>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> limit begin with the question of national security and how you

perceive the biggest threats to america in some order of priority. >> thank you and thank you for coming today. we are living at one of these times in history where there is a confluence of threats and challenges. like i do not think we have ever seen before, certainly in our lifetimes. the sophistication and technology and so many other factors have brought this on. obviously, terrorism, what terrorism is today. the sophistication, the financing of terrorism groups is right up there at the top. and we are dealing with it with our partners across the globe. conventional dimensions of an early 21st-century world where we are seeing the chinese build and the russians build capabilities that are new, asymmetric threats.

cyber, for example. something that 10 years ago we thought we knew something about totally has changed landscapes without firing a shot or invading a country. you can take down financial systems and energy grids. certainly i think what we are seeing with ebola, pandemic health challenges. if some of these deadly viruses would not be contained, what it could do, would do, to nations and areas. i think climate change is an area where we are going to have to to be mindful of because climate change will have significant effects on our strategic interests around the world. all of these are dimensions of threats but a couple of these the do not getting a lot of attention are what does this do

to economies and societies and the cohesiveness of world order? henry kissinger's new book is a testament to that. there are threats there, too. we know that if societies come unhinged and governments go down, no jobs, no government, no hope in non-governed to spaces in the world today. certainly in north africa and parts of the middle east are threats to security. there cannot be prosperity without stability and security so i think all of those come together to represent an answer. >> what is the status on the ground today in the fight against isis?

>> that is our priority. our anti-isis strategy is comprehensive. first, going back to a point i just made about governance, we need to help in every way we can the iraqi government stabilize, strengthen its security forces. we're helping to do that but that is the iraqi responsibility, that is the people of iraq. a new, inclusive government, a participatory government. >> are you satisfied that the government is taking place? that the new prime minister is doing the and is different from maliki? >> there are early signs that he is. this is difficult, this is long-term. the alienation that has occurred in iraq over the last five years, the sectarian violence it has produced. we are seeing that in anbar with the tribes.

prime minister abadi has just appointed a new minister of defense, which we have not had a for four years. it is a sunni minister of defense who i have been talking with. there are good signs that they are moving at the right direction and we will help them, our coalition partners will support them. but they have to do this themselves. then i think the airstrikes against the iso-forces to assist -- isil forces to assist the government's -- >> have they turned the tide? >> this is a long-term project. there is good news everywhere. iraqi security forces are now joining with the peshmerga round oil refineries. there will be setbacks and the progress. overall we are seeing good progress. we are not where we need to be that this is a longer-term,

difficult, challenging mission. >> you have 1400 advisers there now? in special forces. there is a call for 1500 more. when one ago? -- when will a day ago? >> over the next few weeks. they are going, as you know, to provide the training and the assistance and the equipping of 12 of iraqi security force brigades, including a three peshmerga gauge. -- brigades. we have designated four areas in iraq to do that. >> is their review at the pentagon and with the white house to reconsider our options there? is there a review of american strategy in iraq and syria?

>> there is no official review of any of the decisions of the president has made or our strategy, what there is on a continuing basis. the must always be an assessment of how well -- there must always be an assessment of how well we are doing. are there areas that we need to reshape, sure. we have to do that to make sure that what we are doing is the right thing and to make sure that we are doing it in the smartest and most efficient way. >> is there an imbalance between iraq and syria? in terms of what we are doing and what we can do because of the necessity to have troops on the ground to do with isis? -- deal with isis? >> the troops on the ground in iraq are the security forces and

the peshmerga, and they are required. this will not be done by just airstrikes. it are strikes helped modestly but it is their groups on the ground. iraq is different from the situation in syria. in iraq, we were invited in by a sovereign nation, a sovereign government. we are working with a sovereign, elected government and the military in iraq. syria is a different situation. but the strategy does not change it is not different. our strategy is an anti-isil strategy. we go after isil because they threaten us, clearly. >> in syria, you have the president, and there are people that are a part of the coalition who believe that the fight must be to overturn him a strong as it is to combat isil. >> there are many interests and many views on the side. our view has not changed, that assad must go. >> so you have to fight a two front war. >> our strategy is anti-isil. we are supporting the iraqi

government in every way that we can and we have been doing that consistently and at a high rate of assistance on the last six months. but also carries over into eastern syria -- that also carries over into eastern syria. there are no borders when it comes to terrorism, especially with the ruthlessness of isis. we are doing what we can in syria to facilitate our anti-isil strategy, and that is eventually, as we degrade isil, to destroy. >> but i do not getting pressure to do more against assad? >> there are different views from different coalition partners. >> are there different views and

