00:00this episode of the a 6nz podcast covers
00:02technology national security and the
00:05future and is based on a conversation
00:07that was recorded last month between
00:09Marc Andreessen and Michele Flournoy a
00:11former Undersecretary of defense for
00:13policy and co-founder of the Center for
00:15a New American Security the conversation
00:17which follows a couple of minutes after
00:19the introductions and is moderated by a
00:216nz partner Matt Spence covers
00:23everything from technology procurement
00:25to the politics of industrial policy and
00:27ethics debates around use cases for new
00:29technologies to the changing
00:31international landscape for security
00:33before coming to the firm when I was
00:35working at the White House of the
00:36natural Security Council and as deputy
00:38assistant secretary of defense I had the
00:40great privilege to work with Michele
00:42Flournoy we have a term in formal policy
00:46language will use for someone like
00:47Michelle it's called a total badass she
00:50really is one of the most inspiring
00:51impressive public servants I've had the
00:54chance to work with and it's really an
00:55honor to have her come today I want to
00:58introduce my friend from Washington
01:00Richard Fontaine Richard is the
01:02president for of the Center for new
01:03American security he was a top foreign
01:06policy advisor to Senator John McCain
01:08and he was one of the most respected and
01:10thoughtful commentators on Nash kriti
01:12today well thanks Matt and thanks to all
01:15of you for being here to introduce
01:17Michelle as matt said badasses her
01:20formal title but her informal title is
01:22chief executive officer and co-founder
01:24of CNAs the Center for a New American
01:27Security a national security think tank
01:30in Washington DC where the only national
01:33security think tank that is co-led by a
01:34Democrat and a Republican we have a
01:37strong emphasis on building the next
01:39generation of national security and
01:40foreign policy leaders and developing
01:42innovative solutions to some of the
01:45problems and challenges that face the
01:46world prior to that Michelle is the
01:49Undersecretary of defense for policy
01:50under secretary gates and then Secretary
01:53Panetta at the Pentagon and has had a
01:56long and distinguished career in
01:58government and in the intellectual world
02:01on matters pertaining to national
02:03security so it's a pleasure to be able
02:04to introduce Michelle and it's a
02:06pleasure for us to be here this morning
02:09I now like seduced Ted Elliott Terry
02:13Rossio roles and the Bush administration
02:19of the White House and Justice
02:19Department now he heads up the policy
02:21and regulatory affairs team here at
02:23injuries in Horowitz Ted will come in to
02:25talk a little bit under its Norris and
02:26introduce mark welcome everyone and
02:29introducing Marc Andreessen at an
02:32entries in Horowitz event so mark was
02:37born in Cedar Falls Iowa he was raised
02:41in New Lisbon Wisconsin kidding he needs
02:45new introduction here at Andreessen
02:46Horowitz the firm he co-founded in 2009
02:49with with Ben Horowitz mark and been a
02:52leader in the growing movement these
02:54days to get Washington Silicon Valley
02:58more engaged with each other including
02:59but not limited to forming a group here
03:02at energies and was to focus on
03:03precisely this with respect to the firm
03:06and our portfolio companies name of the
03:08policy group given marks background and
03:10Michele's backgrounds should be a very
03:11interesting discussion about issues of
03:13great relevance to both Washington and
03:15Silicon Valley again Michela mark thank
03:17you for doing this I think it would be a
03:19profound understatement to say we live
03:21in interesting times
03:22Michele one of your main
03:24responsibilities at the Defense
03:26Department was preparing and
03:28anticipating future threats to the u.s.
