the canadian rockies and then i had a long-ago connection as well. my grandfather was wounded at cabrier serving in the winnipeg outfits called the little black devils, of course, as they were named by the enemy. .. made contact with the enemy for the first time and they

acquitted themselves of the finest tradition to the fighting canadians and then the rage. i get this to you so that you understand that i'm during the show where it did with me and it will not end with me and my deep appreciation because i am really here to pay my respects to you, your country and your forces. i will tell you that your forces for their ethical, high-spirited, combatant for and have a fondness of all of us in military. thank you are a match. the subject you are discussing today about the forces you'll need in the future is one that we've wrestled with down south philly since 1991. it took us a while to realize we had to wrestle with the problem, but it began with an thinkers trying to get the issues in front of us and i thought it would share with you a few words of caution based on the mistakes that we made. first of all, the foreseeable future is not. that is the first point i would

make. i've had a number of very brilliant people come in and tell me about the foreseeable future and then a few years later he found myself miserable on some hillside as their view of the future did not match my reality. [laughter] so i just tell you i will be a bit modest here. but let me give you a short vignette. i got the phone call from the secretary general back a few years ago. ray, when you're the senior military officer in all of nato and he had actually beaten the president to the phone call. i didn't realize i was going to the job until he called and said you're going to be the supreme allied commander for transformation. i thought i better read to me about this transformation status. so i did some studying about this interesting what they tried to put myself in the shoes of other people who knew they had to transform another back from today's and 201 years that if i was sitting in washington d.c. at that time, the force that we

need regius kaman of our revolution. they are not a man sitting around the room. augmented for ship that time would've helped it had a few good men. and they said that not one of them said, i think the royal navy is going to fail right up there with her outside her window and burden us down to the ground. [laughter] i told sir david last night on some of my frustrations with washington d.c. lately that if they decide to do it again, please let me know. i'll sign on. [applause] however, i thought those are kind of old tiny folks. let's go back 101 years ago when it's now 1911 and what would we think we need it? we had the u.s. army strung out across the western forts keep an eye on the hands. i tell people in part american indian.

other than the generally was still in the land. [laughter] if someone had said no i think we'll be fighting in europe with airplanes overhead and men wearing gas masks, charging into masks, they would've been laughed out of the room. so i thought well, we are smarter today than those people, so let's look at it today. in 2001, and the senior military assistant to the deputy secretary of defense wolfowitz and he and a secretary named rumsfeld argued in a day at priest and a young fine officer, will become one of our jedi jedi knights and officers spotted a lieutenant colonel in giving two years of training at fort leavenworth was getting frustrated trying to explain what kind of forces we need in the future to this new secretary of defense and his deputy and frustrated as he keeps getting these questions he finally puts his hand on the map june 2001 and says let me show you one part of the work we will not be fighting men. six months later i was shivering in afghanistan.

so i would just suggest that a surprise is going to be a very dominant characteristic and to quote the uk's development and doctrine center, surprise will continue to dominate our future, forecast in a future punctuate an unexpected event startling surprises in the pervasive operations of change. that makes us all a little humble us with the choice the future and a conference and meet you and i know we cannot wait on change. we can't wait for it to reveal itself or we are sure to be caught wrongfooted. a study in history has helped me when i went to the nato job to reveal some of the characteristics were going to have to deal with. we look at current operations and then we studied past history of transformation efforts that succeeded or failed in a point i learned from: great that it's very relevant today and not

point is we cannot adopt we in the western democracies cannot adopt a single singular preclusive approach toward because the enemy will generally gravitate toward perceived weak as. so if we decide to only count counterinsurgency in the future for no more counterinsurgency were only going to say conventional war, the enemy of course will go toward perceived weaknesses. it's simply the paradox of war. that said, there are signposts from recent campaign. if you look at bosnia and rwanda, they contradict the western penchant for technological solutions. if you look the russia georgia conflict, you have a poorly thought convention site with a significant unconventional aspects. and if you look at second lebanon, you find a largely unconventional site font in south lebanon with significant conventional aspects. you are seen -- and i don't like

putting words like this cytosine for no more for no more, but i hybridization of war that we are going to have to accept. these are wars and certainly with iraq and afghanistan, so present in our experience, in our database views are wars that are fought among the people, among innocent people. often found in urbanized terrain or towns in rural villages that brutalize their technological advantages in with the west choosing an increasingly legalistic structure to greater reparations, what we deem permissible in combat is more and more limited. meanwhile, our enemies open a popular coleader aperture for what constitutes a legitimate target or a legitimate tactic. i am not so sure that whether it is a home or you wait for submission as you titled this conference if it makes a lot of difference. let me explain. no matter what kind of where we

find ourselves in a few years, we are probably going to have to deploy. today we defend not just a geographic realm as lieutenant general graham land of the u.k. forces has explained to me, we also defend the realm of ideas, views of human rights and civilization that grew out of the enlightenment. and general sir david, your presence here today remind us of a shared response that we all have. it is no nation can do this on its own as we protect our shared values. and i will tell you the canadians in the audience that i have senior soldiers from phnom penh demanding operations to kandahar, that and they represent the best of our values, whether keeping the minors in the killing fields or hunting down enemies in afghanistan to protect the afghan people from what is really a medieval enemy who would deny females and other space of human rights.

a few things as you look at this, this hodgepodge of sites that we've been and that it becomes very clear to me. for nato forces and this is about the piece. for nato forces collective defense makes deployment a reality. ever going to have collect her defense, if we're going to work together, we're going to deploy. let me choose italy for example. it is far from rome to afghanistan as it is far wrong -- from rome to the bob going by sea, which is the way most military goes places. so what is the same distance they are or for canadian forces to deploy from their base in halifax to the yukon or the northwest passage or to a humanitarian crisis to the soldier getting on the airplane to the sailor getting underway. it's simply a deployment. the distance to go simply changes the number of hours during a plague, number of days here at sea. deployments are deployments and future forces must be able to

deploy on short notice and the inevitable surprises straight. they're going to have to carry a commission on arrival. it doesn't matter whether it's humanitarian or combat and they're going to be very likely under various tier conditions. such agility than minister mckay has spoke about require well-educated theaters and keep the measure of a specific situation when they get on the ground and then the thought smartly. some of the guide posts to remember i think first of all no nation can go it alone today. at the same time, i think very bluntly that the nation but the most aircraft carriers is not the nation with all the good ideas and we are going to need the ethical canadian forces of canada's particular reputation in the world if we are going to do good in this world. we are going to have to work in coalitions and we have to recognize that every nation, no matter how small has a role to play. at got a note from a home in

this morning, where the natives were commenting about tonga and how the troops are doing a fine job. you think about providing troops to the fiercest province there at this point. it's a reminder that all these nations have a responsibility to turn in this world of her slightly better to their children. fighting coalition is absolutely difficult as the prime minister put it. the only thing harder is spending without allies and that's understandable. i would just tell you that by their very major, canadian forces are probably more attuned to fight in coalitions and many other nations than they bring a certain ethical performance that helps buttress our forces. all of our forces. furthermore, while maintaining sufficient conventional forces of the nato alliance can dissuade conventional threats our forces cannot be built

solely along conventional lines using iconic weapon systems. we've learned lessons of the past decade of conflict about a number of things we anticipate meeting in future fights. her gender counterinsurgent war is no longer an interruption of proper soldiering. counterinsurgency must be a core competency of the forces we built for the future as we fight these wars among the people. special operations must integrate closely with conventional forces, precision fires will be needed, time sensitive targeting is critical if we are to take out the enemy with police costs in the standard to the innocent lives on the battlefield. cyber, both offense and defense are no longer a satiric luxuries and intel operations fusion must be achieved in real time or the enemy will steal a march on us. too many times it can tell people in one room and not steve on the other end to get back and

forth with the time sensitive information we needed. technology is certainly going to remain important. we want the best possible technology for our folks on the battlefield. but especially the technology that helps us to find the enemy in the find fix and finish continue on. if we can find this enemy, our forces have the competence and the veracity to close and destroy them. it is finding that enemy that is the challenge. also technology that enables the human interface, that creates networks among arab forces boldly critical to us whether it be air to ground ordination that you know so well or display of actionable data. so commanders and command posts are seen a flood of icons coming across and tons of e-mails. we have to a technology that does some of that sorting and display his actionable data the data is not displayed, it will not be acted upon.

contrary to the americans wrong approach to defense transformation of the 90s an investor mckay mentioned earlier about not making the same mistakes in the past i would just pass on to you that technology we learned the hard way in the 90s will not solve your problems and war. combat -- this kind of conflict will remain a social problem demanding payment solutions and boris fundamental nature will not change. i would tell you that we need few if any significant technical mistakes over the last 10 years. i can be challenged on that, but the technological mistakes were more maturing and evolving challenges that we had to get in step with. but we made hundreds, perhaps thousands of human that there's mistakes. at space operations will be the properly in the dustbin of history. if that is the american effects-based operations, i

recognize nato trying to mature it and turn it into something useful has a slightly different definition of what it means. the americans are going to have to leave it behind. as far as the way we it was a very good closed system targeting process, but then we try to extrapolate it to the overall understanding of war. it did not work even though based a lot of his success unanticipated success on technology. our future forces require military leaders, educated and trained for swift action against enemies who are not template will appear theaters are going to use discipline but very i'm regimented problem-solving. able to exercise mature initiative relies on the commander's intent, not detailed orders and multicolored powerpoint format. i have a friend who runs microsoft by the way and he doesn't like when i say that.