secretary kerry? whether, if you defeat isil, it helps or hurts assad. >> i just explained what our strategy is regarding isil. is assad helped by what we are doing against isil? he is indirectly benefiting, but let's review the landscape. why has all of this occurred? this is all occurred because over the last three years, assad, his brutality, his lack of responsible government and legitimacy, what he has done to his own people has produced this. there will not be a military solution in syria. there only can be a diplomatic solution and people coming

together enough. no one wants a completely failed government in syria. syria right now has produced millions of refugees, 1.5 million in turkey. they could get far worse. -- it could get far worse. i'll be partners -- all of the partners are together on this issue. how assad these office is crucial. >> the turks want you to keep assad in focus and are worried that you are not doing that. you sent a memo to susan rice, calling for a more holistic approach. what did you mean? >> charlie, you know i will not share confidential memos and conversations. >> share with me your ideas

about what a holistic approach would entail. >> we are taking a holistic approach. by that, i mean, as i said earlier, what we are doing to help stabilize iraq first, we help support an inclusive government there that reach out to all of the people in iraq and allows them to gain the confidence and trust of the people. working with moderate opposition in syria. we have announced training sites for training and equipping moderate syrian opposition. the turks, the saudis have already committed their camps. we are doing the preplanning we need to, so we are working with everybody on all of these areas, in these areas. and it is a competence of strategy. it is diplomatic and economic, it is military. it is working with over 60 coalition partners, a number of them in the middle east. >> there have been reports that the administration is looking again at its policy towards assad because of pressure from the allies, because of questions being raised as to whether he is benefiting from the rise of

isil. >> you could invert that and say that we should leave isil alone, and that would solve that problem, wouldn't it? i do not think that is a wise policy. that is not our policy and that will not be our policy. but the longer-term answer, as we build that, is not a military solution here. the people of syria are going to have to be able to rely on, at some point, some kind of political solution to govern their country and give them the freedoms that they want. we are helping the coalition partners and are up opposition partners in syria get to that point. but the first priority, the most dangerous, is isil. it is a throw to all of us and sent me to the middle east. -- it is a threat to all of us and certainly to the middle east. >> when will it be necessary to insert more combat troops?

>> that is the question that people ask, but the president has been clear, and he has said that he will not commit american combat military operations in the middle east. there will be, and there is,, they're in syria and iraq, boots on the ground in iraq. -- and there is, combat operations in syria and iraq, boots on the ground in iraq. >> but they have said there may be a time when they have to recommend injecting more combat troops to stop isil. the question is, what circumstances would produce that decision? >> two things, we should be clear on what general dempsey has said. i have not heard general dempsey

say that he might essentially say that we need to have the united states put troops and lead combat operations in iraq. i did not hear him say that. now it is a responsibility of the chairman of the joint chiefs, his constitutional responsibility, to the president and the secretary of defense of defense, could continue to give us every option. we seek that, i asked for that, the president asks for that, we are constantly assessing what we are doing. is it effective, is it working? but the issue of having america go back into iraq and fight that war, again, the president has been clear on that. and i have never heard general dempsey say that. >> he has said that the counterattack would have to take place within a year and that the climactic battle might be for

mosul. >> mosul is going to be a critical area. the iraqi security force in peshmerga effort to retake mosul will occur and has to occur in order for the iraqis to regain the territory they have lost. a good amount of anbar province. they will have to take mosul back. >> what is the nature of our cooperation with iran? >> we have no coordination with iran. >> with respect to the nuclear negotiations, do you think they will meet the deadline? >> secretary kerry's people, with our partners, are working towards that deadline. obviously be hope that it will end up -- we hope that it will end up with something that we can agree on but the president has been very clear. a bad deal is a bad deal and we will not take it. no deal is better than a bad deal. and we get that, we all

understand that. we all hope that this issue of iran's nuclear future, as to their capabilities of building a nuclear weapon, that i can be peacefully resolved. -- hopefully can be usefully resolved. -- peacefully resolved. we have to see that happen. >> what happens if we do not get a deal? >> will not get into the hypotheticals, i prefer to deal with what we have now and the possibilities that are on track. my role as the secretary of defense is that i have the responsibility of security and the defense of this country. it is to assure the president that he has all of the military options that are required in any situation. and we are doing that. but the smart, wise, responsible

