them. so you have until anybody by cutting back on medicaid or medicare. you don't get sick, if medicare doesn't pay, then you are paying it. you have the same expenses. so one of the challenges, and we've seen in this last year, although somebody got a lot better, bigger hit than most people on average, the health care costs been going up every year. last year's increase was the smallest they've had in about half a century. and next year people will be paying, a lot of people will be paying 25% less for an individual policy than they are paying now. new york it's about 50% at some of them will be paying 50% of what they are paying now. so obamacare, making sure everybody is covered means that everybody will be paying just for themselves, not everybody else. that's going to help control the costs a little bit. but the medical care problem is the challenge we're dealing

with. medicare and obamacare -- >> does that mean part d is still not paid for? >> well, if it's paid for, it's law, so it is being paid. but basically there were no new taxes to pay for it comes to basically just the deficit. >> i'm brenda hicks. either question in regards to participating providers. is there a mandate for providers to participate? it's great to have insurance, but you need somebody to accept it. are they going to be on the tiered system their paid for medicare and medicaid like the private insurance which often bills more? are they going, is there some kind of mandate to compel providers them these large condo, hospital corporations, so that once you have this insurance that somebody is going to accepted for payment?

>> the answer in short is no. some states have looked at it, massachusetts has tried that in the past but the answer to that is no. it's not a mandate. i think one of the challenges identified on the medicaid side right now is we pay hospitals about 70% of cost. there's a formula that is used to look at what hospitals cost for a procedure, and we pay about 70% of that as the state. it's one of the things we have to consider because we are already cost shifting 30% onto everybody else. the government program, medicaid, medicare typically has been a little bit below cost. so becomes a bit of an unfunded burden on providers to have to worbe worked out. you can have a sustainable long-term program and you promise something but yet you don't pay for it. >> there's one other thing that obamacare is doing and that is providing funding to increase the number of providers so there will be providers of there. scholarships to doctors,

national health service corps to encourage doctors to go in underserved areas, nurses, physicians assistants, building up the number of providers. >> that's what i wanted to say, again, it's just a reminder. it's private health insurance. just like how your doctor the not have to except private health insurance but no doctor we required to take the health insurance in the market place to i did want to mention, we are under the affordable care act $1.5 billion investment to increase the health care workforce. everything from primary care doctor, nurse practitioners, nurses, physician assistants, et cetera but it's a great time if you invest in getting into the health care field that you can get loan forgiveness or scholarship funding. because again we realize it will be important to increase the health care workforce. >> and i think obamacare is a great start.

[applause] >> thank you. we want to remind everyone, we had information passed out at the table, the number to call is 1-800-318-2596. for your answer within -- three seconds. [laughter] spent so call that number, they can answer some the question that we had trouble with. but i want to thank everyone for coming and participating. october 1, october 1 the open enrollment, we can start signing up for our coverage on october 1. tell your friends, january 1 everybody, all americans will be able to afford health insurance for the first time after 100 years of drawing. [applause] >> thank you. get our panelists a round of applause. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> and on c-span town hall tonight we will look at the

implementation of the health care law including this week's news that administration will delay implementation of a section of the law covering out of pocket costs for consumers. here's part of tonight's program with representative paul ryan and the irs any ruble on whether health care law might of people to get interest subsidies even if they're not entitled. >> i don't think you understand the law you're in charge of that. the clawback as you describe where you limit how much a person pays back and that's only a person is eligible for subsidy if their income changes in your in which the subsidy takes place. but if a person, this is your law, if a person gets a subsidies are not eligible for, which clearly will be the case if your major enforcement tool, simply mandate is not in place, the law requires you clawback 100% of the subsidy for which they were not entitled. >> i apologize to the

hypothetical that you get a lot of moving pieces. but you are correct. one question i have is we discovered that this individual got an inappropriate subsidy. so we've made some connection with their employer to learn that information. >> which will be 2015 at the earliest. >> we could learn in 2015. we will get the official employer report in 2016 but either way we will make efforts to validate the fact of their for each individual that is receiving a subsidy. speak somebody will get two years of a subsidy that i signed up for a knowingly that they got, which font is not make them eligible for. you have to tax that back in two years time all of it. that is the law, correct speak with we will help the individual at the front and when they're filling other taxes and navigating through the exchange to understand whether they have an employer provide a plan -- >> if you don't have an employer mandate and you don't have the datdata have which you claim ned have to verify this, you will

have a lot of people getting subsidies that are not split it and then you hit them with a big tax bill in about two years to clawback because the law requires you to do that. i yield back. mr. nunes. >> and tonight's town hall on the innovation of health care law is at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. microbes are tiny single celled organism that the complaints come in the air and in human beings. today at 7 p.m. eastern a conversation on governments and private research on microbes in the role on human health. booktv in prime time continues today with three authors looking at the future.

>> newark mayor cory booker one of new jersey's democratic primary and stephen flanagan won the republican nomination yesterday. the two will face off in october 15 special election. and former congressman jesse jackson, jr. and his wife sandy jackson are being sentenced today. prosecutors have recommended four years behind bars for jesse junior and 18 months for sandy jackson. the couple pleaded guilty in february failing to report the money as income on their taxes. >> up next, george w. bush institute resale the series of discussions looking at immigrants contributions for america. this panel focuses on the economic effects of naturalization. from dallas, this is about one

hour. >> a pleasure to be here. i worked for closed with president bush when he was in the white house trying to advance immigration reform in the last battle and so it's a pleasure for me to be back in his beautiful new house, talking about immigration. so thank you to this institute. i want to harken back as we get started to the ceremony that we saw this morning combat incredible moving ceremony because what we're going to talk about here today is not just out immigration is good for america, but have naturalization and citizenship actually even ups the ante and makes immigrants even more beneficial for the united states. to benefit themselves, but it's also a benefit for the country. so the very people we saw this morning when they came in the door, they were great for america but as they went out the door their even more. they will be even more of an asset. we will delve deeper into that. what i want to give him a couple of minutes at a moderate is

framing a little bit what we're talking about, what we are not talking about and kind of how citizenship fits into the process. so we are not talking of the debate in washington. we are not talking about comprehensive immigration reform. we're not talking about their use of the term illegal immigrants or unauthorized immigrants but what we have today to talk about is legal immigrants who come to the country and our on visas and decide to make the transition to be citizens. so hold onto the words, legal, legal, legal. what part of lega illegal don'tu understand and aren't we talking about? what i would like to do just before we get started is talk of a bit about how to become citizens, because when you go and focus to finish talk to people about citizenship, what you again and again is why don't they just go down to the post office and pick up the papers? as if citizenship is something that happens like that. it's not something that happens like that. the process to be very, people

come on of these can sometimes be, on a long-term visa, a permanent visa. sometimes they come on a short-term visa like a student visa and eventually graduate to a permanent visa or green card. once you have a green card you have to wait at least five years on your permanent visa before you can even apply to become a citizen. many wait five years. many weight tenure to some wait 15 years. some people remain in the country and never become citizens and stay here on these legal permanent visa. it allows you to live and work and travel but not vote, not serve our nature, not serve in public office and do some other, you get different kinds of government benefits. the question is, why do people make that step and what happens when they make that step. but which have to understand is in the population, it breaks down about a third, a third, at there. if you watch tv would think all the immigrants in america or

unauthorized. it's about a third, a third, a third. actually 37% of the immigrants in the country our citizens. 31% are people with permanent basis who could become citizens but haven't done it and 28% are unauthorized immigrants. so the picture you see on the news is incredibly misleading. the question before us today is what about this third that could become citizens and haven't yet? 8 million people, that's a lot of people, 8 million, right? i was looking at the numbers, that's a long line, four times dallas-fort worth. 8 million people could become citizens tomorrow but haven't chosen to do it. so one question is why and how can we encourage him because as we will see would be an incredible economic boon for the country. so citizenship, the of the last one want to make before turn over to our terrific panel is citizenship is part of a long

process of integrating or assimilating. integration or assimilation, people use the words interchangeably, that takes a whole lifetime for many immigrants. sometimes to generations. it has many different types of faces. everything from coming and getting a job in finding your first apartment, that's part of assimilating, eventually learning english and perhaps marrying an american and rising up in your job and serving in the military. assimilation means so many different things, some of them objective like getting a job and rising of educational the, and some of them subjective, like coming to the please touch along -- columnar and you love america and that we, we, not they, and citizenship is the capstone of the promise of citizenship is what people do when they decide i really belong here and i want to join the family formally. so we want to step back from that kind of emotional side of it and talk about what's the economics of this. making that decision to join,

what does that mean for you economic and what does that mean for the country economically. i have a terrific panel here. with a terrific panel to lead us to this. and i'm going to introduce them as i ask them a question. so let's start with you, richard, you're an economist by training. you're a professor emeritus at a higher university and a fellow here at the bush institute. let's talk about the big picture before we get to the citizenship, can you help us understand how integration or assimilation yield economic benefits? so, you know, what happens economically when people go through that long process and become integrated, what happens to the incomes? what happens to the education levels? what happened to homeownership? wealth creation but what happens as people settle and put down roots here? >> accident question.

and i'm thinking of something jim glassman said just a minute ago. he said immigrants did it. but immigrants don't get it overnight. it takes time for immigrants to get it. and immigrants coming to the united states, maybe the earn 60 or 70% of what a nativeborn american typically earns when they come in, 12, 15 years later there's some argument about the length of assimilation, we won't get into that debate. most of them have more or less caught up with a nativeborn americans in terms of income levels and so forth but it takes little longer to catch up in terms of wealth because that takes longer to accumulate. usually by the time their children come along, the second generation often outdistances nativeborn americans in terms of earnings. by the way, this is true historically, we can talk about that later. so it's a process but it isn't assimilation. assimilation is something even nativeborn americans have.

when a kid graduates from college or high school and go to work, they may make ask your 20 years later they're making twice as much. they learn on the job. they assimilate human capital. immigrants have the same problem but they have a double problem. because they come in, first of all they have less language skills. language skills are particularly critical. that is the single most important determinant of increasing immigrants income among immigrants. they learn on the job. they learn in the workplace. best way to learn english is to work and have to talk it. they learn more discipline to some people come from countries where getting to work at 8:00 maintain a 20 or 830 tonight. and the united states it means 8:00. so we learn more discipline. so there's a whole host of things. lingo, colloquialism that

american combat you don't learn in english classes or the germans don't in the german classes they take in germany i'm sure. and so it is an assimilation process and it takes quite a number of years. a lot of it is learning labor market information. to learn about occupational choices. you come to the country, you're limited. you have friends and relatives to help you get the first job, you may take the first thing that comes along, but your choices are very limited. so over time you build a. one way of course you build up is through education. and so immigrants can go to school at night and so forth to further their education. that, too, the credentialing. i think the credentialing process of naturalization is not entirely different from the credential of getting the colleagues and another slightly different context.

a colleagues diploma tells an employer, gee, this person is very bright. probably speaks english language well. probably is going to get to work on time. probably is not a drug affect. probably is very productive. therefore, we've and premium for college graduates. similarly i suspect naturalization has a similar impact. a person he was known, who can say that i am a naturalized citizen is a person who is saying i in making a commitment to this country. i want to be a member of the family. and probably employers minds, other things, i think this person is a little more committee, a little more discipline, a little more capable of doing what i want done. and, therefore, i'm willing to pay a premium. the next speaker was speak much more to this than me. i don't want to steal his thunder, but there is a premium. maybe 10% or so.

>> so you paint the picture, it's harder for them to do this assimilation than it is for americans, but they to catch up within 10, 20 years of? >> that's the bottom line. >> is that the same, what was it like in the past? you hear a lot of people say my grandmother spoke english overnight, and now all you here in the supermarket its spanish. how our immigrants today assembling compared immigrants in the past? and what's the economic -- >> that's a wonderful question. i love to talk about this and have to be careful. i'm a professor with tenure so i taught forever. it's the same now as it was 200 yours ago. it's painted different in some ways, national does change, the actions of change, you know, benjamin franklin in the 1760s complained about how tense --

how pennsylvania withering german eyes. that the germans were taking over and they're just not the same as the english, not as good as the english, not as smart as the english and so forth. in the 1850s and 1840s, we had the irish immigration in the united states. the irish, first of all, they're alcoholics. secondly, their catholic, et cetera, et cetera. at all these things are bad because catholics won't be able to integrate with the protestants and alcohol formula to immigrate with the sort of sober. [laughter] probably integrate quite well on college campuses by the way. spent the economic benefits? [laughter] >> the know nothing said you need 21 years to be nationalistic 21% of the vote in the 1856 election, and the immigration. so this sentiment for the

current generation is not as good as the previous one. it's been true throughout history and economic benefits? >> and economic benefits, in 1909 the immigration commission said immigrants to the united states make 80% of what nativeborn snake, which isn't too much different than today. actually at the last. but they also, that group has an agenda that was an all-pro immigrants and 40 some volumes of studies. the bottom line was by the end of their lives, by the end of their career into certain look at their children, they assimilate like crazy to their productive. they move ahead. >> great setting for where we're going to go next. which is the manual pastore. your professor of sociology and american studies of ethnicity. a lot of topics at the university of southern california. you honed in on a part of this,

terrific study were you not just of economic benefits on assimilation gym about the economic benefits of naturalization and citizenship. why don't you walk us through the study? i will ask you into parts, first talk about the benefits to individual immigrant. >> so, let me start by first saying that i want to push back on one thing you said, which is that some college degrees to signal -- so you want to be a little careful about that. [laughter] i thought it would be very grateful because i'm from california, i'm in texas, to start talking about the state rivalry and making fun of california but apparently that was done. i guess the only thing we're hoping is that now that you're, now that your governor is retiring that he will spend next two years trying to get university of southern california usc, judy, usc, the university of south dallas. so please don't let that happen. so yes, we did a report about a

year ago funded by the knight foundation called citizen kane which is a really great title for those of us my age, when you tell young people said something, what does that mean? but what we looked at was what would the gains in particular just for naturalization. an interesting thing was for those who are nerds, we tried to control for english and with ability, reasons of migration speak you can find this by using the words announced. spent i'm an economist. i feel naked without a regression. basically we try to control for everything that should explain difference between citizen and noncitizen immigrants, and we still found that citizens made about eight to 11% more than noncitizens simply by virtue of becoming citizens. why they gain? the game seems to be because when you're a citizen you've got a wider range of jobs you can move into.

number two, when you're a citizen you have made a commitment to the country and that commitment you make to the country lead you to make more specific investments in your human capital, your education, and it's been with the labor market. finally, it's the credentialing that you're talking about as well and the credentials affect that employers see being a citizen as standing up for a lot of the other kind of markers you were talking about, worker discipline, english-language ability, knowing the civics of the country, et cetera. let me say a couple of other things about this which is why you should have faith in these numbers. steve isn't it the case is just a certain type of person who becomes a citizen? what's interesting is when you do longitudinal studies, looking at the same person over time, which has been very few of those, you find it still about an eight to 11% gain. what we did, we did a survey,

and we look at this in a cross-sectional way but we saw information on you the people naturalized so we could sort of simulate what the gains were overtime and the longitudinal studies. second thing we should be aware of, which is that this is not a gain from legalization. we in california have been able to estimate who in that sample is unauthorized, who is authorized and noncitizen, and he was a system. and actually very little of the gain comes from authorization. more of the gain comes from making that final step to citizenship. that is crucial action in this current debate because the of including a roadmap to citizenship is about making sure that we can catch of the economic gains that come from it. and these gains, because i know you asked me a question, elegant professor, i'm filibustering speeded this will end in a minute. >> these gains are not just for the individual workers. we have speeded that's what

we're going to next question, so we have 8%, eight to 11% for the individuals. those people who were here this morning, they can go out and ask for an 11% raise. but taken now, this is where you're going, take it to the big society. what's again for america? not just for immigrants getting the bigger gain. what's the gain for the rest of us? >> well, again is a couple of ways. we have to realize how many kids or the kids are immigrants, right? so for example, in the state of california, half of our kids have an immigrant parent. so the gains that they make actually translate into that next generation being able to have more resources in house, parents, we can just focus in on the earnings gain but they started the more troubled about going to school, engaging with the teachers, ruby involving education and thinking of a role

to play in improving their schools, improving their temerity, improving their neighborhood. at the gains don't just stop with their families. we estimate it's about 21-$45 billion increase in the earnings, and, therefore, their spending power over of out 10 years if we could simply take 8.5 million folks are not a naturalized and natural is just half of them. those are the things we would get. here in the state of texas, because i know you're very texas focused, it's about a one to $2 billion gain a year if you can move the rates it. so this is a big macroeconomic gain that essentially money that we're leaving on the floor spend you take have a 8.5 million that are the current naturalized having to make it 21-45 billion over what amount of time? >> it's over 10 years with most of that coming. one of the things you need to realize, and by the way, is there any people who just got naturalized, don't go ask for an

11% gain to more. you probably won't get a. what the data shows us is that gain has happened over time. >> what time? >> i to six years to really get the initial boost, and probably peaks at about eight to 10 years. so what we know is that what we do now with this, we will begin to get these games. this is an in crowd important thing that, you know, we have been working with immigrants. we need to do more to encourage naturalization. we need to be thinking what stand in wa in the way of people speeded we are coming back to that. ui the executive director of the national immigration forum leading the forms new bethlehem project, to help immigrants become citizens. so talk to just where manuel is going to let's talk about obstacles. what are some of the obstacles? why don't people go down to the post office and pick up the papers? why is this a hard practice and was getting in the way?

