conversation this morning about jis. ref >> -- refugees. >> there's a practical issue here on this no lost generation that gets down to something very basic and that is the fact that babies are being born in these refugee settings. recent unhcr survey on birth registration revealed 781 syrian newborns in lebanon. 77% of them had no official birth certificate. they are technically stateless at this point. these numbers are concerning because, as unhcr indicates, unregistered refugee children can face increased risk of exposure to violence, abuse and exploitation. the numbers may be low when you consider the universe of refugees, due in part to the barriers at birth registry that refugee families encounter at jordan and lebanon, including complex registration procedures. has the u.s. government taken any steps with unhcr, n.g.o.'s and host governments to address

the issue of statelessness among syrian refugee children? >> i'll take that and get back to you on that. i know statelessness is one of the unhcr's key mandates, fighting statelessness. and it's something we pay a lot of attention to globally. and i don't know the answer so i'll get back to you on that. thank you. >> so let's use this opportunity to give a shoutout if we've failed to to private sector efforts to try to help in this refugee situation. i understand ikea is trying to develop a new shelter, i don't know much more about it. >> they have developed it. it'seally as would you expect. but the ikea foundation helps refugee situations in more than other places, but their new shelter is something that can be folded up into a suitcase so that way it can -- the home can travel with the refugees wherever they are. >> it was reported recently, lebanon started to allow these ikea refugee housing units to be

used to shelter syrians for fear that housing too sturdy and protective would encourage them to stay indefinitely. i found that interesting. when i traveled around the world and visited with refugees, they're ok but they're usually complaining a little bit. not enough food, problems here. the administrators of many refugee settings have said, we don't want them to get too comfortable. we want them to consider where their next move will be, hopefully it is back home. well, back home is out of the question now with syria's kirks here. but could you address -- circumstances here. but could you address that concern? >> i've had discussions about this with the minister of official affairs in lebanon, and he -- because i was trying to convince him to allow these ikea shelters to be used by the refugees. and so i'm very pleased that they have made this change in their policy. what several governments in the region are concerned about is

that they will host the refugees for a long, long time and the reason they are concerned is because jordan, lebanon and syria were three of the five fields that -- where palestinian refugees lived. and now palestinian refugees are fleeing from syria, which was -- had been a very safe place for them to live, and primarily going to lebanon. and so i think we have to respect the government officials who are concerned about protracted refugee situations in this part of the world because they have firsthand experience with it. and that's partly why i feel we should support them and make it easier for them to host the refugees, even as we try to do everything we can to get those syrian refugees home. >> there's been a great deal of interest in today's hearing. the turnout evidence is that. and dozens of organizations, i'm going to read their names

because some of them are doing extraordinarily good work. catholic relief services and others have presented testimony which will be part of the record. center for victims of torture, church world services, the episcopal church, evangelical lutheran church of america, human rights first, international rescue committee, joint statement of iraqi refugee assistance project, human rights initiative of north texas, lutheran immigration and refugee services, mercy corps, oxfam, refugee council u.s.a., refugees international, save the children, syrian american medical society, unicef and world relief and without objection, i'll place their statements in the record. the record's going to be open for a week. you may get a few additional questions and you promise me a few additional responses. and i appreciate what you had to say. and i will say in closing here, this was a pretty diverse political group sitting up here. and this is not always the type of topic that attracts anybody other than the chairman and a

ranking member. and it's an indication to me of something good and positive. we see a problem, we're a caring people, we want to do something about it. we want to be thoughtful, as senator cruz says, not to endanger the united states in any way. but to do our part to deal with a worldwide problem which he appreciates more than any of us could on this panel. so those who have given up on this institution, i hope today's hearing is an indication that sometimes we kind of do move in the right direction, even if we have different starting places. if there are no further comments from our panel, i want to thank the witnesses for attending, my colleagues for participating, and the hearing stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copy you're watching c span two with politics and public affairs week cays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and latest