03:30national security and the hundreds of
03:31hours you spent the Situation Room you
03:33dealt with Afghanistan you dealt with
03:35cyber efforts he dealt with Asia so I'm
03:37running right now to kick us off what
03:39keeps you up at night most what are you
03:41most worried about you know I actually
03:43the the thing that worries me most is
03:46just the sheer complexity and dynamism
03:49and volatility of the international
03:52security environment you know we have
03:54there's so many different threats and
03:56challenges to worry about whether it's a
03:58resurgent Russia a rising China that may
04:01or may not play by the rules evolving
04:03threats of terrorism cyber attacks the
04:06list goes on and on and some of these
04:08actors are very opportunistic Latterman
04:11Putin is probably the best example Kim
04:13jong-un is another they actually look
04:15for opportunities when we are when they
04:17perceive us to be distracted
04:20otherwise engaged and so forth and if
04:23you look historically every single
04:26presidency since World War two something
04:29some major policy crisis has happened in
04:33the first six to twelve months of my
04:35administration usually unpredicted not
04:38the thing you expected so I worry about
04:41the potential for opportunistic actors
04:44to take advantage of a transition period
04:46or a period where in administration's
04:48getting its feet on underneath itself
04:50present us with some kind of crisis one
04:53of the opportunistic things is Russia of
04:55course yeah one of the profound unique
04:58things that a state actor potentially
05:00trying to interfere with our own
05:01political system could Russia actually
05:03influence our elections well I think
05:05it's it's a possibility I think what
05:09we've seen in the cyberattacks that have
05:10already taken place is a broader effort
05:13to try to see embarrassing or you know a
05:19controversial content released in a way
05:21that might influence the outcome more
05:24indirectly that's what we're seeing with
05:25the WikiLeaks it's a pretty accepted now
05:27for the intelligence community that
05:29these these leaks were directed by
05:32Russia mark as Michelle said this is an
05:34example where America's technological
05:36inefficiency may actually help us what
05:39we should be worried about with some of
05:40these national security threats right
05:42now question that just night nags at me
05:43a lot so you know there's talk about
05:45long conversations about about cyber or
05:47online security certainly the issues are
05:49rising in importance they're now rising
05:51to levels of ever greater importance we
05:52talk about things like tampering with
05:54elections that we talk about things like
05:55electrical grid from the valley
05:58standpoint and this is the question by
06:00the way not a statement it appears that
06:02in the world of military affairs and
06:04policy in Washington is there's kind of
06:06real-world security and if somebody
06:08physically takes one of our ships we
06:09respond with physical force and then it
06:11feels like cyber is this whole separate
06:13thing so if somebody cyber hacks us the
06:15retaliation the deterrence of the
06:16retaliation is going to be the return
06:18cyberattack the question I've always
06:20curious about is it when today in
06:21combined what level of cyber attack in
06:24either direction or it rises to the
06:25level where it'd be considered an act of
06:27war and you would actually retaliate
06:29with physical force or conversely what
06:31level of physical activity would result
06:34of cyber operations how do these two
06:35kind of sides come together because at
06:37least it feels right now they're pretty
06:37separate I think they are very separate
06:40in my view the policy and concept
06:43development side of the conversation has
06:45not kept pace with the technology and
06:47what we're actually experiencing in
06:49terms of cyber activity and so we really
06:52don't have a conceptual frame for
06:55thinking about how to respond there's
06:58also the added problem that most of the
07:01policy makers don't fully understand the
07:05technology in detail and so they can
07:08they're tempted to apply previous
07:10frameworks in a way that doesn't really
07:12fit like though so they'll harken back
07:14to the nuclear domain and you know
07:16concepts of escalation dominance and
07:19even offense defense gets pretty
07:21complicated in in the cyber domain first
07:24there's a gap to be bridged in really
07:27educating people who are going to be
07:29making policy in this area on the
07:30technology and vice versa
07:32make sure you the techs and there are
07:33some technologists who can engage on in
07:36the policy discussion secondly we've got
07:38to catch up with our conceptual thinking
07:40I think what's slowed down the response
07:43thus far is worrying about not the first
07:47move but the second and third and fourth
07:49the response how do you avoid getting
07:51into an escalatory situation if we
07:54respond in certain ways than Russia
07:56responds and we respond do we end up
07:58making matters actually worse so this is
08:02an area where a lot of work needs to be
08:04done I agree with you that you don't
08:07always want to be thinking and
08:09responding in symmetric terms there are
08:12areas where the best response will be
08:14some integration of what we're doing in
08:17cyber with what we're doing in the
08:18physical world in the wake of the Sony
08:20attacks presumably for the moment that
