Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. Tonight, so Russian explosive
Speaker 1: drones slamming into.
Speaker 2: Now to Israel issuing new evacuation orders in Gaza. Dozens
Speaker 2: of Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire as it waited
Speaker 2: for food in northern Gaza. With I am now striking back,
Speaker 2: hiking tariffs on US goods arriving in China to one
Speaker 2: hundred and twenty five percent, and tonight here American farmers
Speaker 2: worry that China will now turn elsewhere.
Speaker 1: I think that it's the most and many respects, the
Speaker 1: most perilous time since the late forties, maybe ever.
Speaker 2: Robert Gates has had a storied career in national security.
Speaker 1: Of the eight presidents I worked for, five were Republicans,
Speaker 1: three were Democrats. Ironically, my career was bookended by two Democrats,
Speaker 1: Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama.
Speaker 2: Over many decades of public service, Gates served as Secretary
Speaker 2: of Defense for two presidents consecutively and as the director
Speaker 2: of the CIA. And Since Gates left government in twenty eleven,
Speaker 2: he has remained influential as an author and as an advisor.
Speaker 2: Then President Electrump sought Gates's Council before he started his
Speaker 2: first term and today Gates runs a strategic consulting firm
Speaker 2: with President George W. Bush's Secretary of State Condaleza Rice,
Speaker 2: alongside other officials from the Bush administration. I wanted to
Speaker 2: get Gates's perspective on this perilous moment in history, as
Speaker 2: he put it. I wanted to hear about what he's
Speaker 2: watching closely, what worries him, and what's at stake for
Speaker 2: the world. I'm David Gera, and this is the big
Speaker 2: take from Bloomberg News today on the show My conversation
Speaker 2: with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. I sat down
Speaker 2: with him away from Washington in Colorado at the Aspen
Speaker 2: Security Forum. This is one of several interviews I did
Speaker 2: there with some of the biggest names in for we're
Speaker 2: in policy and national security. We'll share those with you
Speaker 2: over the next few weeks. I wanted to ask you, first,
Speaker 2: given your experience and your knowledge of history, how you're
Speaker 2: thinking about this moment.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I think that it's the most
Speaker 1: and respects the most perilous time since the late forties,
Speaker 1: maybe ever. We have never confronted aggressive, nuclear armed great
Speaker 1: powers in both Asia and Europe. At the same time,
Speaker 1: we have a major war going on in Europe, major
Speaker 1: war going on in the Middle East, threatened war in Asia.
Speaker 1: And this all comes at a time when we as
Speaker 1: Americans are divided about our role in the world, about
Speaker 1: our politics, about everything else, and lots of things that
Speaker 1: need fixing aren't getting fixed, from the deficit and the
Speaker 1: debt to figuring out once again how to do military construction,
Speaker 1: how to rebuild defense industries. So it's a pretty tough time.
Speaker 1: It's also a time of you know, it's been hyped
Speaker 1: and headlined and everything, but it really is kind of
Speaker 1: an inflection point in terms of taking a hard, cold
Speaker 1: look at our government and seeing how we can do
Speaker 1: it better. As I like to put it, in any
Speaker 1: institution over decades, barnacles, film build up. It's true of
Speaker 1: every organization I've led, CIA, boy Scouts, Texas, A and
Speaker 1: M and Defense. And the challenge for a leader is
Speaker 1: how do you preserve the tradition and the culture that
Speaker 1: made the institutions great in the first place, but scrape
Speaker 1: off all those barnacles and make the reforms that are
Speaker 1: needed to be successful in the future. I think that's
Speaker 1: the challenge and I don't think we're facing it very well.
Speaker 2: I'm going to ask you about a few of these
Speaker 2: military conflicts that are ongoing in a moment, but first
Speaker 2: I want to ask you about the trade war, and
Speaker 2: we focus a lot on the economic ramifications of that,
Speaker 2: what it's going to mean for trading relationships. How do
Speaker 2: you see that in the context of national security? How
Speaker 2: does waging this war stand to change the relationships between yes,
Speaker 2: trading partners, but nation states as well.
Speaker 1: So interestingly, I think the trade imbalances actually began as
Speaker 1: a national security matter, and that was after the war.
