>>> NOW ALONG WITH THIS NEW WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GEARING UP FOR A MILITARY PARADE AT HOME THIS WEEKEND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES.

OSTENSIBLY, IT IS FOR THE ARMY'S 250th BIRTHDAY WHICH ALSO HAPPENS TO FALL ON TRUMP'S BIRTHDAY.

HE FIRST GOT A TASTE FOR MILITARY PARADES BACK IN 1.0 WHEN PRESIDENT MAC RON INVITED HIM TO VIEW THE BASTILLE DAY POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE DOWN THE CHAMPS-ELYSEES.

TRUMP CAME BACK HOME WANTING TO STAGE SUCH A THING IN THE UNITED STATES.

MANY ARE SKEPTICAL, EVEN SOME REPUBLICANS ABOUT, THE COST AND THE OPTICS, ESPECIALLY SINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP SENT THE NATIONAL GUARD AND THE MARINES TO CALIFORNIA AGAINST THAT STATE'S WISHES.

GENERAL STANLEY McCRYSTAL HAS A DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF MILITARY CULTURE AND HE'S WRITTEN A FLAW BOOK CALLED "ON CHARACTER."

HE SPOKE WITH WALTER ISAACSON JUST BEFORE ISRAEL'S STRIKES ON IRAN.

>> THANK YOU.

WELCOME BACK TO THE SHOW.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> THIS BOOK, "ON CHARACTER," YOU SAY CHARACTER IS A CHOICE WE HAVE.

HOW SO?

>> IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, CHARACTER AS I TRY TO DESCRIBE IT IN THE BOOK IS A COMBINATION OF THE THINGS YOU BELIEVE IN, THE THINGS YOU'LL LIVE TO OR DIE FOR, AND THE DISCIPLINE YOU HAVE TO LIVE UP TO THEM.

YOU CAN HAVE ALL THESE HIGH FALLUTING CONVICTIONS, THEY'RE MEANINGLESS.

WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WE DOCUMENT AS OUR BELIEFS.

THEN WE GET TO DECIDE HOW WE BEHAVE.

WE SOMETIME STRUGGLE AND MOST OF US FALL SHORT ON A PRETTY CONSTANT BASIS.

BUT WE GET TO PICK OURSELVES UP EVERY DAY AND TRY TO DO BETTER THE NEXT DAY.

>>> YOU TALK ABOUT IT BEING CONVICTION AND DISCIPLINE.

I WORRY ABOUT THEM.

THEY DON'T HAVE A MORAL COMPASS.

ISN'T THAT PART OF THE EQUATION?

>> YEAH.

I PUT THAT IN CONVICTIONS.

I THINK YOU CAN HAVE CHARACTER AND IT CAN BE BAD CHARACTER.

WE TYPICALLY DESCRIBE CHARACTER AS GOOD.

IF YOU SAY, WALTER ISAACSON HAS CHARACTER, THAT WOULD BE VIEWED AS POSITIVE.

BUT SOME PEOPLE HAVE EVIL CONVICTIONS.

THEY HAVE BELIEFS THAT ARE ANTI-ATHLETIC CAL TO WHAT I BELIEVE.

BUT THEY HAVE ALL THE CONVICTIONS IN THE WORLD.

TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEONE WHO IS A COMPLETE OPPORTUNIST.

ALL THEY'RE OUT FOR IS THEMSELVES.

BUT THEY DO IT IN A DISCIPLINED FASHION.

THEY DON'T DEVIATE FROM IT.

THEY'RE CONSTANTLY AT IT.

WE MAY FIND THEM DESPICABLE BUT SOMETIMES EFFECTIVE AT WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.

>> I JUST SAW GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK.

HE'S SORT OF THE HERE OVER OF THE PLAY.

REAL HERE OVER, WHEN IT SAYS HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

IT WAS A PERIOD LIKE TODAY.

>> I GO BACK TO REMEMBERING THE McCARTHY ERA LASTED LONGER THAN WE WOULD LIKE TO PRETEND IT DID.

HE HAD A PRETTY LONG RUN OF DOING A LOT OF DAMAGE.

AND FINALLY IT TOOK THE HEARINGS OF PEOPLE WHO HAD IT UP TO HERE WITH HIM.

AND THEN THIS OFFICIAL FROM THE ARMY BASICALLY USES THAT GREAT LINE.

