harry truman's old story, if you want a friend in washington get a dog. don't tell anybody under the bus for political reasons. i worked in the obama campaign. dennis mcdonough used to be down the hall from me and he called me a lot. ..

they were trying to show -- you hear stories about hagel. he's lazy. come on. they're trying to demean him. and at the staff meetings he agreed with kerry and general dempsey. if they were right, why not? in other words, some people who got to say, got have my opinion, whether or not it -- >> whether or not it's agrees or disagrees elm think we're trying to show they're shaking things up because things are not going as well as we would like in the middle east, like we were surprised by isil. oh, general clapper's fault. well, do you want to fire him? no. so, hagel was easy sacrifice because, a., a republican, who the republicans don't like. and, then you have -- and of

course he wag weakened by the confirmation hearing. again, i've known chuck. we worked together in the reagan administration. he was number two at va. not 35 years old. a pretty big job. the head of va at the time said, agent orange is no worse than teenage acne. can you believe that? so hagel said either he goes or i go. he went. that was pretty tough. i got a lot of respect for this guy. but at the confirmation hearings, you're taking money from the north koreans and -- he gave a speech at rutgers with an iranian american professor and you're in cahoots -- horrible, horrible stuff. cart are is not going to have any problem because the republicans like him. why won't it cause problems? you took money from north korea, center hag until carter

recommended bombing them in 2005. is that who you want? well, maybe some people do. but if you didn't want to get him in, those are things that you could use. so, i think it was, well, we're going to shake things up, to show you that we're not just going to keep going, so we threw him under the bus. and i got to tell you, it was the worse handled resignation i have ever seen. you're going to fire somebody, you better have the other person picked. not only did they not have it. then they listed people, all of whom turned it down. that why i used the colt mccoy analogy. everybody turned it down. i think that that's why hagel went under the bus. chuck brought to that job skills. he was a wounded enlested person in vietnam. you want to take on military

compensation, that helps because you've been there and you've been a trooper. he obviously had the congressional experience, 12 years in the senate. very successful in the private sector and worked in va. so he brought a lot to the job but he wasn't part of the inner circle and we got to throw somebody -- you can't get rid of kerry because he is involved in 400 things attachment. running around and doing these things, so it was easy to go and he is a real gentleman. the one thing he did -- which i thought was interesting, his accomplishments when he was secretary of defense, i never seen anybody who has been fired put that out. a list of his accomplishments that came out. so, it's not a -- doesn't do him or the country or obama any good. the other people turned it down because how much are you going to get done?

the '16 budget i up there. you're going to work on the '17 budget. whose going to be president? okay. >> it's not often i agree with executive intelligence review, but i've got to this time. i like many of the things you said but i think one of your initial statements, that isil cannot be destroyed, is a misnomer. the ideaol behind it cannot be destroyed because that's wider than isil. it's part of islamist. but isil can be destroyed, and i hope will. right now it's being destroyed on a several-year plan at best. i believe the gentleman is right, it could be destride having -- either we choose assad or turkey. we don't sit on the fence. with we choose turkey we get major ground military force on our side. if we choose assad we get a real military force on the ground on

our side. not as big as turkey. either way isil can be destroyed, not in a matter of years, and choosing the side will have the degree of some reconciliation with russia. sitting on the fence and refusing to engage our own forces on the ground, probably will continue, it's true. we cannot destroy isil even as a territorial entity for at least several years and possibly never. what if they use the several years to gain weapons of mass destruction? which is quite possible. >> again, you raise a lot of good points here. again, i think as long as people are -- accept this ideology and are willing to use terrorist tactics it's not going away because they can get car bombs or whatever it might be, and that's the point i was trying to make. you raise the question of turkey, assad. don't forget, you got the russians who you're working with, with the iranian negotiations.

you got the -- i mean, which is a bigger threat, isil or nuclear armed iran? you have to make that judgment. and to a certain extent in the cold war it was easy. if you help the soviet, it's against us. and vice versa. and remember that we prevailed against the soviet union, not militarily. they collapsed economically. they collapsed because they were trying to maintain a very large military establishment on the economy was going down. the key event wash disit's coming back now -- the saudis dropped the price of oil to $10 a barrel by 1985. and that -- you know what john mccain -- how he describes russia? as a gas station masquerading as a country. so that was the key thing. didn't beat them. yes, we contained them. had the forces and the -- all of

that type of thing, and i'll give you an analogy. no analogy is perfect. where in vietnam, we diverted our attention. we said, communism was the enemy. no. communism was not the enemy. soviet communist expansionism was and that's at the point here. terrorism is not the enemy. isil is. let's see what we can do. and undermine the military. i don't believe that you're ever going to get people who do not accept that extremist ideology, unfortunately, and to the extent we're going to have to live with that -- i mean, we can get into the sunni-shia divide and all of that type of thing. but, no, i think that's an important point to consider. that the point i'm trying to make. somehow or another you're going to go home and say, isil surrendered. not going to happen. >> okay. [applause]

>> i'm sure we are ready to move on and our next speaker, final speaker actually, dr. abdullah aziz, you may use doctor as an academic. you earned it. at the university of helsinki, and as a diplomat, of course, you can bring to the discussion your own personal experiences, experiences of egypt when -- is talking about terrorism as a tactic, and it's really the perception of the nature of the threat, and with the egyptian experience, obviously, we can learn what worked and did not work. but also your experience in damascus. for two years, until very recently, that you can also

share some of your observations about the threat of terrorism to the very state. >> thank you. let me start by handing thanks for inviting me and thanks to professor who initiated the idea of this important event. well, frankly speaking, looking at the distinguished senators here i see the stranger in the room. i'm not military general. i'm not a university professor. i'm not american. so, please bear with me if i'm going to share with you some naive ideas and fortunately these ideas represent only my own ideas, not necessarily my

country's. as you all know, the revolution in syria started almost four years in march 2011. and there are really a lot of idea -- a lot of stories that deserve to be told about this revolution from a military perspective, from a political perspective, from a humanitarian perspective. from a socioeconomic perspective and maybe from a religious sectarian perspective as well. unfortunately this is not the right forum to tell this interesting story because we are expected to focus on the role of military in combating terrorism. so i try just to give a flavor of this topic. i lived in syria for more than two years, and i had a good habit during this time. every morning i look at the map of syria, and ask myself, what

has changed? why? and where are we going from here? last august 2014, i started from damascus to washington, dc with map and photos and i thought it mite be a good idea to share with you ten of them today. this is the first one. this reflects the situation in syria in summer 2013. we are talking about july-august 2013. the red color refers to the areas controlled by the regime, and his mill lit ya supporting him, like hezbollah and syria and the brigade and so on and so forth. the green area refer to the areas controlled by the rebels. and then the black spots refer

to the areas controlled by isis at that time. so this map tell us two things, actually. first of all, that the balance of power on the ground, still months ago-was almost 50-50. and this is not the situation right now. this is an important thing that we are going to come back to. second, that at that time isis was very weak, very scattered, not controlling a lot of areas. the areas are not geographically connected, which is very important from a military point of view. and they were not in control of any single major city in syria. this raise the question of not whether to use military in combating terrorism but when to

use it. had we started combating isis 16 months ago it would have been much easier. unfortunately you're talking now bat war that is going to last for years and years. i think it was relatively easier at that time. if we look at closer -- if we take a closer look at the two major cities in syria, the cap cal of damascus, this is alibu, the economic capital of syria. she same time, july-august 2013, it's also 50-50, and you can even say almost 60% where it was the rebel, only 40% was the regime, and there isn't a single spot in black. this is completely different today.