approach here is the approach that we are taking, that rp five partners -- our p-5 partners are trying to find. >> you are convinced that they want nuclear weapons? >> i am not convinced one way or another. i deal with facts. it is clear to me that the iranians have not given up on an option that they have continued to maintain and build. >> they may not have made a decision to go ahead? >> i do not know a lot decisions but the important thing is that what they have, in my opinion and the opinion of many, they have maintained that option to be able to go forward. that is what we want to get out and that is what we are working

on now. what would they require in order to walk away from that? what is in our interests to be able to work in agreement with them on this? >> what is a good deal. >> a good deal would be to have an agreement where the iranians would back down from preparations and options, capacity to build a nuclear weapon. i think that a good deal for everybody, and everybody has to get something out of it, would be to allow sanctions to start coming off for them. the economic sanctions which we know have hurt them terribly. if they want, have an opportunity for them to start to come into a world order that is important. >> and russia helping is off the table? >> no, russia still part of the

p-5+. >> russia talked about having the centrifuges come to them. >> we have put forward various plans. >> i saw a piece by thomas friedman, and he says that ever since the arab awakening, america has worked from one policy response to another. we tried abdication in syria and it failed. we tried democratization in egypt and it failed. we tried invasion and occupation and although the jury is still out only a fool would be optimistic. we do not have the will to invest overwhelming force for the time it would take to reshape any of these places and even if we did, it is not clear it would work. so the middle east is a region we can either fix or ignore, what is left? i am for containment and amplification. does any of that ring true or resonate with you? >> when you look at the entire inventory of what you said, it

is pretty hard to disagree with a lot of the points. if we had had such good policies over the years we would not be in the situation. but here is the reality. we live in this imperfect, dynamic, changing, interconnected world that we have never seen before. we have never seen anything like this before. and so policies, yes, are predicated on historical knowledge and cultural awareness and all that goes into that. have we made mistakes over a series of many years? i think anyone would agree to that. but that is not the issue, that is not the response ability that i have now or that the president has or john kerry. our responsibilities now are to find ways to make it better, find strategies and policies that work.

within a world of uncontrollable's -- we are living in this world, charlie, especially in the middle east, of uncontrollables -- all of these things that we cannot control. so what do we control? how, then, can we take whatever it is that we have and try to assist the people there to build something for their future? i go back to the henry kissinger book. we are seeing a new world order defined before our eyes, we are right in the middle of it. so yes, it is difficult to come up with policies that work and are relevant, the we are not only always adjusting on but someone not work. -- some will not work. i do not know anyone smart enough was mop with any of these

policies that are absolutes. so friedman's points i get, he and i have had long conversations about this and he is not wrong about some of this. but we have got to keep going and manage through this very dangerous time in the world. >> the question is, do we have the will and the capacity to influence the events as we used to? >> i think it is not so much the well, i'd -- will, i do not think. our capacity is different because the threats and the challenges are far more diffuse and a varied. a talked about asymmetric threats. the sophistication of isil, we have never seen an organization like isil that is so well organized and trained and funded and so strategic and brutal, ruthless. we have never seen anything like that in one institution.

and then they blend in ideology which will eventually lose, we get that, and social media. the sophistication of their sofa media program is something that we have never seen before. you blend all of that -- social media program is something that we have never seen before. you blend all of the in that is a powerful new threat. we are trying to adjust and we have to do that with partnerships and coalitions. we cannot go and impose our will on any country. that is folly. >> but people worry if the people we coordinate with have the same effectives that we do in stopping isil. >> i do not know of a country in

the middle east that does not want to stop isil. maybe there is one, but every country in the middle east sees them as a clear threat. >> including iran. >> that's right. they murder everybody. christians, sunnis, shia. >> how are you going to do it? >> you can't do it alone. you have to recognize that. we have more cap has to do than any nation in the world but in these situations we cannot do it alone. that means coalitions and partnerships. and yes, there will be differences in the partnership, differences of emphasis or priorities. what you built around the common interest of where we can come together and then you work from there as to the other differences. and we are doing that, by the way, and i would say he well. -- pretty well. we consider over 60 nations coming together, everybody contribute in something in syria and iraq including airstrikes, and be able to put all of that together even though you do have different interests, that is not insignificant. that is the way that you win, the way that you stabilize and secure parts of the world. it will take time.

