Evening Lecture | Sen. John McCain: America's Global Leadership

Thank you very much, Sister Jane Garrity, for that kind introduction. I also want to thank Admiral Carter and wish him well in his new assignment at the United States Naval Academy, an institution where I did not excel, and my good friend Sheldon Whitehouse. I, as you know, I am a proud and committed Republican. I must say that Rhode Island is well represented with Senator Jack Reed, despite his education handicap. And Sheldon Whitehouse and I have had a great opportunity to spend time together, both here and around the world. You know, Harry Truman said, if you want a friend in Washington, go out and buy a dog. And I agree with him. But I must say that Sheldon and I have had some wonderful shared experiences. He is committed to the United States of America, and his service and his family service is also remarkable. And how I ever became friends with a socialist, I will never know. So I thank you, Sheldon. And not only that, but I thank you for your uncle, I thank you for your father, I thank you for your grandfather, and I thank you for your beautiful wife. So, and sister, I want to thank you for, well, I don't want to thank you for mentioning that I ran for President of the United States. I often say that after I lost, I slept like a baby, sleep two hours, wake up and cry, sleep two hours. And I'd like to, I'd like to ask your sympathy for the families of Arizona. Because Barry Goldwater from Arizona ran for President of the United States. A wonderful man, Democrat named Morris Udall from Arizona ran for President of the United States. Governor of Arizona and wonderful man Bruce Babbitt from Arizona ran for President of the United States. I from Arizona ran for President of the United States. Arizona may be the only state in America where mothers don't tell their children that someday they can grow up and be President of the United States. Tonight, I'd like to make some remarks, and then I'd like to respond to any questions or comments that you might have in these very interesting times. And the global challenges that we are facing. As any sailor knows, you can only navigate if you know what course to follow. And my concern is that when it comes to our role in the world, America today appears increasingly lost at sea, unsure of itself, its purpose, even why to be engaged in the world at all. Unless we answer these first order questions, really nothing else matters. So I'd like to speak to this first and then respond, as I mentioned, I had the good fortune to visit Europe last week at a time when the United States and our closest allies were commemorating the 70th anniversary of D-Day. In the fullness of time, we can see now that when that what began off the coast and over the skies and on the beaches of Normandy, and on that harrowing morning in June 1944, was the beginning of the end of the war in Europe. But it was also the start of something larger that is more easily forgotten, and I'm afraid is being forgotten. The end of World War II marked the start of one of the most significant changes to U.S. foreign policy in our nation's history. Here is how the historian Robert Kagan characterized this transformation in a recent essay in the New Republic. Convinced that World War II had been the result not of any single incident, but rather of the overall breakdown of world order, politically, economically, and strategically, American leaders set out to erect and sustain a new order that could endure. This time it was to be a world order built around American economic, political, and military power. Any new order would depend on the United States. In short, American leaders came to see that our national interests depended on the defense of an international order founded on liberal ideals, free societies, free markets, free trade, free commons, and freedom of navigation. And they mobilized a bipartisan consensus to support this new American leadership role in the world. In the decades that followed, this bipartisan consensus was tested. It was strained. It was even ruptured for a period of time. But it endured because we had leaders who fought for it and led our nation into the world to play the unique role that only America could. These leaders were Democrats and Republicans, presidents and members of Congress, people like Truman and Vandenberg, Eisenhower and Kennedy, Scoop Jackson and Ronald Reagan, Bush and Clinton, and Bush again. Today, seven decades on, we live in a world that more than anything has been sustained by American power and shaped by American leadership. And in large part, this is why overwhelming majorities of people and governments around the world now believe that the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the governed, that the rule of law is the beginning of justice, that free markets and free trade are the basis of all successful economies, that state sovereignty is not a license to commit mass atrocities and genocide, that all human beings have equal rights that should be respected, that torture should always be forbidden, and that wars of conquest and aggression should be relegated to the bloody past. These values are not America's alone. We don't have a monopoly on them. But these values have not advanced by themselves. More than any other factor or force or nation, America has done that. Yes, we've had a lot of help, partners and allies of immeasurable value, and we still do. And yes, we have made plenty of mistakes