surrounding martin luther king jr.'s birthday later this month and that is just some of what we are going to see on some of the issues we are going to see fiercely debated on the floor in the weeks ahead. >> host: emma dumain is with cq roll call and you can follow some of her reporting at twitter under emma}domain. thank you. >> guest: thank you. army chief of staff general ray odr no opposes sending u.s. troops to iraq. speaking at the national press club, he added that the u.s. does need to stay engaged

diplomatically in iraq. gennaro odierno's comments were part of the hour-long speech on the future of the u.s. army. [inaudible conversations] >> welcome to the national press club. my name is angela greiling keane. i'm a reporter for "bloomberg news" in the 106 president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future through programming with events such as this fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club please visit our web site at www.press.org. to donate to programs offered to the public through a national

press club journalism institute please visit rest.org {/

patrick hosts, a reporter with defense daily. kathryn kathryn skiba washington correspondent for the "chicago tribune". colonel andy roland, special assistant to general odierno. alison fitzgerald, finance and investigative reporter at the center for public integrity and the chairwomachairwoma n of the national press club speakers committee. skipping over the speaker for just a moment, eric meltzer systems specialist at the "associated press" and the speakers committee member who organized today's event. thank you. colonel j.p. mckee executive officer to general odierno. jen jetson editor inside the army. carlo muni owes of defense and national security reporter and thomas a retired air national guard senior master sergeant and currently a novelist.

[applause] when our guest today became the u.s. army chief of staff back in september of 2011, his job was none too easy. being the guiding force for u.s. soldiersn afghanistan, he had d nearly 37 years. general odierno phot in desert storm was a key commander during operation iraqi freedom and then became the head of the u.s. campaign in iraq and left the joint forces command. saddam hussein was captured under his watch in 2003. now the helm he is fighting a war against abuse in the army is has a higher rate than other branches of the military and a message to army personnel he said quote the u.s. army is failing in its efforts to combat assault and harassment. the general has also said sequestration, budget-cutting is making the fight against abuse harder than ever quote from

slowing hiring actions to delaying lab results to provide a resolution for victims unquote three at the tightening of washington's pocketbooks and higher than expected costs and afghanistan have added another dimension of difficulty for general odierno. even though the financial restraints are certainly being felt his message to the soldiers was clear. he said, i just need you to stay focused on what you do to train, to sustain your equipment and develop leaders, to take care of our families. do the best you can with the resources we give you he said. general odierno tested at president obama's measures to shrink the size of the army by 80,000 troops by 2017 while working to increase its capabilities. a native of new jersey general odierno is married to his high school sweetheart and they have three children that he holds degrees from west point, the naval war college, the army war college in north carolina state university.

general order your no son retired army captain tony odierno had his vehicle hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in baghdad in 2004. tony is secretary of the board of directors of the wounded warrior project. please join me in giving a warm national press club welcome to u.s. army chief of staff, general ray odierno who will proceed straight to questions and answers rather than starting his speech. [applause] >> thank you. it's an honor to be here. i thought it would be better during these times of lots of news that we go to questions than answers. just an initial opening comment that every day i'm extremely proud that i have the opportunity to represent them and women of the united states army, 1.1 million in the national guard u.s. army reserve and active component. over the last 10 years there has

been over 15,000 words of valor given out to u.s. army soldiers, nine medal of honors, almost 30 distinguished service and silver stars in many words of valor because they did what we asked them to do, go help provide security for this great nation of ours. it's important we continue to think about that as we move forward and look to the future and what are our national security issues? what are the things that we have to be concerned with as a nation and what is the army's role in those national security issues? so i hope we will have a good discussion on that today. we face many challenges today, whether it be budgets and balancing our budget, reducing that debt and what is the right level of funding for our military? we face social problems which was mentioned, such as assault and harassment.

we are working on the issues of suicide, the issues of taking care of our soldiers who have been wounded both with physical injuries and those that are nonvisible injuries. that's something we must stay focused on not just today but for the foreseeable future because there will be some soldiers that are impacted by this for many years. it's our responsibility to make sure that we continue to take care of them. i hope we will have an opportunity to talk about the future and talk about the key issues we are facing today. it's an honor for me to be here and i look forward to the discussion so with that i will turn it over. >> considering the new strategic environment in the shift from conflict to peace. >> thank you. there are several things you will see in 2014.

obviously at the end of 2014, we will see a change as we come out of afghanistan. we are still waiting on the signing of the raiment that we call the bsa with afghanistan and after that we will make a decision on do we need residual forces in afghanistan are not and i'll be meeting with the joint chiefs and president as we move forward on the ground in afghanistan. with that, what that says is just a few years ago the army had over 250,000 soldiers deployed in iraq and afghanistan. at the end of 14 it will be much less number than now so we will be in the process of transitioning our force. there are a couple of things. we are rebalancing to the asia-pacific strategic guidance that we developed in the beginning of 2012 but in addition to that it's also about is staying engaged regionally. the army is pushing forward the concept of regional forces.

we want to realign our forces with the combatant commanders whether it be in the asia region, africa, middle east, southern command in order to provide them the resources necessary for them to do what their job is. that's the build security structures that allow us to be safe and continue to grow our economy as we move forward. allowing us to shape the environment for the future. and then if necessary as a last resort he prepared to win if that is what we have to do in order to protect their security. those are the changes you are going to begin to see in 14 but this will be a process that occurs probably over the next five or six years. looking to iraq, with his seizures of parts of fallujah and ramadi and much of the work that you have done has been turned back in iraq. how do you feel about our world now in iraq as we watch what's

going on over there and try to figure out what's next? >> first i would say obviously it's disappointing to all of us to see the deterioration of the security inside of iraq. i spend a lot of my life over there, from 2006 to september september 2010 i was there as we continue to reduce the level of violence and the sectarian violence going on. i believe we left at a place where was capable to move forward. we have now seen because of several political issues internal to iraq that security situation has now devolved into something that is in my mind concerning. but this is not just about iraq. in my mind it's something we have to be cognizant of this would look across the middle east, what's going on in syria, what's going on in lebanon, what's going on inside of iraq and it's this that terry and potential building of sectarian conflict between sunni and shia

and the exploitation of that and nonstate actors such as al qaeda and other organizations who will try to take advantage of this. the biggest threat to our national security is this ungoverned territory becomes areas where we have terrorist organizations that become dominant and then try to export their terrorism outside of the middle east and into several other countries including united states. i think it's something we have to watch. i think of it's something that we have to stay engaged with politically and it's important for us to make sure that people understand we are concerned. i think you will see us do that as we move forward. speak in the u.s. keep al qaeda's expansion there at me without having troops on the ground? >> we have to wait and see. we have trained security forces to do that. i think the first alternative is for the forces that are there

that we have trained to execute that strategy. one of the things that we did in iraq as well as in afghanistan today is trained about counterinsurgency and how you fight insurgencies. i think what we have to do is continue to work with the iraqi army and others to make sure they understand the basic techniques of counterinsurgency. so i think we continue to do that. we have a small element on the ground that works in the embassy that has some expertise that can continue to help in these areas and i think it's important we do that. it's also important that we continue to ensure that we stay involved diplomatically, which we are. we have got to wait and see. i would say this is certainly not the time to put american troops on the ground. i think it's time for them to step up and see what they can do we have to wait and see if it becomes part of our national security interest to put people on the ground but i think right now it's best to let them take

care of this problem and we will continue to work with them to try to solve this problem as we go forward. but it is dangerous. the thought of al qaeda to get into ungoverned territory is something we have to be very cognizant of and as they conduct counterterrorist operations as well. that's what we are focused on. >> you said you don't think we should send troops back into iraq but if we did still have troops there the ground could be seizures have been prevented? did the u.s. below the endgame by removing all the troops when they did? >> i would just say, i mean we can all be monday morning quarterbacks on this. the answer is i don't know. what i do know is as i said earlier we provided them an opportunity. the levels and i've and of violence were the lowest they had been in a very long time. their economy was growing.

