produce is a reduction of of the growth rate in of the northeast and midwest regions. so, your example of michigan shows some of that. and then higher growth rates in the south and the west. this has been going on for some time. host: will that continue? guest: who knows? you first have to ask why it is happening. it is really quite complex. we know the midwest was the heartland of the manufacturing sector. we know what happened to that sector recently. we also know the aging of the population is producing retirement mobility to the southern areas. so, there are a lot of different regions. host: 202 is the area code for all of our numbers. roves is our guest --

demographically, how does the u.s. now breakdown by race? guest: we don't know that from this census yet. the reason that we did a couple of days ago was to fulfill the constitutional purpose of the senses, which is to guide the reapportionment of the house of representatives. we based that on state population totals. starting in february, all of the details of the data will start coming out. host: any other details that you released yesterday or that you have that you can share? guest: i think some things are kind of interesting. we tracked the population center -- what do we mean by that? imagine the united states was on a balance beam and everyone weighed the same amount and we

try to find that point that balances the country. it has been moving west and south for decade after decade. in fact, in 1790, do you know where the center of the nation was? kent county, maryland. so, it has gradually moved west and south. right now it is sitting in the state of missouri. we have not calculated this yet, but we've speculated it may have slipped to arkansas. that it is going to go south and west a little more. we have not seen it yet. host: you have quite an interactive web site. guest: thank you. we love our website. it's could tell us about it. guest: it is 2010census.gov. i think you will enjoy it, and history buff or anyone mildly curious about their state over time for their region. it is interactive and it allows you to click through the years to see how the country or your

state change. it also allows you to look at apportionment figures over time. host: do we have economic data yet? guest: not yet. i need to remind you we had a very short questionnaire. we did it deliberately to keep the burden down. so the amount of information will be less than the prior decade. we have this wonderful new sample survey, of the american community survey that annually will pump out estimates on socio-economic issues and housing and so on. host: ok. so, you released the apportionment data for reapportionment. we know who gain seats and who does not. we have that information out there. texas is the big winner. new york and ohio, the big losers. california didn't change for the first time. guest: that's right.

california did not change the the first time. it is remarkable. california in the last century had the momentum of the largest single growth. in 1960, california got eight new seats based on the senses because of its gigantic growth. but it is not that california is not growing. it is indeed. it is not growing as fast as other states in the region or country. for host: have you made any predictions regarding politics with regard to the senses? guest: that is the thing i know least about, as it turns out. one of the things i am very proud of about the census bureau is that we are a nonpartisan agency. we, like you, are devoted to getting information out to the public and letting them decide what it means. so, there will be tons of political scientist who will comment on the politics. host: february of 2011 is when we can see a more and more

comprehensive information. guest: let me tell you how it works. the next step in the political or governmental process is the redistricting. they do that on their own. we have nothing to do with that. but we supply them the data for doing that. that starts in february. that is very rich, block-level data. population counts broken by race and ethnicity. so, jumping on those data, which millions of people do, will allow description of things as small as school districts and other things. later on we will produce other products with richard deyton. host: west palm beach, florida. kathleen, democrat. you are on what the director of the census bureau. caller: good morning and happy holidays first and foremost. i wanted to find out -- in social science we say that there are too many variations within any group to constitute a true

race. how as americans are we supposed to identify ourselves if we are interracial or hispanic -- black-hispanic. how is it done? or is it whenever you feel? it's got i think we got the point, kathleen. guest: that is a great question. let me give a little history. in the year 2000, for the very first time all of us were able to check multiple boxes for our racial identity and ethnicity. not too many people did it. we, again, gave ourselves the opportunity of doing that in the 2010 census. now, what has happened between 2000 and 2010 -- the decade of tiger woods and barack obama, we

have had tons of discussions about combinations of racial identity. so, one of the very interesting things i think sociologically as you referenced is how many people check multiple boxes on the race question. we will know that in a matter of months. the second thing that you raised is how we measure race. we left that to the individuals. that is, we self-identified our racial categories, and that is how we have done it for host: we are going to go to california, and dana, caller: independent line good morning and merry christmas. i was just wondering if with all of the anti-government, anti-

incumbent air, if you notice a drop in the amount of census forms returned because of that? was it more or less, compared to other years? do people seem more cooperative or less cooperative? guest: great question. something i gave daily attention to a few months ago, because of all the press about this. first, i want to remind us that throughout history the census, during the taking of the senses there is often the controversy of one sort or another, so that is not unusual. second, the data analysis could not pick up that trend. we don't have any evidence. there were press stories on this and did dividual comments made by folks around the country, but it did not seem to have an effect on the bulk of the american public.