Speaker 1: The United States gave huge trade advantages to Germany and Japan,
Speaker 1: but also the Europeans trying to recover from the war,
Speaker 1: and we actually basically said, we'll take make a hit
Speaker 1: economically because it's really important for our security for these
Speaker 1: countries to get back up on their feet, have a
Speaker 1: working economy. That's what's going to keep the communists out.
Speaker 1: Work pretty well. But we never turned back to those
Speaker 1: advantages that we had given, and over the years, those
Speaker 1: disadvantages piled up against the United States, and nobody really
Speaker 1: wanted to take them on because obviously, with our allies
Speaker 1: that was a very sensitive subject. And then with the
Speaker 1: advent of China into the WTO, it sort of put
Speaker 1: rocket fuel behind these trade issues, and mainly because China
Speaker 1: didn't abide by the rules when China joined WTO, and
Speaker 1: we and other developed commentaries failed to hold them accountable.
Speaker 1: This should have begun in two thousand and one, two
Speaker 1: thousand and two saying you can't do that, you can't
Speaker 1: seal that IP, you can't dump over here. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of things you can't do. But we let
Speaker 1: it go. And so in a way, I would regard
Speaker 1: what's going on right now as kind of a reckoning
Speaker 1: to readdress the imbalances that have existed with some countries
Speaker 1: since after World War Two in the early fifties, and
Speaker 1: then have built up since the creation of the WTO
Speaker 1: and with China and so on. You know, are there
Speaker 1: better ways to do it? Maybe? But in some ways.
Speaker 1: Let me use the analogy of the Europeans decisions on
Speaker 1: arms control, on arms build up, on defense spending, I,
Speaker 1: among many many others berated the Europeans for years, decades
Speaker 1: to increase their defense spending, and we had no luck.
Speaker 1: We literally failed. So incomes President Trump with his two
Speaker 1: by four and he's got their attention, and guess what,
Speaker 1: they've decided that they will spend more on defense. Now
Speaker 1: he had I think a lot of help from Putin,
Speaker 1: from Vladimir Putin, who may not scare the American people,
Speaker 1: but he sure scares the Europeans. So I think we're
Speaker 1: kind of reckoning with both in terms of trade but
Speaker 1: also defense spending on the part of the Europeans of
Speaker 1: readdressing or addressing problems that have been long extant, but
Speaker 1: we really haven't had the political fortitude or the willingness
Speaker 1: to potentially offend people to take them on.
Speaker 2: The war in Gaza has gone on now for more
Speaker 2: than six hundred and fifty days, and I wonder how
Speaker 2: you see the path forward to resolution. Is it evident
Speaker 2: to you how long is this going to last?
Speaker 1: You think, well, I hear people betting on different times.
Speaker 1: You know, will it end this year? Whenever? Well, the
Speaker 1: fastest way for it would end would be for Hamas
Speaker 1: to own up to the fact that they destroyed Gaza.
Speaker 1: Their attack on October seventh began all of this, and
Speaker 1: they created an environment in which Israel said enough is enough,
Speaker 1: and we're not going to put up with these attacks.
Speaker 1: Every few years. We're going to solve this problem one
Speaker 1: way or another. Now, ideally you would have some kind
Speaker 1: of political entity for the Palestinians that would have some
Speaker 1: credibility internationally, if not with Israel. And that can't be
Speaker 1: the Palestinian authority in the West Bank, which everybody knows
Speaker 1: is corrupt and incompetent to boot. So where are the
Speaker 1: Palestinians finally leaders to say enough is enough, we need
Speaker 1: to start rebuilding Gaza. And I personally think this thing will,
Speaker 1: this horrible thing will come to an end when Hamas
Speaker 1: finally concludes they can't win, They're not winning support abroad,
Speaker 1: and their people are being destroyed.
Speaker 2: Benjamin Natnewe, who is somebody you know and have dealt
Speaker 2: with over these many years. What have you noticed or
Speaker 2: observed about his behavior in this conflict and how much
Speaker 2: is that path the resolution going to be shaped by
Speaker 2: his political fortunes.