[laughter] the scout leaders are going to have to lead high-performing, small units and very harmonious action, often times because his favorite type they will not have 24/7 connections with their higher had orders. they are going to be networked by technology. we will deal to restore connections often on,, but the network primarily by commander's intent and their own initiative. and as we look forward towards the forces of the future, it helps to recognize three types of transformation and this is what i learned, ladies and gentlemen when i got the phone call from the secretary general and i began studying how transformation has worked or not worked for militaries in the past. first of all, the first kind is react to it. you are caught in the middle of the war. he got a change, got a change quickly and you start making those changes. you adjusted those unforeseen

challenges and it is not easy. i'll give an example. some of our civil war's greatest generals mark mask for nations into the faith of the rifled musket, you look back and say how could they not spotted. they reacted eventually, but it was too late really. it was not exactly the greatest general ship by this time. if you look at world war i and the german troops as they realize that the method of offense attack is not working late in the war, they actually adapt in the middle of the lord and they began using shock tactic, sharp artillery barrage is, infiltrating forces in this sort of thing. they have to adapt their reactively. there's a real bloody cost in our line of work for that transformation. the second form of transformation is what i like call theology. it uses unproved areas of war, often bumper sticker level to

what promises to be almost always a highly attractive and cheap way to fight warfare. you can find it in what we thought strategic bombing tier is proposed in the underwear. or more recently on hope. it's called revolution in military affairs for-based operations, shock and not. always promises something cheap, clean, very fast. when the technology does not work out that these theologies are based on conduct opponents call it bad luck or have some of the rationalization because wars realities did not permit full use of their theory, ignoring such ideas contradict the war. the third and best way to transform forces is anticipatory. what i found in every case about it in more detail later. every case of modernized and is based on one thing.

they all did one thing. they first defined the problem they had to solve. they defined it to a level of satisfaction and used that problem definition to guide everything that they did and they used experimentation, trial and error to get it right. a dvd example of the german set of world war i recognizing the problem was how do you restore maneuver on the battlefield? entering into war. come they took the shot tech hicks they started with and adapted them, send the condor legion besides the experiments at home and sent the condor to the spanish civil war and at least how across europe in 1940 having got the formation right. having enable america in that pacific. for years and 1920s the

experiment begin is going to be trouble in the pacific, for the first eight years the u.s. navy last his campaign every year. in those days we ran wargames, not as expressions of american military might, be you could actually lose the war game and they last for eight straight years and i may have figured out a needed air support and they made task assault troops and they needed logistics capability. and then they begin to win their work and send the result was very well executed pacific campaign. the same navy did not identify the problem of long-range submarine operations in the last a lot of poise as a result of that failure. so you can see what happens when you anticipate during the failure of our long-range submarine operations we have to adapt in the middle of a war. the anticipatory messages based on a clear definition of the military problem and after it

was six. einstein once said if he is 60 minutes to save the world, he would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and then save the world in one minute. i think he was a pretty bright fellow. there's very few nations in the world that can match the western democracies because of the freedom of god and the freedom we share among our people as far as adapting. but it's still a pretty bloody way to change or military. but hope and theology also do not work so well. so we left the third option, and anticipating message because it on the racetrack experimentation. and i would suggest. i'm not sure, but i think even if you don't get it exactly right, which you want to do is avoid getting it completely wrong. so if you don't get it all together right, you will be adapting on one much narrower lines rather than having to adapt to a wholly different approach to warfare that was not

rigorously figured out in advance and it's a lot easier to adapt on the margins. you can see an example with alexander the great in my studies i went back a ways and try to understand this and he gets to persepolis and what is now southwestern iran hand is one in open combat. he's on an urban warfare. he's one in siege warfare. he's one of the enemy had better technology. he gets persepolis and if i've come that he's going where? end of the world coming to the end of the earth in afghanistan may tell him what the terrain is like and i tried fairly. and it takes is perfect war fighting machine and changes it. why would a general take something that would work perfectly for a year now, has taken everybody down and we organized it. what is called the great for a reason. he anticipates he can't have all of this heavy caliber here.

he's got to mix them up in what armies would call combined arms teams. they dosimeter transit officers who know his intent in these teams have got light infantry in heavy infantry. they've got archers and they've got all sorts of different forces put together and he's anticipated and now he goes off to fight what they transformed military. and i think more recently -- excuse me, i was the recipient of marines who got it right. beckon the 1970s the record batcave c-130s. when 32nd refill helicopters. jets. they then bought in the 1970s heavy lift helicopters that can be refueled in the air. then they began training during the 1990s from long-range penetration and i am a one star in its october -- right after 9/11 and the fleet commander in

the mideast calls and and says can you get the reins from the pacific and mediterranean together quite excuse of the enemy is going to lose mazar-e-sharif and they can all couple appeared coverlets ever been held in history. the fallback under kandahar in a city that your forces and a while now. he said can you get the marine together, manned in southern afghanistan and is against kandahar? i said yes, i can do that. i can do it because in the 1950s people i'd never met figured out what this capability would give us if we could refill helicopters at long range. we had a commandant who in the 1990s that we are going to be fighting a three block war, not a nation at war anymore. the training, helicopters all came together to sit there and give a positive reply to the fleet commander when he gives me a job to do. that is anticipatory transformation that unleashes our young officers who know what they are doing against the enemy. so i would just tell you that i

was a naval task force commander in those days to fix u.s. navy ships in the ship that guarded us was the hmc is halifax. she was darker ship as we close out what we called our shotgun as he came into the pakistani coast to launch night after night more troops and supplies sent to southern afghanistan. so again, i am reminded we have to work together in this world and certainly i have had the recipient, not just of transformation, that friendships between our nations. the last point i want to emphasize in this really goes to the young men and women wearing scarlet coats over here. we are going to have to find a way, even under the strategic age of fast communication of strategic communications, we are going to have to find a way to trust our young officers, young ncos to be given commander's intent and carry it out and not

some britto command-and-control system because the two generals mother may i are back to national capitals for the most basic tactical decisions. we are not always going to have the kind of communications to prevent that sort of thing and our young officers deserve the trust and freedom to execute based on our commander's intent. but i want to leave plenty of time for questions because they got great ones from the young people wearing scarlet coats last time. so i'm looking forward again this time and see which one if you want to arm wrestle with me. [laughter] thank you very much. merci beaucoup. [applause] >> can hear a? good morning, sir. i am with the media and i work with the economist in the united states. how much you begin by saying

when doctors diagnose or are diagnosing a patient, and they keep their mouth shut until the diagnosis made because to do otherwise is unprofessional and dangers busier dealing with matters of life. similarly, citizens expect the leaders of nations are dealing with other nations, cultures and millions of people, they should do the same. they should not not give out analysis without verification. i say this because on february 1st there was a meeting in washington that the national iranian american which was attended primarily by the ex-iea chief who recently testified in conflict with a lot of propaganda about a rant there from arguing that the robert kelley and former dod official obama: coyote. but they went through with that especially about the november 2011 iea report, which contained allegations and the

