>> bill courtney, retired diplomat. when sergei lavarof announced they might be using the facility in russia, this caused a stir among russian nationalists because there was an anti-nato platform and putin was running for president. why do you think the russians agreed and how do you see the mixture of cooperation and competition with russia in regards to nato? >> bill, thanks for asking the question because i think it's very important. the one success story in the nato russia relationship, one of many but the one that really stands out is the cooperation of afghanistan. russia came, has come to the conclusion that for nato and isaf to succeed is in russia's

fundamental interest and, therefore, has cooperated with nato and with the united states on the transit of goods, equipment, and personnel. 220,000 american troops have been flown into and out of afghanistan through russian airspace in the last few years. similarly many thousands of tons of material have transferred through rail lines through russia into afghanistan and as we start drawing down our forces getting the stuff out becomes equally important. and russia has been a great member of that coalition, of the transit coalition that exists. the multimodal transit which is the basis being used for which would allow us to fly out of afghanistan into russia and then transport the same materials onto trains is yet another step in the direction of making sure

that the transit system really does work to the benefits of all. and despite the protests that happened, we've been hearing on the streets in russia because of this agreement the government remains committed to fulfilling it. it set out my good colleague, former colleague, to make the case for why this is important. and when he says anything nice about nato, you ought to listen because that's an important -- that's an important event. and it means that, in fact, they want something to happen in a positive way and they do and on this issue, as, for example, counter piracy and counter narcotics training, where the anyw nato-russia and u.s.-russia cooperation is ben if figures to both sides and we remain committed and we remain implementing it despite the differences that we have on other issues.

>> yes, sir, in the back? >> my name is ivo, also. i am from the balkans. can we go back a little bit -- >> could you speak a little louder. >> croatia and slovenia are already nato, macedonia, bosnia have a big did desire to be part of montenegro but serbia didn't show any desire to be part of nato. is nato afraid a little bit that serbia would be too close to moscow, maybe russia can offer some military base in the south of serbia and also in bosnia -- practically divided -- and under serbia control. they say we put a referendum about anywnato if it's necessar and, also, we want to see what belgrade is saying about nato membership.

please your comment. thank you, sir. >> serbia has an evolving relationship with nato. it's a relationship where we now have an individual partnership plan, signed and negotiated with serbia. serbia has not indicated once it became a member of nato. as i said, this is a decision individual countries will have to reach themselves. for now serbia has focused primarily on moving towards the eu and gained candidacy status a few months ago which was important. there was an important election. there were many important elections on sunday, another one in serbia, which -- and we will see the second round next week. but the forces that want to continue the process of integration in serbia remain strong which is good for serbia and it's good for europe.

how and when and whether that integration will have a nato angle, there's something for serbia to decide. we are open to it. the serbs, in fact, have a mission to nato. they have an ambassador at nato whose job is to have an interaction with nato and we will find whatever partnership activity, partnership relationship belgrade wants we are willing to support it. with respect to bosn bosnia-herzegovina, it remains one of the few areas there is large agreement across the entire country. and bosnia has made significant steps in recent weeks and months on meeting some of the key requirements with respect to defense property, registration, that will enable them too much a new relationship with nato in the weeks and months ahead

demonstrating that nato and the ability to become a member of nato remains one of those things that helps political consensus form in the country, to make the kind of difficult political decisions that sometimes are necessary in order to move forward. so we are hopeful that bosnia will continue down that path and enable it to move closer to nato membership as it makes the reforms that are necessary. >> i can't hear you. can you speak up a little? [ inaudible ] >> is going to have a referendum about nato. i'm not talking about the whole of bosnia, because the president of that entity of bosnia, he said that a few days ago, we are going to have a referendum in the republic. >> i will leave the internal politics of bosnia herzegovina. it's not for me to comment on.