>> sure. first of all i really want to thank the institute for putting on this entire day event and for the invitation for this bill. the natural station process and, frankly, immigration law is more coveted than any other set of laws within the federal government. oftentimes people say there's more collocated in tax law, if you can imagine that. so for an individual to go from injuring the country on a student visa, then to adjust to legal permanent residence and then eventually become and apply for naturalization is a process you can take anywhere from seven to 15 years. that's a big range. within that range comes a significant cost, significant criteria that the individual estimate whether it's english or civics or skills just to adjust their status. ..

so what about english? let's start from this english peace. what do we know about the benefits of learning english? that's a great number but what else do we know? >> i would argue that the growth found in his study that eight to 11% growth for an individual's wealth can also be attributed to english proficiency. the fact that you come and have additional skills to present to an employer. and this is the interesting part about the work we've been doing. when you talk to employers,

whether they are big employers, small employers across the skill range they are looking for individuals with the skill. frankly, they're looking to improve the skills of the work force whether its bringing in a community college tuition reimbursement program, there's an incredible amount of innovative models that facilitate the learning of english. >> let's talk about what you actually do. how you help people learn english and become citizens. >> this coley is in 1915, bethlehem steel was the first company in america to provide english class as to the immigrant work force. we think 1915, those are the good old days. yes, they were. but the fact is that one of the leading institutions in the corporation of america said we have and immigrant work force that needs to learn english let's help them do that. we've been going to businesses across the country and with support for the new america campaign has been asking

employers like marriott and the intercontinental hotel and american apparel and partners with the l.a. chamber of commerce are you a modern bethlehem steel, the want to help learning question also become citizens? we are finding in cities across america employers are saying yes. they love the idea of being about this kind of and tell america these are immigrant workers contributing to the bottom line, learning english and becoming americans. as of this sort of, again, an innovative model of connecting the employer to the employee in a different way that serves both needs. >> it's not just that they want to sound like the good guy. it's about having employers -- if you speak english. we will come back. if you keep speaking english you move on the job and they maintain you and you are much more productive. >> when we first start to think of this idea that i think in 2004 in boston, the boston redevelopment authority looked

at the growth and the hospitality and health care industries in the greater boston region and they found actually the growth in occupation was going to come in areas in jobs the required a higher level of english skills but use of the workforce at that point have low english skills. so until the balance was reached that you had a workforce that has the english skills that are necessary for the future of the economy, they are in a huge amount of trouble. >> so, eric, you are the executive director of the immigrant resource center and leading the new america campaign that he was just thinking for the support for the audience, to streamline access to the naturalization services. i want to ask you when you do in imminent, but before we get to what you do, you've been working for more than a decade helping people become citizens. help us get to the reality on this. we've been talking numbers,

we've been talking historical trends. tell us about some of the people you've encountered who want to become citizens and then have gone on the basis of this to become successful. can you tell us about those stories? >> sure. i also want to thank the institute for having us. i tell people i'm an naturalization evangelist and i'm like a kid in a candy store today because the whole day devoted to this topic. i have a very fond impression of the institute. i do want to introduce you to to people come actually three but one is a couple. i want to introduce you to abelle who is typical of someone that is naturalizing who might be similar in similar circumstances. he and his wife actually are in the process of naturalizing. they came to a workshop at the new america's campaign a couple weeks ago and i met with them. just so you know there are 200

people interested applying for the naturalization and there are over 100 volunteers. it's wonderful. his wife is from mexico. abelle is from guatemala. his wife works as a file clerk at the university of california san francisco. and if you don't already know, that is one of the premier hospitals and medical school in the world. they have three children. one is 3-years-old and the virtue in college. one of their charness studying at the university of santa barbara. the other child was studying at pepperdine university in the business and advertising. abelle fled guatemala in 1988 when he was in his teens near the end of the civil war. he came in the united states as a house painter and came unauthorized. since 1998 he has owned his own house paying business. he has eight employees and thus both commercial and residential painting.

he has his contractor's license, foley bonded and insured for all his employees. he made sure to tell me that. he does everything by the book. additionally, he and his wife are homeowners and have been for almost ten years. which in san francisco, as you might expect, is pretty big. it's expensive to buy a home in san francisco. yet he told me why he wanted to become a citizen. he said first of all, i want to vote. but second, i want to take the last step of becoming fully integrated as part of the united states because i don't plan on moving back to guatemala. i want to plant my stakes in the ground here. and when i told him why i was -- after i helped him with his application i told him you would be a great person at the institute. can i interviewed you me and talk about your story? he said sure. he wanted me to tell people a little message and he said, quote, the united states is a great country where we have lots of opportunities and you're

allowed to express your opinions. it's a free country, and i want to become a united states citizen and lives here the rest of my life for those reasons. so she's a really good exceed love someone. and if i could -- and he hasn't reaped the benefits -- >> is it the story of someone reaping the benefits. >> santiago and bernard marino are married to each other. they came to the united states at young ages and obtained a green card in the amnesty program in the late 1980's and bernardo through family ties. they both naturalized in their 30's, which is about ten years ago. both went to college at the university of san diego, where they met and went to graduate school at stanford university. they are homeowners in san francisco. once again a big risk. and the own several investment properties in the san diego area where they are leasing of their investment properties.

they have newborn twins and are thus helping to support the industry in a very significant way right now. bernardo is a lawyer, employer and small-business owner with offices in san francisco and san jose california. cynthia is a finance expert. she presently works at the director of property management at the charity housing in san jose california. charity housing managers affordable housing in santa clara, and she oversees a staff of over 50 and an annual budget of over $10 million. since shia arrived, she's helped raise over $100 million for building, preserving low-income housing. so that, to me, was quite impressive. she will receive a management of the 1100 units for the low and moderate income housing and victims of domestic violence, etc.. she's also on our board of directors and is on our audit committee and finance committee and really helps us on the up and up.

we are and 8 million-dollar organization with 24 employees. they told me they both feel been u.s. citizens held them provide financial security. they wouldn't have bought a house had they not been u.s. citizens. they wouldn't have purchased investment properties had they not been u.s. citizens. and they didn't want to miss out on these financial opportunities. and once again, they wanted to put their stakes in the ground permanently in the united states. >> that's very important. that sense of if you're going to stay and you know you're going to stay and then you are going to invest both financially and by yourself. i want to come back to what you do that brought in the conversation a little bit first. we are talking about a very good story but also we are talking about the benefits and the uplift and how it benefits them and how it benefits us. when you look at the numbers come 8 million come 8.5 million people who could be doing this who aren't doing it right now. and, you know, and the gain that

you are talking about, half of the immigrants come of them on the mexicans but only about one-third of the mexicans who could have naturalized. let's talk a little bit more about what can be done to encourage this. right? like, and i know both of your organizations are involved in this. why don't we start with you and come this way and talk a little bit about this is a great story for the people to do it, but what about the people that aren't doing it? how to get to them and get them on the train so to speak? >> is it okay if i talk about the new america campaign? >> yes, very briefly so we can go down the line. >> okay, great. there is an exciting program campaign going on right now called the nac, new america's campaign. the goal was to help as many people naturalized responding to the to respecting the fact it is a legal process. we want to do it effectively and efficiently and quickly. could the guiding principles are to impact the diverse

communities employee in collaboration, innovation and technology. right now there are 18 different of these collaborations -- >> what does that mean exactly? >> bayh collaboration what we are doing is a perfect example. the catholic charities here -- in the audience she led a lead. we helped them with financing and with founder support and large part by the foundation and the carnegie corporation to provide financing, best practices, innovation here in dallas and fort worth to help as many people go through the process. >> this is a legal process. learning english and learning civics and all that stuff. you are helping with the peace that is a leg up the paperwork. >> exactly. helping them get over that hurdle. they refer people and a partner with lots of adult schools come english language learning schools, said vicks learning

schools, even the banks and lending circles to get the $680 fee. a partner with lots of those organizations as well. >> let's come down the line. you working with business, but in particular are they helping people to? do they help with the legal piece on the form? are they helping with english class is? >> an example when washington, d.c. we are working with the j.w. see marriott, and the first session is with the housekeeping staff. there's an incredible moment because we met two women who had been working at the marriott for ten, 15 years. and they'd been eligible for the naturalization for nearly that amount of time. and the one reason why they haven't taken that final step is because they had a one hour commute on the train every day each way. so, they lived in suburban virginia. they said you know, i'm working eight hours a day, taking two hours to get back and forth, and i have things to do when i get home. this is a big thing. so they were so happy to be able

to come to work. and for the marriott to be about to say okay we are going to extend your lunch hour so that you can get the assistance you need for to complete the paperwork. so that's one piece. just kind of creating that time and space. another thing that has to be done is we have to look at the process. what investment can be made by the federal government in terms of facilitating the process so that people are not reading this long. so that the backlogs are reduced, so that people can actually go from the green card status to naturalization in a reasonable amount of time. >> and the problem is the government has a lot of backlog? >> there's backlog and an incredible amount of regulation. you have business is overregulated, you know, look at the naturalization process. >> you've got -- the focus a little bit on the fees. talk a little bit more about that. you have a great number in your report about what happened when the feed went up recently. >> yes.

in 2007 the fees went up to essentially they cost about $680 because they both have to pay the fee and to a biometric exam. that is an understatement and we can talk about. but in that year, we went from about 1.5 million applications to 500,000 in the next year. and when you take a look at it, what happened is it really hit the less educated folks because, you know, for us, $680 -- anyone on this panel -- doesn't like that much money but it's about two and a half weeks of take-home pay for a minimum wage worker. and if you are going to do this right, you probably want to consult a lawyer and make sure you are getting the right number of english classes, etc.. so the cost of doing this is even bigger than you think. >> what are the cost? >> my biggest guess somebody should be putting aside about $3,000 because they probably want to check in with a lawyer as well as make sure they are paying these fees. so that is a lot of money. >> that is one thing.

for another person you have a family -- >> and for low-income folks, it could mean they are facing a liquidity constraints. even though there are economic gains. and one thing, the english-language effect is different than the citizenship. the english-language effect is about a 15% boost in your wages and the citizenship is about an eight to 11% boost. there's a couple other things. the differences between the immigrants and non-immigrant or citizens and non-citizens is pretty low. >> so 15% is in getting to english proficiency. you get a 15% boost in your wages and you are not counting that in your eight to 11% citizenship. >> exactly. there is a lot of game. the other thing is to see how the business is reaching out. it's really good to see the kind of programs that are being talked about before. one that is interesting because all of the sectors can be involved. in los angeles, los angeles public library has created citizenship corners. this is a place immigrants and

their kids go. they wind up, they are taking their kids to the library and there is a little corner that tells them how they can become a citizen. there still going to face these people, et cetera. another interesting program is the microloan program at city core and maryland. the have put together to help people who are facing these liquidity constraints to borrow the money to pay for these fees. because when they see the economic benefits that somebody could give them the money up front and let them paid out over time it's good investment. >> we are not talking about lowering the fees in the background tax. we talk about how we help people feel that -- pay that. >> the citizenship and immigration service is supposed to be self financing. there's a lot of benefits that may be suggest we should be subsidizing it. but even if we weren't, we might want to consider changing the fees. like real thing for the green card process it should be more expensive to me and becoming a citizenship -- >> explain to the audience, the

green card is a permanent visa and you still have to redo it every ten years, or in h-1b visa. >> they are basically sold out in the first month he could raise the fee is there and lower the fees for the naturalization and you couldn't read it something that we all say we think is important to become an important part of the american fabric. >> okay. richard, you want to weigh in on this? >> just listening to the conversation of the way the cost and the benefits of naturalization, to the natural -- to the potential naturalized citizen, very often the benefits far outweigh the cost. when you think of the naturalization you have the 25 years more of work you may be talking about three or $4,000 a year extra income. about 100 house of dollars discounted back to the president to the present 70 or 80 pity we have to do our economic stuff here. >> that is another --

>> the costs of our 3,000 -- may be 10,000. even if the costs are 10,000, they are still relatively small in relation with the benefits. so we should try to find ways to overcome the cost to lower them and i strongly agree. and maybe we ought to auction off -- >> that is a long conversation. >> the ways to finance the 680 -- >> 680 times a million is what? $680 million a year. it's trivia. >> so because of the game of the 21 potentially billion dollars over ten years, it could be cheaper. so let's come back to the businesses because we all talk about the businesses and i work closely with businesses. ausley understand how the businesses see the bottom line benefit in english. i'm not sure i get out of businesses see the bottomline benefit and citizenship. we are talking about an economic.

we are talking about the benefit of the individual and the benefits to the economy. but if i am running my flower stand or my chain restaurant or by whatever, what is the benefit of having the people that are working for citizens? >> it is a great question. and frankly when we were starting the project we had to talk to people through. the question we got from the business is what if my workers are not eligible for citizenship? are they here legally? yes, to be deep breath. the people started to get a little anxious on it. so first the question and answer was what is the citizenship process? once the answer that question people realized for the process they are learning additional skills etc.. so that bottom-line impact is that the handling skills to build over the course of naturalization. and it really comes down to every business at the end of the day yes, there's a bottom line impact and they also want to be part of a good story. they want to tell a good story. and they want to tell good stories to the work force and also to the customer base. >> i like that a good story but i'm also looking for the bottom

line here. >> the model that has been created is that they are able to create time within the work day that isn't taking away anything they are losing. so again, that benefit is to be able to engage the work force. and that work force than has much more investment. >> that is an economic benefit. it feels more invested. >> that is the one thing you're talking employer loyalty. a lot of the firms that hire immigrant workers when they initially hire them it's like it isn't being easily exploited in the labour force and they are really hard-working folks that we want to be all to keep to be doubled to retain people because the loyalty of senior company aging to become a part of the american society and the benefits that has for your kids, that is something that leads to a long-term relationships. >> what we're finding of the

hospitality industry is the are competing with each other i have the project and my workers are happy. so it's kind of nice to see businesses saying sign me up because i want to be able to engage my work force. >> let's have another hard question and look at the audience. so a lot of these again you do these focus groups on tv and people on talk radio say they want to become citizens because they want the wealth your benefits. even to legal immigrants don't get much in the way of welfare and if they become citizens they can do all these things. what is the answer to that? what do we say to that? >> it's mostly -- first of all it is an exaggeration that immigrants crave the benefits. if you look, there are different periods in history you get different results. it's true for some of the group's the incidence are just a little higher than it is among the navy board. >> not now.