this is damascus. its southern front, the most important one from a military point of view. almost 50-50, and isn't a single black spot. no isis at all. so the main point i would be -- the first point i'm trying to make here is that timing is very important. in using military and combating terrorism. the second point i'd like to make here is how to use military in combating terror. when the rebels in syria were controlling more than 50% of the country, and they started to lose it bit by bit, they went to the international community said, we are losing because of one reason. the regime has something we don't have, and we don't know

how to face. which is called an air air forc. so please help to us neutralize this syrian air force in order to be able to continue fighting. they proposed something called the no-fly zone, and the answer they have got from the international community, from the defense of syria, from what's called the london 11 group, is that we cannot do this. first of all, it requires a resolution from the u.n. security council and we're not ready to face the confrontation with russia in this regard, and at the end of the day the russians would not allow it in any case. and if we are going to do it unilaterally, it requires a lot of military investment. you need to destroy all the syrian centers so many things that the western allies are not ready to invest.

so, the answer of the rebels were, fine, let's forget about the -- just provide us with something called -- we can use in order to defend ourselves against the air defense, and once more the answer was, no. we cannot. because some of these can be smuggled to hamas and be used against israel maybe, and some can be smuggled to the terrorist and be used against civilization. so it's very dangerous and we're not ready to provide it. so, we left them alone. at that time the small and scattered black spots of isis started to grow. first in iraq. not in syria.

because of the sectarian policies adopted by nouri al-maliki, the sunni tribes in the western part of iraq here, they were desperate, looking for any partner to fight side-by-side with them against the iraqi army because they used to call it al-maliki army because they don't think it belongs to them and they belong to it. it was dominantly shaped army. so, they wanted a partner. they found isis ready to do the job, and this gave isis an access to the area in western iraq where they were able to recruit a lot of fighters from the sunni tribe, and they were also able to control refineries. so bit by bit they were able to

go to financing. they also controlled this border between the two countries. and were able to get a lot of money from the coffers along this border. they manage to create a network of smuggling this oil to turkey and to sell it there in the black market and gain millions of dollars. these millions of dollars enabled them to come back to syria and talk to the desperate fighters of the free syrian army, and tell them, well, the international community is not helping you anymore. how much are you gaining a month? $2,000? 250? we are going to offer you six. so, for a fighter in the free

syrian army, they started to think about it and to ask isis, what is your ultimate goal? they never mentioned the caliphate or the islamic state all over the world. they said to get the -- so, put yourself in his shoes. the same ultimate goal with more than a double salary in a month. many, thousands of them, accepted to move, to fight side-by-side we isis. so my point here is it's not only about ideology. yes, ideology -- it's very important when it comes to explain why in america nor a german or french travel all the way from california to iraq to fight side-by-side but for syrians and iraqis has to do with sectarianism in iraq and money and business in syria. still, ideology is very

important. not the only factor in this case. so, they were able to recruit more and more people, gain more and more money, and control more and more land. this is the recent map now. the small black spots grown to this black and gray area, which is controlled by the islamic state, the new version of isis. then came the international coalition air campaign against isis. first in iraq and later on in syria. and the question here is, who is eligible, who has what it takes

to control the areas that this international campaign is going to liberate from isis? definitely it is the assad regime, because, as we said, for the 16 months, the moderate rebels were desperate, and doesn't enjoy any kind of support, either we're talking about weapons or training or financial support. so, unfortunately, the people in syria now are not optimistic when they think about this war against terrorism in their country and in iraq, because they think at the end of the day it will help the regime. my last point is, is it the last

case, the hope. this is what gives me hope actually when i think about syria. people are still going to the streets, chanting against the regime. they started to chant against the regime like four years ago, and now they are saying, in every single occasion, down with the regime and down with isis as well. they think they deserve a better choice. they don't have to choose between bashar al-assad and his regime and another taliban in syria. this is what -- more than 200,000 died. more than seven million are now refugees in neighboring countries, and more than three

million displaced and half a million besieged in the towns. this is how they portray the relationship. i think it tells a lot. still, there is a way out by reinforcing the moderate rebels in syria, in order to exist more pressure over assad to bring him into the negotiating table and make sure there will be an orderly transition in syria that will not turn it into another libar or another iraq but will make sure that there will be an orderly transition into a more democratic society in this country. my final note is that -- that was good one from one of the --

this is not the way out. thank you very much. [applause] >> take three questions? >> yes. >> any questions? >> no speeches, now, just questions. >> can i ask you a question? >> please. >> as we know from the lessons of -- no country can deal with a challenge of terrorism alone unilateralry, and i think in your talk you spoke about the needs of support those forces who actually demonstrated before

for freedom. now we do have a coalition, and we spoke about the role of the military. what specifically on the basis of your experience in syria and obviously in egypt, has to be done by the coalition in terms of trying to ingest some hope for the future and you mentioned that struggle can last for many years, i suppose, decades, if not a the next century. so, what specifically would you recommend that the coalition or

those who want to protect democracy and human rights and minority rights -- what should they do? >> fortunately we do have two things. first of all, an offer from four country thursday the region, saudi arabia-qatar, turkey, and jordan to host training camps for the rebels to be trained there. fortunately also we have the president of the united states allocated $500 million for this training, and also for sending some weapons to the moderate rebels in syria. if we are keen enough to draft a plan to train 15,000, 20,000 soldiers in these four countries, in a time frame that doesn't exceed a year, from

february 2015, by the end of the year, we will have enough soldiers to replace isis in syria and northern syria and exert some pressure oregon assad in order to -- pressure on assad in or the to bring him to the negotiating table and then try to find a way to try to deal that with syria and transition period. >> one more. >> sir, excellent presentation. question, former commander of the u.s. special operations command, the new chancellor at the university of texas. one of his favorite phrases was you can surge forces but you can't surge trust. the problem is we're having at lot of the country inside the world, the wail we treat the

shah of iran, the way we treat it mubarak. how do we -- >> would you explain more. >> in other words, the confidence of the leadership of the countries in the area, whether it's solid diarabia, the leadership in egypt, promises we're making, drawing redlines, the confidence that we can make promises but can they trust us on backing up the promises? >> well, obviously a problem here but i think still there is enough confidence in the region in the u.s. in order to bring the change into this area. ...

the war against isis the brought the coalition into the area again. we are already conducting test sites in syria. the only thing to make sure assad is not making use of this air campaign and to enable the

other tribals to control more land, at least the ones they have controlled last year. the gentleman in the back. >> do you have a speech or a question? no speeches. no speeches. i want to applaud your use of maps in your presentation. and i want to ask, so one of the reasons we were able to successfully negotiate in bosnia was ambassador holbrooke not only knew more about the facts on the ground than melissa did, we were able to demonstrate we knew more up attacks on the ground ground than most of which did. we noticed your newest map was six months old. how would we draw those kinds of maps if we wanted to do it in near real-time? 24, 48 hours? >> the newest one was october 5 of this year. >> i didn't see it.

because it's on facebook doesn't mean it's true. >> some of them are not from facebook. some of them i got from the intelligence community itself. some of them were drawn by independent institutions in europe and i used to verify this information with the military advisers of the united nations special envoy to syria who have a very capable military officers there. >> thank you and again on behalf of the institute i want to thank all of our distinguished panelists and speakers. i hope that you will go away with the idea that whether you are talking about a military type strategy, a civilian type strategy in action our national security are really all of the above because they are interconnected, i hope that you

would help us send the message out to the world that this is a complicated type of operation. we have to have very clear war or conflict games before we start. we certainly have to give some thought to how we want it to look when we are done. this is not just from a political standpoint or the military standpoint or the economic standpoint or the cultural standpoint that all of those views and others as well. we have to have mechanisms that can translate these plans into actions. we don't have that very well today in this country and we need to do better. we also need to understand clearly that we have to be adaptive for along the way because plans and considerations change as we all know. the business about whether we are liked or not really is a

crucial one in many ways. and we also have an awful lot of lawyers involved in operations, and that bothers me too. fundamentally you want to understand that the military go somewhere. there are a couple of basic rules of this kind of environment that we have to remember. one, don't ever do anything that hurt the people you are trying to help. soldiers and marines the lower the rank of better they are and they understand that. that doesn't mean too much in the way of legal advice. that's common sense. during the eisenhower administration a guy named later wrote a book called the americ american. he was talking about the way americans acted in the way we were looked at by other people around the world in laos in places like that. eisenhower put the word out to the military.