08:23they're from North Korea from the
08:24commercial world wonder if the response
08:25to the Sony attacks was to take down the
08:27North Korean internet they didn't seem
08:29like a very strong response yeah
08:38marks you spend your days looking at
08:40what's new and it's not just cyber but
08:42it's autonomous technology it's things
08:44like that yeah so as you look at the new
08:45technological landscape what do you see
08:47is the most important tech trends for
08:49some of these national security issues
08:50that Michelle's talking about it's just
08:52this onrushing continuous impact of all
08:54these new network technologies it's the
08:55continuous spread of chips being put in
08:57everything is everything being connected
08:58onto the network it's information being
09:00gathered in unprecedented ways it's
09:02information technology being woven into
09:04every part of our lives right and all of
09:07these technologies are only tremendous
09:08leverage for us as individuals
09:09you know we're much better off as people
09:11with a supercomputer in our pocket which
09:13also happens to be a universal
09:14surveillance device right
09:15and so the benefits are gigantic but
09:18they do introduce all kinds of new risks
09:19use this term like the surface of the
09:21things that have to be defended keeps
09:22expanding and then the form of attacks
09:24keep expanding one of the things I think
09:27about is these new technologies
09:28historically arrived in a way that was
09:30relatively friendly to the US and
09:32particularly large government
09:33organizations like the Defense
09:35Department in fact many of these
09:36innovations were funded by the Defense
09:37Department originally but new technology
09:40is you know 50 years ago or even 30
09:42years ago or even 10 or 15 years ago
09:44would arrive when they would first
09:46arrive they would be extraordinarily
09:47expensive and difficult the complex and
09:49challenging to deal with and so the
09:51largest organizations in the world had
09:53the easiest time implementing them the
09:54OD was a prime example of this over many
09:56years when computers came out they cost
09:58an enormous amount of money and
09:59literally only the DoD and a small
10:01handful of big companies could afford
10:02them when the internet first came out 20
10:04years ago the military and the National
10:06Labs were networked way before private
10:08citizens ever had access and so you had
10:10this kind of top-down approach to new
10:12technology adoption that really favored
10:14large centralized institutions these
10:16days more often it seems like new
10:18technologies coming bottoms up right and
10:20so who gets the next new cutting-edge
10:22computer is not MetLife or the Army it's
10:25you it's when you go to the AT&T or
10:27Verizon store and buy the new smart
10:28phone that's the new piece of
10:29cutting-edge technology or who gets the
10:30next new piece of state-of-the-art
10:32encryption software you because you
10:34downloaded it's open sourcing and
10:35downloaded off github these technologies
10:37are now arriving bottoms up that's
10:38extremely empowering to all of us around
10:40the world as individuals but it does
10:41mean that in many cases smaller
10:43organizations can now adopt new
10:46the large organizations I think it was
10:47Napoleon who said that in military
10:49affairs God is on the side of the big
10:50battalions there's historically this
10:52giant advantage in defense towards mass
10:55right towards mass and an applied force
10:57at scale which meant money and material
10:59and men in large numbers to the extent
11:02that we're shifting into a world in
11:04which the attacks are taking place by a
11:06rogue North Korean and Tiger
11:07intelligence unit operating in Japan and
11:09able to launch cyber attacks by the time
11:11we figure out where they are they move
11:12somewhere else and then watching
11:13something else and we feel 10,000 people
11:15to go try to figure it out by the time
11:16the 10,000 people get organized and
11:18figure out how to procure the new
11:20technologies and get everything
11:21implemented the attacks above all four
11:22times it seems like the asymmetry of
11:25scale being an advantage might be
11:27flipping now to speed being the
11:29advantage in these new technological
11:31areas and if so is that to what extent
11:34does that actually empower smaller ever
11:36Cerys in a historically new way it
11:38absolutely empowers not only smaller
11:40adversaries but adversaries who might
11:43not be able to take us head-on and win
11:46in a conventional fight there's huge
11:49asymmetric means of going after us
11:52vulnerabilities but undermine our
11:53strengths as you said in many technology
11:56areas the the cutting edge is is coming
11:59out of the commercial domain from the
12:01bubbling ferment of places like Silicon
12:04Valley and elsewhere and so the race is
12:06now about access to that technology and
12:10integration a lot of the same
12:12technologies will be available to not
12:15only potentially individuals and
12:16terrorist groups or hackers but also
12:18other countries the name of the game now
12:21is how fast can we integrate it and
12:25leverage it and keep up with it
12:26this requires wholesale change in the
12:29way a place like the Department of
12:31Defense thinks about acquisition thinks
12:33about concept development thinks about
12:35technology integration frankly this is a
12:38project that I think secretary Carter