they were exporting more oil. they had a political system in place that appear to be working but since those times that clinical process has begun to deteriorate. their economy actually has continued to grow because they continue to export more and more oil, because they now have access to the oilfields. they have access to exporting oil. so it's important for us to try to assist them in getting that political process back on track and part of that is making sure that they understand all the different factions inside of iraq. when you alienate factions you tend to provide opportunities for nonstate actors such as al qaeda and other terrorist elements to try to exploit that. i think that's the message as we move forward that it's important to bring everybody into the political process and continue to improve economically and continue to assist them in understanding how you fight the

potential insurgencies. >> given the uncertainty in iraq at this point how do you answer questions from veterans and soldiers about that marriott's time they spend there? there is a piece recently published by paul and i don't want to mispronounce his last name, soldier who wrote a piece about questioning the service there entitled tell me again, why did my friends die in iraq at what you say to people thinking along those lines? >> well first off, there are many of us who spent a long time in iraq. there are many of us who have personal sacrifices inside of iraq and afghanistan. the bottom line is we raise our right hand in order to defend the constitution of the united states and when we do that we are prepared to go forward and do what is necessary as we are asked to do by her civilian

leadership in order to provide security for this nation. that is what we did in iraq at a time when it was believed that we needed to go there. our military went. we were prepared and we went. i believe they left it in a way that enabled it to move forward. we eliminated a ruthless dictator which we tend to forget about, and incredibly ruthless individual who as i was there longer and longer, the stores i was told by many different iraqis to include their military such a gruesome like they had to live in iraq under the leadership of their leader saddam hussein. i think you have to look at it in those viewpoints. we raised our right hand and we did our job. we left it in a way that was -- it's incredibly difficult for us to deal with the lives that were lost. no matter what the cause is, it's difficult to deal with lives lost in afghanistan. it's difficult to deal with

lives lost in iraq. it's difficult to deal with lives lost in a car accident of a military member or suicide of a military movement because we are brother and sister in arms and there's a relationship there that is felt -- dealt that we'll never forget. i can never explain properly to anybody and someone gives their life but the bottom line what i do know in each and every one of those cases they raised their hand and volunteered to be part of the army. they were proud to do this mission and be involved with that. many of them died doing the things that they wanted to do and that is what i remember. i remember their service and their sacrifice and i remember that they were dedicated to themselves something much greater than themselves personally. that is what the army is about and that is what i remember even though i know it's very lives we look back at the sacrifices.

see what sort of future do you see for iraq besides the small staff left and the embassy, what sort of a role do you see for the u.s.? >> when i was over there i used to have people come and visit me. i would show them a map and if you look at that iraq is right in the center of the middle east. to the west to syria, jordan and to the east as i ran into the as kuwait and saudi arabia. to the north is turkey. it was in a strategic location inside of the middle east. it's very important location. for us in my mind it's an important country in the middle east. we are still allies and partners with iraq. we have to build on that partnership. we have to make a partnership that allows us to build security in that region and i think that is what we have to do. right now it's disappointing

what's going on. nobody's going to deny that. but again they're still potential. there is economic potential. i believe there is political potential and we have taken the 10 you to work hard to help them to reach a state where they can be a good strong partner of the united states in order for us to sustain the right level of stability. i would either first one to admit that today that is looking a bit shaky but we have to keep working very hard as we move forward. >> looking over to afghanistan as you prepare for troop withdrawal they are, what lessons do you have from the iraq drawdown to apply to afghanistan and? >> so i think even though we are very cognizant of the fact that afghanistan is very different culturally and very different security wise, the difference between iraq and afghanistan

there are some parallels that are important. one is i think we have the military, the afghan army, the afghan police today are showing signs that they are being very successful in handling the security system. we have turned almost completely over the security operation to them last year in april and they have gone through a very significant fighting season with the taliban and actually performed very well. they have proven that they can do it. they have proven that they have the leadership to do it. the one thing that we have left to do though is we still have to help them in developing their institutions because it's about sustaining this for the long term. so we have to help them and develop the institutions to help them to sustain an army through personal policies, through systemic policies, through developing leaders and their institutions because that is what makes it long-lasting. that is what we have to focus on now. i think that is why we are anxious and hopefully we will get the esa signed so we can talk about the residual forces.

their responsibility will be developing an institution, and developing a long-standing success story. i think that's important that we do that and i'm hoping that fact will be moving forward with that. >> how prepared right now are afghan security forces to operate on their own and what hurdles stand in the way of them being successful with that? >> i kind of talk to some of that. i think they are very capable. the one area where they are not enablers and we talk about enablers some cases aviation support, logistical support, leadership development, those are the things that we need to help them with for the long-term sustainment of the military. what they have proven over the last 10 months is their ability to be aggressive, fight the enemy, to continue to enlist

soldiers even though they have had casualties. we are seeing a broad success in their leadership at the tactical and operational level but really what we have to do now is they said earlier, building institutions that allow them to sustain overlong period of time. >> looking to the issue of sexual assault which you mention mentioned in your opening remarks what are the plans to stop future or sexual assault in the army and should trials be taken outside of the military chain of command? >> so, sexual assault is a complex problem that has to be dealt with on several different levels. first in my mind there's a long-term issue of culture. it is a culture that frankly

everybody understands, is simply not acceptable and it will not be tolerated. whether it be in the military or anywhere else. i'm concerned about the army and it will not be tolerated in the army. the best way to ensure that it's not tolerated is the chain of command's involvement in enforcing the standards and policies that we have today. that includes uniform code of military justice. that defines how we discipline the force. people around the world will tell you the u.s. army and all of the military, the united states military is an incredibly disciplined force. that is one of our great strengths. our ability to train, our ability to execute and deal with complex problems. we have to put that energy towards solving this problem. by taking away a tool that i think is incredibly effective to us which is the uniform code of

military justice is a mistake. what we need to do is hold the leaders accountable who are not using the tools we have given them such as the uniform cord -- uniform code of military justice to solve this problem. don't take a tool away. what we have to do is hold those accountable who are not using the tool properly. the chain of command is the essence of who we are. my experience tells me i trust the chain of command. i trust the commanders. that doesn't mean 100% that commanders are doing the right thing. and those who are not we have to hold accountable. that is what we have to do. we have to make sure we are taking care of our victims. we are providing them the resources in order for them to move forward, that they don't become victims again and again and again in what i mean by that is not a victim of sexual assault but a victim of process.

