[APPLAUSE] MARTHA POLLACK: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this year's Olin Lecture. To those of you who weren't able to make it to Ithaca, who are taking part from home, watching on the livestream, welcome to you as well. And we hope to see you here at a future reunion.
As those of you who are reunion regulars know, the Olin Lecture is a Cornell tradition, established in 1987 through a generous gift of the Spencer T. and Ann W. Olin Foundation. Over the years we've been able to invite a range of wonderful speakers to participate in the event. And this year we are so fortunate to have with us a member of the Cornell class of 1969, Stephen Hadley. Yeah, Cornell class of 1969.
Stephen Hadley is here to share his thoughts on the current state of global politics from the perspective of his extraordinary career in politics, defense, national security, and law. Mr. Hadley is a principal of Rice Hadley Gates LLC, an international strategic consulting firm that was founded with Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, and Anja Manuel. He has served on the National Security Council staff and in the Defense Department, including as Assistant Secretary for Defense for International Security Policy. From 2001 to 2005, he was the assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor, serving under then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. He then served four years as the assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Mr. Hadley is a member of the Aspen Strategy Group and is also board chair of the United States Institute of Peace and an executive vice chair of the board of directors of the Atlantic Council.
He joins us today in conversation with another member of the Cornell community, Congressman Steve Israel. Congressman Israel left Capitol Hill in 2017 after 16 years in Congress representing New York's 2nd and 3rd congressional districts. Today, he is a regular political commentator on MSNBC and his insights appear regularly in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs and on 60 Minutes, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Fox News, and elsewhere.
In addition to the title of Congressman, Congressman Israel now holds the title of Professor of the Practice here at Cornell. He'll be teaching in the Government Department this coming fall semester. And last year he became the inaugural director of Cornell's new Institute of Politics and Global Affairs. The Institute is based in New York City with a presence here in Ithaca. And it builds connections among stakeholders in domestic and global politics, including political leaders, policy think tanks, the business community, international civic civil society, and academia. And it involves many of our Cornell students. It's an initiative that I am personally quite excited about as part of Cornell's broader commitment to engagement in the global community.
I am really truly excited to welcome both of them here this afternoon. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Stephen Hadley and Representative Steve Israel.
STEVE ISRAEL: This is Stephen and I'm Steve for those of you who may be confused. How about another big hand for the president of Cornell University, Martha Pollack, for everything that she does.
Let me just spend about a minute and a half providing you with some context. And then I'm going to properly introduce our special guest. And we're going to have a conversation. The president mentioned that I spent 16 years in the United States Congress. I left unindicted and undefeated, which is a triumph, Madam President, these days, a true triumph. And eight of those years I served when George W. Bush was president and eight years I served when Barack Obama was president.
And although I didn't always agree with President Bush, here's what I did find that my conversations with the president's administration with Stephen Hadley, dealing with some really contentious, complex, and volatile foreign policy issues, I learned that he was a true straight shooter, that he was a brilliant and still is a brilliant analyst, that he was able to untangle from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle the complexities with which we were dealing, that he provided more insight than we could get from most other people. And I think you're going to see that and learn that over the next hour or so.
Now, just a bit of housekeeping, Stephen and I will have a conversation for about 40 minutes. And then at about 3:45, we're going to open it up to the audience for questions and answers. You'll see there will be microphones available to you. What we do ask is when you have a question, keep it as brief as you can, so that we can accommodate as many people as possible.
So before we do anything, another big hand for Stephen Hadley for his service. [APPLAUSE] So you and I fortuitously bumped into one another in the lobby of the Statler Hotel yesterday. Neither one of us seem too terribly disappointed not to be in Washington DC, but to be here at Cornell. Tell me, what is it like to come back to Cornell? And what impact did this university have on you during your trajectory to become the national security advisor to the President of the United States?
STEPHEN HADLEY: Well, it's I think great for all of us to be back at Cornell and particularly to have the weather we've had, which I attribute to the president. Thank you so much. But for me, and I think for all of us, my career really began here and got its direction here at Cornell. I was a government major and had wonderful caucus courses with Andrew Hacker and Alan Bloom and Walter Burns. But what really mattered for me was a course I took with Walter LeFevre on diplomatic history. [APPLAUSE] As we all know, he was a wonderful teacher.
And he would come in. And he would lean back on the desk. And with no notes, he would talk about foreign policy. And he would take a particular period, and he would describe the time and the key leaders of the period and what they thought they were going to try to do. And then he would show how events undid them all, which if you think about it was a little depressing. But for a lot of us, it really opened our eyes to America's role in the world, how important that was, and inspired in a lot of us a desire to spend part of our professional career trying to help America play that role in the world.
And what was interesting it was really bipartisan, Republicans and Democrats. Walter had people that were in every administration from '69 forward. And I think he didn't probably always agree with everything we did. But I hope he was proud of the fact that but for him a lot of us would not have done that at all. So for me, it all started right here at Cornell.
STEVE ISRAEL: Sitting in that class, was it your plan to work for presidents? Was it your plan to ultimately, you're trying to affect policy in the White House or in a Defense Department?
STEPHEN HADLEY: Well, somewhere in this class, I learned something about the National Security Council, which of course is in the White House. And its job is to coordinate policy and bring decisions up to the president and then oversee their implementation and execution. And I thought to myself, somewhere in my junior and senior year, wouldn't it be fun to be on the NSC staff? And you know, the dream came true. I was there from '74 to '77. And then, of course, from 2001 to 2009. And it's a wonderful institution. And it was a great treat for me to be able to do that. And, again, but for Walden LeFevre fever and the kind of education and training that I got here at Cornell, I wouldn't have gotten there.
STEVE ISRAEL: Now, you mentioned the bipartisanship in foreign policy, national security. Of course, you were one of 27 national security advisors to the president since President Eisenhower created the post in 1953. Who were some of your role models while you were in the White House, perhaps before and after? Who were the folks whose counsel you really sought and trusted?
STEPHEN HADLEY: Well, you know, the National Security Council system of this interagency committees that coordinates policy and supports the president was really the creation of Henry Kissinger. And then it was sort of modified a bit by Zbigniew Brzezinski. But the person who really embodied the role of the national security advisor was Brent Scowcroft, who had the job first under President Ford and then again under President George H.W. Bush. And his model was that the national security advisor should be off stage, behind the scenes, low profile, running the process, making sure that the president got what the president needed to make decisions, and to make sure that all the national security principals-- Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, head of CIA-- were working together as a team to support the president. That was his model.