non-fiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our westbound. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. in a few moments general -- global threats. coming up on the next "washington journal." democratic representative barbara lee of california on ways to reduce income equality. after the first-term congressman with a republican take on the issue. later, our spotlight on magazines features francine keifer. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

army chief of staff opposes sending u.s. combat troops to iraq. speaking at the national press club, he added that the u.s. needs to stay engaged diplomatically in iraq. his comments are part of an hour-long speech focusing on tho future of the uur.s. army. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good afternoon, welcome to the national press club. my name is angela i'm a reporter for "bloomberg news" and the 106th president of thenatl press national press club. we are the world eats leadingref

professional organization orforn e nrnalists committed to our wereession's future through our programming with events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. 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 {/

head table guests. i would ask each of you to stand briefly as you name is announced. from your right herb jackson urban record washington correspondent. reporter with the hexagon newsletter. jim michaels military writer for "usa today." faiola, senior writer for the night dates institute of peace. 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. soldiers in iraq and afghanistad 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? , 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. orm ofe c .. 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 >> that the in ability to protect our infrastructure and it's an important issue. and this leads us to talk about what is going on in the united states. so it's part of improving our capabilities and we stood up and we are reorganizing ourselves and we are going to stand up with excellency.

we are to have some significant capability that we are going to expanded as we look forward. and as you know there are some important fundamentals that have to be worked through and china and the establishment with what they consider to be a sovereign situation in china. this is about us working through some very difficult issues in order for us to ensure that we have sustained a level of security that has been here for us in the best interest of our allies and building strong relations to china so we will maintain a level of security and

this is something that we just have to talk about as we move forward. >> we are unfortunately almost out of time. leucovorin i asked velasquez and the last question from a couple of housekeeping matters. their upcoming leaders on january 9. we have a general of the national guard who will be seeking to us and we will follow up with him. on january 10 we have joseph boardman and on jerry 15th we have christine lagarde come in ahead of the imf. and i would like to present you with our national press club coffee mug. >> you can never have too much coffee or too many copyrights. >> absolutely. [laughter] >> we are trying to end on a lighthearted note.

i'm told you that you are a big new york giants fan? >> yes. >> strategy with joan strides in anything. >> well, first off, who very close friends i am with tom coughlin and we have some work to do. and the only thing that i'm positive of is that we did beat the redskins twice this year. [laughter] and that is not saying a lot because you have to live on what you can here. but what i will say is that i think actually we saw some great leadership during very difficult

times. they played hard during the last game even though they were out of bed and i think that will help them if they move forward and that is the kind spirit that we have as well. to continue to fight until the last possible minute in order to be successful. i'm confident that the giants will be successful. thank you so much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, thank you general for coming today. i would like to thank our staff, including the journalism institute for helping to organize this. also, you can find more information about the national press club on a website at www.press.or. you can find a copy of today's program on there as well. thank you and we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in a few moments, a council on foreign relations and an hour and a half from now committee hearing on humanitarian assistance. then a look at the future of

nato. >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network, c-span3. the head of the u.s. chamber of commerce talks about his state of american business speech at 9:30 a.m. eastern. and then there is a result of the university of virginia report on how to reduce health care costs. later majority leader eric cantor talks about school choice. our live coverage is at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> if i identified the single most important challenge to overcome it would be that this is the truth of the matter and the reason we are here today is because of this inclination which i read it is

anti-historical because they can deny a lot of things hundreds of years of diversity. and you have to just follow the addicts with a very limited sure it period of time. and i think that our journey has to be about those clerics to speak for us that it has ideals with realities in the 21st century. >> being muslim in america at 9:00 p.m. on "after words" part of booktv on c-span2. an online for the spokes bookclub. we will be talking about the liberty amendment. read the book and join us and click on bookclub to enter the

