commissioner has someone helping with his taxes. congress is going to be addressing the tax code in the coming year. many of the major tax codes expire at the end of the year. president obama which like to extend tax cuts to people in the middle class and repeal them for the wealthy. they are willing to create a larger debate. we have other issues as well in the community. estate taxes expired on december 31. they would like to enact some kind of extension. which makes you think that they would like to do it sooner rather than later, but i do not think that there is a consensus on how to do that. it will be a very busy year with a lot of action affecting a lot

of people. >> also on the table is the possibility of taxing the so called cadillac health insurance plans. you asked about cellular phones. why is that an issue? >> last year the irs made a proposal about how use them for tax purposes. i am getting a ton of the mail from people that read those articles, wondering what is happening on it. he made it clear that they would not be moving forward with the proposal, and the irs does have a lot on their plate. in terms of taxpayer service and a record volume of calls from people wondering about stimulus payments, etc., they talked about what they were doing in terms of pursuing cheaters. they have a lot on their plate

and we are in a situation where congress has various tax proposals in health legislation. >> how significant was it that he spoke about the swiss government? >> very significant. tax lawyers and experts that i've talked to talk about the different atmosphere out there. 10 years ago people could hide money overseas without any real fear that the federal government was going to find it. what they are trying to do is up the ante, making a new calculation on how dangerous it will be. the more dangerous that they make it for people to do that, the more the people will find twice and it will become more expensive. i have heard people talk about that as a significant game

changer. >> any changes in what he talked about in terms of customer service? those that ask questions online or call the toll-free number? >> he implied a number of things that they were doing, but directing people to the web site reminds me of when you go to the supermarket and you have the option of using the self service planning. seems like the same thing to me. the upside is that you can find the answer to your question, but the downside is that sometimes you are stuck. this issue will be ongoing for the irs. there are valid concerns that they will have to deal with. >> thank you both for joining us today with your insights and questions. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> important on a number of levels, it offered a number of explanations to selling it was baffling. for many years, it was the show trials and the success that he's had. >> tonight, the life of arthur koestler, best known for his anti-communist novel.

tonight, on c-span's "q&a."

>> good afternoon, everyone. the reviews from the christmas attack are complete. it is important that the american people understand that the steps we're taking to keep our country say. this afternoon my homeland security adviser discussed how our government failed to connect the dots in ways that would have prevented a known terrorist from boarding an airplane coming toward america. janet napolitano will discuss how the terrorists got aboard that plane, and how we will strengthen aviation security going forward. but today i wanted to briefly

summarize their conclusions and the steps i ordered to in an ever-changing world, our first line of defense is accurate intelligence they shared, integrated, analyzed, and acted upon quickly and effectively. after the 9/11 attacks, that is what the report achieved and what our community does every day. unfortunately that is not what happened in a lead up to christmas day. shortcomings' occurred in three broad and compound in ways. although we have learned a great deal about the affiliate in yemen, we knew that they sought to strike the united states and the they were recruiting operatives to do so. the intelligence community did not prioritize particular

streams of intelligence. second, this contributed to a larger failure analysis, a failure to connect the dots of intelligence that existed across the community which, together, could have revealed what the attacker was planning. third, there are shortcomings in the system, and he was allowed to board the airplane in amsterdam for detroit. the u.s. government had the information to potentially uncover this lot. rather than a failure to connect and share intelligence, this was a failure to understand the intelligence that we had. this is why we took swift action

following christmas, adding more individuals to the no-fly list, including current visa information in warnings of people with suspected ties to terrorism. today we are looking at additional threats across multiple agencies. first, i am directing the intelligence community to immediately begin assigning specific responsibility for assigning all leaks of high priority threats so that they are acted upon aggressively. not just most of the time, but all of the time. we must follow the leads that we get. they must be pursued until what are disrupted. second, i am directing intelligence reports, especially those involving threats to the united states, be distributed

more rapidly and widely. we cannot sit on information to protect the american people. third, we need to strengthen the analytical process and how analysts process and integrate the results that they receive. dennis blair will take the lead in improving those actions. my intelligence advisor report will observe the long-term challenge of sifting through this vast universe of data in our information age. finally, i am ordering an immediate effort to strengthen the adding of people to the no- fly list. we must do better while still facilitating air travel. taken to gather, this will improve the community's ability to integrate, analyze, and act on this intelligence swiftly and effectively. it will help the community do

its job and protect american lives. but, even the best intelligence cannot identify in advance every individual that would do us harm. we need security at the airports and borders, through partnerships with other nations, to prevent terrorists from entering america. the attacker on christmas day was subjected to security, metal detectors, x-rays. metal detectors cannot detect the kinds of explosions -- explosives so into his clothes. the defense secretary will discuss the use of these types of explosives and the checkpoint and he passed through. most airports in the world do not have the technology.

there is no silver bullet to securing these flights. it will acquire significant investments in many areas. even before the business they attack, increasing investments including an additional $1 billion in new technology systems have gone towards more baggage screening, passenger screening, and advanced explosive detection abilities, and looting -- including the kind used on christmas. it will make us safer and more secure. as i announced this week, we have taken many steps to improve ag -- aviation security since christmas, including enhanced security for people travelling from or through certain countries.

additional steps need to be taken, including security support around the world, greater use of the advanced explosion detection technology that we already have, and working aggressively with the department of energy to help to avoid the next generation of screening technology. now, of course there is no foolproof solution. as we develop these procedures, our adversaries will discover new ways to use them. the never-ending race to protect our country keeps us one step ahead of a nimble adversary. that is what these steps were designed to do. we will work with congress to make sure that intelligence, homeland security, and law- enforcement communities have the resources that they need. by order of these reviews so that we could take immediate

action to secure our country. in the weeks and months ahead we will continue sustained effort of analysis and investment that we leave no stone unturned. i have repeatedly made it clear , i will hold my staff, agencies, and the people in them accountable. at this stage in the review process it appears that this was not the fault of one single individual or organization. rather, it was a systemic failure across agencies. the agencies need to establish internal accountability reviews, and i have addressed my national security staff to monitor their efforts. john will report back to me

daily. all of these agencies for responsible for implementing reforms. all will be held accountable. moreover, i am less interested in passing out blame them in learning from the mistakes. ultimately, the box stops here -- buck stops here. when the system fails, it is my responsibility. in the recent weeks we have been reminded of the challenges that are presented in defending our country against a fellow that seeks our it -- against an enemy that seeks our destruction. we are at war against al qaeda, a far reaching network of violent extremists that killed nearly 3000 people in -- on

9/11. we will do what it takes to defeat them. we have made progress. in yemen they have inflicted major blows against al qaeda leaders. we have saved american lives. we know that the vast majority of muslims reject al qaeda. but al qaeda does increasingly seek to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations. not just in the middle east, but africa and other places. that is why i have directed my team to address this unique challenge. this is what we must communicate the muslims around the world. al qaeda offers nothing but the murder of fellow muslims.

two events progress, we have sought new beginnings with muslim communities around the world that being gauged through mutual interest and respect. getting an education, working with dignity. that is what america believes in. it is far more powerful than hatred and violent extremism. we will not succumb to a siege mentality. great and proud nations do not hunker down and tied behind walls, suspicion, and mistrust. that is exactly what our adversaries want. so long as i am president, we will never hand them that victory. in this cause, everyone of us, every american an elected official, must do their part.

