eastern. >> which is more important? well for our? >> it is not as is said by the victors four years ago, the economy, stupid. is the kind of nation we are, whether we still possess the determination to deal with many questions, but certainly not limited to them. all things to an outflow from well poverty. i know this firsthand. so do you. all things grow from doing what is right. >> look at what has happened the lowest combined rate of unemployment and home mortgages in 28 years. but what happened. 10 million new jobs.

getting what they deserve with the minimum wage law. >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party conventions as 1984. now were in the countdown to this year's conventions. we can watch live coverage every minute of the republican and democratic as some conventions live on c-span and streamed online. all starting monday august 47. this week, editor of military debt, to my website which brought news and information to service members, military families and veterans. >> on my way to this interview. an old navy veteran. i told him i was going to

interview the editor of military dot com. he said, oh, neat. they have great videos that explode. >> yes, that is one of our signature features, videos. >> that explode. >> what is the point of military debt come? >> well, it started about 12 years ago as a benefit intimation portal. it has blossomed into the entire soup to nuts of the military experience, those who are thinking about turning. it is about your benefits, palatable explanation of benefits, comprehensive news coverage, videos, as you mentioned. a lot of videos and entertainment stuff, game reviews done by the actual war fighters. judge of whether they're realistic not. and, you know, and myriad other features and channels. finance to my education, debt bill, the viejo home loan. ..

>> guest: maverick and goos, i was goose, and so -- c-span: what's that mean? >> he was a radio intercept, and the f-14 tomcat, decommissioned now, was the navy's premier fighter, and then it was morphed into a bomber actually and used extensively in the first part of the wars that were involved in now, and so i have the gift of being able to fly those for 16 of my 20 years in service. primarily, out of naval air station in virginia beach and deployed aboard aircraft carriers, did five extended deployments, participated in the bos kneian conflict in 1995, a two week war in and around seriatim vow and did no fly zones in southern iraq rendered

moot by the up vision -- invasion of iraq. i finished at the naval academy teaching and that informed what i'm doing now having the first novel published while i was there, and that came to the attention of the founder of military.com, became friends, and then i came aboard as the editor. c-span: who owns it? >> guest: monster worldwide, the online resumé and job seeking company, and that was in 2004 under the auspices of veteran hiring so we're involved in that now, working closely with the obama administration now, the organizations, the va to get veterans jobs in this environment so it's a good fit in terms of a parent company so, yeah, that's it. c-span: where do you put yourself on the

journalism/working for an industry model? are you a journalist? >> guest: yeah, absolutely. we have a pretty solid wall around the journalism part. all of my guys are based here around dc, all veterans, and i have a benefits guy on the west coast and the west coast bureau chief, but we're very much what our executives call church and state, and i call it athens and sparta with us being the spartans. yeah, i say when i put on the news editor hat because i wear several hats as the editor, but certainly my team, our journalists, the white house press core, pentagon press core, same press conferences everyone else is, in communication with the pundits and various principles like any news organization is, and so, yeah, i think in that capacity we're very much a journal organization. c-span: got video from an interview we did here sometime

ago with wheeler. i want to run it. it's self-explanatory, but i want to ask you you fit. he's a critic of the military. let's watch. >> guest: okay. >> imagine this, you are tasked to oversee purchases of the f-35 fighter air force and the job of the arm services committee is to ensure it's effective and affordable. meanwhile, your ambitions is to go work for the air force as the senior acquisition executive. you're going to ask all of these really aggravating, tough questions getting to the bottom of the f-35, and you'll aggravate those officials who are in a position to offer you a job or not. that's not the way it works. you're going to cozy up to the air force. they'll give you some information, you know, as much as they think, you know, they want you to have, and you'll be skillful in how you handle that

information, and you'll be convincing with your boss and everybody else around you, and you'll land the job in the pentagon. that's how our system of checks and balances breaks down. c-span: he was suggesting people want to leave capitol hill to go to the pentagon, and we hear people leave the pentagon and go to the industry. who is he and how class are you to the way he does things? >> guest: works for the cementer of defense of information, a columnist for us, a panelist at the mill blogging conference we sponsor. he's been a guest on my podcast many times, and so, i mean, i don't quarrel with the point of view. before i took the job at military.com, i was a civil servant at the naval air systems command at the v-# -- v22 program. as a fleet guy, i didn't have