and we have to put procedures in place that ensure that doesn't happen, that we protect our victims and we take care for victims and that everybody understands how we take care of our victims. the best way to do that is a strong chain of command. this is a problem throughout our society. it bothers me that in the u.s. army we should be the ones who solve this problem. we have dedicated ourselves and we will continue to dedicate ourselves to this. we have added an increase in reports of sexual assault. i predicted that. i knew that was going to happen because people are understanding now and taking this seriously and many of their rep ports are ones that happened five years ago, four years ago, six years ago. people are now coming forward. we still have a long way to go in the pressure we are getting is good because that will help

us to continue to make sure that we stay on point to solve this problem. for me, as the chief of staff of the army this is fundamental. as a soldier we are supposed to have complete trust in each other. for us to be successful we have to trust the person on our right and our left and it doesn't matter if it's a male or a female. it doesn't matter the color of your skin. it doesn't matter your religion. we have to be able to trust each other and as long as we have sexual as alvin sexual harassment that goes against the fabric of who we are. that is the trust that we have to have to sustain ourselves. so we have to get after it. and we will continue to go after it. it's also important because of talent. i want the best talent in the military. in order to get the best time i've got to create the environment that allows all of our soldiers to be able to

maximize their potential. the number of females serving rowing and we have got to make sure that we created an environment that allows them to be successful ,-com,-com ma that they can maximize their potential so we can utilize their talent, so we can continue to be successful as a military and to me that that's a critical to us as we move forward. >> you mentioned culture change in this area is necessary. to what extent is military culture where women historically were were not equal to men contribute to the problem of? >> there are lots of things that can should be to the culture problem. i remind everybody that we get people from all different backgrounds. when somebody comes into the army, we get people from different fiscal backgrounds. we get people from different family backgrounds. we get people from different religious backgrounds. we get people from different

parts of the country. we represent the united states so what's what's important to us is as we bring them into the army, they have to understanunderstand what are the norms of the army culture. and we have to make sure that they start from the day they step in the army that we have a different culture and we are going to enforce it. we are not going to tolerate those who don't. we are not there but that is what is key. that has got to start from the time you come into the day you leave and it really is in my mind about understanding that. because many people come from -- one of the things i've learned when i came into the army, i was really naïve. i was very fortunate. when i grew up in northern new jersey i had a strong family. i had a mother and father. i had uncles and aunts and the

grandfather and grandmother who cared about me and who made sure they nurtured me who could set me on the right path with moral and ethical values. not everybody comes from that background. it took me two or three years in the army to figure that out. because i was sheltered. many of our young men and women who come in the army maybe have one parent, maybe has no parents, maybe comes from a dysfunctional background and we have to mold them into a force and a culture that allows them to succeed. we have many success stories that i could talk about. people from most backgrounds today are very successful but we now have got to make sure we do that as a culture. my guess is and i say this all the time, there's probably 10% of the army who leave that women shouldn't be in the army. i want to identify them and say

that's no longer the kind of person we need in our army today because that is not what our country -- country represents. you are always going to have that but what you have to develop as a culture that doesn't tolerate that kind of an attitude. and that is where we have to work towards. >> the defense departments sexual assault response panel is holding two different hearings this week. why aren't those hearings open to the public and the press? >> i don't know. [laughter] >> when you find out you can get back to us. [laughter] >> i asked that question to congress during the hearings. >> speaking of women in the military the army and other services have been ordered to -- exclusion for women. when do you expect the army will

open ranger schools and other schools that remain closed to women and when they do with the curriculum or requirements for the courses change? >> so, last year the secretary defense secretary panetta signed an order that says there is no more exclusion of females from, no restrictions on females for any duties within all the services. as part of that they are given a period of time i have to report back in the beginning of january of 2016, the end of 2015 i have to rip wart back on how we are going to do that. what we are doing now is we are going through a very significant process somehow we will integrate women into all mo s.'s in the army. we have taken outside expertise, insight expertise. we are developing common standards and it's really

basically three or four branche, armor and infantry in the army. and we are now developing those common standards and figuring out what they will be as we begin to integrate women into those mo s.'s and specialties. and by the end of 15 i will have to report out to say yes we are integrating in all of those so i have got to be able to make an argument on why we should in my view is we are heading in the right direction we should be able to integrate by the end of 15. the other thing we are looking at is the initiatives that it takes in order to set them up for success. how do we shape this in such a way that we don't just throw women into these jobs without the right preparation. what i mean is not preparation of the individual but reparation of having the right leaders in place ,-com,-com ma having

mentors in place, having an environment that allows them to be successful in doing work, to study that and as we move down this process and as we open more positions to women we will then review the schools that open to women. the one thing that i will say that i've been very adamant about is we will not reduce standards. the standards will remain the same and all the women that i've talked to do not want the standards changed. they wanted to be standards-based and that is why it's important we study this and get it right. i think we are on the right path we have opened up some artillery jobs that were not opened up this year already two female officers and the female soldiers and we will begin to be that slowly over time as we work our way through this process.

>> looking to spending challenges can you comment on how sequestration, the shutdown last year and general partisan bickering have affected the military readiness? >> so there are several issues with sequestration and let me first talk about the shutdown. the impact of the shutdown frankly has been in my mind on the morale of our civilian workforce, who has been dedicating themselves to the army, to the navy, to the air force and the department of defense for some time. there are two things that happened based on sequestration. it originally started out a 12 day they went to a six-day furlough and then immediately after that we had a shutdown. so they have lost their confidence based on the security that they have had. we have got to regain that

confidence in our skilled workforce. and so that is one of the challenges. now let me talk a little bit router about the readiness issues. so, there are two issues with sequestration. first from my perspective is that the upfront reductions that were part of sequestration made it impossible to properly manage the enterprise of the army, the u.s. navy and the u.s. air force and i will talk for the army. you have got to remember that our budget is based on really three major things, people, our ability to modernize ourselves and our readiness and there are lots of things under readiness and several things that are modernization and there's capitalization and other things that we do. you have to keep those in the right balance. sequestration forces us to go

right out of talents because i can't take out people fast enough to get the dollars to put in the readiness and modernization in order to keep that balance. so what it has created in the army as we have about a three year window, 14, 1516 where we are really out talent so our readiness and are modernization programs are taking a hit because i can't take e. plaut bassinet. we are taking out about 20,000 a year. if i go higher than that they cost me more to take them out in silvie start start reducing the savings that we are gaining from the people. so that is the dilemma that we have. so what it did is impacted our readiness in 13. now the agreement that was made in december a bipartisan budget agreement, helps us significantly and 14. so it dies back, gives us those monies to buy back some of the readiness.

15 is a lower number. the problem is is that is great for 14 and i'm thankful for that. that we have got that money is if we don't sustain it we are going to go right back to where we were in terms of this problem between the balance of end strength, readiness and modernization's that we have got to keep that. right now if we go to sequestration i can't get that imbalance in about 2020 -- until about 2020 so what that does is that gives us a period of six years of vulnerability because of this imbalance. that is the struggle we are having right now as we work our way through this and that is my concern. i would just say on top of that i believe the sequestration number is too low because i believe it doesn't allow us to do things in this world as we watch it every day as it continues to have significant uncertainty. the american people expect us to

respond and we will. but the cost will be the soldiers that we send will not be ready life we want them to be or we might not be able to sustain an operation for his long as we need to because we don't have the numbers. so up until 2020 is a readiness issue and past 20 twentieths a size issue. are we big enough to do the missions we will be asked to do? i myth that worried about that number in the end especially with the army. >> is the army still planning to have its end strength at 420,000 given the situation with assigned bill? >> there are no decisions made and we will continue to work that. what we have done is if the army is going to move to 490,000 by the end of 15 instead of 17 we have sped that up and the reason

we have sped that up is to better balance the readiness and modernization. that is the 20,000 a year that i talked about. as i stand here today, we started at 570 and we are about 527,000 or so. we will be down to 510,000 by the end of this year and by the end of 15 we will be down to 490,000. and we will make decisions on where we go from there. we are constantly working that internally right now to told the resources that we will need. >> national guard is advocating for an expanded role saying it can provide combat troops at a fraction of the cost of the army. what is your view of his proposal? >> so first is the army for many years now is structured to be

complimentary and what i mean by that is you have an active component that has a certain capability. you have the national guard that has a certain capability and the u.s. army reserve that is a certain capability. the capabilities are not interchangeable. there's a reason why it's more expensive. it brings you a higher level of readiness because they are full-time. they are trained and ready to do things at a higher level because they spend every day focused on that. our national guard who's done an incredible job in the last 10 years trains 39 days he year. and that covers personnel, training so when you're talking about integrating organizations, they are not interchangeable. so, to say that the national guard is cheaper in the active component, it's not true. the active component cannot be placed in the national guard.