12:40should get great credit for shining a
12:42light on and trying to start down this
12:44road but it's it's really going to mean
12:47the difference about whether we keep our
12:48military technological edge in the
12:50future or not to me this is probably one
12:53of the most important challenges we're
12:56going to have to deal with and you can't
12:59some kind of partnership with the tech
13:01world one of the challenges that we
13:03talked about of proliferation of new
13:05actors new areas of conflict is China
13:07Michelle you recently described the rise
13:10of an increasingly powerful capable and
13:13confident China that appears bent on
13:15becoming a dominant power in Asia as
13:17China is rising and trying to do more
13:20what are the advantages the United
13:22States has as we face China undergoing a
13:24pretty dramatic change from the national
13:26security front I think the principal
13:28advantage we have in Asia is that we're
13:31seen as a force for good it's not true
13:34in every region of the world that him
13:35Asia is I mean in the post-world War two
13:38period we architected the rules of the
13:41road that provided a huge degree of
13:44stability a foundation of stability on
13:46which tremendous economic growth and
13:50development occurred great deal of
13:52political development occurred and there
13:55I just came from South Korea where they
13:57literally credit the United States with
13:59having given them the foundation first
14:01to become a first world economy and
14:03second become a vibrant democracy and so
14:06there's a lot of goodwill
14:07we have also played our cards well
14:10across multiple administration's
14:12Democratic and Republican to build a
14:15real network of strategic alliances you
14:18go to Korea Korea pays more than 50% of
14:21the cost of our troops there would be
14:22more expensive to bring them home and it
14:24has them in the United States but the
14:27the it's missing the point the the real
14:29value of the alliances is the is the
14:31fact that we have a set of countries
14:34across the region who come with us when
14:38there are crises to be managed who buy
14:41into the rules of the road that we're
14:43all trying to develop and enforce and
14:46it's a huge huge strategic advantage I
14:49think China right now is its own worst
14:51enemy the mask has come off there used
14:53to be a hide & Bide strategy now that
14:55China is feeling more empowered
14:57economically it's starting to be more
14:59assertive in everything from the
15:01maritime domain to the cyber domain and
15:03it's scaring other countries in the
15:05region what's happening with a couple of
15:07exceptions is countries are commonly
15:10and saying we understand our economic
15:13dependence on China there are a number
15:14one trading partner in the region but we
15:17are afraid of how they're going to use
15:19that power and we're afraid of being
15:21coerced we're afraid of being
15:22manipulated we want a closer security
15:24relationship with the United States
15:26that's a tremendous advantage the name
15:28of the game what China is going to be
15:30trying to incent them to buy into the
15:32rules-based order to adapt it in
15:34appropriate places where we need to but
15:36not create a completely alternative
15:38regional architecture and structure that
15:41competes with the system that has served
15:44us very well for several decades
15:45yeah it's that duality you mention you
15:47know sir China is an economic trading
15:49partner and superpower yet rising
15:51security threat and of course one part
15:53of that treaty threat mark would be the
15:54technological piece right you know as we
15:56look at China they're trying to advance
15:58in quantum computing they're trying to
15:59advance in virtual reality they're
16:01building an airstrip and disputed open
16:04seas yeah as you look at the
16:06technological piece how do we compete
16:08with that we look at what we're doing
16:10here with what China is trying to do in
16:11the state directed way to leapfrog the
16:13technological disadvantage so I think
16:16there are two big concerns that
16:17Americans have about China when it comes
16:18to technology and economics and I really
16:21strongly disagree with one of them and I
16:23really strongly agree with the others
16:24the one I disagree with you'll hear this
16:25a lot from people in the valley in the
16:27business community that China has a very
16:29specific top-down industrial policy they
16:32have decided that there are technologies
16:33that are extremely important to the
16:34national interest the government is
16:36extremely hands-on in setting up
16:38frameworks and structures to develop
16:39those technologies up to the point of
16:41subsidizing you know directly
16:42subsidizing the companies that build the
16:44new things that are in favor the
16:45government greases the skids for these
16:47new you know for companies doing these
16:49new things whether it's in bio or chips
16:50or many of these other areas sensors
16:52quantum computing and it's sort of this
16:54top-down organized effort right and this
16:56is where the people will start getting
16:57my view a little extreme of like you
16:58don't understand these Chinese leaders
17:00are all engineers they're all really
17:01smart they're just gonna organize
17:02everything it's just gonna all happen
17:03and if they have to you know move a city
17:05of a million people to create a new
17:06testing strip for drones I'll just do it