>> that generally speaking they are low welfare users and they are indeed illegal immigrants are avoiding them like the plague in many systems. the ones that are here legally have an extremely high rate of worker participation. this is another thing is they work. they are hard workers. they prefer the work to the more trade-off analogy. >> but when you become a citizen you are eligible for other benefits to i never see in an event that says that is why they are naturalizing. but again there are a lot of skeptics out there. >> when the welfare, clinton's welfare was there in the 1990's there were a lot of folks that shifted over to citizenship from the permanent resident status in order to be attacks us what they were losing under that welfare

reform. i don't think any serious economist believes that welfare is actually a magnet for the immigrants or when you look at the data do they use welfare extensively. the second thing and this is something that you were pointing to is the rate of mobility over time. one of the things we found in california that is striking, immigrants could have been here for longer than 30 years have a high year rate of home ownership than the native-born. people really want to make investments and they want to be independent. >> when there is welfare if you stack it up next year $21 billion it's not going to be very much money. >> to have something to the business conversation i just submitted a minute ago i used to work with someone who owned a small manufacturing plant and made wedding dresses and employed about 50 people in the industry. and she wanted everyone to get that legal status and then to

naturalize because he felt that was a high tension opportunity for him. he trained all of these people coming and he wanted them to stay with him and his employees. and he thought that it was magnificent that they went through the process. >> great. this is really terrific and rich conversations. let's open it up to the others in the room. would like to hear your questions and if you're here in the affiliation we would love to hear your affiliation and please, may get a question if you can. >> please wait for a moment. >> i thought we were not getting any more tough questions. >> damian with the knight foundation. we have a new application out under nac, too, which is exciting. we talked a lot about the economic benefit which is fantastic. can you talk of the benefit of the civil society and the fabric of the country in terms of what

immigrants offer? >> yes. to put that in a little bit of perspective, our job was to talk economics and i was going to do a little bit of a disclaimer because i think it is important. you don't want to think about immigrants as it is painful to be just limiting it to this. i have been pacing all our. but you don't want to be the person that only thinks about the bottom line but you also don't want to think about the person on the bottom line when you think about immigration. the next panel will be all about the non-economic benefits. >> in terms of why people become citizens, because they want the full rights and opportunities and protection of citizenship. so when president bush said today the most important title that he ever had was a u.s. citizen, that means something to people and it means something to their neighbors. so is someone intangible but

it's also important when people are dealing with whether it is state or local or the federal government to be able to say yes i am a u.s. citizen. that is to be hour as a society. and i believe that that is the reason why people become citizens. >> despite the increases, one thing that we still see on the pattern of the data is when the immigrant communities feel like the anti-immigrant rhetoric has gotten heated or the tone is negative, the move towards naturalization. the move towards engagement. so, one of the things that i think is a main benefit of naturalization is you learn english which is we to make you more effective working with the teachers at your school and you get more of the confidence. to have a voice in the civic life. we are talking about these are

people looking to get a full handle on the parts of the american experiment. >> my experience in asking people why they are doing it, people do it when they finally feel they belong. they don't do it to get to the other side of the fence rated the dewitt when they feel they have it on the other side and really belong here and are part of the family pet >> that speaks to the fact we should create an opportunity for even those that are not yet citizens to have a voice in the public policy process to encourage them to participate in all sorts of debates. >> so two things. one is all i have seen that in action with people i felt to go through the naturalization process where they become more engaged in their kids' education and in the pta and in a neighborhood watch program, etc.. the other things that follow-up and the preface this question

about the app, the new america's campaign is doing work around integrating technology into the process. as damien said there is a new app -- >> what does that app do? >> it can help you figure out if you plug in your zip code where the closest location is if you look at the naturalization process it can help you learn the sixth question, do an english test, the requirements, etc.. and then if you get to lot eight app but a computer you can actually go through and get screening for the naturalization and complete your application online with pop ups where it can give you more information. really wonderful product. >> another question? >> you do need a microphone. >> while we are waiting for the microphone, just to follow-up on

what was said earlier, the economic benefits of immigration has spillover effects of the traditional economics. for example, the additional income associated with say naturalization raises tax money that allow many things. >> very important. >> yes, jim glassman from the boesh institute. you talk a little about the process is like. you have to learn english and civics. but i didn't hear any comments from anyone on the panel about whether that is a good process or not in an economic sense or general integration. would you approve that and how would you? >> i was involved a couple of years ago. during the bush year we redesign the test to kind of make it more relevant. i challenge anyone in the room

to take the naturalization test and pass it. we think we went through high school civics and history. it's harder. there's a lot we should know that we don't know. it is a test. the idea of being redesigned and the bush administration wasn't to make it easier to get more relevant and i think improved it. >> so two things, one is right now the process is much more streamlined than it used to be. as we were in this conversation 15 years ago and started with president clinton and it really accelerated with president bush in streamlining the process. now you can go from a to z. for four months even six months. years ago we were talking to and a half to three years. so that is one really positive

part of its. i do think the process is elongated. i do think that five years is a long time to have to be here to put your roots in and i would be a bigger fan of three years plus a would help economically if you could become a citizen of verses the five years. >> so five years you wait before you even start and beyond that you apply and then the process itself can be done in about six months. but the process involves a legal hurdle but we have been talking about but also you go in the subway and see people studying for the sats or what have you, people in learning history. >> the process, the naturalization process has gotten better over the past few years and that is passed a short window of time. but what i'm actually worried about is you get to the green

card status. you are entering the country on a family visa and any one of the different work visa. to the level to access that legal point of entry is incredibly difficult. and competitive. in some ways that is good and some ways it is not. but to be able to pass from that worker family visa to be able to be eligible for the legal permanent residents is a difficult process and you have to figure know who is going to sponsor you, how are you going to be sponsored, and that i believe can be streamlined in the way to actually meet the interest of the country because you streamline that window and it is the final economic benefit is much greater. >> the requirement that we speak english to become a citizen is a great thing. and it means we should be flooding of the zone and immigrant are so highly involved in the work force that they need

much more community-based in the evening classes. when you look at the adult education class is teaching people english, you are generally seeking a number of people wanting to get in the class. people really want to learn english. we should try to make that more available. it's a good investment in the economy and citizenship and civic engagement. >> that was a great study i thought someone would emphasize it and they did a study how people are waiting could i forget the numbers but i think it was with high a concentration between four months and two years people waited for an english class and you have the people saying why are the people of the focus group saying why don't they learn english but in fact the ones who want to learn english can't find a class. >> the million-dollar question to us and the new america campaign and during this work on the front line is why isn't there 8.5 million people who are eligible for 750,850,000 of flying in newly right now with the exception in 2007. and those of other seven and a

half million how can we get them to that. part of it is because it is too hard hit depend -- to apply. all of those are factors that are working against their economies. >> english language and the fear of english you don't have to be a college professor to pass the exam. it is a working mission. a lot of people can do it and they don't think they can get their. number three is some people are not ready to take that step yet but it is english. and if we flooded the system with english class is, that would be of huge impediment people could get over and the other -- >> you have a question.

>> a lot of people it is a fear. >> it is a huge barrier they don't feel like they can learn english at their age. >> get to a question. >> okay -- >> i have to hold you to the same. >> when we look at the u.s. we typically look at the household and the the four four and headed households and the reasons provided tend to be poor and they tend to lack health insurance so their children get state health insurance.

the other point from talking to people i heard that people naturalized to use the unification benefits they get so they can sponsor for immigration. can you comment on that? >> that is a big reason why people become naturalized. i found that back in the ladies and through the 90's that is the major reason because as a u.s. citizen you can petition for your relative much more quickly than if you are a wall for permanent resident. but some of the proposition for the settlement we talked about more and more people into the 90's have been accelerating the naturalization to vote. >> i am a journalist and we are going to have the last question has a lightning round. you get one or two sentences each. i want you to back up away from

the benefits of the immigrants and think about the benefits for the u.s.. let's sum up the bottom line ye is naturalization a benefit to the country as a whole? let's start here and go down the line in this and it is a benefit to the country as a whole because it promotes democracy. it promotes the democracy and includes more people allowed to participate and that is what we want. >> i think in a small town in texas for the midwest and those small towns not only need more immigrants, but the need more citizens. so that is the vitality that we are. >> let's go to you, richard, and then we will do one more. >> how your income for people. other than the immigrants themselves. everyone is better off. and the naturalization ads to that process. it's the process spillover effect on the american population. >> how is that moving and naturalization ceremony like so many of you. and what i realized in watching that made us aware this is a

unique country in which you can become americans by the understanding with the principles of the country are. that says so much about how we are that the encouraging naturalization as an act goes far beyond the reasons that we laid out. >> thank you so much. terrific panel. >> stay there. don't leave. i just want to say that when i first heard this panel proposed, i thought that this kind of a strange subject. i really didn't think frankly that there was any difference between somebody that came here and got a green card and worked in america and helped the economy and somebody that got naturalized other than the kind of citizenship, the importance of promoting dhaka as the and so forth -- democracy and so forth. it helps the economy and raises important policy questions about, you know, whether we should bergen perspectives, a naturalized citizens with a

3,000-dollar fee may be or help them learn english. it brings to the surface a lot of issues i don't think people are thinking about. and in the current debate there is the question of is it a path of citizenship, do we want to change for unauthorized immigrants or is it a path to legalization being able to work in america. and this panel like think is quite convincing on that point it helps america as people get naturalize and become citizens. we are going to take a ten minute break and then come back and talk. and a great subject as well. thank you come tamar and the panelists. you did a great job. [applause]

>> it is unusual in such a way that she certainly did. i think it was her youth and her effervescence. she was simply changing this loyal core to. having read about her she was a very happy girl. he gives her the official title

which wouldn't normally be given. it would only be given to the wife. >> the encore presentation of the original series continues tomorrow night at nine eastern on c-span. >> he co-wrote five syndicated columns a week for 25 years. most of the time for the "baltimore sun," covered ten presidential he elections, was known for appearances on tv is the level of glenna group and just finished a novel about a reporter which is being published on friday. jack germond was 85. >> next, the challenges of peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in the post for countries like iraq, afghanistan and malida. the discussion hosted by stimson senator includes stuart and rowen. this is an hour-and-a-half.

>> good morning everyone. i am ellen laipson and i am delighted to welcome you to the stimson center for this august conversation about between war and peace do we need the tools for the messy transition. we are gathering at a time we can see the end of both iraq and afghanistan engagements, and this event in a way is pivoted around the offer by the special inspector general for the iraqi reconstruction, stuart bowen, to present some of the findings on the final report said the special inspector general office, which was created in 2004 is now completing its work. so it is a moment of reflection and looking back at what are some of the lessons of iraq. but we know that iraq and so many ways was an out lawyer and may be an exception of the kind engagements both in the united states, the u.n., the other parts of the international community to prepare for perhaps

things on the smaller scale or things of less strategic consequence to the united states. but we have been struggling with this question of stability operations, posed conflict stabilization, how to do state building, peacebuilding etc. for a generation now. and we have on the panel i think three people who bring the very distinct and valuable perspectives on how to think about these issues moving forward. we are going to begin with stuart bowen. as i said, he is wrapping up more than a decade of distinguished service as the special the inspector general for the iraq reconstruction. in his pro your life he's an attorney and worked in several capacities when george w. bush was governor of texas they have a long affiliation and we are really delighted that stuart bowen has developed such innovative and attractive materials to understand. i think it really does help that there is a lot of visual presentations of the lessons of

iraq and the jury complicated story of funding what didn't work so well and how we can do better the next time. so, we have invited stuart bowen to make his presentation first. we will then turn to jim schear who finished his second tour of the pentagon as the deputy assistant secretary with responsibility for the operations. in his earlier career he was a research scholar at the national defense university director of research and worked throughout his career on these questions of stabilization and reconstruction including at the u.n. and in some of his early post cold war success stories in cambodia, the balkans and elsewhere. so jim will give the perspective of how did stuart bowen's ideas, what kind of responses were there more broadly in the pentagon and the interagency community and his own reflections on what would be the right tools and the right

mechanisms to respond in the post conflict environments. and we are very delighted to have lee m. smith, who is currently the director of the, let me get the title right, the u.n. details policies and best practice service. she's been in that position for a year and has a long career as an australian diplomat and as a person that has worked on humanitarian law and has worked both in the ngo world and in the government systems in both legal and diplomatic positions. so, we really do want to bring and how does the broad international community handle these questions. and our own who may be here and is the co-director of the program on peace operations to grapple with the same questions with the human perspective. so we are glad to be able to broaden the lands and have both leanne smith talk about how to

plan and prepare and organize itself for its very broad ra of conflict. one last thought i wanted to share is that in a way what you are going to hear about today is the mechanisms the government practices, the procedures. but we want to remember that before any of that gets put into motion, there is some very important policy questions and even political deliberations that are required. what level of engagement and responsibility does the international community feel it has or should have for some of these engagements? so let's recall that even prior to the decisions that we are going to be talking about today are some very difficult policy decisions that have to be made to put this all into motion. so, without further ado, stuart, welcome to the stimson center and we are delighted to have you here today. >> thank you, ellen and to the

stimson center for hosting this event. it's an honor to be here and an honor to be on this panel with gem and -- jim and leanne. and if he says today is is the united states interagency sufficiently well the integrated to plan, execute and oversee stabilization and reconstruction operations? i would say the answer is no we are not yet sufficiently integrated to accomplish such and that reform is needed. the three premises at the outset that we agree on and then we will get into the meat of subject one. the iraqi reconstruction program didn't go well. the inspections 390f them demonstrate that fact. but as important as the audits

on the lessons learned and the final one is learning from iraq which puts forward seven lessons that the interagency should take to heart, but the most important one is the first one and that is the substance of this morning stock and the need to form some sort of interagency capacity that improves the current structure. the second point is by definition the interagency is not well integrated at this juncture. the evidence continues to be revealed in afghanistan and the question arises in afghanistan today and it arose and iraq as well. who is in charge of the reconstruction program? it is an issue that the special one specter general for the afghan reconstruction has raised and the commission on wartime contract in raise in its hearing and in a hearing about march of

2010 is a part of the panel that delve into that and the panel concluded and the commission concluded out of it that there was a clarity and there was an integration and there wasn't a good answer for who was in charge. we have to be able to answer that question better. the third promise is how can we move forward with an effective path towards reform and the reality is spelled out in chapter two of learning from iraq. the americans i interviewed both leadership from iraq, leadership on the hill and the past must be towards the integrated capacity. the iraqi is repeatedly identified for me and the frustration about the fact the defense and interlocutors were themselves at the war.

they spend more time bickering than providing aid. the doctor, chief of staff, the prime minister underscored this. he said instead of getting help from the state defense he had to observe this constant conflict. and indeed, ambassador hill in iraq in 2010 felt that the iraqi reconstruction picture amounted to the clash of cultures between the states. and ambassador jeffrey echoed that fact and agreed that we need reform to improve our approach. general ostend in my interview with him, commander of multinational force-iraq and then the u.s. forces iraq. i said the approach that we have suggested in the reporting is a good one, so the leadership in

iraq on both the states and the defense side with the iraqi spelled out in this report the need for the reform to move towards integration of our interagency capacity and the love to execute operations. how to do it, that is the question. there are lots of ideas and let me first lay out with the current structure is and then identify the approach that is now possible through h.r. 2606a bill introduced six weeks ago by the congressman stockman and welsh on the broad spectrum that is gaining a co-sponsor should and has interest on the hill that would implement the kind of reform i'm talking about. in the interagency we have today the bureau conflict stabilization operation. it succeeded in the coordinated

reconstruction stabilization at the state department which didn't succeed in carrying out the mission identified when it was authorized for the natural to become national security directive 44. the ambassador lead that office for years and he is now a supporter of the proposal that we suggest learning from iraq and is proposing to 606. we have also in the state department and usaid the transition issues that have been around since the mid 90's and it does a good job of carrying out the target is civilization event but it's largely due to contractors and it isn't to carry out the planning for the stabilization reconstruction operations. at the treasury department we have the office of technical assistance, which as we pointed out in hard lessons did an excellent job with regard to stabilizing the central banks and the currency conversion. it's one of the good stories

from the early days and one of the few. it does its mission and creates the response to stabilization demands in the early 90's. but it's not an integrated capacity for planning and executing stabilization and reconstruction operation. at the justice department we provide aid on the rules law that's the most important aspect under headrest early on in iraq in the stabilization operation context. as it came forward later, but again it's not an integrated for executing these operations in the defense department we saw in 2005 we saw the revolutionary move in the 21st century, and that is the creation of stabilization operations as a doctorate and now embodied in a army field manuals and the army

directed 3,000.405. and that has become the transformation and still somewhat ambiguous to what the defense's role should be in these operations. the proposal but we have suggested would help resolve that ambiguity. so you have the defense, state, aid to the treasury and justice, the big science. capacities that operate within the stovepiped. but the stovepipes endure and because of their existence have effective integration. coordination doesn't work. and thus oversight is not effective and senator mccain in my interview with him in chapter 2 learning from iraq said that we need to do the kind of reform that h.r. 2606 proposals and would create something called the contingency operations that would be charged with planning, executing and overseeing stabilization and we

construction operations. ambassador crocker said it sets the course to correct the failures of the u.s. stabilization reconstruct operations over the past three decades by establishing what the congress would create an institution dedicated to planning, preparing and executing the future. it will bring together the best of all worlds and provide unity of direction and uninterrupted vision said the u.s. meets the challenges safe and future posed conflict operations. this from the men preeminently experienced in the field having served during the search, and successfully in iraq then again as the ambassador to afghanistan. so, he has been married and has done that and he sees this as a path for word that could work. the ambassador, the other preeminent branch person on the field as i said, the man that led the attempted solution to this problem at the state department for three years says

with regards to this proposal coming and the state department or usaid hi years and trains people in large numbers first of the operation. this was evident in iraq and afghanistan and experience shows we need a core dedicated professional in order to conduct these operations. this is where it comes into being would provide the first operation ready to respond to emergencies abroad if finally, the lieutenant general chief of staff to the multinational corps in iraq says the fact of the matter is the department of defense has been in the lead in the most recent stabilization reconstruction operators. unfortunately, this has created a situation where the core competencies of other government agencies and the department have not been adequately brought to bear. this is far from the allocation of burden among agencies. better integration of government agencies and to the entity like the u.s. officer operations as proposed by h.r. 2606 would be a giant step forward.

