Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Let's get into a conversation on protecting our democracy. Just
Speaker 1: eleven days away from the presidential election, Retired U. S.
Speaker 1: Army Lieutenant General HR McMaster is with us. He's got
Speaker 1: a book at Battlegrounds, The Fight to Defend the Free World,
Speaker 1: He joins us on the phone from Stanford, California. UM,
Speaker 1: it is so great to have you here with us.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk about the book, but I do
Speaker 1: want to ask you General McMaster. First of all, how
Speaker 1: are you and what's your world been like over the
Speaker 1: last six to seven months amid the virus and the shutdown? Well? Well,
Speaker 1: he thanks Carol. I I you know, I feel very fortunate.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're in a good place here. We we uh,
Speaker 1: we're able to draw in one of our daughters, my
Speaker 1: son in law, and our twin grandsons, uh there with
Speaker 1: us and and uh. And I'm one of the fortunate
Speaker 1: few that can work remotely and teach remotely. I taught
Speaker 1: a of course at the Graduate School Business here remotely,
Speaker 1: had a had a great time doing it. Not as
Speaker 1: good as in person, but but ortunately we've been able
Speaker 1: to continue to interact with people at least on zoom
Speaker 1: and so forth, and we feel very fortunate thanks for asking, Carol. General.
Speaker 1: You know, when we think about our foreign policy, our
Speaker 1: military role in the world post World War Two, it's
Speaker 1: been a pretty consistent theme of internationalism too. For lack
Speaker 1: of a better word, that seems to have taken aree
Speaker 1: return and last four years, i e. Put America first again.
Speaker 1: How do you view our kind of foreign policy and
Speaker 1: our military positioning? How do you think it should be
Speaker 1: in this world where there's not just where the Cold
Speaker 1: War has been one, but now we have lots of
Speaker 1: other issues, as you mentioned, including China, right, Paul, Hey,
Speaker 1: thank you. In Battlegrounds, I described this as a lack
Speaker 1: of strategic confidence. We lack confidence in our ability to
Speaker 1: implement a sustained, reasonable and sustainable foreign policy and approach
Speaker 1: the national security. And I think hopefully what we've learned
Speaker 1: from COVID nineteen is that threats that develop overseas are
Speaker 1: belt best dealt with early. You know, once they reached
Speaker 1: our shores, we could only cope with them at an
Speaker 1: exorbitant price. And of course this was our experience in
Speaker 1: not eleven as well. In connection with the threat from
Speaker 1: Jehada terrorism. But what I'm afraid of, Paul, is that
Speaker 1: we saw the ninety nineties as a period of of optimism,
Speaker 1: over optimism, maybe even hubrious and complacency about threats that
Speaker 1: we faced. And then in the two thousands, you know,
Speaker 1: we suffered a serious of strategic shocks, not eleven finanticipated
Speaker 1: length and difficulty of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: the two thousand two nine financial crisis, and our confidence
Speaker 1: now is shaken, and I think what we need to
Speaker 1: do is restore our strategic competence as the first the
Speaker 1: first step in restoring our competence, our confidence and in
Speaker 1: our foreign policy and our ability to build a better
Speaker 1: future for generations to come. But your book also deals with,
Speaker 1: you know, us approaches to some of the challenges on
Speaker 1: a global level that we have seen, and you say
Speaker 1: specifically that resulted in missed opportunities that have left us
Speaker 1: at a strategic disadvantage. And you get into it, you know,
Speaker 1: what have been our biggest missed opportunities in your view? Well, Carol,
Speaker 1: these are these are missed opportunities associated with when are
Speaker 1: describing the book of Strategic narcissism, our tendency to define
Speaker 1: the world only in relation to us and assume that
Speaker 1: what we decide to do or choose not to do
Speaker 1: is decisive the favorable outcomes. And the problem with that
Speaker 1: is we don't acknowledge our competition. We don't acknowledge that
Speaker 1: others rivals, adversaries, enemies also have authorship over the future.