BUT THE REALITY IS, IT IS HARD TO DO THAT.

SO I WISH SOMEBODY WOULD STAND UP.

I WISH SOMEBODY WOULD SAY, WE ARE DOING THINGS WITH AND TO OUR ARMY THAT I THINK ARE POTENTIALLY VERY, VERY DAMAGING FOR A LONG TIME.

>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE DEPLOYMENT, IT'S MARINES, BUT THE DEPLOYMENT OF NATIONAL GUARD AND MARINES FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES IN LOS ANGELES THIS WEEK?

>> THAT APPEARS TO BE LAWFUL, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK IT IS WARRANTED BUT I'M NOT ON THE GROUND TO JUDGE.

WHAT I'M MORE DETERMINED ABOUT, THE POLICIES, FOR INSTANCE, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHERE SENIOR OFFICERS WERE REMOVED FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

THAT THEY HAD SUPPORTED DIVERSITY.

THAT THEY HAD FOLLOWED THE THINGS WHICH WERE THE POLICY OF THEIR SERVICE, OR THEIR JOB WHEN THEY WERE DOING IT.

YOU CAN ALWAYS FIRE GENERALS.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH FIRING GENERALS FOR INEFFECTIVENESS OR ANY OTHER SHORT-COMING.

IF YOU FIRE THEM FOR POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, THEN I THINK WE ARE SENDING A DANGEROUS MESSAGE ACROSS.

>> YES, IT'S A DANGEROUS MESSAGE.

ISN'T A STEP IN SOME WAYS TO A AUTOCRACY OR SOMETHING IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT OR WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE OF DOING THAT TAKES A CERTAIN POWER THAT WE'VE NOT SEEN BEFORE IN OUR SOCIETY.

>> IT CERTAINLY LOOKS LIKE THAT.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE EFFECT, REMEMBER, OF FIRING A FEW, OR IN THE CASE BACK OF DURING THE SOVIET EMPIRE, ARRESTING A FEW PEOPLE, CERTAINLY BRINGS EVERYBODY ELSE INTO LINE.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ARRESTS HERE BUT WHEN YOU REMOVE PEOPLE AND SHOW ANYONE IS VULNERABLE TO THAT, PEOPLE WHO HAVE JOBS, POSITIONS THAT THEY HAVE WORKED A LONG TIME TO GET ARE LIKELY TO SHAPE THEIR BEHAVIOR TO FALL INTO LINE MORE EASILY.

I THINK WE SEE IT IN THE SENATE.

PEOPLE WILL PUT MONEY TO YOUR PRIMARY OPPONENT OR DO OTHER THING THAT WILL CAUSE YOU NOT TO BE RE-ELECTED.

THE SAME OCCURS IN A DIFFERENT WAY TO PEOPLE IN UNIFORM.

SO I THINK WE HAVE TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION THAT THE SACRED RELATIONSHIP THAT THE U.S. MILITARY HAS HAD WITH THE CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY.

I SAY SACRED.

IT'S NOT BEEN PERFECT.

IT HAS BEEN LARGELY A-POLITICAL.

IT'S BEEN PRETTY PROFESSIONAL IN THE SENSE THAT THE MILITARY FOCUSED ON THAT WHICH THE MILITARY SHOULD DO, COMPLETELY RESPECTED, APPOINTED OVER THEM, AND THEN DID NOT ACT AS ANY KIND OF AN INFLUENCE ON OUR POPULATION.

DIDN'T POLICE OUR POPULATION OR PERCEIVED AS A THREAT.

>> SO YOU THINK IT IS DANGEROUS THAT THEY ARE NOW POLICING OUR POPULATION.

>> I DON'T THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA.

IF THEY BECOME AN EASY TOOL TO USE, THEN THE ABILITY TO CONTROL OUR POPULATION, IT RUNS PRETTY COUNTER AGAINST WHAT PEOPLE WHO ARE STRONG BELIEVERS IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT BELIEVE STRONGLY IN.

TO HAVE THE ACTUAL U.S. MILITARY OUT ON STREETS SHOULD BE VERY UPSETTING TO THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION.

>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT GENERALS BEING FIRED, IT STARTED WITH THE GENERAL OF THE JOINT CHIEFS.

I THOUGHT THE MILITARY'S FIRST LOYALTY WAS TO THE CONSTITUTION.

