now see in us are
Speaker 1: Ukraine or Russia. What do you think is the U
Speaker 1: N's main purpose at this point? Well, the UN actually
Speaker 1: has proved its continued effectiveness in actually being able to
Speaker 1: bring about diplomatic agreements in very difficult circumstances. I'll give
Speaker 1: you just two examples from the past few months. First,
Speaker 1: on Russia Ukraine. It was the U N Secretary General,
Speaker 1: Antonio Guterres, who played a central role in getting a
Speaker 1: deal between Russia and Ukraine for the export of grain
Speaker 1: from both Ukrainian ports and Russian ports in the Black Sea.
Speaker 1: That's helping the entire world with respect to lowering food
Speaker 1: prices and expanding access to food stuffs at a critical moment. Second,
Speaker 1: it was a UN mediator, working with our US envoy,
Speaker 1: the Saudis and marats and the Yemenis who helped produce,
Speaker 1: earlier this year, a ceasefire in the war and Yemen,
Speaker 1: which had been the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world.
Speaker 1: That ceasefire is now going on six months, the longest
Speaker 1: period of peace in seven years in Yemen, and the
Speaker 1: UN played a key role in that. So it is
Speaker 1: not without its difficulties and complications. It is a big
Speaker 1: bureaucracy in need of constant reform, but the UN is
Speaker 1: still there on key issues, in diplomacy, in delivering on
Speaker 1: global health, Global Food Security and other issues, and all
Speaker 1: of that will be on display in New York in
Speaker 1: two weeks now. Recently the president made a major speech
Speaker 1: on democracy, and in it he talked about the values
Speaker 1: of democracy, which is large part of our foreign policy,
Speaker 1: which is to promote democracy around the world. Our events
Speaker 1: in the United States or the last year or so
Speaker 1: making it more difficult for the US to stay to
Speaker 1: other countries looking how wonderful our democracy has worked, and
Speaker 1: therefore you should be following some of the things we
Speaker 1: do well. It does require a degree of humility. I
Speaker 1: mean the United States does need to acknowledge that we
Speaker 1: have our own difficulties and challenges within our own democracy,
Speaker 1: even as we tout and promote democratic institutions, rule of
Speaker 1: law human rights around the world. But I think President
Speaker 1: Biden is actually a very good messenger for that, someone
Speaker 1: who can speak honestly and clearly to the American people
Speaker 1: about the strains in our democracy and then someone who
Speaker 1: can speak honestly and clearly to the world about how,
Speaker 1: despite all of its imperfections, democracy remains the best form
Speaker 1: of government for delivering for citizens and for promoting human dignity.
Speaker 1: Let's talk a moment about your own background. You are
Speaker 1: not generally out there promoting your background. It's quite impressive
Speaker 1: and I just want to let people know about it
Speaker 1: a bit. You grew up in Minnesota, that's right, and
Speaker 1: I guess you were a superstar in elementary school, junior
Speaker 1: high school, high school. You're a president of your class,
Speaker 1: President Student Government. Is there anything you failed to do
Speaker 1: in high school that you wanted to do? Well, uh,
Speaker 1: I didn't win all the cross country races that I
Speaker 1: wanted to win. I guess. Yeah, but you went to Yale. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and Yale you must have done. Reasonaly, while you were
Speaker 1: elected as a Rhodes scholar and from Oxford, you later
Speaker 1: came back and went to Yale law school and you
Speaker 1: were a top editor there and became a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: clerk for Justice Brier. So did you, when you're having
Speaker 1: this career, do you ever think that you could make
Speaker 1: a mistake or your career could kind of go off
Speaker 1: the deep end or something, because everything was working out
Speaker 1: perfectly well? It's true that I have had these incredible opportunities,
Speaker 1: but at every one of those stages I went through
Speaker 1: the same fears and growing pains and slip ups and
Speaker 1: stumbles that everybody did. And you know, that was true
Speaker 1: with respect to academic work that was far from perfect.
Speaker 1: It was true with respect to relationships that didn't work out.