fact that the allegations came from services that were not verified by iaea. by iaea. and blake said a lot of intelligence about iraq way back in 1990s did and blake said a lot of intelligence about iraq way back in 1990s did not use it in the u.n. security council because it was unsubstantiated. and also said -- the spin i.t. of a question here because i'm trying to keep up with you. >> one quick point. >> japan has a lot of pattani and stockpiles, but is not built a weapon. mccoy has been conducting nuclear explosive tax. [inaudible] >> my question is where do you stand very clearly on iran and the question of iran quake spent on the question of iran, okay. and i understand the direction you are taking there. and i think this is absolutely either to the very heart of how do we challenge our assumptions? had we challenged the intelligence and how do we come

to a point of action, responsible action and not be paralyzed by an endless discussion either. you have to be open to new data it is the bottom line. in the case of iran, and is clearly not been transparent with the united nations and i think what you really have to look tories are they willing to show a responsible fix? i have not seen that today. further, when you look at the various threats but iran has either articulated or demonstrated come articulated in december they would close the strait of foremost demonstrated by trying to murder an arab ambassador to miles from the white house and they really did die. i think it was so at first i couldn't even believe it. but i've seen the intel appeared when you see a nation behaving in this reckless way, when you see an iranian republican guard corps navy that takes officers who have behaved in reckless manderson promotes them,

eventually from the type of level organizations get the behavior they reward to the strategic policy level of rebutting the iaea again this last weekend on what would have been an opportunity to show good faith, i think you have to take that as indicative at their level of integrity and honesty and candor. it's over to the political leadership to decide what we do about it. i present options. >> thank you. the >> thank you. [applause] >> general, my name is marc fisher worked for senator wallin. several times in your speech you refer to the ethical kidding forces in human genetic several times. i wonder if you could expand a little bit on why you did that. it seemed you were trying to make a point.

thank you pierre >> i am known for being rather blunt, so there is nothing hidden to it. again, i've observed your force over many years. i'm keenly aware of what happened in somalia. it does not define your forces. your forces are defined internationally. to the mind can do to your forces and say that these are ethical troops. it is an imperfect world. we have to be prepared to use violence. i would like to talk to young folks in the scarlet coats they would never have to do this. it is not insignificant moment the first time you tried down on your fellow man. but i will also tell you that if we don't have ethical troops who can execute an action, then you lose the very moral basis for what you are doing. and i'll just give you -- make the point here that there is a

french gentleman who wandered around america some hundred 50 years ago and said america is going to be a great country if it's a good country. if it ever ceases to be good it ceases to be great. i think there's times when listening to her closest neighbor or trusted neighbor and observing some of the political, diplomatic and military directions that you are taking would benefit from it. i think are ethical example is something that actually strengthens the western democracy because you've also shown from danny ridge to kandahar that does not paralyze anyone to pay attention there. that's the only point i was making. thank you. [applause] >> my name is dave. and an intelligence review, which is associated

internationally. my question is that just cannot recently defensive seriocomic today there's actually a meeting for their excluding russia and china with the idea of proposing an ultimatum to the aside government for 72 hours chance to actually sit down otherwise calling for intervention. now, the question becomes the concerns expressed by james when he testified that there is al qaeda involvement. they don't know to what degree yet, but in the opposition in considering everyone is turning their -- turning a blind eye to the reports by the arab league observers at the opposition has been bombing civilian buses has been running operations. and this has been overlooked with the idea that every supporting the opposition in syria? are supporting overthrow the government, who is going to replace them?

an opposition infiltrated by al qaeda? so what is your stance on this idea that we could intervene to 72 hour ultimatum? what to make of all that? >> general comments is off the record or is there media present? [laughter] all right. is thank you. dave, it is a very, very complex situation and i think the longer it goes on, the more apt we are to see extremists try to take advantage of the situation they are predisposed to. the extremist can come from any of a number of directions. we know the iranians are working earnestly to cop bashir sighed and power. we know that by now. they've got people in damascus helping them. the opposition is not united. it's got many different branches and i cannot tell you with

clarity who makes at the opposition was leadership. so we sit here, especially on the heels of a regrettable veto in the united nations in the security council. we sit here with an urge to do something, but we have to follow the doctor's first rule of first do no harm. it is a very difficult situation to sort out. think again you need to really define this problem while and some of senator questions i cannot answer right now. i don't know what would take over right away. with that said, i think that the friends of syria -- that their efforts going on to try to address this without turning to the military instrument right away. and i salute those because i fear that bashir assad and his family and now the wait minority that have actually benefited live in poverty they are due,

what we have to do is recognize that there's a lot of pants that feature it and i fear there is going to be a lot more fighting going on here in this very confused state. i'll just tell you that i have been in riyadh and ankara. none of us are sitting here on our hands is the point i would make. but we don't want to do something to simply as field to the fire without a clear understanding of the outcome and i think your questions are right on target. thank you. [applause] >> yes, my name is bob marek are retired navy commander. thank you for the inspiring presentation of awards and praise you've given. we very much appreciate it. [applause] my question is more to the operation that has to do with a three block war construct, which

predecessor general krulak instigated some years ago. based on the experiences we've had in afghanistan and iraq, do you see the three war -- three block war construct still is a valid construct to train troops and? i understand that as an environment where each of the blogs i read they say, but the question is always been, our soldiers and marines the best forces retrain for all three blocks without quite so we have been working and i try to trying to make the soldier all singing and dancing, but it seems perhaps we should focus more on the third block in the first. i'd like to hear your opinion on that. thank you. >> excellent question. i noted in: gray's work that's gone into reading university. i considered him the most mere thoughtless strategist alive today in terms of taking complex issues and reducing them to at a marine can understand.

i would just say that the three block war is think is a very valid construct. but if you take: gray's view that you cannot marry one preclusive singular form of warfare, going to have to train for all three blocks and it really goes -- your question really drives the point home of what is the problem you're trying to solve? each country with its own culture, its own government, in some way of looking at the world has to decide for itself. i'm very comfortable with it because nobody has a corner on all the wisdom and the very forces one countries putting together but others don't think they need may be the ones that are most needed. right now i'm keenly interested by the way in countermeasure ships and you can understand why, not found in the united states but a lot of money into frankly. money into frankly. it is, the it is, the way i would come back just to define the problem and make sure this

construct meets what you think you need. for me tell you what i think the problem is for the u.s. military. it is how do we maintain nuclear superiority in conventional conventional superiority behind which the international community draws great benefit but may counterinsurgency a quarter competency of u.s. military. i think we can do that. we can address the problem partially to the education and training of our senior ncos and junior officers and actually create a force that can do those three things. if you don't get the question i and i must tell you, you're fortunate not having to deal with the nuclear problem to put it bluntly. but if you don't get the question i come you can start trying to answer with which of the three blocks to prepare for it before you realize just how inclusive the problems that isn't how inclusive the solution is got to be. that's the best answer i can

give you on that one. >> thank you very much. >> you're welcome. thank you for the question. >> general, first thank you for company csm for us and for your kind remarks. your advice to us delivered with your usual attack in subtlety is welcomed and we certainly need to heat it -- keep it. bother a lot of problems out there and it is necessary to prepare for a very wide spectrum, but in preparing for everything you prepare for nothing. could you give us an idea of where you would -- and thus perhaps goes to bob's question but i'll ask it my way. where you would concentrate door approach to kinnear and middle future, perhaps which you see at

centcom doing a year from now or 10 years from now, were your first concerning first entry start? >> is a very difficult question. this is what friends do for each other. we make time for each other. and as you can understand in response for pakistan are relation military to military pakistan and afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen. i can go on. you can get the idea appeared at a rather busy, but this is also worth it for me to come and see where i stand and see if i can defendant in an open setting might face. i would just tell you that i think if iowa is to define my job right now, it is how do i keep the peace or what passes for peace in the middle east for one more year, one more month, one more week, one more day, sometimes it seems like one more

hour. sir david as you know, the hsm i have the open fire last april was warning shots in order to keep some higher gc craft away. things can go around very, very quick way out here. i would have to answer your question differently about where he would focus because i can just about guarantee you like the young jedi may put his hands on a map. but here's what i i would do. i would consider with general walt has made very clear to me earlier, this canadian, very mature canadian efforts to the training and education of your ncos and officers as what you're going to have to put your money into because they can move into any situation and they can do problem setting before they do problem solving and you'll be able to adapt to the surprises that are coming. i would consider it an

investment in on the overhead costs when you put your troops through the best possible training. i is very modest expectations have been able to see where things are going. that said, i will tell you that the centcom theater, if you invite my successor back for his successor, you know, two times down the road, he will probably be commanding a more naval theater and we will probably not be putting large footprints of ground troops ashore et cetera for a short periods. and if the effort to keep the peace will also have to take into account the energy sweeping through these popular movements that are sweeping through the middle east and we're going to have that troops that can move in and a more sensitive way than some recent demonstration in afghanistan and make certain that we are in a position of reinforcing stability and not disrupting it. and so it's a more naval

theater. will be a less templated situation involving officers and ncos of the bus partly when they get there. we're not going going to give them much advance notice and i would also tell you that in coalitions who do not get all the authority and is going to come down to your persuasiveness, force of personality and a coaching way, not in a repressive way for the coalition that will come together sometimes with odd that partners. i have never brought in an all-american formation. there is only americans and you're going to have to have officers who can adapt to that sort of the situation. i'd be much more comfortable putting my money in my mouth towards that direction than trying to anticipate where you'll be needed in the future. >> thank you very much, sir. >> yeah, thanks. [applause]

