Something is changing in our country, and most
people feel it before they can explain it. Welcome
to the Steady State Sentinel. I'm Lauren Anderson.
I spent nearly three decades in the FBI, both
in the U .S. and overseas, focused on national
security. We're delighted that you've joined
us for this episode. I spent the last few weeks
thinking about how to frame this conversation.
And I keep coming back to one thing. It feels
like we're in the middle of what some are calling
a counter -revolution in U .S. foreign policy,
one that didn't begin with any single administration,
but has been building over the past two decades,
shaped in part by the experience of Iraq and
Afghanistan and a growing disillusionment with
large -scale intervention and nation -building.
At the same time, The world has become much more
complex, and we're experiencing the greatest
number of ongoing conflicts since World War II,
including the current wars in Iran and Lebanon,
which have expanded into attacks in the entire
Gulf region. China and Russia are both focused
on challenging the post -Cold War order, and
our allies are reassessing their relationships
with us. We're witnessing a fundamental shift
in how America defines its role in the world.
At the same time, our institutional capacity
and capability have been eroded, and we're operating
with executive and congressional leadership that
increasingly believes it can choose its own path
with or without the support and consent of the
American people. This will be a conversation
about trying to understand what's happening,
and there's no one better to help us think through
that than Ambassador Tom Shannon. Ambassador
Shannon is one of the most experienced diplomats
of his generation with more than three decades
of service at the State Department. He served
as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs,
effectively the department's chief diplomat for
day -to -day foreign policy engagement worldwide,
and he played a central role in shaping U .S.
policy across multiple administrations. He also
led the State Department during the presidential
transition period between the Obama and Trump
administrations. Earlier in his career, he served
as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere
Affairs and as U .S. Ambassador to Brazil. His
work has spanned Latin America, Europe, and Africa,
and he has been deeply involved in some of the
most complex diplomatic challenges facing the
United States. He's currently teaching at Princeton
University. on history and the practice of diplomacy,
which gives him a unique perspective on how Gen
Z is thinking about foreign policy and America's
role in the world. Welcome, Tom. We're delighted
to have you with us. And I always like to start
with asking our guests to share a little bit
about why they chose the path they took and why
they stayed. Well, thank you, Lauren, very much.
It's a tremendous pleasure to be with you and
to have this conversation. You know, my goal
in life had for the longest period of time been
to be a professional baseball player. But I failed
at that when I was in high school. And I had
to pick another path. And it took me a while
to land on diplomacy. But I knew I wanted to
participate in public life. I knew I wanted to
be a voice in the public commons. And as I moved
around from undergrad school to graduate school
from the United States to the UK, I decided that
what better way to serve my country to operate
in this public space than as an American diplomat
representing the United States abroad. And so
when I left graduate school, I entered the United
States Foreign Service, spent 35 wonderful years
as a Foreign Service officer. I can tell you
that aside from a exciting and satisfying career,
I also had a joyful one. And that's phenomenal
because not everybody gets to say that. And as
you know, I feel the same way about my own career.
And those of us who are lucky enough to do something
that matters, do something we love and have that
much joy with it is just phenomenal. Not everybody
gets that. It's a gift, I think. It is indeed.
In an earlier conversation you and I had, you
used the phrase counter -revolution, which is
what sparked my opening. From your perspective,
what's actually changing in U .S. foreign policy
right now? And is this a break from the past
or something that, in your opinion, has been
building over time? You know, I would argue that
for most of American history, the United States
sought to be an independent, autonomous nation.
