No war is over until the enemy says it's over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.

The destruction that we have wreaked in the various theaters in which we've been engaged is really quite astonishing. But again, lethality, destruction, killing doesn't seem to achieve our objectives. So, my own sense is that a lack of lethality does not define the core problem.

There is nothing better than getting shot at and missed. It's really great.

I would consider the principal threats to start with Russia, and it would certainly include any nations that are looking to intimidate nations around their periphery, regional nations nearby them, whether it be with weapons of mass destruction or, I would call it, unusual, unorthodox means of intimidating them, that sort of thing.

Right now, Russia's future should be wedded to Europe. Why they see NATO as a threat is beyond me. Clearly, NATO is not a threat.

The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some *******s in the world that just need to be shot. There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim.

I was struck by the fact that none of the senators, basically, asked General [James] Mattis, "Well, General, how is it that we haven't won?" We haven't won anywhere, 'winning' in the sense of conclusively achieving our political objectives, however you might want to define those objectives.