so there is a solution on the table. it could fill this empty space. this lack of responsibility for planning and executing and overseeing these operations but it is a heavy left on capitol hill as it is passing any legislation. but the argument has begun and i glad that we are here this morning to continue the discussion and to move it forward. for >> would you like to give us your thoughts on the dilemma? >> thank you to you and the stimson center colleagues for orchestrating this conversation. to use the adjective in the organization, this is a messy issue. and we are discussing it at a messy time. as we all know, the oef, oif here is fading. the effect various parts of the world and yet large-scale

stabilization and reconstruction activities are not well. others are by the would-be recipients or would-be suppliers. the huge challenge i think is an enduring issue but it is a very messy time. succumbing to navigate up towards stuart's proposal, let me get a little bit of context here. those of us that have been working on a stabilization issues in the past few years have been focused on the urgent and the emergent issues. first is the retrospective peace. looking back at the lessons and here i get a big shot out stuart at all the colleagues for what they've done in the iraq context to explicate saw what lessons on the field. and that is a function not only of your work and fighting fraud,

waste and abuse through the audits and investigations but more broadly work from the field on the programmatic of oif, how it worked, how it didn't work and could have worked better. it's important to absorb those lessons. second is the prospect of the peace, looking ahead. i would say as we look ahead, the colleagues will still continue to focus on the preventive peace more and more. and here i would actually give a big shot out to wreck barton and his team in the state department for their work in developing this side of the civilian response network, not the core. it's a broad international network which includes a wide variety of expertise, stakeholders from the private sector and nonprofits,

international partners, civil society members and local regions as diverse as kenya or hundred us or burma and that is an interesting development and i hope our state department leadership and colleagues can put energy into that for the developing because that is the key to the important preventive activity. ..

have staunch advocates for the mission but not owners. joint proponent means you own the mission and the sense of working in a joint context to develop the approach on these structure core functionalities, and who does what? and you're responsible to the secretary of defense. that's an important innovation. also nongoing joint capability assessment, which we hope will lead to a clearer understanding what the otherwise perishable capacities -- capabilities are that we need to watch. so as we look ahead, obviously

it's clear that we are in a downsizing mode, ground forces are going to be cut. we know this. we also know that there is a traditionalist argument which has a history bruf i -- buff, i understand they are not prepared to launch back to the traditional combat. the end of the 19th century, the brits had been fighting counterinsurgency in africa. they didn't have a clue on trench warfare then. our eighth army occupying japan, doing stablization there was thrust in to south korea not well prepared to defend against north korea's armored assault. having said that, let me also say that a current context does provide continued incentive for our forces, especially our land forces to continue to embrace

this mission. the irregular warfare context, the asymmetric threats we find in various part of the world, where the u.s. military might be called upon to operate, does give an incentive to population centric approaches to operations. to understand the human terrain, i think that's critically important in term of preserving doctrine, expertise, training, the ability to maneuver and contested environments intelligence surveillance reconnaissance, engineering capability, transitional policing and oh things. there are other incentive to keep the capabilities. okay, so let me quickly turn to stew proposal. i think we need to give serious consideration to the proposal. i think we also need to look hard at the political and

bureaucratic dynamic, which it might shape inadvently here. i'll identify three things. first of all, what i call the main streaming versus separation issue. right now, i think our biggest concern is how to main stream the sro expertise within the existing bureaucracy. i worry setting up a separate entity to do that in a way relieves pressure. they can outsource. some of you will recall the army's attachment in the 1990s to what they called the concept. operations other than war. as we watch that metastasize, it became a concern for certain constituencies in the army that to work on other than war was to what i would call -- operations other than what i signed up for. [laughter] and so we don't want to do that

and go through that phase again. i'm not saying that you necessarily would aid and abet that. it's something that has to be considered. the second issue is what i would call the field of -- "field of dreams" problem. if we build it, they will come. worked great for kevin costner in building a baseball diamond in central iowa. actually worked for the u come commander in operation allied force bringing refugee camps in northern mas macedonia. the problem though is that if you're nervous about using a certain capability, hitting that button it's going to be hard if you think hitting the button means something is going happen you don't want to happen. and i worry that our leaders in

the white house and state department and the defense department are going to be nervous about hitting the button when they should be hitting hitting it to do with the preparation and planning if they think it will lead to something, which at the end of the day, they want to avoid. i think there would be great reenforcement throughout the office throughout the bureaucracy on this. i would be very concerned about whey -- what i call "field of dream problem." i'm not convinced it makes the chain of command easier. i think it may complex it. a ambassador will never report to a general. a general will never report to an ambassador. there has to be unity of effort, and actually, general david petraeus and ambassador ryan worked very well.

but i take stewart's point there was serious missions and bureaucratic warfare. that's the reality. i think there are ways to deal with that, i'm not sure they resolved the chain. where do i end up on this? i think at the end of the day, there are several must-dos. we can talk about them in the general conversation here, i think we need a what i would call scalable stabilityization. we need an ability to ramp up quickly. we -- and that is preserving critical capabilities within the capacity to do them quickly if we get to a large footprint situation. which will be rare, but, you know, it's a low probability, high impact, and oftentimes a sudden onset type of situation. we also need a value-added approach. we need to have sro expertise

inform high level policy discussions generally lead from the nss. i believe -- this was part of stuart's set of recommendation. i think they need to step up more than they have done. it's very important to ensure value added for regionally focused discussed on what do we do now? i would trump at the work at the prevention board in this regard. it's low biz. it's working on areas where there isn't a lot of visibility right now because all of our public focus is on the middle east and north africa, but it is making, i think, useful contributions and helping to foster work between the defense

diplomatic and developmental community and the ddei, if you will. in looking at issues where mass violence could be lying around the corner. so there is a needs to be value added approach here. i have a few other things, but i have syndromed -- droned on for too long. it's probably the wrong word. >> thank you, jim. that was very helpful. now a perspective from the u.n. department of peace keeping operations. >> thank you. thank you, ellen. i thank you for giving peace keeping a chance to say our experience with you all. it struck me from some of the comment already how many similarities what we're facing and you're facing as well. also the differences. i mean, jim you talked about an ambassador never reporting to a general. in peace keeping we have over a

hundred nationalities reporting to one head of the u.n. in a country, and quite often a commander from one country. you also talked about the field of dreams concept. we have a similar phrase we call it christmas tree mandate from a security counsel that give peace keeping a rank of jobs we may not have civilian expertise to handle. so i got a lot from that, thank you. i want to give you a quick update on the work we're doing in peace keeping in relation to not only how we integrate and u.n. on the ground how we get out of a place in a sustainable way. we're trying to understand a bit better.

where they were and why they are having to go back. the main objective being to ensure what we do on the -- is sustainable in term of the broader peacebuilding objective of the community and the u.n. that's my job largely. working at the new peace keeping operation that started in mali and what we can learn from other missions in the region and the part of the world that will help us both get in, set up, achieve our objective and get out as soon as possible. as peace keepers sometimes we drk out of a job constantly. it's easy for people to feel like they have an investment and stay to make sure the work gets done. so for the past three years, i've been leading some policy

work on u.n. wide policy on transition. make sure our effects are sustainable. so we have been working with our missions on the ground particularly those in a -- [inaudible] to try to a get a sense what the problems are being and what they think we can do better. telling us a sense of what happened here. why -- effort more sustainable. what could you have done before?

the u.k. in particular has been supportive in helping us develop this body of work. so the policy itself is about how u.n. peace keeping mission transition out of the country. there are a lot of transitions that the u.n. faces from humanitarian to development, for example, but we thought it would be good to particular aspect how a peace keeping missions pass. there was a gap. the management and planning of transition at the headquarter level in new york and on the ground with the u.n. peace keeping mission and the u.n. country team. pushing up some of the more difficult aspect in the work. we came up with a set of five principles maybe some are relevant for the same kind of

lesson learning approaches you are having in places like afghanistan. i studied in afghts for two years with the u.n. worked pretty closely in the field, for example, in some interesting places. i certainly saw a lot of similarity with the struggle you're guys were having that we're having too. i think obviously for the u.n. the u.s. transition out of the afghanistan there's a lot of interesting stuff for us to take over as a transition partner for the u.s. in terms of work it may need to be ongoing. so we came up with a five principles, and i have to confess none of them are brain surgery. the first is for our transition protesters the number one thing we need do is start planning early. so from the day we hit the ground in a country, we need to be planning for our departure. i'm glad to say in a mission like the mission in south sudan under src johnson that's a mission that started at the outset.

here is the mandate, what are our objective, how can we -- when will we know. so i'm making some progress on that early planning. i was about an integrated u.n. response. getting peace keepers whether a uniform of civilian to understand they're not in a country on their own. they're there to work with other partners who are doing related or similar work. and they need to be working with them on the transition planning as well from the beginning. for example, on the rule of law officer and a peace keeping mission, i need to be working with colleagues in u.n. development program from the beginning to see how my part of the pie sticks with what they're doing.

the national priority of the country we're working in. how do we make sure that the government of the country we're working with we aren't staying too effective. the fourth is similar but distinct. that's about national capacity development. how do we convince peace keepers even though they're not expert from the minute they hit the ground they need to work with national partner inside the u.n. peace keeping and government and civil society we're working with not just to do things for them or tell them how do things but help them do the things we're doing so when we leave there's a sustainable capacity less behind. i'm sure the u.s. government we face a similar issue we talk about it all the time. but at lot of society and

governments we're working with that capacity suspect there. -- isn't there. it's not as easy as it sounds. you have to identify the capacity and start with it from an early stage. it takes a long time to do. and the fifth principle, really is quite pragmatic. that's how do you communicate why you're in a place, how long you're going in a place, what you going do and how you get out. maybe for the u.n. particularly more importantly what you're not going to be able to do. and how do you communicate that to your host government you're working with. how do you communicate to the population more broadly. and how do you communicate it to your staff inside your mission whether they're international staff or national staff. i think there's an aspect of, you know, being as transparent and honest as possible with all of those kind of partners that we haven't been very good at before. that raises all kinds of expectations what we would be able to achieve if we were on it from the outset. we should have been more

realistic. something we're working on heavily now is value of benchmarking. how much can you get out of benchmarking how rigorous is that as a process? what do you do if you set yourself a set of bunch america unachievable in the political time frame you have? you have technical drench mark and a political reality. how do you bring them together? we're doing a lot of work on public perception survey. benchmarking as a quantity sincerity of measure but public perception survey of the quality of measure. how does the average afghan province feel about the own security. how should impact on understanding with a we're up to and how long we need to be in a place. related to that benchmarking is another process we're trying to do of the work we're doing. for us in peace keeping it's amazing hoven we don't know what our staff is doing.

how much time it takes to do it. when we say it's time for peace keeping to leave liberia. we don't have a clear sense what it means. and what task there are to hand over. what capacities our partner have to pick up the task. whether in the government or with other partners such as bilateral. so that's something we're focusing on a lot right now. another thing is difficult to do, i think, is know what is going to happen after we transition out of a place. so for example, we spent the last few years assuming that the peace keeping mission was going to leave and that u.n. political mission was going take over. this was a change of government in east see more and we found there were no security counsel role or political mission. there would be an expertise -- expanded u.n. country team. we could have done a better job of contingency planning. that's something we're working on at the moment as well. the last thing i probably

mentioned, for the audience is how do we get better at maintaining both the political and the financial support from a country that we have been working after we go. for peace keepers what we bring to the table is the lens of the security counsel. it tends to bring a lot of money with it. once the country of the counsel's agenda we find it -- and our partners in the field a lot money and staff try to finish jobs we didn't get around to finishing. there's a kind of issues that we have been addressing. and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you so much. i thought there were these really fascinated presentations. i'm going it take the liberty of posing a quick question to each of the three speakers. then i'm going turn to bill and the floor will be open for your own comments and questions. leeann, a lot of things you said resonate with how the issues get debated, i think, in the united states.

exit strategy we talk about is there an exit strategy. the u.s. military wants to know how long is the commitment right at the beginning. but the sort of flip side of that is worrying about too much public communication about our own exit plans because then the bad guys wait us out. okay. the bad guys know they only have to be patient for another 12 months then the field will be open to then again. this is certainly an argument that has been made in afghanistan and made in iraq too. and in our own sort of political discourse the party out of -- [inaudible] loves to scold the party in power for talking too much about the end game. thinking that it is kind of exposing a vulnerability. could you talk a little bit with, because you linked communication strategies and the notion that the u.n. does have to set a finite date to the engagement. does the u.n. also worry about even talking about exit means that it can exacerbate the

situation on the ground? >> thank you. that's a pertinent question for us. we don't talk about exit point-blank. it's a language we decided not to use. the transition policy and the work i'm doing is about reconfiguring our presence on the growfned. we don't talk about it that way. we talk about the reconfiguration of the u.n. presence. in a same -- in the same way that for the u.s. maybe you'll have a significant military drawdown, but you'll have a continued prpbs in the country doing a range of things. for us maybe the military peace keepers will leave. but the teams are like -- in the civilian agencies will have been on the ground probably beforehand and after wards. it's a different way of communicating that message. obviously you can't avoid the reality it. but in term of communication strategy that's how we try to deal with it. >> would you like to comment on the somebody.

>> i think your five principles are spot on. it the first is planning for departure. in u.s. military as i heard what does the success look like? i think one of the reasons that iraq reconstruction program lasted ten years almost. was that we didn't have a plan that looked that far down the road. we had benchmarks that fell victim to political reality. your other point out of principle five. providing integration, providing responsibility that in one office would assign the duties of thinking about that very, very important question. so that we don't have ten to twelve year stability and reconstruction. i think you spot on with all five. i think number one is properly put first because you have to begin to think about the end

before it even starts. before the first foot lands on the country that is being aided. >> thank you. >> jim, i have a slightly different question for you, since you have been woat in -- both in the learning part of the defense community, the national defense university institute for strategic studies, and in a more action policy oriented job. so we gather all of these smart people dot reflections on lessons learned and but then when the reality hits, and these deployments are sort of six month turnover. people are actually in the field for a short period of time. what is your sense of how much learning are the right people learning? or do the scholars learn and the action folks have to get the sort of, you know, cliff note version of the learning? how much of the insights actually do get absorbed by the people who are being deployed for a short tour? >> yeah. fascinating question.

and it's speaks -- i think, the importance of lifelong learning practitioner education, as one goes forward through a career. and the policy world live differently. called long ago by waldman, henry david lamenting we have become tools of the tools. you have to understand how tools work in washington, and down range. you have to understand stuart's world legal authorities, how to work effectively in an inner agency domain. what can we bring together? you have to cast the net widely. and this is a challenge for the stablization community. you need to be inclusive. everyone needs to be in the room. that can create an -- at senior level if it's a delicate issue where the future

direction is not clear. so but the human resources piece i think is hugely significant. i do think at various phases of a career management capacity and the ability to understand who knows what and who brings what to the table can be very helpful especiallily at -- especially at the country team level. generals don't report to ambassadors, but ambassadors are the leading voice in country x or country y. coordination is absolutely required. having the country team with the right level of skills and capabilities and worked quite well in a country like colombia at the various point in time, for example. it's really vital. so i wouldn't accept that there's going to be inevitable differences between scholar and

practitioners. they have to work together. that's a challenge. >> thank you. before we open it up. i want to is ask you to comment a little bit on the cost implication of your proposal. you have spend a decade now worrying about how the taxpayers' money is being spent. did we waste money? did we spend it on the wrong thing, et. cetera. can you tell us a little bit whether you consider the costing implications. are you talking about the brick and mortar new building new agency? would where it fit in the interagency process? would the defense and state departments no longer do things so you would sort of be the magnetic flow where the capability resides? because my worry with the new office is logical as it sounds, is that it doesn't necessarily compel the other part of the system to stop doing what they already do. so i want to ask you about the cost and efficiency consideration.