It came out of really the Tower Commission report, that he was one of the members of and I was on the staff and helped write what the national security advisor should be. And that really for, I think, all of us who followed Brent is the starting point. That really is the model.
And, you know, Cornell has done pretty well in carrying out that model. I was there for eight years from 2001 2009, four as deputy, four as national security. And I succeeded, of course, Sandy Berger, who was there under the Clinton administration for four years as deputy, then four years as national security advisor. So for 16 years Cornell kind of had the inside track on the NSC in the White House.
And Sandy was a wonderful person and became a friend and a colleague. You know, the national security advisors are a bit of a club. It's a tough job. And if you've been through it, it gives you a bond that goes across party lines. And I do a lot of events with Jim Jones, with Susan Rice, with Tom Donilon who were President Obama's national security advisors, partly to show that there is still bipartisanship left in Washington, notwithstanding what you read in the newspapers.
But Sandy Berger was very special. And I worked with him on a number of joint projects, trying to bring Republicans and Democrats together on issues like Middle East peace and Iran and Egypt and the like. And his untimely death is really a loss, not just for his family and friends, but for the country because he was really a calm and sensible voice on these matters. And, again, another contribution to our country from Cornell.
STEVE ISRAEL: Let's talk about the evolution of threat. 1989, you're an Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2001, Deputy National Security Advisor. 2005, National Security Advisor. I would imagine that the sense of threat changed markedly in that time almost everywhere in the world, in the Middle East, Iran, Syria, and China, cyber warfare, Africa. What are the national security challenges that you think we should be focused on today? What do you think the most about today at this point?
STEPHEN HADLEY: I will do that. Let me just quickly sort of where we are depends a little bit on where we go depends a little bit on understanding where we've been. And it's interesting because in '89, Soviet Union breaks up. Communism is discredited. It looks like our model of free markets and democracy, human rights rule of law is the only model and is going to sweep the globe. And in some sense, we kind of went on vacation a little bit.
And then 9/11 comes. And a new kind of threat that threatened the American homeland, something we thought was almost unthinkable and required a very different kind of response than the kind of response required in the Cold War. We sort of talk about our failures, but don't acknowledge our successes. And one of the things as you think about the challenges we face now, which I'll get to, we have to remind ourselves that the victory in the Cold War was a huge accomplishment-- 40 years of a common policy, Republicans and Democrats really resulted in the removal of an existential threat to our country.
And after 9/11, we were told by the intelligence community that this was going to be the first of a wave of mass casualty attacks on the United States, some of which would involve weapons of mass destruction. You got those same briefings. And President Bush led the administration in close coordination with Congress to reorganize our government, create the Department of Homeland Security, harden ourselves at home, while we took the fight to the enemy and to al-Qeada abroad so we did not have to fight them here at home. And all those predictions of mass casualty task did not come true. Another huge challenge accomplished.
Another huge challenge in front of us now, this is really a third in a very difficult time. The international order that we helped create after World War II and that was reaffirmed after the Cold War is under a lot of pressure. Rise of great power competition from Russia and China. They are also ideological competitors. They have an authoritarian state capitalism model that is not ours. Technology is a challenge. Al-Qeada and non-state actors are a challenge. Media proliferation is an opportunity and a challenge. So we are in a very different time.
And of all of those, the one which is the most significant is really the rise of China and the fact that China is a potential competitor like we've never seen in our history. Soviet Union was a military threat, but it was an economic pygmy. And it had an ideological ideology that it could impose, but did not inspire.
China is a different matter. It is an economic powerhouse, becoming a real military player. Its Belt and Road initiative tries to basically bring the whole world seams into a regime, which they will lead. This is the kind of challenge we have not seen. And the trick is it's a challenge I think we've awakened to late. If you read the press, all you hear about is China this China that. And China is problematic in terms of the things they've been doing-- stealing intellectual property through cyber theft, coercing our companies to surrender their intellectual property, closing their market to US companies, while they subsidize their companies and unleash them on the world, in some sense to put ours out of business. A lot not to like about China. Got that.
But the problem is-- and we will be strategic competitors-- but the problem is if all you do is compete, the risk is you become into confrontation and then become adversaries. And that's not a good place for us or for China. Our countries are too interdependent economically. And there are too many problems in the world today, whether it's climate or terrorism or the financial system that require China and the United States to cooperate.
So the challenge we've got before us now is, one, get our own house in order so we're able to compete effectively with China. And they know that we can compete effectively with them. But at the same time, leave open the possibility of cooperation on those things where it's in our interests and their interests to cooperate. The way I say it is, can we be strategic competitors and strategic cooperators at the same time? That's tough. And there're not a lot of historical precedents for countries that have been able to do that. But I think that's our challenge.
STEVE ISRAEL: So you talked about getting our house in order. Can you expand on that? What steps do you think we need to take? What priority should we be pursuing to get our house in order?
STEPHEN HADLEY: Well, there are a lot. I mean, the truth is our system isn't working the way it should. As you know better than I, our politics are very fractured. Everybody moves to the extremes. And we're not getting the country's and the people's business done.
You know, we have known for two decades how to solve the migration problem. You harden the border. You have a guest worker program. And then you have a path to giving acceptable status to people. We've known that for 20 years. We're not doing it.
We've known the problems in the entitlement program and social security. We know how to do these things. We know what's wrong with our educational system. We're not investing in the kind of research that has driven American innovation in the past. These are all things that we know how to do. We're not doing because our political system isn't working.
And our economic system still is not providing inclusive economic growth. And quite frankly, we're having a bit of a crisis of confidence. And you see it in the polling. People aren't so sure that democracy and freedom and human rights and rule of law and market economies is the right model, not just for us, but for the world as a whole.
And if you then go and travel abroad, you'll see that America's brand is tarnished and China's seems to be gleaming. And we've got to get into this game. We've got to fix ourselves at home. And if we fix ourselves at home, if we do what we need to do to make sure that our children and grandchildren can live in a prosperous and secure future, we'll have the platform we need to deal with whatever challenges we face internationally, whether it's terrorism or China or Russia or anybody else.