>> im from carleton u. thank you so much for being here today and visiting us in canada -- [inaudible] the question is connect it to somalia. this is that the foreign minister of mogadishu. the western dignity 20 years. give them off the coast of -- [inaudible] are engaged against al-shabaab in the country. and the british foreign minister means that the west is engaged in the country once again. that's america to mogadishu and 93 and 94, what is the advance of the u.s. military in engaging somalia once again quick >> the role of the u.s.

military? anticipated quick >> yes. the u.s. military has a role in furthering the government in mogadishu that they controlled the government once again quick >> it's a great question. i mistitled very happy that the straight about them adopt, my region stops in somalia is on the other side. [laughter] but i don't want to copout of your question here. i sat to several mideast leaders who can shoot needed money, tried to find ways to give young man coming young women jobs in somalia in a fortunate little country and see if they can get them some hope for the future. i had a very experienced, very capable mideast leader of a country. we tried it, give it up, nothing peeves as good as piracy.

and these are not the pirates of the caribbean, some hollywood movie. they have brutalized innocents even have held them incommunicado, some of them in his suicide, others cited medical problems. these are innocent seamen and something has to be done about this. i think there is a military campaign of regional military is trying to restore the government's authority there. i salute with the u.k. is orchestrating to try to get it a more long-term solution. certainly the military could have a role supporting that. the lead role has got to come up with some kind of political way ahead in the military would be in a supporting role and obviously when it comes down to what you see, operational and today nato and other ships including ones from russia, china, korea, a number of nations out there working together on this problem.

so the military has a role in the police into the waters i think can assure you need to set a political condition first in the local region regional militaries are best to apply that in the near term. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. thank you. >> thank you for being with us. it's a real pleasure to see you again. question on afghanistan. you haven't talked much about afghanistan. he talked about your experience in 2001 as a young officer going into kandahar. could we go fast forward 11 years and kept from you your analysis of where we are now and where we are going to play you expect when most of our troops will be out of the country in 2014 as planned? and also, as you know, and most of our western country in nato

countries, the question surfaces more and more what is really worth their engagement in afghanistan? you know, if you look at the situation, i have been a close supporter of the mission for years, but sometimes i must admit i've cut off days. so could you reassure us that it was worth a quick >> yeah, thank you. and i am delighted to take question. i am delighted to explain our strategy. especially wars for progress and violence coexist are heartbreaking. that's all there is to it. you cannot look at the innocent people and are on troops in the price they are paying without feeling some sense of god, is this the best -- is this really necessary in 2012? we can't do better than this

quiet thing you know, in an imperfect world, with irreconcilable worldviews, i think that we have got to look at this and recognize that while war is like radar going back and forth looking for any in your armor, in your attack takes, your technique, but more important in your frames if your troops, of your country's leadership and in democracies of the people themselves, that is who we serve. i'm not in the marine corps. i'm in the united states marine corps. i owe accountability for what we are doing for the people in the united states and po just as much and accountability to you here in ottawa. the strategy itself is we are going to use in the nato forces to build around in their skin to begin like i said tonga. this is the largest wartime

coalition in anyone in this room's history. there's never been been more nations united. there scipio there tying up afghanistan. united and separate. our job is to drive the enemy down and suffocate their hopes for succeeding by violence. our job is to build up the afghan security forces so that they are able to take care of their own country and after 2014 as secretary-general rasmussen sn will continue to web jay taxpayer, air support, that sort of thing who continue some name for details to be worked out according to business guidance on what happened in chicago at the summit coming up. so i'm the one hand you have our forces providing the most human break and mentors to the afghan forces that are coming up out there. we are going to transition to the afghan security forces right now over half the country is under afghan lead at this point

today. we are going to continue to talk to those elements of the enemy that aren't as committed or are losing the hope. i remember, there may only be a little over 3000 enemies that have come over to our side. the adversaries don't come over to the losing side. the afghan enemy, the taliban know who is winning who's losing. we know that because he read their mail. but also three dozen young men coming over saying that is it. how many afghan battalions have gone over to the taliban side? zero. how many afghan companies have? zero. manipulatives have? zero. does that mean in a country that's been turned upside down by violence there's not treachery, there's not young men acting out? i mean, were afghan boys have died to the user and afghan troops his weapon on the

friendliest and nato troops. this is a culture that has been through trauma. it has got a culture embedded in it. so it is not a classical chairs with their troops that we are working very, very well together. spectacular bombing attacks and notice the enemy has said that the parliament would not be seated without violent, but the foreign ministers could not come to kabul without violence. they kept saying what they're going to do. whatever their higher yuli bonded like spring offensive. nothing happened, didn't? the reason was because the nato troop and afghan troops fighting together were able to keep them down. so we are going to continue talking to those we can draw over. that is the normal way all worth eventually and here we want to end as soon as possible. secretary clinton has been very clear as far as the american position on this. if they quit using violence, they break with al qaeda and

agree to live by the afghan constitution constitution and our welcome in the political process. i think when you look at that, you see an enemy becoming more and more fragmented both by military pressure and you've got an afghan force getting better and a nato military that is doing -- carried on a spectacular campaign and its moral balance. we are not defined and very few mistakes, but we are not defined by those. remember eating cheeses of nazareth had what i was told go to mud on him. nobody has the perfect outfit, okay made up of human beings. but i think that is the way we see this going. and the decisions of what will look like post-2014 will miss in the secretary-general's words to

give guidance, certainly the president has said we will not abandon afghanistan after this after 2014. but at that point we do expect the afghan security forces to carry out the security of the nation or they will still need international support, but they can do it. i hope that answers your questions. >> yes, sir. >> former nato assistant secretary-general now at the university of ottawa. it's about cultural sensitivity and cultural intelligence. in terms of leadership, you mentioned the need to train people to think and react to do with the real issues to set -- solve the problem. of these two of the people are dealing with operations amongst the people. you have learned a lot for your different sites about working with different kinds of cultures and different kinds of people. my question is how should we take the cultural knowledge and intelligence and instantiate that into her corner of ncos

and how should we do that so the next that we are better working at the people? >> it's a great question and thanks for your service there appeared like i said, i'm still in turkey after my years there. i admire if any of you can come through. but i'm actually a great admirer of nato and all of you who made it were. let me tell you what i think we need to do in the ground forces. we need to look at what the air force did -- air force instead probably back in the 50s and 60s increasingly into the 70s and 80s and start using simulators that minister mckay spoke about. the bottom line is in many ways we have not taken advantage of simulators. and a few are to simulate the ethical and tactical kalama's that show where you can make cultural missteps, you can make those kinds of mistakes and will construct a simulators back

here. you know, and u.s. military will not buy a new airplane without simulators. it's considered part of what they do. it is part of the program. yet in many cases, the two forces, the ones in closest contact day-to-day, face-to-face, sunglasses off, look at each in that contact with with the foreign cultures are the least simulated kinds of interactions on the battlefield. he wouldn't put the pilot in the airplane overhead without putting it through simulators. you wouldn't put the ship underway in the case of u.s. navy ships were the offshore the deck has not been on a simulator. so i think that it's a way to do it. we note the cultures are like. we can put that into simulation and these were great degree and some other virtual, some of its simulated, some of it actually lies. you could have a country with

big immigrant populations. these have a knower in the world we can go where we can find people in citizenry who could come in and help us put in the simulated examples of my best makeover at the call and cultural mistakes they are, at least most of them before they ever go into the site. and that's the way it would go after this. >> we have one more lad here. >> captain lloyd, i work at.com. the world bank estimates 97% of afghanistan's gdp comes from foreign aid and military aid as well as in countries pending on foreign troops. when you consider 2014 a reduction and asset or 100,000 from 330 to to 30 minutes mujahedeen nice and consider the western agitate constraints on the verizon, that keeps me up at night. should it? >> yes, actually.

