the activities of these groups. the haqqani group straddles the border and is responsible for some of the most serious events that take the lives and injury american and allied forces. there's no question about that. and we have discussed this and looked for ways to deal with it, and i see signs of movement forward, but i think with all respect to all of you that continued discussion of this issue in public works against the goal which i know all of you share in this room which is the reduction in the risk to our american forces in afghanistan. >> and i might add, our allies speaking of which we have the danish and the georgian ambassador here, and the

georgian ambassador has a question. bahtu? >> [inaudible] you mentioned the neighboring country cans, an important role, and my question is how the processes that are developing in and around iran is affecting or maybe affecting the stronger role -- >> how the processes what, sir? >> developing in iran and around -- >> oh, in iran. okay. >> the domestic policy. >> well, first of all, before i answer your question since you're from georgia, i do want to acknowledge the batallion that's being trained now. when that battalion arrives in afghanistan in march, it will bring to 950, the number of georgian troops in the country, which on a per capita basis, will make georgia the largest single troop contributor of afghanistan.

until the u.s. reaches its peak of 100,000 and then georgia and the u.s. will be the top two, and i should acknowledge that, and i should acknowledge the president of georgia's personal role in that and all the georgian people and look forward to going there to visit the troops before they leave, but we should all recognize this, because georgia's own history, particularly in the last year and a half, has been so extraordinary and they've made this commitment. without any request for anything in return, there's no quid pro quos here, they wanted to help, they saw the regional connections. secondly, in regard to your question about iran, when i said all the neighbors before, i obviously included all the neighbors. the iranians have a role to play in the region. and no one denies it, and at least no one in this administration denies it or

questions it, but it is embedded within our other disagreements with iran, which are very serious and of involve issues that i don't work on directly. the iranians were helpful in 2001-2002, as is well known, and jim dobbins has written a part of a book on this, in creating the current government. the iranians participate in regional forum. we do not object to that. when the iranian foreign minister came to the japanese pledging conference for pakistan, i mentioned earlier, and iran pledged $330 million to pakistan, or the western japanese conference, we didn't object to that at all. and we were very mindful of this. the iranians also have a very serious concern over drugs. they have one of the largest percentage addiction rates in adult population in the world. and you all know where those

drugs come from. and -- so all these issues are on the table. but they are embedded within a larger relationship between iran and the rest of the world, which is of enormous consequence, and so we deal with it within that framework. the other neighbors, the other neighbors i've already addressed in groups. i'm not going to take time to discuss them individually, but again, i say that with the exception of the three stans, which we're about to visit, i've gone to everyone and i've talked to all of their leaders in new york during the general assembly and there is a strategic parallelism or symmetry in the fact that everybody is concerned about the risk of instability in the area, and when i say everybody, i mean all the neighbors. >> yes?

>> hello, i'm elaine, with foreign aid through education. and i'm very glad to hear about agriculture being the keystone to development and economic security. for afghanistan. and to that particular point, as we're looking at more hopefully of ngo's delivering programs and working with the of afghans, building within the afghan community, i'd like to mention, there was an interesting "washington post" op-ed piece back in mid november, glen hubbard, the dean of columbia's business school, was reflecting on the funding for pakistan and i assume it has the same thing to do also with pakistan, in terms of models of delivery of programs to support successful economic development.

and he harkened back to the successful model of the marshal plan, not suggesting to do a marshal plan per se, but rather to look at the model of how things could be altered and delivered for truly sustainable economic development. how are your plans moving and are they moving in that direction? >> you know what? on my trips to pakistan, i always tried to meet a society and the crit s. of the way we gave fine assistance in pakistan was really harsh. i am particularly in your field, education, they felt they hadn't been consulted but at the higher education and the secondary education level and i talked to some extraordinary, brilliant, pakistani leaders, both in the ngo world and the ministries about this, and we sent robin raffel, who most of you must know, former assistant secretary

for south asia, out there and she is now our chief of operations, in islamabad, and she is -- i'm not going to say she's fixed the problem, i'm not going to say she will fix it completely, but i will say that the people working in these fields and education is very high on our list in pakistan, are much, much more comfortable now. we spend a lot of money on you say you give us all this money, we've never seen any of it and she said the chinese and japanese projects are very visible. we're well aware of that

and we're changing it as rapidly as this attenuated budgetary process. we request the congressional approval, getting the money in place can bear, because we're so aware of the issue you raised. the issue you've raised. >> we'll take one more from the floor. this lady over here next to the wall. we'll take one moreover here. this lady over here next to the wall. no, the lady behind you. sorry. >> thank you. my name is lisa, i'm just back from kabul where i'm part of a canadian led effort for a civil society peace process -- >> you're an ngo. >> 3d security initiative. >> 3d security. >> developmental diplomacy defense. >> ronan, i hope you have -- >> i would love to talk to your ngo person afterwards. >> i met with a range of

religious, ethnic and ngo leaders, civil society leaders in kabul, and a lot of them mentioned that they supported the troop surge, they liked the development surge, but they'd like to see a much more vigorous, rigorous, diplomatic surge. what would that look like, the diplomacy surge in afghanistan? >> i'm not sure if you're talking about international diplomacy or local. >> regional and within afghanistan. >> well, we're doing that. i'll be in united arab emirates on monday and tuesday meeting with 28 of my counterparts. as i said earlier. last year, i was in russia, i was in china twice, i was in the gulf three times. the europeans you know, all the time. this is just trips of mine. we have ongoing detailed buy rat rel relationships with turkey. uae. president obama raised this with

hu ching tao on his trip. we have really taken from zero, other than the inner team of the europeans, plus canada, our efforts. we now meet regularly with the embassies here that are involved. one of my two deputies, dan feldman, runs that effort. i'm sure many of you in this room know dan feldman well and the egyptians, we've had long bilaterals with the egyptians, both in cairo and here, so there is an advanced effort. but you say diplomatic, and i want to clarify the word here. there are two different things going on. there is coordination of assistance, and there's diplomacy. the coordination of assistance is where we started. diplomacy requires establishing a common base point in terms of strategic objectives, owned then in terms of action. and it's very complicated,

because while everybody wants strategic stability, each country has its own point of view, vis-a-vis its neighbors, so what is good for country x may be not -- a country next door. two countries that both want stability in afghanistan may have their own relationship problems. and all of you can figure out examples of that. so we're very engaged in that. and i would say, in regard to canada, particularly, what an extraordinary contribution canada has made in afghanistan, how we work with them constantly and very closely. and i look forward to going to ottawa in the near future as well. to wrap up, richard, if it's ok, maybe we could circle back to a thought of yours at the beginning of the conversation. you offered mike o'hanlan and

his colleagues some suggestions on how to revise some of the parameters. what would you recommend that they use a the indicators for progress or the opposite of progress with regard to the afghan index they'll be doing several times between now and with the president makes a tough decision in december? >> you mean the criteria for progress? >> yes. >> i made a terrible mistake when i had a similar mistake like this before the centers for american progress last summer and i said in passing, in the course of a longer answer, that you'll know success when you see it and one of the people in the room, walking out of the room said i just compared afghanistan to pornography. and so i called -- i called hillary clinton up, i said, hillary, you know, i made this terrible mistake, and i told her, and she laughed that beautiful laugh of hers, which you know so well and she said

never do irony in washington. so -- >> gentleman or new age. >> that's for you. you're nuanced, i'm ironic, but not here and not today. there is a big -- this was this big benchmark study, which i think bruce made some inputs into, and it was headed by the director of national tell against, admiral blair, the nfc oversaw it, our office had substantial input and weeviled outcry they're i can't on security, on governance, on subnational governance, the nature of the taliban threat, province by province. we are required by law to property to the congress on a periodic basis on this. this is all publicly available. there's -- there's no real classification on this.

and this was not a criticism of mike o'hanlan's efforts, they influenced my thinking greatly over the last five, six years, since he started the effort on iraq alone and switched afghanistan and started to include pakistan, so -- but the criteria themselves are very detailed and there are gradations from green to red and everything in between, and you're welcome to look at them. the american public will decide for itself how we're doing and express its views in the congress and anyone who has had experience with this particular exercise knows that what the criteria show and what the public feels is going on is not always identical because of the key intermediary which you have

some passing from the press, so when i hear trudy's question, even though i can't accept all of your premises, i take it very seriously, because you're a terrific reporter, but we have a long set of bench marks, and you're welcome to access them. i think they're on the state department web site. if not, just check on google and you'll be able to find something. >> well, we hope, richard, that we'll have you back at some point down the road and we can peck up on this conversation and thanking you and releasing you to get back to your important work. i would just pick up on something our friend from canada said, she expressed the hope that this would be a vigorous diplomatic surge. i would suggest that any enterprise that this guy is involved in, so qualifies. and we wish you all kind of luck with it. so please join me in thanking ambassador holbrooke. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

>> now, joint chief of staff chairman mike mullen on middle east security issues. after his comments, you'll hear from "washington post" columnist, jim hoglan and

northeast policy scholar, michael eisenstadt. this is an hour and a half. >> good of afternoon and welcome. i'm delighted to welcome all of you to this very special event. this year, the institute is celebrating its 25t 25th anniversary and it is especially appropriate that we can open this celebratory year, by hosting michael mullen. let me extend a thank you to our board of trustees who are with us today as well as to those who have gathered in new york, los angeles, south florida and san francisco, participating in

this session by video conference, welcome to all of you. over our 25 years, we at the institute have been very proud to establish a close working relationship with the uniformed military. sometimes we come to you. just today, for example, two of our senior scholars can't be with us, because they're down lecturing at the u.s. army central command in atlanta and sometimes, you come to us. for more than a decade, we've been honored to host serving officers for up to a year of research and education and training as part of the national defense fellows program. from the air force and from the army. through it all, we it is institute have come to respect the breadth, the complexity, and the multiplicity of responsibilities that you face in our part of the world, the middle east. and we have seen in your people, a real appreciation for the need for deep regional expertise and specialization that we hope we bring to the table.

i look forward to many more years of this partnership together. today, in the broader middle east, the challenges are many and numerous. hot wars, simmering conflicts, proliferation, stalled peace efforts. and we haven't even begun talking about dealing with allies or perhaps most difficult of all, dealing with the rest of washington. to face all these challenges, we take great of can dense from the leadership and service of our guest today, admiral mike mullen. admiral mullen is now in his second term as chairman of the joint chiefs. a 1968 graduate of annapolis, he commanded three ships. he then commanded a cruiser destroyer group, a battle group, and hannay toe striking fleet atlantic. he then served as commander of u.s. and nato naval forces, europe, and then as chief of naval operation les. along the way, he graduated from the advanced management program

at harvard business school and earned a master's degree from the naval postgraduate school. this lifetime of service was in self-preparation for one of the toughest jobs in public life. and i'm not referring to being a guest on the daley show. which the admiral was just last night. but rather, serving at a time of war as principal military adviser to the president, and the secretary of defense, the national security council and the homeland security council an we are privileged to have him here today. just a word about today's program. first, if i can ask everyone to turn your cell phones off. that would improve the program for everyone else. second, after the admiral's remarks, we will have time for a few questions, which i will moderate, and then after his departure, we will ask all cameras and all participants to stay as we'll then proceed to

the second part of our program, an analysis of what the admiral just said, with two of the smartest interpreters of such things in washington. jim hogland of the "washington post" and our own mike eisenstadt. with that, admiral, it's a pleasure to welcome you to the washington institute. >> thank you. [applause] >> well, i appreciate that introduction and actually i'm not sure i wouldn't like to stay for the analysis myself. it certainly is -- it is what i say frequently analyzed. it's a great opportunity to be with you here this afternoon and i very much look forward to your questions. i'll make a few comments, maybe i'll start with the -- the john stewart show last evening in new york. and someone asked me as i was

walking in here, why would you do that, and the answer quite frankly is pretty simple. his audience is basically 18-25-year-olds, and they get an awful lot of their news from him. and at a higher level, in terms of my own communications, in a world where thing are moving so rapidly, and changing so constantly, how i communicate, how we communicate, and how we even begin to understand how younger generations are communicating, is really the reason i did that, and have worked quite frankly to get on other mediums to in fact communicate and also try to listen. and i -- i was taken in watching the show, just before i went on,

