capital in nato members days, individual members are taking these rather radical decisions in some indications, and again scb might be perfectly reasonable and rationale for each of the members to take the specific decisions like the dutch eliminating the armor, or the deans eliminating all the bandagers. there's no a wider conversation inside the alliance right now about what should we be reassembling. what do we think the future missions could look like. where do we think we should be sending or limited resources. what guidance could we offers to capitals if you have a choice between x and y. we prefer that you lean toward imrks instead of y. this is again, a something that's not occurring. i think we'll have a long-term impact on the alliance collectively. the other bad news i would say

sketching out the problem before i get to what's happening a the summit. it doesn't seem like the cuts right now vertical or however show signs of stopping. while the uk didn't have technically when it looks at the defense planning out into the next decade, it has bit of a curve where cuts will occur now but they're planning for a brighter day. one is not entirely sure whether or not that will actually occur. but one could give credit to london forked at least thinking that might be a possibility. unfortunately, most capitols at this point are on the dramatic downward spiral with no anticipation that may way level out at some point or maybe begin to upward. i think the last thing i would say in terms of the problem is

it's not bad news when it comes to defense spending and budgets. when one thing i would point is despite the fact that we've seen the quite dramatic cuts in the football cuts is putting a squeeze on members. we are not seeing nations pull out of current operations due to the financial crisis. we have not had any countries step forward and say, we're leaving afghanistan tomorrow simply because we can't afford it. there are kins that are going to be accelerating their departure possibly from afghanistan, some have already opted to leave afghanistan from a combat perspective. but the reason for that has not be laid out explicitly tied to the financial crisis. generally speaking, i think with few exceptions, we could say despite the gloomy news on defense spending and budget. we have seen an environment where operations not have impacted in a dramatic way.

in fact, nato undertook libya. and no one came to the table ensan diego we can't adpord it. what's happening is while one countries are trying to maintain the commitments in current nato operations, they have not been able to maintain their commitments to modernization. or transformation. whatever you want to call it. that's the part of the defense budget that has probably taken the greatest hit. not the actual operations per se. the question on the table is, as countries come out of afghanistan, and we work our way through the transaction. what will happen to the resources that were dedicated to the operations? one would hope they might be funneled back into develop capabilities that are lacking, or to draw lesson learned to ensure that the resources are e invested in a way that helps the alliance long-term. but in fact, i think i fear that we will continue to see modernization efforts stalled

and i don't expect we'll see a major uptick in the efforts in the year ahead. so that gets us to the -- that's kind of the quick burst on the nature of the problem how we're looking at it. and question is, what can the summit possibly do to alleviate that situation or help the capabilities challenge that the alliances is facing. and the alliance is come up with, and you mentioned, the nato forces 20/20 construct, which nears a little bit the u.s. joined forces 20/0 conduct as the u.s. was undergoing the rented defense review and onlying with a strategy. the con component is that the united states as a individual nation and nato collectively as an alliance have to do long-term thinking about where it. wants to be in ten or eight years time. and outline the type of missions

it envisions undertaking in the future and what capabilities will be required to undertake the missions. and kind of set some -- identify some kind of priority areas for the alliance knowing that most allies simply aren't going to be able to do everything every time. not every ally will be able to do everything from peace keeping to high intensity combat. we have a number of al thrice have reached that point and are starting to specialize and develop these capabilities if it's not coordinated you could end up with everybody. it's like a pot luck dinner. you don't have any main course when everybody brings desert. the summit going to try to start the alliance on the healthier course. but it's also going to start first and foremost with delivering on some commitments made in lisbon. you might remember, the alliance

watched the lisbon critical caimentn'ts commitment. where the alliance identified ten priority areas where the alliance would commitment itself to enhancing the came capabilities in the core areas. it ranged from counter to ied to missile defense, it was a long list of lang standing capabilities gaps, new capabilities gaps that were highlighted in afghanistan and capability gaps that were tied to future challenges like cyber. what we wanted to do in the upcoming summit in chicago is to move forward with that list and ensure that the commitments that were made in lisbon we're follow thing through on those. two of the key milestones will be missile defense and we can talk about in in the q and a. the alliance will be declaring it has met capability, and secondly, it will be moving forward finally as ian points

out it's a miracle that we closed the deal on ags. it's been a long, tragic deal. and a very difficult effort to get the 13 nations not agree to procur the particular capability but also to get get alliance at large to support it and maintain it at 28 not just the 13 the procuring the particular capability. that's part of the capabilities package in chicago. i know, i'm running out of time. let me go through a couple other things. we can cover it in the qa. smart defense where the alliance will be coming forward with a group of twenty pooling and sharing initiatives. smart defense is trying to do more but less inspect is concept that's been tryinged by groups allies either who have opted because they're in the same geographic area or in the same cieght of weight class from at

capabilities perspective to join hands and develop one that could be utilized by the alliance. there are positive success stories. some not have been as successful. i think the point of this summit is to try too and get more of the take root and push countries to step guard and offer to lead specific capability niches in areas that have been identified as critical such as helicopter maintenance. maritime patrol aircraft, there's a long list. munitions, a gap that was highlighted in fact in the libyan operation as well. are the u.s. is going step forward and lead the initiatives. it's going to participate in six of them, we believe. on top, one of the other smart defense initiatives that will be rolled out in chicago is air policing. there's a new commitment to extend that beyond 2018.

on top. it we expect the baltic nations to come forward. the last thing i'll mention is training. i think in the era of defense cuts and where we're seeing allies e eliminate it's absolutely critical that the alliance put heavy emphasis on training to keep skills alive say siewming there might be brighter days ahead. an example would be the u.s. and uk coming to the sign a carry arier operation agreement because the u.s. and uk are not have access. it will not have carriers a the disposal. it will continue to ensure that the military is trained and will be working with the united states this that particular area. many other examples of this exist. i think the hope is that as we identify the brigade in the united states it will rotating to europe. possibly twice annually.

we're still working on the frequency of that. that will be a way to enhance training and alliance. it will be a new contribution to the nato response force. question get into the details later. i fear i've spoken too long already. i'm going to leave it at that. and turn it over to the next person on the panel. thank you. >> thank you very much. we have a packed agenda. it's difficult in the time a lotted. you were generous. it's been described like a black hole around $35 billion worth been pushed into the future because the country can't afford to pay for it now. we're looking at the programs to try to replace it. the challenges for the future.

we're looking at possibly mark mar closet as the second speaker. >> thank you. thank you. this is really very good. first, i'd like to say that in real life, snow white would be dead without the dwarfs. and i'd also like to just say that in the real story, i don't remember grimm threatening with snow white, and that the dwarfs are supposed to be scared of what snow white said. i say it in a not so cynical way. i think we are europeans, get the message. we got. it we understand. i think we should move on from the message politically. i don't think it's helpful in

the long run. i think we're past it. i think it's important that we understand that both sides got. there is a basic issue here. and i think that is the roots of the problem. it's not just about the financial situation of europe. it's not just about the economy. it's not just about the willingness. will is a deep division between european and the united states in the perception of grilt. what the real threat is. what is the threat of the 21st century. what is it that we're building our capability for? and i seriously hope that soon are or later, look, this summit will be important, it will be an important milestone. it will not be historic in the sense that this will be something that fixes everything. it's okay. not all summits have to be like

that. i think there are summits that just have to push the ball or kick the ball further. and i think this is -- it's great. i also would like to say that smart defenses, i think it's a grat great idea. one should be careful. it's not the imaginic stick. it's a great mind set. it's the mind set that says look, we have a problem. the europeans have a serious problem in financing their militaries. we have a problem keeping to the agreed percentage of spending. but honestly, that's only, that's not the whole point. i think it's also important that we are very clear about the other circumstances, like, for

example, the little thing about the societies that go to war. or take up military actions. now, the good news is, so for a when it was really necessary the solidarity. let's face it, more countries are part of the coalition, we're part of the coalition of the willing and part of -- and countries that seriously believe that afghanistan is a major threat. we're supposed to be there. we do it. when do it because trs so important for the transatlantic. that should be forgotten, which is the good news, the message is that yes, the transatlantic relationship still matters. now, i wish snow white had note pivoted to the other kingdom.

i want to say this, it has cost a lot of confusion amorning them all. and i think we're over that. we're past that. we get it now. and it's not as bad, dc not serious as we first thought. we are europe,s should stop wining about what is, you know, the u.s.ativation. it's fine. it's probably more asia and not europe. the way to prevent it in the future, more asia and not less europe. what i'd like to also like to say is that i guess libya was good use. first, the europeans were took action. second, of course, there is a lot of discussion about to avoid the european. look at it this way, the europeans could have done it without the united states just

not as easily. not as fast. not as -- not with the losses that we suffered. it would have been much for difficult. it was good, it was great the united states stepped in. one of the shortcomings that we have in our capabilities. there was something, that was an other element. you should not, you know, you should clearly see some of the partners of nato to greater responsibility on the action. that's an interesting new development. i guess the participation of sweden, which was seamless, which was important, is a very, very important case. and i would also to like to say, there are other partners suddenly that we see who are actually able to contribute more

than than the actual members. what i'd like to hope is that at the summit, there will be some discussion about the future of the partnership which is the new element if you want a reinforced pillar called what the alliance can stand for and look like in the future. there is one question here, you know, the question to, you know, will it help both the gap should nato move toward the secure approach to the protection of every individual human being and not focus on the defense territorial borders. honestly, i think it's the wrong question to ask. i don't think nato will take on the responsibilities that are basically the responsibilities of the civilian forces. this brings me to my final point, don't underestimate the

reserve on the possibility and opportunity. we have in enhancing eu nato cooperation. eu more and more civilians management issues will be the task of the trance atlantic community. the european union has these capabilities. i hope we get some of the internal obstacles we in nato and internal obstacles within the eu to get it out the way to the eu nato cooperation can move ahead. in in conclusion, i'd like to say that i do belief that a renewed nato, a reinvented nato can still be the institution of champions for the trance atlantic relationship of the 21st century.