instead of giving in to cynicism in the division, let's move forward with optimism and unity. this is not a time for partisanship, it is a time for citizenship. that is what it means to be strong in the face of violent extremism. that is how we will prevail in this fight and protect our country, keeping a safer and stronger for the next generation. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> following the president's remarks, the president's top counter-terrorism adviser defended changes made in the

system since 9/11. from the white house, this is about 30 minutes. >> good afternoon. i want to apologize for the leg. -- for the delay, we wanted to get this right. you have with you or in your in box two separate documents. the first is the summary of the white house review, the classified document that i spoke of a moment ago. second, released just a while we'll by the president, corrective actions that had been ordered. we will momentarily here from

the assistant to the president on homeland security and counter-terrorism. i know that many of you have deadlines, so if you need to sneak out, now is the time to do it. >> thank you. the president conducted me perform an immediate review of the system defending our country. the input on this review, commanded by the director of national intelligence and other leaders will the intelligence community, was a systemwide --

names are put on the no-fly list. let me pause here moment to say that the department of homeland security will -- works day in and day out with other members and day out with other members dedicated men and women. dhs uses the list as the cornerstone of our efforts to

prevent suspected terrorists from boarding airplanes bound for the united states. second, we will establish a partnership on aviation screening technology betweendhs and the department of energy and its national laboratories. this will allow governments to use the expertise of the national laboratories to develop more technologies so that we can react not only to known threats but also to proactively anticipate new ways by which terrorists could seek to board aircraft. third, we should accelerate deployment of advanced imaging technologies so we have greater capabilities to detect explosives like the ones used in the christmas day attack. we currently have 40 machine deployed throughout the united states. this year, we're already scheduled to deploy 300 more. we may deploy more than that. the gsa does not conduct

screenings overseas. the christmas day incident underscored the screening procedures at foreign airports are to encourage foreign authorities to utilize the same enhanced technologies for aviation security. there were passengers from 17 countries aboard flight 253. this is an international issue, not just one about the united states. we have to strengthen the present incapacity of aviation law enforcement on top of the measures we have already taken. this includes increasing the number of federal air marshals. we will begin by deploying law enforcement officers to help fill this important role. working with the secretary of state, we need to strengthen international security measures and standards for aviation

security. security measures abroad affect our security here at home. the deputy secretary of dhs and other top officials have been on a multi country, multi consonant missinion. later this month, i'll be travelling to spain to meet with my european counterparts for what to be the first in a series of meetings with counterparts that i believe will lead to a broad consensus on new international aviation security standards and procedures. these recommendations that i just described are important areas importantdhs and other agencies -- -- important areas where dhs and other agencies are working. these are changes that will help us prevent another attack from ever advancing as far as the

ones it on christmas day. thank you. >> son used by using enhanced screening technology. are you using the body imaging systems as the primary method of screening? >> we the get security as a system of lasers. -- we look at security as a system securitylayeof layers. it is behavior detection, it is canines, it is increase law enforcement presence, it is a series of layers that we will be adding to the security we already have at our domestic airports in the wake of this instance. >> you said that 300 additional scanners will be deployed in 2010. was that planned before this

event? how much will it cost? >> it was planned before this. there was already finding that the congress had appropriated for the tsa. with respect to how many more, we will be working on that as part of our ongoing review. i would caution you not to focus solelyñi on that technology. ñithis is a series of layers tht we will be enhancing. >> both of you and the president mentioned the word accountability. all of three he made the point that it was not just the mistake of one person. who is being held accountable now? >> as you heard the president

now on a number of occasions, including today, take responsibility for the system that we have,. that is what the president led these individuals to conduct these reviews, to see where we fell donwn, and how we can plug the holes. the focus is on the timely completion of that review and to implement his corrective action as quickly as possible. we not have any announcement other than that today. the buck stops with the president. the team under stustands that it is a dynamic process. it will continue over the course of the next 30 days to ensure what has been outlined by all these different agencies,

acknowledging their responsibility for the attacks. they have a knowledge that they will take the corrective action that is necessary. i would mention the billion dollars the president mentioned was retained in the recovery act. >> the president referred to an unknown terrorists. from what i understand, he was a known extremist. what was the most stunning thing that you believe came out of the review? >> we knew that he had departed from nigeria and was in yemen. we knew from that jam of the information that he was an extremist and had the tennessees.

-- and had those tendencies. [unintelligible] we knew about him. we know about this other plot developing. >> there [inaudible] >> what was the most shocking thing that you found out? >> that was an extension of al qaeda core. it is one of the most lethal and concerning the d. the fact they have moved forward to attack is on the homeland -- we have a strategic sense of where they are going. yet taken a lesson. -- we are taking that

lesson. >> i have been following up on that. the tactic of using an individual to implement an attack as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multi person conspiracy such as we saw on 9/11 -- that is something infects -- affects intelligence and emphasizes a renewed importance on how different intelligence is integrated and analyzed and streams are follow through. it will impact how we improved airport security around the world. >> was there an outside contract for security enhancement? what it is lacking is that you do not give the motivation of what they want to do it. >> the screening was done by

dutch authorities. if they did the screening. the luggage was screened. it was done by dutch authorities. >> what was the motivation? you never hear what you find out about why. >> al qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and 110 slaughter of innocents. what did they have done over the past decade is to attract individuals and use them for these types of attacks. he was motivated by a sense of religious drive. a guide has deserted is long and has corrected the concept of -- al qaeda has deserted islam and

has corrected the concept to their own. >> you are saying it was religion? >> it was because of al qaeda that uses the banner of religion in a perverse way. >> why? >> it is a long issue. >> he still have not explained why. >> let me clear of a couple of things but of what was learned while this was under way. there are sources suggesting that additional an affirmation came to light after the flight took off -- additional information came to light after the flight took off. >> in stipple, his name did not appear on any terrorist watch list. nothing pinged to keep them off the plane. while in the air, customs in

detroit has access to the entire data base but a as we now know, and that is the large mega database that has five and a thousand names in it. -- 500,000 names in it. they were ready when they were landed to question him about that. >> the terrorist watch list did not have his name on it. >> why was the director about to take leave after the incident? >> when the incident occurred on christmas day, a number of people came into their offices and focused on it immediately. i was in constant contact. [unintelligible] he was scheduled to go on leave

to meet his son. he asked me whether not he should cancel the trip. i told them he deserted the vacation. he needs to be a this them. i was the one who told him he should go out there. our review has looked at what inspired the -- happened there. [unintelligible] we were in constant contact with one another throughout the time. >> when did the first note that aqat had been sentenced to strike the homeland? how early? >> in the intelligence, over the past several years, it has been aspirational. they have said things. it has promoted a certain fview. all the activities were

happening in yemen. it was aspirational. we saw there was a mounting interest in trying to get individuals to carry out attacks. in hindsight, it gives you much better opportunity. we saw it developing. at the time, we did not know they were talking about sending him to the united states. >> your first recommendation is to assign priority to lead. it seems out of the basic premise of any intelligence. i am sure people are thinking, that is the reform? >> we are having judiciary information throughout the communities and increased capabilities. there are different organizations involved. it is clearly understood who has

the lead on it. most times the cia and dhs are working it. we want to make sure that each one takes the lead. >> you mentioned intelligence sharing before 9/11. before 9/11, a commission report came out about connecting the dots. there was a pledged then to do better on connecting the dots i am wondering why from the post- 9/11 commission standpoint why dots were not connected. when you say you will improve analysis. how is it like to happen this time when it did not happen that time? >> analysis has improve steadily. we have an amazing track here in the united states. we are identifying these plots early. we are preventing those types of

attacks in every instance. what we want to do is make sure the rates are even higher. in the past, you had dots in separate databases. they were separated from one another and were not connected from a network standpoint. there is better access. more employees have more access to the dots that comment. that is the challenge, making sure we can leverage the access to those dots. >> the president mentioned a major investments forthcoming. can we expect more investment beyond that billion dollars? how are we going to pay for it? they are talking about raising airline security fees. >> it is premature to make a statement. part of the ongoing review the we will undertake in the coming days will have them.