>> yes, sir? >> jeff piala, occasional academic. the united states has articulated something of a pivot toward asia, and i wondered what the implication -- have we thought about what the implications of nato and with respect to signing or encouraging europe to take more responsibilities in the european theater? >> thanks, jeff, i know what it means to be an occasional academic. i feel your pain. the pivot, if you want to use that word, which seems to have resonated around, needs to be understood in the right way. this was not a pivot away from europe. it was a pivot away from a decade of war in which europe needs to become a partner. and we see europe as a partner in that activity. for us europe remains our

partner of choice. it remains the place where the economic and military and political weight of that coalition is larger than any other part of the world. we need europeans to be with us to deal with the global challenges that we face together. the fact that we are spending now more time thinking about operating in asia should be seen as something europeans ought to welcome because there is stability in asia but also because we see europe not as a xcompetitor in asia but very muh as a partner, as a part of our solution to deal with the global challenges that we face together. that does mean that europe will probably have to continue to think about what can it do for europe. that is an important question. an important question europeans need to ask each and every day, but it doesn't mean that we're going to do asia, quote,

whatever that means, so you can do europe. it is we have global challenges that need to be addressed together. we think that what is happening is fundamental to global security, fundamental to asian security, fundamental to american security and, oh, by the way, it's fundamental to european security so that's why it's important for us to be engaged there but that doesn't mean we should be less engaged in europe, which we're not, nor that we don't want europe to be part and parcel that have very engagement in asia and around the world. >> yes, this lady in the back? >> hi, thank you, mr. ambassador, for your service. mary beth long, former high level group. there are some critics that say some of the nato member states have gone wobbly when it concerns political will kerpg the actual facilities of nuclear weapons on their territory. and that that wobbliness of political will coupled with the deterioration of the facilities

and the equipment puts at real peril nato's nuclear posture in the coming years if nato doesn't act quickly. is that an overstatement or where is nato on that, and is the u.s. concerned regarding the future nuclear posture regarding nato? >> yeah, i think it's an overstatement. in both the political and the technical sense. in the political sense, i think there is a consensus that they will remain an alliance. that requires a widespread cooperation on the nuclear issue which we have been engaged in for 40, 50 years, and we need to continue to be engaged in. at the same time there's an interest on the part of many european countries to contribute to the president's agenda and to help create the conditions necessary for a world without nuclear weapons. and we are trying to manage that political desire on the one hand

to ensure that anywnato will re a nuclear alliance while working to create the conditions for nuclear weapons to -- for nuclear weapons no longer to exist. technically speaking, we have made -- we have done the investments necessary to ensure that the weapons are safe and secure, which is ultimately the most important thing that we need to have when it comes to any nuclear weapons. they need to be safe and secure and effective. as necessary for as long as they exist, that needs to happen. we are continuing to make the financial and it technical investments necessary. not only we, the united states, but we, all european countries, to ensure that's the case. so i think we are in the position where we have reached a level of nuclear burden sharing, risk and responsibilities that are most allies are comfortable with, and we're continuing to

ensure the weapons that are -- that remain are safe, secure and effective. >> hi, stewart patrick, good to see you again. >> good to see you. >> you mentioned that this was a pivot away from a decade of war. and i guess my question is what is nato's rationale post-afghanistan, in other words what is nato pivoting toward? obviously residual guarantee of security and reassurance for european allies are still on edge about russia's future trajectory, but you mentioned a number of global challenges without necessarily specifying what those were. or is nato's future in the kind of piracy business, the counterterrorism business, the coin business or occasional stability operations business, energy and security? a lot of those things would seem

to be crime perhaps. a lot of those would seem is to be certainly link us to our allies but where nato may or may mott be the instrument of choice that one would turn to first off such as your reflections on what is its mission. >> i appreciate the question. it's apropos given that we're meeting in chicago in two weeks. i'd start off with the most important veri it ty of nato is it's the only organization besides the military capable of conducting coalition high intensity combat operations. there's no other place in the world where you can bring a number of very capable militaries and these are the most capable militaries in the world together and operate together in a way that shares the burdens more fairly than one would do if one had to operate

by itself. that's point number one. point number two is in the strategic concept that was adopted in lisbon, i think the most important sentence was the sentence that says nato is the source of stability in an unpredictable world. when those words were written and agreed in 2010, there wasn't a single person, not a single person, who thought that three months from that moment nato would conduct a major air operation over libya. and the only organization capable of doing that, again, aside from the u.s. military, was nato. there was no other organization that could have done this. and having the capacity to be ready to act militarily when the need arises is something that we ought to value greatly and we americans ought to value it greatly because the alternative to nato doing it is us doing it.