>> thank you very much forest fire for that. i like the snow white metaphor. >> let me lay my cards on the table and say i adopt see it as gloomy news. i've been pushing for cuts in the military cuts for decade or more. i see it as great news. i want to be clear about that. i see the problem here and folks coming from europe, asia. they come from the united states and they realize it immediately when they go to the restaurant and they see the size of the entrees that reserved here. they realize we have a problem with portion control here in the united states. and as most surprise, we have problem with obese. it's not the quantity of food that we eat, it's the quality of food that we eat. a we a lot of junk food. you're thinking maybe i've to

the wrong conference. there is a strong connection between our attitudes between food and the pentagon. it pentagon has grown an enormous eating spree and has grown anonymous. we haven't had a conversation among nato allies why we should be cutting this or that the. we haven't had a conversation about why we ever spent this money in the first place. i think, is the question -- the conversation we should be having. right now, here in the united states, we have basically three approaches to the obese problem facing nato and u.s. spending. and the three options are basically this, and they were eluded to in the last panel. i'll go over them briefly. essentially, republicans laid out various options for eating more. in other words, the house is

offered a proposal to add $4 billion on top of what the pentagon has asked for. okay. we know this proposal coming from the house republicans is not going to go anywhere in the senate but it's a good indication where the political tenor is and what that the republican party believes is a solution to the problem. they butt put forward an alternative to -- if you look at mitt romney's campaign. his basically said we should spent, this is an at the same estimate as much as $2.1 million than what the brawx laid obama care laid out. obama administration making significant cuts in the melter tear, not really?

if we look over the next ten years, yes. 500,ed $600 million spread over ten years and given inflation so on. it's not all that much in terms of cuts. what's the third option? it is the gastric bypass. the fact that pentagon can't be expected to the dream with the problem by itself. there must be much more radical surgical solutions to the problem. it's no at partisan thing. tom cobern, conservative came without a proposal over the summer to cut $1 trillion in military spending. which i thought was quite remarkable. we at the substitute of policy where i work, butt out unified security budget we come up with a dotessed list of not only the cut we think can be made without edge dangering the security. we have to repeat that.

without endangering the security of the united states. where the money could be usefully applied to promote nonmilitary approaches to resolving conflicts. in other words, various existing structures within the state department, other parts of the u.s. government. and of course, i haven't heard anybody refer to the poll done riantly done by project intrnl policy two other polling firms. it shows where u.s. public attitudes are about cutting military spending and they found that in fact, the u.s. public democrats and republicans alike are formatter radicals in terms what they sport in terms of military cuts. an average of 18% immediate annual cut in military spending? what the implications of the on nato? here in the united states?

the possibility of perhaps more significant cuts in u.s. military spending. again, z i want to emphasis. we're not seeing that immediately with the obama administration's proposing. as the e qis ration goes through and we're forced to do it we might see significant kit bhaps will be the implication. or ray, the cold war is over. finally nato would have to face they don't need the weapons systems to fight a cold war. tactical nuclear weapons? do we need those? the danish sub machine use everyoned to? the brigades we're planning on removing from europe. do we're need those? do we need the u.s. bill mare bases in europe designed for cold war. nato would be forced to face a reality that the cold war ended twenty years ago.

second, that we would see -- i would hope, there was discussion of this already at the conference emphasis on nonmilitary solutions. i was saddened way long time ago, twenty years ago when the csec. was radically de-emphasissed in favor of nato the collapse of the soviet union and collapse of comesnism. i was regreetful of an anxious that we didn't pursue. beefing up the what became the osca. the previous panel one of the presenters talking about the eu in comparison of to nato was affecterred. look at the budget. i mean, jeez, if the eu or osce available as nato it could be more effective. antipirate sei at the center.

i'd like love to see mitt romney at the capacity at bain capitol take a ax to the waste in nato. we see in the private sector. we see it in, you know, people like romney to corporations why adopt we see it at nato. i think this kind of financial environment is perfect for such an ax wielder that are of that nature to go at nato in terms of waste and redundancy. it could reduce russian anxieties if we are spending less overall that might be a good way to sit down and seau don't have to worry but obviously we are taking a very serious position on reducing

spending within nato. finally, there are two aspects that mitigate, or mill fate against this happy news from my point of view, happy news. not necessarily for everybody here. one is we have a tendency to export our problems. we export or obese problem by selling corn super all over the world. we sell our arms as well. over the last two years, the obama administration has begun to reevaluate our expert regulations to facility greater arms exports. why? the reason is obvious. if our military contractors have fewer opportunities to get pentagon contract, well, we will -- the obama administration will do whatever it to facility the arms oversea to satisfy the bottom line of the military

contractors. number two, of course, is what we've talked about burden sharing. i was surprised to see the canada was on the list of nay toy allies that was chai's tiesed for not pulling their weights. he said canada was part of the majority that was excerting an infair burden on those who spend the resources. canada is the sixth largest spender within nato. and the military budget went from $15 million to $23 billion between 2005 and 2011. here we have a country increasing the military spending and it too has come under attack. the pressure by the united states on the nato allies to increase the military spending, i think, is a counter unveiling pressure here unfortunately. now, again, i'd like to have, i'd like to promote this idea of having a conversation not just

about sharing capabilities but fundamentally about why we are maintaining the capabilities upgrading, or creating new. i think we have to have the conversation within nato. ultimate will, i'll end here. it is easier to diet here. inthe yates and the nato am lies and i won't refer to snow white. we have to work together to coordinate the reductions rather than spending so much energy to figure out why we have to keep spending at the unsustainable rate that we have been spending over the last decade. thank you very much ....

is the last speaker. the bad news is to take too much a short time allow me first of all to thank davis, paul a. embrum from basic and chris for their valuable contribution and

i thank you. now another good news is that in order to watch snow white and the seven dwarfs you need a writer. somebody has to write about the story. so the story is smart defense a story that is coming up. now, the problem is the defense not only reflect the reunited states cutting off the budget but reflects more the european union perception we need to cut back on everything and my country and myself as well we have a small problem that is the financial crisis so we have to cut on everything. the defense cutbacks 700 million just like that. now, the problem is that nato is

still will be valid for the future to come. for us, nato is the only critical security organization into your land region and nato's fundamental question in this case i speak for myself is that nato has decided what it wants to do with its future and it will go along. i wouldn't actually see that in the u.s. but i would have to dismiss in any of those opinions and say that basically what is nato cable for and of the cold war is over. okay, nato knows the cord war is over and they proceeded to the next step is that next step is called emerging challenges, security threats and so on and so forth a the 2001 terrorist act in the u.s. or nothing about the cold war. they were all about the new modern age warfare, and i think

nato was concentrating more on that. the problem is that in order to have a collective organization of 28 member states working together is the issue of the capabilities, interoperable the modeling forces but also of civilian staff works inside of nato. at the same time, this reflects also the government on the way to negotiate and portray their policy orientations. now nato itself is a supranational entity that really requires for the governments to be open-minded and know their burden sharing and also to its abilities and their human capital and finances. now greece has been able to do everything except the human capital. we've been giving a lot of money at nato and which has been offering a lot. we are leaving for 2012. nobody mentioned the mrf, but this is basically the italian if

i may use your word of the italian this is the nado battalion that should be engaged but it's nonetheless not engaged yet. so the question is for the upcoming chicago senate what do we do with the interoperability had with capacity building capabilities and so on and so forth some recall that smart defense. secretary general, but smart defense i would like to use that sharing. i totally agree with smart defense that should be negotiated and i also believe that my country shall also take the step up we need to solve the issues with this is the regional issue or not a regional issue for us the fiscal crisis is a political crisis and we move forward. we take the step and we move along and we move ahead. so i will not take too much of your time but i will divide my speech into three parts. the first is i will explain how i understand or how we understand and southeastern europe defense.

what is smart defense in southeastern europe engaging in their expertise and was to expect to the chicago summit from the leaders clacks now if i can give a title and would create a smart defense engaging the sarva alliance. now, the interconnected environment that is full of challenges and threats in terms of austerity, smart defense in a sense of and for the alliance unity has come forth. it is expected to be officially negotiated and presented in the upcoming summit this year on the heads of government. smart defense is a new security culture comprehension. and this is the same thing that i personally do as an academic or heading my own. it is a new way of thinking. it is all but generating the modern defense capabilities. it's all about new ideas. it's about the future of nato has an alliance not only in the

framework but actually the tactical and strategic and it's all about the encouragement of corporate defense and it's all about maintaining the military capabilities and also enhancing of the military capabilities with as low as possible financial costs and human capital to according to the new strategic concept nato is moving forward on the 21st century challenges require actual forces and also the plural forces and i remind you that increase has forces but we are not deplorable forces there static forces. nato needs the interoperable forces. we also need to have smart budgets directed funds for the capacity building and planning effectiveness. we also need to be operationally viable and meet the budget possible and have the technology and the human cost and time specific time frame in the operations and an out.

smart defense is about renewing the a operational effectiveness and operational alliance coordination. it's all but the specialization to read smart defense is about set priorities and to better coordinate efforts. there's a smart defense is all but geographical proximity but also the capability. the redistribution. it is a correlation of an administrative coordinating joint and not duplicating procedures such as the ballistic missile defense intelligence sharing, servile was reconnaissance, training and forced preparation as well as effective engagement. all this again with a minimum cost of casualties and a high-level technology preparedness. no wonder why we have the cyber defense issue as well. smart defense is there for the pretty. it should be and is the continued capability initiatives to read it aligns national priorities with those of nato as it actually should.

the policies with the consensus level agreement that produced the cost-effective protection. planning and application in both theater and also the real-world operations. specialization therefore is the key word. it is the essence of coordinated effort to the low-cost effectiveness and to guarantee of engagement for the future. the specialization of the cooperation or of the strategic sharing positively and directed. therefore it is a long-term viable solution to read defense ministers have paid the way. ministers agreed the chicago sun at elements are expected to be addressed. overall defense package are supposed to be negotiated. across the smart defense is therefore expected to rise of to the level to date would be a new approach. a new commitment from a set of the capabilities.

a new security cultural understanding and application that is not expected to be decided. what is a short is the engage in a smart defense will equally between approach what of the collective understanding the identity. now, let me go to southeastern europe. is it in teaching tricks petitions? it is not to read it is not well, can't do to the inability or unwillingness for the political military engagement. the good news is that the interested in learning more. unfortunately, in the time of austerity measures and political shall lunches and changes come issues such as smart defense become a secondary issue of concern. nonetheless, national and collective defense remains of the forefront of interest of states with issues that are a security as long as there are

the regional and peripheral concerns, smart defense and there for security issues will be raised and even complimented through initiatives of support. what concerns the smart defense i would say that we are interoperable, we have already made engagements, we are well prepared, we have high quality level of the that actually exists this week increase. what do we need to do now? as greeks and knees reaffirm the commitments, realigned relations and alliances, develop and resolve issues of concern with your regional or peripheral. yet we need to request more human capital employed in the positions to what level concerned, the burden but also promote new culture with internally and to the alliance and the members. if you give me a minute also to

the post chicago summit meeting is that we will -- we should need to create a smart defense specialization according to a new security for culture, the liberals looking for to the new engagement with minimum costs thank you very much. >> thank you very much. we are going to open up for discussion. we have 35 minutes. i would ask you try to keep your comments and questions brief and the panel will likewise. can we take them in batches of three, please and identify yourself and your affiliation at the front here. >> about the missile defense i was a sovereign maybe we the

people now.org and the last summary i could have wiped out over 100 basis for cities of warheads. the international treaty is an absolutely ineffective. >> the center for transatlantic relations. my question is about something that some of the panelists have touched upon but i would like to specifically ask you with regards to your expectations for the chicago sun that whether the decision of specialization and coordination would be accompanied by the debate of revision of what nato actually wants to do with a smart defense

force in terms of in the sense of going beyond the budget numbers and weapons programs but really discussing what is a vision and of what the force should be and i would say coming back to the metaphor that is used of course you want to make sure that not everyone breaks down and forgets but you also need to know what kind of party you want to throw and does nado know what party it wants to throw in ten years' time? >> my question is about the analogy and that maybe the other panelists can answer my question, the analogy i think is relevant and indicator more skeptical and i was wondering

what is the threshold that you identify under which the decrease of the expenditures can no longer maintain the credibility of nato as an alliance to fulfill its commitment for specifically the article 5. you mentioned the u.s. nuclear weapon. if we remove them of the military footprint in europe, how do you convince the partners, the alliance in the baltic which are actually by the russian achievement how do you convince them that they are credible? that is my question. >> i think we have a question on the rationale for the was a missile defense in the context of the solution. the detail of the specialization cooperation and how does that fit into the vision where nato

wants to go and the context of when is enough enough. i will last all of the panelists to answer those questions and you can answer either all three of them or pick and choose if you like. >> i will try the second one and then say a word about missile defense. as was noted earlier on the panel, i think nato ever since -- it's obvious and we have said is that numerous conferences over the years, but ever since the end of the cold war, yes, the alliance has struggled to have that single vision of what the future holds and obviously if you take a short tour through portugal and poland and norway and estonia and canada, you get different answers.