that john call up and, if you haven't seen it and many of you would not have, i'm assuming, maybe that's a bad assumption, but i'm assuming, that you either didn't stay up that late or don't tune him in regularly, but he did a -- a couple of pieces on yemen, and he started out with ok, let's call up the google map. so we can figure out where yemen is, and what that is is a reminder that the last time i think the american family really thought of yemen, was when the cole got bombed in 2000 and clearly, just to look at the press, the discussions and the analysis, there's an awful lot going on right now focusing on yemen and i understand that, but it hasn't been something that has been broadly focused on and debated certainly in our count country, though i spent a fair -- and the military

leadership has spent a fair amount of time on yemen far before december 25. i'll talk about just three areas briefly. one is the broader middle east focus, it's been a priority, it's been my top priority since i took this job over two years ago. because i think it's the most dangerous part of the world, and that civility there, security there is -- is as vital there as anywhere on the globe, and continuing events, as was pointed out, the potential for greater instability is significant, and so many of us have focused on that area heavily and i think we will be certainly for the foreseeable future. and it's certainly iraq, and i was just on a trip to iraq,

afghanistan, and pakistan, just before the holidays, and in iraq, i was actually moved by the fact that most of the people i discussed issues with wanted to talk about economics. and they wanted to talk about development, and clearly we're on a path right now where we will start to withdraw significant numbers of troops here, of after the elections on the 7th of march and we'll be down to 50,000 by next summer and by the end of 2011, the plan is that all american troops are out of iraq and we've worked hard to put those plans together and we're on track. that doesn't mean there will be challenges, there's huge political challenges there, we understand that. i've been taken in recent months by the fact that in these very tragic bombings, when so many lives are lost in iraq, that there was not a sectarian response. and that in fact, the government

there adjusted and is learning to deal with these kinds of things, and that was reinforced by my most recent visit. by no means do i want to send a message that we're taking our eye off iraq, because that's not the case. we still have challenges there. al qaeda is still there, and very specifically, al qaeda in iraq planning, spectacular bom bombings, like the ones that we've seen, the three we've seen in recent months, so we're very vigilant there, but i -- i'm very pleased with where we are and the direction that we're headed. afghanistan and pakistan, this was, i think, -- i think this is my 14th trip to afghanistan since i've been chairman and it speaks to the priority. it speaks, from my perspective, the need to continue to build a relationship, and build it on a

basis of relearned trust, because we've lost trust. between the two countries across the board. and we were on a 12-year gap, 1990 to 2002, we don't have strong military to military relationships, because there wasn't any way to do that. in that gap. and so for the last several years, we've worked hard to head that in the right direction, and we'll continue to do that, and in fact, the focus on the afghanistan-pakistan strategy, and the president's decision is every bit as much on afghanistan as it is in pakistan. that gets lost in the focus on troops. but it's not about troops, that's certainly a critical part of it. it's about essentially a region that must be addressed and must be addressed in a way that moves positively towards better security, and not in the direction that it certainly is going in afghanistan right now.

i was actually impressed in pakistan, that -- and i've been with their chief of the army many times, we went up to s.w.a.t. and i spent all day in s.w.a.t. and essentially was very impressed with the progress that they had made. the minimal collateral damage that was inflicted, and less than a year ago, quite frankly, there wouldn't have been many of us that would have expected that kind of outcome in swat, when swat was going so badly at the time, and as the general pointed out to me, this was the completion of his ninth operation over the last year to year and a half and he's got a military that's lost a lot of soldiers, an awful lot wounded and it as also been pressed certainly on an operational tempo, as it actually has come to learn counterinsurgency, much as we have, post-2006, when we had the surge in iraq. so clearly -- and there are an awful lot of pakistani citizens

losing their lives, because of the terrorist activities inside that country, and we are working hard to form a mutual path to eliminate the terrorists and certainly from the united states' perspective, get at those safe havens, where al qaeda leadership still lives and plans and is -- leads al qaeda and certainly is very much tied to threatening us and there's no better indication of that than what happened here in detroit on the 25th of december. so an awful lot of effort there, the president's decision to add the 30,000 troops to increase and accelerate the civilian surge into afghanistan, to focus on the development, to focus on governance from the districts up

through national level, to really focus on corruption as well, and i believe we've got the right leadership there and now from certainly our main goal in afghanistan and pakistan, over the next couple of years is to execute that strategy. don't leave the broader middle east and south asia without talking about iran. usually when i talk about the broader middle east, i may academically get this wrong, but it's sort of tehran to beirut and everything in between and, you know, the continuing concern with iran and its development, its -- i believe its strategic intent to have nuclear weapons, and i think that would be incredibly destabilizing. not least of all, because of the potential for an arms race in that world, which is exactly what we don't need. as well as their continued

support for terrorism, whether it's hamas or hezbollah or other terrorist groups that they are supporting an certainly i like anybody in this room or listening has watched the developments in iran over the last several months and i am sure that those will continue and i think we just need to be mindful obviously of those events, of what's going on there, and clearly the need to continue to, i think, aggressively address the potential nuclear weapons issues internationally. there are discussions right now of additional sanctions, and to continue where possible to engage and have a dialogue. i talked about the lack of trust between the united states and pakistan. built very well on that 12-year gap, which we're renewing, so

we're four, five years back into establishing -- working to establish that trust. we've got a relationship with iraq that goes back about six years now, to 2003. as we look forward a long-term relationship with iraq. when i'm in ago, i get the same question asked as when i'm in pakistan, which is are you going to leave us again, because they remember very well that we have in the past, and so there's a trust issue there, there's uncertainty through afghanistan and afghanistan's eyes, as to whether or not we'll stay, and so there's a trust problem there and a relationship-building requirement there as well, and then when i come back to iran, we haven't had a relationship with iran since 1979. and so building that kind of a relationship and what does that mean, and i speak to the difficulty of the other relationships and look at what

30 years potentially can do, so there's an awful lot of both concern, potential, and i think focus that needs to be sustained with respect to iran, in that part of the world. and we have great friends in that part of the world, allies who have supported us, and who are very anxious to continue to support us and to see stability there, particularly in the gulf area, and not see it, not see it break out into any kind of conflict. briefly, i talk about the -- what i call the best military i've served with since 1968 and that's our young men and women who serve right now. extraordinary people who have pay the ultimate sacrifice, who have been wounded and whose lives have changed forever, who have families that have been unbelievable in terms of their

support, without whom we wouldn't be close to where we are, in either one of these two fights. and to whom i believe, particularly for those who have given so much, you know, we owe an eternal debt and it's the kind of thing we need to focus on as a country to make sure that those who have sacrificed so much are well cared for, not just by the department of defense or the v.a., when they return, but literally, by communities throughout the land. they have gone to war, sacrificed much, done what we have asked them to do, and we owe them a great debt, not just of gratitude, we need to ensure that their american dream still has a future, and it's pretty simple. they want to go to school, they'd like to get married and have kids, they'd like a job and they won't to own a house. it's not complex, it's just the

path has changed. and then speaking to the force, which is we're about to start deploying our major units for the fifth long deployment, and if you start in 2001, 2002, and you -- the way i tell this story is if i'm a 10-year-old, in 2002, and my father went off to war, and he is now coming up on his fifth major deployment and i just went off to college, and think about the impact of that on a family and the extraordinary strength of our families to basically be able to absorb that. they have paid a huge price as well and so i'm very mindful of the stress. we're obviously extremely concerned about the numbers of suicides. the kinds of other pressures that our members are under and we've really taken significant steps to try to address those,

but the operational tempo certainly over the next couple of years is not going to put us into a position where we're going to be home twice as long as we are deployed and that's our gem. the marine corps will actually be there in about a year, but it will probably be two, two of and a half, three years before the army is, based on expectations for deployments right now, so they've sacrificed tremendously, and performed exceptionally well. they are resilient, both on the military side and the family side, and they have become -- and that family piece has become much more integral to our readiness than it ever has been and it needs to be that way, for the future. the last area i'd just talk briefly about, there's the rest of the world out there as well. and it's not going away, and we need to i think, continue to be engaged and involved, whether it's in our own hemisphere, which i often speak to,

certainly the very visible challenges that exist in our southern neighbor, mexico, and in latin america and i was raised someone that was trained to look east and west, even raised in southern california, i didn't look south very much and yet in the global world that we're living in right now, we have to focus more and more there as well. so there are challenges associated with latin america. certainly the emergence of china and what does that mean and the economic and i pay a lot of attention to the economic end, whether it's china, india, europe or us or brazil, and what does that mean in the future, because i think in the long run, it's going to be those engines that really drive out, and so it's important that we pay a lot of attention to what's going on in other parts of the world. we stood up last, i guess about a year and a half ago now, for

the sole purpose of being able to focus our engagement strategy from the military perspective on africa, which is a wonderful continent of great resources, wonderful people, and huge challenges, whether it's famine or disease, and i think the world needs to be engaged there, so -- and then as i look to the rest of the world, i also try to keep my head up and look to what is the united states military look like after these two wars. and i always worry about fighting the last war and for where we're going, you know, these will be the last wars, and how much of this is relevant for the future, and what kind of training, equipment, people, what's the size of the force, and what our readiness requirements will be and where we'll be operating is very much on my mind as well.

and it's pretty difficult times to pick out in that -- in that crystal ball exactly what's going to happen. we don't have a very good track record for predicting, but a balanced force, that is ready and trained, and able to adapt very rapidly to emerging circumstances is absolutely critical. and i think we're going to need to be as a force, i've used the characteristics of our special forces, we're going to need to be lighter, lethal, adaptable, flexible, more timely, an ability to match the speed of war, which i think we have achieved in the current fight. quite frankly, we were way behind when these wars started and we've now achieved that, but we've got to get ahead of that and that doesn't even look at other than possibilities that are significant, for instance,

in space, in the cyber world, etc. so as was indicated in the introduction, we live in times that are enormously challenging. i want to reassure you that what i said before is fundamental to me getting up every single day. this is the best military we've ever had and i have great can dense in them, but it's -- but i'm also -- we're also living at a time when it's not all about the military. the military would like to be the supporting entity and to lead in our policy, to be a supporting part of our overall policy globally, and certainly not in -- not engaged from the standpoint of conflict, but engaged from the standpoint of being preventive, so that in fact, these kinds of conflicts don't break out. with that, i guess i think i'll stop and i'll be glad to take

your questions. >> ok. thank you. [applause] >> admiral, thank you very much. i would like to open up a question discussion by, if i can, asking you a question that stems from the chairman's guidance, which was issued on december 21. one aspect of this talked about the primecy of the fight in afghanistan and pakistan. you say we must continue to push our best talent into the fight and make painful choices elsewhere in order to make sure we have our best talent in afghanistan and pakistan. it was then four days later that we had the christmas near attack, and suddenly as you said it, in your opening remarks, a country that wasn't on our radar, yemen just went on the radar, and who knows, perhaps before the end of the year, there will be an iran contingency that's on the radar.