along the way, both through our actions and our inaction. But ultimately, it is no coincidence that the greatest expansion of peace, prosperity, and freedom in history has occurred during the past seven decades of America's global preeminence. This happened not because peoples and nations became less selfish, or because the ideals we stand for are universally admired and accepted. No, it happened because American leaders backed our vision of world order with American power and influence, diplomatic, economic, and yes, military. For as former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said, we must never forget the ultimate guarantee against the success of aggressors, dictators, and terrorists is hard power. The size, strength, and global reach of the United States military. This is the role America has played at its best, and we must play it still. The question is whether we will, and I'm afraid that that is very much in doubt. Many Americans, both Democrats, and I'm sad to say some Republicans as well, have come to believe that we should mind our own business and let the world sort itself out. Many have assumed that America could pull back and somehow the void would be filled by the inexorable march of human progress, not by the world's violent fanatics and aggressive dictators, its torturers, and human traffickers, and deniers of human dignity, its brutish rulers who believe might makes right, and all the other forces of tragedy of which history is so replete. Many Americans seem to have forgotten that while the tides of war may recede, what holds them at bay most over time is American power, especially hard power. This has not gone unnoticed abroad. I travel a lot. Sheldon and I have traveled the world. From Europe to the Middle East to Asia, there is a perception that America is unreliable, that we cannot be counted on to play our traditional role as the ultimate guarantor of the liberal international order. People across the world read our polls. They know how reluctant Americans are to engage in the world. They see the catastrophic effects of sequestration, that we will soon have the smallest ground forces since 1940, the lowest number of ships since 1914, and the smallest air force in American history. And they see that on more than one occasion, the leader of the free world has been unwilling to enforce his own stated red lines, worst of all, last year in Syria. American power and influence are still the currency of the international order. But at present, we're at growing risk of the geopolitical equivalent of a bank run. People in governments, friends and adversaries alike, are starting to suspect that America may no longer have the will, the capacity, or both to meet its obligations as the underwriter of the world order. Many are panicking. Others are celebrating. The basis for deterrence is faltering. Our understandable desire to avoid conflict is actually making it more likely. And we see the consequences all around us. We see it in the heart of Europe, where Russia has invaded Ukraine and redrawn internationally recognized borders by force, all for the sole purpose of acquiring another country's sovereign territory and resurrecting old imperial ambitions. We see it in Asia, where China is using its growing power and military capabilities to assert its territorial claims with no basis in international law, change the status quo unilaterally, and harass US allies and partners in the South and East China Sea. And of course, we see it in the Middle East, where nearly 160,000 people have been killed. And one third of the population has been driven from their homes in Syria, where Al Qaeda is conquering Western Iraq and approaching the gates of Baghdad as we speak. And where terrorists with global ambitions are plotting attacks in growing safe havens across the region, most notably Syria and Iraq. Some may be tempted to see crises like these, to paraphrase Neville Chamberlain, as quarrels in faraway countries between people of whom we know nothing. And they may be tempted to dismiss crises like these because they do not pose a direct threat to the US homeland, not yet anyway. That may be how a normal nation would calculate its foreign policy. But America is not a normal nation. We are an exceptional nation, and indeed the indispensable nation. And it is in keeping with our best bipartisan traditions of the past seven decades that America sees its national interest more broadly as a sustainment and success of a liberal world order. Ultimately, that is why we must care about the current crises in places like Syria and Iraq and Ukraine, the South China Sea and the East China Sea, because they challenge core principles of the world order that benefits many nations, to be sure, but America most of all. America has the most to gain in a world where aggressors do not act on their every malign impulse, where freedom of navigation is upheld, where trade flows freely, and where governments are responsible, willing, and capable enough to act against threats on their territory before they can threaten us too. And if this world order were to fall apart, America by far has the most to lose. I would submit to you then that perhaps our most important task is to rebuild the capability and credibility of US hard power, because ultimately, that is what undergirds the world order. And that is what makes deterrence and diplomacy possible. And that's what is most in question today by our friends and enemies alike. For too