there are lots of different threats to the listed by allies when they think about what the future is for this alliance, and it ranges from everything from the more traditional article 5 to energy security to cyber arctic issues, the list goes on and on. so, what was useful in at least bringing that to give her in some sort of a comprehensive vision was what we would through of the last summit to sit down at the 60th anniversary or birthday and have a check and rewrite the strategic concept. one could argue that maybe it doesn't provide enough detail but i think it was a very helpful exercise for the alliance to go through. frankly having worked on behind the scenes it was painful and difficult simply because as i just said, you do have some competing visions, and that balance between finding the

sweet spot between article 5 and regional global security providers is challenging but i do think that the strategic concept does provide basic level of guidance in that regard and, again, there will be differences, but i think with that guidance you can determine the there's a certain level of ability that is required, and frankly the gap between article article 5 and more broadly providers outside of a euro atlantic area isn't as wide as i think some would believe. the truth is you are going to need a basic level of expeditionary capabilities to respond to an article 5 scenario whether it is something inside the zero atlantic area or a threat challenging the alliance from beyond that region. if portugal is thinking of responding to some sort of

scenario in the baltics, it needs to be expeditionary. this is not a scenario anymore where we expect the threat and the challenge to come to nato. a division of the tanks rolling over the border and coming to you is fading away. so i think while again, different countries can choose to play to their strengths and their regional expertise i think you can. it's not that challenging to begin a conversation about the level of cuba these are the types of to capabilities this is going to need come and i think taking that conversation coming back to the first question the alliance has decided collectively that it wants to pursue a missile defense system. it decided that it wanted to be nato providing that system, not simply the united states moving ahead with the epa. the nado system is anticipated to bring more to the table.

but epa to of is the question of the missile defense. but i think the vision is that over time countries will be able to add capabilities onto it. we now have a situation where these countries coming forward with contributions. the netherlands has indicated that it will be upgrading to add missile defense radar and contributing pay patriots. different countries are figuring out france working on early warnings to country to the system, but the commitment was made in lisbon. we now have reached phase one which will be the u.s. contribution to the system, and again, we will declare at this capability into uncapable at the summit in chicago. i would like to warn those that

use this analogy that it's a very dangerous and path to go down. my biggest concern is actually we'd started spending the peace dividend to fast and too early to, so i think we just have to get back to the understanding that we have to figure out how to be rational about our spending, and i wouldn't encourage the united states to spend less, and i would just say that i guess we europeans are very pleased with the u.s. spending so much because obviously we don't say it, but we count on you to be there for us when we need you coming and

that really has kind of put us in a mindset where honestly i think most europeans think we can get away with this this is not that important because in the end of the u.s. will be there for us, and the real worrying messages in the last couple of years is that the u.s. might not be there for us. so it is important and it is up to us to make sure that the u.s. understands we don't want to go away and that we will be rethinking our own spending in order to make sure you understand that we are in it together. just want to say a few words about the defense industry. i think it's important that the u.s. understands that there is this concern in europe that basically smart defense will mean more the american equipment

in europe, and it is in your interest and it is in the american interest and it's in our interest that we find a good balance between good competition, between competition that enhances this technology and making sure that there is no protection as some beyond this market but at the same time that europe itself also keeps up with the technological development and will be able to provide proper equipment, a proper european equipment. that by the way might be used in the u.s. as well so i'm not advocating a european arms for europe. what i'm advocating is that it is important that the european industry to stays a part of the alliance armament industry.

>> before i pass this on to the members of the panel it may be useful some of the numbers dandy about about the reductions i know they don't like to talk about the rule in terms of rebalancing its commitment and the looking to make a reduction of around 15% in the troop numbers in europe and the company 80,000 u.s. chips based in europe that were 400,000 during the height of the cold war so it is an indication and part of that rebalancing is additional commitment putting into europe it includes new commitments from the forces and also includes the special forces as well which have been deployed into europe. another set of figures i think there is a case to be made

looking at the level nato produces an annual set of statistics of defense expenditures throughout the alliance and if you take the peak year of defense spending which is 1995 and followed through and the constant, collectively the european nato is spending about the same as it did in 1995 the peak of the cold war and now there are only 14 european members and now there are 26 so in terms of individual state spending at house gone down significantly. the overall you're still spending the same from the peak of the cold war into a security environment which is not necessarily involving its essential threats. to me that seems quite reasonable. if you look at the u.s. defense

spending from the peak of the cold war to where it is today it's gone up about 75% which confirms what john was saying earlier but there is a context to say the capability gap is in part a kind of supply pushed on the u.s.. now whether fi will throw it back to the panel because of the questions was about how much and i just want to step up and give you a lot of context. >> may i just say something that is really important. the withdrawal of the troops from from europe would have important not only military but sociological impact i think that is something that shouldn't be underestimated, so i think that both sides have to work on how do we replace that, because don't forget the presence of the u.s. troops that participation

in the local societies and the message they convey, their closeness and you can go on and on have been a very important part of how this relationship is received. >> sorry, but i would add that two of the four brigades that are stationed in europe have not been on european soil more or less for the last decade comes of returning those brigades to the united states means that they will not return to tear up from afghanistan. i fully appreciate what you are trying to say and trust me as someone that was arguing to keep that third brigade in europe and succeeded for of least a year, i take your point. but it also needs to be known that two of the four have not been present and those interactions have not been occurring and so one could say with of the new brigade assigned

to the united states with battalions rotating to europe some of that connective tissue will occur once again that has been lacking since we went into afghanistan. >> i think that you expressed the problem. the peace dividend this appeared in the 1990's. we are all familiar with what happened and we were able to balance our budget. we were able to do a little bit with some of the money that we saved the disappear quite rapidly with the dillinger of the u.s. military budget after 2000, 2001. we did not prepare for the transportation of the manufacturing base and we saw the erosion of the manufacturing base as a result of that as the complete causal relationship there is only one of the contributing factors, but we did not prepare for when we have a

peace dividend for the transformation of our manufacturing base. in terms of the obesity analogy obviously the are the biggest elephant in the room responsible for 43% all military spending in the world according to figures released about a month ago. but we are not the only fat cat. there are some pretty touchy people out there and some europeans are kind of touchy, too. up there in the top five, the u.k., france, germany, pretty big spenders they could use a little swimming in my humble opinion. now, how much? i'm not a dietitian. i don't know exactly, but i do think that as they say with diets it's not just cutting the amount of food and you eat. it's lifestyle, changing your whole approach. if we are going to be cutting in europe we have to change the life style, the approach to the

security issues. we talked a lot human security, the topic granted, but yes, looking at a variety of different approaches to the threat that non-military based. when we outlined the various threats that face nato, we have a kind of hodgepodge of threats, cyber terrorism, piracy that add up to not a whole heck of a lot in terms of the needed to devotees to address them. brogue states seem to be a kind of return of the 1990's in terms of the search for the rationale syria, iran, countries that pose a threat moly to the region but global order and therefore nato has to kind of book up for that but i find it very problematic as it was in the 1990's a resurgent russia, that's always kind of in the background of people talking about what nato might be useful for. but i think that looking at

different capabilities in europe that can replace the military capabilities that need to be removed by the united states or reduced by european countries is unnecessary conversation to have and i look for to having that conversation. the could take place in chicago unfortunately, but maybe later in a subsequent nato summit. ..

>> the idea is resettling. computers are reset and you know what the mistakes were and you learn from the mistakes of other countries. the coalition between the leading countries that we have, we have a common history. in those areas, history plays a very important role. so no wonder we do not allow easily neighboring countries to join the association so suddenly. the issue is that we cannot, as a country, we cannot play the

role of burden sharing as other countries do. instead of -- basically, this is my point of view, but we don't have a government any more so -- instead of globally making fools of ourselves, we have been doing that quite a while, we decided that we need to specialize in something. that is before some other things came about. i remember when we talked about this, these key positions. so what countries have a lot of water and natural resources and have issues when it comes down to security -- regional security stability. we specialize in the basic concerns. that is transport of goods through the waters. that is called piracy, piracy issues in management issues.

in this case, unlikable government, we seem to have a lot of money and we are talking about billions or trillions. the problem is having [inaudible] due to taxation, one of the specialize on this we can get a view on things. maybe, just maybe, allied member countries can specialize on the things they are interested in, finding common ground where they can actually be beside each other, and the way that i interpret things and receive things when it comes down to nato, there is a bit of egoism as well. who is the best, who is the worst, who leads and who doesn't and so forth. instead of just making too much conversation, you decide that each country needs to specialize in something and you share the services. you do the human capital training, from universities to institutes and so forth and so

on -- very simple because basically, you cut back on everything and you leave only one sector, which basically makes you a very important player in the world arena. unlike my colleague here, who said they need to cut spending, the united states made a very good job into understanding what is a global threat at an early time. we as europeans, we still think about integrating ourselves again and again and again and more and more and more from coal and steel. now we have a currency. probably, the currency is falling apart. it is not only in greece. it is in italy, spain, portugal, other countries like ireland, hungary had problems. yes, that countries like germany need to -- and they do that --

they take all the burden sharing my friend says, but instead of arguing and fighting about who is the best and worst, when you specialize, you cut back on everything. and this is the most viable solution. because you also need to take care of the political situation that is right now in europe. and it is not a good one. and it is not a viable one or a credible one or trustworthy. trust me, i had personal experience with these guys inside the government. so i would say let's be more honest. let's say, yes, there are things that are messing and we need to negotiate, and we need to find a solution like they do in the vatican where they close themselves until they find a new hope. at the same time, let's be honest and let's sacrifice some issues in order to resolve some others. because the world is not safe. it is not safe where nearby syria -- and i know how unsafe things are.

if we go down the euro zone, if any country calls, there is going to be a domino effect. let's be sort of frank and honest, and let's give nato a chance. >> we can take another batch of questions. again, we are running out of time, so try to be brief. >> [inaudible question] i'd like to address the last point, because one of the main problems in that specific a specific region of the world is the lack of solidarity between two nato members that i mentioned. you go around the word -- turkey. your expenses are not -- they are vis-à-vis turkey, the historical debate, as he said. what can be done in nato to

reduce the tensions between the two. if you emphasize seapower, as you did, seapower is to guarantee the resources. if you know there is a burgeoning conflict between turkey and greece over the eastern mediterranean and cyprus and it is linked to israel and lebanon and even the palestinian question, that growing intention, i think, is very crucial. it is the achilles heel to nato. i really think it needs to be addressed. >> julie, thank you for your remarks. i was just wondering, [inaudible] with defense and other scummy talk about pooling resources and capabilities and european defenses and see what countries could do. i wonder now, with your government, if you see burgeoning trends in that regard since then?

>> thank you. a quick question. thank you for mentioning partnerships in your presentation. in particular, as it relates to defense, i was wondering whether you had any sense of the expectations tied to chicago in terms of associating partners to our discussions on smart defense >> i wonder if anyone on the panel might want to comment on the link between smart defense and nuclear issue, in particular, i think it has already been mentioned. the uk decision up to now to reduce the investments in conventional forces in favor of maintaining the tried and in

terms of smart defense with the panel, would they think it would be better to go the other way? >> we have four questions. given that smart defense is all about trusting neighbors and working with neighbors, how does that pan out. there is another question on pooling of resources based on studies. some partnerships between nuclear issues, that will be one of the key topics at two of the sessions we have tomorrow. if i could ask the panelists to be brief, but again, pick and choose what parts to answer. maybe i will start with the other and that this time. maybe you could focus on the best you know,.