[laughter] but if i look so young i get carded if i wanted to get a somewhere young man. [laughter] [applause] i'm happier being kept away by something that night. but let me tell you. this is also solvable. before you're born in my day, the american hippies wanted to discover themselves, so they went wandering the world, leaving debris behind them wherever they went, both physical and moral. .. years.

i think the anf the security forces will need a rather robust help for a while but as the gun gets back on its feet and part of this is built on faith, yes, i have faith we can do this if we work together. i believe we can get the economy back there. i believe he's trying to mary this current kind of inflated kind of economy they have to a sustainable future. and this is solvable. this is a human problem. it's solvable. there are past times where we can go back to and see what the

agricultural society can do in making modern industries work there. furthermore, you've got what we call the silk road initiative where in order to open from the indian ocean up into central asia and the emerging markets there, it has to go on the ring road, something that your lads know there from kandahar so i think it's doable. it's going to be a challenge and we're going to have to recognize the problem and i think you summed it up about as succinctly as i've heard about it and i expect you to have a paper to me by tomorrow night. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, if you want to check your watches, we have just gone through an hour

and 15 minutes. it's hard to believe, actually it's gone by so very quickly for the obvious reason that the general's presentation has been extraordinarily fascinating in every possible way. general, thank you so much for gracing our podium yet again and this time as commander of centcom. i wonder if you would accept this small token of our appreciation. it is the oxford compendium -- or companion, rather to canadian military history. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> super tuesdays primaries and caucuses are this week. coming up in an hour, mitt romney will be in one of the super tuesday states, ohio. he'll be joined with his wife for a rally in the cleveland area. we'll bring that to you live at 7:00 eastern time. >> louisiana governor bobby

jindal will give his proposal to balance his budget, a budget $900 million in the red. it's mostly cloudy and 37 degrees at the airport. 38 at barksdale you're listening to news radio. >> this weekend booktv and american history tv explore the history and literary culture of shareeve important, louisiana, saturday starting at noon eastern on booktv on c-span2. author jerry joiyner on the louisiana's failure from one damn blunder from the beginning to end the red river campaign from 1864. and the james nolls collection and then a walking tour of shreveport with neal johnson and on american history tv on c-span3, sunday at 5:00 pm eastern from barksdale air force

face and the history of the b-52 bomber. also visit the founding fathers autographed collection at the louisiana state exhibit museum and from the pioneer heritage center, medical treatments during the civil war. >> if you had said in 2006 that the world would be begging for the united states to use force again in the middle east within 3.5 years, everybody would have said you are crazy. >> brookings institution fellow robert kagan is not only an advisor to the romney campaign but also serves on secretary of state clinton's foreign policy advisory board. >> what i've been writing for years, actually, is that there's a lot of continuity in american foreign policy and i think what you're seeing is the kind of consensus that exists in the foreign policy community and probably there is a lot of overlap between the two parties. more with robert kagan on

foreign policy and his latest, the world america made sunday night 8:00 eastern on c-span's q & a. >> next an agenda with vice president joe biden and he discussed jobs and the economy. and he was joined by agricultural secretary tom vilsack. this portion is an hour. >> the president and i just held a conference at the white house on in-sourcing where the ceos of some of the largest companies in the world, the ceos came to sit down with us. the ceos of the dupont company, the ford motor company, siemens and master lock and they told us why they are coming home. they are not just building factories de novo here in the united states.

they are bringing home -- they're picking up factory floors in china, in vietnam, in mexico and coming home. they're coming home and they have a phrase called the total cost of ownership. they have a life expectancy of 20 to 35 years and they're figuring out over that period of time there is no other part of the world that can provide as much productivity and as much surety that their investment will, in fact, continue to repay the investment for the life of that factory. they brought along an outfit called the boston consulting group who recently released a report saying within five years and i quote, if you factor in shipping, inventory, costs and other considerations, the cost gap between sourcing in china and manufacturing in the united states is minimal. not only that, they went on to

say that if you -- if your company is partnering with iowa state, you're not worried about protecting your intellectual property. but if you're going to do business in other parts of asia, you're required to partner with a 50% local partner, sign over your trade secrets and one of the reasons they keep their r & d and their innovators from the factory floor in china is they don't want them in china or other countries for fear of the security of that intellectual property. businesses don't want to take that risk. all that's important but our single greatest advantage and the reason they're coming home and if you doubt me you can ask these ceos, they're not coming home and they're patriotic reasons. they are not coming home for patriotic reasons. they are coming home for concrete business reasons.

and every one of them said, america has the most productive, highly skilled innovative workers and engineers in the world. have you ever wondered why countries that produce more engineers and scientists than us aren't innovating leaders of the world? how long have you all heard, particularly you in politics and those of you in academia? how long have you heard for the past 15 years, how china and other countries are producing two, three, four times as many engineers as the united states of america? scientists, the list goes on. why? ask yourself why? why have they not become the most innovative countries in the world? why is there a need to steal our intellectual property? why is there a need to have us -- a business hand over its trade secrets to have access to a market of a billion 300 million people. because they're not innovating and you have to ask yourself

why. i believe it's because those -- in those countries, and even some of our european friends, their students are not either allowed or not trained to challenge orthodoxy. to challenge orthodoxy. as much difficult as we had with our primary and elementary schools and high schools which we're working like the devil in investing heavily from the day we took office, even there, students are not afraid to challenge orthodoxy. there are no sacred cows. innovation only occurs through challenge. steve jobs as we all know recently passed away said many insightful things but one of the things that stuck in my mind when i saw an interview he did on a college campus. i can't remember which college campus and he was asked by a student, what is the single most thing i should have in mind in

order to be able to live the kind of life you've lived in terms of innovation and developing things. he said two words. think different. not differently, think different, he said. it's impossible to think different in a country where you can't speak freely. it's impossible to think different when you have to worry what you put on the internet will either be confiscated or you who will be arrested. it's impossible to think different or orthodoxy reigns, that's why -- that's why we remain the most innovative country in the world in addition to all those other things that are happening. and here at iowa state and every university in america, you understand that change only comes through challenging -- challenging orthodoxy.

challenging the established norm, challenging the system that you're working on in a literal and figurative sense and that's the environment where the next generation of great ideas is going to come from. you have that kind of environment right here where students and businesses are working together to develop skills that can revolutionize entire industries. where not only businesses are teaching students how to get engaged in a business enterprise but they're looking with fresh eyes. they have nothing invested. they're unafraid to say why is that doing that? why don't you do that? it's an invaluable, invaluable commodity and businesses know it. that's why they come to other parts of your university and

universities across america and have projects. the dean was telling me, you have a system here where they'll actually help seniors do their projects and they'll come in and say, all right, solve this problem. they're not doing that just to help the seniors. they're doing that because they have a problem. and they think the senior may put fresh eyes on it and be able to help them with their problem there's a synergy in all of this that's missing in other parts of the world. i have traveled just since i've been elected vice president of the united states. i've traveled over 540,000 miles. 540,000 miles. 30 countries, meeting with world leaders from china to afghanistan, to the middle east. they all know we have something that nobody else has. pick a company you know well

here in iowa, siemens which has a major corporate investment building wind turbines and the 800 plus parts that go into those turbines. i met with the ceo with siemen s a few months ago they were about to make a million to a quarter billion dollar investment in a new plant facility. and they literally scoured the -- to built gas turbines and they scoured the world. they first thought they were going to go to shanghai 'cause of wages and infrastructure, et cetera. then they looked, i think, vancouver in canada. they looked around the world and do you know where they ended up going? they ended up going to charlotte, north carolina, instead of anywhere else in the world. and when they asked why they did that, he said it's because it's in the middle of a university complex that's world class, with

world class engineers and had the ability to team up with community colleges to train workers on the complex business of building turbines, by partnering with the community colleges. that's happening also all over america and these are good paying jobs. on that siemens factory floor the average salary is $70,000. the united states is better positioned than any other country in the world to be the world's leading economic power in the 21st century as it was in the 20th. tom is an expert in a lot of things including agriculture. i'm supposedly an expert in foreign policy. we both know an retirement is anyone out of town with a briefcase and neither of us have a briefcase today. [laughter] >> i have met every major world leader since 1972 and i

interface with them constantly on behalf of this country the last three years. they know it, too. they know it, too. i'm accused of being an optimist. if you read about me in the national press there will be a descriptive line about 40% of the time, biden the white house optimist, as if i'm the new kid on the block as my grandfather just said, as if i just fell off the turnip truck. i've been there for more than combined and i've been there for 8 presidents. i'm not an optimist. i'm a realist. remember, remember those who are old enough in the 70s how japan, incorporated, was going to eat our lunch. remember how we talked about the buying of america by japan. they were buying the rockefeller building. they were buying all of america.