many years, our defense budgets have determined our defense strategy and planning. The height of this folly is sequestration. The leaders of our intelligence community have testified before the Congress for years, that our global threats have never been more complex, more uncertain, or more numerous. And yet at the very same time, Congress and the President are slashing our ultimate insurance policy against a threatening world and capability and readiness of the US military. Instead, we need to approach this strategically and answer the first order question. What will it take to ensure the continued security and success of the world order that has served America so well for these past seven decades? Everything else should flow from that. Our policies, budgets, plans, procurement, and force posture. Some say we can't afford to take such a course of action. I believe we can't afford not to. For if we delude ourselves into believing that the defense budget is what is bankrupting our nation, we will incur a far more harmful cost, the hollowing out of American military power, and the growing risk to the world order that that would entail. American power has always been limited, and it always will be. But today and in the future, America's greatest limiting factor is not our capacity, it is our resolve and imagination. America has a growing population, the world's most dynamic economy, new sources of energy that are the envy of the world, the most proven and effective military on the planet, and a risk-taking society with a nearly infinite ability to revitalize itself. So this isn't a question of our capacity, nor is it a question of options. Some would have us believe that the only alternative to our current course is a series of land invasions and wars without end. Literally no one, no one is arguing that, and it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to suggest so. It is also a disservice to our citizens, for whether it's in Ukraine or Syria or the seas of Asia or elsewhere, there is a range of options at our disposal that can put greater force behind our diplomacy, restore the confidence of shaken allies, re-establish deterrence over our adversaries, and realize our ideals. This will require us to do more and bear more burdens and accept more risk in the short term, and it will certainly require an honest conversation with the American people about what is at stake. But let no one suggest that we are without options. Put simply, the question is not whether America can maintain its preeminence and the world order that depends on it, but whether we will choose to do so. And make no mistake, this is a choice. If America chooses not to lead in the world, if we allow ourselves to believe that we cannot do it anymore, or that we have no good options as if we ever do, our highest hopes will be left defenseless, our world will drift further into chaos and tragedy, and the cost of this calamity will ultimately be borne, not just by foreign peoples, but by Americans. Our people are never eager to engage in foreign policy, and that is the healthy attitude of democratic citizens. But there are events and threats in the world that demand our attention, and from which we cannot isolate ourselves. And it is in these times that the American people rely on our elected leaders, and most of all our president, to lead them, to explain to them where our interests and values are at greater risk, why we cannot afford to be disengaged, and why delays will only allow present dangers to grow into more dire future threats and what we must do. That is what America's greatest leaders have done. They have rallied the nation to play the role in America, in the world, that only America can. That is what we need now, more than ever. Thank you very much. Now I would like to respond. I'm not exactly sure how we do this. I don't know if we have microphones, or we shout, or Admiral, what? Okay, there are microphones behind the chair, if you would just raise your hand, and then I will try to recognize you. Okay, good night. There you go. Evening, sir. Lieutenant Commander Canola. I'm a student here at the War College, and a former crew member of DDG-56, a well-named vessel. I had a question, sir. You've been very critical of the administration, foreign policy decisions, particularly the movement out of Iraq early, and withdrawal of forces. Based on events of this week, what course of action would you recommend, and what level of commitment should we show to the government of Iraq now? Do we turn our back, military, economic? What do you see it, sir? I know that everyone in this room, and I hope all Americans are aware of what's happening in Iraq. It, I have to say, it was predictable, and I predicted it all the way back in 2011, on numerous occasions, because I thought that we had won the conflict. In 2006 and 7, we were losing the war, and losing it badly. In fact, I called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, because I saw the situation deteriorating so badly in Iraq, and I was highly critical of President Bush's approach to the conflict. And then, of course, I won't go into all the details, but thanks to a wonderful leader named General Keene, who went to the White House and convinced President George W. Bush of the surge, and then one of the finest and greatest military leaders that I have ever had the opportunity of being around, David Petraeus, who inspired Americans and Iraqis alike, the surge succeeded. And I won't go