and that is costly for us. it is unnecessary. it's probably less effective politically as well as in some ways militarily than if we have a strong nato capable of acting together. the libya operation is an important example. i mentioned the sta ttistics in terms of combat operations. here is another one, the total cost of the u.s. taxpayer of the libyan operation was $1 billion. that's what we were spending in afghanistan each and -- each three or four days. that's value for money. now, rightly, the interest that nato countries have, in particular european countries in libya was higher than ours. so they should do it. but nato existed to enable them and that's why we need to invest, even if it's a little bit, so you can be ready when the time comes to use military

force or to threaten to use military force for deterrent or signaling purposes to have an alliance that is capable of doing so. that's why it's important for us to invest in it. important for the europeans to invest in it because the alternative is uncle sam doing it which is something neither they nor we should want. >> i love that question because it's so durable. and in 50 years in journalism if you were ever stuck for a story you could say withered nato no matter whether it was '60s, '70s, '80s. yes, in the back? >> thank you. elise with cnn. >> would you stand up, please? >> thank you for your comments, ambassador. i wondered if we could take that a bit further and as nato is evolving about whether this is not just a transatlantic security organization or is it -- do you find that nato is going to increasingly be going out of theater to do such counter piracy operations,

counter terrorist operations. obviously there's an interest in investing in these types of security operations but are we going to see nato evolume noofg a more nontraditional security organization which deals with these 21st century threats? thank you. >> well, i think you are already seeing nato evolving over time to something like that. last year nato had more than 150,000 men under nato command and control operating in six operations on three continents. that was last year. we shut down two operations. we succeeded in libya and we ended the training mission in iraq. now we have four -- afghanistan, the fwufl of ayden, kosovo and still a counterterrorism operation in the mediterranean. not only do we have the operations as nato, each and every one of those operations has partner countries that are contributing directly to these operations. some come as far away as

australia and new zealand who are actively acting in the mediterranean and in piracy mission in the gulf of aden and the arabian sea. you have a country like morocco. just think about it. a country like morocco has 220 troops in kosovo and participated in operation unify pr protector because it now looks at nato as a source, what you may call a hub, of an international global security network that you want to be associated with in order to deal with the challenges that you can do by yourself. and increasingly we see in nato where it's not just partners like sweden and finland who have long seen this as their national place but partners in the middle east. remember, operation unify protector, four north african and middle eastern countries participated and afghanistan.

22 kcountries from mongolia to singapore to el salvador and conga have forces in afghanistan to be part of an international operation. so that's part of what nato's mission has to be. part of that being there as a source of stability in this unpredictable world building these partnerships that are necessary in order to deal with the security challenges that are more global and more difficult to tackle unless you do it in partnership with other countries. >> last question and i need to remind you this is on the record. yes, sir? >> hi, i'm from g.w. law school. the administration recently announ announced the atrocities board. i was wondering what was the reaction among the nato allies to this new institution and has it triggered developments and their thoughts about expanding the intelligence capabilities and their military capabilities

to deal with types of missions given that nato will lack the instrument of choice tore these sorts of missions in the future? thanks. >> i can't say there's been a direct link between that decision by the obama administration and thinking inside nato. what i can say these are hardly new issues for nato. after all, every single use of form in the 1990s had to do with the prevention of mass atrocities in one form or another. afghanistan is the one big exception. but bosnia, kosovo, and the libyan operation were all operations closely linked to the protection of dealing with a humanitarian emergency that requires the use of military force and as part of the new

thinking within nato there is an increasing emphasis on making sure that we have the capacity to respond to whatever situation may arise in which the use of military force may prove to be useful. one of the lessons we learned from libya was that a very precise application of airpower, the most precise application of airpower we've seen to date can have a major positive impact on the ability to protect civilians, particularly when those civilians are being attacked by their own government. not every situation will allow that. every situation will be unique. it is something where nato does, as 28 democracies coming together, needs to be in and is thinking about how it can be in a position to act if it is desirable to do so. >> thank you. thank you very much. c-span's congressional

directory is your complete guide to the 112th congress. inside you'll find each member of the house and senate. their contact information, district maps, and committee information. plus, information about cabinet secretaries, supreme court justices,s and the nation's governors. pick up a copy for $12.95 plus shipping and handling. c-sp c-span.org/shop. next a are forum on u.s. t veterans and their families. jack jacobs of the congressional medal of honor foundation, from the heritage foundation, this is one hour. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for joining us here at the heritage foundation in our lewis lehrman awed it tore yum.