that was capable of pursuing its own interests
and unwilling to become an ally or partner of
any other country that might in any way compromise
the ability of the United States government to
choose a path that was wholly beneficial for
the American people. However, in the aftermath
of World War II, the American government, led
by first President Roosevelt and then President
Truman, and by an extraordinary group of American
diplomats and warriors, determined that the foreign
policy that had served the United States so well
through the 18th and 19th century had been sputtering
through the first part of the 20th century, and
that it was necessary to revolutionize American
foreign policy. And so the real revolution in
American foreign policy takes place in the immediate
aftermath of World War II. when the United States
decides that our hemisphere is not enough to
secure ourselves, that we have to involve ourselves
in the world, and that we have to do so through
alliances, through security alliances, through
political and economic alliances, and through
attempting to build engagement in the world that
not only promotes our political values and our
prosperity, but convinces people that Our peace
and our prosperity can be theirs also by partnering
with us. Unfortunately, when we get into the
21st century, for some of the reasons you alluded
to, the attacks of 9 -11, the invasion of Afghanistan,
the invasion of Iraq, the larger war on terror,
the global financial recession of 2008 -2009,
COVID, among other things, have gradually begun
to wear at this understanding of how the United
States conducts its foreign policy. And I believe
that increasingly American people have thought
that national security elites have been out of
touch and have not been having a conversation
with the American people about American values
and interests. And this has sparked what I call
the counter -revolution. which is really an effort
to turn on this alliance -based system and to
go back to something that had prevailed through
the 18th and 19th century, which is an America
first, America by itself foreign policy that
does not understand ourselves as situated among
allies and partners, but operating quite independently
and taking advantage of our power. And in many
ways, President Trump has been one of the most
effective articulators of this kind of foreign
policy. But the task before the American people
today, I believe, is to determine whether or
not this is a correct path. From the president's
point of view, the alliance -based system, the
effort to build a global economy, to build institutions
of global governance. is a model that has run
its course. It has been overcome by changes in
the world and now requires too much investment
of money and blood in order to maintain it, and
that increasingly the benefits are not accruing
to the American people. I don't agree with that,
but this is where we are right now in this moment
of counter -revolution. That's an interesting
point. And one of the things I've thought about,
not just for this conversation, but as being
a part of government for so long as you were,
is, you know, in this shift, have we also lost
sight of the fact, whether we agree or disagree
with the forward movement, have we lost sight
of the fact that our foreign policy should be
taking into consideration what Americans think?
Do you think that the shift that we're seeing
now is moving away from our values, which has
driven us at times towards something more transactional?
Or do you think it's more complicated than that?
Well, first of all, I do think the American people
are questioning what America's purpose in the
world is and what the trajectory of American
power should look like. And they've been having
a conversation among themselves and expressing
themselves through elections. for two decades
now it's taken that long for government to hear
this and to listen to it in a meaningful way
but what worries me uh one of the things that
worries me at this point in time is that the
kind of unilateralism that is being expressed
in parts of the american body politic and in
this administration is one that is largely built
around power and not around values and my own
view is is that Power without purpose, power
without values or principle is an empty vessel.
And it's one that only allows you to accomplish
so much. And one that, like quicksand, once you
step into it, it's very hard to get out of. And
so the advantage of values is that it shapes
and directs the use of power. And I actually
believe this is something that's very important
to the American people and that has to be articulated.
if the American people are going to understand
the use of American power as the current administration
is using it. One of the things you and I also
talked about, and I know has been core to you
as a diplomat over the course of your career,
is considering the value of both hard power and
soft power. And the progression right now seems
to be more focused on hard power and less focused
on soft power. And I'd love to get your thoughts
on how you've seen that dynamic play out and
whether you see it's effective or not effective
and what that balance might look like in an ideal
world. You know, these are hard things to balance.
There's no doubt that hard power is important.
There's no doubt that military power and raw
economic power command people's attention and
convince people. to either stay away from you
or to partner with you. But the magic of the
United States, if you want to call it that, one
of the reasons that it has played such a fundamental
role in shaping global agendas over the last
half of the 20th century and the first two decades
of the 21st century was not hard power. It was
soft power. It was the power of our values, of
our politics. of political systems that showed
they could solve tough problems and do so peacefully
and within the structure of a constitutional
order, and which generated this really remarkable
culture and generated technological and scientific
advances that have had profound impact on how
people live. And the truth of the matter is that
lethality, to use a word that the current administration
likes to employ. Only it takes you so far. During
World War II, we probably, at the very best,
killed 10 % of the German army. But we still
won the war. And we won it at the end of the
day, not just because of hard power, but because
the way it was used, because the political strategies
that were employed, because the alliances that
were built, and because of our ability to convince
our adversaries that there was no way out but
to work with us but at the end of the day they
understood that our purpose was not their destruction.