>> there is more money that will likely be requested? >> i think it is premature to put a number on it. iwe will be making recommendations to the president on what needs to be done at domestic airports. he was screened at an international airport. it is the international air environment that we need to work on. that is why we have undertaken is very rapid reach out around the globe to say this is an international issue. this affects the traveling public and people around the world. these terrorists do not discriminate when they get ready to take down in flames. that is a very important part of the process. >> [inaudible] >> if there is time. >> he referred to the fort hood

a massacre. why [inaudible] he is a visible advocate role and advocating for terrorism this is not create a higher sensitivity to the kind of things so visible? how much does that disturb you? were you briefed about the possibility of explosives being hidden in garments or clothing? >> we were very concerned about what else he might be doing here. that is why they are making an effort after that to take a look at what else he might be trying to accomplish. he was a nigerian that came to yemen and then came over here.

it indicates there is a serious sense of purpose and al qaeda. they want to carry out attacks him in the united states. >> are you satisfied that the intelligence community rose up and applied what they learned about ford put it? >> they have already taken those corrective steps. president obama has directed several reviews of instances. this one has been a preliminary report. as far as being able into bringing in issue all the way through. we have already done that with the fort hood report. we are into taking those changes. we are doing that here. that'll be the start of the process. we will be able to diagnose and take corrective steps so we can make yousure that this doesn't

happen. i went to study every after the attack. -- to saudia arabia after the attack. we are continuing to work with thosothers about those techniqu. we are trying to stay a step ahead. they are looking at all these different types of techniques. what we need to do is continue to advance and involve. that is what they are doing. are you concerned that it is being overcome by the sheer volume? >> [unintelligible] what happens last month in

yemen was able to address the growing threat of al qaeda there. i think the national security is an element is well served by the changes that had taken place over the last couple of years as well as what we are trying to do here in this administration to make sure we are able to use the information that exists to suggest the parties. >> ease of when the most alarming things you found was the -- you it said one of the most alarming things you found was the strength of the al qaeda cell. what else did you find alarming? >> they had taken a number different past to carry out an attack. a suicide bomber can conceal and dispose of advice that is very similar to the one that was used. they are carrying out attacks

against hard structures like the embassy. there is diversity and al qaeda members with in in yemen. we need to work closely with our partners to make sure that we are able to drive al qaeda down with a in yemen. it does present a threat here and abroad. >> why should this have been such a surprise? >> the fact they were able to bring a person into the execution phase and exit with them on an airport. that is one of the failures. we saw this is taking place. we were not focused enough on making sure we were identifying what would be used to carry out the attack. >> have you found anything to suggest the terrorists specifically chose detroit to send a message to large populations? when the president talked about

the concern about a loan recruits -- lone recruits, he talked about wanting to have a special effort to break those kinds of appeal. is anything you'll be doing specifically to the muslim populations? >> the department of homeland security has set an outreach efforts into different populations. we are trying to build bridges of there is a good communication. we need to look at strengthening those activities. we also need to look at the

whole issue of what is called counter-radicalization. how do we stop them from being radicalized to the point the one to blow up others on a plan. how do we communicate better american values and so forth? how do we work with our allies like the uk on this? that has been a major topic of conversation between us and the u.k. over the prior month. you are right to point out there is a bigger issue here, which is, how do we get in the process before somebody become so radicalized that they are ready to commit this kind of attack? >> did you find any reason to suspect that flight was chosen because it was headed to detroit given the large arab american population?

>> i think it would not be prepared for comment right now. >> focusing on the international issue, yemen as well as africa, since this attack, has anyone sincfrom them come to the white house to talk to you about this? >> we have been in regular contact with the yemen government. i spoke to the present after this event took place but the foreign minister is going to be coming here. there will be a number of directions to our people. >> i understand there is no extradition from yemen. is that an issue, particularly with the reading of terrorists there? is that on the table with the

government? >> -- if there is a reason to do that, we will do that. >> some of the national security committee claims that the focus needs to be placed on the continent of africa. we talked about some molly. they are breeding them in africa. they are going to somalia. they are going straight from there into year. have any the talk to the africans? >> let me just say that we have already deployed officials from our department around the globe. they will be going to africa as well. they need to be part of the solution. this is a global travel issue. there is active engagements

there. >> there are many different recruits in africa pitt. we have had a robust dialogue with african countries and the leaders. we see that is an area that al qaeda preys upon. they are looking in africa for recruits. this is something that we are very concerned about. >> it is just one of many elements of the u.s. government. they are engaging with african countries and leaders in a way to address this issue from the standpoint of cooperation and security. >> is there any information that the government has been able to analyze and you have -- had prior to christmas but had not been able to analyze yet? >> there is a lot of information

that is being realized and reevaluate. this gives us new insight into methods and other types of things to d. we are pursuing a number of leads. >> is what was released today redacted version of what was being presented to the president? was that the delay? >> the delay was in declassifying documents. >> is the system already in place [inaudible]

was at one of the things you were talking about? [inaudible] >> as we move to strengthen security, we always had this balance of issues with privacy here in the united states. we train officers on how to properly conduct a pat down. they do it at other countries around the world. parted the initiative is to make sure that that kind of training incapacity is built in continents around the globe. you are right it is likely that

there'll be increased use of pat down as well. >> i am confident that we have taken a variety of corrective measures. it would have allowed this to identify him. he was a dignified as a in extremist. we have been working day in and night since this attack to scour all the databases abroad. we are making those correlations. i am confident they have done that clearly. >> thank you. host: calle[captioning performey national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> to see that report, you can find out a light at our website, c-span.org, and look under recent programs. today on "newsmakers," irs commissioner douglas shulman. he talks about not entering fall calls from callers. >> you are talking about declining service levels over the last two years. i try to make sure we run a very good service channels. when i say channels, i mean phone service, where the service, service over the internet, walk-in service, as well.