STEVE ISRAEL: You and I had lunch together with some alumni and with President Pollack. And we talked about the polarization. And we kind of fixed upon this one issue that one of the reasons that Congress is so polarized is because of this thing called gerrymandering, that you have politicians on both sides of the aisle drawing districts to protect politicians and their parties. And I can't tell you how many times I would hear from Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues this statement about a contentious issue.
I would love to be able to vote on a bill to deal with entitlements or on gun safety. I just can't, because if I do, I won't get beaten in a general election from the other party. I'm going to be primaried from the further left or the further right. And so of the 435 congressional districts that we have in Congress right now, on a good day, all but 60 have been drawn far left, far right, which means the incumbent has to survive by going further left, further right. And compromise is actually a defeat. You're punished for compromise on election day. In moderate districts, compromise is valued. And I think that's one of the major challenges that we have.
Let's talk a little-- let's go back to foreign policy and national security.
STEPHEN HADLEY: Can I say one thing about that?
STEVE ISRAEL: Yes, please.
STEPHEN HADLEY: You know, those issues, there are a couple of court cases before the Supreme Court on this issue, which we talked about. But I want to try something to see if you're right. And it sounds a little Pollyanna-ish. But I think that really that problem won't end until the American people send the message to their men and women who represent them in Congress. If you aren't solving problems and if you're not working on a bipartisan basis, you're going to be out next election.
STEVE ISRAEL: I agree. For that to happen, the incumbents in Congress have to stop catering and pandering to their bases and begin to problem solve back in the center. That's what we really need to do.
STEPHEN HADLEY: And that means that elections matter.
STEVE ISRAEL: That's right.
STEPHEN HADLEY: People say, you know, well, my vote doesn't matter. You know, it was only about 500 and some votes in 2000 that meant George Bush rather than Al Gore was president of the United States. So votes matter. And if this is going to happen, people have to organize. They have to participate, and they have to come out and vote. And that's the way we're going to change the situation.
STEVE ISRAEL: Isn't it nice to have a Republican and a Democrat agreeing on stuff. I mean, this is-- where do we apply for the Nobel Prize? Maybe there should just be a Steve party in America. And you can run for president, and I'll run for vice president or something like that.
Back to your functions and your service. So you actually participated, contributed to policy in the Nixon administration, Ford administration, two Bush administrations. Can you describe the management approach to foreign policy and national security that each administration had and comment to the best of your ability on the management approach that the current administration has in terms of national security and foreign policy?
STEPHEN HADLEY: This is all off the record.
STEVE ISRAEL: Oh, sure. Oh, yeah we can trust them.
STEPHEN HADLEY: So I was in the Nixon administration for two, three months. And what was interesting is you could just feel in the West Wing and in the old DLB that something was wrong, that there was a suspicion, a defensiveness. It was a bad culture and you could feel it.
And when Gerald Ford-- when President Nixon left office and Gerald Ford was sworn in and said, our long national nightmare is over, it really was. And he was a very workmanlike president. I realized in the Ford administration how much of the nation's business that matters comes up to the president and the president really decides.
And the NSC is just one of the part of the White House structures that are to support the president that. And Gerald Ford is an example of something Walter LeFevre told me. I went up to him after class at one point during all the turmoil in Vietnam and all the rest, I said, you know, Professor LeFevre, I just think we don't have some great men and women stepping forward to be president. He said, well, hold on there. He said, our system was designed not to need great men and women, but to take ordinary men and women to do the country's business. That was what Gerald Ford did. And he did a terrific job.
And George H.W. Bush, who was probably from a foreign policy standpoint, the more qualified president we've ever had. You know, he had been in political jobs. He'd headed the CIA. He'd been up at the United Nations. He'd been to China.
And it was really something to watch him manage the Gulf War, to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Really, the only war since World War II that continues to be enduringly popular with the American people. And then to see him preside over the demise of the Soviet Union, which was building on what President Reagan had done, to have Soviet Union break up, communism be discredited, the military standoff in Europe brought down all without the firing of a shot was a remarkable event.
George W. Bush ran as a domestic president. He was going to do educational reform. He was going to do immigration reform. He was a domestic presidential candidate. That's what he wanted to do.
And then 9/11 came. And I remember he said after that we are now a wartime administration, and we are going to be alert and never rest, so that the country doesn't have to be. And it really transformed his presidency. And I think, again, what he did after 9/11 so those predictions from the CIA did not come true is really quite remarkable.
All of those presidents were supported by a process, which developed options for them, gave them information, allowed to them make decisions, and then implemented those through the interagency process. President Trump is a different person, a different kind of president. And we have to remember how he became president.
He became president largely because there were a group of Americans who felt and who had been saying really as we talked about at lunch since 2010 in various forms, saying, look, you're not listening to us. We feel victimized by globalization. We're threatened by immigration. We feel abandoned by our politicians and betrayed by the elites. And no one's paying attention to us.
And they kind of gave up on the system. And they wanted someone who would disrupt the system. And they elected Donald Trump. And he has been true to his word, a disruptor in chief. And has reset the table on so many issues, whether it's trade or allies or Iran or North Korea.
And it's interesting, this is a president who does, I think, not want process, does not want to be constrained by process, does not want to be constrained by policies, in some sense doesn't want to be constrained by what he said the day before. And he believes that it gives him enormous leverage in dealing with the nation's adversaries. And that's-- unpredictability, a measure of unpredictability is useful, though there are limits.
But it's really tough on our friends and allies who don't know where we are because America's role in the world is such that our friends and allies set their course based on ours. And if they don't know what course we're heading on, they can't set theirs. And it's tough on the American people, because we don't really know where we are on an issue.
So this was an administration elected to be disruptive, has certainly served that role. But the jury is out whether they can set some courses, achieve some agreements, establish some policies, and provide some sort of sustained benefits from that disruption. I think the jury's out.
STEVE ISRAEL: Let's talk a little bit about the last election and Russia. We can agree or disagree as to whether there was collusion, but there is no disagreement in the intel community and very little disagreement between Democrats and Republicans as to whether or not the Russians did launch a major intel operation to try and influence the election. I don't know of anybody who would deny that, anybody who is at least realistic and reasonable who would deny that. And the FBI director recently warned publicly that the Russians will attempt to do the same thing in 2020.
What is the right response to that? We know what the threat is. What should we be doing to respond to that threat?