Speaker 1: Well, I've known Bibe a long time and we've had
Speaker 1: our disagreements along the way. I think it's fair to say,
Speaker 1: but I will give Natanian who credit for this. Since
Speaker 1: October seventh, he has trained the strategic environment in the
Speaker 1: Middle East in a very significant way. Iran counted on
Speaker 1: its surrogates, his Belah Hamas, the whose the tribesmen in
Speaker 1: northern Iraq and others to intimidate others in the region
Speaker 1: and to attack Israel and taking advantage of that attack
Speaker 1: or in response to that attack, Natanie Who and I
Speaker 1: think the Israelis in general said enough, and so they
Speaker 1: went after his Belah. They went after Hamas. They certainly
Speaker 1: played a role in the overthrow of Asad. His Bilah
Speaker 1: can't be rearmed now because that path was through Syria
Speaker 1: from Iran and dramatically weaken Iran, first through the initial
Speaker 1: attack and then through the more recent one that involved
Speaker 1: the United States. So I think Iran is very much
Speaker 1: on its back foot at this point. Whether we've long
Speaker 1: term solved any problems, I think remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: But in Atia, Who's made it pretty clear that if
Speaker 1: the Iranians resumed that nuclear program, he'll go back in
Speaker 1: and as he puts it, mow the grass you were not.
Speaker 1: But the bottom line is the strategic environment in the
Speaker 1: whole region has been changed subsequent to October seventh, And
Speaker 1: the truth is, if some kind of a solution can
Speaker 1: be found for the Palestinians, then I think the opportunities
Speaker 1: in terms of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the other Arab states
Speaker 1: beyond the UAE and Cutter and so on, are really
Speaker 1: pretty extraordinary. These guys are all interested in business. They
Speaker 1: want to expand, they want investment, they want to diversify
Speaker 1: their economy. They see Israel as a technological giant in
Speaker 1: the region, so there's a lot of potential there, but
Speaker 1: they've got to get past the Palestinian problem.
Speaker 2: You were not somebody who was agitating for strikes on
Speaker 2: nuclear facilities in Iran, And as the dust settles on
Speaker 2: those strikes, how do you gauge their efficacy and where
Speaker 2: does that lead? Do you think?
Speaker 1: Well, this verse came up when I was Secretary of
Speaker 1: Defense under President Bush so back in two thousand and seven,
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, I said, you know, there's no
Speaker 1: doubt we can do a lot of damage to those facilities.
Speaker 1: And they hadn't started going really deep at that point,
Speaker 1: but I said, and my position from then until today
Speaker 1: has been, you can significantly damage and set back Iran's
Speaker 1: nuclear program, but you cannot eliminate it militarily. They can't
Speaker 1: unlearn what they've already learned. The Israelis are now saying
Speaker 1: that they probably scattered the enriched uranium at three sites Esfahan,
Speaker 1: Fordoh and the Tons, so they probably have some of
Speaker 1: that and they have some suit centrifuges. My view for
Speaker 1: what I was telling President Bush fifteen years ago was
Speaker 1: you can damage it, but you can't destroy it. You're
Speaker 1: just buying time, and the question is whether the time
Speaker 1: that has been bought can be translated into some kind
Speaker 1: of an agreement.
Speaker 2: My conversation with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates continues after
Speaker 2: the break. After former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and I
Speaker 2: discussed the trade war and the war in Gaza, we
Speaker 2: turned to another major conflict playing out today in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: How do you see President Putin's calculus in that convent?
Speaker 2: We see the economic vice the country is in, the
Speaker 2: incredible loss of life. Where do you see all of
Speaker 2: that headed?
Speaker 1: I think Putin is not all that difficult to understand.
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin believes it is his personal destiny to recreate
Speaker 1: the Russian Empire, and as my old mentorist Big Brzhenski
Speaker 1: used to say, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.
Speaker 1: And so Putin sees it as his personal destiny to
Speaker 1: bring Ukraine back into the fold of the Russian Empire,
Speaker 1: if not as an integral part of Russia, then as
Speaker 1: a client state basically does what Russia wants it to.
Speaker 1: And his objectives have not changed from day one. He
Speaker 1: wants the four provinces in the East, he wants Ukraine disarmed,
Speaker 1: he wants a pro Russian government in Kiev. He wants
Speaker 1: a ban on Ukrainian membership in NATO and the EU.
Speaker 1: That's all. And he hasn't waivered one whit from the
Speaker 1: very beginning, and he is willing to pay whatever price
Speaker 1: is involved. And it is beginning to bite. There was
Speaker 1: a sugar rush from a lot of the defense industries
Speaker 1: investments and a lot of the things coming from China
Speaker 1: and so on. But I think they've run through that.