>> great question, ellen, thank you. first of all, we thought about it carefully, and indeed in the bill there's provision that ensures the budget neutral out of box. it's expenses is relatively small to what the office would achieve of $152 million -- $25 million a year and anding 125 employees it would be scalable. scalability is critical to carrying out these missions. it would sit as an independent office reporting to sect 8 an sect f. somewhat like the eca plan director did. that's a precedent. it's also my reporting change. it worked fine. and i think it grasps the current reality about stablization reconstruction operations that they are -- that defense and state are going to be play significant roles in them.

it was the cost of structure. the third point, how does it resolve -- it's lay as i laid out there are five different officers in five different stove pipe agencies that are carrying out different aspect of the mission yet no one bringing it together before the operation begins. to depend on the con influence of favorable personality as it occurred with general petraeus is not a strategy. cairn dipty is not a strategy. we need planning as eisenhower said. planning is everything. the process gets you too resilience and clarity. and gets you to victory in the operations and keeps them

short. it would ensure that we wouldn't have the constant turnover in personnel. i think more than anything contributed to length of the operation. everyone not staying longer than a year. the analogy would be structurally like fema. when fema has the mission declared through the presidential declaration, it has capacity, it has multijurisdiction capacity, and it is already prepared with contractors, it is already repaired with analyzing what the situation might be; therefore, when it engages there's not a long rampup here as we saw in iraq where you had really a free -- as someone described it to me in the first year. [laughter] that is unacceptable, and we can do better, and i think we will. >> thank you. who founded our program on

future peace operations with allison gibson. bill, any comment or requests you have? >> a couple of comments. three excellent presentation. there's always tensions we find between the need for rapid action and the aftermath of conflict and the long-term need to build new post political culture that is more conducive to nonviolent politics than the one that it replaces. part of the problem is the shared difficulty of pulling out the damage or fragile state. and balancing local priority against a history of human war. my first question, it is to leeann. the new u.n. policy balances reflecting national priorities with also a very specific caution to adapt to unforseen security setbacks. and so, i guess the question is what if the security setback are

a function of national policy? how do you deal with that? and -- the second observation has to do with the civil military question in the field. just as the u.n. military in the field answers to civilian authority and complex operations and has for twenty years. you know, military forces are capacity a loan from the u.n. they're not the heart and gut of the u.n.'s foreign policy, shall we say for international engagement. u.s. military forces are. all right. so they are more central to the u.n. presence an u.s. presence and u.s. action. especially in conflict-affected area. my question for jim and stuart as a defining element of the constitution, the country make it harder or easier for us to engage and to be flexible in our

engagement? [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you very much for the question, bill. it's a really good point you are making. when a peace keeping operation is stoant a country by the security council with a mandate to implement obviously everything is con ting about on the condition on the ground and the way circumstances evolve. i mentioned earlier about sudan and the excellent work being done by the commission there. they set up benchmark around phase of the mission life based on a what they're asking to do. the oil stops running and the economy falls apart, so many of the aspect of the benchmarks who are looking at just stopped working. so it's our job to report to the security council and say this is what we're planning to do. this is what happened. we can keep going or we can slow down and recognize that the circumstances and obviously it would be our preference to sit tight until the conditions are right. again, it will always be a

political decision and financial decision by the member states funding the peace keeping presence there. if i could just add though in a related point to what you mentioned. in addition to the policy, we have also been working on what we call an early peacebuilding strategy for peace keeping. obviously the number one reason that peace keeping gets stoant a place is help stabilize and bring peace and security and create an environment for broadser peacebuilding goal. we realize what we do is also peace building activity. we developed a strategy that looks how we -- the piece of the puzzle relate to what others are doing. it's basically around three role of peace keepers. the first is because of the political role with the counsel to articulate the peacebuilding goal for the country. and help them with the goal they have. the second is by the security umbrella we provide through u.n. military and policing to create an enabling environment for other to have the space to come in and do the peacebuilding work

and get a work started. and the third aspect of the early peacebuilding strategy are the few roles that particularly civilian in the mission have that are peacebuilding jobs that are working in rule of law with the court. it's always corrections or working with the national human rights institution that is early peacebuilding work and part of the stuff we need to transition. >> okay. a question? quickly. then we'll open it up. >> very good question and a difficult 2000 -- one to wrestle with. when u.s. forces go in, i generally take the view they are seen as what i would call partisan peace keepers. u.s. is generally not there to be neutral and impartial. it's there to support. it's there to exercise influence and ideally in a positive direction toward capacity

building. national capacity development in sphact a crit -- in fact, is a critical issue in our exit transition in afghanistan. the taliban won't win by waiting. i mean, they will be dealing with a national force, which may have as legitimacy as our desire or hope that is the outcome and the end state. when we go in as partisan peace keepers we have certain magnetic quality we attract some and repel some. when we attract some, maybe for the wrong reasons, by the way. we have to be careful about that. so we recognize that. the issue is are we dealing with the spoilers who may not have any public support within their community just like the revolutionary united front. the british knew that. that's one they injected. or is there a deep set

insurgency there reflecting anth know sectarian split within the country? we have to be conscious of the end terrain. broadly the peace is one that we go in with very focused concern about because we generally are seen as -- [inaudible] >> concur totally, and, you know, i think first of all, regard to civilians must lead the stablization of reconstruction operation. that's what they would ensure. it's a big debate in iraq about who was in charge. and 75% of the rebuilding contracts were dod contracts with the policy assigned to the state department. that created a insuable between policy oversight and contract execution. but the peace at the outset is aimed at rule of law. and that was mentioned to a certain extent or a substantial extent, i should say early on in

iraq, and was part of the cause of our policy move from the prewar plan to occupy and rebuild. they are very quick post war plan that we adopted that we weren't systemically. the floor is open. stanley, the next to the last row. please i've yourself. >> i'm stanley coburn. in 1812 that poll began in-- napoleon invaded russia. things didn't go too well after that. question, did he get the post conflict stablization wrong or simply misunderstand of the nature of the war he had initiated? [laughter] >> you're exceeding my scope of historical understanding here on this. it would not be the first time in history we broadly the

international community and there were unexpected perceptions. i recall vividly in 2006, the general officer turning to me in the iraqi context and said when went ashore we thought we would be seen as louis and clark expedition. we were seen instead as the vikings. local perceptions count a great deal. >> yes. paul lean baker the fund for peace. i want to just the political context which all of these initiatives and lessons learned are being addressed. seems to me there are two contradictory trends going on internationally there seems to be growing political will of some sort of coordinated effort to solve these problems. we have gotten r2p and the new u.n. mandate in the congo, which is the first time a mandate has been given to have operations instead of normal peace keeping operations. yet in the united states, the

political will is going in the opposite direction. people are war weary, we have sequestration. i don't know what kind of reception you have gotten on the hill to the new bill. i think there would be a lot of sympathetic skepticism in term of doing anything new in anticipation of another operation, and certainly not another operation on the scale of afghanistan and iraq. so the question is, how do these two political directions mesh. can the international effort and not just the u.n., it's regional organizations too particularly in africa which are taking a more forward position not only militarily but diplomatically. if the u.s. pulls back, are these kinds of new initiatives and needs and lessons learning that we're talking about here doesn't have any chance at all in moving us forward on this issue? and if the u.s. pulls back, tuesday that --

does that doom to the international effort to do it? how critical is the u.s. support to these kinds of operations? >> great question, paul there is planning, as you point out going on. the exminister from syria is leading a u.n. effort for postconflict relief and reconstruction activity and identifying areas that need tens of billions of dollars of aid, yet is wanting for a u.s. connection on that point. because there is no existing center gravity responsibility to which he could connect. it scattered across the inner agency. no more in afghanistan. i agree never the less not strategy. and the goal of reform is to provide the president options with regard to how the country might respond to variety of

scenarios that would require stablization and reconstruction help. right now his options are limited because we don't have a fleshed out planning process and integrated capacity for carrying out these missions. [inaudible] there's a very positive response in both the house and the senate to the identification of the problem, interest in the solution but recognition of the reality of passing a bill that is ambitious of this and juneture. there's work being done on it. and it's work responsive favorably responsive to the work itself. >> thank you. did you want to comment on the u.s. role and if the u.s. pulls out. does make life easier or harder for the u.n.? >> yeah. i think the two things you pointed out are related to each other, and the way the international community is looking for new tools to address

emerging situations in new places, quite frankly, related to the u.s. position and the global financial crisis and the impact on the country in the e.u. as well. as you said, it's about emerging partner. the african union and the sub regional organization are keen and willing and capable of playing a bigger role and better suited to playing a role in the scenario as well i think they are connected to each other. i think the important thing is to make sure where context specific about the right apply the scenario. some options have more legitimacy in some places than others. grt next question i have on the aisle here. then i have charlie stevenson next. >> thank you. my name is -- [inaudible] but i wondered if you could address the basic progress for -- [inaudible]

[inaudible] tell you to choose and then question have a real reform. we -- [inaudible] address this issue and we just divert the resource to billions of -- [inaudible] build million of dollars. [inaudible] local vicinity that build and -- [inaudible] to give to to a few private interest groups. i was wondering for you could address the accountability issues of the -- [inaudible]

[inaudible] i don't want to -- [inaudible] sheparding the people and nobody knows what is where. [inaudible] there is no excuse. i was wondering for you could address this. if we could move forward from the basic level on accountability. >> thank you. your core point is correct. we need more transparency and accountability and stablization reconstruction operations. we point out in learning for iraq at leasted billion was wasted. another $300 million recovered from fraud investigations. there's going to be some fraud and waste inevitably in the operation. i accept that. we need to study the issue before we get in more acutely. we need reform our approach to reduce the level of fraud, waste, and abuse in the operations. and with regard to the interest group issue, i think this is one that doesn't really have a particular interest group as you have been describing.

it is bipartisan as reflected by the sponsorship and there is bipartisan interest on the hill whether that -- translates to passage remains to be seen. >> charlie is next. >> charlie stevenson. i want to pick up on jim's point that maybe senior leaders would be reluctant to make use of the office. i suppose because of a fear of leaks, or unresolved policy dis-- dispute of the situation. let assume the office existed today, what would you recommend think it could accomplish say for syria with egypt, what should they be doing today those two issues. and how likely do you think senior leaders would be to say go do it? >> as general petraeus' interview point out to succeed you have to be absolutely completely converse until the

economy the politics. the history. the society, the needs, the real needs of the object country. that wasn't the case in iraq nor was it in afghanistan. the iraq interview underscoring a point in the end may substantiate the failure to meet the needs. they would have already, i think for two years, two years ago, fully engaged in those issues in preparing for a syria-based stablization reconstruction operation. about general to ambassadors, i think the incumbent upon the director to make it clear it was an additive. not a sub stractive element. it would help them accomplish missions relieve them of duties outside the defense or diplomatic role so they could

focus on those. the defense ensuring effective rule of law, the diplomacy ensuring the establishment of democracy and sovereignty and progress in the political sphere as the country recovers from failure and moves toward stability. >> i thought jim's point was a little different. it was that if you acknowledge you're planning does it create an inevitability to acting? you know, can you plan as a hypothetical without, you know, predecision or does the planning in itself create some momentum? i think that might have been the point. >> and yeah briefly address it. we maintain a very large military, but by maintaining it we don't presume we want to use it in an aggressive fashion. we maintain it so the president has options with regard to national security policy. planning, structuring, establishing capacity does not necessitate the actual use. >> all right. gentleman in the yellow shirt.

>> hi. david -- [inaudible] good to see you again. one question, just a comment, building on what was before. i think this proposal has really have any legs that has to be broaden tout think about different source of parameters that the office or the interagency office could actually do. as you were suggesting there's a number of roles it could if the focus is on the planning and activities when there is a large operation in a foreign country. i just don't see how in the environment we have now it's really going to move forward. i think as you think about how you pitch this in various audience you should think about how you talk about those various different responsibilities. then a question for leeann which is the issue of contributing countries and the limitations that peace keeping operations often phase because of restringses on the troop of the contributing countries. actually put on it.

as an operation move through the different -- phases how do you deal with the contributing country in government to make sure that they're comfortable with the changing operations particularly in a fast-moving environment. say south sudan come in cuddly they are facing a potential mass atrocity event. how to you get the troop contributing countries to step up to new responsibilities that sometimes come forward in a rapid fashion without the security council thinking through how they are going to execute on the new mission. thank you. sorry for -- [inaudible] >> either of you want to comment? >> wow. the million dollar question in peace keeping today. you are absolutely right we are facing new mandate from the security council. i would point to the new resolution 2098 in dic is

another example of that. the evolution of peace keeping over time has gone from having a bunch of western contributor to security members to contributing troops to a big shift to a situation where a lot of countries from the developing world and the major contributors and now post afghanistan what is going to happen next? we're doing hearing a lot of rumbling from european countries. we're working on a strategy now of trying to expand the basic peace keepers. trying to identify where the problems have been. and why some countries have moved away from peace keeping what we need to do to incentivize to bringing new countries in. we're working to develop a new set of capability standards across a full range of functions. a great standard with member states so countries feel comfortable about what they need to contribute and what would be expected of them when they contribute. so it definitely a work in progress, and we'll see how things pan out with the new

operations in the eastern dic, i think. >> if i could add a point here, i think also speaks to mrs. baker's question. what we're seeing broadly globally is a movement toward regional responsibility. we can call it a describilitied motel for secure tip. the extent to which western hemisphere countries have stepped up is impressive. and quite frankly know a lot more about how to promote stability and peace and -- than we would. and so i give them a lot of credit. this new intervention for us in drc will broadly be from the region. the jury is out how it will work. also in the horn of africa ranchly a regional effort. the u.s. focus in the area to enable and promote the effort through what we could call partnered operations where we

are training assisting on the training, enabling some advising per student to -- per -- pursuant to law. it will be a light footprint. it will be but to enable partners in various regions to work effectively. mali is a current example. a current example. >> thank you. >> thank you. doug brooks afghan american channel chamber of commerce. one of the success story of vietnam a few of them, perhapses was a program. and i think one part of ambassador comer a strong leader with the authority to act and coordinate things and worked quite well. i wonder if you could touch on that, if yo could address that issue. and for jim, the question is if we have all the expertise for stability operations, how does

dod plan to maintain? is it going to be through ndu and any unit, for example, the tenth -- which used to be the peace keeping unit? is that going don't dot specific kind of training for the future? is it going coordinate with the nun the future? >> thank you, doug. you're right. it is a precursor to what is envisioned for effective operations. i think it realized a lot of success, and because of the strong leadership from ambassador comer, it has great legacy. service somewhat replicated where there were strong leadership in iraq through the reconstruction team program. it too brought them together to meet local needs and properly overseen properly lead make a difference for the good. that's true also in afghanistan. both of thoses a effect --

aspect, i think are part of the ancestry. the success of prt properly -- it would ensure that proper leadership exists before the next operation begins. ensure proper training is accomplished before it starts. and ensure these entities, the capacity that executes the stable are resourced. doug, a quick response. there will continue to be expertise and pocket of strong comparative knowledge about this mission set, which will persist it's a great example. i would certainly recall in the 2000 presidential election, the tenth mountain took a little bit of heat from the george w. bush campaign for not being prepared to wage traditional conflict because of the bulk deployment and task force, i believe.

and light infantry typically would be the most likely vehicle. and also in the professional military education sphere, absolutely correct, the peace keeping stablization operation institute, the u.s. army war college, national deafen -- defense university. they will continue to be pocket of expertise which we can draw. i stress the need for good comparative knowledge. one of the biggest challenges we always have is sort of one case study which drives everything and people over generalize saying it worked here and everywhere else. not all the time it can. thank you. >> i have about six people so far, there may be a few others. we'll try to fit you all in. the gentleman with the beard in the last row. >> hello my name is fell madly licks. i'm here for a my question is related to one of

the main ideas of your very interesting presentation today which was to broaden our lens on tools for massive transitions. the i -- one of the first reaction from the united states when the european union started working and building up the institution for the common secure city and defense policy there seems to be slight change of the discussion right now. because of the discussion you're having here about building up institutions for civil military integration for the last they thirteen or fourteen years. even in the wake of the integration from the ussr in 1990. [inaudible] the european union decided to work on civil military integration. my question could be to extent do you consider the institutions

the e.u. build u up for the conflict management in your research? >> great question. i think the stablization unit of the united kingdom is a good example of responding to this contemporary challenge. that has bring together civilian and military component and the ministry of defense within the u.k. to prepare and to be to be execute that capacity. to execute in a setting. much smaller by definition and scale. but it's aiming at the in the same direction in, i think, other member states in the e.u. are similarly responding. and to some extent looking for us to respond in a integrated fashion. >> okay. in the back. johanna then -- [inaudible] >> thank you. johanna from csis, thank you for

your persistence. we have been working far long time. jim, thank you for your skepticism. i want to drill down on the reality of this. i think you outlined everything very clearly over the years about what needs to be done. my challenge is who is the leadership on this? not only on the congressional side, but in the thought leader in this field. we all know about this. it doesn't have residence in, you know, standard campaigns or among the foreign policy is never popular. so the thingses that resonate, for example, what you do on oversight where people want to know where dollars go and where they see this a challenge or fraud they get a remedy. this is perspective, this is prevention, in some ways, this is planning. i don't see how the campaign, which this is, you have been running for quite some time is reaching people who need to do it. ..