we thank you for joining us on our heritage.org website. we would ask if you will see that cell phones have been turned off as we a prepare to begin. it would be most appreciated. we will, of course, post the program within 24 hours on our website again for everyone's future reference. hosting our discussion this morning is dr. james jay carafano. dr. carafano is director of our douglas and sarah allison center for foreign policy studies and deputy director of the institute for international studies. an accomplished historian and teach teacher, he is the leading expert on defense and homeland security policy, a graduate of west point. he is a 5-year veteran of the army. he holds a masters degree in a doctorate from georgetown university as well as a masters degree in strategy from the u.s. army war college. he is a prolific writer and has authorized among others the

book, "gi ingenuity" and co-authored for heritage "winning the long war: lessons for defeating terrorism." wom jim carafano. j jim? >> so we are in washington, d.c., a town where everybody thinks that everything is about what you do in washington, d.c. and that goes for veterans affairs, too. there is this tendency to think everything that is done to deal with our veterans that is important is done by the federal government, and it kind of leaves out the rest of us. which is kind of a big deal. the 300 million plus americans who are defended and protected by these unbelievable men and women who go off and do amazing things, some don't come back but many, many, many do and they are serve us not just in war but they come back and transform us

and they're leaders in civil society,government, in science and research and in every facet of our lives. we want to talk about them, the rest of us, and what we're suppose supposed to do. the former chief of -- chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen, took a personal issue in veterans affairs and produce add white paper because he's an admiral so there has to be a naval thing in there somewhere. he made a really good point in the paper and i would suggest that you go online and read it and google it. you go to the web, you can instantly find over 400,000 websites of organizations that want to help veterans. so there is this enormous sea of goodwill. but even for people involved in the organizations, there is this question of what are we supposed to be doing and how long are we supposed to be doing it? for the rest of us who haven't given this thought but think we should be involved and how should we be involved and what should we do, it is a perilous journey and has the appearance

of mt. everest on how to get started. having worked in veterans groups and started a very small nonprofit to bring attention to these issues in reaching out to veterans, one of the things that i discovered in looking at the long history of american veterans is one of the constants from george washington to today is if you look at the needs of the veterans, things really haven't changed. the technology has changed, the society has changed, but the basic requirements of what a nation can do for its veterans are the same. there are really three. the first one i think is the most obvious and the one we think about most, that readily comes to mind, the helping and healing for people coming back from war, people from the service, and not just the service member but for their families as well. and i think that's well understood and there's obviously a mode of compassion to do

something about that. a second category which is equally important and that is the transition. the transition to the work place, the transition to education, and sometimes it's not -- it's not just the service member, it's his family and sometimes the service member doesn't come back and the transition is taking that family and bringing them back into the community. and the third is really the one we think about the least, which is the transformational aspect of veterans service because veterans go into the military and they make the military a better place. they're civilians. they go to the military, they bring these amazing skills. they contribute and then they are transformed in the military yet again. they hone those skills and they add to it, what the military gives in leadership and courage and sacrifice and bravery and they come back out and they transform us and they do these amazing things. and they need help there, too, in transforming what they know from the military into going back and continuing to feed that

propensity to serve. and so what we wanted to do today was to bring together three representatives from three organizations that really typify these three different things because they're all important. they're all valuable and i would say to anyone who has any interest find one of these kinds of organizations and grab on to them or start one. and to really help through that i have three remarkable people from three unbelievably remarkable and incredible organizations, and i can think of every positive, wonderful adjective and it wouldn't be enough to say enough about the great things they're doing. a very, very brief introduction of each to give them an opportunity to really talk about their organizations and what they do. and then we'll have a period for question and answer. we'll have folks with microphones. if you have a question, feel free to wave your hand and wait for the microphone. there will be people listening on c-span and the internet and

we want them to harper the question as well. it if you will state your name and affiliation when you get that, that would be great. so i'm going to go -- i'm going to talk in the order of the three groups as they're represented so the helping and healing, the transition and the transformation, so the first group is an amazing organization called warrior in quiet waters, john baden is one of the co-founders of the organization. he is the director of the foundation for research on economy and the environment. john has the distinction of being the only member on the panel today who is not a veteran. but john has an incredible love for this country and an appreciation for what veterans do and what his organization does is unbelievably remarkable and special and you're going to be thrilled to hear about it. edie rosenthal is the public relations director of the special operations warrior foundation. this is a foundation that works with the special operations community and does something that