Speaker 1: The inflation is really beginning to ramp up twenty one
Speaker 1: percent interest rates, that's just a formal interest rate, who
Speaker 1: knows what the real one is. Things are getting life's
Speaker 1: getting a little harder in Russia. So I don't see
Speaker 1: any breakthroughs. That's one of those predictions that may turn
Speaker 1: out to be very embarrassing. But the Ukrainians have been
Speaker 1: able to hold their ground pretty well in the East,
Speaker 1: as it's kind of a drone versus drone war out there.
Speaker 1: But Putin is clearly putting the pressure on the domestic
Speaker 1: side in Ukraine with these attacks by hundreds of drones
Speaker 1: every single night.
Speaker 2: What did you make of what seemed like a change
Speaker 2: in tack from President Trump a few days ago. Seems
Speaker 2: to be growing frustrated with President Putin. There was a
Speaker 2: lot of talk about them meeting and having a summit,
Speaker 2: negotiating this themselves. His patient seems to being tested here.
Speaker 1: Most of the presidents that I worked with felt that,
Speaker 1: I mean, they got themselves elected president of the United States.
Speaker 1: They basically feel like they can win anybody over. I've
Speaker 1: seen it Withn't Benny, and you know it started with
Speaker 1: Franklin Roosevelt and Uncle Joe Stalin. You know, I can
Speaker 1: win this guy over. And a lot of presidents feel
Speaker 1: that way, that they can develop a personal chemistry with
Speaker 1: the other guy that will make great things possible, and
Speaker 1: most of them end up disappointed. And I think that's
Speaker 1: what's happened here. I don't think President Trump was unique
Speaker 1: in thinking he could bring Puton around, nor is he
Speaker 1: unique in being disappointed.
Speaker 2: The president has Steve Witkoff his friend, a businessman, not
Speaker 2: somebody who was in the foreign service or a diplomat
Speaker 2: before leading the negotiations that he's been having with Russia
Speaker 2: with President Putin. Do you see wisdom in that using
Speaker 2: somebody who doesn't have that font of experience from government
Speaker 2: and diplomacy, or does it raise questions for you about
Speaker 2: how approaching well.
Speaker 1: Lots of different presidents use lots of different techniques. When
Speaker 1: we were first starting to reach out to the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union and to the Chinese and so on, US businessmen
Speaker 1: would be used as intermediaries to carry the message, if
Speaker 1: you will. I think that other presidents have used special envoys.
Speaker 1: President Obama liked special envoys and he had a bunch
Speaker 1: of them. I personally have found there are a few
Speaker 1: instances where those of work. So on the Northern Ireland
Speaker 1: problem George Mitchell, that worked out pretty well. But on
Speaker 1: Afghanistan Pakistan Richard Holbrook, that didn't work. So I'm inclined
Speaker 1: to give presidents a lot of leeway in the tools
Speaker 1: that they want to use. And you know, it's always
Speaker 1: also the fact that when appointing ambassadors, I always thought
Speaker 1: it was most important to the host government, not that
Speaker 1: they had somebody super experienced as the US ambassador, but
Speaker 1: somebody who could pick up the telephone and call the
Speaker 1: President of the United States.
Speaker 2: It strikes me that the balance that we've had between
Speaker 2: hard power and soft power in economic power, isn't that
Speaker 2: the equilibriument was that before? Do you agree with that?
Speaker 2: How much of a problem is it that we have
Speaker 2: an administration that six months in has leaned very heavily
Speaker 2: on airstrikes and using hard power to solve some of
Speaker 2: these problems, while it's been cutting State Department, USCID, other
Speaker 2: foreign aid.
Speaker 1: I've been a long believer and that while the Cold
Speaker 1: War was fought against the biggest the backdrop of the
Speaker 1: biggest arms race in the history of the world, because
Speaker 1: we were able to avoid a direct military conflict, that
Speaker 1: conflict was resolved by non military instruments of power economics, technology,
Speaker 1: strategic communications, development assistance, ideology, intelligence, and so the most
Speaker 1: powerful of those are economics and technology, and we are
Speaker 1: very good at using those. I wish we could use
Speaker 1: them more in harness with one another of tariffs, trade sanctions,
Speaker 1: and so on, because in some cases one might work
Speaker 1: better than the other. But we kind of use them independently,
Speaker 1: and I think we diminish their effectiveness that way. But economic,
Speaker 1: with our economic power, that is a big deal, and
Speaker 1: we're seeing that in relationship, particularly with China and Russia
Speaker 1: right now. I think on strategic communications and foreign assistance.