he said start learning about cultures and languages of people and how they live and start looking at the world through their eyes instead of yours. we did that pretty well for a while but i sense we have kind of drifted away from that a little bit. i think that's very important. anyway i could wax on but we are already over time. are there any sandwiches left for those that might be hungry? okay, thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> manning he had planned for four years for this campaign. this started in 2010 right after he saw what happened in the republican primary for rand paul to contact your public and senator. rand paul beat mcconnell's handpicked guy trey grayson ended up i mcconnell realized i have to recalibrate everything i know about republican primary politics in my home state. he started to make changes and he hired key staff and started to build this very sophisticated infrastructure knowing that this would be the most difficult race in the campaign. >> they knew they were going to spend a lot of money on technology. they had watched to the obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. they had watched harry reid's re-election in 2010. they knew that they need to go from this 2008 race where

would-be democrat bruce lunsford by six points. it was a tough race. he was going to have the latest technology and we have done an interview in 2013. he said he was going to build the most thorough senate campaign ever. c-span: in american history. >> guest: you probably got their.

>> the foreign-policy initiative recently hosted an all-day form in washington. next, some of the featured speakers from that event beginning with texas senators ted cruz. now texas senator ted cruz on defense and foreign-policy issues. he's a member of the armed services committee and was interviewed by weekly standard editor bill kristol of the foreign-policy initiative last week. this is close to an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen welcome to the panel that is part this

years conference. it's a great pleasure to welcome senator ted cruz for a conversation moderated by bill kristol bill kristol a search on the foreign-policy initiative's board of directors. in addition bill has served previously in the executive branch as a chief of staff to secretary of education william bennett during the reagan administration of former vice president dan quayle. in 1995 he founded "the weekly standard" magazine of which he is still the editor and a thank you so much built for joining us again and for moderating this conversation. >> thanks chris sands thank senator cruz for joining us. a very busy time on the hill. even as our god knows what his colleagues are doing in a lame-duck session so so we will have to end this very probably seat and go back and keep an eye on the mischief. i don't think ted cruz needs much introduction. elected two years ago very consequent to the first two years in the senate as a

foreigner -- princeton college harvard law school and it's a real pleasure to have senator cruz with us. a very active member of the senate armed services committee and i will also say this is the first time i have been mum on the panel with your soon-to-be colleague caught in. they were impressive because as new members they grappled with national security issues fob then threw themselves and think the same of ted cruz. it's a pleasure to have you here. we will talk for an half an hour, 40 minutes and take as few questions and let you get back to trevail. i think there is controversy and is controversy and i notice you put out a statement on the national defense bill which came out of committee. it is now supposed to come to the floor i guess tomorrow or tuesday or something like that. what is the story without? >> thank you bill and thank you everyone for coming out.

you were referencing tom and mike. all three of us have the distinction of being harvard lawyers which i think both of them can convey. it was certainly the truth when i was in west texas and people thought that i went to harvard the immediate response had to be i've got a lot to apologize for. so with respect to the ndaa the armed services committee and the senate were part of the bill and i think we came up with a good bill. it's not perfect. he was a strong bill and it had a lot of good elements. one of the elements of the current draft of the bill that i'm very proud of and that i fought very hard for concerns the victims of the terrorist attack in fort hood where wherein the doll has some murdered 14 people, injured 31 and for a number of years now the administration has characterized that attack as workplace violence instead of

acknowledging it for what it was which was a terrorist attack by a soldier who was in communications with admiral awlaki and tears asking about jihad against american soldiers and to the current draft the nda has within it an amendment that i authored and introduced to provide the victims of the shooting should be eligible for the purple heart. that's something the administration has resisted. i was proud to see the amendment adopted. we saw support across the aisle come together despite resistance from the administration. senators on both sides of aisle the aisle agree that it was more than enough time to recognize that. there are lots of other positions that are good and worthwhile. what we have seen happen at the end of the day is a typical example of what frustrates people in washington which is we took a bill authorizing our

defense budget and it has now been hijacked into a landfill. at the last minute some 70 odd different plan provisions have been tacked on over 500 pages of legislation that was unfolded in the dark of night. it doesn't have a darn thing to do with our defense budget, with our soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines. it has to do with the combination number one congressional pork projects for different people and number two it takes in the aggregate north of a half-million acres. a restrict their access come either takes it a public use altogether or restricts the access over half-million acres. one of the things i've done in the two years i have been in the senate is it's my view there's far too much land in this country that is restricted from the public, restricted from the american people using and enjoying it. i have been pressing quite

vigorously that we should be looking to move more and more of our federal land out of federal ownership and into private hands so that people can live on it, people can use it and people can enjoy it and yet because those bills haven't been able to get through on their merits they are trying to attach it to must pass legislation. i think it's an abuse of process and i think it's wrong and i think there are a lot of senators who think it's wrong. >> what you think will happen? >> it's a good question. unfortunately, listen there is bipartisan blame for sticking this landfill on their third republicans and democrats in both the house and senate have their particular package and some of these to be clear, some of these provisions may well be good but they ought to be debated on and voted on in their merit. there are provisions in this letter opening up for example that copper mine in arizona. other provisions opening them up to development to use that are

beneficial but as is so common on capitol hill you see logrolling of some good provisions rolled in with a big mess, so i don't know. it is my intention to do what i can to block it. it is hijacking a bill that shouldn't be hijacked whether leadership is able to schedule it and force it through will depend on other moving parts. >> let's talk about the underlying issue which you have worked on in the senate arms services committee. what is your view of where we are doing it more or do any different and what's the situation with the defense budget? >> we certainly need different and in all likelihood we need more. you see a consistency when you talk to our commanders, our generals, are admirals that the impact of sequestration is

having a serious deleterious effect on our ability to defend our nation. now it's difficult sometimes to get a square answer to that because no one in this room will be surprised that the proposition that the defense budget is not immune from the world of congressional pork. there are some projects that have more to do with a particular member's home district then the need to defend the national security interests in this country. there are also provisions, for example we had a couple of hearings earlier this year focused on where i took the opportunity one earring in particular where secretary hagel and general dempsey were testifying and i asked him about the alternative fuels budget, about $7 billion altogether. one of the programs i focused on was the navy's algae fuel program, a program using algae. it costs about $160 million.