Speaker 1: You know, it's I I had what I think was,
Speaker 1: you know, an incredibly lucky childhood and upbringing, but one
Speaker 1: that it was not too different from the way a
Speaker 1: lot of other people who grew up in the Midwest
Speaker 1: in the nineteen eighties and and then, you know, got
Speaker 1: to have these chances. Your father and mother, what did
Speaker 1: they do? So my father worked on the business side
Speaker 1: of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which was the major newspaper
Speaker 1: in Minneapolis. My mother was a teacher and a guidance
Speaker 1: counselor in the Minneapolis public schools. And I'm one of five.
Speaker 1: I'm the second of five kids and we all went
Speaker 1: to the Minneapolis public schools, graduated from Southwest High School.
Speaker 1: And your siblings do they say look, you're too good,
Speaker 1: you're a Rhodes scholar, you're a Yett Law Journal and
Speaker 1: everything are there's no sibling rivalries. I mean actually, I
Speaker 1: would say my sister is probably the most impressive among us.
Speaker 1: She's a pediatrician. She was a two sports division one
Speaker 1: athlete and Um, she's got five kids, uh, and is
Speaker 1: currently working at the Department of Health and Human Services
Speaker 1: on covid nineteen and other UM pandemic responses. So I'm
Speaker 1: like kind of middle of the pack in terms of
Speaker 1: my siblings. There was another person who was a Rhodes scholar,
Speaker 1: went the law school who became President United States, Bill Clinton.
Speaker 1: So have you ever thought of running for office yourself?
Speaker 1: I used to think about it but honestly, over the
Speaker 1: course of the years I think my skills are better
Speaker 1: suited to public service in a not elected format Um
Speaker 1: and I'd rather help other people who I think would
Speaker 1: be better suited for actually running for office these talk
Speaker 1: for a moment about what it's like to be the
Speaker 1: nation security advisor. The NA security advisor office was set up,
Speaker 1: I think, in the Eisenhower administration, more or less, though
Speaker 1: President Truman had a Nashecurity advisor as well. Your job,
Speaker 1: as they get in early every day, make sure there's
Speaker 1: no crisis or there is a crisis, tell the president.
Speaker 1: Are you seeing the president early in the morning and
Speaker 1: briefing him? Is that what you do, as as many
Speaker 1: have done before? Yes, so in the morning we have
Speaker 1: something called the President's daily brief that takes place in
Speaker 1: the Oval Office and it's myself, my two deputies and
Speaker 1: then the director of national intelligence who are there every day,
Speaker 1: and then we also bring in other cabinet members depending
Speaker 1: on what the subjects are being briefed so that he
Speaker 1: gets the president gets exposure to his full national security
Speaker 1: team over the course of the week and we talked
Speaker 1: to him about things that have developed overnight around the
Speaker 1: world and we also talked to him about longer term
Speaker 1: trends that he expresses interest in and wants to stay
Speaker 1: on top of. So it's a mix of both the
Speaker 1: immediate term and the long term and it gives him
Speaker 1: a full picture of the challenges and Opportunities in the
Speaker 1: world for American form. And then, during a typical day,
Speaker 1: do you see him a couple other times and do
Speaker 1: you see him at the end of the day as well? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, just to take yesterday as an example, in
Speaker 1: addition to the PDB UH Secretary B Lincoln and I
Speaker 1: had the opportunity to just sit with him informally uh
Speaker 1: for a little while before the cabinet meeting so we
Speaker 1: could talk through a kind of tick list of issues
Speaker 1: that had been building up over the course of the
Speaker 1: last couple of weeks. And then later in the afternoon
Speaker 1: we had this call with the British Prime Minister and
Speaker 1: and that involved some amount of time to talk through
Speaker 1: what he wanted to accomplish in that phone call, what
Speaker 1: we expected she would say to him, and then I
Speaker 1: sat there with him while he did the phone call.
Speaker 1: So that would be a typical day seeing the president
Speaker 1: two three times and then spending time with the other
Speaker 1: principles of the National Security Council the the cabinet secretary,
Speaker 1: Secretary of Defense, the secretary of the Treasury and the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State and talking through the big decisions that
Speaker 1: we would need to tee up for the president to
Speaker 1: make on everything from global food security to Taiwan to
Speaker 1: the chips act, you know, the new law that's been
Speaker 1: passed to invest in advanced microchips here in the United States.