our phone levels of service had decrease the last couple of years. demand has really exploded. on average, we get about 65 million calls every year. two years ago, when we sent out economic stimulus checks, we had 150 million calls. last year, we had about 100 million calls. even though our levels of service were decreasing, we were answering and service more taxpayers than ever before. we went from 35 million calls answered to 40 million calls answered. >> you can see the entire interview at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. it is also available right on line at c-span.org. up next, an event with the joint chiefs chairman admiral mike mullen. he talked about u.s. strategies in the middle east and

afghanistan and the recent events in yemen. the washington institute for near east policy is the host of this event. . quacks i am delighted to welcome you to this event. we are celebrating our 20th anniversary. it is especially appropriate that we can open this celebratory year by hosting our nation's highest-ranking military officer, admiral michael mullen. let me extend special greetings to members of the board of trustees who are with us today as well as to those who have gathered in new york, los angeles, south florida, and san

francisco, participating in this session by videoconference. welcome to all of you. over our 25 years, we have been very proud to establish a close working relationship with the uniformed military. sometimes, we come to you. today, two of our senior scholars could not be 0 -- who could not be with as they are lecturing in atlanta. sometimes you come to us. are more than a decade, we have been honored to host serving officers on research and education training. through it all, we have come to respect the complexity and the multiplicity of responsibilities that you face in our part of the world. the middle east. we have seen in your people a real appreciation for the need for deep regional expertise and specialization that we hope we

bring to the table. i look forward to many more years of this partnership together. today, in the broader middle east, the challenges are great and numerous. hot wars, assembling complex, this radical -- the spread of radical ideological and we have not begun to talk about dealing with allies or perhaps dealing with the rest of washington. to face all these challenges, we trait -- take great confidence from the leadership and service our guest today, admiral mike mullen. he is now in his second term as chairman of the joint chiefs. 1968 graduate of annapolis and commanded three ships and commanded a cruiser-destroyer group, a battle group, and a nato strike fleet in the atlantic. he served as commander of u.s. and nato naval sources in europe as chief of naval operations for along the way, he

graduated from the advanced management program at harvard, at harvard business school, and earned a master's degree from the naval postgraduate school. this lifetime of service was in preparation for one of the toughest jobs in public life. i am not referring to being a guest on "the daily show, "which the admiral was last night. rather, serving in a time of war as the principal military adviser to the president, the secretary of defense, the national security council, and homeland security council. we're privileged to have him here and were about the program today -- if i can ask everyone to turn yourself that would improve the program for everyone else. after the admirals' remarks, we will have time for a few questions which i will. will after his departure, we will ask all cameras and all participants tuesday and we will proceed to

the second part of our program, an analysis of what the admiral just said. [laughter] with two of the smartest interpreters of such things in washington, jim hoagland of the washington post and jim eisenstaedt. with that, it's a pleasure to welcome to the washington institute. [applause] what i say is pretty and the analyzed. >> it is a great opportunity to be with you here this afternoon and i very much look forward to your questions i will make a few comments. maybe i will start with the jon stewart show last evening in new york.

someone asked me why i would do that. the answer "quite frankly is very simple, is evidence is basically a 18-25-year-old and a get an awful lot of their news from him. /yat a higher level, in terms of my own communications in a world where things are moving so rapidly and changing constantly, however communicate and how we communicate and how we begin to understand our younger generations are communicating is really the reason i did that. i worked to get on other mediums to, in fact, communicate and also try to listen. i was taken in watching the show before i went on that jon -- and

many of you have not seen it -- i am assuming -- [laughter] i'm assuming you did not stay up that late or tune in and regulate. he did a couple of pieces on yemen and started out with calling up the google map so we can figure out where yemen is. that is a reminder that the last time i think the american people really thought of yemen was when cole got bombed. to look at the present discussions and the analysis, there is an awful lot going on now focusing on yemen and i understand that. it has not been something that has been broadly focused on and debated, certainly in our country. i have spent -- and the military

leadership has spent a fair amount of shut time monument far before december 25. i will talk about three areas briefly. one is the broader middle east focus. it has been a priority since i took this job. over two years ago. it is the most dangerous part of the world. stability there, security there is as a vital there as anywhere on the globe right now. continuing advance as was pointed out, the potential for great instability for greater instability is significant. many of us have focused on that area heavily and i think we will be for the foreseeable future. it is certainly a rock where --

i was just on a trip to iraq and ask -- pakistan before the holidays. in iraq, i was moved by the fact that most of the people i discussed issues with wanted to talk about economics. they want to talk about development. clearly, we are on a path right now where we will start to withdraw significant numbers of troops after the elections on march 7. by the end of 2011, the plan is that all american troops are out of iraq. we have worked hard to put those plans together and we are on track. that does not mean that there are not challenges or it will be easy. there are huge political challenges there. we understand that. i have been taken by the fact in recent months that in these very tragic bombings when some many lives were lost in iraq, there is not a sectarian response

pri. the government their adjusted and is learning to deal with these kind of things and that was reinforced by my most recent visit. by no means, do i want to send a message that we're taking our eye off iraq. that is not the case. we still have talent is there. al qaeda is still there it very specifically, al qaeda in iraq is planning spectacular bombings like the ones we have seen, the three we have seen in recent months. we are very vigilant there but i am very pleased with where we are and the direction we are headed. afghanistan and pakistan, this was, i think of my 14 strip to pakistan since i have been chairman. it's been to the priority. from my perspective, it's the to the need to continue to build. a build a relationship are-leard

to trust. we've lost trust with the contras across the board. we run a 12-year debt from 1990- 2002. we do not have strong military to military relationships because there was no way to do that in that gap. for the last seven years, we have worked hard to have that in the right direction. we will continue to do that are in fact, the focus of the afghanistan-pakistan strategy and the president's decision is every bit as much on pakistan as it is on afghanistan. that gets lost sometimes in the focus on how many troops. is not about troops. that is certainly a critical part of it. it is about a region that must be addressed and must be addressed in a way that moves possibly toward better security and not in the direction that is

going in afghanistan right now. i was impressed and pakistan and i have been with their chief of the army many times. i spent all day there and i was impressed with the progress they made, the minimal collateral damage that was inflicted. less than one year ago, there would not have been many of us that would have thought the outcome in swaq has improved. they have a military that has lost a lot of soldiers, an awful lot wounded, and has also been pressed on an operational tempo. they have learned counterinsurgency much as we have, post-2006 when we had the surge in iraq.

there are an awful lot of pakistani citizen losing their lives because of the terrorist activities inside that country. we are working hard to form a mutual path to eliminate terrorists and get those safe havens where al qaeda leader should still lives and plans and leads al qaeda. the president's decision to add the 30,000 troops to increase and a seller of the civilian search into afghanistan, to focus on the development and focus on governments from the

district's up through the national level, to refocus on corruption as well. i believe we have the right leadership there. our main goal now in afghanistan and pakistan over the next couple of years is to execute that strategy. do not leave the broader art middle east and southeast asia without talking about iran. when i talk about the broader middle east, it is to run to beirut. everything in between. there is a continuing concern with iran and its development, its strategic intent to have nuclear weapons and i think that would be incredibly de- stabilizing. not least of all because of the potential for an armor -- arms race in that part of the world which is what we don't need. as well as their continued

support for terrorism, whether it is has a lot or hamas or other terrorist groups. hezbollah or hamas or other terrorist groups. anybody listening has watched the development and iran over the last couple of months. i am sure those will continue. i think we need to be mindful of those events, of what is going on there and clearly, the need to continue to, i think, aggressively address the nuclear potential issue internationally. there are discussions of additional sanctions right now. we need to continue where possible to engage and have a dialogue. i talked about the lyqy of trust between the united states and pakistan.