despite -- in other surveys and those done throughout the country, and the lowering of participation rates year by year, we ask the american public achieved the same rates that we did in 2000 -- we as the american public. we came through. host: robert groves. and the estimates of the illegal population? guest: we don't have that. we released on december 6 another way of estimating the population, which is based on birth certificates and death certificates and estimates of migration. dare we brought in the best stenographers in the country to help us do that. there was an agreement that we cannot estimate the immigration write very well as a community because of the lack of documentation on some

illustration -- immigration. we had a range of numbers between 306 million and 313 million. when the census came in at 308.7 million, that is just a little higher than the middle of that range, so that makes us feel good about the census. we never know the answer to your question from the measurements we do. host: does the census bureau estimates that in any way? guest:no, but the carefully estimate the total number of immigrants. piecing those two things apart is a really hard demographic problem. host: one of the states with the biggest population game was idaho. barrie, on the republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to wish those

unfortunate people in this country a very merry christmas and i pray for them every day. my second point is i was wondering if the "dream act" is passed, what effect will this have on our census? thank you. guest: let's go back in history. maybe that is the best way to do this. in march of 1790, the first house of representatives passed a census act of 1790. a lot of the founding fathers were members of that first congress, by the way. they specified that we count everyone in the country whether they were citizens or not. although this is, a controversy that comes up every 10 years, for every census since 1790 we have counted everyone, whether they were citizens or not. so, unless there's a change all

a part of congressional action with regard to who we count in the census, which by the way the constitution gives as a responsibility to congress, we will continue counting everyone who lives in the country. the "dream act" would have no effect on who we attempt to account. host: robert groves, people are moving to the south and the west. where are they moving? guest: we can see the big gainers. texas received four states because it grew at a rate of 20.6. the biggest percentage growth is nevada where a 35.1%. nevada is not a really large state in terms of overpopulation, but that is an enormous growth rate. in the year 2000, nevada in 10 years grew 66%.

clark had a good growth rate this year as well. -- florida had a good growth rate. the south and the west are growing with each decade. for the first time, the west region has larger population than the midwest. this is a shift, a turning point. those states that came to the union at the last point are gradually filling up and getting more balance in terms of the population. host: city's growing, rural areas growing? guest: we don't have that yet. we will in a few months. host: ohio on the line. caller: i am the owner of a

property in ohio and another in florida. i got in the mail the florida property house. i called the post office. i never received the ohio property. they said they returned it to the census. they did not afford that mail to me for my ohio property. i have many friends that filled out the one for florida, but they don't live in florida. they live in ohio. guest: it's a great question. kind of complicated answer, but let me talk you through its. first of all, the folks like you that have multiple properties do get multiple forms often. we ask that they report on the form where they usually live.

the second -- so i don't know your personal circumstance, but the second thing to notice bais that on all the houses whee we don't get a return form, we go back and knock on doors. if we knock on the door and no one answers, then we get information from a proxy respondent, which could be a building manager in a condominium development or it could be a neighbor. many times, people who don't remember getting interviewed face-to-face are correct in their memory, but we have obtained the information from other sources. at the end of this process, i can promise you that for every address that we had on our list, over 135 million addresses, we

have a disposition that came either from the mail questionnaire returned, a face- to-face interview, or the reports from the and knowledgeable other person. host: census 2010, 380 million, 745,000 people in the u.s.. -- 380.7 million. when it comes to reapportionments and redistricting, texas got four new house seats. florida got two. arizona, nevada, south carolina, utah, and washington state all got another seat. new york and ohio each lost two seats. losing one seat are louisiana,

michigan, missouri, new jersey, and pennsylvania. guest: indiana grew at a lower than average rate, 6.2%. its population was suspect in the algorithm, they retain their same seats. the same in minnesota, which was on the edge. the very last seat was assigned to minnesota, under the algorithm. that allowed them to keep all of their seats. the state that just barely lost out, you could think of that as they 436th seat, if we had one, was north carolina, which would have been a jump for north carolina. the difference between those two

states was about 15,700 or so population, so that's a pretty big gap. in the last decade that was less than a thousand, much smaller. host: alabama did not do as well. guest: alabama grew at a 7.5% rate. the way that the assignment of seats goes, it is a function of the relative size of the state, but also the population count. the first thing that is done is that we assign one seat to every state and then we rank the states after that. and we start filling out the other seats. in that ordering, the big states get all of the nice seats and then gradually you get down host: california has 37 million people, so you do a 37 million/500,000? guest: actually, it is the