how does one -- do we have the assets and the troops and how does one plan when you start the year focusing on afpac expanding within days even just within the central command region to yemen and perhaps elsewhere. are we prepared for this multiplicity of challenges in this part of the world? >> i spoke earlier about stewart coming up with this google map of yemen, but i don't want to leave the impression that we haven't been focused on yemen for a significant period of time, because we have. we've engaged with our military, we've been engaged in terms of their support, the support, and yemen is a country, as is somalia, that i've been concerned about for some time, in terms of becoming the next say haven for al qaeda, and certainly you now see that very much in the fore, as a result of

the incident on the 25th of december. and from a standpoint of capability, and what i think we need to be able to do, i'm very comfortable that we can do that right now. we have certainly focused on iran for a long time. and recognize and to my remarks earlier about the pressure that is on our forces, we recognize what the potential could be there and at the same time we've looked to do all we can to ensure that conflict doesn't break out there. while at the same time, preparing forces as we do for many contingencies that we understand might occur. so -- i mean, we're very hard pressed right now, because we are in these two conflicts, and yet the vast majority of our capability in terms of these two conflicts is our ground forces. and certainly not for me to decide, but the likelihood that

hour ground forces would have to go somewhere in these kinds of numbers, in some other part of the world or even in the same region i think is pretty low. and we have tremendous air force and a tremendous navy that is actually operating, they're both operating at a pretty high pace, not what the ground forces are, but also, they present a strategic reserve that i very much rely on and we are working hard to sustain that as well. also, i'd point out that there are 43 countries in afghanistan, with combat troops. that we are not in this alone, and i believe for years, that we can't do it alone anymore. and it takes allies, it takes partners, it takes alliances to essentially move forward in the world that we're living in, so as we increase the number of troops that go into afghanistan,

so did nato. much against the grain of what a lot of people thought would happen as recently as a year ago, and nato certainly from their commitments, intends to maintain a ratio of about 2-1. there are some 40,000 nato troops there now, and they'll go up as we add troops over the next year. so we -- the -- in terms of our planning to get directly to your question, we focus on this a lot. we're not focusing on a clean sheet of paper. we've been focused on other potential areas for a long time and will continue to do that. >> thank you. just one more question from me. i did want to ask you an iran question, an analytical question, not an operational question, because also in the chairman's guidance for 2010, there's a very interesting sentence, which says, that --

about the president having offered the high rainans engagement, and there are regional initiatives that give the iran's rulers ample incentive to cease developing nuclear arms. the assumption there is that you are clear in your mind that the higiranians are engaged in developing nuclear arms, right, is that correct? >> and i believe that they're on a path that has strategic intent, to develop nuclear weapons. and have been for some time, and as i've said in more than one forum, i think that outcome is a -- potentially a very, very destabilizing outcome. on the other hand, when asked about striking iran, specifically, that also has a very, very destabilizing outcome, and what i worry about in both those cases, quite frankly, are the unintended

consequences of both of those outcomes, even for the ones that we can predict, i worry about the ones that we can't predict, and that part of the world could become much more -- much more unstable, which is a dangerous global outcome, much less regional. for the world we're living in right now, so that's a pretty small space between those two right now. and that's why, one of the things that i think is so important is that we continue internationally, diplomatly, politically, not just we, the united states, but the international community continue to focus on this to prevent those two outcomes. >> very good. thank you. we'll take a couple of questions now. i'll start with congressman on my right, if you could stand up and there's a microphone that's heading to you and i'll work over. please keep our questions brief. >> thank you.

thank you for your presentation, admiral. the philosophers famously observed that those who do not study the best are condemned to repeat it. what reason do you have to believe that we're more likely to be successful in afghanistan than the british were in the 19th century or the soviet union was in the 20th century? >> i think in afghanistan, we have to be very careful about the lessons that we draw from the past. the other one that is frequently brought up is vietnam, and there are similarities, that certainly can be drawn, but there are also significant differences. led by the fact that certainly we have no intention of occupying that country. and i think the president's decision to indicate starting the middle of july 2011, that

we're going to start to transition to their lead, was a very important part of that message. strategically, certainly, i know, and we know, we're not staying. that said, laying that out there, to essentially start to turn it over to afghan leadership, was absolutely critical, panned it was the right message and i just got back from there, i think it was received in the right way. the afghan people are vehement live opposed to the -- vehemently opposed to the taliban and in many cases they're on the fence, because they don't know how this is going to come out and there's a pragmatic side of that that there's also dealing with, so from the standpoint of that kind of support, it's dramatically different. there are 43 countries that are engaged with combat troops and others who are engaged on the ngo side, etc.

that's a very strong strategic message to me about overall concern for what happens there. so i really do try to be informed by the past and those things that are relevant, but in fact, and use that, certainly as instruction in terms of the potential for what the outcome could be and i really do believe that these troops and the approach, the civilian surge, has the opportunity -- the potential over the next year, to year of and a half, to reverse the insurgency momentum and put us in a position to start to turn it over to afghan leadership. >> dan ravine for cbs news. >> thank you, admiral. how are you. >> hi. >> this is about yemen. better mic have you been asked, i guess by the president, to come up with potential targets

for what clearly could be described as retaliation for the december 25 attack and what are we doing in yemen and is it limited by our being overstretched? >> first of all, i want to applaud the actions of the yemeni government and the yemeni armed forces, because they've taken significant steps, visibly recently, but quite frankly, they've worked hard over the last couple of years, to improve their own capabilities. secondly, we are, we have been and if support from a training standpoint of what they're doing and how they're adapting to the threat. and with this very clear focus on the growth of al qaeda, and in yemen and specifically, from my perspective, to make sure that we don't create another safe haven there or another one doesn't get created. and then the third piece,

operationally, i just don't discuss those kinds of details, what the president asks us to do or not do, and i just won't get in to those kinds of operations. >> thanks very much for being here. i wanted to ask about north waziristan. we've seen the pakistani forces step up, militants from the south go into south waziristan, but they don't seem to be doing much in terms of north waziristan, and the theory is they have connections with these people they want to preserve for the day the united states is not in afghanistan. are you concerned with what the pakistanis have been willing to do and are you concerned that the u.s. is not up to the challenge of dealing in particular with the haqqani network? >> i've had many discussions

about the haqqani network, and i use the example of swat. i think it's really instructive to me that last march, and in to july, the predictions on swat were dire, and not just the predictions, but what specifically people thought the pact bill could do with respect to it and they literally have turned the place around. the insurgents are gone. they've started to build schools, they've started to build training facilities and there is an international need quite frankly for the build phase or the rebuild phase of swat to come in behind the security piece. and the resources are not available and to the level that they need to be, but that example is powerful to me in terms of when we all thought was -- what we all thought was

going to ham, was it was going to go much more badly than even last -- i think this was last july time frame, so i spoke earlier, literally nine campaigns, that general kiyani has led over the last year, year of and a half, this change in focus and i've been out and seen their counterinsurgency training, which is armywide, the removable of troops from the east, from the kashmir border to fight the west and this is very much tied to recognition that they have a serious problem in their own country. and general kiyani and have spoken many times about the haqqani network, literally just finishing the operation in swat,

how come you haven't kicked one off into north waziristan -- i'm sorry, south waziristan, when they've had other operations ongoing to reengage in. so i'm not one that says they're not going to do this. he certainly is aware of the challenge that's associated with that and there's an i.s.i. piece of this to which you allude and i understand that as well and i said for a long time, i think in the long run, how major organizations, the military, the i.s.i. and other security organizations act in pakistan and look to the future is going to be based in great part how it comes out in afghanistan. what kind of neighbor do they want to have, and a peaceful, stable relationship there will do a lot to strategically shift how those organizations look at how they provide their hone national security. i see that shift, maybe not as visibly as some -- i'm sorry, it's not portrayed visibly in

the media, but i've seen it internally, and it's going to take some time, and we're all very impatient. there's a patience level that i think we all have to recognize, that it's tied to their ability to do this. >> admiral, let me ask you one final question, before we close this part of the program. we've spoken quite a bit about what we call kinetic operations. there's another part of this overall fight which has to do with countering the ideology of radical extremism, which gives rise to so many of the problems we're talking about. the military is often a very innovative part of our government in so many areas. is this part of your mission, and what areas, and what ways are you engaged, and is the military engaged in countering the ideology behind so many of these problems? >> well, i think it is absolutely a key piece to all of this. i think the kinetics -- as the

counterinsurgency efforts in iraq, actually, is -- horically, in any counterinsurgency, as it is in afghanistan, i mean, there's a global piece to this, that is not kinetic at all, where essentially, the population throughout the globe figures out a way to say this is enough. and we're not going to -- we're not going to allow this anymore and not unlike an insurgency, there will be hard core extremists who can -- will only respond to either elimination or capture, and i understand that. and because the military, carries such a big part of this load, i'm very focused on the non-kinetic side of this, which gets to in ways, the overall economy, in various countries throughout the world, governments which provide for their people, that will raise

young muslims in particular, male muslims with a future, as opposed to put them in a position to make this kind of decision to become an extremist. or a suicide bomber. and i think that's a -- that's something that all of us are -- much depend on in terms of how this gets approached in the long run, and in the end, i believe it's -- you know, we need to support muslims and this great religion, which is being corrupted by, you know, a very potent, very powerful, in terms of its impact, and at the same time, relatively small number of individuals, and i think we've got to stay at that. who focus very much on us, americans, those in the west, and i think that's the long-term

battle quite frankly and it's not all about kinetics. >> admiral mullen, thank you very much for joining us here at the washington institute. >> thank you. [applause] >> as admiral mullen : and jim hoagland to come up and join me. it is a special pleasure, i didn't even know when i casted jim hoagland if he would participate in today's event i

>> thank you. [applause] >> rob, thank you. that splendid introduction reminds me of the old lyndon johnson story about how he wished his mother had been here to hear it because she would have believed it, and his father, because he would have laughed his head off. and admiral mullen started off actually by asking when he described his experience with jon stewart last night, asked him the question that occurred to me about trying to do this gig that rob asked me to do. why in the world would you do

this? the short answer is, rob asked me to. and he promised a distinguished audience and he certainly delivered the. he promised a good and interesting speech from our speaker. and so i foolishly agreed to try to do kind of nfl instant replay. which doesn't really lend itself to this format. but i'm going to try to hit some highlights, the things i thought you said, and one particular thing he didn't say. and talk about that, and then raise a question or two, and then quickly turn it over to mark for a much more in depth analysis about what the admiral has said. it's interesting that -- i think the very fact that admiral mullen was on jon stewart last night is here today, is all around town in many aspects right now, tells us about the

emphasis that this administration, not just admiral mullen, but this administration, particular the white house, puts on communication. and on something they call at the white house strategic communication. the fact that admiral mullen was on jon stewart last night, speaking to a core part of the obama constituency, 19 to 25-year-olds, i think is both exemplary, it's laudatory, but it also tells us a little bit about how communications by this administration, the communication policy is shaped. which is very much directed back into the united states, back into trying to keep the public with the administration and a very difficult moment, not only because of the world economy and the american economy, but because having to fight two wars. one of which the president denounced, one of which the

president described as the right war at the right time at the right place. so i think we are very aware of the administration's addressing a target audience through foreign policy. and all administration to do that. this one does it perhaps with more skill, and certainly with more concentration. than past administrations have. but i think it raises one of the questions i want to try to deal with very briefly here a little bit, is whether or not that is all to the good, whether or not there are any costs to the kind of obsessive, would probably be too strong a word, but not totally wrong word of shaping american public opinion to support the administration and support the president. again, all administrations do it. this one does it more than most, i do believe. and listen to the admiral i was also struck by him describing

what was his 14th trip to pakistan. that's a lot. i wonder if there are consequences to the kind of diplomacy by travel that we saw undertaken to some extent in vietnam. i know the admiral in particular would hate that kind of analogy, but if you will remember long this frequent visits by bob mcnamara and others, the jet like him and other things, but in pakistan it also has a particular meaning, when the chairman shows up 14 times and deals by and large with the pakistani military. and deals with pakistani military on the basis of, we have to build up a new trust relationship and military to military relations. at a time when there is a relatively weak civilian government trying to get its feet on the ground. i think in many ways, much to my

surprise, trying to do the right thing. to a great extent. whether or not it's possible that this form of frequent visitation with a soothing message, perhaps, for the pakistani military leadership really contributes to the solitary and the political decisions that have to be made there. as i say, i put it as a question, not as a back. i obviously, admiral mullen's remarks are today demonstrate that this administration has gone to great lengths to recruit and to keep a talented and experienced, dedicated and focused national security and foreign policy team. my remarks don't really reflect the feeling of any lack of confidence in his team. i think it a good team. i think they are doing a remarkable job in very difficult circumstances. but partly because i wouldn't want rob to be disappointed in

not having a little bit of a conflictual atmosphere around the meeting. i did want to raise that question here and then to go on to what i thought was a bifurcated presentation. i thought on iraq and on pakistan, and to a lesser extent but still on afghanistan as well, you heard the administrations fairly clearly formed and clearly stated views, about what they think of the problem, what the policies are, where we're going. that was not. i thought the admiral's remarks on iran were remarkably void of content. he is a military man, and it's obvious he doesn't want to tip his hand militarily. and indeed, has not been asked to do so. robs question did draw from him a fairly candid description, but

at the end of the day it still didn't match what he had to say on the other troublespots. and i think that does reflect a lack of a clear policy within the administration on iraq, about what to do, other than to play for time. fortunately, the admiral did point to the danger that playing for time on iran represents. so there is that awareness there. so that was the main thing that i didn't hear discussed in terms of his own subjects, and in terms of the questions that were put to him. let me just conclude by trying to be a little clearer, and perhaps we can go into in questions and answers, if you want to. on my concern about the cost, the emphasis on strategic indications on communications, that frequently seem to me not to deal with the elements of actual policy formulation.