>> i have heard this question so many times. i am very different. i am not going to answer like everyone else. i will reply in a different way. [inaudible] in israel, we have our own sovereign borders and we respect others. if her counterparts would like to negotiate, it's not negotiable. however, i can guarantee you that you cannot choose your neighbors. you live with your neighbors when it comes down to the spread i believe we have made a very good start with relations. turkey is very keen with france, and at the same time, turkey is suddenly becoming a power. now, we have to disengage those two countries between them.

turkey is an 80 million-dollar economy and greece has a million dollar economy, glossy falling apart, but it is restructuring itself. the only thing that binds us together is that if we fail, they will fail. other than this, if you want me to, i will tell you that we are their best ally and we have shown that. we have the operating center, the director based naval officer who is turkish. if only we could see that, i would love to see that at some point. this is my answer. >> just briefly on that issue, alliances sometimes have

perverse effects. there was an attempt a couple of years ago where turkey and greece -- the leaders sat down to talk about reductions in military spending and confidence building and etc. yet, within the context of nato as a whole, the push is to increase military spending without too much thought about how that might impact the relationship between greece and turkey. it is not just a peculiarity of the nato alliance. we have the same thing with south korea and japan. we push south korea to spend more money without thinking, necessarily, south korea and japan have a serious territorial conflict. the fact that south korea calls one of its destroyers [inaudible name], which is the island of dispute between japan and the united states, or preparing for

some kind of confidence building alternative -- some kind of military tension reducing formula between our allies. that is the kind of discussion i would like to see, not only within nato, but within the united states and how it fosters that within its allies in general. >> quickly on the european defense immigration report that we put out, i think it was before its time, it was 2003. we have seen a little bit of traction on some of the concepts presented in that report. the hearing and the capabilities -- but it is taking root now because of the financial crisis. it is obviously front and center in everyone's minds. but we have not come to a point where this is the be-all and end-all answer to our problems. there are really a lot of questions on the table.

similar questions that we heard when we wrote the report about sovereignty and handing over responsibility for your security to a neighbor or collection of neighbors. there are still questions about where to invest and who is coordinating it and as i pointed out. i think it could take root, and i think smart defense is a big opening act that will occur this weekend. but the real proof will be in whether or not this is a concept that is sustainable and pursued on the long-term. it cannot be that we don't want to have this summit open with smart defense and close with smart defense. twenty multilateral initiatives is by no means and not. i think we are putting the keys in the engine and we're going to see how things work out. but really, the success of this will rest on future commitments to us. >> i really like that, julie. i think you are certainly right. just two comments.

one is that i don't think we should conclude on a pessimistic note of what happens to the eurozone. my personal belief is that it is tough. i don't see a falling apart of it, and there's clearly an option that we will figure out. we will figure out how to get beyond the situation that we have now. i have to say that i disagree with your pessimism. but on the partnership no, i want to be very clear. i don't know what will happen, i have my very strong views on this. i do feel that finland and sweden have come very close -- the difference between the ones ability to participate and the ability of the full member state, i think that has to be appreciated. i do believe that in one way or

another nato should appreciate the facts. i think there should be a differentiation among the members come and i don't think nato should push either sweden or finland towards making it close cooperation a condition to membership. regardless of historic and internal vectors that should not prevent finland and sweden to make their full contribution to nato operations. and that is really my very strong view. what chicago will bring in this respect, i don't know. i am almost certain that the topic will come up, and i hope that this whole concept of a special relationship will be supported. >> thank you very much. and now we will attempt to sum

up the discussions we have just had, in part because julie did that herself when she said that chicago is an opening act. and also, partly because we are continuing this capabilities debate tomorrow. i think you will agree we have had a good series of smart discussions today. i would urge you all to join us tomorrow for a continuation of these discussions. i would like to urge you to join me in thanking the panelists and their contributions this afternoon. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [inaudible] >> on "washington journal" tomorrow, we will look at a lawsuit by the group common cause, challenging the

constitutionality of the senate's filibuster rules. our guest is the group's president and ceo, bob edgar. marsha blackburn of tennessee, the deputy republican will discuss bank and finance regulation. and we will be joined by alan, the author of the book buying america back. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> reading has become, over the last 200 years, the ultimate democratic act of the ultimate democratic country. it makes it possible for the many to teach themselves with a few once held close. the president can quote mark twain because he has read huck finn, and the postman can understand the reference because he has read it to you. the bigger lies of demagoguery, although still possible, require

more stealth and cleverness. with careful reading of books and newspapers and material on the internet, the flows are revealed to ordinary people like us. it wasn't for nothing that the nazi made bonfire a book. >> in 1992, anna quinlan won a pulitzer prize. in a few weeks, you can talk to the best-selling author on "book tv", sunday, june 3, on c-span 2's in-depth. get a head start by watching some of her comments over the years online at the c-span video library on her writing, elise, and convictions. archived and searchable at c-span.org/video library. on sunday, leaders will meet in chicago for the nato summit. now committee hearing about the summit's agenda and nato's future role. some highlights of the discussion include missile defense, nato partnerships, and the transition in afghanistan.

this is about two hours and 25 minutes. >> thank you very much for being here this morning. i apologize we are starting a moment later. by way of process, i have a conflict about 10:30 a.m., about 10:25 a.m., senator shaheen, who is the chairman of the european affairs subcommittee, will chair the hearing from that point forward. i appreciate everybody's understanding of that. yesterday, the committee had the opportunity to have very healthy and broad discussions with secretary general rasmussen. and he laid out for us the general expectations of the

summit, and we move forward as we continue to redefine this new role and the new parameters of nato. this is our fourth hearing on nato since 2009. and it does not an action that we are having it now, i think all the members of the committee share the belief that the alliance remains vital to the american people and american security, and as an institution, it deserves our focus and attention. needless to say, that focus has changed. europe has changed. the world has changed. later this month, when the allies made in chicago to discuss its future, the future in afghanistan and elsewhere, a lot of that redefining will be on the table. this summit is about how you

make nato stronger and how do we learn from our shared experiences. in my judgment, nato is, and i think this is a shared judgment, it is a fundamental element of our national security, and its organization demands critical analysis in order to meet the evolving threats of our national security. one thing is pretty clear about nato. it is already compounded its skeptics. from bosnia to kosovo from afghanistan to libya, the alliances have demonstrated as an ability to adapt to the post-cold war security environment. we have had our challenges in both afghanistan and libya, but we have learned from them. signing of a strategic partnership agreement by president obama last week signaled a gradual transition from a war fighting posture to a

supportive role. nato's commitment to the people of libya in the past year has shown that the alliance properly leveraged, is still a very highly responsible, legitimate tool were really matters. i don't want to spend too much time on the full agenda in which the members are engaged. including strengthening partnerships with countries, and organizations around the globe. defending against terrorism and cyberthreats, and deploying offenses against the real missile threats that the alliance faces. each will get, i'm sure, some further attention in the course of the hearing today. but let me just make a couple of broader points. first, on afghanistan, and then second on meeting our security needs in the age of austerity. recently, just literally a day

before, a day before the president arrived in afghanistan, i was there in afghanistan for discussions with ambassador crocker, the head of u.s. forces, general allen, and i met with president karzai. his cabinet members also. and also with the head of the u.n. mission in afghanistan. i also visited with civil society members with potential presidential candidates and parties. to a person, everybody emphatically stated that the completion of this agreement is something of a game changer. over the years, but i have traveled afghanistan and the region, i think about 18 times since the 9/11 events, i have had many conversations with people at all different levels there. at the high points and the low points of the conflict. i think i can confidently say that i have never sensed quite a collective sense of direction or sigh of relief as consequence of

that agreement. but i will say this definitively, and i said this to jan kubis, and the president as well, the game will remain to be nothing if we lose sight of our goals. one is the challenge of government process and delivery of services. two is the question of the continued danger of a sanctuary board being prosecuted against the forces there. i am a veteran of the sanctuary of war. i know how insidious it can be and i personally think it is unacceptable to have a zone of immunity for acts of war against

armed forces and the collective community. that means pakistan needs to become more assertive and cooperative, and we may have to resort to other kinds of self-help, depending on what they decide to do. the final point that i think everything hangs on, and again, i } this as powerfully as i could, having been involved in trying to dig our way out of the problems of 2009 in that election, we must prepare now. not later, that now. it is imperative that the afghan government, through an independent election, put out the rules of the rule untrimmed road for that election. the risks have to be prepared. the registration has to take place there has to be openness, transparency, accountability, free and fair elections are mandatory to any chance to go

forward after 2014 with any possibility of success. those three things leap out as we go forward here. and finally, the alliance can only endure if there is a shared sacrifice and a shared commitment to the common purpose. we talked yesterday with secretary rasmussen about this. the failure of some countries to muster the 2% contributions, and the expectations going forward, they really raise serious questions still as we define the road ahead. we need to work with our european friends. we all understand it is time for austerity. it is time for austerity for everybody. but we will have to set priorities and decide what is important and what is less important. while we all understand that the military budgets may not be viable with the respect of to the austerity, certain

priorities have to stand out, and i believe the mutuality of this defense is one of those. we need to make that real. we have to be clear that even before the financial crisis, nato was seriously underfunded. as we emerge from the financial crisis, we all have to commit the resources necessary for the forces security interest. finally, i will put the remainder of the commons and the record. in the end, i am delighted to have the panel that we have here today. we couldn't have a better group of experts with varying views to share our thinking about this important topic. on the first panel we have doctor philip gordon, the assistant secretary of state for european and eurasian affairs. we have doctor james townsend, deputy assistant secretary of defense for european and nato policy in the u.s. department of

defense, and on the second panel we are joined by whitney shepherdson from a senior federal and ian brzezinski, senior fellow of the atlantic council principal, the brzezinksi group and doctor hans binendijk, vice vice president for research and applied learning. we are very grateful to all of you today for taking time to be here and we look forward to your testimony. might i say that senator lugar has asked his comments to be placed in the record and they will be. senator, i recognize you. >> gentlemen, we look forward to your testimony. thank you. >> thank you, chairman kerry, for inviting us to testify on the nato summit, which the united states is proud to be hosting in chicago on may 20 and 21st. with your permission, i would like to submit my full statement for the record and summarize my

statement. >> i appreciate that. the full statement will appear in the record. >> i want to say that i appreciate the support for the summit and i recognize the significance of transatlantic security. this chicago summit will be the first on american soil in 13 years, and the first-ever outside washington. in addition to the opportunity to showcase one of our nation's great cities, our hosting of the summit in chicago is a tangible symbol of the importance of nato to the united states. it is also an opportunity to } to the american people the continued value of this alliance to security challenges that we face today. the nato's last summit in lisbon, nearly 18 months ago, as the allies unveiled a strategic concept. the allies have three objectives for the summit. afghanistan, capabilities and partnerships, and i would like to say a few words about each.

on afghanistan, the isaf coalition has made progress in ridding that country as serving as a safe haven for terrorists and ensuring that afghans are able to provide for their own security. this is necessary of conditions to does not disrupt and dismantle al qaeda. last week, as the chairman acknowledged the, united states demonstrated that security and commitment to afghanistan. president obama and president karzai and disagreement. again, i appreciated hearing chairman kerry's assessment and look forward to discussing afghanistan further. at chicago, the united states anticipates three deliverables in particular. an agreement on an interim milestone in 2013, when cheney mission will ship to combat to support for the afghan national security forces, the ansf.