they were buying large swaths of american agriculture and industry. they were going to bury us. and then i remember in the late '80s as a senator and the early '90s about the asian tigerss, hong kong, singapore, south korea, taiwan and how they were going to overwhelm our economic position. i'm not making this up. remember, remember we were told that. the same people who told us that have been telling us for 10 years about the inevitably of china. the president has put me in a big -- in charge of a big chunk of china policy. i want china to grow. i want them to grow and i want them to grow rapidly for two reasons. one, so they maintain their internal stability, which i worry a great deal about.

and, two, which i said to the chinese when i spoke at the people's great hall the people so they create markets for our products. one of the best things about the china challenge is, they have awakened the sleeping giant. they have awakened america and the american people. they will not dominate. we will dominate. we will remain the most productive, safest most secure environment in the world for people to do business. and by the way, let me just give you one example. after we were downgraded, our treasury bills -- our -- excuse me, our rating was downgraded in the summer because of the ridiculous inability -- anyway, we were both frustrated, it's fair to say. [laughter] >> i immediately was on a plane

headed to china because hu, the leader of china and president obama, we each delegated one person to sharpen the relationship. vice president chix the heir apparent to run that country and i were supposed to establish a personal relationship. i've spent 20 hours alone with him and another 70 or 80 hours -- more than that, a total of 10 days traveling side-by-side with him in china and meeting with him in the united states. but when i arrived in china for that first visit, two days after we were downgraded -- that's not true. 7 days after we downgraded. there had been an offering of treasury bills. do you know how other folks say china hold america, they own the mortgage to our house. so i had all the major economic press on the plane with me, the "wall street journal," the

london -- all the major economic press and they were waiting for me to get off. biden is going to get off and say to the people of china please buy our treasury bills. we're going to be okay. before we landed, the chinese came in and bought or more as they did before after we downgraded and, again, in the meeting with the people's hall with the president and the prime minister and the vice president, an array of chinese-american they were very nice and we know you'll come back like the benevolent father. we know you'll be okay. and it came to my turn to speak and i said, i'm confident -- we're not going to be okay we are okay and i said by the way, if i were you, i wouldn't buy any more american treasury bills. our economic staff nearly died when i said that. i said it's true. you own 1% of our financial

instruments and 7% of our treasury bills, they're secure because americans own them and the fact that we're almost three times as large as your economy should not worry you. we're looking forward to your grow growth. ladies and gentlemen, understand one thing. notwithstanding this god-awful recession we inherited. we start from a position of considerable leverage, considerable leverage. and now you're hearing from the same skeptics and cynics who are back telling us america can't compete in creating a clean alternative -- a clean alternative energy production. that it won't create good paying jobs. well, i would like them to come to iowa, where 20% were from renewable sources, tell them to

go to manhattan where sie men s are making 800 parts of a windmill making a good salary. tell them that's why iowa's unemployment is 5%, well below the national average. it's not only happening here in iowa. it's happening all across the area. industries are coming back. good-paying jobs are coming back. it's like that -- it's like that quote of the civil rights activist fannie lou hammer. she used to say, i'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. the american people are tired, tired of being told they have to lower their expectations. they're tired of being told that they can't compete. they're tired of being told that we're not going to be the leading economy of the world. they know better. these are the same folks who told the president and me that

going out and rescuing the automobile industry would be a disaster. we lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the eight months before we were sworn in, in the automobile industry. we added 178,000 since our program went into effect. and now we're once again the leading supplier of automobiles in the world with -- with the best made products in the world. folks, there's more that we can do, though, to speed this process of transition up and rebooting the middle class, some of you are baseball fans. you know the expression, pace on the ball? we can put more pace on the ball. and that's if the president and the secretary and i are doing. we can do it by providing permanent tax relief for research and development

economies, by giving tax breaks to move to america not out of america. and we can do it by investing in you, in education by ensuring that all of -- all those qualified to attend school after high school can afford to do it and not be denied it because of their inability to pay. let me say one more thing about the same forces of doom. those who say that in a free market economy there's no place for government to play a role in incentivizing, innovation or investing in infrastructure. how many times have you heard that lately? the free market does not account for that. obviously, those women and men did not do the area write did well in history classes. in the of the civil war abraham lincoln understood that there was a need to innovate america.

he created the homestead market and hand and our economy. he rewarded private railroad companies for every mile of track they built in the transcontinental railroad, he paid them $16,000 in treasury bonds. the transcontinental railroad would never have been built in the time frame it was and maybe the important thing he established land grant universities because he knew the greatest single contribution that could be made was developing the minds and intellects of our people, to enable us to compete. tom reminded me on the way out that iowa state -- this 150th anniversary is the first land grant university in the nation. and the payoff has been enormous. in the past you developed the first fax machine, the first digital computer and now you're continuing to innovative,

breakthroughs in manufacturing and partnering with industry. my alma mater was also a land grant university. they became the advanced composite research material university in the world. as i'm speaking they are developing lightweight antenna for helicopters reducing the lift drag on helicopters. for the first time taking composite materials that can handle a electrical charge. they partnered with nrg to develop a technology that would allow electric car owners to connect to the grid technology buy and sell power as they said gardening worldwide attention because it holds the promise to transform the future of electric supply and they spun off a company called ev2g thathat is now working with bmw that may be applicable worldwide to all

automobiles. creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the process. once again, making this the innovative leader in the world. through partnering with aberdeen proving grounds in the military they developed a new liquid body armor that provides better production than kevlar and a much lighter weight will save lives of police officers and soldiers all across the world. it all adds up to one simple thing, more innovation means more jobs, it means american leadership and we as a country have to continue to support and expand this model notwithstanding what our friends say about the inability of government to even set goals. that's not been the story of the history of the journey of this country. the rest of the world acknowledges what you know, we know. this is still indisputable. we have the greatest research

universities in the world. the times of higher education -- the times of london of higher education recently wrote -- they said 30 of the world's 50 top universities are located in the united states. but there's a little secret as to why we're so impressive, our universities. it's the freedom we have -- the freedom to pursue new ideas which i mentioned earlier that allows scholars and researchers to cross disciplinary boundaries. this cross-pollination which i saw some in the engineering lab dean with you that leads to new discoveries, that create entire new industries. mervin kelly chairman of the bell labs which was america's greatest ideas factory for about 65 years. he believed that freedom was critical, scientists were encouraged to interact with engineers, walk the factory floors, develop new products, take their time. what came out of bell labs?

the first transistors. they made the first cellular network. the first network that made the tv possible. this model is still working today. today there's a guy named eric lander who's one of the president's top science advisor in molecular biology who proves the wisdom of this approach. he started out as a mathematician. he became a laboratory scientist. he's just one example of the most important discoveries in genetics are coming from collaborations, biologists, mathematicians, chemists and computer scientists. i met with a guy who did the human genome system at a conference where there were seven nobel laureates in arizona seven years ago. and these guys with their doctorates in the human genome

process and had mapped the human genome. they said the only reason they were able to do it because they collaborated with computer engineers 'cause they never could have tested. they're now talking about getting to a trillion, a trillion interactions per second on computers. bell labs may not be around anymore but today, the idea factories of america universities like the university of iowa. you have close connections to the private businesses and the government labs and their frequent exchanges of researchers and students across the fields of education. i've witnessed firsthand today turner lab, the type of cross-pollination that leads to new inventions. these are the kinds of innovations that will foster whole new industries from renewable industry to better seed technology for farmers, to entire new breakthroughs in molecular biology. and that's how we're going to

great good middle class jobs. that's how america's coming back and it's thanks to all of you here, you're bringing us back and we intend to stay with this. we intend to stay with this model of investing, investing heavily in research, in development, education and the cross-pollination of disciplines combined with access for american businesses to what you're producing and the students you're producing. i got elected when i was 29 years old. i was elected to the united states senate. they called me a young idealist. i must tell you with all honesty and apparently the press has been writing this for a long time and they think it's crazy, i'd give you my word as a biden i'm more optimistic about the prospects of united states of america today than when i was a