>> and it is a given that you cannot do it with air power alone. >> is an important component but not alone. >> the stock about other important places. russia. but they sending troops into the eastern ukraine -- are they sending troops into the eastern ukraine? should we be sending more weapons -- lethal weapons -- to the ukrainians to stop them? what else should we do? >> first, we are working closely with the ukrainians. i just spoke to the new ukrainian minister of defense, and reviewed their latest list of requests. for assistance, lethal and nonlethal. we have been providing a lot of

nonlethal. we are reviewing all the requests right now. we are working with nato and our nato partners and the ukraine. we have also said, the president has said, all of the nato partners have said, this is not going to be about eventually a military solution. it is going to have to be dealt with through a diplomatic solution. >> sanctions? >> that is right. i think we have been very effective with economic sanctions. let's look at some facts. last week, the russian economic forecasters came out publicly and said that growth for russia next year may be zero in their gdp. >> that is partly because of falling oil prices. >> there are other parts, too. the ruble is an all-time low and inflation is high. ford investment has dried up. following -- foreign investments has dried up.

that alone does not fix the problem. our new rotational patterns of our military, the nato military, bringing nato together in a way that we have not seen since the fall of the berlin wall 25 years ago. >> on the same page with respect to russia. >> in the end, what is happening here is that russia is isolating from the world. in the long term, they will suffer tremendous consequences, but in the short-term we have to deal with what we have to deal. it is all of these companies of things coming together to help the ukrainians -- comprehensive but thing together to help the ukrainians. it will not be solved with a major war. >> but what you send it lethal weapons to the ukrainians? >> we are requesting, but our partner -- we are looking at everything that they have requested but our policy is a a diplomatic solution and not a military solution is going to be required here. we are balancing that with what

kind of weapons we would be sending or lethal weapons we would be sending. >> is this about the ukraine or about a larger role that he wants to play in the world -- about putin and a larger role that he wants to play in the world? because he is also knowledge and >> we have the acknowledgment that we have bombers flying in the caribbean and in the baltic shore of mexico and that they have nuclear weapons. >> there is no question that the ref -- the russians are up to their military activities over the last couple of years and you just noted a couple of examples. , president putin sees, and he has said it, that orders not accept a world

as it is. unfortunately, -- look at what he did in the invasion of crimea. as this thee doing fourth the separatists in eastern ukraine and is activating more and more air and that we havevity not seen since the cold war. we have significant events beginning with the implosion of the soviet union and i think i listen to what he said. view of theferent russian empire and i think that he will continue to challenge us

in the west and a lot of areas. >> just met with the chinese leader and they're talking about the best relationship they have had in a long time. >> is troubling. it is not new. ofhave seen the coalition common interests since world war ii. and we watch it. it is not helpful. they use each other and much of contain the united states and pushback others. we pay atand that and lot of attention to it. we have to. i said that the world is dangerous. it is dangerous. >> hitting more dangerous. >> aggressive?

>> all these different dimensions out there. we, the defense department, are being called on to do more everywhere. we now are involved where we were not a few months ago. the budget continues to be cut. something does not cut -- connect. that will have to change. we will not have the resources or readiness. we will not have the long-term investments that the institution requires to stay ahead of everybody as we have is world war ii with the technological edge and the ability to recruit and retain the best. no institution has anything unless you have people. it does not matter how much sophistication you have.

together, as come at a now, with cuts and time when the world is becoming more dangerous and not less dangerous. >> congressional leaders are not listening to you. >> more sequestration would be? >> devastating. if this continues, they have all said it, we will cut so deeply into readiness and our ability to carry out our missions and it will have a direct impact on every facet of security. that. not help but have i'm hopeful the new congress will come in and take the opportunity with new budget hearings that we will get into d i'm hopeful they will do the

right thing and responsible thing. flex you can't do it by continuing resolution? question cannot. you cannot run national security on it. of the hope of a continuing resolution. >> you are talking about running the largest institution in the world. >> it is the largest institution.

>> we talk about cyber and also nuclear. the russians are accused of hacking. the chinese are accused of cyber espionage. what is the difference in what are we doing to combat that and how serious a threat it is? >> it is a serious threat. it has been and continues to be, with the sophistication of

technology and resources applied to that technology, which the russians are doing and the chinese are doing. and others. we have the best, most capable defensive institutions in the world. going back to the budget issue, if we continue to take the cuts and sequestration plays out, that will erode, there is no question. but right now, we have the capabilities in this country to defend this country, whether it is cyber, space, or any other domain. but that does not diminish the seriousness of the threats. and the threat is growing. >> i was a different between what the russians seem to be doing and what the chinese seem to be doing -- how is it different between a what the russians seem to be doing and what the chinese seem to be doing? >> it is an interesting question because you always have to go back and talk about friedman' is column to history. -- friedman's column to history. there is generational change. absolutely.