exposure necessarily to the industry side of it, the defense procurement, you know, the roslin part, no exposure, but working at the v22, as you know, a controversial airplane. c-span: explain it. >> guest: it's the v-22 ausprey, half helicopter, half propeller plane with several high profile crashes in tests, almost canceled, brought back from the brink of extension, and then had life breathed into it and ultimately succeeded now in fleet use in afghanistan and throughout the marine corp. and the special operation command, you know, the so-com, special operations command uses a variety of the v-22 for stuff in theater. expensive airplane. your classic, sort of what -- to

winslow's point, you could look at the prince. s involved on the bell and boeing side saying they were on the military side, and now they are over there. it's a double-edged sword to his point. you could say it's just the machine that is propagating itself, or you could say if i'm a helicopter pilot or an air force f-15 pilot, i come armed with some expertise in terms of what are my needs and requirements that the other side of that process should be able to leverage so i think, and i have seen examples of that sort of cronyism if you will, that is counterproductive, but at the same time, i also know that, you know, i have colleagues and former squadron mates working for the lockheed martins of the world ensuring, the guarantors of taxpayer dollars, and that the machine is going to meet the requirements needed by any one of the services.

now, that having been said, you know, the procurement process is multilayered, you know, we could dedicate a whole series of shows to what's wrong with defense procurement so i don't quarrel with any point he makes. he's on, but there's always another side to it that, you know, some, you know, heritage institute or somebody else could say in defense of the process that results in an outcome that helps the country defend itself. c-span: i'm not sure how many civilians pay attention to this, but the f-22, all you have to do is punch in f-22 on google, and you get these stories about a plane that, what, at one point would cost $370 million a piece? >> guest: depending on whose stats you read. it's $125 million a unit or upwards of $250 million per airplane. that is a great example. all i know is since these wars

started, we have not used the f-22 at all. c-span: how many? >> guest: there's, you know, several hundred. c-span: didn't they stop the process of building them? >> guest: well, i think they built the final one; right? the program of record has been executed. happened last week, in fact, last one rolled off. c-span: there was a plan to build more. >> guest: well, yeah, the buy was cut in half on secretary gates' watch, and so, again, if i'm a taxpayer, and i ask winslow, did we ever need the f-22, i think the answer is arguably no; right? so, and all i say as a former fighter guy, all i say is i look at how much it's been used in theater. we have -- the f-22 has not been there -- not there for the libya no-fly zone, none of the ops over iraq or afghanistan, and so what the air force could say you

know, the general, whomever, says, well, it duped fit with this war. we're talking the next war that we're trying to prevent. c-span: i saw a quote from a general. he's out of the service now saying the greatest plane in the history of the world. >> guest: yeah, i think that's true. the technology's amazing. c-span: what do we need it for? >> guest: well, that's the question; right? this, and i don't know if i can answer that. again, i just said prima facie based on the track record since 9/11, i think the answer's a shrug. c-span: manufactured in 46 states. >> guest: yeah, okay, that's a different issue; right? c-span: an important issue. >> guest: the other leg of the defense triangle is the lawmaker constituency job piece; right? which quite frankly is the long pole in the tent of procurement reform. you know, i know president obama came into office talking about

procurement reform so everybody leans on the defense industry and the military to neck down, and people leave out the one part that is going to make a difference which is lawmakers. you know, go ahead and lose hundreds of jobs in your district; right? that's how that falls, and that's where it always stops; right? that's where the pressure comes. you know, f-22 made in 47 different states. joint strike fighter made in probably as many states, but you add other countries; right? that's the other thing they did to guarantee the success of the program is they got nato partners involved from the get-go so now that element makes it harder to summarily cancel the program because of the foreign ramifications. c-span: can't sell it to foreigners? >> guest: was not in mind. c-span: some technology? >> guest: former tomcat guy hat. why do we need the f-22?

it's an air superiority fighter better than anything in the world. it has longer range. it's stealthier, can communicate with other f-22 and the a-1, the control agencies, state of the art, fuel efficient, maintainable, all of the stuff you want, and so some air force officer created a list of requirements, and that, you know, translated into a request for proposals that went to industry, and long story short, they awarded a contract to lockheed martin to make the f-22. c-span: if your mind, who are we threatened by? >> guest: well -- c-span: who has anything close to this? >> guest: currently? i mean, you're talking china, maybe north korea. this is conventional threat. the taliban doesn't have an air force. iraqi's arrest force flew to iran in desert storm one, and i