29-year-old kid joining the senate. more optimistic. there's nothing, nothing -- nothing that can stop this country as long as we give the american people an even chance. just an even chance to get an education. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the work you're doing here. you students, when you're winning the nobel prize, remember you when i introduce to my grandkids, don't say joe you. [laughter] >> may god bless you and most of all may god protect our troops. thank you for listening. >> the bad news i get to stick around and answer some questions and the really tough ones i'll

turn to tom to answer. do we have folks -- do we have staff in the audience with microphones to hand out? yes, we do. so how about up -- up in the glare up there. anybody up top have a question? on anything. >> it doesn't to be on what we spoke to. all right, anybody have any questions? we got two over here. anybody on this side with a mic? and if not, i'll walk out and give you mine. hey, man, how are you? [inaudible] [laughter] >> thank you for coming out. i'm a research assistant and a student -- [inaudible] >> my research is funded by nasa and it's funded by the iowa

state -- [inaudible] >> the focus of my research is developing structural capacity for aerospace and military acquisitio acquisitions. so my question is, how do the obama administration propose to bring scientific and engineering space exploration, jobs and sustainable research funding back to this country? >> the way we're going to do that we take a look at our national budget there's a lot of criticism about man space flight. well, the fact of the matter is -- [inaudible] >> what we've done is we have reprogrammed the money back into some basic research and funding programs like yours. funding will not diminish. it is increasing in the areas of new research and development and

not all going into the manned program right now. and that's causing some dislocation but that's also generating an entire new ways of development and investment and opportunity. because, look, the bottom line is, unless you invest not in applying but pure research, the breakthroughs that we need to make -- to open the 21st century are not going to happen and they require funding multiple sources, multiple sources, not for companies that we're doing but the number of labs we have nationwide, the federal labs but also funding universities. and encouraging private enterprise to increase their funding. that's why we believe it's so important and i don't get why the other team doesn't get it. why we don't make permanent the tax cut for research and

development. so businesses can plan to engage in this research. let me put it this way, science back at the white house and it ain't going away. [applause] >> hold it close to your mouth. >> hello, mr. vice president. my name is katlin and i'm a senior from laverne, iowa. my question for you is, out of all the universities across the united states, why you decided to come and speak at iowa state? >> tom vilsack. [laughter] >> number 1. and also because you have one heck of a program here. you have one heck of a program where you're marry manufacturing technology, agriculture and also engaging businesses in the region to develop new

technologies. and you have a record. i was talking to the dean -- a significant number of the graduates out of the engineering department are going straight into good-paying jobs and straight into industry. that's what we're looking to develop. look, the bottom line of all of this is not just about being number 1 in the world. it's about making sure that you guys can have the same dreams, aspirations, and the prospects and possibilities that my generation had. for the first time -- for the first time in i think over 35 years, there was a poll taken about a year ago saying that most parents didn't think their kids would be able to do as well as they did. that is debilitating in a country. just the thought is debilitating. pessimism feeds on pessimism. look, the president and their not going to measure whether or

not we have succeeded economically based upon whether our gdp in the next four years is averaging 6% or whether or not the stock market goes through 15,000. they're not the indicia of success. the indicia of success for us are there enough good -- not jobs, good-paying jobs that people can live an existence where they can own their home in a decent neighborhood? where they can send their kids to a good school, where they have -- the middle class is not a number. it's not $50,000. you talk to the economists -- it's not that. it's a value system as well. and it's the single most defining feature of what makes this country great. maybe it's because we are a country of immigrants. but that's the thing.

once you pull that ladder down, once you say to a whole group of people, lower your sights, diminish your expectations, you diminish the horizons for our whole country. the bottom line is, our definitions of success is when a parent is able to turn to their kids and say, honey, it's going to be okay. i know that sounds simple but that's how my dad measured it. whatever it is, it's going to be okay. go to your old neighborhoods for people who aren't as successful as you were, ask them whether they're absolutely confident they could turn to their child and say, honey, it's going to be okay. it's coming back. but for the longest time, for the longest time it was missing. and by the way, i thought you were going to ask me why i didn't make all-american because

i didn't have someone like you helping me out. that's the reason. i could have been big, man. i'll tell you what. i was a hell of a high school athlete and not a bad college athlete -- we didn't have any trainers like you when i was around, you know what i mean? with your knowledge or i imagine -- by the way you asked that question you are able to strike the fear of god in people when you want them to do something, right? i wish you the best of luck, kiddo. [applause] >> my secret service hates me doing this but pass this back, please. >> thank you very much, i'm a junior here at iowa state university majoring in accounting. i have to raise this question for my family because you're a faith-based man. i've written it down i'm sorry. president obama was quoted let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion and draft the sensible conscious

cause to make sure all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science but also in clear ethics. mr. vice president, why did you disregard the statement in the hhs mandate forcing all faith-based agencies and employers to provide cotton sheriff's departments for the very thing that violates this conscious. i believe it violates the civil liberties. do you agree? >> no. but let me explain. when i was in the congress, i was one of the guys who co-authored the religious freedom act. i do believe and have believed and i was the one that was tasked to meet with the national conference of bishops and others and cardinal dolan to talk about this. the fact of the matter is, the ultimate resolution of this

problem is where it should have been in the first place, which was that we had not narrowed what they called the conscience clause to the phrase used to the steeple meaning that the conscience clause some wanted to apply only to an actual church and the employees of that church that, in fact, were employed in the practice of that religion within that church, not extended to, for example, catholic hospitals. the end result was finally turned out which should have been what we -- we tried to do in the first place. no catholic or religious institution running a large institution like -- that is not directly related to the functioning of the church, the steeple but like hospitals and universities -- none will have to pay a single solitary penny for reproductive services, not a single penny.

the conscience clause is being honored in its literal sense. what is happening now is that we have been able to provide what was hard to set up -- it got screwed up in the first iteration is that any hospital, no matter where it is, no matter who runs it, profit or nonprofit, religious-based or otherwise has to provide insurance to their employees like everybody else does or pay a penalty for not providing insurance for employees. that comes out of the affordable health care act. that will still pertain. what the insurance companies because, quite frankly, because it's cheaper than -- provides to their nurses, janitors,

technicians, et cetera. the insurance companies will provide for anyone who figuratively raises their hand and said i also want coverage for contraceptive care. it will be automatically provided. that has been worked out and negotiated and there's a simple reason for that. they said well, now some of you -- and i by the way i liked ronald reagan. i knew him well and he was hell of a guy. i see your sweater there. it looks better on you than it would on me, but look, the problem is the problem is it's real simple here. is that we're in a position is that no matter what -- how anyone tries to make it that the vast majority of american women are entitled to -- entitled to access to contraception, if they choose. [applause] >> and we -- and we believe they should not be denied that access and that every insurance policy

should have that coverage if a woman wants that coverage. so that's -- we've done both. we've guaranteed that women who cannot afford contraceptive coverage which is expensive on a monthly basis will now have it. and any policy provide it and that no religious institution will have to pay if it violates their conscience for that coverage. [applause] how about the young woman in the white blouse or shirt back there. >> hey, my guys, you ought to spread out here. why don't you stand up so they can see you. there you go. thanks. and if you have hard questions, ask tom, will you. >> i'm christina lord i'm actually a ph.d. student here in the materials science department here also. i had a question over this

summer. it was just something that arose to me after i had been watching the ads on television asking for donations -- to help people in somalia. and so what i was wondering was, why is it that they're still having issues? i remember seeing when i was a young kid on television -- you see people from africa, different countries in africa, you see little babies, big stomachs because they're malnourished and so forth and i wonder why is this issue still happening and america, the -- not only the government and religious institutions have been donating money. people all around america have been donating money and i started tomorrow morning about, for instance, the big issue in somalia was drought, at that time over the summer people had no access to clean water and so, for instance, they were not able to -- their crops were not able

to produce anything and not only that they themselves were dying of -- you know thirst and so forth also starvation. >> if you don't mind, what's your question. >> oh, sorry about that. so the question is -- the question i had asked was, how is it that we're spending all this money out there but we're not looking into innovation and teaching somolians and so forth how to build their own agriculture, how to use the water properly, you know, to grow their own plants and so forth. and -- >> i'll answer your question. >> do you know what i'm saying? >> okay, look, first of all, the premise is mistaken that we're not investing and that we had not had great success. we have a food security program a worldwide program this president has initiated in conjunction with a lot of ngos and the u.n.