STEPHEN HADLEY: Well, I think there are three things, some of which we are beginning to do a little bit late. One is to be very public about what was done, so that the American people know and so that the Russians know that the American people know. And that's really, I think, a huge service that Robert Mueller has provided with this investigation, because if you look at the indictments that resulted from that investigation and the report, it is very clear what the Russians were doing. And that's really step one.
Step two is there needs to be some cost. And sanctions have been imposed on Russia as a result of this, probably not enough. But sanctions have been imposed. That's a good thing to do.
But three, we are now on notice that our electoral processes are vulnerable to this kind of cyber penetration and to the manipulation of our social media. We're on notice. And if we don't fix those problems, shame on us. Shame on us.
And I think we're in the process of doing that in terms of hardening our electoral process. We are in a real process now of examination about social media. Part of the social media is doing themselves. Part of it is, I think, going to be in response to what the executive branch and the legislative branch will do. So that process is underway.
And the last thing is you can't allow people to mount cyber attacks without consequence in the cyber realm. There can't be free hits. And one of the things that's interesting is we now have a thing called cyber command. And cyber command, the head of it has really disclosed in the last several weeks that they, during this last electoral cycle, had an active program of going after the Russians in cyberspace, ringing their bell, let them know we know who they are, we know what they're doing, and in some cases preventing them from using cyberspace against us. Same with social media.
So those are the four things we need to do. I think we're late to the party. But I think we are doing those four things. It's probably about right.
STEVE ISRAEL: A lot of my former colleagues worry about this thing deep fakes, where there is this technology now where you can take a Congressman Israel, literally put words in my mouth, align my lips to those words and have me say something that I would never say. And I'm very concerned-- I think we should all be concerned about the use of that deep fake technology to change the words or invent words for people that are running for office.
So you mentioned that when you were at Cornell you thought being in the NSC would be fun. So we talked about China and Russia--
STEPHEN HADLEY: Not much fun there--
STEVE ISRAEL: 9/11. Let's talk about another fun subject, Iran.
STEPHEN HADLEY: Yeah.
STEVE ISRAEL: I, to the contemptment of some, to the consternation of others, I was one of the few Democrats who opposed the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I did not favor the deal. The US has fully withdrawn from the agreement. There were rising tensions. What do you think our best strategic options are with respect to Iran? And how much of a threat do you see Iran being?
STEPHEN HADLEY: Well, you know, part of the problem with the JCPOA, as you well know, because it influenced, I'm sure, your decision, is it purported to deal with the nuclear issue, but did not sort of permanently remove from Iran the option of at some point pursuing a nuclear weapon. But it also failed to address a lot of other things Iran is doing-- its ballistic missile program, which gives them the ability to deliver those nuclear weapons, its disruption in the region, whether it's disruption in Yemen, in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, their use of Hezbollah and other proxy forces to advance their own agendas, and, of course, their support for terror and their own mistreatment of their own people. It didn't address any of those. And that was really, I think, the deficiencies in the agreement and the failure to address these other things is what caused people and the Trump administration to get out of that agreement.
So where do we go now? The Trump administration in a way is continuing the Obama administration in terms of sanctioning in Iran, but they've really turned up the heat and focused on the things that Iran really needs, which is the ability to transport and particularly its oil production. If Iran cannot sell its oil, it has a huge problem. The objective of that-- and the administration's made this clear and President Trump has made this clear-- is try to get the Iranians back to the negotiating table, not only to fix the problems in the nuclear agreement, the fact that some of the restrictions lapse with time, that there wasn't adequate verification, but also address some of these other issues.
In the interim the sanctions are having actually a very positive effect, because how does Iran disrupt the region? Well, it does by sending arms, money, and surrogates into these other theaters, whether it's Iraq, Syria, or wherever. Well, it's pretty clear that the economic squeeze is reducing the money they have available to do all of those things. You hear Nasrallah, who runs Hezbollah in Lebanon, talking about he's out of money. And the public budget of the Iranians shows that both their military and the Quds force has taken a hit in 2019. So in the interim, until hopefully the Iranians come back to the table, it is squeezing the ability of the Iranians to disrupt. And that's a good thing.
At the same time, we are establishing a deterrence and a heightened deterrence posture in the region, so that Iran is not tempted to go after either our friends and allies any more than they or our own people in Iraq, which is what was the concern about two or three weeks ago. So it's difficult. Iran has been a problem for the United States for decades. And I think the hope is that Iran will decide that it's in their interest to try to come back to the table and see if we can have a more successful platform between the two countries going forward.
STEVE ISRAEL: On the issue of a country that is a problem for the United States over several decades, let's go to North Korea. President Bush in his State of the Union message that I attended included North Korea in the axis of evil. President Trump now is clearly investing political capital and time in trying to achieve a deal with Kim Jong Un. What do you think we should be doing to contain or reduce the likelihood of an expansion of North Korea's short-range medium-range, and long-range ballistic missile program?
STEPHEN HADLEY: It's very tough. And, you know, there's been a lot of criticism of President Trump from people who dealt with this issue in the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, the Obama administration. And I say that people who work this issue in those administrations ought to actually be a little bit humble, because their own efforts were unblemished by success, including my own.
So the Clinton administration had an agreement with North Korea to denuclearize. Couldn't keep them in the agreement. Bush administration had an agreement, September 19, 2005 Joint Statement to denuclearize North Korea. We couldn't keep them in it. The Obama administration had a more limited deal. They couldn't keep them in it. So this is what you call a wicked problem. And we don't have a great solution for it.
Now, to their credit, the Obama administration is-- sorry, the Trump administration is trying something different. We did one of these bottom up, carefully negotiated comprehensive agreements trying to nail down inspections, verification, all the rest. President Trump has tried a different approach. He's basically said, I'm going to try to deal with this new leader in North Korea, Kim Jong Un. And I'm going to try to see if I can get him to make a big bet, to make a strategic choice between North Korea today, which is an economic basket case, isolated, it's only thing it's got going for it its nuclear program, very dependent on China, and really not a bright future. To say, Kim Jong Un, we have a different path for you. If you will give up that nuclear program, we will have relations. We will help you economically. You can provide a better life for your people. We will embrace you in the international community so you're not so dependent on China.
That's what he tried to sell at this last summit they had in Hanoi. And I think it was a worthy effort. It failed. I think they will at some point reengage and maybe try to achieve that vision more on a step-by-step basis. It's worth a try.