did the halftime show in the intervening years at parade rest. there's no air threat with the war we've fought since 9/11. none. there's limited surface to air threat. we are not dodging sames -- c-span: sam is what? >> guest: surface air missile. there's been limited small arms fire and shoulder fire serviced air missiles to take on a helicopter or whatever, but in terms of a big integrated air defense, we don't have an opponent that does that. the f-22 is survivorble because of stealth. north korea and china have integrated air defenses. if i'm the chief of staff of the air force, i say to you, that airplane was not designed for these wars. it's designed for that big war that might happen. you know? i don't know if that's a satisfactory argument with tight defense budgets and our deficit

and a job forecast that we have and other things going on. c-span: this question also came from someone else who suggests they wanted you to tells who provides the thread? congress comes and goes. the president's party comes and goes. the generals and admirals come and go. who provides the thread when it comes to the future of the military? >> guest: the threat? the underwriters of the threat, i guess, would probably, you know, be at the feet of the department of defense, you know, because, you know, i say the threat in some sort of a serial way, but, you know, if you look at my time in uniform was the cold war; right? the soviet union underwrote the threat of the soviet union our threat, that was aircraft

carriers, a huge army based in europe, you know, tanks, conventional forces stuff, and since 9/11, you know, we've been talking more in terms of a-symmetric threat, ambush protected vehicles to survive an ied, and, you know, a roadside bomb, body armor, the sorts of things not on the table pre-9/11. you know, it's interesting to consider when secretary rumsfeld pre-9/11 came into office, he was all about military reform. he was the army did not like him a lot. you know, later for dirvelt reason -- different reasons, but at the time, he was targeting waste in terms of forestructure, what their priorities were, and so

it's ironic that, you know, post-9/11, as the bill for the war went up, and we were all in, that he was painted as the guy that was, you know, wasteful in that regard. c-span: secretary rumsfeld was here. i want to run a clip of that and get your reaction to this. >> for example, the crusaider program. i can't think of a worse name in this environment, but it was an enormous artillery piece taking two aircraft to move anywhere in the world. certainly, not something appropriate for the 21st century and the a-symmetric warfare we are facing, and the opposition to it was just incredible. i mean, retired community in the army, active duty community in the army, the civilian contractors, the congress. i'll give an example, a data point. when i was secretary of defense in the 70s, the defense authorization bill was 74 pages

long. when i came back in the year 2001, if i'm not mistaken, the defense authorization bill was over 500 pages. c-span: what do you hear? >> guest: that was a missile system, you know, against conventional threats, and i think that sound bite is very much what i was talking about in terms of his focus. so when we look at the pop landscape, the bush era pop land scape and rumsfeld and cheney at all, most americans, they say it threw a lot of money at the problem; right? it's ironic that that is the guy that's lumped into that charge, and so, you know, i think it was wrestled out of his hands. whatever he wanted to do in terms of reform was rendered not

mute, but just overcome by the events post-9/11, and you'll remember, he also had the really legendary argument with the regime about the forestructure required to take iraq, and he wanted to lowball it and did lowball it, and ultimately, it played out in ways that now the secretary was maybe proved the one who was right in that decision. c-span: said we need a couple hundred thousand. >> guest: 300,000, and rumsfeld wanted to do it with half or less that worked for the march to baghdad, and then the securing the pop populous piece needed more guys. c-span: with the war costing $60 billion. >> guest: we lowballedded it. maybe that's what it took to step off the line of departure. c-span: let me show you a slide we have of the cost of the war until now, american troops out of iraq, and this is, we'll show you -- this is according to the

congressional research service which works for capitol hill. 800 some billion for iraq, 55 # 7 billion for afghanistan, enhanced base security, unallocated, and we don't know what that is, a total of $1 mnt 4 trillion. by the way, in the figure, none of the future costs from the health care standpoint, and there's a lot of stuff not in those figures. how do we get -- in your -- from your perspective, get from $60 billion as a promise to what the war cost to now $1.4 trillion? >> guest: short sided thinking. so when the talk of the invasion of iraq started up in late 2002, i was touring the support of my second novel, doing a lot of talk radio, television appearances, and while i'm talking about afghanistan, they are talking about the invasion of iraq. i'm like, don't you mean afghanistan? i mean, because when i left iraq