17:07and in the u.s. we're a giant mess and
17:09we can't coordinate any thing and our
17:11government doesn't run into Ostrom
17:12policy and so we're therefore fated to
17:14fall behind that part I don't agree with
17:16and the reason is because industrial
17:18policies have a long history of failure
17:20because the problem is they get
17:21politicized 25 30 years ago you heard
17:24arguments about Japan Japan had a
17:26centralized government policy about
17:27innovation and Japanese executives would
17:30agree with this led the Japanese economy
17:31right off the cliff in the early 90s
17:33because they double down on the wrong
17:34technologies and precisely the time when
17:36everything changed with the arrival of
17:38digital and the Japanese economy still
17:40struggling to recover 20 years later so
17:41I'm not as worried I think in the long
17:43run it counts as an advantage to us that
17:45the Chinese are so state-directed on
17:46some of these things
17:47the other concern I'm much more
17:48concerned about which is related respect
17:50the idea of in this case we're our own
17:51worst enemy do we watch innovation
17:53anymore do we in the u.s. want these
17:56things to happen whether the government
17:57orders it to happen or not do we want
17:58self-driving cars do we want autonomous
18:00drones do we want my breakable
18:02encryption we want ride-sharing do we
18:03want Airbnb do we want search engines
18:06presumably we want search engines except
18:07there's a lot of political pressure for
18:08this so-called right to forget where if
18:10somebody says something bad about you
18:11get taken out of the search engine so do
18:13we want there to actually be a way to
18:14find information or do we want it to be
18:16able to be dropped on the memory hole
18:17and so and everyone in the abstract says
18:19oh yeah we want innovation and the
18:21specifics more and more people are
18:22saying oh no wait all this stuff was all
18:24fine and good we're glad you guys came
18:25up with the wheel that was good fire was
18:27eally concede the pcs were probably good
18:30but you know this whole snapchat Tesla
18:32uber like I don't know our companies hit
18:34this in gonna be part of the regular to
18:36our work that we do here is to try to
18:37help our companies never get through
18:38this but I think it's also broader
18:39social cultural question Richards how do
18:42we how do we think about the future
18:44that's where I worry because I think
18:45there's no question that modern Chinese
18:47culture is completely enthusiastic about
18:49leaping into the future
18:50the Luddite fallacy is back the idea
18:51that technology destroys jobs the core
18:52fallacy that's been wrong for hundreds
18:54of years even that's back well I think
18:56it's it's a social cultural question
18:57that will end up having a big impact on
18:59how these issues play out on the
19:00international stage I also think in this
19:03country we are likely to have important
19:05ethical debates about things like fully
19:09autonomous military systems or the use
19:13of genetic modification to create sort
19:16of superhuman capabilities and soldiers
19:18or what have you in a way that may be
19:21truncated or altogether bypassed by some
19:24of our potential future adversaries so
19:27it's a positive thing that will have
19:28those ethical discussions in this
19:30country but we can't count on others to
19:33have them or to end up in the same place
19:35that worries me we also can't count on
19:38we also can't counter them to make sense
19:40so there's this argument of ethics and
19:42science and technology start your method
19:43like scientists and technologists need
19:45to take more moral responsibility for
19:46the implications of their inventions if
19:48you go back in history and you look at
19:49when new inventions happen it's
19:50precisely the scientist engineers
19:51working those inventions who are the
19:52least able to predict what was actually
19:54going to happen there's an example
19:57famously Tom Thomas Edison invented the
19:59phonograph which was a fairly good idea
20:00I would like to believe we would have
20:02funded that he is use case for the
20:06photograph as 1888 something like that
20:08was that everybody would be able to have
20:09a library of recorded religious sermons
20:12in the home so you get home at night and
20:13you want to unwind and relax and so you
20:15put on a photograph of a preacher
20:16screaming at you for 20 minutes that was
20:18the use case religious environment music
20:20was nowhere on the list even just the
20:22implications of something as
20:23straightforward as that right really
20:24uncertain would you have strangled the
20:26the photograph in its crib because if
20:28you would have this debate about the
20:29pros and cons of religious instruction
20:30versus music and that's true of many of
20:32these new you know many of these new
20:33technologies by the way it's not that
20:35they're all just positive they do have
20:36negative impacts but I think it's an
20:37open question how well we can anticipate
20:39the impact so the idea that we can
20:41somehow have the debate make logical
20:42decisions itself is an interesting
20:44question so what would you like to see
20:46from each other Michele as we talked
20:48about both like the ethical principles
20:50of this new innovation implications what
20:52would you like to see Silicon Valley
20:53doing and think about that they're not
20:55and mark what would you want to see the