into all the critics that said that it wouldn't, but it succeeded, and thanks to the Anbar awakening, and I won't go into all the details of it, but we, we really had the Iraq situation under control. But we needed to leave a residual force behind, because there were certain capabilities that the Iraqis simply did not have. Air assets, intelligence assets, many other, a number of other capabilities. Now, I would remind you, after every conflict, literally, we have left forces behind. Germany, Japan, Korea, Bosnia, we have always left a residual force behind as a beneficial influence. Well, the decision was made to leave. The Iraqis were not ready. Maliki is a weak leader, and Maliki, unfortunately, used his powers to alienate, brutalize, in some cases, the Sunni, and the same Sunni that were part of the Anbar awakening became more and more alienated. And, of course, then this events in Syria, and this most radical organization, ISIS, who is even more radical in many ways than Al-Qaeda itself, but is Al-Qaeda affiliated, began to move from Syria into Iraq, and establish in Iraq, Syria, a base for Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, and ISIS, and they moved very quickly into the country's second largest city, as you know, Mosul, which, by the way, huge oil deposits are there in Mosul, and then to Crete, and now, I understand, are moving on Samarra, and the Iraqi military is collapsing. I don't know any real good options, and I'll try to not drag this answer out too long, because the events on the battlefield are unfolding so quickly, it's hard to differentiate between friend and foe. Some of my friends say, well, we'll just launch airstrikes. I think there's a whole lot of people in this room that know a lot goes into just launching airstrikes than dispatching an F-16. So, my strong recommendation has been that we bring back the people that won the war, both political and military. Let's bring back Ambassador Crocker, one of the finest ambassadors that I have ever had the opportunity of knowing, who knows Iraq and the people there extremely well. Bring back David Petraeus. Bring back General Keane, who convinced President Bush to do the search. Bring back a number of the other commanders, most of whom are retired, and quickly sit down and develop a strategy, a strategy, and I can't tell you whether it should be airstrikes. I'm not, I think I understand the military a bit, but I don't claim to have that kind of knowledge, but I do know this, that if all of Iraq falls, we have a, we have a challenge to our national security, the likes of which we have not seen since, well, even in the Cold War. This, this outfit, ISIS, is unbelievable. By the way, a small item of, of tribute. The leader of ISIS spent four years in Camp Bukha. That is the prison camp that we maintained for years in Iraq, which at one time had as many as 15,000 inmates. We're at a seminal moment. We have to act, and we have to act quickly. And for our nation's leaders, both President, Vice President, saying, well, we're not dismissing any option. That, that's not a plan. That's not a strategy. We've got to come up with one, and we've got to come up with it very quickly. I do believe that one of the factors here probably has to be the departure of Maliki. He has alienated too much of the Sunni population. We need a leader now in Iraq who can reconcile a nation. You know, Sunni and Shia lived together side by side for hundreds of years. There wasn't always a conflict and a battle between Sunni and Shia, and there doesn't have to be now. But this is, this is really, it, it breaks your heart. It breaks your heart. The second Battle of Fallujah, 96 Marines and soldiers died, 600 wounded, and the black flags of Al Qaeda fly over the city of Fallujah, and now Mosul, and now Tikrit, and maybe Samarra in the next 24 hours. So it, you know, Sheldon and I go out to Walter Reed. I have the opportunity all the time of meeting these young people who have been wounded, and it's hard, it's hard for them to understand what happened, what, what they were sacrificing for. And so that's a bit of a personal side to it, which I guess doesn't matter. But, so we need to act, and we need to act quickly, and I hope that the President of the United States would address the American people, and tell them what's at stake here, and tell them that we're going to develop a plan, and look straight into the camera, and talk to the American people the way some of our leaders have in times of crises, so that the American people will understand exactly what's at stake here, and why it may entail further sacrifice of American blood and treasure. And by the way, I do not see a scenario where we send troops back in, in boots on the ground, into Iraq. I just don't see that. But there has to be, we have to have a strategy, and we have to have it quickly. Yes, sir. So, Lieutenant Commander Guy Barak from the Israeli Navy. First of all, I would like to say it's an honor to see you, and to hear you speaking. Thank you very much. You mentioned before about crossing red lines, as regard to Syria, and the situation in the Middle East. My question is, when all the rest of the world saw what happened when one country crossed a red line, a U.S. red line, how do you think it will reflect about the policy with the issue of Iran, and about the next phase of the conflict in my small, quiet neighborhood called the Middle East? Thank you. I didn't get the last part. The last part of the question? I