big give us the capability that are complementary to each other so it's about getting the right talents between the two. in the 2000's when we are involved in the two wars in iraq and afghanistan we increase the active component and the percentage of it was 51% at 749% in the reserve. as we get finished with their reductions which are mostly all coming out of the active component we will go to 54% in the reserve and 42 in the active. what that means is as we go forward and if we have to go lower than 490 and the active component we will have to take a percentage out of the guard and reserve and we are still working working on what those numbers are. it's about keeping that right or centage.

percentage. 53% in reserve and 46% inactive. based on the analysis that gives us the right level of acts of readiness and also gives us the ability for the national guard to respond over longer periods of time and it allows the national guard to continue to be responsive within their own states. and we think that is about the right balance. now, it if we have to go to those numbers which is full sequestration nobody agrees with those numbers. that's based on budget levels and as i mentioned earlier i think they might give it to low that we will still work our way through that. this will happen. it's not something that happens tomorrow. this production will continue to happen between now through the end of this decade as we move forward. >> the proposed cuts to military pensions have been of course a lightning rod on both sides of that issue.

tell us if you make the cuts that have been proposed to recent retirees who are not yet of retirement age is that breaking a promise that was made to those people when they join the military? >> the issue of paid compensation is it take issue and an important issue. i'm not going to discuss specific he what was passed in the last bill but i want to talk about paid compensation in general terms. the way i would describe this is that back in the late 90s and 2000 there was a gap between those serving in the military and those with equivalent education levels, experience etc. in our civilian year. everyone has worked very hard to close that gap and i would argue in fact we have closed the gap.

and in fact in some cases you can see that. it's time to us to -- for us to look at paying something sustainable. if we continue along the path we are on at the cost of soldiers, sailors airmen and marines it will be at such a level that we will have to reduce or end strength bar because they can't afford them. and so what we are trying to do now is to something that is reasonable. we are not cutting pay and benefits. we are trying to reduce the rate of growth of pay and benefits. so we are looking at packages that will allow us -- it's got to be a comprehensive package that does those. what i worry about is we can't be piecemeal because we have to understand what the whole impacts are on our soldiers and is it enough for us to keep the all-volunteer force? so it's important we look at it as a total package.

we are attempting to do that. we are still working our way through it. but it's something that you have to be very careful about how you do this. because what you don't want to do is, what you don't want to do is undercut the foundation and all-volunteer army or navy for armed forces because it could have an impact as you move through. it's something that has to be really done in a very comprehensive way and we are looking that at-bat with the joint chiefs and we are looking at a package that will be fair to our soldiers, our retirees and their families but also understand that we have to reduce the cost as we go into the future. >> what do you think of chairman issa's proposal to link rolling back the cuts in military

benefit increases to being able to and saturday delivery at the postal service? is it a wise move to link the future of army benefits with the future of the postal service? >> i concern myself with what i just said, taking care of our soldiers and their families and veterans and our retirees. my focus is on ensuring we do that properly. so i am not -- i have not thought about it in links to anything else. what i'm worried about is making sure we have the right compensation package for our men and women who serve and make sure that we are able to sustain an all-volunteer force that enables us to sustain the level of national security in our country. >> looking to asia, what is the army doing to support the defense strategic guidance called for a rebalance in the

asia-pacific region and what does that mean for other regions especially in the middle east? >> so what a lot of people don't realize is today as i stand here we have about, somewhere between 84 and 88,000 soldiers assigned to command. that's quite an investment that we have in the army. that is available to the pacific commander to shape the environment within the pacific command and we are doing it through a it through a variety of ways through rotational presence. we are doing it by building partner capacity. we are doing that from building relationships throughout the region. several different exercises so we will continue to do that. what happened though is in the years of the wars of iraq and afghanistan many of those soldiers that were assigned were off in iraq and afghanistan. last year we stopped that so

they are now back in the pacific region conduct dinghies proper operations so that is on balance as we call it. i mentioned quick before about the concept of regional alignment of forces. what we will do is those units assigned to our forces command which is mostly unit in the continental united states they will be aligned with such calm. it will be aligned with africom. they will be aligned with other areas in order for them to be used in order to support those combatant commanders. for example today we have about 2500 soldiers in africa based on the regional concept. we have 45 soldiers would have been there for several weeks in southern sudan providing security for the embassy. those are the kinds of missions we will use with the soldiers we have from the continental united united states using them in an expeditionary manner in order for us to move forward in building security capabilities

around the world. the example i like to use is through four weeks ago we had a 15 man platoon manned by a female to ethiopia to conduct training in military assistance activities. those are the kinds of things we will do to continue to support combatant commanders as we come out of, we have rotation of forces currently in the middle east in varying places in the middle east. we will continue to support that as long as there is a required from the combatant commanders. we are allowing them to become experts in that region so they understand what they're getting involved with and are better able to execute the missions that are given. we have significant soldiers assigned in the pacific which helps us with that and we will use forces in the intercontinental united states in order to continue doubtless engaging key areas such as north africa, such as places in the middle east which will enable us

to continue to provide what is necessary to them to prevent conflict in the future. >> how do you resolve the conflict with the marines related to the. >> there is no complex. i find this very interesting. this is a washington thing. it really is. this is a washington thing. the marines and army can't operate the same? we have been doing it in iraq and afghanistan for 12 years. this is about utilizing every service to accomplishing mission. this is not about army versus marine corps. this is about us utilizing, we have distinct assets and they have distinct assets. it's about making this available to the pacom commander for him to execute his mission. we don't base the size of the army on our region of lawn emissions. that is what our sizes based on so this is a washington thing.

so this is not a competition between the marine corps and the army. this is about providing the capabilities that we each have to support the combatant commanders who are given the responsibility to maintain security around the world. >> can you comment on the deployment of the calvary brigade announced to korea today does this represent a permanent increase in army commitments to korea or temporary or a replacement of forward-based units? >> so, what's going on is as we have, as we are coming out of iraq and afghanistan one of the things we made -- decisions we made in the army is we are restructuring our combat teams. during the wars we went to two battalion brigades and i don't want to get too into the weeds here but we did that mainly in order to meet our requirements

in iraq and afghanistan. in the past we have had three battalion brigades which do all the analysis have done allows us to do the things we need to do. we have the two battalion brigade so this rotation of this battalion is rounding out this brigade to be a third battalion like we are doing in the rest of the army. we will continue to rotate those units. this is something we have planned for it while in something we are executing now and it allows us then to make sure we are consistent as we apply the resources of our army not only in korea but other places around the world. >> it want to be sure to talk a little bit about china before run out of time. you have expressed your concern about cybersecurity threats from china and was china has to lead a new air defense zone. can you talk a little bit about your concerns there and what the army's role will be in addressing those two issues?