20:56Defense Department the largest IT buyer
20:58in the world 50% of the US government's
21:00already what would you want to see more
21:02from this side about these issues that
21:03you're talking about I think the the
21:06first thing is to really help people in
21:08government and policymaking understand
21:11what you do know about a technology and
21:14its applications and where you think the
21:17future path may be and to have ongoing
21:21interactive dialogue I think part of the
21:24reason that dialogue doesn't take place
21:26is that we've grown very litigious in
21:29the u.s. system people are very worried
21:31about any government official who may
21:33get near an acquisition process talking
21:35to a technologist or an industry rep
21:38without a lawyer in the room one of the
21:40things we've found at doing at CNAs
21:42convening dinners where you bring the
21:45service chiefs together with different
21:46technology experts and industry people
21:49is they just say thank you
21:51because is the first time I've been able
21:52to describe my problem set and have
21:55someone sit at the table and have an
21:57open discussion about what technologies
22:01might or might be applicable and what
22:02might be possible in the future without
22:04having someone looking over my shoulder
22:07saying you can't say that because that
22:08will buy us an RFP or that will buy us a
22:10competition for a contract we've
22:12structured our system in a way that's
22:14really disrupting the conversation that
22:16needs to be had I don't envision an
22:19approach where you impose a lot of
22:21policy constraints on the development of
22:23technologies but I do think you know in
22:26helping the policy maker think through
22:28the choices I think the first places is
22:32going to come up in the military context
22:34is going to be on autonomous systems and
22:37how fully autonomous you want them to be
22:39versus where the person in the loop
22:42needs to be inserted and under what
22:45conditions and situations if I could
22:48answer the question of one word it would
22:49be experiments he goes back to how I
22:51started which is very consistent with
22:53what you just said that the new
22:55technology the new technologies who
22:57they were major decisions about
22:59implementing new systems some major
23:00budget implications major systemic
23:02change implications organizational
23:04implications the new technologies
23:06arriving bottoms up means the first well
23:08you can't run experiments like you can
23:09run point experiments with a small group
23:10of people or with a small military unit
23:12or with a small intelligence unit
23:13whatever somebody in the field somebody
23:15somebody locally it doesn't need to be a
23:17fifty billion dollar weapon system
23:18procurement it could be a million dollar
23:20beta that you know the difference in
23:21that a number of experiments you can run
23:22it is really big and so from an adoption
23:25standpoint I think experiments and being
23:27key and we also see big companies large
23:29organizations that are in the corporate
23:30world also taking increasingly the same
23:32experimental approach as you say the the
23:34regulatory framework that's in place now
23:35makes that very difficult because the
23:37firm Erica place today anticipated that
23:38these are large top-down decisions when
23:40in reality more and more their bottoms
23:41yeah this is we're creating an
23:43acquisition stream that actually uses
23:46existing authorities that aren't
23:47exercised very well it enables you to
23:49have a much more diverse portfolio of
23:52investments not everything that you're
23:55going to bring to full production but
23:56that you're going to prototype you're
23:58going to experiment you're going to try
23:59things that you may acquire small
24:01batches of one generation and then move
24:05that agility and that learning process
24:07rather than a massive top-down
24:10twenty-year procurement we cannot try to
24:13procure IT driven solutions the way we
24:16procure aircraft carriers or
24:18fifth-generation fighter jets it just
24:21doesn't work it's a recipe for being
24:23obsolete before you even fully feel the
24:25capability this gets to something you
24:28would say often in government even after
24:30you left the Pentagon people repeat it
24:32again that we need to give the future a
24:33seat at the table you said this even
24:36when the US government was undergoing a
24:38self-imposed budget cutting situation
24:40known as sequestration from where you
24:42sit right now where are we not giving
24:43the future a seat at the table as we
24:45think about either the Pentagon Nash
24:47security and what more do we need to be
24:48doing on that front I mean the first
24:50aspect of giving the future say to the
24:52table is intellectual bandwidth you know
24:54we tend senior decision-makers I used to
24:56talk about the tyranny of the inbox
24:58you're trying Matt you can speak to this
25:00you're trying to survive your daily
25:02schedule and you're going from crisis
25:04meeting to crisis meeting about three or
25:06four months into the policy job and the
25:07Pentagon I realize I have yet to have a
25:09meeting a strategic meeting on China
25:12uh-oh what's going on there the vice
25:15chairman and I joined up to create a
25:17demand on the schedule to have these
25:19regular deep dives on on where are we
25:21going with China so the first is
25:24intellectual bandwidth but secondly you
25:26have to have the resources to invest in