Speaker 1: We cover the waterfront. So sometimes presidents I observe lose
Speaker 1: their temper and they yell ums. President Biden a yeller
Speaker 1: when he's not happy, or he just calmly just says
Speaker 1: here's what I think. He's not a yeller. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: he's somebody who is disciplined and direct and holds us
Speaker 1: to a high standard and he will challenge us to
Speaker 1: make sure that we have nailed down the details of
Speaker 1: everything we are presenting to him and if we haven't,
Speaker 1: he'll tell us do better. But he does so in
Speaker 1: a totally respectful, straightforward way, the same way that everybody
Speaker 1: has seen him in public life. So when I work
Speaker 1: in the White House under President Carter, there were frequent
Speaker 1: disputes between the secretaries, Si Vance and the NASCUR advisor.
Speaker 1: Is a big Braginsky, and it's a great tradition. It
Speaker 1: seems in our government that the secretary of state the
Speaker 1: NASCUR advisor are always sparring one where the other leaking
Speaker 1: to the press. In this administration I haven't seen a
Speaker 1: lot of leaks from your office or the secretary's Office
Speaker 1: uh criticizing the other person's office. So how have you
Speaker 1: avoided that problem? Well, a lot of it has to
Speaker 1: do which is deep mutual respect and straight up friendship
Speaker 1: between myself and the secretary state. Tony and I've known
Speaker 1: each other for years. We're good friends. Are Families or friends? Um,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that there aren't debates. We don't have
Speaker 1: disputes because we have it an open operating style. I
Speaker 1: think we both try to be nice people, but we
Speaker 1: do have debates. We disagree on certain issues and the
Speaker 1: thing that I take very seriously is my responsibility to
Speaker 1: run a process that is open, humane, fair, transparent, H
Speaker 1: and above board, and I try to do that so
Speaker 1: that his perspective, the Secretary Defense is perspective, the Attorney
Speaker 1: General Perspective, depending on the issue, are all teed up
Speaker 1: to the president in a way in which they get
Speaker 1: their say and then we work it out, and that has,
Speaker 1: in my view, work quite effectively over the course of
Speaker 1: the past nineteen months and I consider it one of
Speaker 1: the central uh responsibilities of my position to ensure that
Speaker 1: that process is fair and effective. What would you like
Speaker 1: to see as your legacy, or what the ININTIATION's legacy
Speaker 1: would be as a result of what you're doing? I
Speaker 1: would say um to basic foundations to the legacy that
Speaker 1: I would like to leave working, obviously on behalf of
Speaker 1: the president. First is to leave our alliances with like
Speaker 1: minded democracies at a high water mark in Europe, in
Speaker 1: the end of Pacific and elsewhere around the world, because
Speaker 1: those are the force multipliers for everything we do, whether
Speaker 1: it's competition with China or trying to solve the challenge
Speaker 1: of climate change. And the second is making sure that
Speaker 1: our national security enterprise is investing in the sources of
Speaker 1: American strength at home, and the chips act is a
Speaker 1: great example of that. or a young person who might
Speaker 1: like to have a career like yours, what would you recommend?
Speaker 1: How can you prepare to be an abscured advisor or
Speaker 1: to serve your government in some way? The biggest piece
Speaker 1: of advice I try to give young people is um
Speaker 1: to reject certitude. What I mean by that is that
Speaker 1: no matter how good you think your argument is, or
Speaker 1: your policy position or your proposed course of action, it
Speaker 1: almost certainly has weaknesses or blind spots, and you should
Speaker 1: acknowledge those. I think actually sometimes saying you know what,
Speaker 1: I was wrong, you were right, is actually a more
Speaker 1: powerful show of intellectual strength than just sticking firmly by
Speaker 1: your position. Doesn't mean you should compromise your principles or
Speaker 1: your values, but the easy decisions do not rise to
Speaker 1: the White House. The hard decisions do, and those hard
Speaker 1: decisions have two sides Um that are not a hundred zero.