>> great question. appropriations committee member, senator lindsey graham, also a member of the senate armed been briefed him on this idea was enthusiastic supporter. other members of the armed services committee similarly so. senator mccain, senator ayotte, and senator corker on the foreign relations committee. so that are on the armed

services committee. so the art, although not terribly visible yet substantial interest if not buy-in for the idea. and similarly in the house. rod bipartisan interest. who's a better reader than ryan crocker on this subject now? the returning been at the bush school at texas a&m, now at uva. continuing to lead the public discussion about this crucial issue. similarly ambassador is -- and a number of people at india you are interested in this. so there is discussion, his engagement on the hill within the public and private academic communities. most importantly by those most familiar with the subject, and their general response has been positive. >> thank you very much.

i'm with a u.s. institute of peace but i'm a great admirer of yours. what i'm about to say shouldn't detract from that but it strikes me this feels like the civilians fighting the last war, we are building a hammer that would apply to the last wars at a time when we don't expect the next worst to look like those. and the energy and investment that seems to be going towards innovation seems to me to be the wrong place to put the energy, when in the future we're not going to be, hopefully, doing these invasions, occupations and reconstruction with the dominance of the united states the way we have expressed it. it. what we needed to get is how to invest, invest in some kind of a more multilateral engaged strategy that makes other kinds of institutional changes in the way we go about this. and if we convey even to our congressional leadership that the best way to do it is to just do a better job of what we just

did in iraq and in afghanistan, we are giving them the wrong lessons. so i would really question the valley of pressing that direction for these efforts. not that the lessons can't teach us things, but institutionally it's critical we change our course. >> i agree it's critical we change our course. the status quo is an extensible, and it's not a presumption that we'll have another iraq and afghanistan. i think we had iraq and afghanistan such as they were because we didn't have integrated planning or executory capacity or ineffective oversight. that's why they lasted so long. i would urge that we would avert a future iraq and afghanistan by more effective integration, because the operations will be more successful. and rather than being nine or 12 years long, they will be much shorter. and we can have a vision for departure, and an expectation of what success looks like by ensuring that someone has this

nation as their primary duty, not as -- not as their additional duty. it's the additional duty of those five agencies i mentioned, not the primary duty of any of them. they are very important. when it comes to execution because they been focus on their primary duty until somebody -- until called upon to respond to they don't have plan in place to execute any oversight is not there, and you end up staying too long, too expensive, in blood and treasure. >> i would invite a few people to quickly as questions unblock and we will ask our speakers to make their final comment. you, and margaret hayes, and in the back. and next to you. did you want to ask a question? why don't you be the last one? >> thank you. a number of the questioners, i think particularly to my left, has cited the inherent complexity of these operations. and my question for you,

mr. boone, is that with this office effect the inherently complex and difficult political and strategic questions on which most if not all, most of these missions are found, for example, the decision to disband the iraqi army, debaathification, allow visitors to leave kosovo, allowing them to stay in the north, failure to back the mission in rwanda touching off africa's world war, and the situation in congo that we still face. these really difficult and strategic questions, how does your office effect that? >> great question. >> hold that thought. >> thank you, margaret hayes at georgetown. my question goes to i think those -- far too little of the

discussion and that is how difficult it is to do capacity building, whatever that means. and how long, i would use the case of haiti where we've been building capacity for many years, and they're still not much there. i fear that some of the exercises in africa may be the same. so where, how can we do that lesson learning better, and what progress? >> thank you very much. i'm an independent consultant. a couple of serious concerns of an organizational nature, and i would like you to address them perhaps.

one is it would complex of life the chain of command because it would be an institutional orphan and the other one is it would allow other agencies of government to outsource responsibilities for stabilization. i think that's a concern that was true of an earlier version, but i would like to ask you to address, how does it relate to the decision-making process? specifically, the national security council, and does an adequate address the concerns that were raised? >> hi. david, former colleague of jim my question tracks along the point that jim raised, this is hardly an and stuart. as part of the fundamental basis of what you're talking about, which is planning from the beginning, looking for to get in, get out quickly, i would

hold actually that that's the wrong approach. once you start thinking you have to plan to lead from the beginning and launcher focuses on reducing, then rather than focusing on the exit so quickly and exit at the income you're missing the opportunity to get things right. and i would say that over and over again we have made the mistakes of planning to leave too soon, having to short term of a vision over and over. i would wonder if that is played into your thinking at all? >> i'm retired from both the u.s. government and cna now. since egypt is going to settle its own thing with some diplomatic help bias and syria is hopeless, the next country is yemen. and some occasion in the past on separate occasions i asked egyptian generals to tell me

about their experience. they wouldn't talk to me. should we go into yemen? [laughter] >> i'm going to invite all three speakers to take a minute and half to pick whatever theme you heard you most want to respond to. jim, why don't you go first? >> i'm not going to step out on that particular question. [laughter] i think, a lot of great input from around the room, just a quick comment. high, very sympathetic to the point that david makes, and in terms of leaving too soon, that can be a big challenge. i would offer that as part of our casserole reform effort, we look at -- sro reform, do what reform, do what i would call stress test planning. we need to look at these

different a multidimensional transitions, and where are we going to have a problem in conveying responsibility, authority responsibility to a host nation? for the capacity building issue that margaret raises as well. there are going to be cultural and capacity differences. we are seeing in casualty evacuations in afghanistan, as david tells well. and in other places, so we have to go through each of these transitions from tactical level training and equipping two ministerial level development, from laws of armed conflict approach to law enforcement approach, the quick impact stabilization assistance, the longer-term develop and. all of these things require concerted sort of forward-looking planning. and i think that's really important.

and finally, i agree with the presumption, mike's question about nsf needs to step up to this. that's very important and that's critical. thank you. >> leanne, a couple of the questions were -- >> on national capacity development and plenty from the beginning. market, i think it's one of the hardest things we have to struggle with right now. the main problem i see is we're putting the wrong problem and capacity development, jobs. i was an international lawyer. i had no skill sets for building capacity. i'm a been a technical expert in that area but i did not how to work with an older afghan man who'd been in the foreign service for 20 years and is supposed to listen to these young australian woman when i'm earning 5000 osha months and he's earning $40 a month. we need to be trained to build capacity and we have to care about that, not just getting the job done to i think the second

thing is, once you build the capacity and how do we keep it there? if you're a young afghan and you have to do something and you're good enough and there are few enough of you that international community wants you to pay you a higher salary or to send you abroad, why would you stay in a national service? how to keep people in the countries on salaries are never going to match what they're going to get from there communities, the crux of it. and on the planning to exit from the beginning point, i think the way you talk to try. we shouldn't be planning to exit a somewhat we know the realities of political interest and financial ability, but it's our job i think in peacekeeping to be planning what is going to take him to the mandate we been given. if that's less about exit and more about benchmarking achievement towards the instead of what we want to do, i think that's slightly different than planning to exit from the beginning. it's planning on what we'll be doing while we are there.

>> great. on the complexity, strategic decisions, i think it would strengthen us. on march 10, 2003, the president decide the iraqi army would be used postwar and the rebuilding force not dissolve. and debaathification should be relatively sheltered when interviewed the administrator later about that subject and he said he didn't know about that. if it had a sister than been cut nearly and continuity equal strength in success in these kinds of operations. mark, capacity building is a huge question, and we spent over 7 billion on in iraq. what do we get for it? impossible to answer question i think they're part of the challenge is that we didn't focus it as you said effectively on exactly what the iraqis needed cheaply, anticorruption capacity. very little spam in that area. usoco made sure that was done. mike, usoco would not complex if

i the chain of command. it would fill in empty space. it would make clear who is in charge, planning for and executing really reconstruction activities. the in agency management system, what was set up within the nsc to run these kinds of questions for iraq and afghanistan didn't really succeed because it was itself an ad hoc i think, as so much of the iraq program was. david, i agree that you don't take an exit date be killed even really identify what you think should be, but you envision what success looks like. that's another way describing benchmarks. and then as you achieve what was called during iraqi conditions base, departure decisions, then you have a sense of how the operation and. what did usoco do to alter that calculus as we learned from iraq and afghanistan? what it does is provide the free operation planning, which is everything i think, to success

of the execution and the oversight. if you don't, as david petraeus said, engage in deep understanding of the society, the economy, politics, history, the secretary and issues, to be specific about iraq, then your execution is going to be on an ad hoc basis and you won't have what success looks like coming to you soon enough. >> i think with unfortunate run out of time but if i could link of the yemen question, as joseph, important point, takes us back to the beginning. what we've been talk about today are tools, functional processes and skill sets that are needed, but those hard policy choices of what happens in very messy and unpredictable and unstable political environments, that's really happening by a different part of the government system, if you will. so the decision of whether human matters enough for us or whether

it's something that perhaps they human or some other group of countries might best engage on really is an equally compelling part but not the topic of today's discussion. so i want to thank you all for coming, in particular a very warm thanks to leanne smith for coming down from new york and bringing very critical and fascinating human perspective. stuart bowen, we thank you for your service as the figure, i know it's wrapping up now, so look forward to seeing what happens next for you. and jim, you're terrific and i think you've are much for bringing a very important perspective to this discussion. thank you all. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> british broadcaster says one of its camerama cameramen was kd while covering the violence in egypt. the obama administration is condemning the state of emergency law imposed by each of the military government. deputy press secretary read a statement today at a briefing at martha's vineyard where president obama is vacationing. >> the united states strongly condemns the use of violence against protesters in egypt. we extend our condolences to the families of those have been killed, and to the injured. we have repeatedly called on egyptian military and security forces to show restraint, and the for the government to respect the universal rights of its citizens, just as we were urge protesters to demonstrate

peacefully. the violence will only make it more difficult to move in egypt forward on a path to lasting stability and democracy. and ron streck the counter to the pledges by the interim government to pursue reconciliation. we also strongly oppose a return to a state of emergency law, and call on the government to respect basic human rights, such as freedom of peaceful assembly and due process under the law. the world is watching what is happening in cairo. we urge the government of egypt, and all parties in egypt, to refrain from violence and resolve their differences peacefully. so without opening statement, i look at you for the first question. >> josh, these are the kind of statement should be making for about six weeks now. is anything else the united states could do for leverage your? we are still sending

$1.3 billion to the military. is anything you can do to get them -- ibex. >> as you know, over the course of the last several weeks, senior officials in the obama administration had been in touch with our counterparts in egypt. we've reached out with the number of calls. we have described a number of calls between secretary hagel and his counterparts in the military leadership in egypt. deputy secretary of state burns was just in egypt last week. he was joined by his counterparts from the eu and diplomats from the eu and qatar as well, all having meetings with officials from the egyptian interim government. senator graham and senator mccain also traveled to egypt last week. so there are open lines for vacation between the united states in egypt. and i think as the statement i just read makes pretty clear, in our view that the government should respect the basic universal human rights of their

people is unambiguous. we have been very direct about that. we also will continue to hold the interim government accountable for the promise that they have made, to speed the transition to a civilian democratically elected government. that's what we would like to see in egypt, not just because of our firm belief in universal human rights, but also it's because it's the will of the egyptian people. so we will continue to be in touch with our counterparts in egypt and continue to urge them to follow through on their commitment to transition to a democratic civilian government, and to do so through an inclusive process. and those messages are pretty unambiguous and are sent on a regular basis. >> are you reconsidering the decision of whether not this was a coup? >> as i think we talked about a couple of weeks ago, we have

determined that it is not in the best intre the united states to make that determination. but as we've also said throughout that process we are on a regular basis we doing the aid that is provided by the united states to egypt. and we will continue to do that. >> finally, how is the president being kept updated? >> i can say the president has been briefed on the violence that occurred overnight in egypt. as you know the national security advisor, ambassador rice estaban with us this week, and the president will continue to stay updated and is ready updated. so he is closely monitoring what's happening there. >> you've been calling for -- [inaudible] why should the muslim brotherhood be prepared to talk to the egyptian military rulers? >> well, part of the of the conversation the deputy secretary burns and others have had with egyptian officials is that it's in the best interest of all sides to pursue

reconciliation, to put them into the violence them to respect basic human rights and to put in place a government that reflects the will of the egyptian people. that is the clear view of the united states and something that we have as you point out urged them to do for quite some time now. but it's also in the best interest of the egyptian people. and so we are hopeful that the interim government will begin to take the steps necessary to affect that transition. >> we have seen a range from 95-800 give any clear picture on that? >> i can tell you that there are folks are monitoring the situation, are working to get more details about what exactly happened. i don't have anymore details to share with you specifically about what our knowledge is at this point, but suffice it to say, they are trying to get greater clarity about what's actually happened. happened. >> when you say will hold the interim government accountable,

in what way? >> well, just that we are, they have made promises. when the interim government took control of the country, they promised that they would come to this is only an interim step so they could transition promptly to a civilian democratic elected government. that's a promise they made and that's a promise we're going to encourage them to keep it will remind them that they made that promise and encouraging them to keep it. major? >> let me get more specific about the mechanics and the timing of the president's briefing. [inaudible] was anything that required him to be awakened overnight? could you be more precise? >> he was briefed this one by ambassador rice but i don't know exactly what time that occurred. we can try to get more details for you if that would be helpful but he was briefed on this situation this morning. >> okay. now, this situation has been building. him governor benson signals for the better part of the last 72

hours that is i moving in this direction. with the last minutes efforts at any level of the united states government to avert this, to warn them -- who want them not to take the final steps that have resulted in so many deaths? >> i don't have any specific conversations to highlight for you, but all of our you've heard me and jay and other senior officials in this government urged the interim government respect the basic human rights of their people. so there's no ambiguity about what the position is of this government, and, of our government, the united states government. that includes the right to peaceful assembly and the peaceful protests. and that is a message that has been communicate directly to the egyptians at a range of levels. and that is our position on that is not unclear. >> how concerned or anxious this administration this situation is not just violent but is pitching

forward a prolonged civil war? [inaudible] how can this end up in reconciliation? why is it is headed directly towards a war? >> i think my statement alluded to this concern, which is violence will make more difficult to move each afford only path to lasting stability and democracy. and ron streck account to the pledges by interim government to pursue reconciliation. so there's no question that the violence that we saw overnight is a step in the wrong direction. it is an indication that they are not currently follow through on their promise to transition back to a democratically elected civilian government. that they're not committed to a conclusive process. it's time for them to get back on a path of respecting the basic human rights of the people, to include a variety of

perspectives in conversation about what the future government of egypt looks like. that's important not just because of the importance of respecting the basic universal human rights, that we in the united states hold so dear, it's also important because it's what the people of egypt are demanding. >> and egyptian health ministry official said 56 people have been killed across the country in clashes between secured forces and supporters of former president morsi. at this evening on c-span's town hall the implementation of the affordable care act. to live to our begins at 7 p.m. eastern. is a look at some of what you will see. >> i don't think you understand the law you are in charge executing and enforcing. clawback as you describe where you limit how much a person pays back, that's only a person who is eligible for subsidy if their income changes in the year in which the subsidy takes place.

but if a person, this is your law. if a person gets a subsidy that is not eligible which party will be the case, if your major enforcement welcome implemented is not in place, a lot requires you clawback 100% of the subsidy to which they were not entitled to. >> i apologize. the hypothetical to educate have a lot of moving pieces. but you're correct. one question i have is, we discovered that this individual got an inappropriate subsidy. so we made some connection with their employer to learn that information. >> which will be 2015 at the earliest. >> we could learn it in 2015. we will get the official employer report in 2016 but either way we will make the efforts to validate the fact of coverage for each individual that's receiving a subsidy. >> so somebody will get two years of the subsidy that they signed up for unknowingly that i got from which the law does not make them eligible for. you will have to tax that back

in two years time, all of it. that is the law, correct? >> we will help the individual at the front and when they're filling other taxes and navigating through the exchange to understand whether they have an employer provided plan -- spin if you don't have an employer mandate and don't have the tool in a data hub to verify this, you will have a lot of people getting subsidies they're not supposed to get and then you hit them with a big tax bill in about two years to claw it back because the log requires you to do that. i yield back, mr. nunes. >> that's part tonight c-span's town hall with a look at the affordable care act th. c-span's town hall live tonight from seven to 9 p.m. issue. coming up this afternoon on c-span2, the heads of military reserve component talk about

training, the impact of budget cuts and capabilities for disasters and conflicts. here's a preview. >> those that are saying that the guard and reserve can't get there in a timely fashion. they are saying they are too hard to get you. they take too long to mobilize, and so the one anecdote, and anecdotes should not determine outcomes, in the aftermath the need aftermath of the bombing of the boston marathon, the first picture i saw was in like 15 seconds. every tv across the world showed these two individuals in army digital camouflage right there on the scene within seconds helping the wounded, severely wounded victims. and i thought to myself, you know, it must be amazing that the 82nd airborne at fort bragg has no doubt that dr. spock would be transported

themselves from fort bragg to help those wounded right there within seconds of it happening. isn't that amazing? bennett said, wait a minute, that's not the 82nd airborne. that's the massachusetts national guard. ladies and gentlemen, -- [applause] >> we saw it in the tragedy in new york. members of the marine corps reserve, members of the national guard, they were first on the scene, so as we talk about these issues of the next come as we talk about operational, i hope we will dispel this fact that somehow the guard and reserve is not available to basically carry out these nation. so what i would post to the group is, is this middleground option that i highlighted on earlier is that something ought to be should look at? the best way to go about doing that, and then what is your thinking about are we in danger of moving too far away from the operation preserve? and if so, what do we do about that as well?

so you know, go to my right here to her most senior member and so both of those out and get the discussion going. >> thanks, arnold. and thanks for your salute to the massachusetts guardsmen. i actually chance to meet, there were three of them. the two you saw on the news. they had actually just completed 26 miles. they were there volunteering and when the bombs went off they ran to the sounds of the gun. and i was able to pin some medals on them with governor patrick and the adjutant general. but you meet these three young soldiers and they would tell you that they didn't do anything different than anybody else would have. and i totally believe that. no matter what rank you are, our folks would step up to the challenge. but i think says something a lot, too, about where we are. for the nation in we looking at two nations, why do we need this middleground? why do we have to have the operational force? there's a lot of threats against

the home. we don't have geography, even if you look at the man-made threats to the injuries and. if you look at the increase and you can read any scientific study you would like but the increase in the number of more complex catastrophes that we see coming our way, how are we going to respond to that in homeland if we don't have trained leaders. part of that trained leaders, goes back to force structure, and we grow command and control through our hometown units, and they're dispersed just for the guard alone, we are in over 3000 commuters. so we can respond quickly. we lived there not on that but we do go to work, everybody knows someone. it bring brings brings along ths when he did cross over federal mission. i look at operational, from a reserve component from a national guard to the everyday him and i look at the numbers, today we have 3835 guardsman doing missions in the homeland on there is status of but

they're doing missions both from a state active duty site all the way to a title 10 mission. and the baseline right now it is about 4000 a day. if you take our six-year average endowment, 6000 a day that we have guardsmen and women responding somewhere in the homeland. deployed today, 18,973 deployed overseas. in every operation that are active air force and active army are in we are side to side with them. we want to maintain that. i think we have to if we're going to sustain this force. >> again you can see all of the reserve officers association panel on military readiness today at 3 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> recently, the chautauqua institution hosted a discussion with former u.s. diplomat nicholas burns picky addresses past and current u.s. diplomatic efforts for an hour and 10 minutes.