but the chinese have had a history of not, within the last 200 years, have not had a history of any hegemonic movement. they protect what they have and what they think is there's. but is it -- is theirs. the russians have been different on that. look at the 16 soviet republics and the domination of central asia and eastern europe, the captive nations and so on. and so their interests are different in some ways at the same -- but the same in many other ways. and i suspect that there is a clearer understanding that they have with each other and certainly within that we, the united states, the last, continues to threaten -- the west, continues to threaten

them. we do not. you look at after the implosion of the soviet union when nato reached out to russia and we brought them in in different ways to nato. not a member of nato, but different committees and commissions. they sat at tables. trade and commerce. key, especially for the chinese. we are doing more with that with the president's trip over there. >> bcb chinese is more aggressive because of what they are doing -- do you see the chinese as more aggressive because of what they are doing? they want to be ac power. -- a sea power. the talk about wanting to be dominant in the pacific. >> that is true and they're going forward with actions. >> what should we do?

>> i do not think it is a matter of approaching it, how do we respond to it. it is more, let's play our game. the rebalanced asia-pacific is not about containing china. and never was. we have been a pacific power for many, many years. our economic interests in the pacific, most of our treaty obligations, our two nations in the asia-pacific. >> including japan. >> japan, the republic of south korea. it is not a matter of a philosophy to contain china or stop china. we recognize what you said, that they are developing a water navy. -- blue water navy. we need to focus on is

continuing to sustain our capabilities. partnerships. all of the new things we're doing with other countries there, the relationships. i have been over there on long trips six times. i spent time at the asean defense ministers, the first time the asean defense ministers were invited to the united states at hawaii in spring. alton ministers for a conference. -- all 10 ministers for a conference. it was not just about military, it was also about unitarian assistance. >> i want to get to nuclear. tell me how surprised you were when you look at how we protect, maintain, and deserve our own nuclear weaponry -- and serve our own nuclear weaponry. >> you are probably referring to the two reviews that i directed earlier this year. internal and external review. two things to come out of it. we released the unclassified

versions last week. two main things. number one is the reassurance of the american people and our allies and our adversaries that we still possess a safe, effective, efficient, secure, ready nuclear deterrent. that is one thing. two, we have been at war, grinding than wars, large lead wires, far away, for 13 years. the focus has been -- grinding land wars, large land wars, far away, for 13 years. the nuclear deterrent has unwound in that they do such a good job that we take it for granted that there will not be a nuclear exchange so leave it alone.

that has had consequences. you cannot leave institutions or relationships alone. you have to pay attention to them. we have caught it, we are doing the right things to put resources back in. it is cultural, it is testing, so many things we have not paid attention to. that in itself is not unusual in institutions. we are redoing that. secretary james is doing a tremendous job. we are leading this afternoon with the review panel because i will be getting regular reviews on 100 recommendations that came out of these that we are implementing. >> to read the speech that you made at the reagan library ought to concern anybody concerned about american defense policy. because you laid out the

challenges, but you have in this interview -- the middle east, isil, china, russia, iran, africa -- including the pandemic crisis. and you seem to be worried as to whether the lead that the united states has, and you quoted this, we do not like a fair fight. and you seem to be worried as to whether we are losing the capacity to have the influence that we have because the lead that we have maybe threatened -- may be threatened. >> that is an accurate summary, and i am worried about it. chairman dempsey is and the chiefs are. today, right now, as we sit

here, we still are the most dominant, most powerful, most effective country, economy and military, in the world. there is nobody close right now. but as i also said in that speech, our ability, capability, is coming that we cannot take for granted. we have kind of taken it for granted since world war ii because we haven't willing to invest resources in this because the american people have felt -- have been willing to invest resources in this because the american people have felt that the american military and not be in a fair fight. the technological edge that we have. we are better motivated and equipped than ever before. but it is being threatened, charlie, and the american people have to know that. i would fill my job if i was not honest. -- fail my job if i was not honest read a lot of people may not agree with anything that i have said or something set i say that i have never been criticized for not being

forthright. the congress needs to know this and understand that. we are not up on the roof with a white flag. it is not a crisis point. but this business is an investment and the main responsibility for any leader is to prepare your institution for the future. if you do not do that, you fail. under not care how good you are or smart you are, if you do not. institution, you fail. that is what -- if you do not prepare your institution, you fail. >> let's talk about a couple of things. one, issues to do with the military family. the idea of the number of suicides with the men women returning.