if we had used conventional fuel that would have cost $40 million so it's $120 million in my view wasted to see how much we can run ships based on algae. the air force had windfarms that they built up in alaska. unfortunately they built it in an area where the wind doesn't blow. so i raise these examples and said look in a time of austerity and the time where secretary hagel and general dempsey talked about all the burdens on protecting our nation that were coming from limited resources, i said well what about these programs? why are we spending money on these programs and chuck hagel explicitly agreed that those programs were quote luxuries and that led to the obvious follow-up. if they are luxuries and numb money is so scarce and you are saying we are right now endangering the national

security in this country have you considered eliminating those luxuries before you start forcibly retiring soldiers sailors airmen and marines? i'm sorry to say the answer was no. it was a set of mission of the political process in washington in the senate armed services committee. i introduced an amendment to say that 7 billion-dollar alternative fuel budget should be available if needed to provide for the men and women of our military and provide for national security needs. unfortunately was voted down in a straight party partyline senate democratic majority voted that down. we need to have a serious examination of how money is being allocated. we need to be allocating far more money to actually defending this country rather than the bureaucratic overhead and we need to look also that there's a very good case to be made that

sequestration has begun cutting to the bone and we should not be holding military spending hostage to efforts by the administration to jack up non-defense spending. >> republicans will control the committee next year so chairman you will be the in the majority. >> i keep trying to encourage senator mccain to come out of his shell and express his feelings. >> i'm sure he appreciates that. he needs out a lot actually. >> a couple weeks ago we had a bipartisan delegation that went up. we have defense minister's foreign ministers. it was really a terrific conference being. >> would the or take away? >> what was striking was the unanimity among our allies. we did a number of bilateral meetings on the margins and one

after another our allies would look at us in astonishment and say where is america? what has happened in? whatever the challenge was weather was standing up to isis, whether were standing up to iran, whether were standing up to russia and putin's aggressiveness one after the other for allies was a listen if america doesn't leave the world is a heck of a lot more dangerous. it was striking you could almost hit play and the same message would calm from one outlay after another after another. we need american leadership. >> this is one of the first issues that will come up before the senate armed services committee and will be the confirmation as we expected nomination of ash carter to be defense secretary. the whole question of the leadership of the defense department or the last years.

>> well it is not encouraging that in six years now we are now on onto our fourth secretary of defense particularly at a time when the world has gotten more and more dangerous. the fact that this administration has been unable to keep steady leadership at the helm of the defense department is not good and it's even markedly worse. the last two secretaries of defense took a rather remarkable step of both writing books, detailing the political fecklessness of this administration. what is striking in the two accounts is both described defense policy being driven by political operatives out of the white house and not having a serious focus on the national security in this country, and to see to defense secretary's right

that book and i don't think anyone would be surprised if in another year a third defense secretary joined that cadre writing what i would suspect to be a very similar book. that starts to be pretty consistent. mr. carter are don't know him. he has a good reputation and it was disquieting in the process to see several prominent candidates publicly take their name out of contention. it's not a good thing when serious people are saying heck no i don't want to be secretary of defense. it starts to suggest the way the administration is treating the defense department is not a pattern of behavior that inculcates strong serious leaders focused on defending this nation and now we need exactly that. it is my hope that mr. carter

demonstrates a seriousness or resolve and a willingness to speak the truth even if that truth may be inconvenient to political operatives. >> you are a critic of senator hagel. there were important issues of senator hagel when he was nominated. did you have oversight responsibilities? what was your sense of how he did and how much ability he has to shape policy as opposed to as one gathers he is overwritten or told what to do by white house aides? >> well look in the process where he is stepping down, i don't know if there is a lot of value to -- and it's not necessarily easy to parse responsibility. by any means this administration's foreign policy

has been a manifest disaster. if you look across the globe it is difficult to find a region of the world that is not materially worse than the last six years. i mean you know it seems the whole world is on fire right now and there's a reason. the strategy of leading from behind does not work. that is a euphemism for not leading, for running away, or withdrawing and what america receives from leadership in the world, that creates a vacuum and into that vacuum we have seen nations step, like iran, like russia, like china and that makes the world much more dangerous. look secretary hagel was certainly part of that team as his secretary kerry as was secretary clinton but at the end of the day as harry truman's

famously observed the buck stops here. at the end of the day it is the president who is the commander-in-chief. it is the president who is responsible for laying out foreign policy. it is the president who is responsible for leading the efforts to defend this country and for six years we have seen a feckless feckless and an effective foreign-policy and it's because they are focused on the wrong things. in my view our foreign policy should focus like a laser on protecting the vital national security interest of the united states. that is the most consistent failing of the obama clinton foreign-policy is that it doesn't key off as touched on our national security interest. instead it seems to be focused on photo ops and press releases and international law and international norms and almost everything except what is in the vital national security interest of the united states. >> i suppose at the same time

you are considering ash carter's nomination simon walsh is considering sanctions. to foreign policy is right there front and center. what should be done and what can or should congress do? >> thing congress can do something? >> i do think congress can and should lead on iran sanctions and and i think i hope that's high on our agenda in the new congress. in my view the threat of iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability is the single gravest threat to u.s. national security across the globe. the policy direction we are following right now is cool foolhardy and catastrophically reckless. in my view, we are repeating the

mistakes of the clinton administration with respect to north korea in the 1990s. the 1990s the united states let the world relaxing sanctions against north korea. billions of dollars floating into north korea. they use that money to develop nuclear weapons. we are repeating that same mistake right down to the rather astonishing fact that the obama administration has recruited the very same person wendy sherman, who led the failed north korea negotiations under the clinton administration to come in and be the lead negotiator with iran to repeat the same mistakes. and with respect to iran i think we can expect the same outcome if we continue on this path but we can also, the stakes are qualitatively high. with north korea kim jong-il and kim jong-un they are radical. they are extreme but they are fundamentally megalomaniacal

narcissists, both father and son which means some degree of rational deterrence as possible. both father and son understood if they ever actually used a nuclear weapon that day their regime would end. the danger with iran is when you have leaders that are animated by religious extremism by an embrace of a fanaticism that welcomes death and glorifies suicide, the ordinary cost-benefit analysis of deterrence doesn't play out the same way. ..

the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism using its nuclear power to increase that role, and that, bill, is the is the bank got scenario, the good outcome. and yet the administration seems hell-bent on pursuing

a foolhardy deal just for the sake of the a deal. i think it is extraordinarily dangerous, and it is my hope and belief that with the new senate being sworn in you will see real leaders prevent a bad deal. >> and how many democrats might join such an effort, a strong conservative and willing to fight. actually, you worked with democratic senators on several issues, senator schumer, senator joe brand on military questions. do you think democrats might break with you? the obama administration, i am just curious what you expect over the next few

months in terms of your democratic colleagues. >> i am hopeful and optimistic on that front. i think foreign policy is one area that has to particularly -- particularly ripe opportunities. i have been involved in a number of different pieces of legislation with democrats, and we have enjoyed significant success, more legislation passed the senate as a freshman senator than most of the other senators, and that is as a freshman senator in the minority party. as you noted, some months ago when iran named their ambassador to the un, a known terrorist, participated in holding americans hostage in 1979 and 1980, that was intended to be. it was, in fact, a slap to the face. thoughts were saying, what can we do to stop it? well, we introduced legislation to prohibit known terrorists from

receiving visas to come into this country. and it are earned support on the floor from senators. chuck schumer, lindsey graham. when schumer was praising it on the senate floor i went up to it and said, you better be careful. lightning will strike you. it passed the house 100 to nothing or the senate hundred to nothing, the house for 35 to nothing. president obama signed it into law. in fact, a couple weeks later he was at one of these black-tie dinners in washington where politicians try to be funny. and the president stood up and said, you know, a couple of weeks ago ted cruz introduced legislation, and i just signed it into law. here's a picture of the signing ceremony. he put up a up a picture of him, me, and the devil. you know, there are other examples. for example, senator bob menendez and i together introduced legislation

providing for a $5 million reward from the state department for information leading to the capture of the terrorist to kidnapped and murdered natalia frankel, one of the three israeli kitten -- loyalties really teenagers that was kidnapped and murdered. that passed the senate unanimously. when it comes to iran, for about a a year now we have had a bipartisan supermajority on kirk menendez, iran sanctions legislation, original cosponsor. i think he would have passed many, many months ago except for one thing, harry reid would not allow it to come up for a vote. we had the votes to pass it if only it would be allowed to come up for a vote. the the reason it didn't is because here he would not let it happen.