Speaker 1: You see a lot of people in Washington saying I
Speaker 1: was wrong. No, I think that's I think that's a
Speaker 1: problem and I think the people who do people are
Speaker 1: willing to change their minds, update their assumptions, alter their
Speaker 1: perspective based on new information or new developments in the world.
Speaker 1: Those are the people that lead the best mark on
Speaker 1: history and, even more importantly, those are the people who
Speaker 1: are a pleasure to work with. Let's go around the
Speaker 1: world for a couple of trouble spots. North Korea, Um,
Speaker 1: and a progress so on getting them to give up
Speaker 1: their nuclear testing or is that difficult to do? It's difficult, obviously.
Speaker 1: Through multiple presidents, going back to the Clinton administration, the
Speaker 1: North Koreans have continued to move forward with their nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons program in the course of the past year they
Speaker 1: have conducted a number of long range missile tests. We
Speaker 1: have been warning about the possibility of a seventh nuclear
Speaker 1: test testivate nuclear weapon, and we still think that that
Speaker 1: is something that is likely to happen in the coming months.
Speaker 1: We have also indicated to the North Koreans that we
Speaker 1: are prepared to sit down in a serious way to
Speaker 1: conduct diplomacy to, on a step by step basis, work
Speaker 1: towards the nuclearization of Korean Peninsula. So far, the North
Speaker 1: grants have evince no interest in that. China and Taiwan,
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of rhetoric from the U S side,
Speaker 1: a lot of rhetoric from the Chinese side, vision any
Speaker 1: real problem occurring where the Chinese might actually invade Taiwan.
Speaker 1: I think it remains a distinct threat that there could
Speaker 1: be a military contingency around Taiwan and the People's Republic
Speaker 1: of China has actually stated as official policy that it
Speaker 1: is not taking the invasion of Taiwan off the table,
Speaker 1: that that remains one of the potential options for the
Speaker 1: reunification of Taiwan. Their position has been changing over time
Speaker 1: in terms of their disturbance of the status quo across
Speaker 1: the Taiwan Strait actions that they are taking with their
Speaker 1: military to undermine peace and stability. The American position has
Speaker 1: remained steadfast and consistent. One China Policy Taiwan Relations Act,
Speaker 1: three joint communic caves that we agreed with China back
Speaker 1: in the nineties, seventies and eighties that laid out that,
Speaker 1: from our perspective, there should be no unilateral changes to
Speaker 1: the status quo across the Taiwan straight we continue to
Speaker 1: believe that and we will continue to push back against
Speaker 1: any effort to change the status quo by force. Now
Speaker 1: there is legislation now moving forward through Congress to kind
Speaker 1: of toughen up the existing support the US has for Taiwan.
Speaker 1: This administration adopted a position on that legislation yet. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm actually gonna have the opportunity later today, literally later today,
Speaker 1: to go up to the hill to talk to some
Speaker 1: members about this legislation. I'd prefer to have the opportunity
Speaker 1: to lay it out for them before I lay it
Speaker 1: out on TV, but I will just say this. There
Speaker 1: are elements of that legislation with respect to how we
Speaker 1: can strengthen our security assistance for Taiwan that are quite
Speaker 1: effective and robust that will improve Taiwan security. There are
Speaker 1: other elements that give us some concern. Let's go back
Speaker 1: to Ukraine for a moment. In hindsight, which was always
Speaker 1: is there anything the administration could have done to prevent
Speaker 1: Putin from invading or told the allies more forcefully that
Speaker 1: the invasion was going to occur, to convince them, because
Speaker 1: it seems as if they didn't really believe it was
Speaker 1: going to happen? What would you have done, or would
Speaker 1: you think you should have done in hindsight, if anything,
Speaker 1: differently than you did? Given that we're still in the
Speaker 1: middle of this unfolding crisis, it's hard to get the
Speaker 1: kind of level of perspective to look back and say, Hey,
Speaker 1: maybe we could have done this instead of that. There's
Speaker 1: always something you could improve upon. I would never say
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, we did everything absolutely perfectly, but six
Speaker 1: months into this invasion I'm fairly well convinced that Putin
Speaker 1: was going to do this no matter what, that he
Speaker 1: considered this central to his legacy as president of Russia
Speaker 1: and he was not going to be knocked off course.