in 1998, there was no imminent threat. we knew where every republican guard guy was, where every mig was, every helicopter was above the 33rd parallel. there was not a threat. you know, it seemed a little bit contrivedded to me just from my experience that all the sudden the drums of war are being, you know, and so this is the stuff of memoirs and, you know, tom rick's books and everything else about what america was led into, and so if you show up saying $1.4 trillion, that's a non-starter. you know, that's just not going to happen in the fies of, you know, what everybody on the fence and middle of the aisle was saying, okay, seems like there was something general powell was saying, but at the same time, i don't know. there's just something about this threat that just doesn't seem to be valid, and so he's not a fundamentalist, and, you know, all these discussions, and

so to make the war happen, it had to be a tidy figure. there was the logic of oil revenues paying for the rest. seemed really clean, and so here's another lesson in the national psyche and literature that, hey, war is messy, and to what degree is just farce at this point. c-span: by the way, who paid the bills for military.com? >> guest: well, i mean, we have a number of revenue streams. there's ad revenue, and we work with third party organizations to provide services and that thing. it's primarily ad revenue. c-span: from defense contractors? >> guest: well defense contractor clients, but there's car companies and movie studios and a full range of offerings. c-span: this is a slide of the defense contractors and these figures that you're going to see.

we tried to find figures that were accurate, but you can't be sure what's missing to be honest with you. this comes from an organization from technology.com, but you see the number one defense contractor this year at almost $11 billion in receipts was lockheed martin, and then boeing and then general dynamics corporation, kbr, l3 communications corp.. you see the list there. when you look at the list, what can you tell us about it >> guest: i mean, some of the folks make hardware, others provide services. kbr is the trucking in theater, the logistics piece, manning the hauls. that sort of stuff. lockheed martin makes airplanes and ships. you know, i was a grumen before they merged. they make airplanes and different sorts of stuffs.

boeing with aerospace, on tap to make the next generation tanker, and so, you know, saic is a manpower firm and technical services. dine corp. maintains airplanes at the training commands to overseas taking care of things, and so, i mean, these numbers are huge; right? this is big business. this is high stakes ball. the only thing i'll say to counter the critics, and i'm agnostic. i'm not a critter or supporter. i just point to 9/11. you don't get nothing for the money, but something. remind ourselves that on 9/11, the nation faced an unforeseen tragedy. three weeks later, we were dropping bombs on sharif and in and around airplanes fielded decades before. during the quiet years, my time

in the arena, we developed a capability leveraged when the nation needed it, and so, you know, let's just remember this money is not just lining the pockets. c-span: i'll play devil's advocate. it's ten years later. spent $1.4 trillion, 500 billion on afghanistan. we're locked this there. we can't get out of there. >> guest: right. c-span: do we gain anything from the ten years? i know a lot of people are defending what's going on over there. are we winning anything by being there? >> guest: hard to answer, brian. i was there last summer, in afghanistan, and it was a gift to be up close and personal with parts of the military i was never exposed to, the army infantry, out to the combat outpost and saw the war in action. as an aviator, i was wholly

ignorant. they saved our lives. these are the guys there four and five times. some are back there again, and so -- c-span: what is -- when you talk about them off the record, not quoting them by name, what do you think of being there and if they have been there four or five times? >> guest: their view is my optic. it's a mission done day in and day out. at a local level, in a province, working with the villagers in these places. they are doing work that's successful. they are forging alliances with the local governors, building schools and resources. i believe that at a personal level, it's rewarding work for them. now, at a macro level, you know, i had a chance to hang out with general red rei goes in the

operation centers where the structure is the 30,000 foot level. there's the winning and losing period. to your point about the infrastructure, everything seems to be building, you know? nothing is necking down there. you know, it looks like it looked in 68, and it's just cranes all over the place, and as you fly away, the boundaries get bigger. same thing down south of kandahar. hand -- hand car is big. it's a fair question. how do we get out of there; right? how do you stop the moe momentut to mention the investment in american lives that has already been made. to what end? you know, today, we're celebrating the fact that ambassador crocker kicked off a soccer stadium event. ..

big right and -- c-span: i read in the paper in the post today that they quoted -- i'm need to get his name right. >> he is a spokesman. there are two spokespeople at the pentagon. he says he does not vote. for a reason. it keeps him tremendously independent and he doesn't have to worry about the politics of it. what is sure on attitude when you're in the military? did you vote?