i am confident with the republican majority we will see a vote on either kirk menendez were other legislation focused on iran sanctions. now, in my view kirk menendez is not go nearly far enough. i joined as an original cosponsor because i think there is value to having a bipartisan repudiation. but the proper approach in my view would have a lot more stick and a lot less when you're dealing with a nation like a rant. i introduced my own legislation. lays out circumstances in the future in which sanctions would be reimposed. the legislation the legislation i introduced on my own would immediately reimpose sanctions, would ratchet them up to make them markedly more punitive and then lay out a clear path that iran would follow to lift the sanctions which would require a rent to disassemble every one of the 19,000 centrifuges, hand over all of the enriched uranium, shut down their

icbm program which does not exist to put satellites and orbit, it exists to deliver weapons of mass distraction and murder americans or our allies and cease being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. i think that is actually what a foreign policy vis-à-vis iran focused on national security would be directed to come in and i would note, with followed oil prices the rent is all the more vulnerable to sanctions right now. and so i don't no what the new senate we will do, but i think there is real potential. a lot of democrats in the senate are uneasy about the path the administration's on with ayn rand, and i think their there is real possibility for bipartisan cooperation. >> i think some democrats have expressed the same feelings. >> very much so.

i will tell you, it is striking. you look at -- i don't think president clinton is a complicated man. he is a kgb thug. and he has been quite transparent. he has said candidly in his view the greatest geopolitical disaster of modern times is the dissolution of the soviet union. in my view putin is trying to do everything he can to reassemble as much of the old soviet union as possible and if there is one principle from time immemorial it is that bullies and tyrants don't respect weakness and don't respect appeasement. appeasement. appeasement does not work. you look at ukraine for example, ukraine, when putin invaded crimea president obama said publicly, well,

it seems to me his lawyers are telling him something different than what my lawyers are telling me. [laughter] that is utterly incoherent. this was not a a debate between lawyers and the law school faculty lounge. >> nothing against lawyers. >> quite a bit to be fair. look, it is fundamentally misunderstanding the problem. this was not a question of international law. let's be clear. american be clear. america undertook a treaty obligation to stand with ukraine. ukraine not long ago have the world's largest nuclear arsenal, and it willingly handed it over. in exchange for handing over your nukes we we will help defend the territorial integrity of ukraine. now, i guarantee anyone else with notes across the world looked at that and are saying, i ain't giving of mine. that did not work out. when putin came into ukraine europe and america made a

little noise but did not do much of anything. i'll tell you, in terms of democrats, you know, it is interesting some of the closed hearings of the senate armed services. open hearing you have the reporters there. closed hearing when you're talking about, say, ukraine, it is striking how there is virtually not a single senator on the entire community who is supportive of what the administration is doing. those hearings basically consist of 20 some odd senator saying one after the other, what are you people doing? look, the ukrainians, back in may i visited ukraine. when he came and addressed a joint session of congress, he gave an incredible speech must have gotten 20 or 30 standing ovations from virtually every member of congress. the most powerful he said is

you cannot fight a war with blankets alone. we appreciate the blankets, but the ukrainians are defending themselves with hunting rifles against russian tanks. and this does not make any sense. the people of the ukraine want to be with the west, europe, america. they are fighting to defend their own nation, they are not asking us to put americans in harms way. at a very minimum we ought to honor our treaty obligations and help provide them with the military aid so that they can defend themselves. and the administration's response to this is incoherent. >> one more and then we we will take a few questions. he had been very critical of the administration.

talk a little about that. can congress do some things next year or is it going to be simply urging the president to change? >> look, i think there is great deal that congress can and should do with regard to israel, with regard to all of our allies. what we will see the next two years is a far more assertive congress with regard to foreign policy because the failures of this foreign policy are profoundly dangerous. you know, when it it comes to israel and sorry to say that this is the most hostile administration to israel in modern times. it has manifested over and over and over again. i remember some months back when israel was facing rocket fire from hamas. the faa banned flights into israel.

now, when that that happened i went publicly and raise a few questions. i asked, has this administration just launched an economic boycott against the nation of israel? and i pointed out that the faa did not ban flights and pakistan into yemen, afghanistan it does not ban flights much into ukraine. even though ukraine, ukraine, you we will recall, had just a couple of months earlier, separatists had used a book missile to shoot down a commercial airliner. and into much of ukraine flights are allowed. and and because one rocket had fallen harmlessly about a mile away, one of the safest airports in the world ,, the faa had shut down every american flight into israel, and it had done

so at the exact same time that john kerry arrived in the middle east with $47 million for gaza that would end up in the hands of hamas while the administration was pressuring the israeli government to stop acting to take out the rockets, to take out the terror tunnels that were being used against them. now, there is power to shining light and asking questions because within a few minutes of those questions being raised the state department found themselves being asked those same questions repeatedly by members of the press. and shortly thereafter former new york mayor michael bloomberg got on a commercial a commercial airliner and flew to tel aviv flying through europe which was very beneficial, and the combination of the light and attention made the flight been indefensible. within 36 hours the administration, you know, listen, we saw just a few

weeks ago jeffrey goldberg wrote a piece with some rather stunning revelations from the administration where you we will recall the most titillating was an unnamed senior white house adviser referring to prime minister netanyahu with an epithet. now, that's got a lot of noise. you know, in many ways i actually found that particular news unsurprising because the treatment of the israeli government had long demonstrated that that was the view of the administration to the israeli government. they simply said it out loud the most damning part of that article was not the profane insults. the most damning part of that article was another quote by that same senior advisor saying that they considered it a a great victory that they had delayed israel from acting vis-à-vis iran so long that

they could no longer prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons arsenal. now, that is quote from a senior administration official at the white house who thinks it is a good thing that israel didn't act to stop iran from acquiring nuclear weapons arsenal. that is extraordinarily dangerous. dangerous. and i will mention one final thing, the misguided herein deal not only is dangerous to the national security of this country but also has resulted in the administration being almost oblivious to other national security threats. so about a year ago the administration completely failed to perceive the threat of putin invading ukraine got caught them completely by surprise.

likewise, completely failed to perceive the threat of isis. indeed, isis. indeed, the president famously derided them as a junior varsity. and part of the reason -- it is very interesting. in interesting. in january of 2014 deputy national security adviser told a group of activists that a nuclear deal with karen was going to be the obama care of the second term. this was going to be there singular accomplishment, a nuclear deal with iran, and they would be presumably seated in the faculty lounges across the globe. and that is a focus on political objectives, political objectives, frankly, driven, driven by née ever taken a failure to perceive the manifest danger, but danger, but it also resulted in this administration not paying attention to the other threat.