>> what i would like to do is talk about cyberwar in general as i think it's an important topic. sigh byrd, cyberoperations and cyberdefense is important as we continue to move forward. in some cases it's a form of maneuver. what it is it's relatively, relatively now inexpensive way to attempt to impact issues around the world and i'm not going to point fingers at china or iran or russia or anybody else but it's about a capability that people can now split in order to try to gain advantages and from a military perspective it's about how do we use that and how do we understand that to protect our networks and protect their systems and how does that impact future warfare?

because it is going to impact future warfare and we have to understand that. from a national issue this is about our ability to protect their infrastructure and it's an important issue. we have to recognize that this is a new form of people attempting potentially to influence was going on in the united states. i think it's incumbent on us to improve our capability. in the army we are reorganizing ourselves. we are going to stand up as cybercenter of excellence in to create the capabilities and expertise to deal with this. we are to have some capability but we are going to expand it as we move forward. but as you know there are important and fundamental legal and policy issues that have to be worked through as we continue to deal with this new threat.

for me that is probably the most important thing. in terms of china and the establishment of what they consider to be a sovereign fly zone to china, again this is about us working through some very difficult issues in order for us to it ensure that we sustain a level of security necessary for us and the best interests of our allies and building strong relations with china so we maintain a level of security that allows economies to continue to grow. this is something we have to constantly work with them and constantly work with our partners in the region as we move forward. >> we are unfortunately almost out of time. we are asking one last question. i have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care. after a minute of our upcoming

speakers. january 9 we have general frank jay grass of the national guard and we will follow up with some of your questions at that time. on january 10 we have joseph ortman the ceo of amtrak and on january 15 we have christine lagarde the head of the imf. secondly i would like to present to you our traditional national press club coffee mug. >> thank you. you can never have too many mugs. thank you very much. >> thank you and on last question. we try to end on a lighthearted note paradigm told that you are a big new york giants fan. >> that's not a light note. [laughter] >> eli manning preceded you a couple of years ago is a national press club speech are. i wanted to know if you have any lessons learned from your army service, strategy, drone strikes, anything that you can

use as a device for the giant's? [laughter] >> first off i am very close friends with tom coughlin who is the coach and i've also gotten to know very well at eli manning. we have some work to do. [laughter] the only thing i'm positive of his we did be the redskins twice this year. i know that is not saying much but you have to live on whatever you have. [laughter] what i will say is i think actually we saw some great leadership by leaders of the giants during difficult times. they played hard right down to the last game even though they were out of it and i think that will help them as they move forward area that is the kind of spirit we have in army as well. we will fight to the last possible minute in order to be successful. i'm confident that the giants will be successful. [applause] >> thank you very much.

[applause] >> thank you general for coming today. i would also like to thank her national press club staff including our journalism institute and center for helping organize today's event. finally here's a reminder. you can find more information about the national press about our web site at www.press.org. you can also find a copy of today's program on there. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in nephew moments a council on foreign relations forum. an hour-and-a-half a human humanitarian assistance >> coming up on the next washington journal democratic representative barbara lee of california on ways to reduce income inequality. after that, first term

congressman loot master of indiana with the republican take of the issue. later, are spotlight features france's keep her and her piece of the democratic plans to highlight income inequality in 2014. washington journalists like every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> can anyone be adequately prepared for the duties of the first lady? >> yes,. [laughter] >> if you are the wife of a governor or if you are the wife of the vice-president or if your mother and a lot is first lady. yes, i think you can. i don't think it is -- i think it is a gold in opportunity to do something. ladybird for one said it is an opportunity to do something good and if it, by chance, helps her husband, all the better. >> the world health organization

estimates that more than one-half million people worldwide are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. many live in countries where the disease carries a stigma and shame. by sharing the lessons that we have learned americans can empower more women to detect breast cancer early which today is the closest thing that we have to a cure. >> as you all know, as chicago is truly a city of neighborhoods separated by parks and boulevards. it is a city where walking just a few blocks and put you into an entirely different world of experiences. cut through apart and you go from english to spanish, black to white, porter rican to polish . across the few streets and you go from historic homes and manicured lawns two abandoned buildings and dark street corners. city of virginities available to a child growing up in one

neighborhood in this city might be vastly different than a child growing up just five blocks away and that difference can shape their lives and their life prospects from the moment that they're born. >> monday our original series first lady's influence endamage returns with the five most recent first ladies from nancy reagan through michele obama monday night at 9:00 eastern live on c-span and c-span three, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> now, a council on foreign relations forum on global threats including violence and afghanistan, cyber attacks and the nuclear weapon program of north korea. this is an hour and a half. >> good morning, everyone. on behalf of the president of the council on foreign relations i want to welcome you here to

the center for preventive action meeting on what to worry about in 2014. he will be taking stock of potential threats and crises facing the united states over the next 12 months. there is no shortage of it's a national flashpoints that could attract the attention of the united states, even trying to new military commitments. it is these ongoing a potential crises that we most want to talk about today. let me remind everybody that this meeting is on the record. i want to do this officially and let you know that the video and audio of this meeting will be available on cf our website, cf are got work. it is my pleasure to introduce today's panelists. you have there completed by representative -- biographies of the roster. nonetheless, let me introduce them officially. for those people are watching

via video. to my left is dr. david gordon u.s. had a distinguished career in academia, government, and the private sector. most notably he served as chairman in the national intelligence council and director of policy planning at the state department. he is no head of research and director of global microanalysis at the eurasia group. the erasure group has just released its interim report. this one is top risks 2014. oblivion find it at your age a group that net. i also have to say, he was my senior thesis adviser a long time ago when i was an undergraduate and i am deeply indebted to him for aspiring me to this career. i hope i have made you proud. >> you have. >> to my right is mark schneider , senior vice president of the international crisis group. also he has held numerous

positions in government including deputy secretary of state and state department and the chief of the office of analysis and strategic planning and director of the piece corps' most notably. mark has been at the international crisis grew now going on in the north of years i think. >> thirteen. >> thirteen years. okay. he is quite a veteran of these issues. finally, we have paul stares. he is the general senior fellow for conflict prevention and the director of cfr center for preventive action. he has held senior positions at the u.s. junior peace, stanford university in the brookings institution -- brookings institution, edited ten books on various aspects of world affairs and the preventative production survey.

>> left to right. >> thank you very much. it is a great pleasure to be here. it has become something of an annual event. it is great to be able to sit down with all of my friends. i think that -- let me start with some of the things that we are looking at at the global, macro level and then we will work down to some more specific. as a look at the world in 2014, the striking thing is that the set of issues that dominated global macro concerns as the financial crisis has really begun to retreat. that is the risk of another round of really bad financial instability. and that has really been the focus of a lot of what we have

done analytically since 2008. that has really reach three this year. we don't see a lot of risk they're either in europe, the u.s. i think in the emerging markets there is, what is likely to take on a different characteristic, not a financial risk, but much more of a divergence and the end of emerging markets as any kind of unified asset class. but at their geopolitical level, at the geopolitical level, that is really where we see all sorts of uncertainty here. our stop brisk -- top risk for the year really has to do with america's troubled alliance. i think that 2013 was a year that set in motion some very, very, very powerful forces that served to weaken the perception

of commitment by the united states in the eyes of american allies around the world. and i think that the two main events here, one was really in the event. the other was a slow rollout, but the first was the edward snowden affair, and a whole set of consequences of around the affair itself, but also the uncertainty with which the administration has dealt with what happened with edward snowden. are they backing nsa, are they not? what is important? what is not? the lack of a strategic response by the administration -- and i think in particular this has really put a huge risk on what

had been a growing relationship between the u.s. government and high-tech forms on cyber security issues, a counter-terrorism issues that was mutually beneficial, but the -- i think that the trust factor is gone on the part of the private sector. i gave a speech to etf just before the holidays. a group of silicon valley ceos and the animosity toward the obama administration of the handling of these issues was absolutely stunning to me. second, i think the second striver year was the vacillation of around syria. and again, it is less of an outcome, less of what happened in syria and more about the

process of setting up bread lines, driving what looked like a bribe to a military action and, again, is the lack of consultation with allies and the lack of any strategic focus. what was the president trying to do? and i think when allies, frankly , your president obama talk about syria as a foreign-policy success they wince. so for a lot of relationships year, these things i thorns. a great? for her canada, a u.k. even, japan, a little more, but for a lot of other allies,