chat room. >> a council on foreign relations on global threats including the syrian civil war, violence in afghanistan, cyberattacks and the nuclear weapons program. this is an hour and a half. >> good morning, everyone. on behalf of the president on council on foreign relations, i would like to welcome you here on what to worry about in 2014. we will be taking stock of threat over the next 12 months and there is no shortage that could distract the attention of the united states and it is ongoing and we would like to talk about it today. we would like to remind everyone

that this meeting is gathered from everyone in the room and let you know that the video and audio of this meeting will be available on our website, cfr.org. it is my pleasure to announce today's panelists with their complete bios on the roster of today's meeting. let me introduce them officially and to my left is doctor david gordon who has had a distinguished career in academia government and the private sector. most notably he has served as chairman of the intelligence counsel and director of planning at the state department and he is now head of research and director of global macro analysis. they have just released the annual report and i believe you

can find it at eurasia.net. he was my senior adviser from a long time ago and he has deeply inspired us with his career. >> to my right is mark schneider who is the senior vice president of the international crisis group. he has had numerous positions in government including deputy secretary and analysis of strategic planning and director of the peace corps, most notably. now going on 11 or 12 years now. their teen years, okay. so he is part of that as well.

and finally we have senior fellow and director of preventative action and he directed the production of this year's preventative priorities survey on cfr.org. are we going to go left right? >> yes. >> cohead? >> thank you so much, jim. it is a great pleasure to be here. this has become something of an annual event and it's great to be able to sit down and have a good hearted discussion about what is going to happen in the coming year. and so let me start with some of the things that we are looking at at the global macro level and

then we worked on to more specifics. as we look at the world in 2014. the striking thing is that the set of issues that dominated the global macro concern since the financial crisis has really begun to retreat and that is the risk of another round by bad financial instability and the focus of a lot of what we have done and it has really retreated this year. we do not see a lot of risks bear either in europe or the u.s. and i think in the emerging markets we are likely to take on a different characteristic and not a financial risk per se, but much more of a divergence in the end of emerging markets as a unified class.

but at the geopolitical level that is where we see all sorts of uncertainty and it really has to do with americans troubled alliances. i think that 2013 was a year that set in motion some very powerful forces that weekend the perception of commitment by the united states in the eyes of american allies around the world. i do think that the two main event here, one was an event and the other was a slow rolling out. but the first was the edwards noted an affair and the whole set of consequences around the

affair itself and also the uncertainty with which the administration had dealt with what happened with edwards noted. are they backing an essay? what is important here and what is not. the lack of a strategic response by the administration. i think in particular this is really putting a huge risk on what had been a glowing relationship between the u.s. government and high-tech firms on cybersecurity issues and counter issues of terrorism that were mutually beneficial but i think that the trust factor there is completely gone in the part of the private sector. they gave a speech a few weeks

ago with a group of silicon valley ceos. the animosity towards the obama administration on the handling of these issues. and the second driver here was and are we driving what really looked like a run-up to a military action and again the lack of consultation and the allies as well as the lack of a strategic focus and what was the president trying to do. i think that when the allies

here president obama talk about serious foreign policy success they went south. so for a lot of relationships here these things are thorns for canada, for the uk and for a lot of other allies and particularly those in the middle east for a lot of countries in asia and the pacific and they raise questions on the reliability and the durability of the security guarantees and where is this all headed? so this uncertainty about the u.s. role and what is the obama

administration strategy and what are the priorities. i think this was forced on the trade side with all of the buildup on the transpacific partnership in closing this partnership. again, the administration is sort of saying bad it is congress' role that flies in the face of all of the prior experience and that is the first.