secondly, the cost and sustainment of ansf beyond 2014, and finally a roadmap for the post- 2014 role in afghanistan. regarding capabilities, nato's ability to deploy it an effective fighting force makes the alliance unique. however, the capacity to deter and respond to security challenges will be as successful as its forces are effective, interoperable, and modern. in the current era of fiscal austerity, nato can keep a strong defense. the united states is modernizing its presence in europe, at the same time, our nato allies and nato as an institution are engaged in similar steps. this is a clear opportunity and might even be a necessitate for our european allies to take on an ally. we strongly encourage the allies

to contribute meet the 2% benchmark and contribute to the strength of the nato. we should focus on how these limited resources are allocated and for what priorities. nato has made progress towards pulling more resources, which is exemplified through the capabilities package that the united states anticipates that leaders will endorse in chicago. this package for chicago includes missile defense, the alliance ground surveillance program in baltic air policing. allies are furthermore expected to endorse the deterrence and defense posture review, the ddpr. ddpr will make the appropriate mix that nato needs to meet security challenges, as well as reaffirm nato's commitment to making consensus decisions on alliance posture issues. finally, the chicago summit will highlight nato's success in working with a growing number of partners around the world.

effective partnerships allow the alliance to extend its reach, act with greater legitimacy, share burdens and benefit from the capabilities of others. our allies will not take positions on further enlargement and nato in chicago, but they will, nonetheless, send a clear positive message to countries in support of their membership golds. the united states have been clear that almost assume membership obligations. that includes macedonia, montenegro, and georgia, which are all working together to meet never ship criteria. let me talk specifically about two aspects that i know are of particular interest to this committee, macedonia and georgia. my sedona has filled to criteria of nato and has contributed to regional and global security. they support us.

we also want to find a mutually acceptable solution at the nato summit in bucharest and extending membership offer to macedonia. with regard to georgia, u.s. military engagements supports the countries reform, training troops for operations, and advances nato operability. in january, president obama and president saakashvili agreed to enhance this cooperation to advance georgia's military modernization, defense reform and self-defense capabilities. the u.s. assistance programs provide additional support to ongoing economic reform efforts in georgia, a critical part of their euro atlantic aspirations where they have made important strides. the u.s. support for georgia's integrity come up within its borders, remains steadfast and are non-recognition of separatist regions of abkhazia and south ossetia will not

change. finally, let me address nato's relationship with russia. 2012 marks the 15th anniversary of the nato russia council. anniversary that we commend and commemorate. the nrc is made to address issues of disagreement. the best example is our joint efforts in afghanistan, where russia's transit support is critical to mission success. at the same time, nato continues to seek cooperation with russia on missile defense, in order to enhance our individual capabilities to counter this threat. while we strive for cooperation, we have also been frank in our discussions that we will continue to develop and deploy missile defenses the respective of the missile cooperation with russia. let me be clear. nato is not a threat to russia, nor is russia a threat to nato. most of their issues in which we differ, we disagree over libya

and the situation in georgia. since 2008, nato has strongly supported georgia's sovereignty and integrity and has continued to urge russia to meet its commitments with respect to georgia. in conclusion, and three priorities that i just outlined, demonstrate how far nato has evolved since its founding six decades ago. the reasons for its continued success are clear. the alliance has come over the last 63 years, proving to be an adaptable, durable and cost-effective provider of security. when president obama welcomes his counterparts to chicago in just over a week, the united states will be propelled to work with our allies and partners to ensure that the alliance remains vibrant and capable for many more years to come. thank you very much, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. secretary townsend. >> chairman kerry and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the nato

summit, which the united states will host in chicago in may. i will describe for the committee what we hope to achieve at the summit, from the defense point of view, and its relevance for u.s. national security. i particularly look forward to hearing the committees he was on the summit and the priorities you have for its outcome. i would like to summarize my statements, mr. chairman, and submit the full statement for the record. >> without objection. >> nato and the government come together at a summit every two years, not only to approved important pieces of alliance business, but also to renew, at the highest levels, and a commitment allies have made to one another in the north atlantic treaty. this commitment to come to one another's defense, as expressed in article five of the treaty, is a solemn one that has only been invoked once. after the united states was attacked on september 11, 2001. this commitment was critical during the cold war, to help

deter the soviet union and warsaw pact the warsaw pact from attacking the united states and our allies. even with the end of the quarter water, the article v commitment remains the core of the alliance. nato serves as the organizing framework to ensure that we have allies willing and able to fight alongside us and provide an integrated military structure that puts the military in addition, nato serves as a hub of security partners. the operation began as a coalition of the willing, involving the united states, the united kingdom, and france. however, when nato answered the

call to protect the libyan people, we were there to protect them successfully. was nato not there, or was nato to leak of an institution to take on an operation? the coalition would've had to carry on alone. keeping nato strong, both politically and militarily, is critical to ensure nato is ready when it is needed. this has been true for the past 20 years when the turbulence of the international system has demanded that nato respond nearly continuously to crises throughout the globe. today, for example, nato forces are in afghanistan, the balkans, pirates in somalia, and have just concluded operations in libya. looking out into the future, challenges to the united states and our allies can come from

ballistic missile proliferation, cyberattacks, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, as well as from just the instability that we can see happening is turmoil takes place in nations as they wrestle wrestled to set up their forms of government. we must be ready to meet emerging threats. we would prefer to meet these challenges together with allies, and not alone. so the strategic contest for the summit is what i just described. and for our work at nato everyday, this is what we have in mind. how can we keep nato and the allies ready and able to meet the challenges of today and in the future. this is especially complex today at the european economic crisis, is that compels allies to cut defense spending and force structure in order to reduce debt and decrease government spending. allies, too, have different

views and priorities regarding perceptions of the threat and the traditions of their own military forces. not every ally sees the world, and their role in it the way that we do. the one thing we all agree on is that we need the alliance to be unified and strong. allies look to the united states to lead the way in keeping nato strong, capable and credible. that is where become to the summit in chicago. at chicago, heads of state will agree that the work that we committed to at the last summit 18 months ago in lisbon, at chicago this work will focus on three areas. an agreement on a strategic plan for afghanistan, military capabilities, and nato partnerships led the united states has three summit objectives. number one is charting a clear path for the completion of transition and reaffirming nato's commitment to the

long-term security of afghanistan. the second objective is maintaining nato's core defense capability during this period and ready for future challenges. and finally, deepening commitment in alliance aberrations and activities. chairman, i would like to conclude my summary, and i welcome your questions and look forward to a good discussion. >> thanks very much. we look forward to that, i am sure. let me ask you quickly, if i can, before i turn the gavel over. secretary gordon, what is the reaction of the european -- generally to the obama administration's decision to take two of the four army brigades out of europe? >> and what is the impact, and how is that going to affect us?

>> i appreciate the opportunity to address that. i think we have been quite successful in explaining what is going on with that thinking. i was in berlin, lithuania and copenhagen. i had the opportunity to engage extensively. the thinking behind it, it is a misunderstanding to think about it in terms of withdrawal from europe. that was the initial concern that people would be imagining it somehow, we were reducing our presence in europe. the brigade combat teams that you are referring to have been fighting in south east asia for the past decade. the issue that the defense department was addressing was after this decade of heavy presence extending and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and troops in iraq and afghanistan, what was the right posture moving forward,

especially at a time of fiscal constraint. we have had the opportunity to explain this thinking to our european allies. we remain absolutely committed to europe and article v, and moving forward, even after those brigade combat teams do not return to their original homes in germany, europe will have at least as many forces as it has had for the past decade, during which we believe article v has been credible, and we have an ability to defend europe. we have also, and the pentagon is working this out as we speak, taken the decision to ensure the elements of those brigade combat teams are rotating through europe to ensure the critical partnership function to be performed while they were there. where as there may have been some initial concern that the headline of withdrawing troops in europe was on the net, we think that by actually explaining what is behind this

thinking and reiterating our commitment to europe, which by the way should not be reduced to numbers of brigade combat teams in europe. over the three years of the obama administration, we have done a number of other things to modernize and reiterate our commitment to europe, including deploying missile defense, which will mean an american presence, including troops, people, in romania and poland and we have radar in turkey. we are rotating aegis cruisers, in spain, so there is a whole web of american presence in europe. we move forward on an aviation detachment and poland. we have done some other things with special forces in the uk and elsewhere. we've also tried to remind him that america's commitment to europe and america's presence in europe should not be reduced to the number of the grade combat -- brigade combat troops. >> can you give me a quick

update on president karzai's effort? >> as you know, the lisbon timetable and commitment, we were most successful in getting everyone in lisbon for the timetable. we have been in together and out together. the alliance as a whole agree that the troops should remain, performing their mission, being successful at the end of 2014, to which they would be gone. they took the position that french troops should be out sooner than that, by the end of 2012. this is something we will look forward to discussing with the president once he is sworn in. in fact, i leave for paris to carry on this conversation, which is harder begun him as you would expect.

the french assure us that they are committed to our success in afghanistan, and i am sure we will find a way forward that ensures that common success. all i can do is speak your own view, which is this principle of in together and out together remains critical. we should also not lose sight of the fact, which is part of the president and his alliance, that every member of isaf has stuck to that. notwithstanding the economic crisis, notwithstanding the domestic political pressures, every member of our staff is on board for maintaining back commitment to the end of 2014. >> those will be interesting discussions. i was just thinking you are at in the toughest job of all, having to travel to london and brussels and paris and so forth dream act

>> i made it clear to secretary clinton that i am willing to spend as much time in paris is needed in the coming weeks. >> fair enough. a must a year ago, secretary gates many strong statement to the alliance. in which he lamented, that many of the allies are unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. where does the administration stand with respect to that statement today, and what can we hope for? >> mr. chairman, as i underscored in my statement, we continue to urge our partners in europe to uphold their responsibilities in the areas, including the common pledge of 2% spending on defense. it is a reality that long-term european defense, the trend of european defense spending, is poor. in the long run, if it helps sustain the alliance, we won't be able to do for so many years

and decades, including in libya, where notwithstanding the real constraints that we face, the european allies were able to step up. they flew more than 85% of the strike missions in libya. admit it critically important as a contribution in afghanistan. they have sustained nearly 40,000 troops as part of isaf for almost a decade. in these and other cases, we want more and need more, but we should not overlook the fact that they are making critically important contributions. we are constantly urging them to make the investment necessary so that that will be true in five years, just as it is true today. the last thing. we understand the constraints. that is why one of the deliverables of chicago that both jim and i emphasize, is the question of capability since defense. even if we sustain levels, we have to do a better and more

efficiently. we have some projects that we would be happy to talk about that will actually show the alliance moving forward and pooling and sharing and spending wisely with the limited resources that we have available. >> i appreciate it. there are obtusely follow-up -- there are obviously follow-ups to that. we will try not to burden you with too much. but there will be some things we might want to do to fill it out. i now recognize senator corker and i turn the gavel over to senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman for your presents and thank you to the panel for the testimony. this is something that has been talked about for a long time. secretary albright was in two years ago talking about the same thing. secretary gates has been in and talked about the same thing. certainly, he did so in europe. we talked yesterday with the secretary-general about the same issue and it continues to be well worth urging. i do think it is a huge problem

and the trend has continued for a long time. we understand that europe is under stress right now, but what set of ingredients do you think exists or what do you think we are doing -- we spent last year, little bit over 5% of gdp on defense, and i'm glad that we did. i know it is dropping to the high for's in this next year, and i think that we should make sure we invest appropriately in that regard. as we continue to do what we're doing, we almost become the provider of security services and more and more become this consumer of her security forces. they don't seem to be doing anything that is changing that to dynamic. i know there has been a commitment to afghanistan and on a per capita basis, more countries have done so more casually than us. we honor that. from the standpoint of year in and year out investment and

organization and defense forces, it is just not happening. we have been talking about this since i've been here, and nothing has changed. it is moving in the other direction. only three countries today, us, the uk and believe it or not, greece, of all the entire alliance, that is investing 2%. a lot of people are saying that greases investment is not being done wisely or that's what we heard yesterday. i just wonder if there is anything that you would tell us, other than urging anything that will change that dynamic and calls us to be a true alliance and not one of us again providing security services and them being the consumers. >> you know, i will start and the general might want to jump in on this. first of all, senator, we agree with that assessment. that is why i say we have been clear in making these comments to our european allies on how critical this is.