particularly u.s. alliances in the middle east, for a lot of countries and a share, in the pacific, they really raise questions on the reliability and the durability of security guarantees. where is this all headed? so this uncertainty about the u.s. role, what is the obama administration strategy? what are its priorities? i think this was reinforced, frankly, by the trade side with all of the buildup around the trans-pacific partnership, closing the trans-pacific -- trans pacific partnership and the administration saying, well, it is the role of congress to get trade promotional story which flight -- of authority which flies in the face of all of the prior experience or

administrations have done and made requests and made compelling cases. i worked on the hill of tweeted the u.s., canada, mexico, the president could not set up a war room in the white house around this. that is how you get big trade bills passed is when -- i think that is the first. the second theme here, u.s. and external uncertainty. i think the second big drive is china internally. it is really driven by the fact that the new chinese leaders, the new chinese leaders are very focused on reforming domestically, getting china to more sustainable economic policy this is something that, as a close observer of chinese economic policy, it is stunning to me yet in the last ten years

all the talk a reformer and the significance, less and less and less. and the new clearly he, time is on the other side. ellis they moved quickly they will not make this series of reforms that they need. but the reform process itself potentially very destabilized. lots of losers. the political strategy that the chinese leaders have chosen to undertake is reason to audition and strengthening of the core of leaders of the communist party and undertaking a very, very, very sharp anti-corruption campaign in setting up controlled mechanisms here, strengthening control mechanisms . the irony of this is dead is undertaking a liberalizing economic policy through leninist

means. is that going to work? we don't know. it does not work, if it does not work this will be the huge source of instability over the coming years, and i think that president obama in his meeting with chinese president was absolutely correct when he said that the united states has a huge stake in and gyrate successfully enabling these reforms. the third big theme public was the re-emergence of al qaeda from its -- from the series of setbacks then suffered, culminating in the killing. here again, the core geography was syria and in retrospect the whole series in conflict is

looking increasingly like afghanistan in the 80's ended iraq in the last decade as being a magnet and focal point for increasing extremism. now, the new form of al qaeda is somewhat different from original al qaeda. in fact, the defining characteristic of al qaeda as an organization driven by the laws of focus on foreign enemies. and it has gone local. the brand is the brand, but it is now very much all about local power, all about building a local alliances. in many ways al qaeda has more in common as an organization which has blocked that it does with the original al qaeda. and so those are the big -- those of the big, macro themes.

i want to close by focusing on the two regions that are of a big concern and drawing a contrast between them. think you have a lot of geopolitical risk and attention both in the greater middle east and asia and in the pacific. i think fundamentally, fundamentally in the asia-pacific zone economic interdependence and a focus internally still plays an enormously constraining role on the likelihood of conflict escalating in that part of the world, as says the continued viability of u.s. security presence in the region. in the middle east you have both

a lack of interdependence and you have a lack of any kind of a credible security is guaranteed. i think that there still is a security guarantee for the gulf. there is a local spirits world you about iranian relations. the middle east has not come close to hitting bottom. 2014, we're already seeing a refocusing of pressure into iraq. that will continue. seven non is on a very, very fragile tilts. this spreads into turkey. the middle east region is one

that we are extraordinarily concerned about. i want to throw these ideas out there as the big themes. we come back to come back and talk a lot more specifically in the q&a. thank you. >> mark, your turn. >> thank you for giving me the average into the to participate in what is a third joint look at the dangers pressing against our windows and a new year. infection by david has always said a strategic framework within i'm going to -- within which i am going to focus. for the u.n., another your responsibilities, furies sources to meet the challenges and inevitably more criticism. in addition we should not forget this.

it will be another year misery, senseless violence, anger toward the west and failing to come to their aid, particularly anger at the united states. crisis group president, published for the fourth year in a row, and i want to emphasize, the criteria that we use was including some index putting others and it is open to dispute , these complex are where we have the greatest concern about the fact about the loss of life in 2014 if they explode. with respect to ongoing conflict the same concern given the likelihood of increased intensity in the coming year. the capability or willingness of national forces, national political forces or the international community to mediate those dangers is lacking now, last year i decided issues that i thought cut across

various countries that i think are relevant. first, the absence of the rule of law partially applied to protect citizens, second the ability to insure monopoly on the use of force to look to protect the borders, enforce the law, protect the citizens. third, it seems to me that we now have -- and david tustin estimate phenomenon of radical islamic extremists praying terrorist attacks and essentially taking advantage of those internal battles for their own ends. fourth, again, the continuing absence of the repackaged peace agreements to end civil conflicts when all the parties are at the table and all commit at the end to implement those agreements which simply does not exist. finally, the fact and i emphasize last year, none of these conflicts are contained within the borders of the name country. they are believed across

borders, destabilize other instances, and in many instances their neighbors contribute to the interest -- i am not going to love myself. i am going to emphasize that afghanistan, given the immediate short-term potential for excessive violence and the lead up to the elections of april next year. clearly there is threat of additional violence. even more so, if the election replicates the election of 2009. but let me make a point. there are several that dropped off last year's list and to some degree there are positive reasons for that. kenya dropped off because regional and international diplomatic engagement is a run-up to the recent election hoping to prevent what is essentially cut the country apart six years ago. second, pakistan did not make the list this year because it successfully managed his first

transition from one elected civilian government to another and also because the new military chief seems to have show some evidence of a willingness to go after the pakistan ag hottest and to allow the efforts to promote engagement within to continue. third, they seem to be holding to the cease-fire. fourth, prc. extremely fragile. nevertheless, the diplomatic strategy that was put together, russ feingold, late acton, in fact, it has managed to bring their regional parties in ways to end the very least dampen down the toxic confrontation in along with the more aggressive military posturing basically have taken down the a.m. to three and hopefully begin to put controls on the other militias

of the eastern contra of. there are, however, five new countries that pose greater risks this year of widespread loss of life for 2014. central african republic. the number of displaced from 100,000 it is end of 400,000 in november. a month later right to survival for the congress, 60,000. today 1 million. this simply the fact that even with the intervention of france and the peacekeeping, the killing continues. the power struggle has not ended. and we have to focus on the reality that libya has the potential for additional violence. demolishes mirror the islamist periphery divide.

bangladesh, the competition that goes back to the 1971 war of liberation for pakistan. as you saw, the elections on sunday, 22 percent turnout, substantial violence. unfortunately, that looks like it is going to continue. honduras, the murder capital of the world. transnational cartels fire off on the illicit transport of drugs. 80 percent of all the cocaine coming to the united states by air goes through honduras. this year the olympics, they're coming. and it is back death state security structure not making a distinction between the victims and the threats. the other five conflict some are less, those are the new ones,

the central african republic. the continuing ones are because the intensity has, in fact, decreased. the south sudan, and in both countries he's facing multiple points of political violence. unresolved issues a comeback many years. trick at -- troops are still aiming for qa. the unresolved political competition between the sharp cut in the future of the country. the failure to design a comprehensive strategy to design a deal with the underlying separatists and the autonomy concerns of the region and to bring them some way into the

national governments said the new powder keg for the north this self. and then david already indicated syria. no closer to resolution. over the course of the last year the death toll reached 200,000 has virtually engulfed 11 on. it is not just syria. is the impact on the region. lebanon's population has grown from syria refugees which has said his views, the sectarian balance. unfortunately as well despite the appearance of success in resolving the chemical weapons issue the one hope for ending the fundamental conflict from the u.s. russian accord is firmer than ever. for those eternal optimists their is a glimmer somewhere that the iranian nuclear accord