25:28the future to take your best and Bryce
25:30brightest and get them involved in
25:33experimentation and concept development
25:34I've come to believe that the most
25:36important thing the next Congress could
25:39do for u.s. national security is
25:42negotiate with the new administration at
25:45least a four year budget deal that would
25:47create a predictable top-line that would
25:49end the threat of sequestration that
25:51would allow us to have multi-year
25:53investment horizon to start placing bets
25:56about the future when you're living from
25:59continuing resolution to continuing
26:01resolution and from you don't know what
26:03your budget horizon is beyond a nine to
26:05twelve month period it's terrible you if
26:08we continue on that road we will not
26:10keep our military technological edge the
26:13next 10 to 15 years is the critical
26:15period that will determine
26:17whether the u.s. maintains that as an
26:21unbelievably valuable asset or whether
26:24in some areas mark everyone talks about
26:26what Washington can learn from Silicon
26:28Valley is there anything that Silicon
26:30Valley can learn from Washington there's
26:32a critique of Silicon Valley that I at
26:35least somewhat agree with it so we are
26:36we are relatively insular community we
26:38live in a special place in a special
26:39time and you know socioeconomic kind of
26:41bubble somewhere they don't usually like
26:43but there's a little bit of a that's
26:44true everyone thinks it's just so
26:45striking about US government and the US
26:47military intelligence community is just
26:48engagement all around the world and you
26:50know pretty deep understanding of how
26:52things actually are where most of the
26:54people actually live I've always just
26:55found it interesting when I work with
26:56senior folks and either defense or
26:58intelligence how much they think about
26:59what happens outside our borders how
27:01people react how people perceive how
27:03people are going to make decisions who
27:04aren't here I think that's something
27:06that that I think that's something the
27:07government you can really help with the
27:09valley with so what do you think is
27:11there anything from the time you spend
27:12out here you think Silicon Valley can
27:13learn from Washington probably the most
27:15positive thing that you find
27:18consistently across people who work in
27:20Washington from the military to the
27:23civil servants to the appointees who
27:25come in is a real mission driven focus
27:28you know almost everybody could make
27:30better money and make a better living
27:33doing something else but people serve
27:35because they feel they want to make a
27:38difference for their country they want
27:39to make a difference in the world and
27:41actually I find a fair amount of that
27:42mission orientation out here it may not
27:44be as specific in the way it's
27:46articulated but one of the things that
27:49I've found encouraging is there are a
27:51lot of people here that once they get to
27:53a certain point actually want to figure
27:55out how they can contribute in the
27:57public sector what you really want is a
27:58superhighway where people from the tech
28:02world can come in do some period of
28:04service make a difference there's the
28:06u.s. digital service you need to really
28:07grow that and then you need people
28:09similarly from government have a chance
28:11to come out work here for a couple of
28:13years understand what innovation really
28:16looks like what agility and
28:17experimentation really looked like and
28:19then bring that knowledge back in I
28:21think the cross-fertilization
28:23opportunities are huge and would benefit
28:26both sides yes and there are very small
28:27programs we had an Air Force officer on
28:29staff in my company in Netscape as part
28:31sort of strange effort that's one guy
28:33very small that will be your only one
28:35you get for the next ten years
28:36I assume that program continues I should
28:38know this but I literally have an
28:39accountant sense we would welcome more
28:41people coming out either from civilian
28:43or from the military side yeah spending
28:44time out here actually you know when you
28:46get to know operators they're incredible
28:48entrepreneurs that have been trained up
28:51but thrown into spatter filled
28:52situations where it's like my training
28:54didn't tell me about that and they are
28:57constantly problem-solving and creating
29:00new things and and using what they have
29:03the toolbox they haven't get been given
29:07I actually think culturally there's a
29:10lot more there's in common there than
29:12might be assumed I want to leave some
29:14time for a few questions from the
29:17folks have a question raise your hand
29:18and we'll go right here things you
29:22mentioned was that in Asia we have good
29:24reputation versus some other parts of
29:26I presume one of those parts of the
29:28world is a Middle East where America's
29:30not seen as a source of source of
29:32strength so what are we doing long term
29:35to change that if nothing else and what
29:39strategically as well as bringing
29:42technology innovation and
29:43entrepreneurship as sources of good is
29:45that is there hope in the next 10 20 30
29:47years of that changing or are we doomed
29:50for the short time period you know I
29:52think the US has been guilty of great
29:55sins of commission and great sins of
29:58omission in the Middle East time is
30:00where he have done things that really