i began to call libya as an example of doing more than urging, were the case of libya facing a grave humanitarian crisis of a dictator using the violence of his own people, and the europeans coming to us and telling us how important it is was for us to act, and calling for intervention as well, we went to the europeans and said that we agree. action needs to be taken. we took the lead and we said we are prepared to do what we can do. >> let me -- i appreciate and honor that too, but you know, to build an appropriate defense mechanism is a group of countries, it takes a year in year out -- year in and year out investment. just as we see right now with sequestration here. the pentagon is already beginning to be concerned about the future because their horizon is not just in a month. it is overly long. of time. i think what we are seeing in europe is over a long.

time. a very down ward word québec street. i honor what happened in the libya, but i am not seeing anything whatsoever that is changing the trend. a 2% investment of gdp is an absolute commitment of the nato allies. it is not being honored. what i'm concerned about is the long-run trajectory and that is what we are not singing. i'm wondering again what set of ingredients is going to change that, especially with the economic times we are dealing with. >> once again, i agree with that, senator. the point i want to make about libya is a longer-term point. we will provider capabilities, but we expect you to play a major role yourself. by insisting on that, we got them to do that in that case, and we are now able to say,

there is the example. if you don't continue to invest in the advanced fighter planes and ammunition and the intelligence assets, then you won't be able to do this in the future and you can't be expecting the united states to do before you. that is something that only they can make for a decision. that is what they are hearing from us. we also believe, as are referred to our capabilities deliverables for chicago, trying to finally -- there are a lot of inefficiencies in the lines when it comes to spending. there are redundancies and people are not doing it smartly enough. the agreement among nato countries to build the allied ground surveillance system, where 13 of them will come together and purchase five jones, built by an american company, to be able to say share all of this, it is the sort of thing they need to be investing in, and let's they will have enough monday cochin money themselves.

we are trying to do that as well. >> thank you, i'm glad we are on the same page. let me ask another question. this commitment to afghanistan -- but to provide enough resources for them just to maintain the security forces that we have trained with them, i think it is about $9 billion a year. you all mike me. i'm a little dated, there is a huge gap. a billion or 1.5 billion. what is the entire security tab, and what kind of commitments, because this is something that is coming up right now, this is not a trajectory. these are commitments we need to make. what is the exact gap and when do we expect from our nato allies to have those real pledges coming forth to fill

that gap? >> i will have to get you the exact numbers on where we are right now. >> and talking in the order of magnitude. >> what we are focused on where this is concerned for chicago, obviously, this number needs to go down. none of us want to or intend to -- i think the order of magnitude is about right. that is where we have been for the past couple years. none of us want to keep spending that amount years into the future. that is why we are focused on how to leave something sustainable in our wake. once afghans are fully in charge of their security, we wanted to work, but we know we have to help them rid the plans that we are looking at today for chicago, it would involve the international community putting in around $4 billion a year to mean -- maintain the afghan security for up to a decade. the afghan people themselves have contributed 5 million

themselves and that should rise year by year. secretary gates challenged the rest of isaf to come up with a billion euros, about $1.3 billion, of that billion dollar total. we have been working hard at the highest levels of government to get the rest of the international community to deliver on that pledge. so that if we get to that point, of the $4.1 billion, the afghans are contributing half a billion, the other members would be doing at least 1.3 billion, that would bring our numbers down, obviously, considerably by a fact of five or six or more. >> and do you think you may get those commitments in chicago? or will that take a longer. >> we are looking for it a commitment from as many as possible, and we are making good progress toward that goal.

>> thank you for your work. >> senator cardin. >> i want to follow-up on a point that i talked to the secretary general rasmussen yesterday. that is the chicago summit will not be an enlargement summit. i got the secretary general's view on how we deal with the aspirant nations that we hope will be part of nato. ..

has also made substantial progress and understand they may not have reached the plateau for formal acceptance but i think the signal being sent is we are slowing down the expansion of nato for many legitimate reasons. on a parallel path the e.u. has been slow on expansion because of the economic problems up of europe so i would like to get the administration's view as to how we keep the momentum moving towards the space reform in the countries that have been actively engaged, the mentioned

plus others. >> thank you, senator. the first point is agreed that hysterically the enlargement has been good for nato in europe and the others. it's contributed its to stability and it's been direct policy and administrations of different stripes have been supportive. we completely agree. we have been saying in this phrase you heard in the summit it's not an enlargement summit but it's also not a summit that should be backing away from enlargement so there is not a country ready to be included in the alliance at the summit with a consensus some of an enlargement summit but we want to be cleared this doesn't mean we are not focused on the enlargement of the open-door policy. one of the ways we're going to signal that is secretary clinton will participate in a meeting of

nato foreign ministers with the country's specifically acknowledged them, note the door remains open and talk about the process and open a communicate to the strong support for enlargement in general and the prophecies kafta and in particular. we should have high standards that important criteria for joining the alliance, and we continue to work in different ways with the countries mentioned and i would be happy to talk in detail about where we are but the bottom line is no one should see the summit has somehow the end of enlargement or a different priority. we remain committed to the open door. estimate i accept that each of the countries are unique, and i understand other hurdles each of the countries have remaining. i really do. i think of so it's important

signal that is given. the type of reform being carried out not just in these countries but others who would like to become one day candidates or plan for entering nato are not necessarily popular locally the reforms we see in the type of controls necessary those type of issues aren't always the most popular domestically in the country's the they are able to do it because they see a path to integration, and that path looks like it is going to be a long haul in the recent european elections they don't always go for the responsible route, so i think it's very important that the message come from the united states. they will be talking to the countries. i think it's clear we have to be

very clear that we do want integration and we do see that half that will lead to that and there are reforms that need to be pursued although we are not ready at this summit we do anticipate there will be an enlargement and countries to seek membership in europe and nato. >> we agree for the reasons you state and it is our goal and a commitment to make sure the summit sends a signal, positive signal. i will be honest not every member is enthusiastic about the enlargement process and sometimes it takes persuading to make sure that signal gets sent, but certainly this administration's viewing and we appreciate the support of the committee for that goal. >> we've seen that in the prior summits in the points you raised. there are concerns about other countries in europe and their view about nato we are aware of

the different issues and that's why i think it's particularly important for u.s. leadership to be pretty focused and clear in chicago. estimates before madame chair. >> cementer risch. >> gentlemen, thank you for coming. as you probably know the committee met with the secretary general yesterday and we had a spirited discussion all longline senator cardin raised and there would like to associate myself with his remarks with ingalls as have the same concerns he doesn't want to make certain the communication is clear that wanting to join is one thing. the strong commitment to the requirement for joining is another issue that certainly needs to be underscored. let me say that you've i didn't fully the issues and i want to talk about just one of those briefly and that this the

georgia situation is a concern to a lot of us and in the remarks you talk about the stress you did about meeting their commitments as far as georgia is concerned and you touched on that kind of like the and i don't mean that derogatory it's almost as if the international community understands the commitments the russians have made regarding georgia but no one expects them to meet those commitments and as i read between the lines of what you're saying it was almost a reiteration of that and it's unfortunate but give me your thoughts on whether russia is going to meet its commitments. they made very strong commitments, not strong commitments but clear commitments what they were and were not going to do to the french and the one that i am most interested in is the

obligation to vacate the territories. it's not right. the russians said they would meet the commitment to vacate. they haven't done that and no one expects them to do that. what are your thoughts on a free card? >> thank you, senator. i won't pretend it is easy to find a way to get russia to meet those commitments. we completely agree with your assessment that russia is currently in violation of the cease-fire agreements reached in august and september of 2008. they had six points and one system for them to go back to the start of the conflict and they are apparently not back to where they were prior to the start of the conflict we believe therefore that like you russia is in violation of those commitments and we've also been clear and psychiatry clinton has referred to russia's occupation of georgia not to be provocative

but to describe what we believe is the case russian military forces in the territorial boundaries of an internationally recognized country. we have been to reactive and preventing any further recognition of south ossetia which is what russia did. i think if there are maybe three other countries that have done so and every member of the community has refused to do so and in that sense we believe we have the night russia, the legitimization they tried to have over south ossetia and of abkhazia. we've also maintained and absolutely not just rhetorically in a formal support for georgia's sovereignty of integrity but genuine support for the country of georgia. most recently manifested in this is it the president played to the escapade in the oval office where we committed to

strengthening the economic relationship which is usually important to georgia and the defense relationship and i will take the opportunity to express the relationship for the contribution made where they are one of the leading troops and contributors certainly per capita. >> i think we have all done likewise. but i have to tell you it is disheartening to sit here and which is what a thing where a commitment is made like this. nobody does anything about. it's just disheartening to see the least. mr. townsend i want to follow on the comments that senator corker meeting and if you feel comfortable answering these, fine, if not we can go back to mr. gordon that it has to do with of the sustainability of the esf forces. those of us to deal with this regularly, when you put a pencil

to visit just doesn't work, and i know secretary gordon has said and in fact he listened to the number one priority for the chicago meeting was to chart a clear path forward for security forces in afghanistan for sustainability, and i understand you want the money to you want from the europeans and others love when you look at what it costs to maintain, and filner when you compare to the gdp of the country come you have to include the drug profits they make. so what are your thoughts on that? how do you get there? how do you get confidence in being when the numbers don't work? >> thank you, senator. the work that you described as an sure is being done on the

hill is being done by the administration as well. i know might depart as well as our working those numbers at nato with the allies and the afghan government. there's a lot of pencils going about trying to determine as we chart the way forward between now and 2014 and post 2014 whether you are at nato looking with the presence could be and looking at the u.s. side on a bilateral basis, the afghan side what we have to figure first is what do we think we are going to need in terms of the ansf to do the job after 2014. what needs to be -- what needs to be the factors the we look at and i think one of the major factors driving the size of the ansf will be conditions on the ground and what they will face after 2014, what will the taliban look-alike. these are right now unknown factors. we feel like we have a pretty

good feeling of what could happen but so much depends on how much we are able to degrade the taliban site represents less of a threat to afghanistan and less of a threat to the ansf ligon pact said the size. we know as senator kerry talked about there is an important election coming up. would be the requirements in terms of security and making sure that election goes off without a security threat. so, the pencils are moving and we are still in the middle of that work. i have chicago, nato is going to produce its strategic plan for afghanistan. we will try to deal with the numbers and describe what the presence is going to look like. as you know we just signed also the u.s. strategic partnership agreement with the afghans so we are putting down on paper the structure of what we think you're going to be doing and that will impact with the ansf will look like and that will