in the new chinese leadership is very focused on this with reforming domestic care and part of a sustainable economic care. and it was less than before and the political strategy that the chinese leadership has chosen to

undertake this is re-centralization as well as strengthening the core leadership of the communist party and undertaking a very sharp anticorruption campaign and it is undertaking a liberalizing economic program and, you know, will that work? we just don't know. if it does not, this will be a huge source of instability over the coming years and i think that president obama and this

includes the reemergence of al qaeda from the series of setbacks culminating in the killing of osama bin laden. and i would think that the core geography here would be theriaque and in retrospect the whole syrian conflict working increasingly like afghanistan in the 80s and iraq in the last decade in terms of jihadist and a focal point for extremism. so a new form is somewhat different from the original al qaeda. and a defining characteristic of al qaeda as an organization with a focus on the far end of it.

tejada's and is the brand that is now and it's all about building local alliances as it does with original al qaeda and those are the big macro themes. i want to close by focusing on the two regions and drawing a contrast because i think you have a lot of geopolitical risk in the middle east and asia and the pacific. and fundamentally with the interdependence and a focus

internally, placing an enormously constrained enrollment on the likelihood of conflict escalating with the world. and whereas in the middle east i think that we have both a lack of interdependence and you have a lack of any kind of a credible security guarantee and i think that there still is a security guarantee in the saudi arabians and the others do not believe that they have a whole conspiratorial view about the

uranium relations in the middle east has not come close to hitting the bottom yet. and i think in 2014 we are already seeing a refocusing of jihad as pressures into a rock and i think that that will continue in lebanon is on a fragile tilt and it also spreads up into turkey and so i think that the middle east region is one that we are extraordinarily concerned about. we can come back and talk about a lot more specifics. so i thank you very much. >> i think the council council for giving me the opportunity to participate in this joint look at the new year.

thank you for setting this framework within which i'm going to focus on. 2014 is going to be a very hard year for those who conduct foreign policy and also another year of greater responsibility to meet the responsibilities and feeling to present conflict coming to an end. it will be another year of misery and senseless violence and anger and particularly anger toward the united states. it was published for the fourth year in a row and i want to emphasize the criteria that were used was open to this and we have a great magnitude in 2014

all with respect to the ongoing conflict and there's a lot of concern given the likelihood an increased intensity in the coming years and we have the capability and willingness of national political forces or the international community to mitigate those dangers. last year some issues cut across the country's countries and i think that those are relevant. first is the absence of the rule of law and the second is the inability of the state today sure a monopoly on the use of force. and it seems to me that we have a radical islamic extremist with existing insurgency and forth,

continued absence of peace agreements where all the parties are at the table to implement those agreements and finally, something i want to emphasize this year is none of these complex are contained within the borders of the main country and they all bleed across the borders to destabilize their neighbors and in many instances, their neighbors contribute to the continuation of those conflicts. i will not limit myself to this list. first i'm going to emphasize is that afghanistan, given the immediate short-term leading up to the election in april of next year, it clearly poses a threat of additional situations. even more so as the election

replicates that. but let me make a point, to some degree there are reasons for that. kenya dropped off the list in part because we had a diplomatic engagement to prevent the ethnic cleansing that was trying to cut the country apart. and pakistan did not make the list this year because it managed its first transition from wesleyan government to another. also because the new military chief things have shown a willingness to go after the pakistani jihadist and to allow the efforts to promote engagement that continues. and forth something that is extremely fragile and the

diplomatic strategy that was put together by lady ashton. managing to bring the regional party together and dampen down their proxy competition along with the more aggressive ability to do so and hopefully giving a control on what is going on with congress as well. there are five new countries that pose greater risks this year to the widespread loss of life in 2014. and the number of displaced drone to those in november and 600,000, today a million. simply the fact that even with

the peacekeeping, it continues between christians and muslims and the power struggle has been a part of this. i think that we also have to focus on the reality that this year we have a potential for additional violence across the board. roaming the country near the islamist and liberal conservative evolutionary divides including bangladesh goes back to the 1971 situation as he saw the elections on sunday, 22% turned out and that looks like it's going to continue. honduras is the murder capital of the world 87% goes through