And that's a really important point too because
I think people don't realize sometimes the extent
to which the science exchanges that we have encouraged
under the soft power and even after World War
II our willingness to seek out and bring in scientists
that had been part of the Nazi regime. How critical
that became to our own development, and I think
it's been underemphasized sometimes, and I'm
glad you're pointing it out. Everybody in this
country knows we have issues with immigration,
but a lot of the things that can help with that,
not just our laws, which clearly need revision
and work, but in terms of the reasons people
come to the United States. I would argue that
there's been, if we've used greater soft power
more effectively, for example, in Latin America,
we're trying to address some of the core issues
that would stop the flow of people trying to
come into the United States illegally. And I'm
curious as to what your thoughts are on that.
I agree. And this has been a central part of
what the United States has tried to do over time,
not just in the Western Hemisphere, but beyond.
But in the Western Hemisphere, in the Caribbean,
Central America, and South America, much of what
we focused on was first trying to build common
political values through democratization. We
can build common economic understandings through
trade, especially free trade agreements, and
then promote regional integration, especially
of trade, as a driver for economic growth. And
in the process... Not only did the United States,
working with our partners and friends in the
region, fundamentally reshape an entire hemisphere
in terms of its political and economic standing
in the world, but also prepared the hemisphere
for a process of globalization that was going
to allow our hemisphere to engage with the great
markets of Asia and Europe and beyond as democracies
and as free markets and as... political entities
that had built through the Organization of American
States, through the Summit of the Americans process,
and other mechanisms, means of conversation,
cooperation, and collaboration, and peaceful
resolution of disputes that made the Western
Hemisphere this remarkable strategic reserve
for the United States. And in the process, obviously
our goal is to expand prosperity. and to convince
people in the process of expanding prosperity
that there is a Brazilian dream and a Mexican
dream and a Salvadoran dream that can be as attractive
for their citizens as the American dream. And
obviously, sometimes we're successful in this,
sometimes we're less successful. But the truth
of the matter is that you cannot stop immigration
at a frontier. You have to stop it well in front
of that frontier. And some of that is security
related. Some of it is about proper policing
and ensuring that people are passing through
legal and orderly checkpoints. But a lot of it
is about convincing people that life can be better
at home. And that's a great point. I know, for
example, that I have a friend who runs an organization
called Glasswing International. And she has had
remarkable success with turning people away from
criminal activity and getting involved with gangs
by creating programming within the community
that involves the entire community and involves
law enforcement, for example. At one point during
the first Trump administration, she had talked
with me about partnering and coming in and doing
some training alongside her partners in the country.
And unfortunately, at that time, and now it happened
again in the last year, all of the funding that
was coming through initiatives with the State
Department was killed, was eliminated. And to
me, that's such a shame because it takes away
great programming that goes exactly to the point
that you've just made, which is, you know, how
can we help the society become better? How can
we build strength and infrastructure within civil
society in these other countries? if we withdraw
the funds that are helping to do that exact thing.
And to me, it's disappointing because it's an
opportunity missed. Here's a bigger point. When
John F. Kennedy creates the U .S. Agency for
International Development, when John F. Kennedy
creates the Peace Corps, and when the United
States begins to understand its political engagement
in the world as not just government to government
relations, but society to society relations.
When we make a conscious effort to land in a
country and let people know that we're not only
interested in how we get along with your government,
but we're interested in how we relate to you
and how you relate to us. And this is powerful
because no other country has done that. And no
other country has been able to produce the kinds
of results we have produced through that over
time. And for me, the real tragedy of the moment,
as we pull away from that, as we make our foreign
policy more mercantile, more focused on transactions
and what we can get for something, we are convincing
people that at the end of the day, We are not
a reliable partner because we are not prepared
to make a commitment to them as a people and
as a society. We're only there for what we can
get out of it in the moment. And that might be
beneficial in the short term, but it won't be
beneficial in the medium to long term. I agree
with you because I saw firsthand during the years
that I worked in Africa, for example, how valuable.