But you can't be very optimistic. And that's why we have to, working with our allies in the region, enhance our deterrent posture. So the end of the day, if we have to, we could live with a North Korea that has a ballistic missile program and has the 40 or so nuclear weapons that it has at this present time. Live with it in the sense that they are deterred from using it, because they know the consequence would be terrible, but also enhancing our ability to defend against those missiles, which would be actually a better way to deter than by threatening retaliation.
But it's a tough problem. And I think we've got to both try the negotiations, but also enhance our deterrent posture, both because I think it gives them, the North Koreans, an incentive to negotiate, but it also gives the Chinese an incentive to put pressure on North Korea to negotiate. Because the last thing China wants is to see the United States upgrading and expanding its military presence in that part of the world.
STEVE ISRAEL: My final question, and then we're going to go to audience Q&A-- so begin teeing up your questions to one of the smartest national security analysts that I've ever met-- my final question is this. You and I have several commonalities. We both served and lived in Washington. We're here today. But on July 15, you and I are actually going to be participating, or if not participating, but organizing a very important program for new members of Congress. Steve Hadley is, as you heard from President Pollack, the chairman of the United States Institute for Peace. And on July 15, the Cornell Institute of Politics and Global Affairs and the USIP are organizing a simulation of a nuclear crisis in North Korea for new members of Congress to teach them how you work your way through a crisis and try and contain it, rather than allow it to amplify. And they're going to be talking about what we call non-kinetic approaches, the use of deterrence and diplomacy.
So that's a little bit of a commercial for what the Cornell Institute is doing with Mr. Hadley. But I'd like to conclude this portion of the program by getting your comments on the value of soft power. A lot of what we talk about on foreign policy national security is hard power-- send in the 4th Infantry Division, send in the cruise missiles. But there is also something called soft power, which is an indispensable element. So can you talk about soft power and the value of soft power as it's pursued by the USIP?
STEPHEN HADLEY: I can talk about USIP and one of the things-- and then I'll talk about it more generally. In terms of USIP, one of things we are focused on is the fact that if you look at where the terrorism comes from, if you look at where poverty is coming from, if you look about where these enormous migrations are coming from, they're coming from fragile states, focused heavily in the Middle East, North Africa, Sahel, and the Horn of Africa.
And these are states that basically their basic problem is that there is no social compact between the people and their governments. They've lost confidence in the governments. The governments many times are corrupt. They are kleptocratic. They don't provide services. They don't provide security. And that opens a population to be exploited by terrorism. And for people to want to leave. And that, of course, has been a huge challenge in the region and for Europe and the rest.
So one of the things we're doing at USIP is focusing on fragile states. And Lindsey Graham, senator from South Carolina, asked us to do a study, which was headed by the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton and Governor Kean of New Jersey, to focus on how to prevent extremism before it turns out into terrorism. And the conclusion of that study is it's all about governance. It's not about nation building. We can't make other peoples nations for them. They have to do it themselves.
But what we can do is identify partners at the national level or at local level who get it, that the problem in fragile states is governance, and who are willing to partner with us. And we can help them and support them in coming up with their own plans for improving the governance, providing better services to their people. This isn't about democracy promotion. This is about getting governments that are more transparent, that are responsive to their people and they're beginning to provide services. So that's one of the things we are doing. And we are now working to try to get this incorporated in legislation on the Hill, the two bills pending, within policies within the administration, and then get some pilot projects going on the ground to see if this project can work.
More generally on soft power, you know, our strongest soft power is our values. It's the image we've had for a long time of being that beacon of freedom and liberty that provides for people, a life of human dignity, but also a life of security and prosperity. That's our strongest soft power. And that's what's now under assault, if you will, and under question in the international community and at home. And that's why if you want a stronger foreign policy, we need to start fixing these problems at home that I talked about.
The second thing is we are great with the hard power and the military instrument. What we've done is we've let the non-military instruments atrophy-- whether it is AID and the people who do development and who can help on the governance problems of fragile states, whether it's our diplomatic corps. All these non-military instruments of power and influence, we've really let atrophy over the last two or three decades.
And in the kinds of problems that we have today require us to use all elements of national power in a coordinated and strategic way to address them. And I would say beyond that, we need to use all elements of our society. What our universities are doing, yes, we're educating a lot of foreign students. I get that. But that is part of maximizing America's real soft power, which is who we are as a people. And letting these students come and see that on the ground here, I think that is a hugely important investment we make for the future. And we cut that off at our peril.
STEVE ISRAEL: With the permission of the president, I'm going to call an audible. I said final question. But I have a new a final question.
STEPHEN HADLEY: A final, final question.
STEVE ISRAEL: This is what members of Congress do. You know, my final point was six final points ago. So we dealt with a lot of sobering issues-- Russia, Iran, China, hacking into elections. What gives you hope? What makes you optimistic?
STEPHEN HADLEY: A lot. And I'm glad you asked your final, final question, because it's the one I do want to answer. I have great confidence in this country. We have wonderful institutions. They're being tested in a lot of ways now by President Trump, who's an unusual president. I think the institutions are doing pretty well.
I have confidence that we have the right values here in terms of freedom, democracy, rule of law, market economy. I think we have the right values, not at home, but also for others to emulate. We have a wonderful economy. Still the world's largest and most effective military in the world and probably than we've ever had in history. This wonderful set of educational institutions, a tradition of entrepreneurship and innovation, we've got a lot going for us.
But most of all, we've got a next generation that I'm very hopeful about. I run into a lot of young people in the national security field. They are smart. They're well traveled. They know languages. They are well educated. They are ready to step up and come forward. And I just want them to hasten. That's why I want them to get out there and organize and vote, because it's obscene that the two leading candidates-- being an old guy, I have to say this-- that the two leading candidates for president of the United States are two 70 plus year old white guys. It's not right.
And again, I may draw some boos for this, but it's my baby boomer generation, it's time for us to get out of the way. These young people are ready to go. But they need to step forward. They need to organize. They need to participate in the political process. They need to vote. And they can pick the next president of this country. And they can change the direction of this country. And that's what they need to do.
STEVE ISRAEL: I have about 20 texts from presidential campaigns saying, why did you ask that final question? Let's open it up to audience question and answer. Please queue up. We're going to need you to make your way to the microphones, because we can't get the microphones to you. So we'll start over here, please. And just give us your name and what your affiliation is here at Cornell.