we are building on the 12-year gap. we are four or five years into establishing the trust. we have a relationship with iraq that goes back about six years now. we are looking for a long-term relationship with iraq. what i am in afghanistan, i get the same question asked is what i meant pakistan which is when will we leave? they remember very well. there's a trust issue their per there is uncertainty. there is an issue whether we will stay and there's a trust problem in afghanistan and a relationship-building requirement there. welcome back to iran, we have not had a relationship with them since 1979. building the kind of relationship and what does that mean and i speak to the difficulty of the other

relationships and look at what 30 years potentially can do. there is concern, potential, and, i think, focus that he needs to be sustained with respect to iran in that part of the world. we have great friends in that part of the world. we have allies who have supported us and we're very anxious to continue to support us and to seek stability there, particularly in the gulf area, and not see it break out. briefly, i talk about the best military i have served with since 1968. that is our young men -- young men and women who serve now. they paid the ultimate sacrifice. they have been wounded. their lives have changed forever and they have families that have

been on the label in terms of their support, without whom we would not -- we would not be close to anywhere where we are in these two flights pights. we owe an eternal debt. is the kind of thing we need to focus on as a country to make sure that those who sacrificed so much are well cared for, not just by the department of defense or the va when the return but, literally, by communities throughout all land. they have gone to war, sacrificed much, done what we have asked them to do and we owe them a great debt, not just of gratitude. we need to ensure that their american dream still as a future. they want to go to school, they would like to get married and have kids, they would like a job and want to own a house for it

is not complex. speaking to the force -- we are about to deploy our major units for the fifth longest tour. if you start in 2001, the way i tell the story is if i may 10- year-old in 2000 2 and my father went off to war and he is coming off his fifth major deployment, i just went off to college. think about the impact of that on a family. the extraordinary strength of our families to be able to absorb,& that, they have paid a huge price. i am very mindful of the stress.

the operational tempo over the next couple of years will not put us into a position where we will be home twice as long as we are deployed. that is our goal. the marine corps will be there in about one year. it will probably be three years before the army is, based on expectations for deployments now. they have sacrificed tremendously. they have performed exceptionally well. they are resilient on the military side and the family side. they have become -- the family site has become much more integral to our readiness then never has been buried it needs to be that way. for the future. the last area i would talk briefly about -- there is the rest of the world out there, as well. it is not going away and i think we need to be continued to be engaged and involved whether it is in our own hemisphere, which

i often speak to. certainly, the very visible challenge is that exists in our southern neighbor mexico and in latin america. i was trained to look east and west. being raised in southern california, i did not look south very muchyet, in the global world we are in, we need to focus more there, as well. there are challenges associated with latin america, certainly the emergence of china. what does that mean? i pay a lot of attention to the economic engines whether it is china, india, or europe, or us will come or b is -- or brazil and what does that mean for the future. it could be those engines that drive out comes per it is important that we pay a lot of attention to what is going on in other parts of the world. we stood up about a year-and-a- half ago in for the sole purpose

of be able to focus our engagement strategy from the military perspective on africa which is a wonderful confidant -- continental of great resources, a wonderful people, and huge challenges whether it is famine, disease, and i think the world needs to be engaged there. as i look to the rest of the world, i also try to keep my head up and look to what the united states will look like a for these two wars. i always worry about fighting the last war. these will be the last wars and how much of this is relevant for the future? what kind of training, equipment, people, what is the size of this force, and what are ready requirement will be and

where we will be operating is very much on my it is pretty difficult sometimes to pick out in the crystal ball exactly what will happen we don't have a good track record for predicting. a balanced force that is ready and trained and able to adapt very rapidly to emerging critical. i think we will need to be, as a force, i use the characteristics of our special forces, we will need to be lighter, lethal, adaptable, flexible, more timely, have an ability to match the speed of war, which i think we have achieved in the current fight. we were way behind, quite frankly, when these wars started and we have now achieved that we have to get ahead of it.

we have to look into space and the cyberworld. we live in times that are enormously challenging. i want to reassure you that what i said before is fundamental to me getting up every single day. this is the best military we have ever had. i have great confidence in them. we are also living in a time where it is not all about the military. the military would like to be the supporting entity. we would like to be a supporting part of our overall policy globally. we would not like to be engaged from the standpoint of conflict but the gates from the standpoint of being prevented tiv so that these kind of complex do not break out. with that, i will stop and be

glad to take your questions. [applause] >> thank you very much. i would like to open a big question discussion by asking you a question that stems from the germans guidance which was issued on december 21. one aspect of this talk about the primacy of the fight in pakistan and afghanistan. ñ?ñyou say that maybe we must continue to push our best talent for ended to the fight and make painful choices elsewhere in order to make sure that we have our best talent in afghanistan and pakistan four days later, we have the christmas attack and suddenly, we had a country not and our radar, yemen, went on our radar. before the end of year, there might be and i ran the digits

that would be on the radar. do we have the assets and the troops and how does one plan when you start the year to focus on afpac, within days, expanding within the region to yemen and elsewhere? are we were prepared for this multiplicity of challenges? >> i spoke earlier about stewart coming up with his global map of europe. i do not want to leave the question open that we have not been focused on yemen. we have been engaged in terms of their support. yemen is a country, as in somalia, that i have been concerned about for some time in terms of becoming the next safe haven for al qaeda. you now see that very much in the four as a result of this

incident on the 25th of december. from my standpoint of capability and what i think we need to be able to do, i am comfortable that we can do that right now. we have certainly focused on iran for a long time. we have recognized the pressure that is on our forces. we recognize what the potential could be. at the same time, we have looked to do all we can to ensure that conflict does not break out there while at the same time preparing forces as we do for many contingencies that we understand my occur. we are very hard pressed right now because we are in the two conflicts. the vast majority of our capability in terms of these two complex is our ground forces. it is not for me to decide to.

. the likelihood that are ground forces would have to go somewhere in these kind of numbers in some other part of the world or even the same region, i fear is pretty low. we have a tremendous air force and a tremendous navy which are operating at a high pace, not with ground forces are but they present a strategic reserve that i very much rely on. we are working hard to sustain that, as well. i would point out that there are 43 countries in afghanistan with combat troops we're not in this alone. for years, we cannot do it alone anymore. it takes allies. it takes partners. it takes alliances to essentially move forward in the world we are living in.

as we increase the number of troops that go into afghanistan, so did nato. that was much against the gramm of what many people thought would happen as recently as one year ago. from the nato commitments, they intend to commit a ratio of about two-one or 40,000 troops there now. they will go up as we have troops over the next year. in terms of our planning, we focus on this all lots. we are not starting from a clean sheet of paper. we have been focused on other potential areas for a long time. .

that to give ample incentive it to cease developing nuclear arms. the assumption that you are clear in your mind that the iranians are engaged in developing nuclear arms? >> correct. i believe they are on a path, as strategic intent to develop nuclear weapons, and have been for some time. about striking iran, also has a

destabilizing outcome. in both of those cases i worry about the unintended consequences. even for the one we can predict, i worry about the ones we. cannot we that part of the world could become much more unstable which is a dangerous global outcome, much less regional. that is a pretty small space between those two. it is what i think it is important that we continue internationally to focus on this to prevent those two outcomes. >> very good. we will take a couple questions beginning with congressman, on my right. could we please keep questions brief?