>> guest: yeah i voted and if you ever talk to military individuals they are very strong-willed and we motivated. now you know that is you in a private capacity which introduces another sort of topic that is interesting which is osha media has allowed you know, active-duty servicemembers to express political views that i think across the line. if i'm a blogger, a military blogger i can say things about the commander in chief that are kind of almost violations of the usmc j.. under the auspices you can say it's just me in a private capacity so that is unclear and i was uncomfortable during the last election, presidential election the degree to which people were polarized politically and overtly so, because my sense is an academy grad and i taught at the academy and served and now involved in various ways is the honor of the profession is to stay out of it

and this is really axiomatically how military people can die in vain because you are serving someone that is above your personal outlook. you just answer the call so this is my problem with cindy sheehan way back when she she was saying her son died in vain and we actually got cross circuit with her camp on that point back then. i feel very strongly about that in these questions are starting to arise as the president was in fort bragg yesterday and said hey the war in iraq is over. that's it and everybody is going so did those guys die in being? what is the outcome in the same questions are being asked about afghanistan. so to my mind, and maybe this ts just a moral copout but i don't think it's possible for an military servicemember to die in vain in service of the nation in that way. c-span: let's throw up another

freeze-frame on the screen. i know the marine corps is supposed to go down 175 but look at that. 565, these are the figures we have from the defense department and the army, 305 -- 325 the navy, air force 333,000 in the coast guard up to 43,000. >> guest: that numbers going down. let's throw some numbers out here. so, right now the defense budget that has not been approved as $450 billion. secretary gates offered up an equal amount to be saved over the next 10 years as a good-faith gesture to reduce the deficit. c-span: how much now? s. go $450 billion over 10 years so as a result of super committees in action, the sequester come and these are new

words for all of us -- c-span: what does that mean? >> guest: that means -- it means the automatic cuts that are taking effect as a result of the super committees failure to find $1.2 trillion in savings in the next 10 years. c-span: if it stands at 600 billion? >> guest: yes so those together equal a trillion dollars in defense savings over the next 10 years so that is in essence a quarter of the plan's defense budget that's going to be cut. c-span: so where does that happen? howard does realize? >> guest: these numbers are the first ones to get affected. and strength is what we call it will be reduced by significant amounts so let me tell my own personal story on those lines. post-desert storm one we had a similar cost savings in terms of people and the way they did that, the way they affected that was those military people who were on reserve status, who were

where are actually in active-duty capacity is technically resurfaced, when they try to stay on, they were told we don't need you and you can go home. that kind of thing is already happening and the other thing is, promotion requirements will get more stringent and so guys who maybe would would have been advanced in previous environments won't be this time and failure to advance his reason to get shown the door. so it's going to be tougher to stay in and those who would have liked to have made it a career book may be forced out. c-span: you retired after 20 years as the commander. anyway to tell a civilian who has never looked at the rundown on what a commander is, what rank is that in the world? >> guest: well it's 05, like a lieutenant colonel in the marine corps or the army or air force so yes, the fifth level from the entry-level of an officer.

i guess it's about where should be at the it the 20 year market. c-span: when would you have gotten force drives our captain's rank in the navy if you had stayed? >> guest: about the time i had gotten out and the reason to stay or get out is obviously multifaceted and i was probably done flying the airplane and the navy had been good to me at that point and i was allowed to keep flying airplanes. all i did until i was able to teach at the naval academy. a lot of staff orkin things i wasn't interested terribly and beyond that and probably no chance for command, very competitive sort of thing. by colette me ask about the personal side of this. when he went to the naval academy did you have to pay anything to get your education? >> guest: no. you are paid, your technical status. c-span: what did they give you? >> guest: i got $50 of pay period back in the day. c-span: what year did you graduate? >> guest: 1982 so i think i

made when i was a plead, a freshman $250 a month. it is a pittance, but yeah is a free education and they give you a job at the end. c-span:c-span: as a retiree -- so you get a retirement. is there any way to describe how much that retirement is? >> guest: its pass -- half my base pay at 20 years so while it's not income, it's an annuity, a 401(k) in essence. and it's a great deal. i mean it's a reason to, if you're at the 14, 15 year market to reason to stick it out. i have access to any base or military installation on the planet. i can shop at the local commissary, the grocery store and the exchange, the department store there with good discounts. i have military health benefits in the form is what is called

tricare. c-span: what does that mean in, steel have to pay for? >> guest: this is a very controversial topic in the the back senator mccain is trying to save money by making the co-pay higher so i pay about $400 a year, not a month, a year for tricare. so that is a super good deal. c-span: are you married with children? how many kids? >> guest: two, so they are all covered under that for the rest of your life. c-span: if you go before your wife goes dishy get coverage until the end of her life? >> guest: not medical coverage. she continues because she will get half of my retirement until she dies. that is something you elect to pay for. it's like is like an insurance policy. it is called as vp survivor benefit plan so i think what we are talking about here is the level of benefits for those who have dedicated themselves.