AUDIENCE: Sure, Esther Tang. I graduated 15 years ago from the School of Hotel Administration. And along the lines of soft power, I'm wondering how strategic or even useful is it to utilize compassion when it comes to understanding people who are either white nationalists or overseas terrorists?
STEPHEN HADLEY: You know, it's-- we need to understand. But there are people who do not bear us good. And for those people, We have to be prepared to deal with them.
I'll try to answer your question this way. There are a lot of extremists out there, a lot of terrorists out there. And one of the approaches we've used is to try to use all elements of power to bring those groups that can be reconciled who are willing to leave insurgency, leave terrorism, and rejoin society. We ought to try everything we can to do to bring those people out of insurgency, bring them out of terrorism. But we have to recognize there are going to be an irreconcilable group that for a variety of reasons cannot be talked out of what they're doing. And we're going to have to be prepared to deal with them in hard power.
But one thing I'd like to say that I didn't mention about one of the great things about our soft power is what we do for humanitarian relief and disaster assistance. And there is story after story, whether it's earthquakes in Iran, earthquakes in Pakistan, where the United States, which is the world's most compassionate country with both civilian capability and military capability has helped out. And the number of people who will say, you know, that really is America at its best. We do that. American people don't know enough about what we do. They should take pride in it, because it's being done in their name. And that I think that is one of the most important elements of soft power.
STEVE ISRAEL: So I count 11 people lining up for questions. And we are going to wrap in about 20 minutes. So just want to establish what we're up against.
STEPHEN HADLEY: So I'll make my answers shorter. I heard him.
STEVE ISRAEL: No, no, no. Please, sir.
AUDIENCE: I'm Thomas on staff here at Cornell University. How do you view the role of NATO in containing and confronting potential threats?
STEPHEN HADLEY: NATO is terribly important, world's most successful alliance, where we work together with our allies. They have been a little bit of a free rider on our security investments. People have been telling them that for 20 years. President Trump has finally got their attention. Allies are doing more. That's a good thing. While we encourage them to do more, we have to make sure that we don't unravel that alliance, because it's one of our greatest assets in dealing with this world.
STEVE ISRAEL: Please.
AUDIENCE: Edith Lederer, the Associated Press bureau chief at the United Nations, class of 1964. [APPLAUSE] Didn't expect that. Thank you. Elsewhere in the world, countries are talking about a strategic rebalancing of power where the United States is no longer the superpower and that we are seeing different power centers-- Russia, China, Europe deciding that it needs to do more about its own defense. How do you see the United States dealing with this and you know looking ahead 5 or 10 years?
STEPHEN HADLEY: Yep, so relatively our power is declining, the sort of the rise of the rest, if you will. That's certainly right. But I think for the next 10, 15 years, 20 years, we will still be indispensable as the world tries to deal with its problems. Why do I say that? Because nobody really trusts the Russians. Nobody really trusts the Chinese. And the Europeans can't get themselves organized to play a global role. That leaves us.
But it means we're going to have to lead in a different way. We have a tendency sometimes in the past to dictate. We've got to do more listening. We need to bring people along. We need to work our friends and our alliances. It's our biggest asset. So I think we need to continue to lead. I think we will continue to lead. But I do think we need to do it in a little different way.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
STEVE ISRAEL: Thank you, Edith. Yes, please.
AUDIENCE: I have to follow that? Judy Mabel, class of '64. I followed and heard little bits and pieces over the years as to why we went to war in Iraq with George W. And I heard from you about why we went. And I'm still confused. Could you flesh it out and give me some real reasons why we went to war in Iraq?
STEPHEN HADLEY: Sure. So there are some people who say that Iraq was a war of a choice. I say it's a war of last resort. For 12 years, we had dealt with Iraq to try to bring it in compliance with 16 UN Security Council resolutions, which said, give up your weapons of mass destruction, don't invade your neighbors, don't support terrorism, don't oppress your people. And we had done inspections regimes. We had done dumb sanctions. We did smart sanctions. We had no fly zones.
We used military action under President Clinton. The Congress in 1998 passed a resolution saying regime change is America's policy. And we could not over those 12 years get Saddam Hussein to comply. And Bush had a policy of trying to use the threat of military force to force compliance. And it failed when Chirac, Schroeder, and Putin said they would not allow us to invade Iraq.
So that's what we thought we were doing to remove a real national security threat. The key of that, of course, was the weapons of mass destruction. And on that we were wrong. The intelligence community was wrong.
And I think it was not so much as a failure of intelligence as a failure of imagination. Nobody ever came to me or to the president and said, you know, maybe Saddam has gotten rid of all those weapons of mass destruction, but he doesn't want to tell anybody because he's just finished a 10-year war with Iran and he doesn't want to give his enemies that knowledge.
AUDIENCE: They were at war with each other.
STEVE ISRAEL: Let him finish.
STEPHEN HADLEY: It turns out that when they debriefed Saddam Hussein, that that was right. So one of the things we need to do in our intelligence-- and it's not an intelligence issue, but I would say it's an issue for analysts and academics and think tanks and all the rest, we need to be able to think outside the box. I would say think as if there is no box and imagine different kinds of explanations, because we were flat wrong on that one.
STEVE ISRAEL: Thank you, Judy. Please.
AUDIENCE: Going back to your comments--
STEVE ISRAEL: Tell us your name--
STEVE ISRAEL: Tell us your name.
AUDIENCE: My name is Will Blackmon. I'm actually a Yalie. But my wife if a Cornellian.
STEVE ISRAEL: Next questions.
AUDIENCE: Going back to your comments about the need for citizens to vote.
STEPHEN HADLEY: Yes.
AUDIENCE: We have pretty poor percentages that vote even in presidential elections and far worse in midterms. And there's a question as to the people who vote whether or not they're voting because somebody told them to vote or do they really know what's going on. What is the secret to improving this, both in terms of quality and quantity?
STEPHEN HADLEY: This is really Steve's answer. Mine is, my experience is when there is an exciting election, where people think they have real choices that matter, they tend to turn out. But we have a reformed politician here, who can give us that answer.
STEVE ISRAEL: Very briefly because this isn't my time. It's Steve's. And maybe the president will invite me back to talk more about this. I think we have a crisis of civic engagement and civic virtue in the country right now. Polling out there and statistics, something like less than 40% of graduating high school students can list all three branches of government. 80% can list all three Stooges. I'm serious. 12% of Americans believe that the Bill of Rights includes the right to own a pet. Now you can say, well, it's 12%, but it's the Bill of Rights.