>> thank you, mr. president good morning, everyone. it is a beautiful morning. but i detected very early a hint of autumn in the air. i don't know if you did. you may have seen recently, as i did, a "new york times" article about our renaissance throwback to another century, the 19th century, in fact. when families from new york and ohio, and pennsylvania, and the canadian provinces and elsewhere came to spend a bit of a summit to restore themselves in a place called chautauqua. and the article describes what makes, if he didn't sit you should google it. it describes what makes chautauqua so unique, at least for me. this pursuit of beauty, of truth, of spiritualism, of philosophy, the things that make

life really special and really meaningful. it was a great tribute, this article, to what generations of chautauquans have done to build this in the theater and this extraordinary campus. and the only surprise for me in the article was the revelation that there are now several chautauquans in the united states. i had not realized that and i guess that's the measure of the success of your brand. because all of us know this is the true place, the mothership. [applause] and the heart of the movement. so i wanted to start this morning by paying tribute to chautauqua. here's one way to think of it. a reality tv fast food rush hour free zone. [laughter] which is one of its appeals. now, i can't claim, and i am not a true native chautauqua and like many of you go back three, four, five, even six generations. in fact, i grew up outside boston, massachusetts. i am a patriot span.

admittedly behind enemy lines here in oslo bills territory. but as i said last year, would it help my cause if i told you, it was true, i was born at buffalo general hospital? [laughter] so mr. president, i would like to apply again for citizenship in chautauqua nation's. [laughter] it's a real honor to be back with you. i'm really pleased to be discussing diplomacy and i'm glad that chautauqua has decided to spend some time thinking about this venerable art. sometimes misunderstood, sometimes maligned but always important, that's diplomacy. i'm a former career and reckoned it. i served by presidents between my first job, i was the lowest ranking person in the u.s. government. i was an intern at our embassy in west africa in 1980. [laughter] and to my last job as undersecretary of state in 2008,

and i now have the approach of teaching diplomacy in international politics to students from all of our country. in fact, from all over the world. we have 90 different countries represented at our harvard kennedy school of government. so i teach for a living, so i thought why not start with a question for you this morning, that you can think about. when we get to the q&a, maybe give me a sense of what the answer is. what do you think about when you hear the word diplomacy? it's not a trick question. what images does it conjure up, diplomacy? what vouchers to be attached to it? there may be a pop quiz that i gave you in the q&a session, but when asked that question, people infinitely will say to me well, diplomats are rather formal stuffy people in tall hats and morning suits. they meet in gilded palaces. they talk ad nauseam about the problems of the world. but they may not get much of

anything done. i hear that from time to time, people will describe the career that i have. that's certainly one true image if you think about the formal nature of it. think about the 19th century, think about bismarck and the congress of vienna, excuse me, congress of berlin in 1878. that was true. think about woodrow wilson, indeed in a tall hat, morning coat at the far side peace congress in 1919 with his open covenants, trying to create a better world after the first world war. but that's antique diplomacy. we live in the 21st century. diplomats today come from 195 member states of the united nations. they look and often act quite different than woodrow wilson. happily ever importantly a lot of diplomats now, a lot more, our women.

men used to dominate this field like most fields in the 19th and early 20th century. while americans and europeans were the dominant diplomats of 100 just ago, now we have nations rising global power. in asia, in the middle east, in africa, and in latin america. sometimes in countries that didn't exist in the world of empire. in the colonial world of 191-3100 years ago. in 1914 at the start of the first world war. diplomats today represent governments as they always have. but they also represent international institutions like the united nations. you fly the flag of the united nations to chautauqua. the represent international institutions like the world bank and international monetary fund. and i think people who work for nonprofit organizations who are dedicated to combating poverty, who want to promote economic development, who are promoting

health care, or trying to promote peace, i think they are diplomats, too. so in that vein think of bill and melinda gates, and the enormously positive impact those two people and their foundation having on the fight against hiv/aids, the fight against malaria, the fight against to eradicate polio, which is nearly complete come on the three countries in the world where poli exists these days. think of a champion figure skater mischel kwon. you saw in the 11th. she has joined the state department part-time, as has cal ripken, former great baltimore oriole shortstop. so diplomacy today is far more diverse and inclusive as an enterprise than it was 100 years ago. and traditional diplomacy, of course, is the oxford english diction would say this, the management of international relations by negotiation. that's a very precise definition.

it tells you a lot about diplomacy. but here's another way to think about diplomacy. it's actually everything that all of us do. 7 billion people in 195 countries, to manage relations around the world among countries and among people to negotiate, to interpret each other, to translate through languages and cultural and religious and philosophical differences, and to buffer relations among states that minot like each other very much and that might collide from time to time. that's a critical job, to make the countries in the world, in a nutshell, work together more efficiently and more profitably, and hopefully, and most importantly, more peacefully. diplomacy and bodies the widest spectrum of international activity. so last week, a week ago today, when you saw our, he truly is, secretary of state john kerry,

open negotiations in washington between the israelis and palestinians, that's diplomacy. and when president obama and russian president vladimir putin and chinese president xi jinping meet in st. petersburg, as i think they will in a couple of weeks to talk about global economic problems, that, too, is diplomacy. when president bush and president obama negotiated one by one, free trade agreements with, between the united states and colombia and panama, that's economic diplomacy. when nations meet to fight climate change and try to eradicate trafficking of women and children and tried to fight global drug and crime cartel, that's multilateral diplomacy. when we move hundreds of thousands of tons of food aid to poor countries where people are starving, like north korea, that's humanitarian diplomacy. so diplomacy encompasses those thousands of actions taken each day by government, like ours, by

international organizations, like the u.n., by nonprofit organizations like the gates foundation to connect. connect countries, connect regions, connect towns around the world, connect most importantly people around the world, because we do live in a very small, very vulnerable, sometimes violent and often disputatious plan. in this sense i found in my years in the state department in the white house that diplomacy is really about hope. it's the great hope that all of us have in every country that we don't have to accept the status quo. that we can actually overcome sometimes, not always, differences that separate people and sometimes lead them to fight each other in cataclysmic wars. hope that we can improve and change for good the human condition. and that's a powerful

aspiration. i never imagined actually was growing up in massachusetts outside of boston that i would become a diplomat. actually what i really wanted to do was to be shortstop of the boston red sox. [laughter] like every other kid in new england in the 1960s and 70s. but it finally dawned on me around the age of 15 that baseball career wasn't going to work out. i couldn't hit the curveball, and i found my calling in a very different, very strange place called the vietnam war. now, i was too young to serve. i turned 17 the day the cease-fire was announced on china 28th, 1973. every member of the church bells ringing in my hometown. jubilation that that divisive and frustrating and terrible war was coming to a close. at least for the united states.

and i have seen, as did many of you, how our young men who served bravely and honorably, were not always welcomed back to our towns with the dignity and honor that was certainly there do. vietnam, as a lot of you will remember, ripped the threads of our country. the threads that connect 50 states together, that connect our families together, and our generation. and even with my admittedly limited teenage perspective, i didn't know much when i was 17, i could grasp, as most people could, the incongruity that a superpower like ours have become involved in a civil war halfway around the world with a poor nation that did not represent a true strategic threat to us. now, that admittedly is how it appears now today with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. and the passage of the four years since the cease-fire in

1973. but vietnam birthed my interest in diplomacy, and given my limited will and rudimentary grasp of world geography, i had to consult an atlas to find out where it was on the map. when i began to become coaches of the fact that our young men were fighting in some place called vietnam back then, and then came the inevitable question that i suppose occurred almost every american who was alive and conscious at that time, why did we fight the people we actually knew so little about? was it right? was it smart? how would we extricate ourselves from a war where we've fought with one arm tied behind our back, like an increasing pashtun increasingly frustrated gulliver? was there a better way to make it away for america to act and america to lead in the world? like so many others in my generation, vietnam really was the impetus that opened up the world to us, even though i never got there.

i didn't serve, but it came right into our home town. and it forced us to look beyond the atlantic and pacific, and to appreciate that's a complicated world. and when you go into that china shop, you've got to be careful when you throw your weight around. 40 years later vietnam still recalls for me the ultimate purpose of diplomacy, and that's what we're looking at this week at chautauqua. can we work amicably with other countries, with other religions, with other people? what's the best way to avoid the war and conflict that we've seen in our country over the last 10 years? are we capable of meeting the biblical challenge? and that's an important one for all of us no matter what our faith is to reflect upon, can we deliver peace among the nation's? because that's our job. all of us. who live here on earth. and we know in our hearts that it may never be possible.

as the ancient greeks put it, may never be possible, they said, to tame the savageness of man, but we know that we have to try. and our path can be illuminated if you think about by a phrase robert kennedy years in his brief and tragic run for the presidency in 1968. he said that one of the purposes of our country must be, entities or tennyson's' words, the persian poet alfred lord tennyson, to seek a newer world, to seek a newer world from the broken world that we inherited after those trials and tribulations of the 1960s. and that's not very different from some of the challenges that we inherit here in 2013. so for me, that's the ultimate promise of diplomacy, a newer and better world. and hopefully, if we're lucky and smart, a more peaceful world. so chautauqua was right to bring us together this week to talk

about the subject, and to focus on the problems of 2013. and we think about our situation right now, just think about the time since 9/11. it's been a difficult and violent 12 years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought down the symbol of our economic power on wall street, collided with the symbol and reality of our military power, the pentagon in washington, and shook the foundations of our country. in response, we came out swinging. we invaded to muslim countries. we fought too bitter and bloody wars in both places. we paid an enormous price in the lives of our soldiers, and treasure and sometimes in global credibility. we also did some good things, and to reflect on what the american military and our aid

people were able to accomplish in iraq, and especially in afghanistan in rebuilding schools and getting now 9 million young kids a chance to go to school in afghanistan, where barely a million were going to school on september 10, 2001. we've done some good things as well in both countries. but our experience in iraq and afghanistan can provide a unique perspective about the valley of diplomacy. and how americans ought to think about the world as we go forward. think -- the thing about us, and we all know it, is we are so powerful compared to everybody else. if you compare our military force to the 10 next strongest countries in the world, combined, we are still more powerful. and so there's a temptation in washington, and i have succumbed to it myself. sometimes to the fault of the military to meet the most

difficult national challenges. what our presidents have to decide, and this is a big question, do we fight other countries or do we talk to them to resolve our problems, sometimes the use of force can appear faster, cleaner, more efficient, more direct as a way to accomplish a problem. diplomacy by contrast can move at a glacial pace, and it requires infinite patience. but remember that patience and a virtue, patience and restraint, excuse me, our virtues. a veteran negotiator, george mitchell, i was within a couple weeks ago, tells a great story that illustrates the importance of patients when you go around the world and interact with other countries. he was our negotiator for president clinton in northern ireland, and he met with a lot of frustration. and he said about his experience, he said i experienced 700 days of failure, and one day of success.

the day he was finally able to secure the good friday agreement that brought peace and anna. 700 days of failure and one day a success. when people say to secretary kerry, you will never resolve the israeli-palestinian crisis, i think of george mitchell. it may take us 7000 days of failure, but there will be a day when someone is able to pull those two together into peace, and it will have been worth it because we will have been patient. we won't have resorted to some other alternative that gets us into a lot of trouble. so there are times, of course, when diplomacy is not the answer. it's not a panacea. there are times when use of force is both necessary and even just, as president obama reminded us in this memorable nobel prize speech, remember that in december 2000. fdr was surely right to use force against hitler, against mussolini and the real japa japo

stop them and japan to stop in and when the second world war. president clinton use military force to stop two wars and save the muslim population of boston and kosovo. most people would agree, not everybody, but i think a lot of people would agree that president bush, george w. bush, was obligated to strike back against al qaeda after september 11, ma 2001. we were attacked and we had to respond. and i think most people would say that president obama had and every right to launch the raid that killed osama bin laden. history does demonstrate that force of diplomacy coexist. they interact with each other and they sometimes can come from each other. richard holbrooke, the late richard holbrooke, great american diplomat, i don't think he would have been able to secure the peace at dayton, the peace in bosnia, had we not use force for six weeks to demonstrate to the bosnian serb army that we're not going to commit them to continue to give

innocent muslims. and effect it was the use of force that achieve a cease-fire and drove in to the negotiating table where holbrooke worked his magic and brought peace to bosnia after five years of war. so there are times when how to rely on our military and we are fortunate as all of you know to have extraordinary young men and women in our military, in the army, the navy, air force and marines and coast guard and the national guard applaud that. >> and like you who just applauded, i admire the american military. they are absolutely critical to our security. one of the proudest moments of my crew was when i served as u.s. ambassador to nato. that's a joint state department defense department mission to i had more military people on my staff and i did diplomats. and i went into this field as our military in afghanistan and solve them in kosovo, and saw

them in bosnia. and was so impressed by how competent and professional and sincere they were about representing us in those very difficult battlegrounds. so the military is not the problem. but the problem is that we are emerging from more than a decade of war, the two longest wars in our history, and we chose to fight them for good or ill, simultaneously. we discover in both cases an age-old truth, i'm going to paraphrase churchill, that when you start a war, you really have no idea when and how that war is going to come to a close. and we in the u.s. government, and i served in 2001 at nato on 9/11, we had no idea that our troops would still be in afghanistan 12 years after they arrived in october 2001. we had no idea and didn't even remotely consider that we would state eight years and iraq.

and that's the major reason that president george w. bush and secretary of state condoleezza rice in the second bush term, starting in 2005, they really turned towards diplomacy and our foreign policy. that is why president obama, in his five years in office, has had an abiding impulse that we need to lead with diplomacy, not lead with the military international affairs. we can see now looking back on it -- [applause] we can really see looking back on it that we asked too much of our military after 9/11. i have a lot of young military officers in my classes at harvard. they come for a one year's masters degree program. i will sit down with them when one just to get to know them. i will say to a colonel or a major, sometimes a captain, so what have you done over the last 10, 12 years? and invariably they with us for five combat tours in iraq and afghanistan as the most

intensively deployed military in american history. what they have done is spectacular, but we have asked them to do an awful lot. we were right, in my view, to fully fund the military since 9/11, but what we did was we deprived the state department is agency of international development of funds. and it is as a result an enormous gap between the size and power of the pentagon and the size and power of the state department, i'll illustrate with two little examples from bob gates, who was the nesting secretary of defense for president bush and president obama. he gave a brilliant speech a couple years ago, here are two of the nuggets. secretary gates, we have more military personnel and one carrier battle group, the united states navy, more military personnel and one carrier battle group then we have american diplomats all over the world. here's another, if that doesn't convince you, we have more members of the armed forces marching bands of the navy, air

force, army, marines -- true fact -- than american diplomats. and i love music, but that tells you a lot about our priorities. so we are at a moment here in 2013, we reflect now on iraq and afghanistan, and 9/11. we've got return to diplomacy as the primary way that we interact with the rest of the world. it doesn't mean we forget the military. we honor them, but as colin powell said, and remember, he was both secretary of state and a career military officer. he was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. colin kahl uses it properly for the united states to position its assets in the world as diplomats on point, in front, military and reserve. in other words, we exhaust diplomacy before we ask the military to go win. that's colin kahl. well,, after 9/11 we reversed that maxim.

we chose war as the primary way to respond to that terrible day, and it worked for a time. and as i said before, i think the initial invasion of the afghanistan was necessary, but ultimate it didn't work out as we had planned. now, the founding fathers recognized this tension between force and diplomacy. they recognized it would be vital for presidents to figure this out in a balanced way, and to picture this, maybe don't do it right now since a customer asked to turn off our cell phone, but when you leave here, google the great seal of the united states. everybody knows what the great seal is. it's on every official document. it's on our passports but it's on every federal building. remember it's the ego, right? its e. pluribus unum over the eagle, out of one people, many, our immigrant tradition. and the eagle has in its talons and rose, 13 of them, colonies. 13 errors to defend ourselves, and an olive branch in the other

talon. signifying our commitment to be a peaceful country. and in that sense, the great seal of the united states is a perfect metaphor for the natural tension and the difficulty that all of our presidents have been trying to decide how do we react when bad things happen to us and to other people around the world? ..