Those programs were from USAID, from the Peace
Corps, other initiatives through the State Department,
for example, creating cooperatives so that rural
women could learn how to harvest nuts out of
trees and create argan oil in Morocco, for example,
which became a huge global phenomenon. But that
at its root was some of the initiatives that
came out of the United States government. And
not only is it helping them build themselves
economically. But it's creating enormous goodwill
going to the point that you're saying so that
when things aren't going in a way that they find
helpful from the United States government, we
still have that enormous goodwill that has been
built up between the nations and a recognition
that they are people and they're not just a monolith
sitting in a particular country. And to me, it's
disappointing when that starts disappearing because...
Another program that I love within the State
Department is the International Visitors Leadership
Program, which I know you're very familiar with.
And I'd like you to talk a little bit more about
it because I was a part of that overseas and
identifying people to bring into that program.
So could you talk about that just for a couple
of minutes? The International Visitor Leadership
Program begins as an effort by the United States
government to identify young, rising political
leaders. of many different political persuasions,
some of them hostile to the United States, who
could be brought to the US, taken around the
United States, introduced to lawmakers, introduced
to executives in our government, introduced to
representatives of our private sector, of faith
-based communities, of universities, laboratories,
you name it. And over about a 30 -day period
of time, hopefully come away with a much deeper
and more truthful understanding of the United
States, and hopefully with a willingness to understand
us in a positive way and to be prepared to work
with us over time. And one thing I discovered
across the more than three decades that I served
serving in the United States is how many of the
leaders, especially in my experience in Africa
and Latin America, had been part of international
visitor leadership programs at one point or another
how many presidents how many prime ministers
how many members of congress or the senate or
a parliament had been part of this and so it
was a hugely effective program one that connected
us to these societies and left lasting impressions
on political leaders that served for our benefit
Completely, especially when you think about a
time where we may be in conflict or in strong
disagreement with another country. You know as
well as I do that if you've got somebody sitting
across from you or within that delegation that's
been through that program or another program,
even through those disagreements, you're going
to find a willingness to work through that and
find common ground in a way that you might not
if the person sitting across from you has had
no engagement or the program didn't exist. And
that's absolutely right. but also in a world
where we oftentimes treat our adversaries as
caricatures of who they really are, we can present
ourselves in a way that's not a cartoon. We can
present ourselves in a way that whoever is sitting
across the table from us remembers the time that
they were with a family in Wisconsin, had gone
to a fish fry, had listened to wolves howl in
the upper peninsula of Michigan, had traveled
to the West Coast. and spend time in film studios
or in universities or in small companies trying
to get started. And just come away with a much
more sophisticated, much more nuanced understanding
of who we are. I think it makes all the difference
in the world. And thanks for your insights on
that. I'd like to shift gears a little bit and
talk about strategy, resources, and expertise.
When we look at the three core documents for
our nation about national security and broadly
foreign policy strategy, the annual threat assessment,
the national security strategy, and the national
defense strategy, all three of which have been
released in the past couple of months, we get
a good idea of the threat picture. But the resources,
the posture, and our current level of expertise
is not really lining up with these documents
as they exist today. So I'd love to know from
your experience. What does that gap mean, for
example, with so many unfilled ambassadorial
positions, so many fewer people working both
back at, as we call it, main state in Washington,
D .C., and the embassies, and fewer regional
and topical experts? So what does that mean when
we have that disconnect between what the strategy
and threat documents are telling us and who's
actually there with expertise on the ground?
That means the world. In the sense that you can
describe the problem, but if you can't deal with
it, then good luck. And what the strategy documents
and the threat assessment documents do is lay
out the threats and challenges we're facing around
the world and then describe how it is we're going
to try to position ourselves in terms of our
policy and strategy and in terms of our resources
to deal with them. But the connective tissue
in all of this is the human factor. It's the
women and men who are our diplomats, our intelligence
officers, our law enforcement officers, our military
officers, who are the ones who have to go into
the world and implement these documents and address
the reality of these challenges and threats.
And try to show that the strategies presented
are going to work in one fashion or another.
And for me, you know, what has been distressing
about the most recent efforts to reshape the
structure of our foreign policy agencies and
government is that we're shedding expertise.