let me try to be a little clearer on the. this administration's top priority from day one was to change the u.s. image in the world, all to the good. it was needed, and they've done something of a good job in doing that. but if you look at it today and asked herself, in policy terms, what remains from the cairo speech, how does that translate into combating al qaeda's cynical exploitation of the palestinian issue? how does it relate to detecting a nigerian training in yemen to try to bomb an airliner going to detroit? and most importantly, what does it mean in terms of the sacrifices that the israelis and the arabs both have to make if we're to get a real peace process started again? i'm not sure i can trace that line very specifically.

again, these are quickly scribbled while i was looking at the replay tape comments, and i will leave it to mike to really get into the meat of it. thank you, robin. robin. [applause] >> i will now ask mike eisenstadt to offer his remarks. mike? >> thanks, jim. to tough act to follow your. i think my first impression after hearing admiral mullen talk is really a sense of all at the incredibly complex set of security problems that our military, are dealing with in this part of the world. both in terms of geographical scope, in terms of dealing with problems of stability and security and insurgency in areas that we have not been involved in. after 9/11 everybody knows about

our involvement in afghanistan and afterward in iraq, but we've also been involved in the horn of africa and increasingly deeply involved in yemen now, right adjacent to the area. so our engagement in the area has expanded in terms of geographic scope, and in terms of the complexity of the issues that we deal with. no longer just are on the security level, but cut across all the instruments of national power. diplomacy, military, economic and he bellovin issues, as was the informational domain which admiral mullen talk about. so i don't envy him. he has tremendous challenges that he deals with on a daily basis, as do our military men and women in uniform every day. i would like to flush out a few points that kind of build on some of the points, and kind of sharpen some of the point the admiral may come as well is due in some of the gaps. the first thing that jumps out at me is that, and i think this

point was implicit in some of his comments, but i think could be made stronger is that i think this coming year will be a major turning point in a number of areas in which we are engaged in the region. he did talk about iraq, the drawdown and elections. and you know, it's kind of been kind of a commonplace that every year we say the next 12 to 18 months in iraq are crucial. this coming year will be crucial simply because the elections entailed a potential for increased violence if the elections turn out a certain way, and it will occur at a time in which we're dramatically drawing down our forces. that's the first thing. iran, this year will i think the term the future and tell us whether the domestic opposition has a real fighting chance at really affecting change in the political system in iran. will also know whether our nuclear diplomacy will be

successful or not. and finally, there's an issue that no one kind of is the elephant in the room, that nobody mentions that the possibility of military action and how we deal with the consequences of that. afghanistan as well in the next 18 months will be crucial in determining the trajectory of our engagement there. and then finally, developments in yemen, in the coming months will have a dramatic impact on regional or our ability. a while ago when asked about the possibility of israeli action against iran, secretary of defense gates said that that's a third war in the region is the last thing we need now, and admiral mullen has said this would stretch our forces that i think we have to acknowledge we are already because of what's going on in the horn of africa and yemen, our military is dealing with two plus wars, kind of two plus. and we are still looking at the possibility of an israeli military strike sometime this year which will further

complicate matters for us. with regard to another point that he alluded to but i would just like to kind of underscore is the balancing act, balancing our commitment with our assets. and i would just like to focus on the iraq afghan couplet. since the very beginning of our involvement in afghanistan and iraq, our involvement in both areas have had an intimate reciprocal influence on each other. i think it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the u.s. was in part encouraged to invade iraq by this would've been rather easy victory in afghanistan, and the success of the bonding afterward which resulted in a creating of a new government and kind of some senior decision-makers to believe that the same success could be replicated in iraq relatively easily and with little cost. on the other hand, the

preparations for war in iraq, and ongoing military operations in iraq, kind of burned up all the oxygen in the room and sat a lot of resources from afghanistan which could have been used to stabilize the situation there and perhaps lead to a different outcome than we are facing today. likewise again, the success of the surge in iraq encouraged to believe that we could perhaps replicate the successes, at least short-term successes we've enjoyed in iraq, in afghanistan. and looking forward, i would venture to say that how the drawdown, the elections and the drawdown in iraq this year ago, will affect our ability, the administration's ability to carry forth its policies in afghanistan, both in terms of the impact that perhaps success or greater instability in iraq might have on domestic support for the war in afghanistan as

well as perceptions of our enemies, the taliban and al qaeda, about the american state power and the ability, their ability to achieve their objective. so iraq and afghanistan will continue to affect and reciprocal influence on each other for the coming, for the foreseeable future. with regard to iran, i would summarize this coming year as follows and to fill a gap as jim said, in the admiral's presentation. we are either going to be dealing with prices and coalition management in terms of how do we deal with our demands for support for the domestic opposition, as was how we do with our efforts to put together a coalition, if you will, to kind of ratchet up diplomatic pressure on iran. again, that's not quite admiral mullen's lean but it has an impact. and we will also possibly be seen with the consequence management the potential aftermath of an israeli military

strike on iran, which will inevitably and someone or another impact on america's security posture in the region, and then we will have to deal with the possibility since people such as myself believe that to succeed, preventive action cannot be an event but it has to be sustained policy. after the first israeli action, does the united states then support future actions or does it say never again, this cannot occur again. all the while, dealing with the aftermath of an israeli strike and implications that could entail. and then finally, if this does not come to pass, and iran and diplomacy doesn't work in israel doesn't strike, then we're going to be focusing on large part of the coming year and afterwards on confidence building and reassurance among our allies. as we try to build a containment regime to do with a nuclear iran. and i would raise a question,

one of the main challenges we will face in confidence building is how to convince allies that a country that was unable to prevent iran from achieving that we define as unacceptable, that is acquiring weapons, would also be able to have the willpower and resolve to deter a nuclear iran. and we will face challenges in our theater engagement strategy in dealing with our allies in trying to build a containment, architecture to deal with nuclear iran, if that comes to pass. just a couple of quick comments about the whole issue of strategic medications. which is an issue that admiral mullen raised in an article a few months ago in the fall, which i already am and you read that and i'm glad to see, i'm having a way at this point, because it's something which really deserves much greater attention and focus not just in terms of american opinion, but even more so, this is something he did talk about, in terms of our strategic communications in

the region. if you look at the military literature that's been coming out of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, one thing, in fact, i didn't do a count of articles, but i think it's just my impression that there's probably more articles about information operations which is the way the military does strategic imitation, than about any other subject. it's because one of the things we learned in iraq and afghanistan is that in this particular cultural new view, information has an impact, a dramatic impact and perhaps is in some ways the most important tool we have in dealing with counterinsurgency, and influencing perceptions of allies as well as enemies. the problem is, this is an area where we used to be very good in this area. we used to be very good at, well, we now call today's strategic medications, used to be called strategic influence or

psychological warfare. it's something which we should have a natural proclivity for, given hollywood and madison avenue. and is widely important to the success of our policy in the region that we get better at it. but there's also cultural obstacles as well as to succeeding in this area and we have to find a way. this is i won't say it's a jbuilder but it's an undervalued capability which we need to do a lot more in order -- it's the one instrument the one element of national power that potentially could yield pay off in this part of the world, and the military people in the region get it and they've understood how to do and they're doing it very well. but we're not doing it very well on the strategic level and on the policy level. and in washington, and we need to do a lot better than we have in the past that the final comment i will make is the issue that wasn't raised, which is the

arab-israeli conflict that it used to be any kind of talk of this sort would focus at least a fair degree time with a focus on the arab-israeli conflict. i understand that this is an area where state department has delayed not so much a deity, but clearly in the past, this is something which the d.o.d. did devote a fair amount of time and it's thinking too, but it's clear now with two plus wars for the east, and in dealing with the issue of iran and iran's nuclear program, the arab-israeli conflict does not limit is large in the mind of at least some of our policymakers as it used to. and reminds me of the comment was made by james wilkinson after he left his job in an interview with an israeli paper where he stated, and a quarter, there has to be a moment when israelis and palestinians understand that they are a sideshow.

the real global politics is the politics of war and the politics of nuclear weaponry and the weight of the population. and i think that's a point that was further driven home by admiral mullen's comments are today. i look forward to discussing these issues in q&a. [applause] >> thank you. just to add to both my colleagues, on mike's last point, if you hadn't mentioned the absence of the reference i was going to mention it myself. and in a military context, it does also have implications because there are at least three possible military implications that one can think of. in the last administration there was some discussion about pulling the american forces from sinai. forces that might be used better elsewhere some were suggesting that if anybody doesn't know, there are american forces in the sinai that help patrol the egypt

israel peace. secondly, there were some considerable discussion recently about the potential for america and our nato playing a role in terms of a final resolution of israeli-palestinian conflict. and benford, for many years there's been discussion of a potential american lead role multinational sort of role in the goal on hts. so one can imagine an era of peace that some parties would like to see america play a role, precisely at a time when as you say, or at least he implied by the absence of reference the stamina to take on these additional roles certainly may not be there. the other point i wanted to make is very interesting, jim, your focus on strategic medications and your reference to the administration and mullins roll on the daily show, because the article to which mike made reference that admiral mullen wrote about strategic medications is in fact a very

powerful critique of how strategic communications has come to dominate acts of policy. i will quote from it just for a moment. quote, i.e. no strategic indication, this is admiral mullen's article that mike was making reference to. i no strategic indication as a term of reference is probably here to stay. regrettably, it's grown too much a part of our lexicon. to put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to can mitigate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate. and you say that in the context of almost doing the exact opposite, as you say, that this administration is focusing so greatly about. lots to talk about. let me open the floor for your questions and your comments. yes, please. if you could take the mic. >> jim, you mentioned a vacuum

of information. and mike, you talked about a strategic architecture in the gulf to confront a nuclear iran. i was hoping the admiral would help us understand what this actually met last summer when she talked about the possibility of a defense umbrella among our allies in the gulf confronting a nuclear armed iran. i haven't heard about that since that is anything happening on that front? who's in charge of strategic planning of a nuclear iran? >> the short answer is i don't really know what's going -- what's being done. and of course, i assumed any planning that is being done would presumably be done by centcom in consultation with the joint staff, and osd and stay. but i think this is one, you

know, secretary states, and i think was and the reason why we haven't heard anything more about it since then is was recognized as premature and potentially having a harmful, you know, impact on the perception of allies in the region who are looking at iran's progress in the nuclear arena and reconsidering their own option. and a challenge that we face in dealing with this eventuality is that on one hand, we can't afford to do things which sends a signal to our allies that we perhaps are acquiescing any eventuality of a nuclear iran. on the other hand, there are things we need to be doing now to lay the groundwork in case that is where we end up. and how you kind of strike the right balance is, you know, it's doable but it's a challenge. but the bottom line is, there is an architecture in place that was built mainly during the '90s in the wake of operation

desert storm, in terms of a web of bilateral and multilateral relationships with the gulf states, which we can build on. which is mainly in the conventional arena. and there is a very solid foundation for there. so there's a lot that's already been done that we can build on. the question is, what role do nuclear weapons, our nuclear weapons play in the event that iran acquires nuclear weapons. and i will just say simply that i think we need to think long and hard about this, because the context is much different than that of europe, and i'm not sure we thought through all the implications of changing our declaratory policy with regard in this arena, in this area, and therefore it's better we think through all the applications the four we make statements about our willingness to extend a nuclear umbrella to the gulf. >> i think there's some

interesting content on this point. during the bush administration, there was discussion about a nuclear umbrella, a doctrine, that would be directed at reassuring arab state in the gulf, arab states at large, that they would be protected against an iranian nuclear weapon if it came into being. and therefore, they did not have to develop their own. there was also directed toward turkey, and turkey i remember a conversation i had within foreign minister minister goal at the time about turkey, whether or not turkey was interested in acquiring nuclear weapon. he said there's no need. we understand from united states that we have protection on this front. i think that no longer necessarily applies. but it was an interesting insight. a secretary clinton had talked during the campaign about a strategic umbrella for israel, specifically. wychwood, i believe she specified israel. i may be wrong and that, but the