BUT IT MAKES IT SO NOW THEY HAVE TO BE LOYAL TO THE POLITICAL LEADER IN POWER.

IN THIS CASE, PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> YES.

AND LET ME SAY, LEADERS SHOULD BE LOYAL TO THEIR BOSSES.

THEY SHOULD FOLLOW LAWFUL ORDERS.

THEY SHOULD NOT DO THINGS THAT ARE DISLOYAL BEHIND THEIR BACKS.

AT THE SAME TIME, THE ULTIMATE LOYALTY IS TO THE CONSTITUTION.

THE ASSUMPTION HAS ALWAYS PEN THAT HE IS A CHIEF EXECUTIVE THAT REPRESENTS THE VALUES HAVE TO CONSTITUTION AND THE LIMITS THERE IN.

SO THERE WAS NO DANGER IN BEING VERY LOYAL TO THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF BECAUSE THAT WAS IN FACT BEING LOYAL TO THE CONSTITUTION.

WHEN THOSE DIVERGE IN ANY WAY, THEN I THINK YOU HAVE GREAT DANGER.

MANY PEOPLE LONG IN 1936 IN GERMANY, THEY CHANGED THE OATH.

THE OATH OF THEIR ALLEGIANCE FROM THE CONSTITUTION TO THE FUHRER.

SO WHENEVER YOU PERSONALIZE ULTIMATE LOYALTY, I THINK YOU HAVE THE DANGER.

YOU'RE NOT QUITE SURE WHAT KIND OF LEADER YOU'LL HAVE WIELDING THAT POWER.

>> YOU BEGAN YOUR BOOK WITH THE INCIDENT IN WHICH YOU WERE HAVING SOME TIME WITH THE ROLLING STONES REPORTER.

YOU WERE AND YOU SAID SOME THINGS ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

AND THEN WHEN IT HIT THE PRINT, YOU GO INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND YOU OFFER YOUR RESIGNATION.

YOU SAY IN THIS BOOK THAT YOU'VE CHEWED ON THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

TELL ME WHAT LESSONS ON CHARACTER YOU LEARNED FROM THAT?

>> I HATE TO RE-CORRECT THE STORY.

THE STORY WAS NOT ONE THAT I THOUGHT WAS ACCURATE AND IT DIDN'T DEPICT ME AS SAYING THOSE THINGS BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.

A NEGATIVE STORY CAME OUT.

I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FACT THAT MY BOSS GETS THIS EXPLOSIVE STORY ON HIS DESK.

I THOUGHT IT WAS ME RESPONSE .

I KNEW I WAS RESPONSIBLE.

I SHOULD ACCEPT THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

I FLEW BACK TO THE UNITED STATES.

MET WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA WHO WAS GRACIOUS.

I OFFERED MY RESIGNATION AND HE ACCEPTED IT.

WHEN I SAY THAT I CHEWED ON IT LATER, I HAVE NEVER SECOND-GUESSED THE DECISION TO RESIGN.

I AM CONVINCED FROM THE MOMENT THE STORY CAME OUT THAT THAT WAS REQUIRED AND I'VE BEEN CONVINCED EVER SINCE IT WAS THE RIGHT AND ONLY RIGHT ANSWER.

WHAT I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IS, SORT OF WHAT IF?

WHAT IF THE STORY HAD NEVER COME OUT?

WHAT IF LIFE HAD BEEN DIFFERENT?

WHAT IF WE HAD NOT HAD THAT REPORTER AROUND AT ALL?

AND THEN WHAT IF I HAD RESPONDED DIFFERENTLY TO THE EXPERIENCE?

IN REALITY, THE MOST IMPORTANT IN MY LIFE IN RETROSPECT IS THE MOMENT AFTER THE PRESIDENT ACCEPTED MY RESIGNATION AND MY WIFE ANNIE, WHO YOU KNOW, SAID WE'RE GOING TO FACE FORWARD.

I SAID I HAD RESIGNED AND HE SECOND IT.

AND SHE SAID GOOD.

WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN HAPPY.

I WAS GOING TO BE A BITTER GENERAL WHO GETS INVITED TO LUNCH SO PEOPLE CAN HEAR A STORY.

BECAUSE NOBODY CARES.