Speaker 1: You know, the Chinese under who Jentaal invested like seven
Speaker 1: billion dollars in strategic communication. There isn't a country in
Speaker 1: the world where you can't get Chinese television, Chinese radio,
Speaker 1: Chinese social media, Chinese print media, television, you name it,
Speaker 1: and they've spread all over the world. We're cutting everything back.
Speaker 1: Our voice will not be heard around the world. We
Speaker 1: can't tell the Keerge's why it's important not to let
Speaker 1: the Chinese have too much power in their country, or
Speaker 1: the Kazakhs, or people in the Middle East, or people
Speaker 1: in South America. I don't think we've used trade effectively.
Speaker 1: China is now the biggest trading partner with one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty countries in the world, all the countries in
Speaker 1: South America except Columbia. So my problem is that we
Speaker 1: have all these tools that are really powerful for the
Speaker 1: United States, but we've decided to keep them in our backpack,
Speaker 1: and if we're to avoid a conflict with China, all
Speaker 1: these tools will matter in this long term contest. You know,
Speaker 1: the line is for the hearts and minds, but the
Speaker 1: fact is those hearts and minds also have security arrangements,
Speaker 1: their economic markets, their potential sources of instability and terrorism.
Speaker 1: So I think pulling back on all of those is
Speaker 1: really a mistake. Now that said, all of them are
Speaker 1: in serious need of reform. I mean, Congress is self
Speaker 1: dismantled USIA in nineteen ninety eight. They tried to dismantle
Speaker 1: USAID then, but Bill Clinton wouldn't let him, but he
Speaker 1: reduced the size and brought it inside the State Department.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of problems with a lot of
Speaker 1: the aid programs. You know, when the Millennium Challenge Corporation
Speaker 1: was established by Congress under the first President of second
Speaker 1: President Bush, there were a lot of conservatives who said,
Speaker 1: let's do that because of its rules in terms of accountability,
Speaker 1: local buy in, and so on. So one of the
Speaker 1: things that I'm trying to do through a Global Policy
Speaker 1: center affiliated with William and Mary is bring together people
Speaker 1: on both sides of the aisle and experts and say
Speaker 1: kind of what new path forward can we have in
Speaker 1: these different using these tools that gets away from all
Speaker 1: the mistakes of the past, gets away from all the
Speaker 1: bureaucracy and the barnacles of the past, and points a
Speaker 1: way forward to make us much more effective and cost
Speaker 1: effective in these programs.
Speaker 2: My conversation with former Defense Secretary of Robert Gates at
Speaker 2: the Aspen Security Forum continues after the break. In the
Speaker 2: final part of my interview with former Secretary of Defense
Speaker 2: Robert Gates, I circled back to China and the threat
Speaker 2: of the relationship between China and the US deteriorating further
Speaker 2: as President Trump wages a global trade war. You mentioned
Speaker 2: avoiding conflict with China at this moment. How much does
Speaker 2: that worry you? Do you think we're headed for it
Speaker 2: for conflict? What needs to be done to forestall that
Speaker 2: to prevent that from happening?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I don't think I'm fairly confident the
Speaker 1: leader of neither side want a war. It would be
Speaker 1: catastrophic for both sides. So the question is, how do
Speaker 1: you maneuver against each other over a period of decades
Speaker 1: as we did with the Soviet Union without it leading
Speaker 1: to war? And so I think we have to be
Speaker 1: very tough on China when it comes to intellectual property theft,
Speaker 1: when it comes to trade and some of these issues.
Speaker 1: I think we need to be tough in terms of
Speaker 1: their military deployments, some of the things they're doing around
Speaker 1: the world. But at the same time, I think it's
Speaker 1: essential that we maintain the dialogue with them, particularly military
Speaker 1: to military, to prevent incidents that could balloon into a
Speaker 1: conflict nobody wanted. So I think keeping a dialogue with
Speaker 1: them going is very important. I'm encouraged by the fact
Speaker 1: that President Trump and President she talk from time to time.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure they don't talk past each other, but
Speaker 1: that's okay. But I think maintaining those contacts, and I
Speaker 1: would say especially on the military to military side, is
Speaker 1: really important.