30:02weren't very well thought out and times
30:04where we should have been there and we
30:06haven't been or haven't been adequately
30:08there I think the next administration
30:09needs to start but with some serious
30:13engagement with key allies and partners
30:16in the region to first really listen to
30:20what their concerns are and that we want
30:23to try to work with them to get on the
30:25same page in terms of dealing with some
30:28of the challenges we share whether it's
30:31terrorism or the stabilizing activities
30:34in the region or what-have-you
30:37it doesn't mean we're going to instantly
30:39agree doesn't mean that our interests
30:43but I think what they're looking for is
30:45assurance that the us can be relied on
30:49as a partner and that we have done our
30:52homework and we actually have a strategy
30:53beyond trying to manage the each's of
30:56where we're trying to to go I am NOT
30:58suggesting that the u.s. can write the
31:01history of the Middle East we do not
31:02have the pen on this but our influence
31:05and what we do matters and can impact
31:09things in very important ways so I think
31:11there's there's a lot of work to be done
31:14there mark are there any opportunities
31:16there one of the really promising things
31:18I think is there is a spread of
31:19entrepreneurship culture around the
31:21world Silicon Valley used to be a black
31:22box the whole approach to what we do I
31:24hear me when I was growing up in
31:25Wisconsin I might as well have been at
31:26Mars like I had no idea of what any of
31:28this stuff was and now with all these
31:30new technologies social networks
31:32information flow that takes place now
31:34online courses people all over the world
31:36are learning how to do what we do here
31:37and learning how to participate and
31:39either working with Silicon Valley
31:40companies from other locations or just
31:42starting their own companies and their
31:43own ecosystems a good friend of mine
31:46Chris Schroeder as a former State
31:47Department official from years back
31:49wrote a book that's become kind of the
31:50definitive book on this topic called
31:52startup rising which is about the rise
31:53of tech startups in the Middle East but
31:55everybody's familiar with the Israel
31:56story he wrote the book about everything
31:58outside of Israel there's lots and lots
31:59and lots of fascinating stories there's
32:01a whole ecosystem that's building up
32:03that's extremely exciting he actually
32:05twice the last two years has traveled to
32:06Tehran and as part of a very limited
32:08number of trips that people have been
32:10able to make and it turns out there is a
32:12small but thriving tech startup
32:14ecosystem seen on the ground in Tehran
32:16very excited fired up actually
32:19interestingly heavily female tech
32:20entrepreneurs starting companies in it
32:22tech companies in Iran that are doing
32:23everything he commerce and social
32:25networking and it's the messaging and
32:26all these things the optimist in me says
32:28you know that that's that's a kernel of
32:30hope and optimism and a positive view of
32:32the future an economic development
32:34economic control linkage learning
32:35growing value of education if we can
32:37foster that kind of activity and do
32:39things that support it it seems like
32:40something we can build on that's great I
32:42think we'll have one final question
32:43thanks for having us
32:45Mike McFaul from Stanford it's striking
32:47how few people from the valley work in
32:49the government and my Stanford students
32:52one of them sitting with you right now
32:53there are very few Stanford students who
32:56and the government right that guy they
32:58got so many other opportunities here why
32:59would they go deal with the the
33:01bureaucracy that gets nothing done my
33:03challenge to you too there's this really
33:06subversive program that the Council on
33:08Foreign Relations runs where they choose
33:11the people and then they pay for the
33:13people and then they implant them into
33:15the US government when I first learned
33:17about it I was like it was crazy it's
33:18like you don't work for us but you're
33:20sitting here in the State Department and
33:22yeah I'm on a Council on Foreign
33:23Relations fellowship
33:25why don't you the two of you guys do
33:27that CNS and Andresen Horowitz and that
33:35was not a plan to one-year fellowships
33:39send some of your people to go spend a
33:42year in the government but you know and
33:43really like technologist types so and
33:45then they come back that's my challenge
33:46d-ball without committing on the spot it
33:50is interesting and Michaele mesh the
33:52u.s. digital service like something
33:53something is happening there
33:54I think it's certainly worth exploring
33:55do anymore great thanks well before we
33:57get any more proposals like that I think
34:00as we as we're as we wrap up I just want
34:02to again thank mark thank Michelle thank
34:05you for spending time with so thank you
34:06everyone for joining us I look around
34:08there at least three former ambassadors
34:10other senior officials from the US
34:11government's founders of tech startups
34:13executive from companies and there's a
34:15lot of dialogue they've happened if we
34:17bring these two worlds together
![How To Succeed As A NEW & YOUNG Realtor [Deals Every Month + Luxury Listings]](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FrtrRghgTayc%2Fhqdefault.jpg&w=3840&q=75)