harmonic mean. it is the square root of the population over the rank, times the rank minus one. we have done this in baseball. it's a fascinating thing the this is in law since 1940. the 1920 census was a unique one in that the legislature did not reapportion itself in 1920. this was the first year that it decided to be 435 total. suddenly there was a zero sum gain. it was also a massive movement from rural areas to urban areas before that. so they went 10 years without reapportioning themselves. finally agreed on these terms that have stock since 1940. host: in 1920, did some of the

longtime rural districts have a lot more power than they should have? guest: yes. the 1910 reapportionment, we were a more rural area. also, in 1910, we went up to a larger town. the nation was growing. restarted with the hosts of rep with 65 members and they kept expanding -- kept expanding overtime. that made it easy. as soon as you say 435 and no more, then it becomes a zero sum game. host: this will take effect in 2013. so the 2012 election will be the old? guest: the congress that begins in january, 2013, based on the election of 2012, will do the reapportionment -- will reflect

the reapportionment. the states have a lot of work to do in redrawing boundaries. even though the states have not changed in numbers, internally, the population distribution might have shifted and they are redrawing boundaries as well. host: next call from mary on the independent line from minnesota. thanks for holding. caller: good morning. i have two questions. one is for c-span and one is for the gentle man. tryinging a good job in to educate the americans, but since the early 1900's there has not been that much change in terms of representation. because of that and since up to the 1960's, we are not getting civics lessons. americans don't understand how things are different up --

divied up. wyoming has less than 600 with one representative. states like california or minnesota, we keep getting shafted. that is why the founders made it possible in the early days so that it was 30,000 41 representatives, and 30,000 population -- for one representative. please help educate the americans that they need to push congress to make it more representative so that you don't have smaller states all the time micromanaging what happens to this country. host: thanks for the question. what is your question for the census bureau director? guest: i know that he cannot change it because i listened to what he said a few days ago when the report came out. could he help educate americans

so that they can know what things are so they can get congress to change because we are a democratic republic after all. role in this is to supply to the congress itself these numbers as honestly and as professionally as we can. then it is the role of congress to make these decisions. i remind us, for brief time there were 437 members of congress when alaska and hawaii came in before the census and then it went back down to 435. the problem of equal representation across the states is a been shoveling problem. if you agree that every state gets at least one representative, then by definition no matter what, your population size is you are going

to have at least one. there was the wyoming case in that regard that you cited. the only way to make this work in terms of arithmetic is if we have many, many more representatives and then we could make things a little more equal. returning to the days -- and you correctly cited -- that very first congress where each representative was attached to about 34,000 people. we are now over 700,000 per rep. there is no end to this process unless we increase the numbers of people in the house. that is an issue for congress and the voters. host: this is a tweet.

now to annapolis, maryland on the republican line. caller: i worked for the census in annapolis. guest: thank you. caller: i have some questions. one of the things we did was we went to soup kitchens and counted the number of people. people do not live at soup kitchens. in some cases when a few days later we would go to another soup kitchen i would see the same people that i already counted. it's about three blocks from the other soup kitchen. what is that about? guest: thank you. you are one of our heroes. there were about 1 million people like you who, as a public service, even though we did not pay you very much, you helped america to count itself and you are one of my heroes.

let me go to your question. the difficulty of counting people who are homeless is enormous. we do the best we can, but we admit we are not perfect. how do we do this? on march 29, 30, and 31, we had three days of operations, which was the culmination of months about reached to community organizations, working with them to find out where homeless folks congregate. we went to where they get services. soup kitchens, shelters. we also identified the outdoor locations where they sleep. over those three days, we reached out and tried to account folks. when we had full identities of folks, for example, you encounter the two people at two -- the same person at two

superstitions, we tried not to duplicate cases when we had identifications of people enumerated multiply, we did that. we added goes to the aggregates. the number of 308.7 million includes all of the homeless folks that we counted in that way. let me tell you, we admit imperfections in that. i know that there is probably somebody in florida living out in the woods in a tent and i suspect we did not count that person. we did not count people who want to evade the account that are homeless. we do the best we can. we tried to improve with every census, but it is a challenge. host: how did it out meyers of the hawaii and alaska do -- out ?lliers