WHAT I DECIDED TO DO WAS TRY TO MOVE FORWARD IN A MANNER THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAD NEVER MET ME BUT HEARD ABOUT THE STORY WOULD SAY, WOW, THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WHAT I HEARD ABOUT IN THAT STORY.

OR PEOPLE WHO HAD KNOWN ME AND COMMITTED THEMSELVES TO SERVE WITH ME DECIDED THEY WEREN'T WRONG.

THAT THE PERSON THEY ALWAYS BELIEVED IN WAS THE REAL PERSON.

I HAD TO PROVE THAT EVERY DAY.

I'M STILL DOING THAT.

I'M 70 YEARS OLD.

IT'S 15 YEARS ON.

THERE ARE DAYS IT IS HARD.

IT'S NEVER BEEN THE WRONG DECISION FOR ME.

>> THERE IS A PART OF BOOK THAT IS VERY HONEST.

YOU HAVE A CHAPTER ON FAITH AND YOU DO IT THROUGHOUT THE BOOK.

LET ME READ YOU SOME OF IT.

FOR MOST OF MY LIFE, I BELIEVED IN GOD.

I AM NOW LESS SURE THAN I ONCE WAS, BUT THE HABIT OF ACCEPTING THE CONCEPT WAS TAUGHT, I WAS TAUGHT AS A CHILD IS STRONG ENOUGH THAT I REFLEXIVELY ACCEPT THE IDEA OF A DEITY.

WHEN IT COME TO CHARACTER, IS IT GOOD TO HAVE DOUBTS AND TO QUESTION THINGS?

OR IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE JUST FAITH?

>> I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE DOUBTS.

FAITH SCARES ME A BIT.

ONE DEFINITION OF FAITH SAYS TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING YOU CAN'T PROVE.

THE PROBLEM IS THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS THAT I CAN'T PROVE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT TRUE.

SO I THINK FAITH, IT'S COMFORTING IN SOME WAYS.

THAT'S WHY I ALMOST ENVY PEOPLE WHO HAVE THIS COMPLETE FAITH.

BUT I THINK IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO QUESTION EVERYTHING.

IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO SEARCH OURSELVES, TO SEARCH OUR VALUES, TO SEARCH WHAT WE HEAR, TO DOUBT THE THINGS THAT ARE PUT IN FRONT OF US.

ONLY WHEN WE PRESSURE TEST THEM DO I THINK WE COME OUT WITH AN ACCURATE APPRAISAL OF WHETHER IT IS RIGHT FOR US.

>> THE NAME DONALD TRUMP DOESN'T APPEAR IN THIS BOOK AS FAR AS I CAN REMEMBER READING IT.

AND YET EVERY QUESTION OF CHARACTER GOES TO THE HEART OF WHAT PEOPLE EITHER FEEL GOOD OR BAD ABOUT HIM.

YOU ENDORSED HIS OPPONENT.

WAS THAT PARTLY ON CHARACTER GROUNDS?

>> IT WAS ENTIRELY ON CHARACTER GROUNDS.

IN FACT, I DIDN'T AGREE WITH MANY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S POSITIONS.

I DIDN'T AGREE WITH ALL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY POSITIONS.

I WAS VERY MUCH IN THE CENTER.

WHEN I LOOKED AT THE CHARACTER OF THE TWO CANDIDATES, ONE HAD BEEN VICE PRESIDENT, ONE HAD BEEN PRESIDENT ALREADY.

I MADE THE JUDGMENT THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS BETTER.

AND I THINK THAT YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT A PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO FACE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF UNEXPECTED THINGS THAT ARISE.

I DON'T WANT TO ELECT SOMEBODY BASED UPON THEIR POSITION ON TAXES OR TARIFFS OR THIS.

A LOT OF THAT WILL CHANGE.

WHAT I REALLY NEED THE PRESIDENT TO BE IS A MORAL LEADER FOR THE COUNTRY.

AND I ASSESS THAT VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS WOULD DO THAT BETTER THAN HER OPPONENT.

>> WAS THERE ANY PARTICULAR THING ABOUT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT IN TERMS OF THE HONESTY OR THE COMMITMENT THAT PARTICULARLY STRUCK YOU?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAVE A BIG BODY OF KNOWLEDGE.

I DON'T THINK HE IS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS.