might need a row at geneva, would you have to really dig deep to believe that that is going to make a difference. there is a full-blown civil conflict in iraq. increased prospects of battle over the coming year. the short-sighted exclusion of tribal leaders from government participation and services and is grappling with the negative impact of the syrian conflict. northern nigeria may appear to be quiet because everything else pushes them off the front pages, but the reality is that they remained typical. the final country on our list is central asia. it is not a country. it is a subregion. it is on this year and last year. every country faces the

possibility for a violent transition because the autocrats who control the country's simply have not set in motion in the institutions to provide for a transition. and given the fact that they are all vulnerable to extremists coming back from afghanistan and the other wars, the possibility of a major outbreak of violence there is of great concern. ..n, deadly conflict usually -- states inability or lack of interest in providing all other citizens basic services, due process and security. instead predatory rule that benefit the elite, ethnic and sectarian divisions and denial of human rights are the future violence and every one of these countries. >> thank you very much, mark. poll, over to you. high-tech now i suppose. >> thanks, jim. and thank you all for coming out

on this very chilly morn. really appreciate it. so i'm going to lk >> thank you over coming out on this very chilly morning. i really appreciate it. so i'm going to talk to you about the results of our latest preventive priorities survey. as many of you know we do this on an annual basis. this is the sixth time we have done this and as james said it's available on our web site and their hard copies available on your chair. for those of you familiar with the survey, the basic premise is that there are many conceivable sources of clinical instability and conflict around the world that the u.s. has an interest in preventing or mitigating in some respects but they are not equally important in terms of the challenge they pose to u.s. interests. so the purpose of the survey is to help u.s. policymakers make choices among the various competing priorities given the limited or finite resources and the attention span as well as i

think the appetite of the american public to engage in various preventive action overseas. so the goal basically is simply to help u.s. policymakers pick and choose among cities competing priorities. so before i get into the actual results of the survey this year i thought i would just sort of quickly review how we do this survey each year. so basically we begin with an initial crowdsourcing through social media outlets of the principle concerns of the foreign-policy community and so we solicit the contingencies that are going to be the basis of the survey each year and on the basis of that we select 30 contingencies that make up the actual survey and then we send out the survey instrument, this year to over 1200 government

officials, experts, nongovernmental officials and academics and we basically ask them to rank each consisting on how likely they think it will be in 2014 and what is the relative impact on u.s. interest according to some basic criteria that we lay out in the survey. and on the basis of the results we get back, we order the results into three tiers of relative priorities for u.s. policymakers and we do it according to this basic risk matrix as you can see. if you want to learn more about the methodology you can read about it in the actual survey. it's on page four. so, let me now run through the basic survey results and i'm going to use this new interactive global conflict tracker that we have developed

to not only highlight the pts but also serve as a basic resource for the community on conflicts around the world that we have identified as being particularly important for 2014. as you can see, when you go to the global conflict tracker you come up with a map. on the left organized areas of conflict by relative likelihood. on the left moderately low as well as relative importance to u.s. interest, high moderate medium and low-end and you can filter them across the map. as you see this is the tier 1 contingencies in red and secondly the tier 2 and tier 3 and then you can go on any one of those and on any one of these

and each one will ring up eight background conflict briefly calling them which lays out basic information about the conflict and an update on the latest news, major reports that are available on that particular conflict and other resources that i think are very useful. i'm not aware of any other resource of this kind out there so we are hoping this will be of use. this will be regularly up dated by the way so that it's not a one shot. with that as a general introduction, let me go through the tier 1 contingencies that were identified this year. no great surprises. many of the tier 1 contingencies from last year showed up in this year's list of top priorities.

still obviously concerned about the threat of a major terrorist attack as well as a cyberattack on the united states. the situation with iran is hardly results and there is still a concern that the interim agreement might unravel and lead to a resumption of tensions with iran. afghanistan is up there as mark said in terms of the likelihood of increased violence as the results of the drawdown of u.s. forces and coalition forces in general and the uncertainty about what will happen post-2014. pakistan is still considered very unstable to most experts in terms of its internal situation. there are as mark mentioned some encouraging signs but overall people are still unconvinced about the long-term stability of pakistan.

i would say perhaps the leading focus of concern this year was syria up. this was last year's number one preventive priority and we can demonstrate what this new track offers to the community. as you saw we clicked on the symbol there for syria and it takes you to this conflict brief. you just scroll down a little bit and you get a sense of what is available. there were not only tweets, this red portion on the left-hand side also gives you an update on the situation in syria. a crisis alert we are calling it but if you just scroll down a little further here, you see the latest information from around the web, breaking news, primary sources on the complex so again this i think shows how useful

this will be in terms of a resource on each of these conflicts. getting back to the tier 1 contingencies again, i mentioned that some were the same from last year. we have i think for new tier 1 contingencies that where a grading from last year with general instability in yemen was identified. north korea remains a major concern not only about beer braddock a fear of the leadership there but the possibility of various military provocations. the growing civil violence in iraq and the possibility of a full-blown civil war also make it into tier 1 and finally

spillover from the syrian conflict into jordan was also highlighted this year. let me turn now to the tier 2 contingencies. you see them on the map there. again some of the concerns from last year showed up in this year's survey. continuing uncertainty about egypt's political stability, nigeria particularly northern nigeria, the possibility of a major crisis between india and pakistan. there's an uptick in violence in kashmir and also finally libya was mentioned as a concern, a growing concern among many respondents. interestingly, east china sea, south china sea did not make it into the tier 1 category this year, which was somewhat surprising.

it could be due to the timing of the survey. it was done in november before the recent increased tensions over the territorial disputes particularly between china and japan. it may be because of what david said at the outset of sort of general confidence that the economic interdependence between countries and east asia and the u.s. security guarantees make people feel that this while a source of concern may not actually become a major source of actual conflict if you will. some new contingencies that made it into tier 2 this year, some of which have been mentioned by mark. somalia and the possibility as the war in somalia with al-shabaab plays out and we can see an uptick in violence

particularly in neighboring countries as a result of terrorist attacks by al-shabaab and of course the central african republic is a source of great concern to many. again, you can find out more about the ca arbeit on adding going to get the latest information. let me just return to the tier f priorities identified this year. some dropped off and as mark mentioned some of the contingencies that did not appear this year kenya, zimbabwe and interestingly saudi arabia that was concerned last year with the potential for political instability. saudi arabia didn't show up this year but we did get some new sources of concern emerging here increase the carrying violence between buddhists and muslims in india and myanmar, protected

internal violence and instability in bangladesh who just had an election which was insufficient or inadequate in many respects. interestingly, tensions between india and china appeared this year. the possibility of rising tensions over their various territorial disputes mated in and of course sudan as well. now interestingly, two contingencies showed up, internal instability in sudan and north/south tensions that was not anticipated that there would need violence or internal instability within south sudan. as you see we are already on top of it. we have a dated the conflict brief to reflect the rising violence within south sudan. the pps, i urge you to not only

read the survey results but the global conflicts tractor -- tracker. i think you will find it very useful and that's it. the thank you very much paul and the global conflict tracker can be found on cfr's web site, cfr.org. i would like to bring the rest of you into the conversation if we may. i would ask that you wait to be recognized and wait till we get a microphone and if you could identify yourself we would really appreciate it. go back to joshua walker. >> just a walker. i was interested in the one major discrepancy when he said turkey was off your list david immediately started shaking and looking at his top risk even before the holiday surprises we had. it almost seems pressing so i

want to press you on the turkey question. >> so yeah i am very very concerned about turkey and i am concerned that turkey is one of a bunch of countries emerging market countries that have selections this year but i think that it's also very vulnerable to the cross-border stuff from syria but my biggest concern in some ways is i think we are heading back into the pkk kurdish question leading to a return of conflict and erdogan is just getting more pressure there, the increasingly combative and conspiratorial and paranoid he gets. it's really a constitutional

arrangement with having more power in the presidency. you are potentially setting up a huge fight within the akp. so i am really quite concerned about turkey. i think we are heading into very very nasty territory there. >> does erdogan run? >> yes, yes and i think he probably becomes president but this real uncertainty of the powers of the presidency, he will try to prevent his main opponent in the akp from becoming prime minister and this gets very ugly. >> the reason that we again, choosing which countries in the list of 10 initially is hard but on turkey there was again that