president kennedy gave a memorable speech fifty years ago at the american university in washington, d.c. it was entitled "a strategy for peace" you will find a book by jeff sacks in the bookstore that talks about this particular speech, and here president kennedy say about the tension. he said what kind of peace do we seek? not -- enforced on the world by american weapons of war. not the peace of the grave or the security of the slaves. but a genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living not merely peace in our time but peace in all time. kennedy had come to believe by 1963, that after the bay of pigs, after the cuban missile crisis, he said we have no more urgent task than a strategy for peace. now, we know that a complete and perfect peace is unattainable given the imperfect nature of

who we are as human human beings, but in it pursuit in the pursuit of peace we also know we will find our best in our true selves. so we have to invest in diplomacy, especially now in a time when the global balance of power is shifting, when the united states despite our enormous strength can no longer call the shop, and can no longer act alone in the world. many of the most complex fret -- threats we face. we went around the room in a minute we could list them all. in 2013, climate change, trafficking of human beings, crime and drug cartels, pandemics, disease, poverty, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, the great majority of the challenges are not going to be resolved by the u.s. military. we're going have to use our aid workers, and our diplomats and our citizens to engage other people in every other country in the world to triumph over them.

these are transnational threats, they affect every country, they are going through our borders and under and over our borders inspect that sense, there's never been a time in human history like this one where the fate of everybody in the theater is linked to the fate of 7 billion people around the world. climate change affects automatic of us. poverty and nuclear proliferation affect every human being. every man, woman, and child living in the world. that's what globalization has given us. the incredibly interconnected world. that means that the united states needs to think smartly about how we act in the world. as i said, we're still by a long mile economically, politically, military, the most powerful country. but we can't resolve a single one of the problems i just mentioned if our slogan to the rest of the world is "it's my way or the highway." are you we me or against me? [applause]

so instead, i would say we have a natural advantage, we can coalesce and work with the many, many friends and allies in the world. there's no country in the world that has greater number of allies than thitis. 28 allies in europe and canada and nato. an a big alliance system centered on japan an south korea, australia, thailand, and the philippines and east asia. we can work with other countries. we can marshall or force, our thoughts, our aid money, our efforts with those countries and we have to do it in a way that has us outward looking and not isolationist. there are very conservative republicans and very liberal democrats in washington teeming up essentially to say the united states can no longer be afford to be active in the world. we can't resolve every problem.

we should bring the troops home, dig the mote deeper, perfect solution for 18123. -- 1813. [laughter] in a nongloballized world. but not for 2013. we have also got plenty of examples from the history to know that americans can would be effective leaders. can practice to diplomacy effectively, and here is some. franklin, jefferson, and adams. their diplomacy during the revolution secured our alliance with france, and made the great difference in our ability to feed the british navy at worktown virginia. jefferson was president, used patient diplomacy over several years negotiate with a guy named napoleon bonn part. he negotiated the louisiana purchase which doubled the size of united states of america in 1804. teddy roosevelt was the first

american to win the nobel peace brise -- prize because he mediated in 19 50s. that was critical to overcome the act of power. president kennedy turned the diplomacy when the great majority of the advisers in october of 1962, said use force. at the final moment, president kennedy brokered a negotiated comprise with our greatest enemy the soviet. that's how the cuban missile crisis ended. that's how we didn't destroy hundreds and millions of people on the east coast, in europe, and russia. because diplomacy rather than force triumphed. henry kissinger going strong at the age of 90, by the way, forty years ago, negotiated his brilliant opening to china that opened up relations that have

been frozen football the last twenty years prior and insure -- ensured a jen generation of peace. think of president bush. a lot of people think he was the most established. he had are vast experience as a diplomat, he had faith in diplomacy, he had achieved the unification of germany in nato after the end of the cold war. he did it peacefully. she create -- in 1990, he overwhelmed saddam hussein by creating a great international coalition to surround and defeat saddam hussein after his ill-fated innovation of kuwait in 1991. think of president clinton, who negotiated the nafta agreement so canada and mexico and the united states was the arising tide lift the boat through the economic union in north america. and think of president george w. bush had who had the strategic

insight to reach tout india, the largest democracy in the world and establish a strategic partnership with india. all of that happened through diplomacy, through negotiations, through interactions between our country and those countries. when you think of it, we use diplomacy to end the vietnam war. we used diplomacy to end the cold war, and the israeli-palestinian crisis that will be much discussed this week at chautauqua. someday is going end it will be at the negotiating table with diplomats present. so it's at its very best -- [applause] at its very best, diplomacy can end wars, it can help us achieve justice. nelson man -- mandela sat down when he got out of prison for four years in an negotiation. a lot of people in south africa and the africa national congress

said to him, fight. he said i'm going negotiate. he negotiated the destruction of apartheid and he brought all races together in south africa as a diplomat. he deserves norm credit at the age of 5eur9 -- 95 for that extraordinary achievement. [applause] [applause] so let me bring this to a close, i'm anxious to get to your thoughts. i might even give you that pop quiz. what are some early -- in the united states in 2014 and 2013 as we look ahead? as we look about the balance of diplomacy and force? i'd say there are at least three. number one, can we convince the north korean leadership that turning back serious negotiation is a better path at military confrontation. they have been practicing in

east asia? number two, can the obama administration overcome our 34-isolation from iran and achieve direct negotiations with the president who was nag inaugurationed yesterday. can a negotiate settlement prevent that country from become a nuclear weapon pow? can we resolve the data limb ma by diplomacy rather than force of arm? and finally, this is probably the most important, especially for for anybody under the age of 30 in this audience. because the greatest question is going about china and our greatest triumph. can the united states find way to maintain our predominance, power, it's good for them and us. engaging china diplomatically to keep the peace in the vital region. that's the true test of american

diplomacy for the next fifty years. at its best, diplomacy plays to the strength of our country. it allows us create a world based on the slidty of law and justice. it can reveal with lincoln invoked so memorable the better angel of our nature. as i reflected on my own career. try to teach to students now, i believe it's only through a commitment to lead with diplomacy backed by our great military we can begin to address the enormously complicated challenges of the 21st century. we can commit to work peacefully and constructively with china, russia, japan, and india, and brazil and mexico and south africa, nigh nigeria, germany, and the e.u.

if we can do that engage the country, we can write a positive chapter for our history as we look ahead. in that same speech fifty years ago this summer, a remarkably precious speech, president kennedy invoked the world that we know today and really spoke up for diplomacy after the cuban missile crisis when he said the following about how connected with are around the world. he said, for in the final analysis our most basic common length is that we all inhabit the small planet. we all breathe the same air. we all cherish our children's future, and we're all mortal. the united states has proven that we're the strongest country in the world. let us now prove that we are a country that can -- unite the world around common hopes, and in doing so we might go a long way to heal the wounds of the two wars that we're just

coming out of and built the peace world that is the great dream and has been of every generation. so thank you very, very much for listening to me. thank you to chautauqua. [applause] [applause] okay. we'll dive right to the questionses. if you have to leave, please do so quietly. there will be people around to collect your questions. or you can bring them up like this here. would you comment on the cover up in benghazi? [applause]

>> okay. thank you for that softball. [laughter] i really appreciate it. [laughter] here is my answer, i don't see a cover-up in benghazi. [applause] there was a terrible tragedy four of our best people died including our ambassador chris stevens. but what secretary clinton was appoint a accountability review board and he said look in to it. don't pull punches. tell us how we got it wrong. two nonpolitical centrist career civil servant. they came back with hard hitting report saying the state department made lots of mistake. weapon -- we weren't set up to provide adequate security.

they revealed no cover-up. i don't see it. i think it is politically induced. [applause] >> so the question is what the role of secrecy in diplomacy, and the extended from that. what are your feelings about mr. snowedden and the relation between the united and russia. >> i thought we had a friendly audience. [laughter] well, you know, i know that, look, i'm give you what i think. i may be wrong about this. i think there's a real tension and always has been but particularly in a globalized, highly integrated, internet society that type we have now. there's a tension between secrecy and transparency. we know the government has to

have some secrets. our national security depends on it. our nuclear weapons are activated by codes. we don't all have a right to know what the codes are; right? we have established the government has a right to some secrecy, and the government might have information about terrorist groups that it can't let the rest of us know about and alert the terrorist groups. the government has a right to some secrets. all of us work for the government take a solemn oath. we sign a document, i will not devoling these secrets to anybody, i won't stand up on a soap box and i won't steal the cable and offer them to wikileaks. i won't do it. and i know that if i do something like that, this is what the -- this is the vow we can take. i can be tried for having committed a felony. that's what we're talking about here. that's the signed ledger. the other side is transparency, we're a democracy. we sent the government to

washington because we voted for them. and we have a right to know what is happening. and the government does not have a right to know everything we're thinking of doing. and we have a right to privacy the constitution affords us that right. and here is the tension, i'm not smart enough truly to figure out sometimes where is the middle ground? where is the balance? and it's probably already shifting. it shifts from issue to issue. but on the issue of snowden i would just say this, i don't see him as a hero. [applause] i truly don't. if he had -- if he had stayed in the united states, and said, you know, as a matter of conscious i will engage in civil disobedience. i'm submit myself to the law. that's what martin luther king did to awaiten -- awakingen white america. he didn't flee to china and

russia. he stood her. danielle stood his ground with the watergate -- 1971 -- '70s. snowden fled, not to the united kingdom, not to canada. to china and russia. not exactly democracies, friends of the united states. and he's now accepted asylum in russia. i don't see a hero there. i think if he came back to the united states, he should be put on trial. he's committed felony. and let the court system judge. [applause] but it's interesting we were talking earlier today about gridlock in washington, i think that some republicans and democrats are coming together to say, here is the other side of the ledger, i'll end on this. we don't want the government to know everything we're doing.

and the government doesn't a right to, you know, read every e-mail and listen to every phone call. therefore, there is a balance and this national conversation as president obama has suggested. we have got to have what is the proper balance between secrecy and privacy in the democratic rights? >> there are -- anyone is entitled their own opinion. there are two questions here. i think i exploring them both, you gate chance, i think, to get at some difficult questionses. the first is what is the optimum relation between deliberation and action. the questioner points the e.u. being far too deliberate in the process related to bosnia, for example. how do you exhaust diplomacy first versus the use of military when you're dealing with a brutal enemy, al qaeda, who is

vowed debt to american recently forced the closing of 22 embassies? >> great questionses. you're going hear bob kagan speak tomorrow. he's a smart guy. he wrote a book about ten years ago, and i think the subtitle was "americans are from mars and europeans are from venus." [laughter] it's a really interesting book. it's on sale. at the chough -- chautauqua bookstore. and the point bob was trying to make. we were living in brussels at the same time. his wife, was my deputy. i was ambassador nato. she succeeded me. she's a tremendous diplomat. and so we're living there and the big issue of 2002 and '03 was the united states was acting in a marshall way. by the way, i supported the innovation of afghanistan. and i supported the innovation of iraq. in those years. and we were acting in a very

aggressive way to go after al qaeda and the terrorists and saddam hussein. and the europeans were counseling restraint, patience, and pulled back. don't hit some people. that kind of debate. i was in the middle of the debate defending president bush as i was happy to do. and bob wrote this book. it does point to the difference culturally, we have so much military power. it's a very available resource to us. the europeans no longer have the capacity to act militarily except nato. and so they tend to accentuate their compared advantage. negotiations, diplomacy, and economic assistance. we work well together and pretty good partner. we argue from time to time, and i think that the second question is really an important one. it brings out the major theme. we need the military. i am not for cutting the military budget to the bone, as some people want to do. we are strong military because

we live in a tough world. we have to call on them again, i'm sure in the next decade to defend us and defend our interests. but we have exhausted them and even especially the general will be the first people to say we're not always the answer. sometimes you have to send in a diplomat and so you to try to negotiate your way through something. iran, this autumn, might be that example. there are few people in washington in either party who think we ought to start war with iran. almost everybody in the republican party as well as the democratic say we have to get the negotiations at least chance here now that you have a slightly more reasonable person as.of iran. we'll see if he's reasonable and test the proposition. we may have to use force later, if iran heads toward a nuclear weapon. we don't have to begin there. i think that republicans and democrats can agree on that.

but the questioner is right about iraq. -- al qaeda. what barack obama has done is say let's land the war. let's end the military operations. afghanistan most of the troops will be out next summer. let's continue the war against the terrorist groups in yemen, and somalia, in the gulf and on the afghan-pakistan border. that war hasn't ended. we need the military for that war. that's where diplomacy and military go hand- in-hand. we need them both and exercise both at the same time. >> you figured out how to hit a curve ball. i tried. here is another slow pitch. [laughter] what should be our strategy in syria? [laughter] where is the question is the red sox going win the world series? that's the one i'm waiting for.

[laughter] sorry to say that in an audience of new yorkers. sorry about the yankees this year. [laughter] , you know, i might have a minority for this in syria. i'm going participate in a debate, a televised debate on friday in aspen, colorado. the question we're going debate is do we have a dog in the fight? we strong a dog in the fight ins bosnia, he said that in '91. i think we have an interest in syria. and we have three. number one, we have a humanitarian interest to help those people. 100,000 syrians dead. -- [applause] 1.5 million syrians homeless outside the country. 12.5 million people homeless inside the country. there's a huge humanitarian crisis there. we have our eight agencies, our money, we have to be present to

help the people. that's one interest. second, syria is the keystone country in the middle east. if you look at the map who are the neighbors? israel, jordan, turkey, iraq. if the civil war in syria continues and spreads and engulfs lebanon or affects israel's northern border or destabilizes our friend and ally in jordan, the situation is worse. if you don't act, situation could get worse. third, a strategic consideration. who is helping assad, "the dictator" of syria? the iranians, hezbollah, and russia. if that on the holy trinity achieves a military victory in syria, and if we lose, turkey loses, jordan loses, israel loses, the palestinians lose, by the way, too. i don't want that signal to be sent in the middle east. i don't want iran sent to the

middle east. i adopt think we should put american troops on the ground. no way. no to the the quagmire. american military aid to the moderate rebel groups. yes. they'll push back against assad. they'll make it likely he's going collapse and fall and lose power. that's in our strategic and humanitarian interest. that's how i would answer the question on syria. [applause] >> so -- [applause] once again, it's not exactly two parts. just a secondary bias to the question. isn't engaging in diplomacy with iran and north korea like expecting lucy not pull the football away? [laughter] and the followup is has there been any movement lately toward improving relations with north korea? >> okay. thank you very much. great questions. yeah, i remember lucy and the football. and, you know, when you are

president obama or president bush, or clinton, you have to be mindful of that. i think one of thed a venn teenage use aspect of our policy toward iran is that both president obama and president bush have followed a nearly identical policy. the republicans and democrats strong a lot in common, if you have noticed in washington these days. [laughter] but they're united on this. and both presidents have very carefully said the following a, we're ready to negotiate with you, iran. and try find some reasonable comprise. b., if you don't negotiate scuffle -- successfully with us, we'll sanction you and see we reserve the right to use military force. if lucy takes the ball away from charlie brown, that was a -- if the iranians don't negotiate in good faith, we spent four or five months at the negotiating table, we are still going have sanctions on them. and we're still going to have the right to use military force if we choose to do that, and the

israelis will have the same right because neither of us can afford to see a nuclear weapon iran. it's absolutely indefensible. and insupportable in the middle east to see iran become a nuclear weapons power. so i would say that president obama and president bush have covered the danger of lucy taking the football away. on the second question, the most bizarre government in the world is north korea. i mean, it just is. if you think about over the last couple of decades, we talked to everybody. we talked to castro cuba. we have a diplomatic mission. we talked to hugo chavez when he was president of the venezuela. we talked fitfully unsuccessfully to the iranians. we have had much of a relationship with the north koreas. it's a mafia family-run dictatorship. the third son, previously unemployed is the proud owner of a nuclear weapons force.

it doesn't make you feel good. when you get up in the morning, and the only way to deal with them is to show strength, and so the u.s. and china actually teemed up in march when north korea was shooting rockets off over south korea and japan to say, stop. and frankly, the key country in that mix was china. because china has enabled the north koreas far long time. and finally the new chinese leader was so uncomfortable and embarrassed by what north korea was doing, they sent him a tough message that maybe lasted for a couple of months. we're likely to see the outrageous behavior continue. we need contain the problem. they have nuclear weapons, we don't want to fight them. we don't want them to san diego nuke -- san diego nuclear to -- send a nuclear weapon. with russia, china, south korea, japan we can surround and contain north korea power until mercifully one day the regime

collapses and hopefully are a democratic country is restored in that part of the korean peninsula. i think that would be a sense of what president obama and president bush was trying to do in north korea. >> and so is dennis rodman a diplomat? [laughter] you know, in the strangest way, yes. [laughter] my daughter found this show on one of these hundreds of cable tv channels out there that these guys followed dennis rodman in north korea, and turns out that dennis rodman, basketball player, is the only american who had a decent conversation with kim jong un. i guess he loves basketball and the chicago bulls. who didn't love the chicago bulls when dennis rodman and scotty. -- and michael