We're shedding capability. And in the process,
we are creating institutions that are going to
be less capable and that it's going to be very,
very challenging over time to rebuild that capability
quickly and easily. In the past, in describing
this, I oftentimes point out that this is not
happenstance and this is not by mistake. It's
purposeful. It's a decision made by this administration.
that we are not going to be globally engaged
we are not going to be globally deployed we are
not going to be expeditionary we are actually
going to pull in we're going to define a fairly
close kind of circle or sphere of interest and
influence which we are going to protect and we
will sally out occasionally in order to meet
specific challenges but we are not going to be
dedicating ourselves to establishing global order
and stability. But in order to do that, not only
do you need to reestablish your strategy, you
need to begin tearing down the structures that
allowed you to be global in the first place.
And this is similar to what Hernan Cortes did
when he arrived off the coast of Mexico to begin
his march on the Aztec capital. which is once
he got all his men and horses and supplies on
the beach, he burned his ships to ensure that
his men had no way back. And I believe that this
is what's happening now. I believe this administration
has determined that we're going to burn our ships,
that we are going to end the structures and the
personnel who fill those structures that have
allowed us to be global over time so that we
don't go backwards. And the problem with that,
as we both know, though, is burning the ships
does one thing, but it's not realizing, it's
not taking into consideration that our enemies
don't just stay. There are those who wish to
do us harm. And, you know, from my own perspective,
when we talked about this, you know, when I look
at the FBI and I look at the fact that just before
the president made the decision that we were
going to attack Iran with Israel, they stripped.
the FBI squad and the second largest field office
in the United States, the Washington field office,
of all of its Iranian expertise. We have squads
looking Iran as a unique target because we look
at it within the U .S. government as a counterterrorism
threat, a counterintelligence threat, and a cyber
threat. So a very asymmetric as well as symmetric
threat to the United States. And the FBI director
stripped them because some of those very people
had been involved in the investigation of the
president for the documents that he took to Mar
-a -Lago. And so without a thought to that and
without consideration to the fact that we were
marching into a war with a country that very
effectively attacks us symmetrically as well
as asymmetrically, they stripped all that expertise.
And much like in the State Department, and I'd
love for you to comment on this. In that world
that I came from, you don't become a good counterintelligence
or counterterrorism agent overnight or out of
the FBI Academy. It takes at least five years
to develop that expertise. And, you know, there
was a statement that, oh, he's going to backfill
some of those people from new agents training
out of Conoco. But they're not going to know
what to do. As smart as they may be, as dedicated
as they are, they can't do that work overnight.
You can't read a file and understand. what it
means when Iranian proxies are going to take
actions, like the Lebanese man in Michigan who
attacked the synagogue. Horrible attack. But
if you looked at the situation, you'd recognize,
okay, most of the man's family was just killed
by attacks by Israel into Lebanon. I'm not justifying
his behavior by any stretch of the imagination,
but this is foreseeable. And I think by stripping
the expertise... We're creating a situation that
makes us far more vulnerable, not just within
the borders of the United States, but overseas.
A couple of days ago, an American journalist
was kidnapped in Iraq. And they believe at this
point it was by Iranian proxy organizations in
Iraq who kidnapped her. So these are obviously
not making us safer. So I'd love to know from
the State Department perspective, you know, even
if they try and backfill, to use a terminology.
with people coming in what does that do for the
state department's ability to effectively conduct
its mission outside the united states been grievously
harmed there's no doubt about that but but just
as bad as as the the strip down of the department
has been has been the unwillingness to to fill
posts with presidentially appointed senate confirmed
ambassadors Historically, there's always been
a mix of political appointees and career appointees.
And we've managed it well over time, bringing
in people who are closely connected with the
administration, closely connected with whomever
the president is, but then leavening the mix
with experts who have dedicated an entire life
to being professional diplomats, who know languages
and cultures well, and who know how to get things
done overseas. But those numbers have declined
dramatically. But even now, this is an administration
that's reluctant to put people forward for many
of our large postings around the world. And it's
quite remarkable that we find ourselves in a
war right now in the Gulf region, in the Middle
East, where in most of these countries, we do
not have ambassadors. We have charge d 'affaires.
And this, you know, nearly a year and a half
into an administration is pitiful, to be polite.