>> shuddering at the image of faculty lounges across the globe. why don't we take a couple of questions. maybe i i can ask people who have not had a chance to get called on before. over here. a couple of questions. questions. there is a microphone coming. >> the center for the study of islamic democracy. sen., what is your take on what is happening in tunisia in terms of the arab spring and the recent elections and the success? and would you support more maybe aggressive or support to tunisia in this endeavor as long as it stays on this course instead of just rhetoric? nothing in terms of real support. >> look, i think that we need to be focused on

standing by governments and that we will be allies to america, that will stand with america. in the course of the arab spring one of the things, so-called arab spring, one of the things it was dismaying is seeing the administration eager to stand with, for example, the muslim brotherhood in egypt got toppled mubarak to needless to say was a flawed leader and yet had men -- had been a pretty consistent ally of america and by any measure the muslim brotherhood was not. in contrast when you saw the potential for revolutionary change in iran, the administration stayed all but silent. when there was

an opportunity for the people their to topple the regime that had the greatest anti- american animus perhaps of any regime on the face of the planet. the focus, i think, should be standing with our allies and preventing radical jihadists from seizing power. i think that should dictate american foreign-policy with regard to nations. >> another question. over here. >> i am author of dark forces, the truth about what happened in benghazi. a quick question about the iran negotiations. there has been a lot of concern that the secretary of state we will not submit that agreement to the senate how do you propose to force them to do that? have you looked into the case law which does in fact

require the secretary of state to submit all documentation on all agreements, not just treaties, to the united states senate? >> a very good question. there was a meeting of congressional with the president shortly after the election when the topic of her and came up. the president was asked, were these submitted to the senate? zero, we we will brief you on it. their attitude is it is sort of an informational briefing rather than respecting the constitutional authority of the senate to ratify treaties. in my view -- and this is actually an area where i hope they we will be a potential for bipartisan agreement. i think their there are republicans and democrats who believe that any deal needs to go through the senate, needs to be subject to scrutiny and oversight. and there are a number of conversations ongoing right now about precisely the best mechanism to ensure that happens. i intend to do everything possible to prevent a bad deal, one of the key ways of

doing so is forcing the administration to seek senate approval. >> did secretary kerry say? i can't remember. congress will have a say on that. >> well, and you know, the secretary of state would never be for something before he was against it. >> good. >> sorry. >> right here. this young lady. yet. >> hive. i am with with the george mason chapter of the elves out -- alexander hamilton society. i had a question about america playing illegal. do you think that -- like what is your take on increasing usage of air craft and influence that this might have on other nations building up the air

drone program? and the second part to that question, do you think that the us should take the lead in push for international policy regarding the use of drones before other nations develop program similar to ours? >> it is a great question. one of the realities of changing warfare is drones have changed how combat is conducted, change the capacity. there are advantages and risks. drones, it seems to me are a tool that clearly can have beneficial impacts in particular allowing us to project force without risking us soldiers. but there are dangers as well. i am concerned, a, eight, domestically about the use of drones here at home. in particular we had fairly lively disagreements with the administration a year ago asking the very simple

question about whether a drone can use force against a a us citizen who does not pose an imminent threat at home. and the administration repeatedly and to my mind inexplicably refused to acknowledge that the constitution prevents the federal government federal government from using a drone against a us citizen at home if he or she does not pose a direct threat. i think that is a real concern. there are civil liberty concerns to american citizens at home, privacy concerns the trouble me. there their are also concerns from the perspective of national security. no administration has used drums as aggressively as has the obama administration. and i am worried about what i would call videogame warfare.

that is, -- and part of this seems to deride from an ideological and somewhat irrational animus to guantánamo, to detaining foreign terrorists and to interrogate. and i have to say, i find it a curious chain of reasoning that the administration has expressed civil liberties concerns about interrogating foreign terrorists. i don't quite understand the reasoning that says, we says, we respect the civil rights of the foreign terrorists so much that we are going to drop a bomb on you from the sky and blow you up instead of apprehending you and interrogating you. work, i have to say, if i

were that person i would much rather you respect my civil liberties little less and not balmy. yet it is cleaner and more antiseptic. i worry from a national security security perspective just how much intelligence we're losing if someone is, in fact, a serious terrorist, a terrorist leader. there are significant benefits if it is possible to apprehending that individual and interrogating them, finding out who lost their working with, what plans working with, what plans are in play, their contacts are. and if we are mistaken, the intelligence could be mistaken, someone is not a terrorist, there is real benefit to apprehending them in discovering that. when you send. when you send a drone out and just push a button, both of those benefits are lost. lost. so i think that we need to have a lot more thinking about the proper use of drones as a tool and warfare. look, if you have a

terrorist in a distant location where you can't give soldiers and easily to capture them and you have strong intelligence that they are a serious national security threat to the united states, yes, we should use drugs to take them out. but i do have real concerns about it being seen as so easy that it prevents us from doing the harder work of apprehending the bad guys and preventing future terrorist attacks. >> let me ask the final question. moving along on schedule. drones remind me, intelligence) of the debate last year. the related programs. pretty much defended the comments. you have been more skeptical had he think it works out for the deadline of reauthorization of legislation? >> you know, i think that it is tough for congress to

walk and chew gum at the same time. i think it is possible for us to respect and protect more than one value. we have a responsibility to protect the national security interest of this country. we we also have a responsibility to protect the civil liberties, and i believe both are possible. you know, one of the consistent failings of this administration is, they repeatedly have failed to distinguish madagascar --dash. so to give a couple of examples, you know, when it comes to surveillance they are sweeping in cell phone metadata, sweeping and email e-mail information for law-abiding citizens all across the country. and yet when you have real

life terrorist threats, let's take for example, in the doll hassan, hassan, a major in the army communicating over e-mail with a known terrorist, we had the communication back and forth inquiring about the permissibility of jihad, and yet somehow they failed to connect the dots and stopped them from carrying out that act of terrorism. likewise, the design of brothers who committed the boston bombing. we knew we knew in that instance. the russians had told us that they were radical islamic terrorists. we had gone and interview them. they went back to chechnya. and yet apparently when the elder brother posted on youtube, i think it was, a video calling for jihad, we were not focused on that, and we did not prevent that bombing. and one of the problems with

an administration's approach that is sweeping in every law-abiding citizen, there is so much information, too much to distinguish good guys from bad guys. and i think that we can maintain tools to protect the national security, to monitor and surveilled foreign terrorists abroad while at the same time, listen, you know, the, the expansion of the brother is always justified as it we will protect your security. it is a perfectly normal american reaction to say, we need to limit government power when it comes to us citizens. that is what the bill of rights was all about, and i think we think we can protect both. unfortunately, this debate is often framed in black and white terms. you know, you either monitor and surveilled everything or you do nothing and remain blind and can't stop terrorism. i think that -- you know, i will give an example.

i am right now the ranking member of the constitutional subcommittee in the senate judiciary committee. in that capacity we put out a series a series of reports on the lawlessness of this administration. two of those reports have focused on cases before the us supreme court. the obama the obama administration has argued for expanding federal power. and,. and, boy, this administration likes expanded federal power. twenty-two cases where the us supreme court has unanimously rejected, not five to four, not closely divided, but 90, including just as so to mayor and justice kagan, obama's appointees. one was a case out of maryland. the obama the obama justice department went before the supreme court and argued that law enforcement could place a gps on any american's car with no

probable cause, no articulable suspicion and the fourth amendment said nothing about. now, that is an astonishing proposition. that ought to scare the heck out of any american citizen that right now if you are parked out on the street the government could put a gps in your car for no reason other than the they don't like the color of your car. thankfully, the supreme court unanimously said that is not consistent with our bowl of -- bill of rights. i think that we can do both. i think that we have to. >> ted cruz. can't chew gum at the same time. thank you very much for joining us, senator cruz. [applauding] >> thank you.

>> and now more from the foreign-policy initiative with louisiana governor on the future of us defense. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome gentlemen, welcome back to our final session of the 2,014, a world in crisis it is a real honor to be joined by governor bobby jindal from the gate state of louisiana. focused on a report that the governor and the senator cowrote talking about rebuilding an american consensus. earlier this morning, the

college and the national defense speak. and one of the topics in addition to the requirements for the department of defense was also thinking about how you build a political consensus. of course well-known to those in this room. he represented missouri and representatives of the united states senate where he was a a member of the senate armed services committee. he is now a fellow at the american enterprise institute and is also heading the national security 2020 project. it is a great pleasure to have you here today. thank you. >> thank you. and thanks. it is my honor as the moderator to introduce a good friend and a great a great american. i'm not going to embarrass

you too much. a man who has already built a great record in public service. he governor kayfor has served as the governor of louisiana since 2,008. prior prior to his election to that office he served as representative for the first district of louisiana. in congress he was elected president of his freshman class. he also served as assistant majority whip. assistant secretary for the us department of health and human services. before that he was executive director of the national bipartisan commission on the future of medicare and secretary of the louisiana department of health and hospitals. hospitals. welcome. >> thank you, jim. it is great to be with you.