And so how can you expect people to vote when they know very little about the institution, about government, about the process, or believe that it matters in their lives? I think if we get back to teaching civics, civic virtue, civic engagement, then you're going to see better voting records. Thank you. By the way, Martha, not bad for a Yale man, right?
AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'd like you to square a circle for me. You talked about the value of principles, yet we, as a country, have a long history of supporting dictators around the world, including the worst dictators in the world. The result of the failed meeting in Hanoi reportedly is that Kim Jong Un executed five of his people. Who knows what happens when the next meeting goes wrong? So how do we do that? And maybe try and be a little more specific, because you've been doing this a long time. Can you give us an example of where we've backed away from a dictator, where we've forced them out quietly that maybe the rest of us don't know about? MBS being a good example of someone where we're so supportive of Saudi Arabia because we're so anti-Iran, I don't think any of us want him as a neighbor.
STEPHEN HADLEY: We have forced dictators out. Philippines is an example. There are others. But, you know, it's a tough issue.
And here's the dilemma. There are people who say there's a clash between our values and our interests. I don't believe that. I think pursuing our values is very much in our interest. But it's not our only interest. And we want to advance our values in the world, but we also have issues about fighting terrorism who threaten our own people. We have issues about proliferation of nuclear weapons. We've got other issues when we deal with countries than just our values. And it requires you to make trade-offs.
And, secondly, you know, this is the really what's behind the Iraq question. Our ability to really force out dictators, particularly if we have to use force to do it, and then create is a post-coup situation, which is stable and really provides prosperity and security to their people is not so good. It turns out to be a really hard task.
And I think what we should do is watch what's now happening in Venezuela, what's happening in Sudan, what's happening in Algeria, where popular movements have arisen that are trying to throw off dictators. And we should be doing all we can to support and further those kinds of efforts. That's what we should have done in Iran in 2009. And we might have been in a different position now.
STEVE ISRAEL: Thank you very much. Yes, sir, what's your name?
AUDIENCE: Prahlad Advani, class of '99. Thank you for your great talk. This question is about the Russian influence in the last election. We all saw that through social media they first infiltrated the audience. And then they tried over time to influence the audience. They basically eroded trust and attacked on multiple quadrants-- financial, social, political, etc. The question is it seems like an asymmetrical warfare, because this country is so great and has a democracy and everyone votes and they don't have a democracy.
So they are able to always attack first. They have the first move advantage. And at best the, US is catching up or trying to block them. They know English well, so they are able to impersonate being an American. How many Americans know Russian and able to impersonate Russians and do the same tactics there? So how do you fight this is asymmetrical warfare? They don't have democracy.
STEPHEN HADLEY: Right. Being an open democratic society is not a declaration of suicide. I mean, let's be clear about that. Look, in social media, they started out basically saying they are a platform and they have no responsibility for content. And that didn't work out so well for our country or for them. And that is changing. And what the social media is now doing helped by pressure from Congress and the administration is developing some standards.
So first of all, we got to protect ourselves against bogus accounts and various kinds of attacks. Secondly, we have to go on the offense. And that's why I talked about cyber command going after the Russians, you know, disrupting what they're doing, making it clear that we know who they are. We know their address. We know what they're doing. It's a combination a defense, offense, and transparency. And those play to our strength.
Thank you, sir.
STEVE ISRAEL: Yes, please.
AUDIENCE: Steve Leshinski. I'm here because I'm married to a committed Cornellian class of '84. Thank you for your comments, especially about imagination and values, which I think are fundamental. In the contexts that hindsight is 20/20, we'd made a mess of a lot of the wars we've been in, starting in Vietnam and going forward with probably exception to Kuwait. What are the lessons we need to take now and implement that our leaders need to pay attention to?
STEPHEN HADLEY: In terms of the military force?
AUDIENCE: Well, in terms of the civilian I think are probably the bigger problem, aren't they?
STEPHEN HADLEY: Let me do both. In terms of military force, we have developed now post-Afghanistan, post-Iraq this by, with, and through concept, which basically says local partners have to lead the fight themselves. We can train them. We can support them. We can give them intelligence. We can give them air cover.
But that is what helped the Iraqis throw ISIS out of Iraq and has really help the Syrians throw ISIS largely out of Syria. So we have a different model, a better model, I think, that dramatically reduces the American commitment in terms of the kinetic side. But as I said before, we've let atrophy all the non-military elements that we need in dealing with these problems. And that we've got to remedy.
STEVE ISRAEL: OK. Thank you. Listen, we've got 10 minutes. We've got 1, 2, 3, 4 questions. So this is what we're going to do. You're going to ask your question. OK, and then you guys what I'd like to do is, step up to the mic, ask your question really quickly. We'll take all three questions. That way everybody will have been accommodated. I'll write them down. And then maybe you can take all three at one. Is that OK?
STEPHEN HADLEY: Great.
STEVE ISRAEL: All right.
AUDIENCE: My other half is the one who--
STEVE ISRAEL: What's your name, I'm sorry?
AUDIENCE: Denise Breakman. My other half is the one who's from Cornell. I graduated from only UCLA. But your first comment, Mr. Hadley, about somehow making way for a younger generation, I think that your statements today, certainly you're admitting that there were mistakes made in your ability at least to critically think through some problems is an indication that there are definitely people at whatever age who may have the experience to understand the problem much better than somebody who doesn't. What I see as a problem is a lack of transparency, a lack of a really free media in the sense that-- take CNN as an example. It's owned by AT&T. We have tremendous influence of money in our politics. And how are people going to get actual facts as opposed to narratives in critically thinking through difficult questions?
STEVE ISRAEL: Thank you, Denise. Thank you. Are you able to answer that and then have these folks ask their questions?
STEPHEN HADLEY: It's a huge challenge. And it's going to get worse. You know, you used to say seeing is believing. And as Steve just said, technology is such that seeing may be believing, but it will be believing something that isn't true. And this is a huge problem. And we're going to have to work on some technological solutions.
But part of it is we've all gotten spoiled and unrigorous. And, you know, our standards now our if something is plausible, it might be true, and therefore it maybe probably is true. Well, you know, our university education is supposed to be the antidote to that. You know, we science-- there's a scientific method that allows you to help establish truth. In journalism, there are standards that are used to sort of sift truth from fact.