honduras. this year the olympics in sochi. and it doesn't make much distinction between who are the real victims and who are the real threats. but the other five conflicts on our list of anyone's and they are there and the continuing one because the intensity has increased. both faced multiple points of political violence with sectarian overtones. unfortunately with unresolved issues that go back many years and have not been resolved in turn resolved and this is our

election atrocities and troops are still aiming despite the discussions there is competition that could threaten future of the country. the failure to design a comprehensive strategy to deal with the underlying separatists and autonomy concerns of the region to bring them some light into this national government set a new part for the north itself. david has already indicated syria. no closer to resolution and over the course of last year, the death toll reached 200,000 and is virtually engulf lebanon, important as i said. and it is the impact in the region. the population has fallen by 25%

and that obviously has included its own sectarian balance and unfortunately as well despite the apparent success, the one hope for ending the fundamental conflict is stronger than ever for those eternal optimist there is a glimmer somewhere that the iranian nuclear ordinary court might lead to a positive iranian role. but you really have to dig deep to believe that that will make the difference. barack is in a full-blown civil conflict and increase prospects are important. they are now suffering the consequences of sunni leadership and tribal leaders and it is

also grappling with a negative impact. it may appear to be quiet. but the reality is that it remains this way. in the final country on a list in central asia. it's not a country but a sub region. everyone faces the possibility for a very violent transition. because the family and autocrats control this and they have not set in motion an institution to provide for this transition. and given the fact that they are all honorable to the extremists coming back from afghanistan and the other wars, the possibility of a major outbreak of violence there is of great concern. in conclusion deadly conflict has long roots in lack of

interest of providing all of the citizens basic services and due process and security. predatory rule to benefit the elite has existed an ethnic and sectarian division of human rights. so we thank you. >> thank you, mark. >> thank you, jim, thank you all for coming out on this very early morning and we really appreciate it. so i'm going to just talk a little bit about the results of our priorities survey and as many of you know we know this is done on an annual basis and this is the sixth time we have done it. it's available on our website and there are hard copies available as well there are many conceivable sources around the world and the u.s. has an interest in preventing some

respects they are not equally important including the challenge they pose that they pose to u.s. interests. so the purpose of the survey is to help the u.s. policymakers make choices among these priorities and give them the limited are finite resources and attention span as well as the american public to engage in this action and there's a lot to pick and choose what these competing priorities. so before i get into the actual results of the survey this year, i thought it would just review how do the survey each year. so basically we begin with the social media and concerns and we

solicit the contingencies that are going to be the basis each year. on that basis we select what makes up the actual survey and then we send out the survey over 1200 government officials and experts and we basically asked them to bring this on the basis of how likely they think it will be in 2014 and what is the relative impact on the u.s. interests according to some basic criteria that we have laid out here. on the basis of the results we get back we have ordered the results and the three tiers of relative priorities, the u.s. policymakers and we do it according to this basic risk

matrix. if you want to learn more about the methodology, we can read about it in the actual survey on page four. and so let me run through the basic survey results. i am going to use this new interactive global conflict tracker that we have developed not only highlight this but to also serve as a basic resource for the community around the world that we have identified as being particularly important for 2014. and as you can see when you go on to the tracker you come up with a map and on the left you can organize conflicts by relatives likelihood or the moderate low as well as

importance to u.s. interests and then you can still understand this across the map, and then you can go on any one of those and click on any one of these and each one will bring up a background briefly calling them which lays out basic information about the conflicts and major reports that are available on that conflict and other resources. i am not aware of any other resources of this kind out there and we are hoping that this will be of use and it will be regularly updated by the way so that it is not a sort of

one-shot situation. so with that as a general introduction, let me go through this contingency and no great surprises in many of these from last year showed up in this year's list of top priorities and still concerned about the threat of a major terrorist attack as well as a cyberattack on the united states and the situation with iran is hardly resolved and there is an interim agreement that might unravel and lead to a reduction of tensions with iran. this is including the likelihood of increased violence due to the drawdown of u.s. forces in