context made it pretty clear. and so that's really the question involved here, if we have a strategic or defensive umbrella, it's an effort to prevent the arabs from going nuclear on the one hand, and reassuring the israelis that they don't have to strike at that particular time, that seemed to be the emphasis. it's clear now that it will be much more difficult than it would have been, say, three, four, five years ago with the air of states, because as a senior arab political official who was in town recently said, to a small group of us, it's clear that there is already activity underway on the arab side on developing nuclear weapons. no details to provide. >> rob, can i just also, i think this is a good example, but i didn't quite expand enough i think on what are the cause of

the kind of paying more attention to communication or statements than the policy itself. and it came out i thought very well in the admiral's remarks. particular in his response to steve's question. where in the first part of his remarks, admiral mullen was telling us that he finds a great fear when he talks of the pakistanis and afghans about your going to leave us again. and he's telling them, no, no. , we're going to be with you this time. and then when he is asked why steve, why is it different. his answer is we have no intention of staying. we have no intention of occupying the country. indeed, the message from this administration is that we will, to the afghans, is that we will leave on deadlines that will be primarily set unilaterally. they can be flexible, but the message which -- there's a message here because the

president is speaking primer to the domestic audience when he is saying we are leaving. and he is speaking to the afghans when he says we are staying. but of course, both audiences here both messages. . . >> allen, up in front. wait for the mic. >> whitney admiral spoke-- [inaudible] the question i have is what role does saudi arabia play in supporting us in the fight against al qaeda and other stabilizing >> gentlemen? [laughter] >> you know this much better

than i do. well, i'll just say i have enough trouble keeping up with iran and iraq and, therefore, you sure you don't want another go do on this? >> i'm sure. [laughter] well, it's a great question. it's exactly the key question. saudis have been forced to do a lot more than they did when essentially they exported al-qaeda so they didn't have to deal with it. and i haven't been to the kingdom in quite some time, so i'm reluctant to tell you what the situation is, but i think that by and large the saudis have become more convinced of the need to act on their own. i'm not convinced it's fully an integrated action with us as much as we would like, but i'm weak on the details on this. i share the question. >> actually, just on this we do have scholars at the institute who have followed quite closely

the saudi fighting with the insurgents around the yemeni border. and the huge amount of saudi firepower that had to be brought to bear and the large number of saudi casualties as far as i understand that the saudis bore in this fighting which on the one hand underscores the saudi willingness to throw out that -- [inaudible] but on the other hand underscores that these are not, that these are, these are rather capable insurgents that were able to take on military forces of an ally that have received, you know, billions and billions of dollars of assets over the last coup can l of decades. >> but they're fighting shia, they're not fighting al-qaeda yet. >> no, no, all i'm pointing is the saudi willingness to get engaged in yemen is, we saw this in just the recent months. what we haven't seen is what the

saudis are willing to do to help fight al-qaeda on the other side of the border. what we do know about is the saudi rehabilitation program, efforts to export that into yemen not so successfully. but we do have a yemen expert here on my right, former ambassador. >> [inaudible] would you like to make a comment? >> i think, well, there's somebody down here with a mic. i'm fine? okay. i think barbara, first of all, thank you for making the point that to the extent the saudis. >> you said there's a mic over there? and, barbara, stand up so we can all see you. >> oh, dear. thank you, barbara, for making the point that the saudi engagement has been against -- there's generally not a problem with the saudis involving themselves in yemen, the question is whether they are a constructive force.

and often they are more of a destabilizing force than they are constructive. i don't think it would be very wise for us to go to either the yes, yemenis or the saudis and suggest that the saudis become the proxy for fighting al-qaeda. i think it would actually exacerbate the situation very badly. >> josh up in front. >> thank you all for your comments. there's national debate right now, as everybody knows in this room, about whether it's the really in our national interests to be in afghanistan. what there doesn't seem to be as much debate about, at least from what i'm reading, is what are the assumptions that are underlying our strategy, how are they formulated, how accurate they are, what's the basis for them? and i was wondering if you gentlemen could comment about some of these assumptions, for

instance, that pakistan will ultimately be infiltrated by the taliban if they prevail, that the taliban is not as -- that they're more welcome by the afghan people which the admiral referenced. but i wonder about some of the assumptions that underlie the commitment of human and financial resources to that endeavor versus some of the other alternatives. >> jim? >> we know a good deal about the process by which these assumptions are formed and articulated in the meetings with the president. they had almost a dozen, maybe ten meetings of the national security group to talk about the surge and other aspects, and we were told in great detail about how crisp the meetings were and the president's very laudatory questioning and making people state their views so that nobody

could leave and say that their view was never heard. they didn't have a thing to say. it's a lot less clear exactly whether those assumptions are a joint product, like you say, because we do know there are differing views about whether or not we should try to keep a ricketted footprint -- restricted footprint. the president, at the end of the day, split the difference a little heavier on the mcchrystal side than on the biden side. but i think the basic assumption is it would be a disaster to be seen to be pulling out, to be cutting and running. i think that's a basic assumption. so, therefore, we are there for a while. we have to manage our presence there to meet these two contradictory messages that i referred to a moment ago. we're not say -- staying, but we're not leaving. and there's a lot of tension between those two messages, and it takes a lot of time and

effort to balance that. one of the things this administration has done fairly well is to articulate the importance of pakistan, and mullen did it again today here in saying we can't really solve the afghan problem if we don't get full cooperation from the pakistanis. and we are getting a good deal more cooperation, pretty much still in terms that allow the pakistanis to give us things to buy them time. they're also in the time-buying game. everybody involved in this is in the time-buying game. but i think the president has done a good job of forcing everybody to articulate their assumptions so he can examine them, then make the decisions. i'm just not clear exactly where the weight is on each and every point. i don't know if that's responsive to your question or not, but that's about as good as i can do, i think. >> just the outcomes of what we fear are going to happen, why are those outcomes assumed to be

the case? what is the reasoning behind it, and what fact support the reason? >> a lot of it's based on intelligence, probably too much. i think one of the things we see in this case of the nigerian is there was a lot of information out there that wasn't highly classified and, therefore, might not have been taken as seriously as it should have been. so it's clear that there was a difference of view, and i think there probably still is, and it shifts from time to time over whether or not the taliban itself represents a direct threat to the united states. and, therefore, we are required to stay in afghanistan come what may. i think there are people who are involved today who believe that. i don't think that was the consensus judgment by the president. i think there is going to be as part of this new effort a concerted effort to peel off the taliban, to not make peace with, but to develop perhaps a live and let live in some of the provinces with the taliban if we

are convinced they will prevent al-qaeda from returning. i guess the key question is do you believe that if the taliban becomes, again, an even more important influence and going to the point of taking over afghanistan, does that mean that al-qaeda will then come back? that's one of the assumptions you can say yes or no, and you've got your assumption there. i think the assumption by the administration is that we can't risk the taliban coming back because it is still possible that they will invite al-qaeda back in, that they are, in fact, al-qaeda in another guise. i tend toward that view, so i give that view the prominence. but it's quite possible that that could change as we have more experience in trying to establish some kind of modus vivendi with the taliban. >> jim, let me just close by asking can you one last question. don rumsfeld made a famous

distinction between known unknowns and unknown unknowns. i'm not going to ask you about unknown unknowns, but i do want to ask you since this is our opening event of 2010, as you look over the course of this year what among the panoply of known unknowns that could be hitting the headlines over the course of this year in the part of the world we're focused on, which of those do you think are, rise to the top of the list? >> one springs to my mind right away that i don't think we know nearly enough about is what is going to happen in egypt. if you look at what happened yesterday on the frontier, the killing of an egyptian security officer by fire from gaza and the great turmoil that's going on there, and if you look at hue us bar rack and you hook at the political uncertainty around a succession there, i think egypt is a huge known unknown and

upheaval there could have an enormous influence. the other one, of course, is more known than that, and that is iran, how close are they, what red lines have the israelis drawn, how close -- how well do the iranians understand those red lines, and there is some hope, i think, among people that they do see most of them. but iran is the other great one. >> great. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us for this very special event and look forward to hosting you back here again soon. thank you, joe. [applause]udib conversations]

>> president obama's ambassador at large for global women's issues melanne verveer talks

about the changing roles of women in the law and the rights of women around the world at 7 eastern on c-span's america and the courts. >> darkness at noon was important on a number of levels. it offered an explanation for something that had been baffling westerners in particular for many years, and that was stalin's show trials and the success that he seemed to have. >> sunday, biographer michael scammell on the life of arthur kessler, best known for his novel, darkness at noon. the biographys titled kessler, the literary and political odyssey of a 20th century skeptic. sunday night on c-span's q&a. [applause] >> and now president obama announces $250 million in math and science teacher training. he spoke earlier this week before an audience of math and science teachers from across the united states. this is about 20 minutes. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, to introduce the president, please, welcome ms. barbara stoffle. [applause] >> i can't contemplate my career as a teacher without reflects on my dad's years in school. although naturally i wasn't born when he was a student, his marginal education helped form my teaching. he was from a poor farm family, and although his parents loved him very much, sometimes they worried more about how they were going to clothe and feed him than they did about how well he could read or write. his educators' expectations were low, and he met that standard.

when the energy crisis hit in the '70s, my dad tackled it like a math problem, but instead of picking up a paper and pencil, he talked his way through it. he thought outside the box. he modeled his thinking. he built an electric car out of used volkswagen parts and powered our house with a wind generator he built from scratch. he was able to do those things in spite of the fact that he hadn't learned how in school. in some ways the disconnect between what my dad needed at home and the skill set he was asked to learn at school lives on in classrooms across america. as teachers in the 21st century, we're experiencing a paradigm shift as we consider whether what we teach is still relevant and if how we're teaching it is engaging. our focus is shifting to bringing out the true learner in our students because within their lifetimes their ability to learn will surpass their need to

know. although many aspects of our profession are changing, many remain the same. we still wear many hats each day: coach, finder of lost articles, psychologist, substitute parent, sales professional and keeper of the faith. we're the most fortunate of all who labor. each day parents entrust us with their greatest gift, their children. as teachers we have a past that is rich in memory, a present that is rewarding, adventurous, fun and challenging because we spend our days with the future. and now it is with great honor that i introduce to you a man whose lessons extend far beyond the classroom walls who is writing history, modeling a present that is challenging and adventurous but, hopefully, a little rewarding and fun, who is helping to shape the future for all of us, president barack

obama. [applause] >> thank you! thank you, everybody. please, have a seat. thank you! well, it is wonderful to be here. barbara, thank you for the outstanding introduction. i want to acknowledge a few other special guests that we have here. first of all, my terrific vice president mainly because he takes orders from dr. jill biden, dr. jill biden and vice president joe biden are here. [applause] somebody, i've never met somebody who's more passionate about making sure that young people do well than my secretary of education, arne duncan. [applause] arne duncan.

my -- before i won a nobel peace prize, this guy had won it and nobody questioned whether he deserved it or not. [laughter] my secretary of energy, steven chu. [applause] three wonderful members of congress can who have devoted a lot of energy to the issue of science and math education, and i want to acknowledge them the, representative bart gordon who's the chairman of the science and technology committee, democrat from tennessee. where's bart? there he is. thank you, bart. [applause] representative william lacy clay there the great state of missouri, and his district is home to two teachers who are being honored here today, so he's very proud of them. [applause] and a great champion of

education generally, he's the chairman of the education and labor committee, representative george miller of california is in the house. [applause] we also since so many people were inspired in this country originally from our space program to think about math and science in new ways, it's terrific to have our nasa administrator and former restaurant charles bolden in the house. [applause] we've got regina dugan who's the directer of darpa as many of you know. we can thank them for the internet and all kinds of other stuff, so please give regina a big round of applause. [applause] and our national science foundation directer arden

demint is here. [applause] thank you so much. now, most importantly to all the teachers who are here, as president i am just thrilled to welcome you, teachers and mentors, to the white house. because i believe so strongly in the work that you do, and as i mentioned to some of you, because i've got two girls upstairs with math tests coming up. [laughter] i figure that a little extra help from the best of the best couldn't hurt. so you're going to have assignments after this. [laughter] these awards were not free. [laughter] we are, we are here today to honor teachers and mentors like barb who are upholding their responsibility not just to the young people who they teach, but to our country by inspiring and

educating a new generation in math and science. but we're also here because this responsibility can't be theirs alone. all of us have a role to play in building an education system that is worthy of our children and ready to help us seize the opportunities and meet the challenges of the 21st century. whether it's improving our health or harnessing clean energy, protecting our security or succeeding in the global economy, our future depends on reaffirming america's role as the world's engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation. and that leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our students today. especially in math, science, technology and engineering. but despite the importance of education in these subjects, we have to admit we are right now being outpaced by our competitors. one assessment shows american 15-year-olds now ranked 21st in science and 25th in math when

compared to their peers around the world. think about that. 21st and 25th. that's not acceptable. and year after year the gap between the number of teachers we have and the number of teachers we need in these areas is widening. the short fall is projected to climb past a quarter of a million teachers in the next five years, and that gap is most pronounced in predominantly poor and minority schools. meanwhile, other nations are stepping up, a fact that was plain to see when i visited asia at the end of last year. the president of south korea and i were having lunch, and i asked him, what's the biggest education challenge that you have? he told me his biggest challenge in education wasn't budget holes or budget crumbling schools, it was that the parents were too demanding. he's had to import thousands of foreign teachers because parents insisted on english-language

training in elementary school. the mayor of shanghai, china, a city of over 20 million people, told me that even in such a large city they had no problem recruiting teachers in whatever subject, but particularly math and science, because teaching is revered and the pay scales are comparable to professions like doctors. so make no mistake, our future is on the line. the nation that outeducates us today is going to outcompete us tomorrow. and to continue to cede our leadership in education is to cede our position in the world. that's not acceptable to me, and i know it's not acceptable to any of you, and that's why my administration has set a clear goal, to move from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math education over the next decade. to reach this goal, we've paid particular attention to how we can better prepare and support, reward and retain good teachers.