In the end of the day, the American people have to insist and use the tools that they have been given to parse truth from fact. In the end of the day, we can have technology assists-- all the problems you've described are real-- but in the end of the day, it is informed, engaged citizens that we need. That is the bet that democracy makes that informed citizens are the best people to be making decisions for themselves and their country.
AUDIENCE: We don't get--
STEVE ISRAEL: Denise, my apologies, but I want to make sure we accommodate. So guys, work with us, just ask a quick question, one at a time. I'll write them down. And then Mr. Hadley's going to deal with all three. So we're going to test his memory.
AUDIENCE: My name is Chris Timms. I'm from the class of 2007. You mentioned that Donald Trump has been a disruptive president. And in many ways some of his foreign policy, whether it's trade barriers, cozying up to traditional foes like Vladimir Putin, the unraveling of some of our alliances, those are kind of traditionally non-Republican things. It seems the GOP has largely fallen in line behind that line. And do you think this represents a fundamental restructuring of Republican foreign policy for the future, or do you think this is just a disruptive kind of administration for the president?
STEVE ISRAEL: Thank you please.
AUDIENCE: Hi. My name is Kathy Witkowski, class of '84. I wanted to know if you consider climate change a national security threat. And I also wanted to know if you consider, given the conversation about education and critical thinking, if you consider education now a national security issue?
STEPHEN HADLEY: OK, great, and final question.
AUDIENCE: I'm so glad that she preceded me, because that's where I'm going as well. Judith Goodman Mecklenburger, class of '71. When I was here I was studying both science and journalism. And we were told all the way back in the '60s that global warming was coming. So it's been very frustrating to be living with that truth and trying through all sorts of organizations, like the Union of Concerned Scientists, to get the word out there in the last 50 years. But we failed dismally. So I'm hearing a wonderful strategist. And I'm asking you, Steve, what advice would you give to people like me, who I'm going to be trying to retire in a few years. I really want to get into this big time. I'm an organizer. I created residential college all by myself as a junior. I know how to get things done. But I would really like to hear from you, what are we missing, we people in the environmental movement, where we can actually educate people who don't want to hear the truth, because it's so scary? How do we get people educated who don't even know who, as you said? OK, so I'm asking for strategy.
STEPHEN HADLEY: OK, you've got is the Republican Party platform on foreign policy kind of morphing into a Trump policy? And I think we can synthesize, is climate change a national security imperative? And what do we do about it?
AUDIENCE: Don't forget eduction.
STEVE ISRAEL: No, no, no, that was the second question.
STEPHEN HADLEY: I got it. I got it. So Trump has taken over the Republican Party. It's a different Republican Party than I'm used to and that we are used to. People say, why don't the Republicans stand up and resist? Well, you know, if you look at those Republican legislators who stood up and resisted, none of them are running for re-election. They looked at the polls. And they realized they couldn't win. This president we have is very potent politically and very shrewd politically. And he has brought the party in line.
I also think, though, that the underlying discontents that resulted in the Trump presidency, the developments globally, like the emergence of China, for example, I think some of those trends are going to be with us to stay. And if Trump were to leave tomorrow, in terms of foreign policy, we're not going to go back to where we were. We are in a new era of foreign policy. The table is just, both domestically and internationally, just different. And it is going to be a challenge for the next 10 years for us to develop a different kind of foreign policy associated with the era in which we find ourselves.
Secondly, my party has been very slow on climate change. And I've been slow on climate change, I have to say. It was not the kind of priority it should have been. I was involved with Hank Paulson to try to get President Bush late in his administration when I was National Security Advisor do something on climate, and the argument that finally got his attention-- you asked what arguments will work-- was a business person's argument.
Paulson went into the president. And he said, you know, Mr. President, it may be that climate change is a low probability event-- well, we know that's not true. We know it's a high probability event. But he said it may be it's a low probability event, but the consequences are so great and so grievous, don't you think we need an insurance policy?
So part of it is coming up with arguments that people can get into, because it's become pretty politicized. And people believe that the data is politicized. So I think what's required is to reframe that argument in terms people understand. And the best tool for doing that is extreme weather. That's something everybody sees. And that is the kind of horse I think we need to ride.
But I think the trends are on your side. You know, so far as I can tell, everybody who's a student today is an environmentalist. And so all the trends I think are moving in that way. So what do you do about it?
And I would say education-- I don't know whether it's a national security issue. I worry about making everything a national security issue, because it devalues the coinage. But, boy, is it a priority at every level, whether it's a national level, state level, or the individual level. And it is education and lifetime learning, because the people come out of school today are going to have a very different job profile than we all did. And it's going to require lifetime learning. So education's usually a priority.
What can we do about it? You know, we were the gen-- I'm speaking now for baby boomer generation-- we were the generation that was going to change the world for the better-- better. We may have changed the world. But I don't think we made good on that pledge.
So one of the things I would urge people to do is-- and I've talked to a number of my classmates here, and in a lot of people are doing this-- get involved. In your retirement from your vocation, pick up an avocation in an area you care about, where in your local community or whatever area you can, you can begin to make a difference. And then work with these younger people.
You know, we need to step out of trying to run things and being able to support and enable other peoples to step forward and take our place, because in the end of the day, if these issues we care about are going to have any prospect going forward, they have to be embraced by this next generation. And we have a role at being mentors and promoters of their future, helping them to understand what we have learned about these issues, while at the same time being open to their very different perspective. And help them and enable them to step forward and take responsibility, because it's their future, not our future.
And if we will do that as the baby boomer generation in all the towns and communities in which we're active, that would be a huge contribution. And it just might change the world for the better.
STEVE ISRAEL: For those of you who are in the area of New York City, come to the Cornell Institute of Politics and Global Affairs. We have Adam Schiff on June 17. And we have Reince Priebus, a decidedly different view, on September 10. And how about a big hand for Stephen Hadley for everything that he has done.
We've received your request
You will be notified by email when the transcript and captions are available. The process may take up to 5 business days. Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions about this request.
Stephen J. Hadley ’69, spoke at the Olin Lecture June 7, 2019 in Bailey Hall. Hadley was assistant to President George W. Bush for national security affairs, spoke during Reunion in conversation with former Rep. Steve Israel, director of Cornell’s Institute of Politics and Global Affairs, on topics ranging from the Cold War and the Sept. 11 attacks to the gravest security threats facing the nation today.