c-span: let's get into the weeds for just a moment. we got this from your web site. this is the kind of money than an e. one, e. two in the three and i want you to explain what that means and you can see as you come into the navy as an enlisted man as a seaman recruit you are just in there getting train, you make $16,000 a year. if you are an e9 which is that the top-of-the-line for an enlisted man, a master chief petty officer it shows if you spent 20 years in than 65,000 what are we missing there? what are you getting besides all that? >> guest: if i am in afghanistan i get hazardous duty pay and specialty pay. in the case of things like nuclear power, it's a substantial chunk. it's probably a third more than that number. and then there are elements of locality. you have what is called the

basic allowance for housing depending on where you live regionally. it's another quotient. c-span: does everybody get that? >> guest: in some form or another guess all you have is your base pay sort if i'm an e1, it may lead up the fact that i'm unmarried and i live in the quarters on base so basically my housing is taking care of. c-span: what is the most you could get? i think san francisco or new york city is the most expensive. >> guest: there are places -- c-span: 24 are 2500 a-month? >> guest: may be more and we have those figures on military.com, the basic allowance for housing numbers are available publicly. you can see it. it's a lot. places in texas are very cheap and bases in san francisco or boston are pretty high. c-span: when you're on an active duty in the service how much do you pay for health care? >> guest: nothing.

c-span: you don't pay anything like $100 a month or anything like that? does your family get all the health care? >> guest: yes. c-span: what else is there you can get? >> guest: like i said all the benefits associated with being on base so you're housing if you live on base can be taken care of and if you don't live on base to get the allowance for housing that is regionally a sliding scale. there is a support network of things like you have access to lawyers. you have access to financial experts. there are all kinds of resources in terms of not just mental health health health care but family advocacy. it's a very insular community that has all kinds of resources. c-span: let's say you get out and you have only been in for six years or so. what kind of benefits do you get? >> guest: you have the g.i. bill and specifically for those who served after 9/11 it's a very impressive bit of legislation championed by senator web and what we call a new the new generation veteran service organizations called the

afghan veteran -- of america. c-span: ronald reagan -- was it reagan? he was secretary of navy. >> guest: yes he was. c-span: jim webb was her mother -- republican what time you. he is the guy responsible for this? >> guest: yes. i have known senator web since he taught at the naval academy. he was a writer in residence when i was at school there. he just published feel the fire and he wrote this other book about the naval academy while i was there. he wrote the washingtonian magazine piece about the females in the military that wears really a lightning rod during those years so i've known him for a number of years. we were very close to this legislation as it was being sort of distilled. c-span: we meaning the

military -- >> guest: military.com. kerry howell who is the author of the benefits of resources but that we published annually works very closely with senator webb's office and to figure out what were the unintended consequences of this legislation. the intent was to give this generation of warfighters disabled level of benefits at the world war ii era generation had which is comprehensive. you come back from the war and you want to go to hartford, you go as long as you can get givan and oh by the way we are going to pay housing for you while you are there. this benefit is fantastic. the post-9/11 g.i. bill is absolutely fantastic and those who are using it love it. there were some hiccups in terms of the va's ability to execute it early on but those have been remedied and the va has made a good-faith effort to make this work. in some ways this legislation was forced down their throats

but that is a great -- that is done right by those who fought in these wars. c-span: i want to throw upon the up on the screen the officer salaries, as close as we can get to them from your web site. if you aren't 01, an officer you are an ensign or a lieutenant. in the army or the marine corps. $33,000 entry-level after 30 years and you are still were still on ensign, which -- to get 42,000 but jump ahead to 10, is that a four-star admiral? 206,112. that's actually more than a member of congress. that's not even including the house. >> guest: okay, so this is the old parade magazine. this guy, 010 if i'm right that is the service chiefs, chief, the chief of naval operations type thing.