>> quick to beer with all of you. again, thanks. we had fun writing that paper. >> i want to thank you. you did a great job. i should thank the fbi for having us. but i want want to praise the senator for many here as well, payback is compliments, but this is so important. he has been a very thoughtful voice cutting across party lines. i'm proud that he is republican, but cutting across party lines talking about the need to rebuild, reinvesting in the military because he wants us to go to war, war, but as a way to avoid. he has been a consistent advocate, written extensively about this back to his days in elected office and after leaving this as well ." again, working across party lines. i think he described as very well. a post-world well. a post-world war ii consensus. democratic republic is that allowed us. there were serious debates. i don't want want to attend like everyone agreed on everything, but

unfortunately that consensus is broken down. we face a serious threat from islamic fundamentalist terrorism and other threats around the world. i thank you for your trying to rebuild that bipartisan consensus. >> i appreciate that, rebuilding the american defense consensus. most of the disagreements, if you stop and think about them, have been over how we are going to or whether and when and how we are going to use the power rather than where we ought to have the power. if your strong you are less likely to have to use it. >> he talked about the four wars and lifetime. i think that is exactly right. no one was ever started because america was too strong. ironically enough preparing for war is the best way to avoid it.

very concerning, you can look at it across the navy, the process of having fewer ships, the air force, the process of having planes. fewer troops. and it has practical consequences. consequences. two examples from the recent headlines. a lot of concern about the soviet union. crimean in eastern ukraine and being very, very worried about what this means for the next. one of the most effective ways to deter russian aggression, i believe, would be if we had the ability through nato to have several brigades stationed in eastern european allies, countries countries that are hungry for american. it is not clear at all that we we will have the resources to do that. a second example, example, you look at the turmoil in asia. this administration promote often times very critical. president obama actually had a good policy with his asian

pivot. he announced that america was more into attention and resources to the asia-pacific region. unfortunately, we have not seen the follow through to the rhetoric. we don't have the resources. traditional us allies like taiwan, taiwan, south korea, and others, hungry for american, a resurgent china. you also also have other countries like india and vietnam and others hungry for american leadership. it's hard for us to project that only are not investing in the navy, our resources, resources and our military. and that is one argument, i don't think either jim or i are eager to the plug boots on the ground. the irony is that you strengthen the military and invest in the military you are less likely to deploy.

our 40th president deployed troops less frequently than his predecessors and successors, and i think there is something to be learned. it can actually be a foreign-policy strategy. right now we are doing the opposite. our friends don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. america has not been a very good ally. in the middle east we have lasted unequivocally with israel in their fight against hamas. when you look at russia, the reset with russia, announced by sec. clinton back in the first year of this administration and included withdrawing the missile interceptor. it involved it involved not allowing georgia to join nato as they wanted to. prudent just and wake up one day and think that he could go into the crimea without consequences. he learned by watching the united states. you states. you look at isis. we prematurely withdraw our forces and created a vacuum.

but my greatest concern, of all those challenges we could go around the rest of the world as well, my greatest concern, what lesson iranians taking from this chaos? we cannot allow that to be a nuclear armed iran, not only for the state of israel, but existentially a threat to the united states. nuclear capabilities, the saudi's, the saudi's and certainly the egyptians and maybe even turkey would be the next century. impossible if the united states fails to stop iran from becoming a nuclear power, we we will not be able to stop those countries. countries. and there are some that believe the saudis already have an in force agreement with, an option. if iran does become a nuclear armed power. so this poses a huge threat to stability in the middle east and a huge threat to our interest. my worry is what iranians working -- learning from america's unpredictability in the world. i worry this delay in terms of negotiation may result in a deal that may be worse

than no deal, a deal, a deal that would allow the iranians to quickly constitute, continually harden. right now we do have the ability to destroy there infrastructure. it gets harder and harder the more time they are allowed to progress down this path. path. i think one of the greatest challenges that we face is what they learn from our failed red line in syria and our failure to act in other parts of the world as well. >> you talked before about 25 there is a fundamental sense in which defense policy is foreign-policy. a message that you are sending. certainly we are in agreement, we discussed the administration has had a policy of when it has acted week around the world. right now by the fact that we are being weaker. so so you mentioned some of our alliances. we talked about the various

operating principles were the pillars of integrating foreign-policy, foreign-policy, strong defense, alliances, but also, risk before it is to level where it is difficult, truly difficult when you have fewer options to deal with. in terms of our policy a little bit. >> absolutely. it is tempting to want to think that america can hide behind our oceans or pretend of the world is going to become magically a safer place. i don't think. i don't think anybody is arguing, certainly i am not that america needs to become the world's policeman or a dictator to other parts of the world or intervene in every single hotspot or send troops at the drop of a hat. absolutely not. having said that, we also face asymmetric threats. the threats are no longer just

rogue nations are national actors. they also include transnational, subnational, cyber attacks, as as we have seen in recent days, biological attacks, chemical attacks and other types of terrorist attacks. hopefully they don't include the potential for nuclear attacks from other a rogue group or a rogue nation. so we do face asymmetrical threats to our security and well-being. you are exactly right. exactly right. we need to first rebuild. the last time we had a thoughtful approach to the military secretary gates did an actual assessment and said that he needed these resources to modernize. we are now a trillion dollars below that thanks to the president unilaterally throwing out his own secretary of defense is analysis and then sequestration cuts on top of that. a trillion dollars below. we are not arguing. we need to get back to approximately 4 percent of gdp investment in military. that is roughly $8 billion.

we don't think the pentagon was been that money well if given an overnight. we work our way back to that goal. i won't get to all the details in terms of procurement reforms. we reforms. we need to be more efficient and responsible, but defense is one component. secondly,. secondly, we do need. we cannot simply lead from behind. that is not leading at all. our enemies need america to be a stronger, more predictable force. that leads to less chaos, fewer instances of conflict, more conflict, more predictability. even though our enemies may not acknowledge a publicly no other country can play that role. so this president inherited a special relationship. we have done everything we could to alienate our

traditional allies. our neighbors next door, the prime minister calls the president frustrate or in chief over his refusal to approve the keystone pipeline, doing everything to work the always polite canadians do live right next door to us. you look at our unpredictability. i talked about our unpredictability, israel, ignoring traditional allies in asia. asia. we are doing everything we can to avoid. unfortunately, this administration seems to believe that multilateralism is a goal to be the reality is, we cannot outsource foreign-policy to the world. america must be willing to lead. no other nation can fill that void. nobody else can can fill that void. that is exactly. that is why isis gathered strength. if we retreat, the inevitable day of reckoning comes, and it will comes. using time and space together material, strength, resources, allies. when that day comes it we will be more expensive in terms of treasure and american life. that day of reckoning will go away.