>> speak right into it. [inaudible] >> those who do not study the past are condemned to relive it. but reasons you have to believe that we will be successful in afghanistan when the british in the 20th century were not? >> we have to be very careful in afghanistan about the lessons we draw from the past. the other one frequently brought up as a vietnam. there are similarities that certainly can be drawn, but there are also significant differences. led by the fact that suddenly we have no intention of occupied the country. i think the president's decision

to indicate starting in the middle of july 2011 very important part of that message. strategically i and we now we're not staying. that said, laid that out there to start to turn it over to afghan leadership is critical. it was the right message. i just returned from there. i think it was received in the right way. the afghan people are vehemently opposed to the taliban. in many cases they are on the fence. there's a pragmatic side that there are also dealing with. from the standpoint of a cut of supported it is dramatically different. 43 countries are engaged in combat troops and others engaged

on the ngo side. that is a strong strategic message to me about overall concern. so, i really do try to be informed by the task and those things that are relevant, but use that as instruction. in terms of the potential for what the outcome could be. i really do believe that these troops and the civilian surge, this approach, has the potential over the next year or 18 months to reverse the situation and allow us to start to. turn it to >> cbs news. >> thank you. this is about yemen. have you announced by the president to come up with

potential targets for what could clearly be described as retaliation for december 525 attack? what are we doing in yemen and are we overstretched? >> i want to applaud the efforts of the yemen government and i and forces. they have worked hard over the last couple of years to improve their own capabilities. secondly, and support from a training standpoint of what they're doing and how they're adapting to the threats -- with this very clear focus on the growth of al qaeda in men, and specifically from my perspective to make sure we don't create another safe haven. in the third piece operationally

i just don't discuss those kinds of details. wh the president'sat asks us to do or not to do. i will not get into this type of operations. >> barbara, up in front. >> nice to see you again, admiral mike mullen. i want to ask about the network in north waziristan. we see the northern militants going into the south. not much seems to be done with regard to the north. it seems there are connections they want to preserve for the day when the u.s. is not there. are you disappointed? are you concerned that the u.s. is not up to the challenge of dealing particularly with this network? >> i have had many discussions with the pakistani network about

this now work specifically. i use the example of swat. it is really institute to me that last march -- instructive to me that last march, early july, the predictions were dire. what specifically people fought the middle could do with prospective. they literally have turned the place around. the insurgents are gone. they started to build schools. there is an international need for the building phase, for the rebuild phase in swat to come in behind the inpiece. -- behind the security piece. the resources are not available to the degree needed, but that example. is powerful to example

we thought it was going to go much more badly than even the last july timeframe. -- but that example is much more powerful to me compare to what we thought would happen. over the last year and a half this change in focus -- and i have been not to see their counterinsurgency training which is army-wide. the removal of troops from the east to fight in the west. this is very much tied to recognition that they have a serious problem in their own country. the general and i have talked many times about the network. there's increased pressure being brought to it. literally, just finishing the operation in swat -- why haven't

you kicked one often to no. waziristan -- i'm sorry -- southern waziristan. i'm not one to say that they're not going to do this. he is aware of the challenges. there is an i.s.i. piece to this that you allude to and which are recognized. ho majorw organizations act and pakistan -- look to the future. it will be based really on how comes out for afghanistan. a peaceful relationship there will do a lot to strategical sheftel the organizations provide their national security. i see the shift, not as visibly as some -- not for trade visibly

in the media, but i have seen it internally. it will take time. we are all very impatient. >> one final question before we close this part of the program -- we have spoken quite a bit about connecticut operations. there's another part of the overall pie contest to do with counter in the ideologies of radical streamers' some -- radical extremism. the military is often innovative in so many areas. is this part of your mission? what ways are you engaged, and is the military encountering in theology? >> it is a key piece.

-- >> in countering that ideologies? >> there is a global peace to this that is not kinetic. essentially the population throughout the globe figures out a way to say this is enough and we will not to allow it. not unlike an insurgency there will be hard core extremists who will only respond either to the elimination or. or because the military carries such a big part of this load i'm very focused on the non-genetic side. -- who will only responded to the elimination or capture. it gets to the overall economy in various countries.

governments who will raise young male muslims with the future, as opposed to putting them in a position to make this kind of decision to become an extremist or suicide bomber. that is something all of us must depend upon in terms of how this gets approached in the long run. in the end of believe we need it to support muslims and this great religion which is being corrupted by a very potent, very powerful in terms of its impact -- and at the same time relatively small number of individuals. who focus very much on us americans. those in the west.

i think that is the long-term battle quite frankly. >> admiral mike mullen, thank you for joining us here at the washington institute. [applause] as admiral mike mullen the parts of like to ask a couple of people, to join me. it is a very special pleasure. i did not even know when i asked jim if you would participate in today's event, even though the news that he would be announcing in the pages of "the post" last weekend that he has entered semi-retirement. jim, this gives me an opportunity to say thank you for providing such wonderful reading

and stimulation two times per week for so many years. for being such an incisive observer of foreign-policy. and think you for being such a good friend to. this to i'm delighted to welcome you. all my colleagues will be very interested in your interpretation of what just admiral mike mullen said and did not say, and anything else on your mind. [applause] >> thank you. that splendid introduction reminds me of the lyndon johnson story about how he wished his mother would have been here because she would have believed it and his father because he would have laughed at his head off. admiral mike mullen started out by describing his experience with john stuart concerning what happened to me about trying to do this gig. why in the world would you do

this? the short answer is rob asked me to and promised a distinguished audience which he certainly delivered. he promised a very good and interesting speech from our speaker. so, i foolishly agreed to try to an nfl is to replay which does not really lend to this format. i will try to hit some highlights of things i thought they said in one particular one he did not. then i will raise a question or two. then town of over to mark for more in-depth the very fact that admiral mike mullen was on jon stewart today

and is here in all aspects tells about the emphasis of this administration in particular this white house putting on communication, and on something they call strategic communications. the fact that admiral mike mullen was on the show last night speaking to a core part of the obama constituency, 19-25 urals is both exemplary, but also tells us a little about how communications, the policy is shaped. it is very much directed back into the u.s., and to try to keep the public with the administration at a difficult moment. not only because of the world and american economies, but because of having to fight two wars, one of which the president

denounced and one which he described as the right word the right time and place. so, we are very aware of the administration's addressing a target audience through foreign policy, and all of ministrations did that. this one perhaps does it with more skill and certainly with more concentration than past administrations have. but it raises one of the questions i want to. deal with briefly to whether or not there are any costs to the kind of " obsessive" would probably not be the right word, but not totally wrong of shaping public opinion. all administrations do it, but this one as a more the most of believe. listening to that admiral i was

also struck by him describing his 14th trip to pakistan. that is a lot. i wonder if there are consequences to the kind of diplomacy by travel that we saw undertaken to some extent in canada. the admiral would take that kind of analogy. you remember the long trips and frequent visits by bob nakamura and others. in pakistani also has a particular meeting when when the chairman fshows up 14 times in deals with the pakistani military on the basis of building of the new trust relationship in military-to- military relations at a time when there is relatively weak civilian government trying to get its feet on the ground.

much to my surprise and tried to do the right thing. other frequent visitation with a soothing message for the pakistani leadership really contributes to the solidarity and decisions that need to be made there? i put it as a question, not as a fact. admiral mike mullen's remarks demonstrate this administration has gone to great lengths to recruit and keep a talented and experienced, dedicated and focused national security and foreign policy team. my remarks to not really reflect a feeling of any lack of confidence in the team. they doing a remarkable job in very difficult circumstances, but poorly because i would not

want rob to be disappointed in not having a little bit of a complex will atmosphere around the meeting i did want to raise the question. and then to go on to what i thought was a bifurcated presentation. a thought on iraq and pakistan, and to a lesser extent on afghanistan. you heard the administration's goalie formed and stated views. it was not true on iran where i thought the admiral's remarks on iran were remarkably void of content. he does not want to tip his hand. rob's question did draw from him a fairly candid description, but

at the end of the day is still the not match what he had to say on the other troublespots. i think that does reflect a lack of a clear policy within the administration on iran on what to do other than play for time. there is awareness of the danger of playing for time. that was the main thing i did not hear discussed. let me conclude my turn to be a little more clear in than going to questions and answers. my concern about the costs on strategic communications that frequently seemed to me not to deal with elements of the actual policy formations. let we try to be more clear.