Speaker 1: The only thing that was going to stop him was
Speaker 1: the physical might of the Ukrainian forces, holding back his
Speaker 1: ability to take Kiev and take other major cities, backed
Speaker 1: by the weapons that we provided them. That was the
Speaker 1: strategy we executed. I think we executed it well and
Speaker 1: I think Ukraine is in a position now today to
Speaker 1: ensure that they will remain a strong, sovereign, viable independent state,
Speaker 1: even as they continue to try to resist Russian aggression
Speaker 1: on a portion of their territory. In terms of the Allies, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, we took unprecedented measures, quite novel measures, to
Speaker 1: declassify information, to make presentations both to our allies and
Speaker 1: to the international community, and I think over time that
Speaker 1: actually did build a sense of unity that continues to
Speaker 1: this day. An Allied Unity, Trans Atlantic unity, has been
Speaker 1: a huge thorn in the side for Vladimir Putinus. He's
Speaker 1: tried to to break that and tried to to produce
Speaker 1: a weaker, less cohesive NATO, when in fact what he's
Speaker 1: gotten as the exact opposite. So what you're referring to,
Speaker 1: I think, is that, to my surprise, when I was
Speaker 1: reading the New York Times about this was going on,
Speaker 1: information that seemed like it was white old UH information
Speaker 1: was declassified and, in effect given to the press about
Speaker 1: the troop movements of the Russians. Was that a complicated
Speaker 1: decision to come to, controversial within the administration, to say
Speaker 1: we're going to declassify and leak our best intelligence about
Speaker 1: what the Russians are doing? It definitely took a whole
Speaker 1: process of us thinking about all of the risks and
Speaker 1: benefits of doing that, especially since it was uncharted territory,
Speaker 1: and that involved me sitting with our intelligence professionals, are diplomats,
Speaker 1: and ultimately with the president to bless a strategy that
Speaker 1: would involve the systematic declassification of information so that no
Speaker 1: one would be surprised and so that Russia could not
Speaker 1: try to generate pretexts for what it was doing. And
Speaker 1: I think it turned out to be an effective method
Speaker 1: of putting Russia on the back foot, putting the Western
Speaker 1: alliance on the front foot and giving us the opportunity
Speaker 1: to build a coalition that is currently supporting Ukraine. So
Speaker 1: as I said earlier, hindsight's always in hindsight. Would you
Speaker 1: have um actual Afghanistan differently than the way you did it? Well,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, um, anytime you have
Speaker 1: a circumstance where you're ending a twenty year war, with
Speaker 1: twenty years of decisions and mistakes that have piled up
Speaker 1: through multiple administrations, the exit would not be easy. There
Speaker 1: was no clean, easy exit and I think the strategic
Speaker 1: decision to go to end that war after twenty years
Speaker 1: was absolutely the correct decision. Where there are things that
Speaker 1: we could have done differently, I think the answer to
Speaker 1: that is always yes, and there will be time, as
Speaker 1: I end up looking back and reflecting on that period,
Speaker 1: to pinpoint what some of those might have been. But
Speaker 1: from my perspective, the underlying decision to end the war
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan, which the president took, I think, in a
Speaker 1: quite courageous way, was the correct decision and one year later,
Speaker 1: to me, Um, it is the time that has passed
Speaker 1: is only reinforced the correctness of that. To many people
Speaker 1: held your job have a burnout after a few years. Um,
Speaker 1: you look like you're in good shape and you're young.
Speaker 1: You're the second youngest person ever have this job. so
Speaker 1: you anticipate doing this for an entire four year period
Speaker 1: of this first term? If there was another term, let's
Speaker 1: say this four year period of time. Well, I serve
Speaker 1: at the pleasure of the president, but I feel passionate
Speaker 1: about the work that I'm doing. I feel blessed to
Speaker 1: be part of this team. I feel blessed to be
Speaker 1: able to serve President Biden and I'd like to keep
Speaker 1: doing it. Thanks for listening. To hear more of my interviews,
Speaker 1: you can subscribe and download my podcast on spotify, apple
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen.