My favorite topic is shortcuts. The master of shortcuts -- it's, of course, nature. But I will demonstrate different ways to get rid of difficulties and go to the point, to find an answer probably much quicker than Arthur did. So, first, we violate the common sense, the logic. All of you, if you hold your hand like this, 90 degrees -- all of you. Not you. All of you, right? Palm up. If you do this, the common, the logic says you must turn the wrist. Do you agree? Good. But I will first teach you a method, how you can do it without moving the wrist, and then the shortcut. You can do it immediately, right? Hold the hand like this, palm up. Don't move the wrist. The wrist is -- I doesn't speak very many, but I do the best, what I are. Right-molded you say, with iron? That was a joke, actually, and I -- OK. Hold the hand palm up. Do this, don't move the wrist. Over the heart, don't move the wrist. Forward, don't move the wrist. Up, don't move the wrist. Over the heart, don't move the wrist. And forward. Yeah. Now -- (Laughter) -- logic, logically, you have got to this position from this, without moving the wrist. (Laughter) Now, the shortcut. (Laughter) But it was six moves. Now with one move. I start here, palm down, you can follow. And then bensonnicole@example.net. Yeah! (Laughter) One move. OK. So, that was the warming up. Now, I need an assistant. I talked to a nice girl before, Zoe. She has left. No! A big hand. (Applause) Good. Nice. And you can sit over there. One item here was water, right? And I will give my tribute to water. I think it's enough with water for me. The other guys can talk about -- cheers. (Laughter) Beer has about -- there's a lot of water in beer. (Laughter) So, now I will demonstrate different ways of memorizing, control cards and so on. And I think I'll take off this one. I work with a special method to do it, quick. I work with precision -- oh, sorry -- control and a very powerful ... memory system, right? (Laughter) So, if -- I have studied the poker. I like to gamble. Officially, I don't gamble but ... So, if we are -- if we have five person, and I will do a five-handed poker game. Now I will interact. So a different person all the time, so not the same person can answer. So we have an agreement. Which one shall have a good poker hand? Which number? One, two, three, four or five? (Audience: Three.) Lennart Green: Three -- good. And here, I had a mat here to make it a little -- the critical moment is -- sorry. If a card shark gathers the cards together, immediately when he -- before he deals the card. Now, so I think, number three, I have arranged them in a full house. (Laughter) With queens and -- it's OK -- queens and tens. That's a challenge. I like this. I will explain later. One, two, three, four, five. I start with three queens. So here you see the contrast when I treat the cards. And two tens. Yeah. Thank you. (Applause) But also the other hand is good, if all the other guys have good hands too. So these guys have actually a stronger hand -- three aces and two kings. This guy beats them with four of a kind, or deuce -- deuce. No reaction? That with even -- OK, and this. These look in order, I'm probably -- hopefully -- yeah. Three, four, five, six, seven and ... But, of course, I will have the winning hand. Ten, jack, queen, king, ace. Yeah. So, good. (Laughter) So the hand that looks so good from the beginning, number three, at the end was actually the lowest hand. Such life. Right? So, please mix them. Now, if you are interested, I will demonstrate some underground techniques. Yes? I work with kind of estimation, shuffle tracking -- ah, good. Impressive. Thank you. (Laughter) So, first, the first term is estimation. Here, I can estimate exactly how many cards are put between my royal flush. Of course, I can count the cards, but this is much quicker. Right? You agree. So here I have, actually -- I know exactly where the cards are. So here, I can make a bet, and this is actually one of the points where I get my money. So here: 10, jack, queen, king, ace. OK. (Applause) Next is a term -- I do it quick. I call this stealing. So here, I think I know about where the cards are. I will spread the cards and you'll say stop, when I point to them, right. Point, say stop. Zoe: Stop. LG: Here -- you see some are missing? And that's the stealing cards, which I did. (Laughter) OK. Now, another term called shuffle tracking. Shuffle tracking means I keep track of the cards, even if another person shuffles. This is a little risky. So -- because if you look, now, I can still see it. You agree? But if you square -- square, and shuffle, and then a cut. So here, to follow my cards, I must look at the shuffle from the begin -- ah, we are started together. It's OK, it's OK. Come to -- no, no, no, no. I'm joking, yeah? Any style -- yeah, good. Here I have to calculate, but actually, I don't like to calculate. I work direct with the right brain. If you pass the left brain, you have to take care of logic and common sense. Direct in the right brain, that's much better. And so -- (Laughter) -- Arthur Benjamin did a little of the same thing. And if you work with, in the right atmosphere, with humor, you have -- that's the password to the cosmic bank of knowledge, where you can find any solution of any problem. OK. Now, I drop the cards, and you say stop anyway, right? Not at the last card. Zoe: Stop. LG: Yeah. When I'm sober, I do this much quicker, but we will check. (Laughter) Ah, not in order, it -- that was a mistake. No, I'm kidding. (Applause) No, now and then I put in a mistake, just to emphasize how difficult it is. Right? Yeah, last night I forgot that. That was a mistake. But now I'm glad I remember it. So, this deck is bought here. Sorry. I have a little pad to make it a little softer. This deck is bought here in America. It's called "Bicycle." And this deck is very flexible, but not so many people know, if you check, if you press at the right spots, you see how thin and flexible this deck is, right? Now, you can carry this in your wallet, so ... You don't see it, make no reaction? (Laughter) So, but here, and -- is the camera getting too much? No. (Laughter) Yeah? (Audience: It's getting too much.) LG: Pardon? But then, when we will have it back, you do this. But not too much. Then you have to push it down again. Here, please. If you push these heaps -- everyone see -- push them together so they are really interlaced, right? Yeah, good. Perfect. Just push them through, good. Thank you. And then, I will demonstrate a thing from Russian satellite, stealen -- stolen, probably copied from America but we will see. Here -- shortcuts. I talk about shortcuts. Now I go very quick through the deck and try to find some pattern. The new chaos theory is already old, right? But you know, I think you are familiar with fractals -- the Mandelbrot spirals and all these things. And it's much easier to memorize cards in a pattern way, and not concentrate. If you concentrate and calculate, then you go to -- then it's the left brain. But if you just look and talk in another language ... Yeah, great. I think I have it. So now, different persons, older, tap. Please name any card, anyone. (Audience: Jack of spades.) LG: Jack of spades. Jack of spades. I think jack of spades is number 12 from the top. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12. Yes, right. So -- oh, jack of spades. You said spades? (Audience: Yes.) LG: Ah. My fault. Don't applaud, this was clubs. So, jack of spades. I think ... 23 -- 24, sorry, 24. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 -- ah, 25, yes. It's the last. Now, I do it quicker, better. OK. Another person. Oh, I forgot, I shouldn't shuffle but I think -- (Laughter) -- actually, my technique is to peek, all the time. When I lift the heap, I peek. You see, yeah, perfect. Three, four, five, six. Then I calculate -- yeah, good. (Laughter) Another person, another card. (Audience: Seven of diamonds.) LG: Seven of diamonds. Perfect, my favorite, yeah, seven. So I will do it quick, very quick, but in slow motion, so you can follow. (Laughter) Seven of? (Audience: Diamonds.) LG: Diamonds, good. I start here. Good, thank you. (Applause) The thing I did -- I peeked. I know where the card were, then I chose it. So another person, another card. (Laughter) Another person. (Audience: Ten of diamonds.) LG: Pardon? (Audience: Ten of diamonds.) LG: Ten of diamonds, yeah. I think I do it the same way. I like to, so I know where it is. Ten of diamonds. But now I do it the regular speed, right? Ten of diamonds. Good. Maybe you will cut? Lift. Excellent. So, thank you. Another person, another card. (Audience: Five of clubs.) LG: Pardon? (Audience: Five of clubs.) LG: Five of clubs. It's not the same person, even if it's the same spot. We can take some over there later. So now, I will drop the cards. And you'll say stop, anywhere. Got it? Five of clubs. Not the last. Yes, that's difficult to find a card here. (Laughter) We do it again. The person who said five of clubs say stop, when the cards are in the air, right? (Audience: Stop.) LG: Very good. OK. (Applause) OK, I had to use a little force there. I think we save five of clubs. And now a card with a contrast of five of clubs. (Audience: Queen of hearts.) LG: Queen of hearts, yeah. Excellent. I love that card. Here, I will do the most difficult thing. For example, you are sitting in Las Vegas, and you're betting, and you let the other guys peek this card by mistake. Feel, it's just the regular, one card. And now, when I lift this card, it shall be your card. What was your card? (Audience: Queen of hearts.) LG: Queen of? Queen of hearts. So that's a tough challenge, right? So here, I grab -- you know this? Five of clubs ... and queen of hearts. Yes! This is a tough one, because here I must take advantage of -- I switch it with the five of clubs. So, now a false count. Which card shall I use? Queen or five? Zoe: The queen. LG: Queen, yes. So, I use the queen, and here's five of clubs. The false count -- and the number one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight -- you say the same card all the time. Eight, nine, 10. This is a kind of optical deal, right? When I put one card at a table -- look, it's not one card. It's -- look, it's a bunch of cards that gives this impression. Yeah. Now some hard stuff. I think we keep the queen here, yes. Now, to the satellites things. This -- oh sorry, don't look at the beam. My fault. (Laughter) This is high-frequency laser, and it's enough with a fraction of a second to destroy the retina completely. Right, sorry, my -- I should have mentioned that, yeah. But you can relax, because it takes half an hour before it works, so you have plenty of time to see my whole performance. (Laughter) Now, I put the laser here, and -- now, when I deal the cards in the laser, I know where they are but -- yes? Did the camera got it? No? They didn't? What happened? (Audience: It disappeared.) LG: OK, I'll take another group. Do the cameras see the cards now? No? (Audience: No, they're all gone.) LG: But you see the hand. Ah, good, good, good. But now. So now, that was the reason, right? You see the cards? Yes. (Laughter) Yeah, good. Now -- (Laughter) -- one guy laughed. So now, to find the queen, do it this way: take back the other one, take back the queen. (Laughter) Yeah, interesting, but a little dangerous. (Laughter) I liked it. Now, a little more difficult. Name -- anyone, name, please, any suit. (Audience: Spades.) LG: Spades? Spades, good. So here, here I have to peek, lots of cards. I think there are lots of -- I don't know how many -- but 10, 15 spades in a deck, at least, right? (Laughter) So every time I lift the heap, I peek, right. Then I arrange them so I can get them quick. Perfect, excellent. So I start with the ace -- yeah, ace. Ah, yeah -- spades? Same mistake as before, right? So -- I arrange the spades -- the clubs. I try to do this right here. First, I take the spades. You see, I don't work with prestige, so always do mistakes. It doesn't matter to me. And now and then, I get some extra sympathy points, right? One, two, three, four -- yes, the camera got it? Five, six, seven, eight -- ah -- nine, 10, the jack, jack of spades, queen of -- I like that laugh, yeah! Good. Queen. (Laughter) Wait, wait, wait -- please take any card. Grab any one. Quick, quick, good. And we switch this to the king. Ace of diamonds. And now, look, ace of diamonds will guide. So I find ... king of spades. There was the place. And here is king of spades, correct? Yeah? OK. (Applause) Now, a little more difficult thing. Maybe you think I have the cards in order already, so you help me to shuffle again. Another suit, please. (Audience: Armani.) LG: Pardon? (Audience: Armani.) (Laughter) LG: It was after the blindfold. I like this guy, yeah. OK. That should be my end effect, but OK. Armani -- who said Armani? You? I drop the cards and you -- which size? Which size? It's a piece of cake. I like challenges. Which size? (Audience: Extra large.) LG: Extra large, OK. Say stop. (Audience: Stop.) (Laughter) LG: Yeah, Armani. OK. (Applause) Ah, this is tough. OK, a suit. I had clubs before, spades. Another suit. (Audience: Diamonds.) LG: Diamonds, perfect. So, in this case, I try to locate diamonds. I look at the cards, and OK. We try. Yeah. You help me. If I drop the card face up, like this, you reverse it. Zoe: OK. LG: OK, now. Do with both hands, and quick. Yes, good, good. (Laughter) I think we have it now. Yeah, good, good. So here, diamonds, hearts -- no, diamonds. Good, good. Stop. Do you see the pattern? No? Now? Yes, yes, OK. I work with pattern. Oh sorry, I dropped one. Maybe it's important -- yeah -- nine of diamonds, OK. So now -- I always ask, why do I put myself in this position? I have to figure out so many outs, when I miss some cards, but I love it. So now, I will do it. I will try to find the diamonds, but I will do it the hard way. It's too easy to do it right away, right? I think I will do it ... blindfolded. At this distance, it works immediately. Aargh! (Laughter) Duct tape. I look -- shake the cards, so I don't. Go ahead. Yeah, good. I like the empathy. Empathy. But it was -- did you hear? It was women's voice. Hear the guy -- yeah, more, more, more. (Laughter) Yeah, good. Yeah. You can take the nostril too, because some guys think -- (Laughter) -- some guys think I can peek through the nostril, so do more. Go, go. Right? Good. Satisfied? Looks good, like Batman. Ow! (Laughter) No, with dignity and elegance, right? But I like her, yeah. I said, be a little tough. And it was OK. One more? The last. OK. All right. Now you must agree that I'm -- I must rely on other senses, right? I work with vibration. So, what was the card? Diamonds. Ah, I memorized hearts. So now I have to improvise again. Maybe I'll stand up. Half. Diamonds -- I'll start with ace of diamonds. Just kidding, warming up -- king of hearts. (Laughter) And I give you a diamonds, so they -- so you put them here, in a nice row, right. And you can see, yeah? Good. Ace of diamonds, yes? Zoe: Yeah. LG: Good. Good. Two -- (Applause) -- thank you. I never ever miss two. This is interesting. Always I've found two, but the wrong color. Spades, sorry. And the deck is a gift to you after, so let the skepticals here, in this, examine them, right? Remind me. It's a gift. Two -- and it was two of spades, right? Sorry, two of diamonds. I'll do it quick now. Three -- three of diamonds. Yes! Four -- I like challenges, yes. Yeah, good. Chris Anderson: You're peeking. LG: Pardon? CA: You're peeking. You just got to -- this is a request from the lady in the back. (Laughter) Okay. Try that. LG: Yeah. Also listen. OK, now. This is maybe a little tough. We will try. Yes? Good? (Laughter) OK. So, how many cards? Five? Zoe: Four. LG: Four. Is five the next card? Zoe: Five of diamonds, yeah. LG: It's not here? Zoe: It's not there. LG: Oh. So here, all the cards are face down -- you agree? (Audience: Yes.) LG: Yes? You see that in the screen? And this is face up, and it's not at the bottom here. So next card will be -- was it five? Zoe: Five. LG: Yeah -- I will reverse it face up here. Yes? Zoe: Yeah. LG: Six -- six with the thumb. Seven. Yeah, I do this. I know where it is, because I peeked before and then I do this. Right? Eight. If -- and then nine, right? Yeah. Yesterday -- the day before yesterday, I was in Vegas, and I used this actually. Nine? Yeah? Correct? No? Yes! Ah, good, good. Ten -- once again, I love this Jonny Wayne move. Yeah. Jack -- you [unclear] with Jack? Jack of diamonds, correct? (Audience: No.) LG: Yes? And queen! Queen, with misdirection. Misdirection. (Applause) Yeah? And then, king, after exactly five seconds. Yeah. Five. Five seconds. One, two, three, four -- mmm! Check it. Yes? CA: King of diamonds. LG: Ah! Good. Oh. Touch me, feel -- ah, ah, you know! CA: Ladies and gentlemen, Lennart Green! LG: Okay, thank you. I get asked a lot what the difference between my work is and typical Pentagon long-range strategic planners. And the answer I like to offer is what they typically do is they think about the future of wars in the context of war. And what I've spent 15 years doing in this business -- and it's taken me almost 14 to figure it out -- is I think about the future of wars in the context of everything else. So I tend to specialize on the scene between war and peace. The material I'm going to show you is one idea from a book with a lot of ideas. It's the one that takes me around the world right now interacting with foreign militaries quite a bit. The material was generated in two years of work I did for the Secretary of Defense, thinking about a new national grand strategy for the United States. I'm going to present a problem and try to give you an answer. Here's my favorite bonehead concept from the 1990s in the Pentagon: the theory of anti-access, area-denial asymmetrical strategies. Why do we call it that? Because it's got all those A's lined up I guess. This is gobbledygook for if the United States fights somebody we're going to be huge. They're going to be small. And if they try to fight us in the traditional, straight-up manner we're going to kick their ass, which is why people don't try to do that any more. I met the last Air Force General who had actually shot down an enemy plane in combat. He's now a one star General. That's how distant we are from even meeting an air force willing to fly against ours. So that overmatched capability creates problems -- catastrophic successes the White House calls them. (Laughter) And we're trying to figure that out, because it is an amazing capability. The question is, what's the good you can do with it? OK? The theory of anti-access, area-denial asymmetrical strategies -- gobbledygook that we sell to Congress, because if we just told them we can kick anybody's asses they wouldn't buy us all the stuff we want. So we say, area-denial, anti-access asymmetrical strategies and their eyes glaze over. (Laughter) And they say, "Will you build it in my district?" (Laughter) (Applause) Here's my parody and it ain't much of one. Let's talk about a battle space. I don't know, Taiwan Straits 2025. Let's talk about an enemy embedded within that battle space. I don't know, the Million Man Swim. (Laughter) The United States has to access that battle space instantaneously. They throw up anti-access, area-denial asymmetrical strategies. A banana peel on the tarmac. (Laughter) Trojan horses on our computer networks reveal all our Achilles' heels instantly. We say, "China, it's yours." Prometheus approach, largely a geographic definition, focuses almost exclusively on the start of conflict. We field the first-half team in a league that insists on keeping score until the end of the game. That's the problem. We can run the score up against anybody, and then get our asses kicked in the second half -- what they call fourth generation warfare. Here's the way I like to describe it instead. There is no battle space the U.S. Military cannot access. They said we couldn't do Afghanistan. We did it with ease. They said we couldn't do Iraq. We did it with 150 combat casualties in six weeks. We did it so fast we weren't prepared for their collapse. There is nobody we can't take down. The question is, what do you do with the power? So there's no trouble accessing battle spaces. What we have trouble accessing is the transition space that must naturally follow, and creating the peace space that allows us to move on. Problem is, the Defense Department over here beats the hell out of you. The State Department over here says, "Come on boy, I know you can make it." And that poor country runs off that ledge, does that cartoon thing and then drops. (Laughter) This is not about overwhelming force, but proportional force. It's about non-lethal technologies, because if you fire real ammo into a crowd of women and children rioting you're going to lose friends very quickly. This is not about projecting power, but about staying power, which is about legitimacy with the locals. Who do you access in this transition space? You have to create internal partners. You have to access coalition partners. We asked the Indians for 17,000 peace keepers. I know their senior leadership, they wanted to give it to us. But they said to us, "You know what? In that transition space you're mostly hat not enough cattle. We don't think you can pull it off, we're not going to give you our 17,000 peace keepers for fodder." We asked the Russians for 40,000. They said no. I was in China in August, I said, "You should have 50,000 peace keepers in Iraq. It's your oil, not ours." Which is the truth. It's their oil. And the Chinese said to me, "Dr. Barnett, you're absolutely right. In a perfect world we'd have 50,000 there. But it's not a perfect world, and your administration isn't getting us any closer." But we have trouble accessing our outcomes. We lucked out, frankly, on the selection. We face different opponents across these three. And it's time to start admitting you can't ask the same 19-year-old to do it all, day in and day out. It's just too damn hard. We have an unparalleled capacity to wage war. We don't do the everything else so well. Frankly, we do it better than anybody and we still bensonnicole@example.net. We have a brilliant Secretary of War. We don't have a Secretary of Everything Else. Because if we did, that guy would be in front of the Senate, still testifying over Abu Ghraib. The problem is he doesn't exist. There is no Secretary of Everything Else. I think we have an unparalleled capacity to wage war. I call that the Leviathan Force. What we need to build is a force for the Everything Else. I call them the System Administrators. What I think this really represents is lack of an A to Z rule set for the world as a whole for processing politically bankrupt states. We have one for processing economically bankrupt states. It's the IMF Sovereign Bankruptcy Plan, OK? We argue about it every time we use it. Argentina just went through it, broke a lot of rules. They got out on the far end, we said, "Fine, don't worry about it." It's transparent. A certain amount of certainty gives the sense of a non-zero outcome. We don't have one for processing politically bankrupt states that, frankly, everybody wants gone. Like Saddam, like Mugabe, like Kim Jong-Il -- people who kill in hundreds of thousands or millions. Like the 250,000 dead so far in Sudan. What would an A to Z system look like? I'm going to distinguish between what I call front half and back half. And let's call this red line, I don't know, mission accomplished. (Laughter) (Applause) What we have extant right now, at the beginning of this system, is the U.N. Security Council as a grand jury. What can they do? They can indict your ass. They can debate it. They can write it on a piece of paper. They can put it in an envelope and mail it to you, and then say in no uncertain terms, "Please cut that out." (Laughter) That gets you about four million dead in Central Africa over the 1990s. That gets you 250,000 dead in the Sudan in the last 15 months. Everybody's got to answer their grandchildren some day what you did about the holocaust in Africa, and you better have an answer. We don't have anything to translate that will into action. What we do have is the U.S.-enabled Leviathan Force that says, "You want me to take that guy down? I'll take that guy down. I'll do it on Tuesday. It will cost you 20 billion dollars." (Laughter) But here's the deal. As soon as I can't find anybody else to air out, I leave the scene immediately. That's called the Powell Doctrine. Way downstream we have the International Criminal Court. They love to put them on trial. They've got Milosević right now. What are we missing? A functioning executive that will translate will into action, because we don't have it. Every time we lead one of these efforts we have to whip ourselves into this imminent threat thing. We haven't faced an imminent threat since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. But we use this language from a bygone era to scare ourselves into doing something because we're a democracy and that's what it takes. And if that doesn't work we scream, "He's got a gun!" just as we rush in. (Laughter) And then we look over the body and we find an old cigarette lighter and we say, "Jesus, it was dark." (Laughter) Do you want to do it, France? France says, "No, but I do like to criticize you after the fact." What we need downstream is a great power enabled -- what I call that Sys Admin Force. We should have had 250,000 troops streaming into Iraq on the heels of that Leviathan sweeping towards Baghdad. What do you get then? No looting, no military disappearing, no arms disappearing, no ammo disappearing, no Muqtada Al-Sadr -- I'm wrecking his bones -- no insurgency. Talk to anybody who was over there in the first six months. We had six months to feel the lob, to get the job done, and we dicked around for six months. And then they turned on us. Why? Because they just got fed up. They saw what we did to Saddam. They said, "You're that powerful, you can resurrect this country. You're America." What we need is an international reconstruction fund -- Sebastian Mallaby, Washington Post, great idea. Model on the IMF. Instead of passing the hat each time, OK? Where are we going to find this guy? G20, that's easy. Check out their agenda since 9/11. All security dominated. They're going to decide up front how the money gets spent just like in the IMF. You vote according to how much money you put in the kitty. Here's my challenge to the Defense Department. You've got to build this force. You've got to seed this force. You've got to track coalition partners. Create a record of success. You will get this model. You tell me it's too hard to do. I'll walk this dog right through that six part series on the Balkans. We did it just like that. I'm talking about regularizing it, making it transparent. Would you like Mugabe gone? Would you like Kim Jong-Il, who's killed about two million people, would you like him gone? Would you like a better system? This is why it matters to the military. They've been experiencing an identity crisis since the end of the Cold War. I'm not talking about the difference between reality and desire, which I can do because I'm not inside the beltway. (Laughter) I'm talking about the 1990s. The Berlin Wall falls. We do Desert Storm. The split starts to emerge between those in the military who see a future they can live with, and those who see a future that starts to scare them, like the U.S. submarine community, which watches the Soviet Navy disappear overnight. Ah! (Laughter) So they start moving from reality towards desire and they create their own special language to describe their voyage of self-discovery and self-actualization. (Laughter) The problem is you need a big, sexy opponent to fight against. And if you can't find one you've got to make one up. China, all grown up, going to be a looker! (Laughter) The rest of the military got dragged down into the muck across the 1990s and they developed this very derisive term to describe it: military operations other than war. I ask you, who joins the military to do things other than war? Actually, most of them. Jessica Lynch never planned on shooting back. Most of them don't pick up a rifle. I maintain this is code inside the Army for, "We don't want to do this." They spent the 1990s working the messy scene between globalized parts of the world What I call the core and the gap. The Clinton administration wasn't interested in running this. For eight years, after screwing up the relationship on day one -- inauguration day with gays in the military -- which was deft. (Laughter) So we were home alone for eight years. And what did we do home alone? We bought one military and we operated another. It's like the guy who goes to the doctor and says, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." (Laughter) The doctor says, "Stop doing that you idiot." I used to give this brief inside the Pentagon in the early 1990s. I'd say, "You're buying one military and you're operating another, and eventually it's going to hurt. It's wrong. Bad Pentagon, bad!" (Laughter) And they'd say, "Dr. Barnett, you are so right. Can you come back next year and remind us again?" (Laughter) Some people say 9/11 heals the rift -- jerks the long-term transformation gurus out of their 30,000 foot view of history, drags them down in to the muck and says, "You want a networked opponent? I've got one, he's everywhere, go find him." It elevates MOOTW -- how we pronounce that acronym -- from crap to grand strategy, because that's how you're going to shrink that gap. Some people put these two things together and they call it empire, which I think is a boneheaded concept. Empire is about the enforcement of not just minimal rule sets, which you cannot do, but maximum rule sets which you must do. It's not our system of governance. Never how we've sought to interact with the outside world. I prefer that phrase System Administration. We enforce the minimal rule sets for maintaining connectivity to the global economy. Certain bad things you cannot do. How this impacts the way we think about the future of war. This is a concept which gets me vilified throughout the Pentagon. It makes me very popular as well. Everybody's got an opinion. Going back to the beginning of our country -- historically, defenses meant protection of the homeland. Security has meant everything else. Written into our constitution, two different forces, two different functions. Raise an army when you need it, and maintain a navy for day-to-day connectivity. A Department of War, a Department of Everything Else. A big stick, a baton stick. Can of whup ass, the networking force. In 1947 we merged these two things together in the Defense Department. Our long-term rationale becomes, we're involved in a hair trigger stand off with the Soviets. To attack America is to risk blowing up the world. We connected national security to international security with about a seven minute time delay. That's not our problem now. They can kill three million in Chicago tomorrow and we don't go to the mattresses with nukes. That's the scary part. The question is how do we reconnect American national security with global security to make the world a lot more comfortable, and to embed and contextualize our employment of force around the planet? What's happened since is that bifurcation I described. We talked about this going all the way back to the end of the Cold War. Let's have a Department of War, and a Department of Something Else. Some people say, "Hell, 9/11 did it for you." Now we've got a home game and an away game. (Laughter) The Department of Homeland Security is a strategic feel good measure. It's going to be the Department of Agriculture for the 21st century. TSA -- thousands standing around. (Laughter) I supported the war in Iraq. He was a bad guy with multiple priors. It's not like we had to find him actually killing somebody live to arrest him. I knew we'd kick ass in the war with the Leviathan Force. I knew we'd have a hard time with what followed. But I know this organization doesn't change until it experiences failure. What do I mean by these two different forces? This is the Hobbesian Force. I love this force. I don't want to see it go. That plus nukes rules out great power war. This is the military the rest of the world wants us to build. It's why I travel all over the world talking to foreign militaries. What does this mean? It means you've got to stop pretending you can do these two very disparate skill sets with the same 19-year-old. Switching back, morning, afternoon, evening, morning, afternoon, evening. Handing out aid, shooting back, handing out aid, shooting back. It's too much. The 19-year-olds get tired from the switching, OK? (Laughter) That force on the left, you can train a 19-year-old to do that. That force on the right is more like a 40-year-old cop. You need the experience. What does this mean in terms of operations? The rule is going to be this. That Sys Admin force is the force that never comes home, does most of your work. You break out that Leviathan Force only every so often. But here's the promise you make to the American public, to your own people, to the world. You break out that Leviathan Force, you promise, you guarantee that you're going to mount one hell of a -- immediately -- follow-on Sys Admin effort. Don't plan for the war unless you plan to win the peace. (Applause) Other differences. Leviathan traditional partners, they all look like the Brits and their former colonies. (Laughter) Including us, I would remind you. The rest -- wider array of partners. International organizations, non-governmental organizations, private voluntary organizations, contractors. You're not going to get away from that. Leviathan Force, it's all about joint operations between the military services. We're done with that. What we need to do is inter-agency operations, which frankly Condi Rice was in charge of. And I'm amazed nobody asked her that question when she was confirmed. I call the Leviathan Force your dad's military. I like them young, male, unmarried, slightly pissed off. (Laughter) I call the Sys Admin Force your mom's military. It's everything the man's military hates. Gender balanced much more, older, educated, married with children. The force on the left, up or out. The force on the right, in and out. The force on the left respects Posse Comitatus restrictions on the use of force inside the U.S. The force on the right's going to obliterate it. That's where the National Guard's going to be. The force on the left is never coming under the purview of the International Criminal Court. Sys Admin Force has to. Different definitions of network centricity. One takes down networks, one puts them up. And you've got to wage war here in such a way to facilitate that. Do we need a bigger budget? Do we need a draft to pull this off? Absolutely not. I've been told by the Revolution of Military Affairs crowd for years, we can do it faster, cheaper, smaller, just as lethal. I say, "Great, I'm going to take the Sys Admin budget out of your hide." Here's the larger point. You're going to build the Sys Admin Force inside the U.S. Military first. But ultimately you're going to civilianize it, probably two thirds. Inter agency-ize it, internationalize it. So yes, it begins inside the Pentagon, but over time it's going to cross that river. (Laughter) I have been to the mountain top. I can see the future. I may not live long enough to get you there, but it's going to happen. We're going to have a Department of Something Else between war and peace. Last slide. Who gets custody of the kids? This is where the Marines in the audience get kind of tense. (Laughter) And this is when they think about beating the crap out of me after the talk. (Laughter) Read Max Boon. This is the history of the marines -- small wars, small arms. The Marines are like my West Highland Terrier. They get up every morning, they want to dig a hole and they want to kill something. (Laughter) I don't want my Marines handing out aid. I want them to be Marines. That's what keeps the Sys Admin Force from being a pussy force. It keeps it from being the U.N. You shoot at these people the Marines are going to come over and kill you. (Laughter) (Applause) Department of Navy, strategic subs go this way, surface combatants are over there, and the news is they may actually be that small. (Laughter) I call it the Smart Dust Navy. I tell young officers, "You may command 500 ships in your career. Bad news is they may not have anybody on them." Carriers go both ways because they're a swing asset. You'll see the pattern -- airborne, just like carriers. Armor goes this way. Here's the dirty secret of the Air Force, you can win by bombing. But you need lots of these guys on the ground to win the peace. Shinseki was right with the argument. Air force, strategic airlift goes both ways. Bombers, fighters go over here. Special Operations Command bensonnicole@example.net. Trigger-pullers go this way. Civil Affairs, that bastard child, comes over here. Return to the Army. The point about the trigger-pullers and Special Operations Command. No off season, these guys are always active. They drop in, do their business, disappear. See me now. Don't talk about it later. (Laughter) I was never here. (Laughter) The world is my playground. (Laughter) I want to keep trigger-pullers trigger-happy. I want the rules to be as loose as possible. Because when the thing gets prevented in Chicago with the three million dead that perverts our political system beyond all recognition, these are the guys who are going to kill them first. So it's better off to have them make some mistakes along the way than to see that. Reserve component -- National Guard reserves overwhelmingly Sys Admin. How are you going to get them to work for this force? Most firemen in this country do it for free. This is not about money. This is about being up front with these guys and gals. Last point, intelligence community -- the muscle and the defense agencies go this way. What should be the CIA, open, analytical, open source should come over here. The information you need to do this is not secret. It's not secret. Read that great piece in the New Yorker about how our echo boomers, 19 to 25, over in Iraq taught each other how to do Sys Admin work, over the Internet in chat rooms. They said, "Al Qaeda could be listening." They said, "Well, Jesus, they already know this stuff." (Laughter) Take a gift in the left hand. These are the sunglasses that don't scare people, simple stuff. Censors and transparency, the overheads go in both directions. Thanks. There is an entire genre of YouTube videos devoted to an experience which I am certain that everyone in this room has had. It entails an individual who, thinking they're alone, engages in some expressive behavior — wild singing, gyrating dancing, some mild sexual activity — only to discover that, in fact, they are not alone, that there is a person watching and lurking, the discovery of which causes them to immediately cease what they were doing in horror. The sense of shame and humiliation in their face is palpable. It's the sense of, "This is something I'm willing to do only if no one else is watching." This is the crux of the work on which I have been singularly focused for the last 16 months, the question of why privacy matters, a question that has arisen in the context of a global debate, enabled by the revelations of Edward Snowden that the United States and its partners, unbeknownst to the entire world, has converted the Internet, once heralded as an unprecedented tool of liberation and democratization, into an unprecedented zone of mass, indiscriminate surveillance. There is a very common sentiment that arises in this debate, even among people who are uncomfortable with mass surveillance, which says that there is no real harm that comes from this large-scale invasion because only people who are engaged in bad acts have a reason to want to hide and to care about their privacy. This worldview is implicitly grounded in the proposition that there are two kinds of people in the world, good people and bad people. Bad people are those who plot terrorist attacks or who engage in violent criminality and therefore have reasons to want to hide what they're doing, have reasons to care about their privacy. But by contrast, good people are people who go to work, come home, raise their children, watch television. They use the Internet not to plot bombing attacks but to read the news or exchange recipes or to plan their kids' Little League games, and those people are doing nothing wrong and therefore have nothing to hide and no reason to fear the government monitoring them. The people who are actually saying that are engaged in a very extreme act of self-deprecation. What they're really saying is, "I have agreed to make myself such a harmless and unthreatening and uninteresting person that I actually don't fear having the government know what it is that I'm doing." This mindset has found what I think is its purest expression in a 2009 interview with the longtime CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, who, when asked about all the different ways his company is causing invasions of privacy for hundreds of millions of people around the world, said this: He said, "If you're doing something that you don't want other people to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Now, there's all kinds of things to say about that mentality, the first of which is that the people who say that, who say that privacy isn't really important, they don't actually believe it, and the way you know that they don't actually believe it is that while they say with their words that privacy doesn't matter, with their actions, they take all kinds of steps to safeguard their privacy. They put passwords on their email and their social media accounts, they put locks on their bedroom and bathroom doors, all steps designed to prevent other people from entering what they consider their private realm and knowing what it is that they don't want other people to know. The very same Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, ordered his employees at Google to cease speaking with the online Internet magazine CNET after CNET published an article full of personal, private information about Eric Schmidt, which it obtained exclusively through Google searches and using other Google products. (Laughter) This same division can be seen with the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, who in an infamous interview in 2010 pronounced that privacy is no longer a "social norm." Last year, Mark Zuckerberg and his new wife purchased not only their own house but also all four adjacent houses in Palo Alto for a total of 30 million dollars in order to ensure that they enjoyed a zone of privacy that prevented other people from monitoring what they do in their personal lives. Over the last 16 months, as I've debated this issue around the world, every single time somebody has said to me, "I don't really worry about invasions of privacy because I don't have anything to hide." I always say the same thing to them. I get out a pen, I write down my email address. I say, "Here's my email address. What I want you to do when you get home is email me the passwords to all of your email accounts, not just the nice, respectable work one in your name, but all of them, because I want to be able to just troll through what it is you're doing online, read what I want to read and publish whatever I find interesting. After all, if you're not a bad person, if you're doing nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide." Not a single person has taken me up on that offer. I check and — (Applause) I check that email account religiously all the time. It's a very desolate place. And there's a reason for that, which is that we as human beings, even those of us who in words disclaim the importance of our own privacy, instinctively understand the profound importance of it. It is true that as human beings, we're social animals, which means we have a need for other people to know what we're doing and saying and thinking, which is why we voluntarily publish information about ourselves online. But equally essential to what it means to be a free and fulfilled human being is to have a place that we can go and be free of the judgmental eyes of other people. There's a reason why we seek that out, and our reason is that all of us — not just terrorists and criminals, all of us — have things to hide. There are all sorts of things