asked, how do you see the face of the next conflict in my lovely neighborhood, Middle East? I think the Iranians, obviously, are still a major threat. I remember being in Yemen, and meeting the President of Yemen. I said, what's your biggest challenge, Al Qaeda? He said, no, it's Iran. I think when you look at the Iranian activities all over the Middle East, they are very concerning. I'm glad chemical weapons are out of Syria. I think all of us would be. I think we should understand that it's Iranians, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, that are basically running that conflict for Syria. It is Iranians that convinced Hezbollah to come out of Lebanon, 5,000 of them, and enter the fight. That's when the momentum in that conflict shifted in favor of Bashar Assad. Remember, our President said, it's not a matter of whether, it's a matter of when Bashar Assad was going to depart. The Iranians are causing problems literally every place in the Middle East, and their ambitions are very clear. One of their ambitions, as you also know, is the extermination of the State of Israel. They have never renounced that. That, obviously, complicates negotiations with people, if they're dedicated to your extinction. I believe that all of us want the negotiations with Iran to succeed, all of us, on a nuclear issue. If they fail, then the decisions that have to be made are extremely difficult, extremely dangerous. We all want them to succeed, but I really fear that to leave them with thousands of centrifuges, and they continue to develop the missile capability and the warhead capability, that we could only be moving them back a rather short period of time. So, we'll know on these negotiations, I think, within the next few months, or weeks even, but I have to say that some of the activities we see Iran carrying on, such as lengthening the range of their ballistic missiles and continued development of warheads, is not comforting to me. And so, we'll see. I believe, and I know you do too, that we should do everything in our power never to leave anyone on the battlefield. There are circumstances sometimes where we do. The Korean War is an example. At the negotiations, the end of the Korean War, it was a ceasefire, and it was very difficult to account for all of those who were missing, given the nature of the Korean conflict. We still don't have a full accounting of those from the Vietnam War, and I certainly believe that, and I'd like to begin my response to you. I am not making a judgment on Sergeant Bergdahl and his conduct, that I will leave that to others. I have no direct information about it. That is something that will be settled. What I don't think is right is to put the lives of other men and women in danger and jeopardy in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl. These five guys, selected by the Taliban, are the hardest of the hardcore. Two of them have been charged with mass murder. They massacred thousands of Shiite Muslims. These are the guys that were in the Taliban government. These are the guys that routinely would take women to the soccer stadium in Kabul and hang them from the goalpost. I have no doubt who these five people are. One of them has already announced that he's going back in the fight. Thirty percent of those we have released from Guantanamo have gone back into the fight, and they go back in leadership positions because it's a badge of honor for them to have been in Guantanamo. These people were not going to be released. They are part of the law of war, which says that if they pose a threat to the United States of America associated with al-Qaeda, they can be kept indefinitely. I wanted Guantanamo closed because of the symbol that it is to people in the world, but I wanted these people moved that we couldn't release to facilities in the United States of America. By the way, there is a facility in Illinois that has been designated if we can get the Congress to move. So I'm glad that Sergeant Bergdahl is home, but I greatly, greatly, greatly fear that these people re-enter the fight and then kill additional Americans. Sergeant Bergdahl doesn't want that. I don't want that. You don't want that, but I think that the risk when you look at these individuals is too great for us to have made that exchange. I was asked a couple of times, was I for prisoner exchange? I said, absolutely, but I would have to know the details, and unfortunately, these details are not, in my view, sufficient reason for doing so, and I don't have to tell you. You just asked this question. You're in a unique profession, the only profession in America where you sign up, for better or for worse, to serve this country, and all of us, when we raise our hand and take an oath that we will support and defend, that means that's in good times and bad, hard times and easy times, and that's what Sergeant Bergdahl did, and that's what everyone serving in the military in this room did. Q Mr. McCain, I'm a Syrian American who left Syria in 1964 precisely because of the autocratic dictatorial military regime of the Assad family. Regrettably, the Syrian political and military opposition remains fragmented. Meanwhile, Islamist groups have infiltrated northern half of Syria, with Turkey, turning a blind eye to this infiltration that has since extended to Iraq. The U.S. and the U.N. find it virtually impossible to bring in food supplies and arms regularly between fighting groups. None of the Islamist militants in Syria have claimed