guest: alaska grew at a higher rates, 13.3%. to 630,000 people. the population density of alaska remains the lowest in the country with 1.1 persons per square mile. host: the highest census? guest: on the east coast. d.c. is the highest for sure. host: but of the state's? guest: it could be rhode island. i don't have in front of me. host:paul from massachusetts. caller: two questions. first, with respect to residents of the united states who are

undocumented, how did you reach out to try to count as many of those people as possible? second question, on the map you showed, the largest increase in members of congress, the shift was to the southwestern the united states, which many of the governors of those states have indicated that they have the largest population of undocumented residents. i was wondering if that -- those undocumented residents -- has contributed to the increase in population there for the increase in the number of house seats? guest: two great questions. first, how did we go about counting the undocumented? we counted them the same way as

all other people. what did we do to reach out to them? this was, i think, one of the most heartwarming stories of this census. we had over 250,000 partner organizations, small community groups, sometimes these were things like residents associations in an apartment building or it could be a community group, the ymca or community center. they got the word out. these or all volunteer activities. no money exchanged hands. they helped us get the word out to their communities. in the immigrant communities, especially the latino community, the energy and activity countrywide was just enormous. all sorts of activities were going on especially in the southwestern states. we worked with community

leaders to convey the message that the way we do a census in this country is completely separate from any enforcement agency activity. when you answer the questions in the census, the data is kept constaand confidential. your group, your community, benefits through those counts. to the extent that message got out, we feel good about the the results. it's a tough problem. consistently getting the message, we do the best we can. over the next few weeks and months, i think, instead of expressing my opinion, we will have real data to evaluate so we can compare to the benchmarks. host: tina tweets this:

guest: it is an important responsibility that is shared by state governors. in some states, under the voting rights act, the department of justice, the u.s. department of justice, oversees the construction, the boundaries of districts in order to make sure it is fair for minority representation. host: the next call for the census bureau director robert groves, milton, from new york. caller: good morning. why does it cost $13 billion? you just said that you cannot count the immigrants. if they are undocumented immigrants, this documentation, so you should be able to count them. if they are not documented, why are they not sent back? all ice and send them back.

-- call ice. guest: economy reiterate, we count every resident. we count people whether they are documented or not. by the way, remember, on the census questionnaire, we never ask whether you are a citizen or not or whether you have documentation. so we really don't know the breakdown of the immigrant population. in terms of estimating the immigration, because of the undocumented portion of immigrant populations, it is very difficult for us to use records along to estimate. your first question was about the cost of the census? the census is an expensive activity of the federal government. i think the final tally will be about 13 billion.

the-- when i came into my appointment in 2009 our estimate was it was going to cost 14.5 or $13.7 billion. since i've been in, some wonderful things have happened. we have a budget this year, this fiscal year, a $7.4 billion. we were able to return $1.8 billion of that to the treasury because we did not need it. since we did not need it, we returned to the treasury. host: how did that happen? guest: $800 million of that was a contingency fund in case that things happened likes hurricanes. we were reported about age the h1n1 epidemic. none of those bad things happened. we saved $800 million on that.

the rest of the money, kudos to the american public for returning the forms, which means we did not have to pay salaries to people to knock on as many doors as we were prepared to do. the other thing that happened was we hired people in this recession with job skills and experience and with desire to work that need the money that were so productive that they finished the work at very high quality levels faster than we thought. that yielded savings. i am worried about the cost of the census. i believe in these economic times we have to plan for the most cost-efficient sense as we can. we are working on that and try to be as cost-efficient as we can in 2020. tweet:here's a guest: i would guess new york or california.

whenever you have 600,000 people on the streets, a lot of things happen. we had over 700 incidents when our folks knocked on the door, they were greeted with a gun in their face. 600,000 people on the streets. people knocking on 50 million households doors. out of 100 million knocks on the door, 700 times of guns in the face. we had one shooting death and another due to a traffic accident. each of these things are real tragedies. it hurt us as a family, but it is a relatively rare event.