But listen, here's the deal, in my opinion. United
States is built over time. The best diplomatic
service in the world, the best intelligence services
in the world, the best law enforcement agencies
in the world. the best development agencies in
the world. And we are tearing them down and redirecting
them in a way that might meet an immediate political
need, but will not be able to respond to a world
that is quite uninterested in our domestic politics
and quite interested in pursuing their own interests
and purpose. And we're not going to be able to
turn away from them. We're not going to be able
to run away from them. They will come and look
for us unless we're prepared to meet them beyond
our frontiers. Unfortunately, I think setting
us up for a dynamic we're going to deal with
long into the future and perhaps, like when I
look at the FBI, I'd love to know your thoughts
about this with State, but... I think it's going
to take half a generation to try and rebuild
things and get that expertise back in place that
we have lost. And I would imagine it's probably
a similar outlook for states. I would agree.
Yeah, no, it's going to take quite a while to
rebuild the expertise that we've lost in a very
short period of time. And to convince people
that these are careers that are more than careers,
they're locations. They're something you dedicate
your life to. And not just your life, but the
life of your family. Because families come along,
whether we're overseas or in Washington, D .C.,
and they become part of this larger work, in
my case, of American diplomacy. But it will not
be easy to replace. On an optimistic note, I
love that one of the things you're doing today
is teaching at Princeton. And you're working
directly with students. And so I'm curious, we
touched on this a little bit, but I'd love for
you to share from a Gen Z perspective, how do
they see America's role in the world? And what
do you think they're getting right or missing?
I'm curious as to what you're hearing from the
students, essentially. And do you think that
will alter how our foreign policy looks in the
future? It's a great question. And it's something
that I've thought a lot about. I've been teaching
for seven years now. And I teach a senior seminar
at Princeton called Diplomacy and the U .S. Role
in the World. And so there's a lot of discussion
with these students about what the United States
is, what it should be, how it should relate to
our partners and allies and our adversaries.
And there's a couple of things that have come
clear to me. First, and maybe most interesting,
is that all of my students were born after 9
-11. Which means that for them, the attacks of
9 -11 are like what Pearl Harbor was for us.
A horrific event, but a historical event. One
they didn't live through and feel. Like you,
or probably like you, I knew more than a few
people who were killed in New York and at the
Pentagon. knew some of them very well. And so
9 -11 was this remarkable moment where we realized
that we have enemies, profound enemies, who were
prepared to do us grievous harm. So my students
view 9 -11 differently. Also, their experience
of American power has been different because
of Afghanistan, because of Iraq, because of the
things we've mentioned, the global financial
recession. the challenges posed by COVID. And
so they see the United States as an obviously
powerful country, but not necessarily one that
gets its way, and not necessarily one that is
a directing and dominant force in the world,
but instead one that has to adjust and accommodate
to any number of other challenges emerging around
it. And thirdly, these are students who, for
the most part, know the world reasonably well
for their age. Many of them have lived overseas.
Many of them speak more than one language, which
I did not when I was in university. I learned
all of my languages in one service. Me as well.
Same thing. And so they just understand the United
States differently. And for them, when they hear
established national security figures, whether
they'd be presidents or secretaries of state
or national security advisors, talking about
American strategy and foreign policy, American
purpose, it's almost as if I was watching a Charlie
Brown cartoon like The Great Pumpkin, where when
adults show up, you only see them from the knee
down. and when they speak all you hear is wah
wah wah wah that's what these young men and women
hear they hear wah wah wah they're just not buying
it because they think it relates and refers to
a world that they are not living in and and so
so that's disturbing and distressing because
it means there's not only lack of comprehension
but lack of trust in political leadership but
what um impresses me about these young women
and men is, first of all, they're smart, they're
hardworking, they're ambitious, and they're not
fearful. They're prepared to throw themselves
into the world, and they want to be successful.