by the way, my son is the chairman of the world food program arm that's in the united states of america, the single biggest nonpaid. it's a private practice. he has a law firm. but he does this voluntarily and travels around the world into somalia, actually into ethiopia and into kenya, et cetera. but here's the problem, there's two. tom will answer the last part. the first part of the problem is, that there is overwhelming political dislocation in those areas. you have an al-shabaab, a group of -- some characterize them as terrorists but a group of extremists who have, in fact, cut off aid that the world is prepared to deliver into somalia to save all those people. my wife recently went this summer over to one of the camps and you may have seen it on --

one of the camps on the somali border where there were women with their children walking 20, 25, 30, 35 miles with nothing. the one woman, she was sitting with and -- when she was talking to her, she said, this is my daughter. i had to choose. i could carry my daughter but i had to leave my son. i left my son to die 40 miles back. they're the kind of choices being made just like in darfur and what they were doing in darfur. and visiting those camps. so part of it is the absolute political instability that exists in certain parts of the world. unfortunately, a significant portion concentrated in africa and the pure brutality of it because what it's all about is this rains war for water in the extreme, in the extreme. now, what we have done and now

i'm going to turn it over to tom. >> mr. vice president, the obama administration decided to change the focus of food assistance to countries. in the past we basically provided humanitarian relief but that's not enough. we actually to have encourage people to be productive themselves, to solve the problems themselves. so we feed the future initiative which secretary clinton and myself and the administrator of usda are partners. and what we're doing at usda we're going to these countries and sending usda officials to visit with farmers in those countries and teaching them better technologies. iowa state has a seed center which is also helping and assisting in creating of kinds of proper techniques and technologies to be used. last year we impacted 60,000 producers in sub-sahara in central america and southeast asia. relatively number of number of people but we impacted 60,000

producers. the second problem is the necessity of having political reform and agricultural reform. creating markets and we're helping them with that and finally working to make sure that they have statistics -- that they have an understanding of where their agriculture is. the sad reality is that roughly 40% of the food that's produced in those countries that you're concerned about is lost because these folks don't have adequate storage operations. so we're working on post-harvest loss and storage. so that work is being done and we've made some progress and we're going to continue to commit ourselves to feed the future. >> and may i add to this point because we could talk about, ethiopia had the same drought without the starvation. same drought, no different impact. you know why? we under our department of agriculture and usda in the past two decades have taught them how to farm drought-resistant crops that have high protein content,

that have high caloric content so the -- you cross the border, this is the border, one side ethiopia, same exact farm drought-stricken and one on the somali side. on this side, there was a government that accepted over the years our help and technology. when tom says, technology he's not talking about, you know, geopositioning of, you know -- of, you know, sprayers for -- he's talking about very basic stuff and so it relates to the nature of the government. tom or i and my wife tried to get into somalia. you can't without risking literally being shot dead. it's not like something you can do. so the two factors we're very focused on it and we believe the president and i that food security and water access are going to be two of the most critical elements of american foreign policy and international

stability because that's the stuff over which wars are fought. that's the stuff over which societies decompose. that's the stuff over which chaos occurs from its aftermath. and so it's a big part of our initiative and if you give my staff your name or afterwards, i'll send you this whole thing on food security writ large. we'll try to answer yes or no if you can shorten the questions a little bit. [laughter] >> the gentleman there. >> hi. >> she doesn't trust you with the mic. she's instructed not. >> my name is kevin ericson. i teach special education over in nevada 15 miles from here. my question pertains to the reauthorization of esa and no child left behind. and -- 'cause originally it's seen as punitive in trying to catch us. and in the same time you're

catching us but you're also taking away our funding and our ability to try to do things new and different. how are you going to come back and help us do what we need to do in the -- >> fundamentally change the no child left behind. if you notice the president introduced a fundamental change in it. he got criticized now for fundamentally changing it. not making it, you know, tied to the test, et cetera, so you'll see a significant change. my wife is the only second lady in history to ever have a full-time job as a professor. she teaches 15 credits a semester at a community college and she has for the last, i don't know how many years. and there is a great deal of change in the no child left behind geometry, if you will, how it's going to play. and also what's happening is, that there is -- we are pushing very hard for full funding of that. we're having trouble with our friends on the other team being

willing to even consider funding it because if you notice in some of the rhetoric and i'm being -- i'm being -- buck, how shall i say this? i'm being -- it's hard for me to be objective. no, hard to be objective, okay? i got it right. i understand my language, okay? because it's hard -- it's hard for any of you to conclude that i would say something that is isn't partisan but maybe i shouldn't say it. we're having trouble getting it passed through the congress and there's big changes in it. you have a lot more flexibility in the legislation and the denial of funding will be based on criteria that's fundamentally different than teaching to the test. [inaudible] >> we need more microphones next

time. i mean, more handheld. >> good afternoon vice president biden and tom vilsack. i'm a freshman in biological system systems in biological. i'm a corn and soybean farm in southwestern minnesota so thank you for your support in american agriculture. the reason i chose iowa state and biosystems engineering because i'm truly concerned about the energy security of our country. i recently went to china and i learned about how they were actually flying jet planes with biodiesel, something that we haven't done yet. and so what do you think is the future of american biofuel? >> let me answer it quickly this way. if there is not a future for american biofuel, we are in serious, serious trouble. the single most significant building block to our economic

growth and dynamism is access to recalling in, renewable energy and cheaper energy that isn't based on fossil fuels. if you could pick any one thing, any one thing, snap your fingers, it would be tomorrow to have renewable energy, costs no more kilowatt than a cass fir--s fired coal fired plant. it's vastly oversimplified. we've been pushing major initiatives that have not gotten very far, some of them have, but not gotten very far because there is this ongoing debate as to whether or not investment in renewable energy is efficient. and here's the argument that goes and you see the ads that come up on tv. these are not political. these are ads -- ads from industry. you have a hard-working guy there, african-american, caucasian, a hispanic person, a

middle class person standing there. i can't believe what these guys are going to do. they're going to insist that we spend more money on solar energy and wind and all this other stuff and that cost 14 cents a kilowatt. right now that will raise my energy bill. and so why are we doing this? don't do this now. there's truth in the first half of that. it is more expensive. but the reason why it's so much more expensive in large part is it's nowhere near to scale. it's like the first computer you bought. it cost 10 times as much as a computer you buy now because of scale. the first iphone is a heck of a lot more expensive than the last iphone. well, that's not true. they're going to -- but that's close to true. [laughter] >> when i said iphone i should have said iphone.

but you understands what i'm saying. so we have got to get to a critical mass. we have got to get to a critical mass. and i get confused with these guys saying well, you guys are antibusiness. i say, you know, i kind of thought the proposition was you got to spend money to make money. i don't know many businesses that made money by not expanding. and so that's the problem. that's the problem. but we're not giving up. we're not giving up and by the way, there's an awful lot of republicans who agree with this and there's some democrats. by the way, this isn't just party lines. there's coal state democrats who doesn't want us to do and there are consuming state republicans who think this is a good thing to do. but we have got to break through. we have got to break through -- otherwise, look, i don't want -- and i'll end with this. i don't want to go from importing foreign oil to importing renewable energy technology. i don't want to be there.

the country that gets the greenest quickest is going to own -- is going to own the trophy. will have the best jobs the most vibrant economy, the greatest growth. that's where it's going to come. but you have to invest in the front end and by the way, you're going to invest and there's going to be mistakes. not every one of the new technologies is going to break through. that's why, for example, we think and still think but can't get it done, we think the investment that was made over at siem siemens and you manufacture -- you have a renewable facility that you're manufacturing here, you get a 30% tax credit in order to do it. come here. there's also another provision of the tax code -- i think it's 167, look, what we're going to do -- to build a factory but you invest in applying