-- men and women returning. health care and veterans affairs. sexual assaults in the military. these are issues of great concern to communities across this country, as you well know. what is being done? [applause] each one of those areas, -- >> each one of those areas, i have been involved in personally for the last two years. i have directed new programs and new reviews. we have new things going on. they report to me. i have weekly meetings, charlie, on some of these, on where are we? anyone can order a review but that is part one. the follow-up is what is most important. what are we doing about these areas? we have programs ongoing on every one of these. i get reports, i watch it, the deputy watches it. the health of the forces is a critical component. i just came back yesterday from

a five-day trip around the country, five different bases. one of those bases was for campbell, kentucky, where the -- fort campbell, kentucky, where the 101st airborne is, who are in west africa are i met with families to talk about their loved ones. make that as high a priority as there is. each of those areas you noted our problems and we are doing something about them. we are going to fix them and i am committed to it. but the people here have to be the ones to do it. and they are doing it. the military chiefs have made every one of these a priority and are putting resources into it. we are putting new leadership into it, new metrics. we are getting standards on how we are getting evaluated internally -- not a press release, but internally -- we we're doing right and what we are doing wrong and what progress we are making.

>> what worries you the most? as you look at your job as a secretary of defense? having talked of all the things that we talked about? the greatest concern is terrorism, your greatest concern is relationships. is there anything that worries you the most, something that is not on the radar? >> dealer thing that is not surprising in life is surprises -- the only thing that is not surprising in life is surprises. so none of his surprises me but to answer your question directly as to what bothers me the most, it is are our leaders going to get through this time, which is a very defining time, a difficult time. i told the president and while ago, i do not know another time when it has been more difficult to be the president of the united states than right now.

lincoln had a hard time 150 years ago. he gave the magnificent gettysburg address, over 200 words and 10 sentences. this is a difficult time but also not lose sight of preparing the institution. that we do not get so consumed in getting all of these pieces and these challenges right and doing everything that we can that we lose sight of the larger focus of where we are going. america has always done a tremendous job. our leaders are prepared us in our population has supported us. >> using the congress is getting a message in responding or are you hopeful -- do you think the congress is getting the message and responding or are you simply helpful? >> i am always hopeful but i cannot run this place on help. -- hope. congress, their frame of reference right now may be different today than it was last year. for no other reason, the three new missions that we have. what we are doing with isil,

ebola, and russian aggression. a year ago, when i was testifying -- it will be almost a year in 2014, on the budget. all of those were not present at the time, the three issues that i just mentioned that we are all working on in the pentagon is in the middle of all of them. a year ago, we did not have those. if nothing else, i think that those dimensions are going to force all of our leaders to project a new urgency, a new, larger frame of reference. yes, i am hopeful. we're going to work with them and we are confident that we will get it fixed. >> then there are the stories that the president wants to

change his national security team. he is looking at the last two years and he wants to changes national security adviser, maybe he wants to change the secretary of defense. maybe he wants to change other elements. is that true? >> you would have to ask the president. >> do you concern yourself with it? >> no . first of all, i serve at the pleasure of the president. i am immensely grateful for the opportunity i have had to work every day for the country and for the men and women that serve this country. i do not get up this morning worried about my job. it is not unusual to change teams at different times. >> you would expect them to change? >> i did not say that. what i'm saying is that it would not be unusual to do that historically. second, i have to say focused on my job, charlie, and i do. i am very fortunate that i have

some be best people in the world to work with. whatever the president decides, he is the president and he makes those decisions. >> you seceded bob gates -- suceeded bob gates, was a reputation of writing the military hard. -- riding the military hard. one criticism that i have heard is that you are not being a harsh enough with the military to bring about your changes. >> i do not think that leadership is about riding people hard. that works for some but it does not work for me and i will not do it. you need cooperation and facilitation of other leaders. now, you are the boss, and you have to be direct and clear. but you will listen, charlie.

these men and women have spent their entire careers in this business. i respect him for the and listen carefully? -- do i respect them for that and listen carefully? you bet. >> thank you. ♪

>> live from. three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover technology, innovation, and the future of business. i'm emily chang. why did president obama choose facebook to announce he will be issuing an executive order on immigration? fox news wendell goal or asked that question to the white house -- wendell goler asked that question to the white house press secretary. >> the video reached mother 1.2 million users on facebook, and 227,000 people have viewed it and another 12,000 have shared it. >> it is also interesting to