general and the uncertainty about what will happen post- post-2014. pakistan is considered unstable to most experts in terms of an internal situation and we haven't mentioned some encouraging signs, but overall people were unconvinced about the long-term stability of pakistan. i would say perhaps the leading focus of concern wisteria and this was last year's number one prevented priority and we can demonstrate how this offers to the community as he sought and we clicked on the symbol there and you have a sense of what is available and there is a portion on the left-hand side that also

gives you an update and it's a crisis alert that we are calling it. but if you just scroll down a little further you will see that barry is the latest information from around the web and primary sources as well. so again i think this shows how useful it will be as a resource on each of the conflicts. getting back to this again. i mentioned that someone of the same from last year. we had four have four new ones that were upgraded from last year and the strengthening of al qaeda and the arabian peninsula and the general instability in yemen was identified there. north korea remains a major

concern and the possibility of various military situations whether they are nuclear related and the growing civil violence in iraq and the possibility of a full-blown civil war made it there as well and finally spill over from the syrian conflict into jordan was also highlighted this year. and so let me turn now to the tier two contingencies. leaving them on the map there. again, some of the concerns from last year showed up in this year's survey. continuing uncertainty about egypt and the political instability.

a possibility of a major crisis between india and pakistan and an uptick in violence along the line of control and also libya was mentioned as well as a concern -- a growing concern among many respondents. interestingly the east china sea and the south china sea did not make it into the tier one category this year which is somewhat surprising. it could be due to the timing of the survey when it was done in november with the increased tensions over the territorial disputes and particularly between china and japan and it may be because of what was said at the outset. the general confidence that the economic independence between countries in east asia and the u.s. security guarantees makes people feel that while there is a source of concern it won't

actually become a major source of a major source of conflict. there are new contingencies that made it in the theater. some of which have been mentioned by mark. in the country of mali, there is a possibility with all shabbat that plays out as a result of the terrorist attacks and of course it is a source of great concern to many and then you can find out more about it by clicking on that to get the latest information. let me quickly turn to the third level of priorities identified this year. some dropped off and marques mentioned some of the

contingencies that did not appear. also interestingly saudi arabia and there was a lot of potential for political instability. but we did get some new sources of concern here, increased sectarian violence and protracted internal violence and instability is, which was insufficient or inadequate in many respects. interestingly tensions between india and china. this year and the possibility of rising tensions as well. and sudan as well. interestingly it to the contingencies showed up and the north-south tensions as well.

and there would be a great deal in south sudan. but as you can see we are rme on top of that and we have talked about the reflection of rising violence within south sudan. so that is about it for this. i urge you to not only read the survey results are to use the global conflict tracker and i think the you will find it very useful. that is a. >> thank you very much. we appreciate it. cfr.org is the website. i would like to bring the rest of us into the conversation if we may. i would ask that people who have questions to wait until we get a microphone and if you could identify yourself, that would be

greatly appreciated. >> going back to doctor walker. >> hello, i am joshua walker. the one major discrepancy that i heard was when he said turkey was oculist, even before all of the holiday surprises we had it almost seems pressing and so i want to press you on the turkey question. >> i am very concerned about turkey. and i'm concerned that turkey is one of a bunch of countries and emergence market countries that have elections this year and i think it is also very vulnerable from syria and my biggest concern in some ways as i think that we are heading back into

the question leading to overturn the conflict in further along it is just getting this with the more pressure that is the increasingly combative and conspiratorial paranoid situations and it's really self-fulfilling. and i think that as turkey moves to this new constitutional arrangement with having more power, you are potentially setting up a huge fight with in this. so i am really quite concerned about turkey and i think that we are heading into a very nasty type of territory there. and i think the president probably becomes president in

this real uncertainty, he will try to prevent his main opponent from becoming the prime minister and biscuits very ugly. >> the reason that we again have chosen what country is what in this list is hard. so do we think that there will be a massive loss of life in 2014 as a result of this and the answer is no. >> long-term stability issues come absolutely. but when you look at the institutions, they are stronger and the politics have a tendency -- pushing this to maintain the cease-fire at least in the short