they want to take their battle to America. Can you clarify why America should get more involved militarily in Syria, and how? Thank you. A I think that almost all of you know that three years ago, there were some young children in Aleppo that were writing spring anti-Assad graffiti on the walls there. They were rounded up by the police and beaten and tortured, and after they were released, that sparked riots and demonstrations that turned into the conflict that we are in today. And there's also no doubt that for the first year of this conflict, the momentum was all on the side of those people who were trying to overthrow Bashar Assad. And then I mentioned to you about Hezbollah entering the fight, plane load after plane load from Russia coming in with weapons, plane load after plane load, overflying Iraq from Iran, flying into the Damascus airport, and the momentum changed on the battlefield. The other corollary of this, and maybe I didn't emphasize it enough, is foreign fighters and jihadists flowed in from all over the world. There are now 26,000 jihadists now fighting in Syria. There are several thousand who are not from Syria. There's French. There is allegedly, just in the last week, an American who was a suicide bomber in Syria. They're from Australia. They're from all over the world. And, of course, we now have a three-cornered fight here because you've got the al-Nusra and the jihadists and you've got the Free Syrian Army and, of course, Bashar Assad. What else is going on? These barrel bombs are horrible cylinder-like objects packed with explosives and shrapnel that they drop from helicopters, which many of the materials for this come from Russia. And it's a mindless slaughter of innocent men, women, and children. And you're now up to 160,000. Lebanon has been destabilized. The conflict has spread. We know about the Syria-Iraq. You know the people who just came into Iraq came from Syria. Do you know that a lot of the weapons that they were able to get as the Syrian military left, those weapons are going back into Syria. So, the situation has become now a regional conflict. And the refugee problem is, again, what really tugs at your heart. Three million refugees. The population of Jordan is 12 percent refugee. Think of the United States of America, 12 percent of our population were refugee. Think what kind of a challenge that would be to us. So, I'll never forget being in a refugee camp in Jordan, where at that time there was only 50,000 refugees. It's now 175,000. And I was shown around by a school teacher, a very impressive young woman. And she said, Senator, you see all these children running around here? There's children everywhere. And I said, yeah. And she said, they believe you abandoned them. And when they grow up, they're going to take revenge on you. Now, that's a little chilling when you think about it, about the future of the people there in that part of the world. So, all I can say is that I'm glad that the chemical weapons are out. But I think that it took us off of the real challenge that we are facing. And that is the momentum clearly on the side of Bashar Assad. And, of course, this rise of radical Islamic extremists there. Many times now we've seen instances where Al Nusra and the jihadists are, and Bashar Assad doesn't attack them. He only attacks the Free Syrian Army people. So, I hope that the President will continue to review this situation. There was a time, I'm told, about a year ago, where the President's entire national security team, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary, the head of the CIA, and the head of the DNI, all recommended that they increase assistance to the Free Syrian Army. And he turned that recommendation down. I think that history will judge that decision rather harshly. In the back. Senator McCain, excuse me. My name is Eleanor McSally. And I guess you must recognize the name a little bit. I recognize the name. Mrs. McSally's daughter is named Martha, our colonel. And I was A-10 pilot in combat. And I can tell you, she's a lot tougher than I am. I just wanted to say thank you for being her mentor, because you certainly have been. And we're delighted with the fact that you have also called her a maverick. Because that would be modeled on some of the things that you've done in your wonderful life. And I just wanted to say one more thing that Martha was born here, and bred here, and educated here in Rhode Island, before she went to the Air Force Academy. She really got smart, didn't she? Thank you. Thank you. Could I just interject something here real quick? I tried to near the end of my remarks. My friends, we are still the greatest and strongest nation on earth. We are going to become energy independent. We were talking in this audience as short a time ago as five years ago. We wouldn't believe that. Manufacturing is coming back to the United States of America because of the technology we have. Everything that's ever invented with these devices of communication comes from Silicon Valley. I was out at Twitter headquarters the other day in San Francisco. It's amazing what you see there. But we are still the strongest and greatest nation on earth. We will be for a long, long time. Our military, I say to all, with respect to all of our foreign students that are here, is still, head and shoulders, the best on earth. And it's an all-volunteer force. And Americans are proud of them. So, look, these are enormous challenges we're facing. I am deeply