so, this guy is the ceo for a pretty gigantic corporation. so compare that salary and compare his skill set and his track record of success commanding ships and squadrons to the civilian sector. that is a joke in terms of the number. so that's a lot of money at a glance for a public servant, but when you consider what they do and how few of them there are -- there aren't a whole lot of them around the pentagon -- i think it's a fair number. c-span: go back to that again and let's say the captain was one rank above where you got out. today you would be making somewhere in the vicinity of 110,000 as a commander? >> guest: yeah. c-span: 110,000 then you get your allowance. >> guest: i would have flight pay which one i got out with something just under $1000 a month and in afghanistan hazard duty pay and all the sort of family separation and different

things like that. so it can be, not to mention your medical is paid for on all of the sorts of things you can add on some value. so you know, you could probably make more working on wall street or being a lawyer, but you know, you are not hurting i guess. c-span: as you know and this is partly what people are worried about is a lot of the admirals and generals and the captains walk out of their jobs here and right into the defense where they get a tremendous amount -- >> guest: but not everyone. c-span: if you spend time in washington and you go around and you find all those monuments around town are often paid by boeing and lockheed-martin and you watch the fund-raisers and to see the list of people for the fund-raisers and it's the same thing is that defense contractors and then we go back

to the difficulty that don rumsfeld was talking about. what do you say that? >> guest: i would say monument sponsorships will be would be the first thing to go. it's a super committees failure. they won't be hiring admiral so-and-so unless he is really a name working directly on a program that they made -- need that skill set. the value of being a flag officer in and of itself is going to wing in this environment. you know, so those who are hired to work for the defense firms either have such name recognition that it's going to have value in terms of the circuit or they have specific skills, specific knowledge about a specific program that they are going to be able to use on the corporate side. your average guy, and this is a challenge that we are helping tackle because we talk about the guys, the 90% that are not in that category that the nation should do right by and help them

find the right job. it's a challenge. even in the officer ranks for your average platoon leader to find the right fit in terms of a job and in terms of rewards and everything else associated with it. it's such a great consequence that it's a hard at to follow quite frankly. c-span: from your experience what's does the average citizen know about the military? >> guest: little to nothing. c-span: and about the process we are talking about? >> guest: yeah, i mean a few years ago i had the opportunity to play the member guest at -- old world, old money place and i had a guy ask me -- though he was the traitor and he said you were in the navy. he said do you live in a quonset hut collects he had this lomer pile conception of what i was. nevermind the office and listed, navy and marine corps and the conversation was just sort of

perversely basic. for this guy, some station, a well-to-do manhattan man, so i think your average citizen for all of our exposure to the wars i think the understanding is very low and they think we are also trying to prevent this narrative that the military has victims so i don't know this is guilt or just people that want to care and -- or it ever but this military as the dems sort of narrative for the reasons we have talked about about what they are doing here and what they should be respected for and how this plays out. c-span: what is the military as victim come from? >> guest: well i think from naïveté, from the ignorance of what it is they are doing. it's an oliver stone conception of what happens in theater.

c-span: isn't the military at the top of being respected in the country, i mean right at the top? >> guest: okay, and mean if you ask your average, even people that occupy wall street would would you think about the military, they will say i very much respect them. again, this is the legacy of the vietnam era and so those who lived through that trauma, which is substantial and in fact woodstock two years ago introduced a lot of the circles that i operate in, some proprietary e-mail groups and other things that those who served and those scars are very very deep about those who served and those he didn't. i was not absolutely agree and like i do now. it's not the cliché to say all the druggies went to woodstock and the rest of us went over there. c-span: how old were you during vietnam? >> guest: well i was still young. my dad was there.

he was a career marine corps pilot. he was an attack pilot and a 30 year marine corps colonel and he was serving in da nang and 66 and 67. c-span: have you ever been there by the way? >> guest: to vietnam, no. fryco i just want to ask you, we hear the drums beating about china, that china is building up their military and i hear it all the time in this town that we have to be fed up and we hear it on the radio. they talk about these aircraft carriers that they are building. at the moment come you tell me differently but they have one and it's not even being used. >> guest: no, it's not finished yet. so to that point, as we are talking about the issue of the defense budget we are talking about the way it's going to get cut, you have to push go on the sordid machines if you want this capability in the future.

decades before. the joint strike fighter was approved a long time ago. c-span: that is the f-35b can. >> guest: this thing that is its high -- target going forward. at. c-span: we are going to build 2400 of them. guest: jus we talked about the f. 32 getting cut i believe because it's increasingly expensive and over budget and behind schedule, it's right for cuts and again you're talking about what is the threat? who are we fighting and so the defense industry magnets and those on the side of give me the machine are saying there is a threat and we need them. c-span: let me ask you a question about the f-35b. lockheed-martin officials say the f-35 will be for times more effective than existing flyers in the air-to-air combat, four times more effective.