Speaker 1: And so we define the world as we like it
Speaker 1: to be. In connection with China, for example, we assume
Speaker 1: that China, having been welcomed into the international community, would
Speaker 1: play by the rules and as a prosper would liberalize
Speaker 1: its economy and then and then ultimately liberalized its form
Speaker 1: of governance. Well, China utter the Chinese Communist Party and
Speaker 1: Fujianping is not doing that's doing quite the opposite. So
Speaker 1: we needed to shift our policy can cooperation and engagement
Speaker 1: to a more competitive approach. Three administrations in a row
Speaker 1: harbored this illusion of a better relationship with Vladimir Putin,
Speaker 1: UH and and the and then just reaching out the
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin would would almost have the effect as if
Speaker 1: you were the grinch you all on Christmas Eve? Is
Speaker 1: Hartwood growth two size is larger that he would stop
Speaker 1: his campaign and sustained political subversion against us, And of
Speaker 1: course that's not the case. And I think the deficiency
Speaker 1: that's in common from China to Russia, to Iran to
Speaker 1: North Korea to the problem of Johdahs terrorism is that
Speaker 1: we don't acknowledge the agency that others have, and we
Speaker 1: don't think enough about the ideology, the emotions and aspirations,
Speaker 1: the driving constrained the other generally, master we have about
Speaker 1: fifty seconds then we're gonna do some news and come back.
Speaker 1: But I just want to just quickly ask you, who
Speaker 1: do you think is our biggest threat right now? Is
Speaker 1: it Russia? Is it China? Is it the Middle East?
Speaker 1: Who is it? It's it's the policy these in actions
Speaker 1: of the Chinese Communist Party and a very sophisticated campaign
Speaker 1: of what I described in the book is co option, coercion,
Speaker 1: and concealment. And so we have to be much more
Speaker 1: effective and much more effective at defending against this campaign,
Speaker 1: but also strengthening our competitive advantages so we and the
Speaker 1: rest of the free world can compete more effectively. General one,
Speaker 1: I I could just take a quick look at Russia.
Speaker 1: It's it's been an you know, how do you view
Speaker 1: their view of the world, and how we should counteract
Speaker 1: that to the extent we need to. Is it better
Speaker 1: to go against Russia with allies or go one on
Speaker 1: one or two as this administration is trying to do
Speaker 1: to kind of I guess curry some favor with this
Speaker 1: Russian leadership. Well, hey, thanks, Paul. What I think it's
Speaker 1: important to understand what's driving Vladimir Prutinent, because Vladimir Putin
Speaker 1: is Russia's policy right now, and and what Prutent is
Speaker 1: driven by is this sense of honor lost at with
Speaker 1: the breakup of the Soviet Union and our victory, the
Speaker 1: free world's victory in the Cold War. And what Putin
Speaker 1: is determined to do is to restore Russia to national greatness. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, he doesn't have a lot of material to
Speaker 1: work with. Of course, he has a huge, dangerous nuclear arsenal,
Speaker 1: but his economy is about the size of Texas economy
Speaker 1: or Italy's economy. So his theory of victory is to
Speaker 1: drag everybody else down under the theory that he can
Speaker 1: be the last man standing. And the way that he's
Speaker 1: doing that is to polarize our societies with cyber enabled
Speaker 1: information warfare directed against us. This is a this campaign
Speaker 1: of of of disruption, disinformation, and denial. He wants to
Speaker 1: he wants to against each other in a way that
Speaker 1: reduces our confidence in our common identity within America, within
Speaker 1: countries in Europe, across the EU UM and then and
Speaker 1: then reduce our confidence in our democratic principles and institutions
Speaker 1: and processes. And I think what is needed is is
Speaker 1: a concerted effort to expose this behavior to i'll turn
Speaker 1: this behavior, but then also to restore our confidence in
Speaker 1: ourselves so that so that this this campaign doesn't have
Speaker 1: the effect that it has been having on us. And
Speaker 1: and to answer your question, it's best done obviously with
Speaker 1: partners and with allies and and really fellow victims of
Speaker 1: this aggressive campaign. When I described in Battle Rouns as
Speaker 1: your Russian new generation warfare, and of course I don't believe,
Speaker 1: I don't believe that that any kind of an accommodation
Speaker 1: with with with Putin is going to happen. I think
Speaker 1: taking a conciliatory approach is going to be futile. And
Speaker 1: and the story that I tell in the book is
Speaker 1: how three different administrations have got approached. You remember when
Speaker 1: George W. Bush said he looked into prudent soul. Remember
Speaker 1: when Secretary Clinton, you brought the reset button to Geneva
Speaker 1: with lab Roth and prison. Obama leaned over and said
Speaker 1: Tom ad bet If, who was keeping the seat warm
Speaker 1: for prutent? Hey, you offer some more flexibility after the election.