so the recovery act included the largest investment in education by the federal government in history. while preventing more than 300,000 teachers and school workers from being fired because of state budget shortfalls. the department of education will be announcing an additional $10 million in grants for innovative programs to train new teachers whether a young person embarking on his or her first career or a scientist or engineer starting his or her second. and under the outstanding leadership of arne duncan, we've launched a $4 billion race to the top fund, one of the largest investments in education reform in history. through the race to the top, state are competing for funding and producing the most innovative programs in science and math will be an advantage in this competition. as will allowing scientists and statisticians and engineers to more easily become teachers.

we want states and school districts to start being more creative about how they can attract more science and math teachers. we're also pursuing reforms to better serve america's math and science teachers or so that each and every one can be as effective as the educators that we honor today. so we're challenging states to raise standards, to use data to better inform decisions, to recruit and retain more good teachers and to promote stronger curricula that encourage young people to not only learn the facts in a textbook, but to explore and discover the world around them. now, as important as this will be, the success we seek is not going to be attained by government alone. and that's why i've challenged the scientific community to think of new and creative ways to engage young people in their fields. that's why we launched the educate to innovate campaign, a nationwide effort by citizens, not-for-profits, universities

across america to help us move to the top of the pack in math and science education. and today we're expanding this campaign. several new public-private partnerships are going to offer additional training to more than 100,000 teachers and prepare more than 10,000 new teachers in the next five years alone. and through the partnerships we are announcing today, support for the educate to innovate campaign has doubled to more than half a billion dollars in private funding. that's a figure that we only expect to grow. to help educators already in the classroom, intel is launching a ten-year, $200 million campaign to train math and science teachers in all 50 states to better use new technologies and techniques in their lesson plans. pbs and the national science teachers association will also create a new online platform so science and math teachers can share best practices and learn from one another.

to bring more educators into the class room, the national math and science initiative is working with texas instruments and the dell foundation to prepare almost 5,000 new math and science teachers in the next five years through a program that allows young people to earn teaching certificates and science degrees at the same time. and presidents for more than 75 of the largest public universities in the country have committed to produce thousands of additional science and math teachers at their institutions. and the woodrow wilson national fellowship foundation is expanding with the help of several states and nonprofits to place more math and science teachers in more high-need schools. and just because you aren't a teacher, that doesn't mean you can't help educate our young people. we need to look no further than the mentors we honor here today. i'm calling on all 200,000 scientists who work for the federal government to do their part in their communities, to speak at schools, to create

hand-on learning opportunities through efforts like national lab day, and to help stoke that same curiousty in students which, perhaps, led them to pursue a career in science in the first place. nasa will also be launching an enrichment program to bring their scientists and engineers to students in the classroom and to bring students to nasa so that they might experience that same sense of wonder and excitement while maybe learning a little bit at the same time. and finally, as president i'm going to try to do my part. we've held science-themed events like astronomy night here at the white house. that was very fun, by the way. [laughter] we're planning an annual science fair to honor the student winners of national science and technology competitions. secretary duncan and i will be working to promote the teaching profession to show young people that teaching is one of the best and most rewarding ways to serve our country. and we are, of course, recognizing the folks in this room with awards for excellence in teaching and mentoring.

it's what these men and -- with these men and women that i'd like to conclude today because in the end the work that you do and the difference you make are what all these reforms are all about. whether it's showing students how to record the habits of a resident reptile or teaching kids to test soil samples on a class trip to costa rica, whether it's helping young people from tough neighborhoods in chicago to become junior paleontologists or creating a mentoring program that connects girls and minorities traditionally underserved in the field, all of you are demonstrating why teaching and mentoring are so important and why we have to sport you, equip you and send in some reinforcements for you. every person in this room remembers a teacher or mentor that made a difference in their lives. every person in this room remembers a moment in which an educator showed them something about the world or themselves that changed their lives.

it could be a word of encouragement, a helping hand, a lesson that sparked a question that ignited a passion and ultimately may have propelled a career. and innovators, folks like michael dell who are here today, are made in those moments. scientists and engineers are made in those moments, doctors are made in those moments, teachers are made in those moments, those small interactions. so, yes, improving our schools is about training a new generation of workers and succeeding in new industries, but a good education provided with the help of great teachers and mentors is about something more. it's about instilling in a young person a love of learning and a sense of possibility in their own lives. an understanding of the world around them that will serve them no matter what they do. ..

[applause] >> starting in about an hour a discussion on the 2010 midterm elections with republican pollster, kellyanne conway. we'll hear how health care my effect the outcome of those elections. live coverage from the heritage foundation begins noon eastern on c-span2. this afternoon, remarks from secretary of state hillary clinton commemorating the 15th anniversary on international conference on population and

development. held in 1994. 179 nations reached an agreement on reaching reductions in infant and child death and access to reproductive health. the secretary will begin comments at the state department. it will begin life at 2:40 eastern on c-span2. and now, former oklahoma congressman mickey edwards on the relationship between the president and congress. he currently serves as vice president of the aspen institute and he spoke earlier this w at washington senator for internships and academic seminars. this is about an hour. >> delivered but not announced. i want to take special care in introducing our next speaker. and preface my introduction by saying that there are

many people who have served in congress, and retired. and were never heard from again. they perhaps entered into the world of lobbying or went back home, but very, very few, and i can really, probably count on the fingers of one hand the former members of congress who are called upon constantly for comment on current developments in american politics. one of them of course we heard yesterday, chuck hague fell, of whom much more will be heard -- hagel. another alan simpson, former senator from wyoming. the third, someone i i have known for a long time, representative mickey edwards to served as a member of the house of representatives, a republican from oklahoma. he served on the appropriations committee. he served on the budget

committee at a time when the budget committee was really in its infancy. he is now vice president of the aspen institute. and he is someone who has been a regular guest here at the washington center, and someone whose views are always, just spot-on, right on target. he is incredibly well-informed. he expresses himself with great felicity and also just a great guy. representative mickey edwards. [applause] >> i'm afraid to say anything after that, ross. well, i'm delighted to have a chance to be back in washington center, very,. >> use the mike. >> probably hear me anyway. >> this is live though. >> take this one?

does that work? okay. i feel like, you know, i ought to be on "oprah" or something but, the washington center has been just an organization that i delighted in working with over the years. so i'm very pleased to be back here. and i've got to say, i got here in time to hear most of the admiral's talk and, what a great feeling it is to know that we have people like that who are playing such an important role in our national security. i was also, i told gene alpert, i was really impressed by questions that were asked. now i'm terrified of the questions you're going to ask me. but, let me just start by making a couple of observations. we had an earlier session long, long ago, i guess it was right after the president was elected, and

the topic, i don't remember, ross, exactly what the title was, but it had something to do with the obama presidency and i said, why are we talking just about you know, the presidency? why are we not talking about the congress? y'all had an opportunity, i know just like my students, that you read every word of the chapter i wrote that was assigned to you. but, one of the points i tried to make is that the obligation that you have when you take an oath of office, as a member of congress, is completely equal to the obligation, the responsibility, that falls on you when you take the oath of office to be president of the united states. when something happens, like what happened on christmas with the attempted bombing

of an airliner, keeping the country safe, stopping that from happening isn't something that members of congress can just look at an admiral or general or president of the united states say, why did you let this happen? because when you take the oath of office as a member of congress, you're also assuming the obligation and responsibility for the security of the united states, the well-being, the privacy concerns, you know, all of the kinds of issues -- i used an example in that chapter i wrote about a meeting i had when i was, i was testifying before the senate and one of the senators whose name i won't mention but it was sheldon whitehouse, made a point, which i thought was interesting and important and he talked about the fact that when people from the

executive branch came to present intelligence information to members of the u.s. senate, they would first of all limit who they would share this information with to a very small number of members of the senate who were precluded sharing that information with other members of senate and who were precluded from sharing that with their staff members and, that, this was his complaint, i'm not making it, but it was his complaint, that sometimes members of the executive branch, by the way this was not this current administration. members of the executive branch would then release the information, declassify it when it suited their purposes politically to do so. but we as senators, you know we can't do that because it's classified. for us to release that information would be against the law. to which my response was, well, senator, who writes the laws?

the senate had the obligation i think, and the congress has the obligation, to insist that the information that is necessary to keep the country secure be provided to the legislative branch as well so that it can perform its function in keeping us safe. one of the other examples i used in that chapter, then i will stop writing about the chapter, jim thurber would like if i helped promote sales of his book but one of the other points i was refering to the column in "the washington post" that talked about the president of the united states, again this was george bush, going overseas and the columnist, dana milbank, suggested that for the coming period of time, the president was getting ready to step out of his role as head of government to function in his other role as head of state and, so i was teaching

at princeton and i asked my students, well, you know, what does that say so to you? what do you think about when you hear this? people would answer, well, it means he will be talking about not domestic issues but international issues, basing rights, trade agreements and so forth as meets with kings and you know, other heads of state. so, well that's not the point of that article. because it talked about the president stepping out of his role as head of government to act in his other role as head of state. i said the president is not the head of government. we don't have a head of government. that is not our system of government. we have independent, equal branches. and i make that point again, even though i know you've already, you probably underlined it and, gene probably and ross give you a test all the stuff that was assigned reading, but i make that point because over and over i have seen too many

members of congress, and sometimes the congress as a whole, the house and the senate, defer, which, that is a nice way of say, defer to the executive on important decisions of security or other issues when a better way to look at it is not to suggest that they are defering but that they're passing the buck. that they're not meeting the obligation the constitution places on them to make the nation's laws, and to insure the security and the safety and the well-being and the prosperity, of the people of this country. it's not the president's job. it is the government's job and the government includes the legislative branch as well. now, there was a it was very interesting. i know you all followed the health care debate. it was sort of hard not to follow it since it was, you know, everywhere all the time. and one of the criticisms that was made of president

obama, and maybe some of you made the same criticism, was that he was too hands-off. that he was stepping back and he was leting the congress write the laws. which i always thought was kind of interesting since it was congress that is supposed to write the laws, and not the president. and what was interesting, one of the things that the center wanted me to comment on, reflect a little bit on the obama presidency and relationship with the congress. one of the things i will tell you is, there may be a limited number of people who understand how our system works and is supposed to work, but one of those people is brahm obama -- barack obama. who does under stand the constitution. he taught it. he does understand the constitutional system. he knows what is his role and what is congress's role

and that is one of the things really impressed me. another part that's impressed me in terms of his dealing with the congress and with his opponents generally, congress is pretty sharply divided, is his understanding of the magnitude of the issues that he confronts and the country con fonts. -- confronts. he was attacked by a number of people very harshly, very, in some cases unfairly but certainly very harshly, and one of the comments that was made in regard to that was by jimmy carter, who looked at the level of antagonism and criticism being directed at the president, and said, well it is because of his race. and barack obama said, it's not because of my race, it's because we're talking about