concerned. But I still have an abiding faith in this country, and particularly the men and women who serve it. Yes. Good evening, Senator, Lieutenant Commander Laura Bollinger, U.S. Navy. You've had such an incredible life serving our country in our Navy and in the Senate. And I wonder if you could tell us some of what you feel are the most important pieces of advice that you can tell the leaders, both U.S. and international, in this audience as we look forward to being leaders in our respective countries. Thank you, sir. I've had — I agree with you. I've been most fortunate. You know, having crashed four U.S. airplanes, I think — with my wife, Cindy, sometimes she's nervous on an airliner. She gets nervous. I say, look, I'm going to die sometime, but it sure as hell isn't going to be on an airplane. So I was very fortunate because of my family. I was also fortunate. Admiral Carter is going to the Naval Academy, and what they instill in you there is — you're very fortunate to be exposed to the honor code. You're very fortunate to make the acquaintance and be associated with the outstanding young men and women. I know, and I'm sure that Sheldon would agree, I couldn't get into the Naval Academy today because of the incredible standards that we require of these young people to go to the service academies. But one thing I did learn in politics and in life is that every time — and this may not be true for everybody in politics — every time I have done something in politics that I did knowing that it probably was not totally honest, that I did for expediency, that I did for reason that actually contradicted what I was taught at the Naval Academy and by my comrades in prison, I paid a very heavy price for it. And not only politically, but also in certain views about myself. When I was running for president in the year 2000, I had just won the New Hampshire primary. Big, big upset. South Carolina is the next primary state. If I can win South Carolina, I can be the nominee of the Republican Party for president of the United States. At that time, there was a Confederate flag flying over the capital in Columbia, South Carolina, of the capital. And we all know what the Confederate flag means to, at least to many Americans. And so I was asked, well, what do you think about that? Knowing that probably a significant number of the voters in that primary wanted that flag flying over, or certainly a significant number of them. And I said, oh, it's just, it's a state's right issue. State's rights. It's a right of the state of South Carolina. Well, that's, that's not right. I mean, that that was the reason why they didn't let people sit at lunch counters in the days of, of the civil rights movement. And so here I did, I betrayed my principles, and I lost anyway. And after I lost, I went back down and apologized, but that didn't really, really matter. And several times in my political career, I have done things for political reasons rather than because I knew better. So many of us here are, are victims, because we know better. There are some people that really don't, that haven't been exposed to the honor code and the standard of conduct that we expect in the practice in our lives in the military. And so it's a curse and a blessing. So all, all I can say is that I believe that my efforts now should be to spend time with younger members of the Senate and newer members of the Senate, both Republican and Democrat, and try to influence them and help them along as we learn about the challenges to our national security. And I have had a complete failure in my efforts with Senator Whitehouse. Yeah. Could we do two more? Professor John Jackson here at the War College. President of this institution, James Bond Stockdale, was certainly a hero to you, I know. I wonder if you can tell us what you learned from your years in Vietnam with Admiral Stockdale, and what the men and women in uniform here might be able to carry forward. Admiral Stockdale was a remarkable individual in many respects, and he was badly injured when he was captured, and he was the senior ranking officer. The difference between success or failure in a prisoner of war camp, to a large degree, is dictated by your ability to organize, and recognize a chain of command, and keep in communications with one another, let each other know that we're not alone, and we have leaders. And Jim, James Bond Stockdale was, was one of those leaders that inspired us to do things, and be able to resist in ways that we never would have been able to without their inspirational leadership. And the leaders like Stockdale, probably came in for the most punish, came, not probably, did come in for the most punishment because of the role that they played. I spent about three years in solitary confinement, but it wasn't solitary, because I was always tapping on the walls to, to my fellow prisoners, and they were sustaining me. So, he just, he goes down in, in a long line of, of genuine American heroes, that was a product of the Naval Academy, and his environment, and was a Navy pilot, and did, you know, he was just an ordinary, extraordinary Naval officer, but he really did extraordinary things. One brief story, a very close and dear, beloved friend named Robinson Reisner, he was an Air Force pilot, he shot down eight MiGs in the Korean War, F-86 pilot, one of those rare individuals, was just a natural pilot. To Robinson Reisner, flying an airplane is the same to us as walking or breathing. Every once in a