harder, more difficult for us to achieve victory. you have to invest in the military now so you can win or draw any type of conflict so that you can dominate and our enemies will be deterred from challenging america, our allies. now, this also includes a use of soft tools, encouraging movement. encouraging allies as well. one of my other concerns in addition to embracing multilateralism is the naïve belief that simply giving a a speech makes everything okay. if giving a speech was equivalent to having a policy we would have the best foreign policy in a generation. we have one of the most gifted speakers in the white house. sometimes we need to take action. our rhetoric becomes more forceful and backed up by the credible threat of action. so there are things. one of of the things we have not talked a lot about was the use of energy as a component

of foreign-policy. you look of falling oil prices and what happened with the shale revolution, this administration would encourage more development instead of decreasing production. this administration would make it clear that the epa is not going to be showing down and technologies that it can be done safely and at the same time protect our environment if this administration will stop trying to discourage energy and development and drive these manufacturing jobs overseas. the pressures we could be continuing to place on iran, venezuela, russia. the falling oil prices. the keystone pipeline creates all kinds of refining opportunities in the gulf coast, especially in taxes. it texas. it allows canada to sell us

the resources and puts these resources in the pipeline instead of by rail or other alternative transportation. one of the things that does not get discussed as much is, it has a direct a direct and heavy impact on venezuela. it would absolutely displace much of that oil is not coming from venezuela and is now being refined along the gulf coast. talk about a great when when. helps an ally, helps our economy, but leading a country that is working against america's interest in energy policy and should be a component a component of what we are doing to advance our interests and to cause those in russia and iran and venezuela to rethink some of their actions and some of there tomorrow whether it is iran becoming a nuclear power or venezuela trying export ideology into neighboring states for russia threatening their eastern european neighbors. >> and integrated approach the world so that people see the united states and understand. we'll get to that in the second. competent and competent and rational and supportive, predictability, confidence, security. you are right. adversaries want to no that

we no what our interests are you mentioned very briefly in iraq. i want you to discuss a little bit about what i think was the biggest mistake the administration made. and that is saying something. which was not leaving a footprint of 15 to 20,000 american troops in iraq in a noncombat role. you mention the fact that if you don't deal with risks at the lower level they tend to grow, this is the classic, a textbook example. so talk a little bit more in detail about how doing that may have prevented the chain of events that is now relevant to the fight against an islamic power. >> you look and you see and hopefully the administration is learning from history, though it is not clear that they are. the forces agreement recently signed with afghanistan. afghanistan. hopefully they have learned. the big mistake they made was to obey a political

schedule as opposed to listening to the military commanders and advisers on the ground to continue to caution this withdrawal. the reality is by creating and insisting that we were pulling out all these trips by the state, and i get the domestic political pressure and why it is popular to want to bring every man and woman in uniform home, but without leaving a residual force, without leaving some kind of force that could respond we created a vacuum, lost the ability to pressure , diminished greatly our ability to pressure the government. you saw how this government began to take very aggressive action exacerbating the shia sunni divide. we lost our ability to think

of our ability to increase pressure. think about the ability to fill that void so that certainly isis would not have been as the size and is transnational threats. certainly maybe it could have still become an actor in the region, but you would not see this thread. at the very least seal the border with syria so you don't have this group going across the borders potentially destabilizing neighbor countries. jordan and oscar. think about how different it would have been if instead of just looking at the political timeline we had actually done what our commanders were advising on the ground. remember,. remember, this was the administration that was so eager to announce that we were done. again, i get it. as a bumper sticker, they say we're going to only do

nationbuilding at home, retreat from the rest of the world. i don't want the american troops deployed on necessarily, see us putting boots on the ground unnecessarily. this is a case, suggesting a different course of action. the treasure and blood that was built to get them to the.where they are, think about the contrast today, new leaders. just this week the government has seems from outward appearances, reconciling with the kurds, they have an agreement on oil, agreement on the export of oil. at least begin to address those decisions with the absence of a pressure. i think, again, it is great example, fortunately a tragic fortunately a tragic example, but a great example of what happens when america unilaterally withdraws and creates a a void. bad things happen. hopefully they have learned the lesson. hopefully we don't just go after al qaeda and isis. we need troops on the ground

and also to go after the taliban, not just al qaeda. hopefully we won't repeat the mistakes that we made. the status force agreement was a good sign. instead, even if we don't think an action makes sense, i get that. i am not sure why we unilaterally need to announce that to the enemy. by the way, don't worry, we we will leave. we are taking out forces off that is fine. there is no reason what we will obama do. >> the president might have >> the president might have that timeline in his own mind. even communicated to the government. but why announce it to the world? it gives an incentive to the enemy. by the way, so important to

commit. it does not make any sense. you can't say for certain that had we stayed, the whole thing goes down differently. i'm not sure. you are you are right. we could have at least seal the border of. >> you are exactly right. residual troops and when we said crossing the redline it meant something, if it actually had meant something we would be in a very different place today with regard to isis in the chaos we now see in syria. >> be careful about drawing redlines. particularly when you are talking to me it is better to keep it because if you draw redline, and then what about things you don't mention. if you're going going to drive, you have to keep it. you talked about the 4 percent which we discussed in the paper as a guideline.

there has been, and to be fair not just the last three years, has been a tendency to be cyclical. so talk about having rules of thumb has save money, and we can give examples of that, too. but what that encourages is when we do need to spend the money it becomes less efficient to do so. we decimate we decimate our industrial base. you don't have multiple suppliers. we shorten the product development cycle. the technology is not obsolete by the time we deploy it, multiple suppliers, competitive bids, hold management accountable, give real authority and accountability within the pentagon so you don't have a hundred different meetings to get things approved. but part of the challenge by

this feast or famine approaches there is no predictability. it results in bad planning. we end up end up developing expensive weapon systems that we don't end up buying and we have to develop new ones to replace them. when it comes to the 4% you need to be based on a strategic assessment of real needs. this does not mean give the pentagon a blank check, but what is disturbing about our budget today is the last time there was a credible review was when then sec. gates came forward and said, this is what we need for modernization, training. and he himself suggested inefficiencies, programs that could be consolidated or canceled. and instead of countering that with the different analysis the pres. really took the number out of thin air. there was no rationale for it. it. instead we're going to get hundreds of millions of dollars. on top of that congress

exacerbated the situation. we are asking asking congress to do something that is unnatural. give up some of their power because part of what we cannot allow this to become is just simply an excuse. this is not a jobs program, we we will we will give the pentagon money so they can spend it in every district, contractors or industries, this needs to be strategic assessment. civilian contractors, clearly there are opportunities to do more with less. this this is not an excuse for waster and efficiency. a guideline to let you no when you are maybe under investing in things have gotten too high. and by the way, something we require nato allies. i say we require. they routinely disregard these guidelines. we have asked them to commit to 2 percent of their gdp, again with the idea that it makes sense for everybody to have a shared expectation that this is what it takes. and it and it does save money. not investing now makes it much more costly.

one of one of the things we also do is differentiated that part of what has been going on, this on, this administration is hollowing our military. it will be a mistake to say it only started under this president. we have seen a decline in investment going back for now several years of multiple administrations. this did not happen overnight. phasing it phasing it in, one of the things that i think that you also have to understand is that when it does come time, when the inevitable day of reckoning does happen it we will be a lot more expensive. and it is also unconscionable, if we ask american troops to go out there and defend our freedoms and be on the front line we owe it to them to give them the best readiness , training, technology and equipment. one of the things you have to look at is the loss of china. china is not inevitably our enemy, but the way they are going about their power, and

part of what we can do to change our calculation is to read invest and rebuild our navy, and we are not doing that right now. >> certainly a threat. a competitor of the united states since the cold war days. a a lot of people are unaware of that. i want to emphasize a couple of points you just made. when you have defense spending going like this, procurement modernization, you procure these from the private sector. and they don't have predictability. true in any central economy. it is very difficult for them to be efficient and make the kind of investment that they need. if you want competition you have to have competitors. if you cut low and force structure goes down and now you don't have enough people

to do the jobs you have to overwork to was that you do have, and it is a volunteer service. you have to you have to pay them if you want to keep the good ones. so then your personnel cost are going up. pretty soon you are just eating out any savings that you thought you were getting. i'm glad you made that. you are entirely correct. t-test ..