major important issues that affect every citizen this country and are extremely important. and i looked, and i said, you know, this is a guy who gets it. this is a guy who has an understanding of the nature of politics, there is a lot of stuff i don't agree with him on but i was really pleased with with that. so then, i go back and look at the performance of the congress. nancy pelosi's a good friend of mind. we, it is quite possible that we agreed on three things over the 16 years that we served together but she's a french and we worked together on a couple of things. don't agree on very many of them but, i met with her shortly after she became speaker and, she was, i was

very critical of the bush administration in a lot of different ways even though, as ross said, i was a member of the republican leadership in congress. i was a foreign policy advisor to george w. bush in his campaign for the presidency, his first campaign. but, i had been very critical of him in the years since. i had been very critical of the bush administration and i met with nancy pelosi, and she, as she became speaker and, her party began to control the congress, began to oppose the president, president bush in ways that i thought the congress you should have stood up to him, and i said, i can tell you what i said to her. i'm not going to tell you what she said, i said, madam speaker, it is cool to call her that, i said, madam speaker, congratulations, you have the congress

standing up to the president of the united states, doing its part as an independent, separate branch. he belongs to the other party. the real test of your speakership is going to be if, this was even before the democratic primaries were completed, i said, if the democrats elect a president, and you're still speaker, will you stand up to the president then if you need to? and i make that point, because, i want to get to the q&a. but there is something here that really bothers me, not only about the nature of the presidency but about the nature of the congress, and how it has evolved. my hero, other than those who play baseball, you know, my hero is james madison. probably the greatest american whoever lived. who really understood the kind of a system that was

required to keep a people free. and madison warned about a lot of things, but he warned most about political parties. and what has happened in the years since is that we have created, not evolved, but devolved, into a political system that has become, not a battle of ideas, not a battle of principles, but a battle of clubs. my club against your club. my republican club against your democrat club. and, members of both parties have lost the ability to speak in terms of values, principles, goals, policies that they pursue without mentioning the other guys and attempting to use whatever issue arises to try

to defeat them. and so we return into very interesting situations like this. when sonia sotomayor, was nominated for the supreme court, i looked at this, and i said, you know, you could make a valid, intelligent, thoughtful argument about why she would be a superb supreme court justice. and you could make a really good, valid argument about why she should not be on the supreme court. there are arguments to be made both ways. and when the vote came, here were the republicans on one side and the democrats on the other side. how is it possible that in a

diverse nation with members of the legislative branch coming from many different states with different kinds of outlooks, that not one, not one, single democrat was bothered either by the firefighters decision, or by the latina comment? and that all the republicans, despite the fact that she had ruled consistently in keeping with precedent and with the constitution, which is what republicans always said they believe a judge should do, all the republicans were against her? what was happening here, as as happened on one issue after another, is that each party gets a position, each party takes a stand, and it becomes what's going to help

us prevail in the next election? and, you know, my, in case ross is going to write another book here anytime soon, my suggestion is, you know, that when you're elected to the legislative branch, when you're elected to congress, or when you're elected to a state legislature or when you're on a city council, you should be making your decisions based on three things. number one, what do your constituents want you to do? i believe a lot in what edmund burke said, it is not your job to be a rubberstamp for your constituents but you're obligated to listen to your constituents, to take their views very, very, seriously. how do you know that's the case?

because one of the things that our founding fathers did was to reject the british parliamentary system, and say, in the constitution very specifically, that a member of the house or the senate had to be from the state that he or she represented. the ideal was, that they sent somebody to be their voice at the table, in making the laws, making the decisions. so number one, you got to listen to the people. you don't start with dismissing their views. you start with giving important, heavyweight to their views. the second consideration, i know this is really strange, is that you actually read the proposed legislation. you evaluate the proposed legislation. you talk to people. you try to figure out the impact.

you get the arguments pro and con, and you make an independent evaluation, regardless of what party proposed it, and decide whether this is a good thing or bad. and then the third and final step, which is, quite often ignored, is to look at the constitution and see whether or not what you propose to do is permissible under the constitution. that is the part that often gets ignored. and that's, that's how the system is supposed to work. for a republican, my party, to take a position on an issue, because obama is on one side and you are therefore, obligated to be on the other, or because the position you take will increase the chances that you can take back a majority in the house or the senate,

is not, quote, poll i can it is. it is not, quote, bad government. it's a violation of your oath of office under the constitution to perform the duties that you assumed when you were sworn in to serve as a member of legislative branch. and when the democrats say, that this is our party position because we can prevail, we can lock ourselves into a solid majority for years if we do x, and we have to hang together, we have to have unanimity, we have to be together as a party, they're doing the same thing because they're asking each individual, elected member of the congress to make their decisions based on nothing other than partisan advantage. so that, that has bothered

me a lot. and, given the nature of the congress and the political party system, i've tried to look and say, how is this all unfolding? how is the obama presidency in relation to this congress unfolding? and you know? it is interesting that it is unfolding in a way that prior to the lek a year ago, most people did not anticipate. barack obama was elected. guantanamo was going to be closed. barack obama is still president. guantanamo is still open. the president was elected with a overwhelming majority in the house and the senate. we were going to have national health care with public options or more. there ain't going to be no

public option. little by little, what we have seen is things settling back into a system of equalibrium where presidents step out of their role as candidates -- one of the things that happens too rarely is that, when you get elected to office, i mean there's kind of like an invisible line here, and right now i'm a candidate, i'm speaking for a party, a philosophy, a set of principles, and i get elected by some miracle, and i step across that line, and i'm not a candidate. i'm not a party advocate. i'm a sworn member of the american government. with an obligation to make decisions in that light. and, the president has understood that and the give-and-take between the two branches has kept things from changing a whole lot,

except, you know, the even the stimulus and bailout, which, started with the previous administration. so i actually, i'll stop and, get to the questions but, i'm feeling relatively sanguine about the way the system is work. i'm not feeling sanguine about some of the decisions have been made, a lot of which i would have opposed. but i feel fairly sanguine the kind of relationship that has developed between the branches. i will say one thing that has bothered me a little bit. there is, ross baker could explain this a lot better than i, there is nothing in the constitution that requires conference committees between the house and the senate. there is no conference committees. they're not mentioned in the

constitution. but, for the sake of making the system work for the benefit of the american people, over the years there has developed, because there's a requirement that house and senate finally agree on one single piece of legislation for the president to receive, there has developed this system where the representatives of both parties, from both houses get together and work out the differences between the house and the senate, and what happening as happens, we've already seen ways to get around the filibuster, ways to get around various rules and now we have a way being promoted in the senate and the house to get around conference committees. not have conference committees. not bring all the players together, you know, but have, you know the leadership in the two houses kind of now they call this new system,

ping-pong, as they get together, you know they work it through one house. they send it over with the changes. you eliminate the conference committees which always took place with the press, in the room and, give-and-take and that is gone because it's how can we make our, how can we get the predetermined result we want? and i don't know whether ross is bothered by that. i'm bothered, you know, by that setting aside of a system that was designed to bring more openness and more participation. so i mean, i guess, on one hand i'm sanguine. other ways i'm very bothered. let me just take whatever questions you've got and, field them in any way owe secures to me at the -- occurs to me at the moment [applause] sure. >> hi, i'm brenda from

california state university long beach. do you feel that the rights of american people, as they were written in the constitution, are being eroded away by judges that feel they can legislate from the bench? >> you know, i think one of the interesting battles in the early days, was about whether or not the courts had the authority, even to declare something unconstitutional. well that, that battle has sort of ended because in marbury versus madison, when the congress should have said, i'm sorry, you know, mr. chief justice, but we didn't give you the authority to tell you to tell us whether something was constitutional or not. that argument has ended. i think many judges, i don't think it is a majority at all, but i think there are judges and justices, over the years, who have believed

that it was the obligation of the courts to picture what would make the ideal society, you know, and to bring it into being. and sometimes they have really stretched their interpretations of the law in order to get the outcomes they praefrd. sometimes i -- prefered. sometimes i agree with that. there have been activist judges from both sides but, if you really want to affect the laws we live under, you have to follow the constitution. if you really want to effect the laws we live under, you should run for public office and, i have been bothered in the past by what i thought were overly activist judges who were more intent on following their own personal philosophies than on the law. i don't bow down in great reference, ref vens to the -- reference to the

courts. i think they're great. but if we just, started with the idea that whatever the courts say must be, you know, come down from heaven, then would still be living with plessy versus ferguson. we would still be living with, racial segregation and worse. so i think it is perfectly appropriate to say the court, you're wrong and sometimes i think the congress ought to step in and reverse things. that the courts have done. >> thank you. >> thank you. what does it feel like to be from california and come to this? isn't this -- >> i'm from idaho originally. >> okay. so you have a coat. all right. >> jonathan hayes, arkansas state university, i want to know in your own personal experience how you were able to be balance a delegate and trustee in your congressional career? >> i have to be very careful that i have done so much stuff with the washington

center that i know there is political scientists in the room. i served in congress 16 years and never heard delegate trustee until after i left congress. as i said, earlier, using the delegate part, what you have to do, and what wes on you all the time, and should weigh on you, is that you are a representative of a particular community. that's what is different by our constitution and british way of doing it. you represent a particular constituency and i think you have to take that importantly. very importantly. one of the problems with those reform advocates who say, what we need to do is create competitive elections. we need to redraw all the districts so that they're all competitive. is that, and there's, merit to that but it overlooks the

other part of it, which is the representational function. so that if you have a community that has collective interests, that is, let's say, mostly wheat farmers, you don't need to try to find somebody who can represent the anti-wheat farmer position you know? it's, the representational function is important but i found often that my constituents, who are busy living their own lives, doing the best they can for their families and their careers, didn't have all the information that was available to me or to other members of congress or to the president, and some of what they got they were getting from really, deep intellectual sources like wikipedia or rush limbaugh or keith olbermann. so, you, you have to on

important matters, sometimes you have to say, i listen to my constituents, i took them seriously, they're just wrong. and one of the great books profiles in courage, was it was profiles in courage about members of senate who did what they thought was right and important for the country even though it was something their constituents did not agree with. the way i balanced it on issues where i didn't really feel my constituency was wrong. i followed their lead. i did what they wanted. i represented them. but if it was something important to me and i thought they were wrong, i did what i thought was right. >> thank you. >> hello, sir, wonderful to have you here today. >> thank you. glad to be back. >> yesterday, patrick was speaking to us about the relationship between the legislature and the

president in regards to policy making. my question is, do you believe that there was a point especially when the president's party is in the majority where the legislature should defer to the president's agenda at the expense of their own and what is that point? >> there is no such point. >> all right. >> you never defer to the president. you took an oath of office. you know, i will say you don't defer to the president because he is president. there is one area in which i defered sometimes, and that was national security. it's not because the president's in charge of national security. he's not. it is not because the president is in charge of foreign policy. he's not. article i, section 1 of the constitution, all legislation, not just domestic, you know, congress has a role in all those things. on the war powers act we gave away the, congress gave away too much power. but i was always aware, like

previous question, how do you balance things? i was aware on security issues of the authority i had as a member of congress. i was also aware that i had a staff of 21 people, and the president had the defense department, the state department, the cia, the dea, the nsa, you know, embassies consulates and he had probably a lot more information and better advice than i had. so on issues of war and peace, you know, i was reluctant to say, well, i know what i think and i'm just going to stop the president. so i did, there was a time when i defered to the executive on those kinds of issues. >> i forgot, emily lovejoy, hofstra university. >> good. glad to have you here. >> hi, i'm mike wing from university of iowa. i had a question. do you -- >> congratulations. >> oh, thank you.