700 over 100 million. host: last call for robert groves, from baltimore. caller: i have a question regarding redistricting as it relates to the 2010 census. look at the states where the population might have shifted. if you can answer this, why are the district's gerrymandered? could there be a case uses for the results of the senses to make the case that the district's need to be more square and true and truly represent the people? guest: this is truly out of my domain of authority. i do know that the data we are given can be analyzed by anyone. in some states, citizens commissions have been appointed for the redistricting process, is ar states, this

straight political process, it would be subject to negotiations. the ability with cheap computers now to form geographical boundaries to achieve all sorts of desired ends is almost unlimited. this will be an interesting decade redistricting, but it is not part of our job. host: robert groves, director of the census bureau, how much longer will you be in this position? guest: i serve at the pleasure of the president. i may have a memo on my desk tomorrow. if not, it will be in >> here is what is coming up on c-span. next, a look at the proposed defense budget and its relation to the federal deficit.

then, a discussion on alzheimer's treatment and research. later, a review of the events in south asia in 2010. on c-span, christmassy, speaker of the house nancy pelosi and other members of congress -- christmas eve, speaker of the house nancy pelosi and other members of congress will like the annual -- will like the national christmas tree. michael dukakis and charles gibson will talk about the preparation for a presidential debate and their impact on the campaign. christmas day -- former prime minister tony blair and offer christopher hitchens will discuss the role of religion. garrison keillor will discuss the role of humor in public life. two former supreme court justices will also discuss life on the high court. >> "booktv have a discussion of

some of -- "booktv" and "afterwords." jane smiley will talk about the man who invented a computer. find a complete schedule at booktv.org. sinora to get our e-mails directly to your in box -- sign up to get our e-mails directly to your inbox. >> the shadow minister for public health will discuss her government's plan for budget cuts, as well as her experience as a minority in parliament. sunday, will compare the british and american forms of government -- we will compare the british and american forms of government. that is on "q&a." saturday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> and now the brookings institution's michael

o'hanlon, senior fellow robert kagan, and former federal reserve board vice chair alice rivlin. the closure of the bipartisan -- she was co-chair of the bipartisan debt reduction task force. this is about 90 minutes. >> i am the director of the foreign policy program at the brookings institution. as we are all, by now, aware, the burgeoning federal deficit and the way in which that is adding to our national debt, which i think represents something like 70% of gdp. it is likely to equal 100% of gdp in the next 10 years. it presents a particular

challenge when it comes to national security. >> as we are all right now aware, our national debt represents 70% of gdp. it presents a particular challenge when it comes to national security. about six months ago that the greatest threat to our national security is not al qaeda or iran or the rise of china, it was, he said, the national debt. it is in that context that michael o'hanlon decided to return to his roots as a budget analyst, in particular the defense budget, to look at particular questions of how to cut the defense budget as a way of helping contribute to an

austerity program that would lead to significant reductions in our deficit and, therefore, eventually in our debt. the defense budget is the latest in the analysis. it is this analysis we are here to discuss today. the director of foreign-policy research at brookings. the is the author of 40 many books to mention. i will just highlight the most recent per. publishedtic's case,"

this year. last year he wrote a book called "budgeting for the hour." i am sure you'll find it fascinating reading. with the policy paper he has written. today, michael will be followed after his presentation by comments and discussion from two very distinguished panelists. we are very grateful to alice rivlin for gracing us with her presence today. alice is one of our most distinguished scholars at

brookings. it is not often that we have an opportunity to invite her to our foreign policy podium. she was in the congressional budget office as director of the economic studies program. she is now a senior fellow in that program and a visiting professor at the public policy n thatute at georgetown deals with budgets and deficits that does not -- there is a commission that deals with budgets and deficits that does not include alice rivlin. there was a commission that came out with the important

recommendations on the deficit, which included recommendations on cutting the defense budget. alice is the author of many books. a modest them is a series that she coedited called "restoring fiscal sanity." that is something we will try to do today. bob is also a senior fellow in the form policy program. he is one of the preeminent experts and commentators on u.s. foreign policy. a historian by trading -- by training and proud of it, he is the author of a book on u.s. foreign policy called "a dangerous nation."

it is eight two-volume series on the history of american foreign policy. he is the author of another series of best-selling books. mike, why do you not give us a reprise of your argument of the defense budget? >> it is a treat for me to have alice and all part of the panel. thank you for being here is so close to christmas. thank you, c-span, for being here. some may confuse this for "how the grinch stole part of the defense budget." we hope or i hope that the ultimate goal will be to shore

up american and national security by contributed into deficit reduction. that is the basic spirit by which i understood this exercise, which was to investigate the proportion a cutting and the defense budget. defense doing its fair share to reduce the deficit, inspired in part by the commissions that alice was working on and by other scholars who have argued for some form of strategic restraint or defense budget restraint. but the basic idea here, and i want to explain the philosophy first, was not too strongly advocate a 10% reduction in the peacetime defense budget, which is the number i picked, but weher c, to say why don't investigate whether the pentagon can do that kind of cut? what is the case for considering it? and then leave it to the broader