this administration's top priority was to change the u.s. image to the world all to the good. it was needed.. they done something of a good job for it. in pulse terms if you ask what remains from the cairo speech, how does it translate -- in policy terms -- how does it relate to detecting a nigerian training in yemen to try to bomb an airliner going to detroit? most importantly, with is a mean in terms of the sacrifices that the israelis and arabs both must make to get the real peace says begun again? i'm not sure i can trace a line specifically.

these were quickly and scribbled what was looking at the replay tape, comments. i will leave it to mike to get into the meat of it. [applause] >> i will now ask mike, the director of our military and security studies program to speak. >> two tough act to follow here. my first impression after hearing admiral mike mullen talking is really a sense of awe at the incredibly complex set of security problems that our military are dealing with in this part of the world. both in terms of geographical scope, in dealing with problems of stability and security and insurgency in areas we have not been traditionally involved in -- after 9/11 everyone knows

about our involvement in afghanistan and again in iraq, but also in the horn of africa and now in yemen. our engagement has expanded and geographic scope and in terms of the complexity of issues we deal with. cut across all instruments of national power, the policy, military, economic and development issues, and the information coming. i do not in the admiral mike mullen. he has tremendous challenges he deals with on a daily basis, as do men and women in uniform every day. i like to flesh out a few points that build on some and sharp and others that he made as well as to fill in some gaps. the first thing, and i think

this was implicit in some of his comments, but i think could be made stronger is that i think this coming year will be a major turning point. he talked about the drawdown in iraq, the election. it has been commonplace that every year we said the next 12- 18 months in iraq will be crucial. this time there will be because elections held the potential for increased violenceiran -- this year will determine the future and tell us whether that the domestic has a real chance to affect change. we will also know whether the nuclear diplomacy will be

successful. finally, the elephant in the room is the possibility of israeli military action. afghanistan will be crucial in the next 18 months to determine the trajectory of our engagement there. finally, developments in yemen will have dramatic impacts. a while ago when asked about the possibility of israeli action against a iran, secretary gates said a third war in the region as the last thing we need. we must acknowledge that our military is doing with more than two wars. we're still watching the possibility of an israeli strike sometime this year which will

further complicate. i like to emphasize another point he alluded to. the balancing act, balancing our commitments with our assets. we only have to focus on the iraq/afghan couplet. since the beginning of our involvement it has had an intimate, reciprocal influence on each other. it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the u.s. was partly encouraged to invade iraq by the easy victory in afghanistan and success of the meeting after words which resulted in the greeting of a new government. it led some senior decision makers to believe it could be replicated easily.

on the other hand the preparations burned up all the oxygen and sap resources from afghanistan which could of been used to stabilize the situation there and perhaps lead to a different outcome then we face today. the surge in iraq has led to believe we can replicate short- term successes in afghanistan. looking forward i would venture to say that how a drawdown in iraq goes this year will affect our ability to carry forth its policies for afghanistan with in terms of the impact that perhaps success are greater stability might have on domestic support for the war in afghanistan as

well as perceptions of our enemies of the taliban and al qaeda about american staying power and their ability to achieve their objective. with regard to iran, i would summarize this coming year as follows -- we are either going to be dealing with crisis and coalition within terms of how to deal with the match for support for domestic opposition as well as how we do with efforts to put together a coalition to ratchet up diplomatic pressure on iran. that is not quite admiral mike mullen's words, but it has an impact. will also possibly be dealing with management, potential of the mouth of an israeli strike

on a run. it would inevitably impact americans security policy in the region. -- we will also possibly beginning with the management and the potential of amounted israeli attack/strike on iran. does it support future actions or say never again? all the while dealing with the aftermath of an israeli strike. finally, if this does not come to pass and diplomacy does not work, then we will focus a large part of the coming year and afterwards on reassurance among allies. i would say one of the main

challenges will face is how to convince the allies that a country unable to prevent iran from achieving an unacceptable outcome will also then be able to have the willpower and resolve to deter a nuclear iran. a couple of quick comments about strategic communications. the admirable raised them in an article in the fall. he is hammering away at this because it is something which deserves greater attention. not only in terms of american opinion, -- and this is something he did talk about --

if you look at the military literature coming mount, one thing -- in fact it did not do a count of articles, but it is my impression that there is more about operations -- which is the way that the military does strategic communication than any other subject. one of the thing is we have learned is in this cultural meal you information has an impact -- milieu has a dramatic impact. it is the most important tool to deal with counterinsurgency. and in closing perceptions of allies and enemies. the problem is, this is an area where we used to be very good.

it is something which we should have a natural proclivity for given hollywood and madison avenue. it is important that we get better at it, but there are all kinds of cultural and bureaucratic obstacles. it is an undervalued capability. it is the one a lament of national power that potentially could yield craig payoff in as part of the will. the military people in the rich and get it and are doing it well, but we're not doing it well on the strategic or policy levels. or in washington. the final comment i will make --

makearab/israeli conflict. any talk of this sort used to focus -- it is an area for the state department has the lead. in the past the dod did devote a lot of time and thinking to. it is clear with more than two wars that the arab/israeli conflict does not loom large in the mind of all policy makers as it used to. it reminds me of a comment. it was in an interview with an israeli paper where the guy it stated that there has to be a moment when they understand they are a sideshow. the real global politics -- and

that is a point for the driven home by admiral mike mullentoday. i look forward to discussing these and questions and answer time. >> just to add to both my colleagues -- on mike's last piont -- i was going to mention it myself. it also has implications in a military context. there are three possible implications. in the last administration there was some discussion about pulling american forces from the sinai that might be better used elsewhere. they help patrol the

egypt/israel peace. there was considerable discussion recently about the potential for america or nato playing a role for the final resolution of the israeli/palestinian conflict. for years there has been discussion of a potential america and-let role on heights. the stamina to take on these additional. rules may not be additional jim, the focus on strategic medications is interesting. the article to which mike made reference that admiral mike mullen wrote about strategic communications is a powerful critique of how they had come to

dominateacts of policy. "i know strategic medications as a term of reference is probably here to stay. regrettably, it has grown too much a part of our lexicon. to put it simply we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and more about what our actions communicate." you say that in the context of almost doing the exact opposite. as you say this administration is focusing so greatly. let me open the floor. >> you mentioned that the

information regarding iran. i would like to talk about the strategic architecture in the gulf. i was hoping the admiral would help us to understand what secateurs clinton meant in the summer when to talk about possibly a defense umbrella among allies in the gulf. -- what secretary clinton meant. who is in charge? >> all right. >> the short answers is a domino what is being done. in the planning that is being done it would presumably be done by centcom. but i think this is -- the

secretary of state's comment -- it was recognized as premature and as potentially having a harmful impact on perceptions of allies in the region are looking at iran's press in the nuclear arena. the challenge we face in dealing with this eventuality -- on the one hand we cannot afford to do things would send a signal to allies that we are acquiescing. on the other hand, there are things we need to be doing now to lay groundwork in case that is where we end up. how to strike the right balance is doable. there is and architecture in place built during the 1990's

and desert storm. we can build on that. it is mainly in the conventional arena. so, there has been already a lot done that we can build on. the question is what role our nuclear weapons plant and the event iran acquires nuclear weapons. simply, i think we need to think long and hard about this because it is different from the context of europe. it is better to think through implications before we make statements about willingness to extend a new umbrella to the gulf. >> there is some interesting