>> hawkeyes looked good. >> do you think that the, members of both the house and senate are becoming complacent and siding with their party simply to save their seat? or is it maybe their actions have become acceptable by the american public, by continuing to vote them in as incumbents? or is it possibly that the more powerful members of each party are restricting outside thought and maybe stepping over party lines? >> you know, it is really interesting question. i don't know the answer because i haven't talked to all of them, boy, i'm sorry, but i do this and i know there's room full of political scientists here. how many of you have read david mayhew, from jail in -- yale or taught david mayhew? the guy has no clue what he is talking about. the principle mayhew premise

is that members of congress, or i would assume most people in any elective office, legislative office, decide how to vote based on what is going to get them reelected. in fact, what you see all the time, and have seen in the health care debates is that people cast votes that in fact may get them defeated because what decides how you vote is not your reelection chances although, you might sometimes be reluctant to willingly cast a vote that is going to get you defeated, but, you start with ideology, you start with your beliefs. everybody in this room, every single one of you has certain sets of beliefs about what's good for the country and about the role of government versus the citizen and, where you balance security against, you know, going through a complete body scan a the airport, y'all have a view

on that which you're going to follow even if it means you will get in trouble back home. so my view has not been that the reelection calculus affects how people are voting. it is also my view that who your campaign contributors are isn't what affects how you vote. it is your ideology but increasingly it is also your party. this started back in one of my books i talked about this. went back to the gingrich days in the house when non-stop partisan warfare became, you know the order of the day. it's not that a senior leader is doing it. your party leadership is saying we have to hang together. this is or party position as though we were a parliamentary system. i think that part, the party influence has become way too strong. >> thank you, sir.

>> hi, i'm laura anderson. i'm from the university of massachusetts at amherst. you mentioned before it was important to actually read proposed bills. >> i know, shocking. >> shocking, yes. i was wondering how much time you have on average to consider a bill and if that is actually enough time to completely understand it? >> well, as government gets bigger and thing the government takes up, you know, cover more and more territory, like, you know, baseball, and, concussion for football players, all this stuff, it becomes harder and harder. i don't know to what extent you all hear from, have a chance to consider the work of staffers in congress. the most, one of the most important things you do as a member of congress is hiring

superb staff. most of them, are your age, just past your age. but, who will provide you with good, in depth, background research so, it's not, every member of congress does it his or her own way. i insisted on a couple of things. one was, i don't know if any of you are going to go to law school but i'm a lawyer, and one of the things i told my staff, was every briefing, every briefing, had to be one page. because if it is not, if you can't say it in a page, you don't understand it. you're caught up in all the verbiage. you can have a lot of other background information, you know, but i wanted both sides presented. so what i got was a summary. who was for it. who is against it? what it cost? what it would do? what are the arguments are, for and against with a lot

of backup i could then talk to them about? we had a staff meeting every monday morning. we talked about every bill that was going to come up. we talked about every amendment. we had conversation, we had discussion, so i didn't read every word of every bill, but i got a briefing from people who did, with good summaries of all the main arguments. and then we talked it out. so i don't think i went to the floor on most things uninformed. i think i to the floor on most things pretty well understanding what was at stake. there were some, i hate to admit stuff like this, there were some examples where i didn't have a clue. you know, and i know some of you are from agricultural areas. i never understood a thing about agriculture. and, but i had to vote on it. so, i had my own way. it's a secret way. some members do it. i would go to a friend who

thought somewhat like i did, who was on the ag committee, i would say, how did you vote? and they would tell me. and then i would vote that way. and i would go to my-offs and, go to my office. i would call my legislative assistant. i would say, i just voted for this. write something up and telling me why. [laughter] so that was part of the balance. but on most issues, we were pretty well-informed. we couldn't read every bill but we got very good briefing. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. don't tell anybody about what i did. [laughter] >> good morning, congressman. thank you for coming. >> sure. >> i'm ricky from suffolk university in boston. >> lot of snow there. i just got back. >> yeah, i know. you mentioned we've seen a congress of more independent members through the recent health care debate but

republicans remain unified against the bill. do you feel there is a place for moderate republicans in the near future in congress? >> well, first of all, i would like to see more independents. i think constitution requires more independents. but i don't think i'm seeing it. i think i'm seeing more people locked into partisanship. what was the last part of -- >> do you feel there is a place, like there's a near future for moderate republicans? >> are you asking whether i think that is good or whether i think it is going to happen? >> whether you think it is going to happen. >> there was a really interesting book by a guy named bill bishop, who is a reporter in austin, texas called ""the big sort"." which he made the big argument, that it is not the elites or elected officials who are polarized but it is the country itself.

and, that you have communities in which, you tend to have people living with, hanging out with, spending all their time with people who share their views, reading articles that share their views and so forth. and i think there will is a lot of that. i would like to believe it's not true but i taught at harvard for 11 years, and i'm from oklahoma. you can't find a liberal in oklahoma and you can't find a conservative at harvard. so i think there's a lot of truth to that the way we tend to congregate that way. and that means that you have communities, you know, like massachusetts, that, it would be really, really hard to see a republican, moderate or not moderate elected to a federal office. now you elect republican governors there. and they tend to be more moderate although, mitt romney was a moderate until he decided to run for

president and then he became different. but, i think probably not. i think, not in the short term. i think it would be good if you had more diverseties in the parties. but as you become more partisan and a matter of standing together as a party, the parties are taking on their own identities where you basically don't have republican and democrat, as much as you have liberal and conservative and getting harder and harder for any moderate republican to win a primary. doesn't mean that the electorate as a whole could vote that a moderate could not win in a massachusetts or new hampshire or vermont or whatever. but you got to get through the primary system first. and by the way, that is a whole different topic about partisanship because we allow these two, i don't know if you thought about it, go to the polls in november and may be a lot of people you would like to vote for but you can't because these two private clubs have

gotten together with primaries or conventions and weeded out everybody they didn't want? you know, so, i, just another part of the problem but i think that would make it really hard to have moderate republicans or really conservative democrats become real powers. >> thank you very much. >> okay. >> good morning, congressman. i'm chelsea macklin, from elan university. as we talk about the partisanship and polization polarization happens in congress and you just mentioned you don't see future moderates viable candidate in an election. do you think anything can be done or what do you think could happen to change the political scene? >> you know, i don't think moderates are necessarily going to come to the fore i think independents might. people, in many states in the united states today, there are more registered

independents, or unenrolled or states have different names for them, who are not affiliated with either party. and i think there are more people, i'm not only person who is fed up with the high level of partisanship. and, i think, you know there have already been independents elected governors in some states. some local communities are getting rid of party designations for, races for mayor and city council. so i think we may see, slowly perhaps, a rise of the independent politically. >> thank you. >> hi, my name is alisandro and from washington jefferson college. you already answered two of my questions but i was wondering since barack obama already tried to enhance the role of the congress by leting them do what they're

supposed to do, do you think that he will continue this encouragement and have them keep doing what they're supposed to do? or do you think that the criticism of what he tried to do will maybe, stop him in the future from allowing that role of congress to stay? >> well, you know, it is not up to him because he doesn't allow congress to do anything. you know, it is up to the congress to decide, mr. president, and they have done this, ronald reagan, who i was very close to, and you know, i admired him a lot, he sent a budget one year to the congress, to the house. wasn't even opened. it wasn't looked at. ended up in the trash. thank you, mr. president. we appreciate all the effort. i'm sure it was a good exercise and you learned a lot from it and now we'll decide. and, it really is, the problem is not presidents trying to assert or not assert authority. every human being, you know, tries to have more authority,

because you think you know what's the right thing to do. it is up to the congress to not surrender its authority and, i prefer not using words like authority. but, obligation. it is up to the congress to say, we took an oath of office. we have to make those decisions. so the president may try, getting a lot of criticism from the left, his own party. and he may try to be more controlling. but, i don't think he will get away with it. you know, it is interesting, i hate to be critical of my own party, although i often am. when republicans ran congress, with a republican president, republicans acted like, republican members of congress like they were presidential staff. a lot of democrats, especially older democrats don't think that. i guaranty you, charlie rangel and henry waxman and john dingell are not going

to act like they're part of the president's staff. we were here before. we'll be here after. good luck. have a good life. so, i think that obama may try to push more, you know, but i don't think congress will listen to him. >> then why do you think, lee hamilton in chapter 12 of this book, congress has been timid with its constitutional duties. why do you think congress has been, quote, unquote, as lee hamilton put it, too timid in their constitutional duties? >> i think it has been a couple of reasons. one of them, i don't know exactly which part lee was talking about but i'll get to that. one of them was the rise of partisanship. when republicans, when george bush was president and republicans were running the congress, they really saw themselves, they saw the president not as the head of a different branch of government. they saw him as their team captain.

what do you do? as, people from iowa know, you keep your quarterback from getting sacked. and, that, that was a serious mistake on their part. so sometimes, when partisanship arises, you do tend to say, well, we want to go along with the president of our party. that is a mistake. but there are other reasons. one of the worst examples of congress surrendering its authority under the constitution is the war powers act. under the constitution, the congress decides whether you go to war. and there is a reason for that. having seen kings and emperors send people off to go get killed in pursuit of whatever was the favorite cause of that president or king, our founders said, we're going to go to war, remember, washington even said, no entangling alliances. our founders said we're going going to war, only if

people themselves through their representatives, say, that we think it is worth going to war over. otherwise, that's why the people's representatives decide. the war powers act, said, we are going to allow a president of the united states to take this country to war. and then we'll look at it after the fact and decide whether or not we think it should continue. what are you going to do? you may think you should not be at war, but i was not going to vote to cut off the money, the support, the weapons, the ammunition, for our troops who are in combat. basically the war powers act surrendered that authority to the executive branch and the reason for that was not partisanship. it was what i said before, is that, you just, you're reluctant, in this age, to put your view ahead of the guy who has got all these agencies, defense department and all that. and, you know, so there's a

feeling that wow!, i don't want to be one that screws up and causes the next, bombing or the, whatever. so that's part of it. >> thank you. >> good morning, sir. my name is katie mcmullen. i'm from elan university. my question for you is, you say voting along party lines is violation of oath of office. what is being done in congress to address this issue? if it isn't being addressed what measures do you suggest, i guess congress takes to readdress their accountability to the u.s. government rather than to their party lines? >> well, there is only one ultimate power in our system. i mean the ultimate final word. and that's you. it's the people. one of the things, i was, pretty partisan myself. i was, you know, i was

national chairman of the american conservative union. i was a founder of the heritage foundation. i was, i was, a leader in the republican party. i went back to my congressional district one time, many, many years ago, and had a town meetings. i had many town meetings. gave the usual response. i don't remember what the question was or somebody wants to know why i wasn't doing something. and i gave what i believed to be the truthful answer, and that is, i'm trying. we've introduced legislation. we're doing this but the other guys control it. democrats control congress. they won't let us get this done. they're brocking it. and one of my constituents stood up and said, i don't even remember who it was, i don't know his name but he said, i am so damn sick and tired of hearing democrats did this, republicans did that. and everybody in the room, hundreds of people all burst into applause when he said that and i have never done it since.

part of it is, when you hear your representative talking in partisan terms, talking in terms of, the other party, call them on it. and you've got to say, we sent you there to be a member of congress, to take the oath of office, to obey the constitution, and, that's your obligation and we're going to be watching to see whether you do that. when you don't do that, and you follow your party, and come back -- i wrote an article in the "l.a. times" that pointed out that barbara boxer and dianne feinstein, i use them as examples because it was for "the l.a. times", each voted with their party over 95% of the time. i said, anybody who votes with their party 95% of the time ought to be, tossed out of office. and, so the american people really have to be the ones to stand up and insist, you know, that they, that any elected official does his or her duty. you know, it won't happen

otherwise. when they know you're going to kick them out of office if they don't, that will do it. >> okay. thank you. >> my name is ed from sufficient following -- suffolk university in boston. >> nobody left in boston. they're all here. >> do you feel health care bills such as one working through congress or romneycare in massachusetts mandate citizens to buy health care from a private company are constitutional? >> i got some criticism from some people who wanted national health care reform for saying this. i, i do think, i'm not a constitutional scholar but i think there is certainly a constitutional question. the mandate, somebody said to me, well, but you're required to buy car insurance. well, no you're not.

you're required to buy car insurance if you have a car and you drive. you know, that's part of it. but require, to mandate that people go out and purchase, you know, a product, i don't know whether it is constitutional or not. you know, i'm not saying it's not. i think it is certainly, the constitutionality of it will be questioned. >> thank you. >> hi, my name is chelsea from quinnipiac university. yesterday we spent a lot of time discussing midterm elections coming up this year. i was wondering if you could give your opinion what might happen and how that could change congress and its relationship with the obama presidency, specifically in regards to the news of the two senators retiring? specifically i'm from connecticut so. >> well, the, chris dodd's retirement would actually help the democrats because he probablyou