policy committee and the reader to decide for him or herself as the kinds of reductions that might be necessary to achieve that seem worth the risk. so that was spirit in which i am said the paper. -- i understood the paper. i think there are calculated gambles associated with the basic concept, but the question is, as admiral mullen pointed out, there are a huge risks associated with running $1 trillion deficit for our national security. therefore, can we afford to keep running those? if we're going to take a serious crack at reducing the deficit, is it realistic to think that you can start demanding that one big part of the budget is somehow protected. so the minute this someone says, defense is the top constitutional obligation of the

federal government and it should be protected regardless and we should make our deficit reduction out of other accounts, if we start a conversation in those terms, another constituency will come up and say, let's protect social security or college loans. or let's protect science research or infrastructure. you get the idea. pretty soon you have lost the shared sacrifice that i think is essential. that is the basic motivation. we will not reduce the deficit effectively and strengthen our long-term economy and the foundation for our military power if we do not establish a shared sacrifice. so 10% reduction in the real defense budget becomes my number. i am not going to go through detailed our arithmetic here to explain how i got to that number, because i think i would probably confuse you and confuse myself in the process of trying to keep a slide straight and

talk to real or nominal dollars. the basic idea is we are not talking about the wars. the wars will be decided on their own terms. we are talking about the part of the defense budget that you could call the peacetime budget or the base budget, sort of the regular, normal budget we would expect to continue on even as drawdown hopefully and the next three years. of that base budget, is a 10% reduction possible? 10% in the real or inflation- adjusted dustamount. that seems consistent to what the pentagon should contribute to the budget. if we will look at the overall federal spending and tax accounts and try to establish a way to get close to fiscal balance over the next half a decade or so, with proportionate cuts in each area.

now let me start talking about defense itself and explain what i think needs to be grappled with, what kinds of reductions might be necessary if you were to aspire to this 10% reduction in the inflation-adjusted defense budget. i want to say -- i want to stay conceptual. part of michael and his paper was to try to -- part of my goal was to try to be a bridge between the defense community and the budget papers that i have sometimes been a part of writing myself, but the stronger strategic community or the policy debate so that everyone can begin to link

by 10% to what it would mean for our place in the world. and whether the risks are worth it. 10% is a big cut. it's not trivial. it is not the sort of thing that will require russ to instantly stop our engagement anywhere, whether it is northeast asia, europe, or another key part of the world. so the goal here is to preserve most of our key strategic underpinnings and see if there are more economic ways to pursue. and with somewhat greater risk. there are two main ideas that i raise in the paper as sort of strategically meaningful concepts for ways to understand the implications of this sort of cut. there are a few specifics as well, in the spirit of what secretary gates has been trying to do with his business reforms within the department of defense. i have a few more ideas along most lines as well, but i want to emphasize the two big

concepts that would account for most of the savings that i am trying to illustrate and discuss. and what of them is the size of our army and marine corps, and the other is the basic strategy by which we modernize weaponry. the me say a couple of words about what i think would be a somewhat more economical approach to each of those areas of american defense policy, and then passed back the baton to martin and alice and bob and you for further discussion. first, on the issue of ground forces, let me remind you first that we have increased the size of the ground forces by 15% over the course of this past decade. that is after having reduced the combined army and marine corps by about 35% once the cold war ended. we reduced in the 1990's and we built back up almost half as much again in the last 10 years.

we are much smaller today than we were during the 1980's, but the combined strength of the active duty army and the active duty marine corps is nearly 100,000 personnel greater than it had been in the 1990's. i supported this increase for the engagements we have been involved with. there was no way to do the operation in iraq over a sustained basis, no way to do the operation in afghanistan without increasing these numbers. we already ask a great deal, probably too much, of our men and women in uniform during the period when we were still building up and we probably resisted too long, and i am not support of a secretary resistance to increasing the army and marine corps, but we gradually built up further in the eighth

period. now we are about 15% larger. i am suggesting that we may have to reverse that 15% increase once the war in afghanistan begins to wind down. so we go back to clinton-era levels on the army and marine corps. that is one big strategic concept. it is a simple idea. and we have been there before. you can think to yourself the implications of this. if we were going to have another decade like the one we are now finishing we would probably not want to go to a smaller army or marine corps. if the mission in afghanistan was going to take a lot longer we would,000 troops have to delay. i'm not suggesting we should do this next year. these kinds of cuts should begin in the next presidential term, as the economy hopefully has begun to improve in the war in afghanistan has substantially wound down i hope by then.