But they have this almost inherent understanding
that to be successful, they need a peaceful and
connected world. That if they find themselves
in a world defined by conflict, that they're
going to become part of that conflict and that's
not going to be good for them. And therefore,
they're very interested, I think, in what you
call soft power. They're very interested in how
to engage in a larger world in a way that will
allow them to be successful and be able to live
long lives. And I'm hopeful about this because
I think what it means is that there is going
to be greater demand on our politicians to do
things right. And I think that's an important
point. You know, when we do these podcast episodes
and it is, I love hearing what you're saying
about your students. And I hear similar things
from. The young people that I mentor, in fact,
we now have a fellow helping out on the podcast
who is a senior from my alma mater, Muhlenberg
College, Edna Asima, and I love that. But I think
an important point that you've gotten to, and
I'd love for you to touch on it as we close this
out, and because I'm sure we both have views,
is, you know, people listen to this and they
think about, well, is there anything I can do
or what can I do? What does that look like? You
know, and certainly we always say. you know,
reach out to your members of Congress. But do
you have any thoughts that you'd like to leave
the audience with, perhaps reflecting on your
students about concrete steps people can take
or what you're seeing your students take in terms
of steps to move us forward in a more constructive
way? Yeah, there's a few, actually, and this
is a great question. I mean, first and foremost,
because of the nature of technology, because
of the connected nature of our societies, and
because of globalization we live in a country
and in a world in which there's no place to hide
and i tell my students you know you can go live
in a cave with a goat and the world will find
you and it will demand something of you and so
it's best to understand the world and ensure
that when the world comes looking for you it's
not there to kill you but it's there to have
you do something positive And the second larger
point is that we live in this period of remarkable
transformation, political, economic, and social,
and that this rising generation is going to play
a role in shaping the world we live in. In other
words, it's going to be a world of their making.
That was not true when you and I came into the
U .S. government in the 1980s, because... The
Cold War was alive and well. The Soviet Union
was going strong. We were in a fight for our
life. And nobody ever asked you or me whether
or not the Cold War was a good idea. Nobody asked
you or me whether or not the Soviet Union was
just a misunderstood adversary that would change
its behavior if we talked to it differently.
We were just told, hey, listen, we're in a fight.
This is a fight for our lives. And now so are
you. So get to work. But we're in this place
right now where as the American people try to
determine what the purpose of American presence
in the world is, what engagement is, as we try
to understand how we link our power and our values,
how we link our interests and our values, this
younger generation is going to play a fundamental
role in how that happens. And what a wonderful
opportunity. What an incredible... challenge
to be presented with and to know that what you
do is going to have an influence that's going
to carry through the rest of this century. And
so for me, what I try to impart on the younger
generation is that they should be excited by
what's in front of them and that they should
realize that there will be tough moments, but
that in many ways, as Condi Rice used to say
after a very tough day, welcome to the NFL. This
is going to be a lot like the NFL, where there's
going to be a lot of great plays and a lot of
glory, but occasionally those plays are going
to hurt. And that what you need to do is just
get back up and get into the huddle and ready
yourself for the next play. And, you know, there's
no way to kind of chart a life in this world.
You have to be open to the serendipity of life
and the opportunities that are presented. But
having a clear understanding of what it means
to be an American, having a clear understanding
of what the United States is, is an important
part of all of this. And so that's what I spend
a lot of my time on. Well, thank you. I cannot
think of a better way to end this episode, Tom.
I am so grateful for your time, your service,
everything that you're doing today with these
students. sharing this with us because it means
a lot and it gives me a lot of hope. You and
I talked about we're both optimists at heart,
but to hear this coming from you, from your students
is just terrific. So thank you so much for joining
us today. I'm really grateful for your time.
Thank you. This has been wonderful. I really,
really appreciate it. All the best. Thank you
so much. And to everybody else out there, thank
you for joining us for this episode of The Steady
Space Sentinel. We'd love to hear from you, both
your reaction to this episode and ideas you might
have for future episodes. Thanks again. This
is Lauren Anderson, Still Standing Watch. Thank
you for listening to the Steady State Sentinel
podcast. Don't miss out on more insights and
exposes from America's premier global security
experts. Also, subscribe to our sub stack. at
substack .com slash at SteadyState1 and follow
our social media and join us right here next
week for another exciting edition. The Steady
State is a nonprofit organization working to
sustain our democracy and national security.
Join us and support our mission by visiting www
.thesteadysate .org.