term and that gives him the opportunity in the midterm to deal with these issues in a much more compromising way that avoids a long-term crisis with this potential. >> i hope that that is right. my only issue here is that as things began to get shaky in turkey this year, we very sharply have this nationalist base in going to that, he had to move away to the commitment that he had talked about. and i'm very worried about this question going absolutely in the wrong direction. but it is a good debate and we will see who is right. >> is adding quickly that we didn't have identify turkey in particular is a great source of concern. but we did identify the rising secessionist and pressures and

we are a little less sanguine than them on the deal between turkey and we see that unraveling in that agreement was largely reached before the creation of an enclave in syria and there is also the effect of the iraq civil war on the possibility declaring some kind of semi-autonomous state there as well. so we are very concerned that we could see an uptick in instability around this in 2014. >> fair enough to maxtor? >> thank you. my first comment is china was

big on the horizon last year and now china is reforming this and it was such a contrast. when i was surprised that you did not mention was fear and we are worried about this and so i wanted to talk about how concerned you would be. >> part of that has to do with the focus of this session on civil conflict and the implications for u.s. foreign policy. if you actually look at the

documents and what we call a converging market is our number two risk. and it highlights the fact the years between 2002 and 2012 in 2013 were very good years for the emerging markets and they basically acted as an asset class and this was so favorable for political incumbents and lots of countries and i think many of them got unrealistic situations into this entire narrative of emerging markets and the inevitable waves of the future in 2014 and you have elections and a half dozen of the most important countries and the outcomes are likely to be much more diversion here. so we are most pessimistic about turkey. but we are also much less optimistic than some people are about india and there's been a lot of enthusiasm over the

possibility of the head of this who is the head of government where he is following a market family and investor friendly policy and a bit like the united states governing at the center which is completely different from governing at the state level and just like the american presidents who were governors, their behavior did not give good signal is what they will do in the white house and i think the same thing is likely to hold our interest in india. particularly i am struck by the fact that you had the last five years with a congress and government that are pretty strong with the world's leading economic technocrats in the drivers seat and that they could

get real momentum behind reform. i think that there is still a big political challenge for them to move to the next level. i am more optimistic about some of the countries that people are concerned about. we are beginning to see the fragmentation of the labor unions that could be a positive factor in terms of restoring a balance between populism and constructed economic policies and i think also that rousseff and brazil heading towards reelection which will give her a chance to restart and reformulate economic situations will probably do a little but more particularly on the energy front. but they are in real danger of falling behind the wave. colombia is very bullish and i'm

very bullish on mexico. but this includes emerging markets that are a much more difficult environment. and i think the whole narrative that even the international institutions brought into this with emerging markets as the future is a much more complicated story. >> quickly on china, i mentioned general skepticism that tensions between china and japan would escalate into an uproar. quite a few respondents in the survey did mention the possibility of political instability inside china as a concern and for those of you who did take the survey you are actually saying that if there were other issues not on the list that you are being asked to rank of concern to you, please fill in the blank and sure enough quite a few actually did

mention the rising instability inside china. i don't think it was purely about ethnic tensions but also general dissatisfaction over the communist party in other concerns about governments in china. >> this year is the 25th anniversary and i think that there are people here are probably better able to comment on that. i am not sure that it will get this much attention. and i don't see it as being a focal point for the public dissent and i think that that is very unlikely. >> two things. one is that we have been writing about the potential not so much from and intentional conflict

but in terms of the creation of this and the pressure on japan and the potential for accidents that have increased. there is a likelihood of both sides will back away but it is a matter of concern. >> we have talked about this communication in northeast asia and can we deal with the issue of this? >> one of the things we have been arguing for is that there needs to be not single but efforts practical at the tedious level to avoid these kinds of situations. .. korea. and in