have the cost figure, so we know we have a tall job ahead but we know too that we've got to make sure that the afghans have what they need to do the job and we are in the middle of doing that now. >> i appreciate that. i have to say i think everybody has a long way to go before the comfort level of a lot of people appear. we are very nervous about this and have a good deal could difficult time with the amount of money we are talking about under the economic circumstances in this country, the european countries and clearly the afghans. my time is up. >> thank you, cementer risch. i want to get into some of the specifics of the upcoming summit but before i do that, i want to ask about some news that broke this morning around the decision in russia that newly inaugurated president vladimir putin isn't

going to come to the summit next week. and i wonder what we think a decision is that comes as a surprise coming and more generally how is his return to the presidency going to affect the nato russian relations. >> i would be happy to address the narrow question of the g8 summit and the broader one of the u.s.-russian relations. president putin called president obama yesterday to first have an exchange on the anniversary of victory david more specifically, to number one, let him know he looked forward to continuing since he was inaugurated look forward to continuing the relationship but given his responsibilities in moscow having just been inaugurated having put a cabinet together he felt it was important to stay

there and instead would send the former president now president medvedev to the senate and instead suggested that the meat of the next june 20 meeting which is some five weeks from today and the president would look forward to seeing the primm minister at the g8 and seeing president putin at the g20. in terms of the broader relationship as you know we've been very proud of what we have been able to accomplish with russia over the past three years on the very straightforward basis we have a lot of interest and where we've had a significant differences roswell just talking about one with regard to georgia the president felt it was in our national interest to pursue the areas of cooperation where we could while agreeing to disagree and stand up for our principals elsewhere. as you know, we've done that. the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty on

transit in afghanistan, the 123 nuclear agreement, the security council resolution on the iran most recently to join the wto which included a bilateral economic treaty but georgia fall within our interest is the basis for the cooperation and russia so the question is how does that continue it president putin? we will see. we're determined to pursue the same practical policy we have all along in our own national interest. we look for areas of cooperation with russia. nobody can predict the future. what we can say, however, is that president putin, then the prime minister was around for every agreement i just described and we have managed so there is no reason to believe that even with those gentlemen in different jobs we won't be successful continuing to reach the practical areas of agreement

with their mutual. >> so we really think it's just a busy and there is no underlining ulterior motive? >> only the russian government -- we take at face value -- >> it was a rhetorical question. stepping back from the specifics of the upcoming chicago senate. i want to talk about what we see as a member the messages people should take away from chicago. last month they had the opportunity to host with the atlantic council and even around the upcoming summit secretary albright and warner were there and was well attended. there was a lot of interest and i think it comes at an important time as we look at what happened

with nato and what is happening in europe right now. there has been a suggestion we should pull back from our commitments to nato that the same is true in europe as we look at the declining defense budgets which people have raised today, and i think that would be a mistake if we look at the success of nato and u-boats talked about as eloquently in your opening remarks this is a 60-year-old alliance. it's been the most successful one in modern history. you talked about the success in libya we still represent the top defense countries in the world and after a decade of fighting in afghanistan we have the most experienced fighting force that

pfc and again in modern history. in march and has been good for europe so in view of where the alliance is now and some of the criticisms and questions raised about its ongoing potency to do with the challenges we face in the world today what is the message you all would like to see coming out of the chicago summit of nato and our role and i would like to ask both of you if you could address that. >> madame chair, i couldn't agree more with your analysis and couldn't disagree more with the notion that maybe it's time to move on and beyond the particulars of the capability of think the overall messages that it is simply to the national security interest of the united states to strengthen the partnership to the allies and

the defense spending more different points of view it is clearly in our interest to face the daunting challenges we face around the world with a standing alliance of countries who share our dahlias and interest in some ways greater than ever before given the fiscal situation we are in and just during afghanistan it's challenging enough imagine trying to do it without this alliance and the contribution of the partners and an integrated military command structure and the tradition of military to cooperate with each other and some common assets like the allied ground surveillance just doesn't make sense and again broadly speaking european partners are those we

manage global partners in the balkan and libya and afghanistan or not in the military sense but the negotiations and so many of your questions, so i think it is absolutely the case that it is in our interest to do this and again, libya is another recent example i don't take anybody would have imagined a string of the military operation and libya. if you look back a couple of years ago. but to have a command and control systems practiced and interoperable systems and a political body in brussels because you can't just with the south that the snap of a finger. you have to have the standing institutions and structures so i think that is a broad message of cooperation we would like to read >> thank you. >> would you like to add to that? >> senator, thank you very much. i agree with everything secretary gordon said in a personal reflection i worked since the early 80's in the

atlantic council, and what you've seen over time and to the groups of americans, you know, when the crisis happens going back so many years the telephone to ring in europe, not a place like washington calling our allies colin the secretary general, that is where the phone rings in the early days as we grapple with what to do, and it's something that's precious and we haven't always had a. if you look back in history what is the 1930's and how we as nations try to organize ourselves and deal with problems but we have with nato and organizing antito help us quickly come together on a political basis at 28 around the table and sort out what do we need to do we are able to do with these nations with us and give the u.n. assistance the

council takes on these issues and then when politically we all decide on a course of action you have on the military side the integrated military structure that actually helps us organize ourselves and to action pretty quickly and assistant secretary gordon mentioned libya and i use libya as well as an illustration on how we were able to come together politically, work with the united nations, work with the international community won't restore european but broadly and then take a course of action and the great test case of the theory but i would also say in closing that we have to always work at it. there will always be critics and we need the critics because we need to understand where we are feeling here and there and the lessons coming out, the defense spending, the key devotee and i've worked for years to keep moving forward and keep the alliance strong and we will

never reach 100% in terms of fixing all the problems in getting it exactly right but we have to keep trying and what i know assistant secretary gordon and i have worked on this to get her we want to hand off to our success or an alliance that is continued to move forward and continuing to look for ways to get better and a lot of with the chicago summit is in the capability package in particular are ways in which we can try to address the defense issues and address trying to spend money with a priority, some of the senators have talked about prioritizing in this era of how we spend money that is what we will be trying to do with chicago and every summit as it comes around takes another step towards addressing these issues and becoming an even stronger alliance. >> thank you very much. essentially. >> thank you madam chair and both of you for joining us, it like to start with mr. gordon.

do you anticipate over the next ten days we might see any softening of turkey's defense objection to israel's participation in the upcoming summit? >> i think there is some misconception about this issue and i appreciate the opportunity to clarify. nato haven't been inviting them to the chicago summit. israel is an important partner. certainly as important ally of the united states. it is a member of the mediterranean dialogue, one of the manifold partnership arrangements, there was never going to have a meeting with every single one of those partnerships simply as a matter of logistics in the time, so there was no -- there was no meeting of the men the iranian dialogue to israel to block and i've seen the news reports and speculations about this and that's not accurate.

what is accurate as you know very well in the relationship is from which we deeply regret it's one of the more positive aspects of the middle east the cooperation between the two and we invest in all of lot of diplomacy and overcoming that and we regret that partnership activities at nato with israel are not proceeding because the turkish objections and we have been very clear no country should bring bilateral disputes. so as a broad matter we are very focused on advancing as a specific matter for the summit it's not really an issue. >> so what you see the relationship between turkey and israel doesn't bode well for such as it is between israel and its nato. >> as i say, it is a history parker should activity but lots of countries on the

mediterranean and over all. we see it as a package coming and as i said, first we don't accept the country should bring any bilateral dispute into the alliance and we don't accept countries can pick and choose the activities of our view is if an ally operates by consensus and is going to block partnership with one country, then we are not going to accept partnerships generally, and that is where we are now because we are not allowed discrimination. >> but tricky's actions jeopardize that understanding, right, the challenging the assumption, that assertion. >> not the assertion that it's all nothing. we the united states because everything is by consensus will not allow certain countries to be. but turkey is objecting through the partnership or otherwise?

>> correct. >> what are the administration's the 350 trips beyond 2014 what can you tell about half? as i think you are right it would be around 330,000 troops. but the long term sustainable goal would be less than that, plus 230,000. estimate our principle guiding fenty about this s ansf needs to be sufficient and sustainable which is to say affordable to be discussed among the allies in

chicago and continues to be done but we don't envision that 350,000 people will be sustained necessarily over the next decade. we also acknowledge the afghans can't do this by themselves. the international community has to stand up and play a major role. it ensures it's important to remember whatever it costs the community would be less than we have been paying every year. >> she would like to withdraw all by 2012. what you think the odds are that there will actually occur.

i'm not a betting man so establishing bonds will be difficult but we have been in touch with. as we begin to take the reins of power they are not there yet obviously. since. i.t. if this afternoon -- i spoke with them a bit and listened to what he had to say. i think the face the situation and politicians face after an election that are now going to be faced with governments where a lot of work has been done by the allies.

of course we are going to be making a declaration of the summit on afghanistan. there would also be the nato strategic plan for afghanistan. the new french government doesn't take the reins of power. once inaugurated they are going to be sticking. explaining this to them as they get ready for that big step coming and speaking personally, i would expect and hope. a run with the plans for 2014 and afterwards. they will be taking on as to take the reins of power the big responsibility to join with us and go forward in an alliance

that makes sure there will be a presence after 2014, the alliance will do its bit. there are discussions that the secretary will have the will be along those lines. senator udall? >> thank you, madame chair. the united states has about 90,000 troops. i think they've done an outstanding job in terms of the mission that we have entrusted to them and i think they've largely accomplished the mission. osama bin laden is dead. the taliban is no longer in power, terrorists know longer

have a safe haven in afghanistan, and that's why i was really encouraged when secretary panetta stated we can bring home the troops as early as 2013 and this is his quote, hopefully point made to the latter part of 2013 we will be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training advice and assistance role end of quote. could you update me on his hope and where we are on that? she was moving in the interaction of sycophant heard anything else and i'm wondering maybe you can start on where we are, because i think there are asking the question why are we in the villages and basically policing of allegis when we've been there for ten years later

and the afghans to mean that, and it seems to me that secretary panetta hit it on the head when we need to move out of that combat role and to have the afghans on the front taking the lead, moving forward to bear the major part of responsibility. and i hope that that's what we are pushing for, and i also hope that the chicago sun that when folks come together that they would listen to these kind of issues and may be reconsidered the 2014 date that the half. >> thank you, at her. i appreciate that question. that is certainly what we are working towards right now is the transition. 2014 of course has been the date that came from the summit and it's an important date with the

alliance and president karzai where we will see the afghans to cantilever security taking on the front end of the combat mission from 2014 and out. but what's important now, what has been under way secretary panetta was talking about was a transition from the u.s. and other allies being in the lead for a while to combat missions since transitioning. that is under way into the date discussed we look on as a milestone date along the road to 2014. a 2014 isn't important because in terms of this transition this is were there will be the ansf will be in the security lead for most of the afghanistan by that time. already here in 2012 the afghans, the afghan forces are taking on the lead in much of afghanistan. 2013 we will see i think pretty much the completion of that.