it would be a mistake to do these things prematurely. that is one big idea. we can talk about specific scenarios if you like in a discussion, which ones would be too demanding for that smaller army and marine corps, but perhaps, almost undoable today. let me remind you very quickly in passing, then i will move on to modernization and rafah, but in terms of scenarios we could still handle our role in the early months of another korea contingency if that happened. because longer-term operations in any future korea contingency, and here i am speaking hypothetically and i am not predicting another korean war, but you have to think about these scenarios, the possibility of another korean conflict would presumably lead to the occupation of north korea. but the good news is that we have an ally, south korea, that would handle all lion's

share. our role would be in the opening 6-12 months. that may prove a debatable assumption. we may want to discuss that. i think we will still have ample forces to create that scenario, even with a smaller army and marine corps. that is just one example. alice and bob may raise other scenarios as well. let me move to modernization. how do we try to modernize weaponry with a more economical approach towards the basic idea of buying new weapons and researching new weapons? today, we are spending in the normal peacetime budget, about $100 billion on procurement, and another $80 billion on research. then we spend several tens of billions more and what used to be called a supplemental budget, intoh has been folded

the regular budget prepa. i think there is a possibility of being able to reduce that by reduced war expenditures and then by another 10% or so. it would be hard to do more than 10%. if you take the following three ideas as guideposts, i think you might be able to accomplish this. i will mention them briefly. one is a systems where there is redundancy in the way we are modernizing, because we are building several different things, accomplishing the same goal. a good example would be tactical aircraft modernization, where we are building a super hornet for the navy, planning to spill -- to build three different kinds of airplanes for the navy and marine corps, completing the purchase of the f-22 and modernizing munitions that are capable of far more precise attacks that have never been possible.

the full range of modernization is excessive. it does not mean that any one of them is wasteful. i am not trying to c ritique, but we take a gamble but what is the healthiest way to build a strong defense. a second guidepost would be programs that were way over costs or would underperform. this is common sense. i am not saying anything radical here. the army has adopted some of its philosophy in recent years with some help from the office of the secretary of defense and canceled its future combat system. the next generation vehicle system that was probably not doing very well in performance terms or financial terms, and it was the sort of thing we need to

be able to scrutinize and potentially canceled. that is a very important area as well. and a third and more difficult area is military missions that, while perhaps still within the realm of the feasible, seem less likely than they have been before. here a classic example might be marine corps anmphibious assault. i do this in full knowledge that there might be marines of this room. -- in this room. i do not want to suggest that forced entry operations are a thing of the past, but we have capabilities up for carrying this out already, and two of the modernization efforts are both to my mind dubious ways to further our capabilities. if it is a mission that may seem to be beyond the heyday of its likely application, this may be also an area of modernization

that we are willing to run more risks. not because the existing programs are wasteful, but because we have to introduce a spirit of trading off short- term, calculated gambles about how we can make do with less to shore up our longer-term economic foundation and national power for future decades. martin? >> thank you. alice, put this in a budget context for us. how important is it to actually reduce defense expenditure? >> i think my role is to say as well as i can, why are we having this conversation at all? and i think it is very, very important that we have it. michael has written a very thoughtful and interesting paper, which i think will help as people think about what might you do in defense, but why

should you do anything at all is the first question? frankly, i think admiral mullen is right. he is not the only person saying this. the greatest national security threat we face is an economic catastrophe, and i do not say catastrophe lightly. i believe that we are now facing the possibility, the real possibility of an economic catastrophe, all real meltdown in the u.s. economy. now, with the discussion of the defense budget and how much is enough and national-security has always started with a throwaway paragraph that said, the most important thing for national security is to have a strong look, resilient, a growing economy. but then we moved on, because we thought we had that, that we could take for granted.