IF YOU GET UP IN THE MORNING AND YOU RESENT THE PRESIDENT FOR THE WAY THINGS ARE, I THINK THAT'S MISPLACED.

HE IS A SYMPTOM.

HE IS A SYMPTOM OF AN EROSION OF CHARACTER IN OUR COUNTRY.

WE AS PEOPLE ALLOWED THAT CHARACTER TO ERODE FOR LOTS OF REASONS.

>> WAIT, WHY?

WHY DO YOU THINK WE LET THAT ERODE?

>> I THINK WE BECOME BEWITCHED BY CELEBRITY.

FASCINATED BY WEALTH.

WE ARE CAPTIVATED BY THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY COMES OUT AND SAYS, WE CAN GET THINGS DONE.

WE'LL DO THIS.

I USE THE EXAMPLE SOMETIMES IF, IF YOU LIVE NEXT DOOR TO THE SPARANOS OR TO VITO CORLEONE AND YOUR DAUGHTER GETS TREATED BADLY BY SOMEONE, YOU CAN GO NEXT DOOR AND GET IT FIXED.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SELECTIVENESS TO THAT IDEA.

WE'RE GOING TO GET JUSTICE.

WE UNDERSTAND SOCIETIES CAN'T WORK THAT WAY BECAUSE THE SAME PERSON WHO CAN DO THAT DOES ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT MAKE OUR SOCIETY WEAKER.

SO WE AS AMERICANS DON'T DEMAND CHARACTER.

WE HAVE DECIDED TO ACCEPT LESS.

WE HAVE THE STRANGE SITUATION WHERE A POLITICIAN WILL COME ON TV.

THEY WILL LOOK IN THE CAMERA AND SAY SOMETHING THEY KNOW IS UNTRUE.

AND THE FUNNY THING IS THEY KNOW YOU KNOW IT'S UNTRUE.

BUT WE HAVE THIS AGREEMENT WHERE BECAUSE THEY'RE POLITICIANS, WE SAY THEY HAVE TO LIE BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR POSITION.

NO.

WE DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT IT.

WE DON'T AT ALL HAVE TO SEMIIT.

WE COULD SAY NO.

YET WE HAVE ALLOWED OURSELVES TO ACCEPT THAT'S THE WAY THINGS ARE.

AND I THINK THAT IS A GREAT DANGER TO US.

>> TOMORROW, SATURDAY, THE 250th ANNIVERSARY OF YOUR BELOVED INSTITUTION, THE U.S. ARMY.

GENERAL WASHINGTON HELPED CREATE IT BACK THEN, 250 YEARS AGO.

IT IS BEING CELEBRATED IN WASHINGTON BY A PARADE.

WITH M-1 TANKS AND FIGHTING VEHICLES, 7,000 SOLDIERS MARCHING.

IN SOME WAYS, IT REMINDS ME, I SAW SOME OF THOSE MILITARY PARADE THINK IN MOSCOW WHEN I WAS A YOUNG CORRESPONDENT.

DO YOU THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO BE CELEBRATING?

>> IT THERE IS A BETTER WAY.

FIRST, IF I WAS GOING TO CELEBRATE THE UNITED STATES ARMY, I WOULDN'T HAVE ANY TANKS, ANY HELICOPTERS, ANY MISSILES.

ANY DICTATOR AROUND THE WORLD CAN BUY THOSE THINGS.

I WOULD HAVE JUST AMERICAN SOLDIERS.

BECAUSE ONLY AMERICA CAN FIELD AMERICAN SOLDIERS.

THAT'S OUR CROWN JEWEL.

THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF.

THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE CHEERING.

THEY DON'T DO AS MUCH DAMAGE TO THE STREETS AS WELL.

THE REALITY IS, IF WE WANT TO FOCUS ON THE 250th ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARMY, AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

LET'S PUT THE SOLDIERS OUT.

LET'S CELEBRATE THEIR SACRIFICE, THEIR HEROISM, LET'S FOCUS THAT.

IF WE DO THAT, IT COULD BE A TREMENDOUS REINFORCEMENT FOR THE FACT THAT THAT FORCE IS A MIRROR OF OUR SOCIETY.

WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF IT AND THEY SHOULD BE COMFORTED BY THE FACT THAT WE BELIEVE IN THEM.

>> GENERAL STAN McCHRYSTAL, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU, WALTER.