Speaker 2: We've talked a bit about the reform agenda. Maybe I
Speaker 2: can tease out your barnacle's metaphor. There was an effort
Speaker 2: in the early days of this term to really go
Speaker 2: after those barnacles in forests, and I think kind of
Speaker 2: blew up the hull of the ship maybe trying to
Speaker 2: do that. What's your council for doing it appropriately? Because
Speaker 2: we see with this administration in particular, a real sense
Speaker 2: of urgency a president who gets impatient, how do you
Speaker 2: do the kind of reform that you're describing in a
Speaker 2: thoughtful way, a careful way, and not have knock on
Speaker 2: effects that can be damaging to these institutions.
Speaker 1: So in two thousand and nine, in over a period
Speaker 1: of four months, in probably forty meetings with all the
Speaker 1: military leadership, the joint chiefs of staff, the combatant commanders,
Speaker 1: all the senior civilians, we examine I saw a budgetary
Speaker 1: train wreck coming after the financial crisis in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, and as I said, we've got to show
Speaker 1: some responsibility here and better we look at what can
Speaker 1: be cut than people who don't know what they're doing. No,
Speaker 1: I won't mention any names or institutions, and so we
Speaker 1: compiled a list of programs that were questionable and we
Speaker 1: went through it in these forty meetings. Bottom line, we
Speaker 1: ended up cutting thirty six legacy programs that, had they
Speaker 1: been built to completion, would have cost the taxpayers three
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty billion dollars. And we did it essentially
Speaker 1: without a ripple. Now, some companies weren't too happy, but
Speaker 1: that goes with the territory and then the next year
Speaker 1: facing the same challenges, same kind of meetings over a
Speaker 1: three month period, same number of meetings roughly, and the
Speaker 1: meetings weren't just to vent meetings were kind of is
Speaker 1: this a good idea, what do we need this for?
Speaker 1: Or to the Air Force, you want a new tanker,
Speaker 1: a miss a new ICBM, you want the F thirty five,
Speaker 1: and you've got to make a choice or two here,
Speaker 1: and the same thing with all the services. And but
Speaker 1: on the IF what we called the Efficiency Exercise overhead
Speaker 1: exercise in the spring of twenty ten, we identified one
Speaker 1: hundred and eighty billion dollars in overhead cuts in the military.
Speaker 1: Over a period of about five years. We eliminated an
Speaker 1: entire combatant command, Joint Forces man that it was Jim
Speaker 1: Madison's first four star job was to go. I sent
Speaker 1: him down to dismantle that command. And we didn't have
Speaker 1: any leakers. We didn't have people going to the hill
Speaker 1: behind our backs. We didn't have we had a lot
Speaker 1: of support on the hill. You know, individual congressmen were
Speaker 1: very much against things that we were doing that were
Speaker 1: in their districts. That's that's life. But we did an
Speaker 1: enormous amount of change and reform and really without any
Speaker 1: without perturbing the force. As it were the gallery, he
Speaker 1: didn't collapse, and nobody on the hill was calling for
Speaker 1: my head. So there is a way to reform these
Speaker 1: institutions and to do so in a thoughtful way that
Speaker 1: involves a lot of people, that gets a lot of input,
Speaker 1: gets a lot of suggestions, so that when a decision
Speaker 1: is made, even if it goes against you, well I've
Speaker 1: been respected. I got my chance to make my case.
Speaker 1: My case didn't work, but at least I was in
Speaker 1: the room, so I think. And the other final point
Speaker 1: I'd make is my experience in leading organizations and leading
Speaker 1: change in organizations is that change imposed solely from the
Speaker 1: top without any engagement below that are changes that walk
Speaker 1: out the door the day that boss leaves. If you
Speaker 1: want sustainable change, change that lasts, you need to involve
Speaker 1: the people who deliver the mission.
Speaker 2: Mister Secretary, Thank you very much, h my pleasure. This
Speaker 2: is the big take from Bloomberg News. I'm David Gura.
Speaker 2: That was my conversation with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates,
Speaker 2: the first in a series of interviews I did with
Speaker 2: some of the biggest names in national security and foreign policy.
Speaker 2: We're bringing more of these conversations in the days ahead.
Speaker 2: Make sure you're following the Big Take so you can
Speaker 2: hear them all. To get unlimited access to all of
Speaker 2: bloomberg dot com, subscribe today at Bloomberg dot com Slash
Speaker 2: Podcast offer. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.