you flew the f-14 and you are top gun, sat in the backseat. is that possible that it could be four times more effective? >> be sure but do you need four times more effective than what is the price point of pain, just like what is the price point to sort of start the process of democracy in iraq. is a 1.4 trillion? so yes for the cost of that program you are going to have four times greater and what they are saying is, it's more survivable because it's dealt, it's cheaper to maintain and cheaper to sustain and it's more lethal because it has all those missiles so you can be behind me which to me is pretty obnoxious that i have a guy behind me but i can shoot him down. back in the day you would never do that. that's like shooting a guy in the back but i'm talking like an old guy now. so yeah, that is correct. that calculus, that quotient is correct.

so somebody in the machine has to decide whether four times more effective equals the cost of that program and the jobs it's going to create and on and on. this is always -- as we sit here they are our budgeteers who are being told figure it out. it's happening now. my brother is involved in this at the naval -- and in the face of the supercommittee failure those folks are really working overtime to figure out all the options and the decision-makers disposal. c-span: go back to the aircraft carrier thing. we have 11 in the united states, 11 out there commissioned and to being belts. it looked like china is going to have three by 2015. i don't know whether they are going to be functioning are or not around the world. india supposedly will have three by 2014. what is going on over there? >> guest: well i think everybody is sort of trying to

be -- c-span: india i think has one now. india has one. >> guest: everyone sees the value of airpower, sea-based airpower with conventional, not helicopters but fixed-wing aircraft. an airplane that can take off -- c-span: can't the f-35 that? >> guest: that version of the airplane was canceled because as they are trying to find cuts the utility of that didn't pass muster and as you look at how they current has been use very few times has it actually done that. you waste a lot of gas when you do this. and so, but to the aircraft carrier question, yes i mean i was there when russia had their first one. anyway so -- we were there and they could not make water and they could not launch airplanes and it was a big joke. in fact we did this obnoxious

show of force about the uss america that was on cruise that you're fighting the great bosnian war of 1995 a. we take a break to go to tunisia and do the show of force for all these russian principles. we launched 50 airplanes in a single cycle including the chief test pilot for one of our airplanes did some mock battles and landed in those guys were just blown away. they were like i don't know how we are going to get here because we have this new aircraft carrier that we reverse engineered based on photos and other intel. it has had zero utility. is not a force multiplier so to those that think they want to get involved in the mission we kind of say sure give it a shot. rekha we have 11 aircraft carriers and the rest of the world has nine. why do we need 11? >> guest: because the doctrine has indicated that we needed. we have a president's quotient. each one of these you know, areas of responsibility whether

it's centcom, the central commander whatever the four stars are saying i need to carry out my mission. aircraft carriers are in the mix so we are having the same discussion pre-9/11. which is why do we need at that time i believe we had 12 aircraft carrier so why do we need aircraft carriers now that the soviet union is gone? so the first thing we leaned on in the face of we need to start conducting strikes now as people is people are walking into afghanistan cia caseworkers and green beret, where does that support come from? the uss enterprise in the uss -- naval aviation improves utility in this asymmetric world comprehensively so you know this is the trick was trying to pre-stage with the requirements are going to be. c-span: we only have a couple of minutes. very quickly what is the status of the refueling tankers, the discussion that went on for --

is a proven? >> guest: started with an air force officer going to prison for certain insider trading and not fair play. so that caused it to be processor than it was raped. there was a big fight between the french company eads and boeing. long story short boeing got the award and boeing was in the process of making 18 tankers for a fixed-price. >> guest: if you exceed that you are going going to pay for it so basically boeing is going to build these airplanes for zero profit and the rest is 187 tankers that they are going to build. c-span: boeing sells those to two other countries. >> not yet. no foreign military sales associate with that tanker yet. c-span: they will not make money on that? >> guest: it's not looking like they will currently. so that is where that program

is. c-span: we are out of town -- out of out of time. the anatiere of military.com, what can people, the average person that might interest them on your web site? >> guest: everyday we have breaking news of interest to those with military interests and for those who want to know what their benefits are, and very simple terms we have a are the place to go. if you want to find the guys used to work with or you want to see a cool video or just be entertained military.com is the place. c-span: what's the most popular thing on your web site? >> the news. c-span: ward carroll editor of military.com, thank you very much. >> guest: thank you brian. >> for dvd copy of this program call