continuity on this piont. during the bush administration there was discussion about a nuclear umbrella, a doctrine that would be directed at reassuring arab states in the gulf and at large that it would be protected against and iranian the clear weapon if it came into being and therefore they did not have to develop their own. it was also directed towards turkey. i remember a conversation with their then-4 in minister. he said there is no need to acquire nuclear weapons and we understand we have protection from the u.s.. i think it no longer necessarily applies. secretary clinton had talked to during the campaign about a strategic umbrella for israel, specifically, -- i may be wrong on that, but the context

medically your. if we have a strategic or defensive umbrella it is an effort to prevent arabs from going to declare and reassuring is released they have to strike at that particular time. it is clear now that it will be much more difficult than three, four, or five years ago. a senior political officials lately in town told a small group of us that it is clear there is already activity underway on the arab side on developing nuclear weapons. >> this is a good example. i did not quite expand enough on what the costs are of the kind

of paying no attention to the statements than the policy itself. it came not from the admiral's remarks were in the first part he was telling us he finds a great care when the talks to the pakistani is an afghans about, you are going to leave us again. he tells them no, no, we will be with you this time. then we assessed by steve why is different, his answer is we have no intention of staying, occupying the country. indeed a message from this messageis that we will leave on deadlines that will be primarily it set unilaterally. they can be flexible, but the message -- there is a message dissonance here.

the president is speaking from rally to the domestic audience when saying that we're living and speaking to the afghans when he says that we are staying. both audiences here both messages. >> alan in the front? >> when the admiral spoke [inaudible] if you look at a map of human you also notice [inaudible] what role can [inaudible] in supporting us or [inaudible] >> gentlemen?

>> i would just set i have enough trouble keeping up troubleiran and iraq. jim, you sure you don't want another go on this? >> i am. it is a great question, the eky question. they have been forced to do more when they essentially exported al qaeda. i have not been to the kingdom in quite some time, so i'm reluctant to sit with the situation is. by and larger think the saudis have become more convinced on the need to act on their own. i don't think it is as into credit with us as we would like. i share the question. >> on this we have scholars at

the institute who have followed closely the saudi fighting with the insurgents around the yemeni border and a huge amount of saudi firepower that had to be brought to bear and a large number of saudi casualties' born in this fighting. on the one headed emphasizes the saudi willingness to throw assets at this, but also emphasizes that these are not -- these are, um, revocable insurgents. -- powerful insurgents. no, no -- i am only emphasizing the saudi willingness to get engaged in yemen.

we have not seen what they're willing to do to fight al qaeda on the other side of the border. we know about the rehabilitation program and efforts to export that too human, not very successfully. there is a human expert here on my right. dr., would you like to make a comment? >> ok. thank you for making the point that the saudi in the german has been there against al qaeda. the question is whether they are

constructive force in yemen, and often they are more destabilizing. i don't think would be very wise for us to go to either the yemenis or that saudis and think it could be the proxy. it would exacerbate the situation badly. >> josh up in front? >> there is a national debate about whether it is really in our national interest to be in afghanistan. what there does not seem to be as much debate about is the assumptions underlying our strategy. how accurate they are and what the basis is for them.

could you comment about some of these assumptions. such as that pakistan will be in florida by the taliban if they prevail. that the taliban is more welcome by the afghan people which the admiral reference. >> we know a lot about the process by which these assumptions are formed and articulated in the meetings with the president. they had maybe 10 meetings of the national security group to talk about the surge and other aspects. we were told and great detail about how crisp the meetings were.

the president making people state their views. no one could say that their view was not heard. it is less clear whether those assumptions are a joint product. we know that there were differing views about whether to keep a restricted footprint, or surge. at the end of the day the president split the difference. a little heavier on the general mcchrystal side then on the biden side. the assumption is that it would be a disaster to be seem to be cutting and running. therefore, we are there for a while and have to manage our presence. to meet these two contradictory messages. we're not staying, but we're not leaving. there is a lot of tension between those two and it takes a lot of time and effort to

balance that. in said the assumptions about pakistan, yes, one of the things the administration has done well is to articulate its importance. to say we cannot solve the afghan problem if we don't get full cooperation from pakistanis. we're getting a good deal more cooperation, pretty much still in terms that allow the pakistanis to give us things to buy them time. everyone involved in this is in the time-buying scheme. the president has forced everybody to articulate their assumptions so that he can examine them, then make a decision. i an not clear exactly where the wait is on every pint. >> the outcomes we fear will happen, why are those assumed to

be the case? what is the reasoning behind it? what facts support the reasoning? >> probably too much is based on intelligence. one of these things in the case of the nigerian is there was a lot of information out there not highly classified. therefore may not have been taken as seriously. there was a difference of view and a shift as to whether the taliban itself represents a direct threat to the u.s., and therefore we are required to stay in afghanistan come what may. i don't think it was the consensus judgment by the president. i think as part of this new effort to will be a concerted effort to peel off the taliban, not to make peace with, but to

develop a live and live in some provinces with the taliban if we're convinced it will prevent al qaeda from returning. fifth do you believe that if the taliban comes again, and mordantly influence? does that mean al qaeda will come back? that is one of the assumptions to which you can say yes or no. the assumption by the administration is we cannot risk the taliban returning. it is still possible that they will invite back al qaeda and that they are in fact al qaeda in another guise. i tend toward that keeping the budget i tend toward that view. it could change as we have more expenses. -- i tend toward that view. >> let me close by asking you one last question.

rumsfeld made a famous distinction. i will not ask you about an unknown unknowns. the opening event of 2010 -- as you look over the course of this year, what among the panoply of unknown unknowns could hit this year and rise to the top of the list? >> one this brings to my mind is what will happen in egypt? yesterday on the gaza frontier with the killing of an egyptian security anby or from gaza and the great turmoil there -- look at the political uncertainty around a succession there --

egypt is a huge. and the people there could have an enormous influence. the other one is better known than that, iran. how close are they? what red lines have they drawn? there is some hope among people that they do see. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us for this very special event. [applause]

>> economics editor on ben bernanke and the role he played up to the economic collapse of 2008. he will discuss his book. part of this weekend's booktv on c-span2. >> richard holbrooke talked about u.s. recovery efforts in afghanistan and pakistan on thursday at the brookings institution. he is the president's chief adviser and a longtime u.s. diplomat. this lasts about one hour. >> good afternoon, everybody. we are very honored that ambassador holbrooke take off some time from his duties on the other side of town and on the other side of the world to spend about one hour with us this afternoon talking about policy within afghanistan and pakistan.

there are never boring moments in his life. there have not been over this time, certainly. i figured that was a favor i was doing you -- that you could use some bottom. this is a particularly busy week and difficult week. ambassador holbrooke has gotten a number of members of this terrific intra-agency team with him here. one of the very promising and productive aspects of the way he has gone about his job and gotten the inter-10 c process to work together -- and i know a number of members lost personal friends and close colleagues as a result of the terrible suicide bombing in afghanistan. as one of several notes on a minor key, we have to take account of. i thought maybe, richard, if it

was ok we would start what we hope will be an open and lively discussion just by giving you a chance to tell the group what you think among all the issues out there of the most important ones. issues that are out there are the most important ones. what are the two or three subjects you and others will concentrate on most particularly during the time had? >> thank you for inviting me. the man on the right is one of my closest friends and most severe critics. so, if you sent to report between us we have been friends since 1978. it is a great pleasure to be interviewed by him. knowing him you all know will not diminish him one iota