2014. do we think there'll be massive loss of life in turkey in 2014 as a result of the political conflict? >> long terms debility issues absolutely but again turkey still when you look at the institutions in turkey they are stronger and the politics have a tendency particularly election politics now i think have a tendency on constraining erdogan and pushing key in the pkk to a cease-fire at least in the short-term. that gives him than the opportunity in the midterm to deal with these issues in a much more let's say compromising way that avoids a long-term crisis that david has pointed out is the potential. >> i hope that's right. my only issue here is as things begin to shape in turkey this

year erdogan a, he had to move away from the commitments he talked about the city of the kurds so i am very worried about this kurdish question going absolutely in the wrong direction that it's a good debate and we will see who's right. >> paul just adding quick lee we didn't identify turkey in particular as a great source of concern but we did identify rising secessionists pressures amongst the kurds. we are a little i think less sanguine than the icg on the deal between turkey and the pkk and we see concern of that unraveling. there is also obviously the

effect of the iraq civil war on the possibility of kurdistan declaring some kind of semi-autonomous state their too so we are concerned that we can see a real uptick in instability around the kurdish issue in 2014. >> fair enough. sir. >> thank you. thank you very much for doing this and my first comment is that it's quite different from last year. china as paul mentioned was big on the horizon last year and now china is a nice reforming country. this is really a deep contrast. my question is primarily, what i was surprised that you did not mention was the fear of the market crisis.

of course turkey is one of the countries we are worried about, india, brazil so i wanted to draw you out. how concerned are not concerned are you about this matter? >> so part of that has to do anders with the focus of this session on civil conflict and implications for u.s. foreign policy. actually if you look at our document what we call converging markets is our number two risk. and it basically highlights the fact that the years between 2002 and 2012, 2013 were very good years for the emerging markets. they basically acted as an asset class. this was very favorable for political incumbents, lots of countries i think god

unrealistic, bought into this whole narrative of the emerging markets is the inevitable wave of the future. in 2014 you have elections and a half a dozen of the most important questions in the outcomes are likely to be much more divergent here. so we are most pessimistic about turkey but we are also i think a lot less optimistic than a lot of people are about india. there is than a lot of enthusiasm over the possibility of reverend modi where he has followed a very market friendly, investor friendly policy but in india a bit like the united states. governing at the center in delhi is completely different from governing at the state level and just like american presidents

who were governors and their behavior as governors didn't give good signals to what they were going to do in the white house, i think the same thing is like a toehold in india and i am particularly struck by the fact that you have had the last five years you have had a congress government pretty strong with literally the world sleeping -- leading economic technocrats in the drivers seat and they failed to get real momentum. i think they're still is a very big political challenge for india to move to the next level. i am relatively more optimistic about some of the countries that could be a positive fact year in

terms of restoring a balance between populism and constructive economic policies. i think also rouseff in brazil heading towards re-election which will give her a chance to restart and reformulate her economic team can do a little bit more articulate on the energy front where the brazilians are in real danger of falling behind the wave. columbia i am very oldish on mexico. our theme here is converging markets are much more difficult environment and i think the whole narrative that even the international institutions bought into of the emerging markets as the future is a much more complicated story. speeches quick way leon china, i

mentioned the general skepticism that tensions between china and japan would escalate into a war. quite a few respondents to the survey did mention the possibility of political instability inside china is a concern. for those of you who did take the survey you are asked to say if there are other issues not on the list of contingencies you would be asked to rank them of concern to you please fill in the blank and sure enough right if you actually did mention rising instability inside of china. i don't think it was purely about ethnic tensions related to the weaker issue but also general dissatisfaction of over corruption in the communist party and other concerns about governments in china. >> paul would a significant that this year's the 25th anniversary of tiananmen square? >> i think there are people here

that are better able to comment on that. i'm not sure it's going to get more attention outside of china. i don't see it as being sort of the focal point for public dissent. i think that is very and like lee. >> mark. >> two things. one is i think we have been writing about the potential not so much for intentional conflict as a result of china's effort to project power but in terms of the cells on the cheese -- south china seas and the pressure on japan the potential for accidents has increased. while there is likelihood that those sides will back away it's less a matter of concern. >> mark when we talk about improving virtually nonexisting crisis communications procedures in northeast asia has that talk

translated into significant advances to deal with this issue of inadvertent crises? >> that is one of the things we have been arguing for is that there needs to be a series of not single, not one but a series of efforts in both the tactical and the strategic level for communication to avoid these crises. >> i think the area where crisis coordination has improved in northeast asia is around north korea. and in particular the dramatic improvement in 2013 in relations between china and south korea acting really has taken a lot of the broader risk out of the north korea crisis. the north korea crisis would clearly be it a challenge for south korea but i think the fear always was that the korean

peninsula could really be a focal point for a broader international crisis and i think that has really gone way way down. >> jack golson. >> hi. jack goldstone mason university brookings. i want to pick up on something that david said. 2013 had a lot of crises but nonetheless we saw quite a lot of are silly and despite the fact that ratio in europe went up in a lot of vulnerable states and the euro crisis faded as a coordination and the ecb. syria, the war got worse but oil prices didn't spike because of the low bull progress on fracking and the ability of the u.s. and russia to work together. my question is given what you said about crises in particular

spots coming forward what do you see about the resilience of institutions that defend defended national order to function well in response to the next year? is nato getting stronger or weaker? is the u.s. pivot to asia really going to add security to that region? is the u.n. going to be able to intervene effectively in africa as problems pop up for is some other agency going to step in? in other words what do you see as the most effective local institution going forward and are any of these threats potential risks to weaken our undermine the responsibility of these institutions? >> it's a great question jack and i do believe, i do believe that we still have a very very good institutional challenge and as everybody knows we have talked about the g0 world.

again is not to say that there is no collateral is him and there are no institutions but i think that this crisis that we have begun to see in the u.s. alliances is very much -- and i do believe as i said i think the region by far the most vulnerable to this is the middle east, where i think what you are seeing is an increasing role of regional action, of regional actors and a huge competition between the shia powers, iran and hezbollah and the sunnis towers in saudi arabia, gulf states, turkey again you are very fragmented among themselves, very fragmented among themselves. but i think that as i look at

the ability of the world to engage here from an institutional perspective i think on the crisis, prevention all crisis i am quite pessimistic. i am much less pessimistic on the international financial elements but crisis response here, much more challenging and again even in asia i think the sources of my optimism about security issues in asia isn't institutionally driven. it's really much more structural and interest driven so i'm a pessimist and i know some people on the panel may have some different views on this. .. is -- they are

polling, they had to pull troops out of other peacekeeping missions for central african republic, now they have to pull troops from other peacekeeping missions to do with a problem in south sudan, moving from 7000 up to 12,000 peacekeepers. simply, we don't have a good mechanism and we also don't have a good mechanism for ensuring that those troops are the right troops, trained, capable, not from the neighboring states of their own interest as we see in central african republic, chad. so that's a question there. the other is, and this is my system hase, the internatio >> the international system has failed to recognize the need to have effective law enforcement support both for the conflict and in a post-conflict time. we simply don't have it and th