it's got to be facts on the ground and certainly the afghan government and the commander and the allies are working on this, the right now i would -- if you talk to general allen and some of the commanders, we have been impressed with the work that they are certainly a to the task of taking the lead in terms of combat and now we are going to see this transition that you've mentioned secretary leon panetta mentioned in terms of allied forces, transitioning from combat to this advice and assist, and letting the house can take the lead in terms of, and that's what we are seeing in a great extent 2013 as quinby landmark year for that and we've seen the past couple of months security incidents that have happened such as in kabul the ansf have done the right thing. the stepped up and we've been and preston their performance. a lot of what i hear from you in your aspirations and what you want to see in the transition is

occurring in a while as we go from 2013 to 2014 will be primarily in the assist in and ready to take on combat should that happen but what we are seeing is that the ansf is going to be up to the task and we will be largely during the assisting in the training of 2014. >> this seems to me that before you have a firm date getting out of afghanistan in terms of combat troops not the counterterrorism role and the assist and other things we clearly need to continue the uni to test of whether they are up to it and the need to be in the front given the job and just being in the assistant role to test the key the levees, and i think that is what the secretary was hitting on in terms of that

we've been there so long we need to try to do everything we can to get them out and to do the major responsibility for security and we are only in an advise and assist role and i hope we are not heading for a situation we are going to keep pushing the date emmeline. we need them to take responsibility. if they can't do that, we need a test from assessment of what's going on and a reassessment of what's coming on. i don't know whether you were going to comment or not. you made some notes pesetas per nearly a question for mr. thompson. >> i hear when you're saying and that is precisely the point of the milestone after which the rule would be primarily training, advising and assisting that we have to be clear and

honest we can't promise from some date in 2013 there will be no combat in afghanistan. obviously that would be ideal but we need to make sure that we succeed asphalt so from the milestone, trainer of eis and assisted by the end of 2014 combat troops are out in the afghans are in charge and the purpose in the discussions in chicago is to get everybody in the same page for the milestone transition at the end of 2014 and how we make sure we succeed after 2014. islamic my guess is in chicago there is going to be the push to try to do what secretary panetta was talking about. i think many of our partners in france you're going to go talk to them but i think they just see this that we've waited too long in terms of having enough can lead. i heard from the europeans

talking about this for eight years. they taught that this should be afghan let, security should be have can lead and they're getting very impatient. i know you all can't make a commitment publicly and say this is what we are going to discuss the meeting in chicago because that would be the headline but i hope that there is very serious discussion about this transition and how quickly we can do it and held we need sure this is an afghan led a security operation. sorry to run over, madame chair. >> thank you very much, senator udall. in the interest of time because we have another panel, i think we should go ahead and move on unless senator udall were senator lee is leaving so unless

you have further questions i am going to move on to the second panel. >> i'm ready for the second panel. >> i have a lot more questions but i will reserve those. thank you very much. have a good trip to paris and why we are transitioning the panel i will take a moment to introduce the next panel. senator kerry -- but let me point out that each of the next three experts has extensive experience working throughout government in the private sector on europe and nato and we're pleased to have them join us today. first is the whitney sheppard sent council on foreign relations and a professor of international affairs in the law school of foreign service and the government at georgetown university. second is even brzezinski a senior fellow in the

international security program at the cleantech council and a member of the council strategic of pfizer's karpinski also leads the brzezinski group the current vice president for research of the national defense university and 50 or roosevelt chair and the national security policy at the university. thank you all very much for being here. let me point out to have a statement that i'm going to submit for the record and asked doctor if you would like to begin. >> thank you madam chair. it's a privilege to have the opportunity to have a conversation with you today. i will simply summarize my written testimony and would like to ask that they be submitted for the record to a i think the upcoming summit in chicago representing moment for stocktaking in the sense that we have been through the decades of post cold war nato and i think

the alliance has shared much better than any of us had expected in the sense that most alliances disappear when the threats that gave birth to them disappears but here we are in 2012 and not only is it still in existence but it has troops in kosovo and afghanistan, just fought a war mckinley boen has partnerships are of the world, so clearly the alliance is a growing concern and i think despite the thick and thin of the transatlantic relations over the last 20 years we can multiply confidently say the united states and europe remain each other's best partners and win the american president or european leader looks how the world and says who like call when there's a problem out there, the answers the personally of the side of the atlantic. my judgment is that isn't quite a change anytime soon and that is partly because the affinity of interest and value but it's

also because there are not other options even though there are emerging countries out there i think we still count on our european allies and can rely on our european allies more than we can count on others. at the same time we are at the cusp of a major transition, historic transition in the global landscape in which the world that nato represents is losing the primacy that it's enjoyed the last 200 years and if you look up the share of global product represented by nato and i would include japan because they are a part of the western world since world war ii we've gone from roughly 70% of global product to 50% and we are now headed towards 40% and that says to me the biggest security questions of the day or about how we are going to manage that transition, the challenges to the american security movement

forward are not in the atlantic community but outside of the atlanta community and as a consequence the relevance of this alliance to us and our european allies but i think more to us we are a global power will be what is nato doing in this world, how is nato keeping the united states sees as the global distribution of power shifts in the years and the decades ahead. and i would like to simply offer a few comments on that broad subject of nato in the wider world. first, i think it's important to keep in mind nato represents the primary institutional infrastructure of the west that kind of keeps us together as a meaningful political community that is particularly important when some of the emerging powers around us don't share our values are interest and i think one of the grand strategic questions of the time is how can we preserve

the rules based system that the u.s. and the europeans have together built since world war ii as more players ran the table. this isn't a conversation that is front and center on the agenda but it has to be moving forward because of the west if it comes together and generates a plan for managing this transition i think it will withstand the test of time if the united states and europe go their separate ways figuring out how to preserve the rules system and i fear that the next 20, 30 years will be a very bumpy period in international history and i think nato needs to establish itself as a global security hub that in my mind doesn't mean that nato should go global and should be a bridge too far. it would be a step the was

burdened the alliance with political requests and material requests and would be unable to sustain and in that respect we should be sober and cautious thinking about nato as the military alliance of last resort for missions moving forward. yes, nado went into afghanistan coming test we will hopefully together, yes we just finished a mission and libya that was reasonably successful but i think that take away from afghanistan and libya should be sobriety not gearing up for the next nato deployment and that's because the afghan mission has been somewhat successful, not a smashing success. we are chasing a bit to get out and we were just saying, senator it will be a long time coming before nato engages in the same kind of operation it engaged and in afghanistan. libya i think the success is more conclusive but many of the

conditions the were present in libya are not being replicated elsewhere particularly in syria, a u.n. legal authority, the approval of the arab world, the degree to which libya was close to reservoirs of the european power, therefore easy for the europeans to do even though they still rely heavily on us. i think some of the most important nato programs moving forward will not be the planet of force even though surely there will use some of that there will be the broad array of programs, the partnerships, the mediterranean dialogue, the estimable cooperation initiatives of the support for the african union, the training mission in iraq which is always concluded. in many respects nato has to help the other regions to for themselves what nato has done for the atlantic community and deepen integration, understand what it means to work together

and to gradually build the solidarity that preserves the regional cases. two final comments. one is that i think we've already discussed this this morning thinking about the ability of nato to be a global hunt, to serve as the institutional core of the west during this period of transition i think it requires a european pillar that stands up to the plate and this issue of think is more pressing today than it's ever been before. we've had debates about this since nato was born. but during the cold war, the house debates only went so far because the europeans were quite confident that we were there to stay and if something went wrong the united states would show that the party. i think right now we're seeing a world where the europeans know that they need to do more where are worth it to asia and the drawdown in europe is justified and inevitable but i think it

does put a five-year to the feet of the europeans about the need to do more to balance the alliance. i am skeptical that the europeans will spend more on defense. in fact i would go so far as to say they are going to be spending less and less and that is because for the foreseeable future they will be worried about bailing out increase, how to deal with the debt on how to save the euro zone and the european union and that says to me we should be pressing them not so much on spending because i think that is running into a brick wall but on rationalizing how they spend it on getting more bank for the dhaka and to pool resources that in my mind is the best way to get europe to become more capable. in many respects that involves closer links between nato and the european union. finally, if you said it would be premised for me not to make the following point which is not going to be on the summit in

chicago but i think should be in the back of our mind coming and that is from the very beginning of the atlantic partnership our strength abroad has continued upon our strength at home. our economy, our political solvency. and in some ways what i am the most worried about today as i testified before the committee is not whether we get in enlargement right. it's not when and how we get out of afghanistan. it is the degree to which we are now stumbling of the west collectively in terms of our economy stuck in neutral, the european union pulling apart experiencing the nationalization we haven't seen since world war ii and the system here going through a rough patch. my final thought would be it's impossible to think about, talk about imagine nado's future without doing the hard work of getting our own houses in order. because of the end of the day, nato will only be as strong as

its individual states. we have a lot of work to do on that front. thank you jury much. >> thank you. mr. brzezinski. >> [inaudible] if you could get a little closer to the microphone so we can hear you better. >> as a former staffer, senate staff reiser of this committee and prior year to that, the late senator. it is a pleasure to return to the halls. extending to the democracy of europe those were historic decisions. they strengthen the alliance and strengthen the transatlantic security. the chicago summit is important large part because the context of which it takes place. that context includes a war in

afghanistan in which they appear to be disengaging. economic crisis on both sides of the atlantic. diminishing the defense capabilities. need ho's qualified success, that raises questions about the commitment and highlighted the european defense shortfalls. and of course of recent guidance that reached it is it to asia and initiates another reduction from the american forces stationed in europe. some of us started this should be in implementation summit focused on the afghanistan operation and the reviews under the new strategic concept. in light of our concept that would be insufficient. the would reinforce transatlantic decoupling. a senator shaheen, u.s. tour would be the message from the chicago sun that. my view if it had one

overarching purpose should be to provide a credible reaffirmation one in which the united states demonstrates commitment to the regional security interest and our european allies demonstrate the already stand with the united states to address global challenges. towards that end, the should pursue five priorities. first and foremost, the president must. it has many causes the include a u.s. trans-atlantic agenda whose dominant elements have been a. of the new defense guidance in the proposed missile defense architecture that still remains conditional. the decision to for to reduce the u.s. forces are in the context of increasingly asserting the foreign policy. just like last week the chief of

staff threatened a preemptive strike against proposed missile defense sites in europe. washington. the condition of the. it's certainly incentivizes the kremlin opposition. the u.s. military drawdown will make it in person to make sure there is cooked and funded and equally important careful consideration has to be given how in the future, united states and the way we fight to the war comes so complex. there's not much more difficult and challenging. it's not yet clear how it will be sustained. the continued ambiguity

indicates the interest of our allies but also on the role of the potential partner in the area. the chicago summer. a year is an devised whole and free to be more stable secure continent, one bidder. imagine europe today if it didn't integrate poland, the baltics or many in bulgaria to nato with the e.u. have extended, with a half. nato enlargement, the alliance can and should declare its intent to no later than next summit. the dispute with greece over the former name the last impediment

to the secession to the alliance. it should have. they should apply the montenegro significant progress under the leadership action plan. fer, the alliance must sharpen its record in the financial austerity. resource constraints are a double-edged sword. they can halt the multinational cooperation and generate division. and indeed, we see a little bit of that today. as the central europeans watch as germany, france and italy sell military carpenter russia and the efforts to stay in their respective national defense industries. allow me to command senator lugar and the research service for the recently published study examining the sales. i hope this report will prompt the alliance to take action and on this divisive issue. a story can also be leverage to try for word the prayer to susan and collaboration. i'm glad the alliance planned to

lot. 2020 capability echols but i hope will give dever if not greater emphasis on the near-term multinational process that exists in the shortfalls. such projects as the shared logistics hubs and platforms are needed and they are urgently needed. there's also projects than promises regarding the future. fourth, there's so much that should be used to expand and deepen partnerships that's difficult and around the world. sweden, australia, new zealand, korea. and the other non-nato members. they've made important contributions to the libyan mission and of your operations. in addition to military to build the it brings diplomatic leverage as well as the need inside intelligence respective cost regarding the look regions. they should expand for peace was open to all the qualified regardless