while, someone comes along like that. In 1966, there was a front page story, cover story, in Time Magazine, of Robinson Reisner, and he was squadron commander in Thailand, and talked all about him, and all his background, and all his exploits, and he then, about two months later, was shot down, and captured. And after being taken, to a few days, to the camp, to the main prison, that we called the Hanoi Hilton, he was taken, and he was on a stool, and the ropes were around him, and the head of all the prisons, who a guy, that some of us got to know a little bit, walks in, and he's sitting there, and there's a desk there, and the colonel, the Vietnamese colonel, has a copy of Time Magazine, with his picture on the cover, throws it on the desk, and said, ah, Colonel Reisner, we've been waiting for you. A little hard to stay with name, rank, serial number, when the guy has a copy of Time Magazine in front of you. Robinson Reisner passed away recently. He was really one of the, one of the more remarkable people that I had the pleasure of knowing. And I, maybe I could end up with one quick story for you, that I don't tell very often, but the, the Vietnamese kept us in, in conditions of solitary confinement, or two, or three, to a cell, for a long time, and then something happened, that changed, and they put us in big rooms, and basically left us alone. And so, it was a remarkable change. And there was a young man, who joined us, and he was from Selma, Alabama, and he came from a very poor family, and he was very patriotic, and I will leave his name out for a moment, and he was a great believer in the United States Navy, because he'd been an enlisted man, and gone to a program they had then, called NESAP, became an officer, was a bombardier navigator, in an A6, and he was shot down and captured, about the same time that I was. And he, was in this big room with us, and the uniform that we wore, were blue, short-sleeved, shirt, long trousers, like, that looked like pajama trousers, and the shoes we wore, were cut out of rubber, cut out of automobile tires. I recommend them highly, one pair lasted me five and a half years. So, Jim, took a piece of, took his blue shirt, and got it, at that time, as part of the change in treatment, the Vietnamese allowed some of us small packages from home, which would be small articles of clothing, maybe some vitamins, stuff like that. He took his piece of red cloth, a piece of white cloth, fashioned himself a bamboo needle, and sewed the American flag on the inside of his shirt. Every evening, before we would have our bowl of soup, of undetermined content, we would put Mike Christian's shirt on the wall, and say the Pledge of Allegiance. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance is not the most exciting part of our day, in our daily lives, for us in prison, saying the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag, was a very important moment for all of us. One day, the Vietnamese came and searched the cell, and they found Mike Christian's shirt with the flags on the side of it, and they removed it. That evening, they came back to the door of the cell, opened the door of the cell, called him to come out, and just right outside the door of the cell, they beat him very badly for about 45 minutes, and then they threw him back into the cell. He was pretty well banged up, as you can imagine. The cell that we lived in was a large room, in the center was a concrete slab on which we slept, and then there was a light that shone dimly in all four corners of the cell, 24 hours a day. So we cleaned Mike up as well as we could, and then I went over to lay down to go to sleep on the slab, and I happened to look over in the corner of the cell, and sitting there under that light bulb, with a piece of white cloth, and a piece of red cloth, and his shirt, and his bamboo needle, with his eyes almost shut, from the beating that he had received, was of course, Mike Christian. He wasn't making that flag because it made him feel better, he was doing it because he knew what it meant to us to be able to pledge our allegiance to our flag and country. So, the great thing about America is that we have lots of Mike Christians out there, and some of them are in this audience tonight. Thank you for having me. Before we let Senator McCain move on with the rest of the evening, I want to say thank you on behalf of Senator Whitehouse, Sister Jane Garrity, our faculty, staff, and students, the students from the Pell Center. There's not much you can give a man of Senator McCain's stature, but one thing we knew here at the War College is the great love he had for his father and his grandfather, and you heard some of that tonight. We have a pretty good history department here, and you heard me mention before we got into tonight's activities that the original John S. McCain attended the War College here in the 20s, and that was really the golden era here for the War College. Chester Nimitz, the Nimitz grandsons Chet and Dick are here tonight. Raymond Spruance, for who this auditorium is named, and John S. McCain attended the War College, and he was here in 1929. And sir, you told us not to look up your records at the Naval Academy, but we did look up your grandfather's. So tonight, as a small token of our appreciation for you being here, we have put together this small packet, and it's a compilation of the two most important writings that your grandfather wrote here at the War College, inspired by Alfred Thayer Mahan.