Speaker 1: And and we were threw missile defenses for example from Poland.
Speaker 1: None of that worked. And and and uh and this
Speaker 1: is why I think, you know, President Trump should should
Speaker 1: come to this conclusion. You know, he's already laid to
Speaker 1: the game on this that he's not going to be
Speaker 1: a friend. You know, he's just not going to be
Speaker 1: a friend. Well, and I do. I don't want to
Speaker 1: get political. I don't want to point figures, you know,
Speaker 1: fingers and you were, you know, national Security advisor from
Speaker 1: eighteen so, you know, during the Trump administration. But I
Speaker 1: do wonder you know what kind of signal it kind
Speaker 1: of sent said sent to the world, um General McMaster
Speaker 1: to see what seemed to be an alliance between the
Speaker 1: commander in chief here in the United States and putin Well,
Speaker 1: it wasn't in the line. So here's here's what I
Speaker 1: think we have to do. First of all, the President
Speaker 1: Stevens don't help, especially when he draws into into question
Speaker 1: the fact that Russia has engaged in this sustained campaign
Speaker 1: of subversion against us, did in fact attack the election.
Speaker 1: And I think that what we have to be, first
Speaker 1: of all to to counter it. He just don't be
Speaker 1: our own worst enemies. I mean, I tell the story
Speaker 1: of Bottle Grounds about how both political parties in compromised
Speaker 1: our principles so they could gain partisan advantage over the other.
Speaker 1: That's a big mistake. I think the other important aspect
Speaker 1: of this is to is to at least as we
Speaker 1: look back at this that period of time and we
Speaker 1: defend ourselves today that we don't either deny Russia's Russ's
Speaker 1: attacks on us, for the President does some times to
Speaker 1: time or say they determine the outcome of the election,
Speaker 1: which we can't say either, right, and and so again,
Speaker 1: I wish we would just work on this together and
Speaker 1: recognize that what she really wants to do is reduced
Speaker 1: our confidence. I don't I don't think you know. I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think they care you know, who wins our elections.
Speaker 1: I think what they care is that the significant portion
Speaker 1: of Americans doubt the legitimacy of the result. What's the
Speaker 1: state of our cybersecurity in this country here, it's become
Speaker 1: such a huge issue, particularly from the election onward. Right. Well, well,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you, Paul, it's much better. It's much better.
Speaker 1: And and you know, I was I was happy to
Speaker 1: have a hand in this, a small role in this,
Speaker 1: and work in the together with the departments and agencies
Speaker 1: to ensure that we're more effective in cyberspace. We can
Speaker 1: compete more effectively in the recognition that a good defense
Speaker 1: requires a good offense too, so so the authorities that
Speaker 1: are cyber warriors have are much more significant. There's also
Speaker 1: been very significant developments in terms of securing cyber infrastructure.
Speaker 1: There's no organization with very capable people who have worked
Speaker 1: on that. They've worked on that in connection with the
Speaker 1: election in particular, and as you know, we have a
Speaker 1: very decentralized system. But but there are federal standards and
Speaker 1: there's a lot of good collaborative work going on between
Speaker 1: the states and between the federal government. So I think
Speaker 1: we should have confidence in our election. Now. Offensive cyber
Speaker 1: against infrastructure, that's still a very significant threat. Cyber enabled
Speaker 1: information warfare, significant threats cyber enabled crime such as the
Speaker 1: as AS ransomware that North Korea has become uh particularly
Speaker 1: adept at. It is still a huge threat. So what
Speaker 1: we need is a continuous effort because this is a battle.
Speaker 1: The battle is not going to go away, right as
Speaker 1: soon as we get better in one area, our adversaries
Speaker 1: adapt and and and take on new techniques and develop
Speaker 1: the capabilities. Well, we are definitely living in interesting times
Speaker 1: and your book really takes us through um the regions
Speaker 1: of the world that we really need to be sitting
Speaker 1: up and paying attention to. Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. US Army retired general, former National
Speaker 1: security advisor on the phone from Stanford. Check out his book.
Speaker 1: It is called Battlegrounds, The Fight to Defend the Free World.
Speaker 1: And a really timely conversation