we did not need to worry about it. so the next question was, how much should we spend for defense? but i would submit that that is no longer true. now, we worried that as michael points out, the somewhat in the 1980's about the future of the american economy. but we thought we fixed it. we got the budget deficit into a surplus. i am very proud of that, because i served as budget director. and we got the economy growing again. but what we did not fix was our national saving rate. we did not fix the fact that we as an economy were living way beyond our means. and now we are facing a very new and different situation. i think it is important to understand that. that thing that is bothersome and worrisome is not the current level of the deficit, although

that is high, but it is related to the recession and the financial meltdown, which we never should have said. that was dumb policy, but we are here. we have to get out of it. but what is really scary is what happens to the projections of the federal deficit and rising debt as you look beyond the recession, as the economy recovers. we are facing a budget deficit that does not go down. it keeps going up, and a debt that rises off the charts. and that is driven by the demographics, the aging population, and more importantly, by our taste for expensive medical care, which we have. we have to recognize that we have it and we needed. and the combination in the federal budget drives spending

up faster than revenue can possibly go. and we are borrowing back, i believe half of it from the rest of the world. people say, the japanese, they have a hired jett -- debt to gdp ratio. but they owe themselves. we owe it in large part to the rest of the world. if you think about competition going forward in in the world with the chinese, i would submit that the first thing that we need is a strong, growing, resilient american economy. the second thing we need is a not to be dependent our man o r n them for selling our debt. and way down the list is a strong military.

so that is just trying to explain what averdmiral mullens put more succinctly. we have to worry that the rising debt is unsustainable. we cannot borrow that much. we will get to a point, and it could come quite quickly, the europeans have been surprised by how quickly it comes, when we simply can't market our debt, except at astronomical interest rates. we have a spike in interest rates, a crash and the dollar, and we are into a deep and prolonged recession that will affect us for a generation. now, what does the defense budget have to do with this it? that is the next serious question. these projections are not caused by rising defense spending.

by assumption, everybody is making these projections, the war is winding down, and the defense budget goes up at some rate, maybe at the rate of gdp growth or maybe inflation, but it is not what is driving the future spending. so why are we talking about the fans? well, i think we are talking about it because we have to do everything we possibly can, and we cannot do it all on the health entitlement side, because we are aging and we do like to have medical care even if we do it more efficiently. so we have to look at spending the rest of our budget more effectively on the domestic side and the defense side, and raising more revenue. now, that sounds like shared sacrifice, but i do not think shared sacrifice is the way to think about it i think it is, we are in a bad situation with

respect to our public debt. how we use our resources more effectively, and let's come back to the defense budget. now, you serve on these commissions and you hear an awful lot about waste in certainly is there's quite a bit, and that's a question of nomenclature. mike is much more polite when he talks about the ospry. he does not say it is wasteful. he just said we do not need it anymore and it does not work. but you can have lots of conversations about that. in the end, you have to come back to where mike came -- do we need such a large force? that relates to the question of stairs -- shared sacrifice, because much of the public does

not believe that we need to go in and take over other people's countries because we do not do it very well and it is awfully hard to get out. and so if you are going to look at how we use our resources better on the domestic side, you are going to have to convince a lot of people that you are also looking at, do we need to spend so much on the defense side? >> thank you, alice. bob, let's put it in historical context. larry summers, i think, said recently, how long can the greatest power in the world remain the greatest power in the world while being the greatest borrower in the worldd? ? and there is an inherent tension there, it seems to me, between the need to solve the problem that mike and alice

portrayed, and on the other hand the need to stay strong to protect our interests abroad. how you reconcile those? >> first of all, let me say that i appreciate the spirit by which we approach the problem. and i also appreciate alice rivlin. it is easy to say, let's cut the defense budget. i do not think one of you are saying that is an easy decision. i worry sometimes that we are like, it is like we have a gas- guzzling car with a huge gas- guzzling engine and we are looking for ways to reduce the guzzling, and one of the things we are going to remove is the front bumper and the air bags. you might say that would be a shared sacrifice along with reducing the power of the engine, but you might ask if that was the right way to go about it. there is a little bit of a danger of talking about our

budget deficit as a national security problem if it means that the way that we have to deal with it is to reduce our national security. and that is the problem that i guess i am here to try to analyze. by the way, i take very seriously the budget deficit, but as alice says, it is not primarily a defense budget problem. it is many other things. the question is, what is the risk we are going to take? i think you do need to put in some historical context and ask, what is the character of our nation in terms of our behavior in the world? what is the character of the international situation and where are we going? and then we need to make a kind of cost evaluation as to whether the savings that you might get it in national security budgets might actually lead to a more expensive situation because of the contingencies you are not able to deal with. let me try to go through those.

you know, i do know the american people, the majority say they do not want to get in the business of invading other countries and using our force abroad in various contingencies, but i have to say that we as a people have a short-term memory disorder, because even though the american people do not -- say they do not want to do that, it is astonishing how frequently they do it. i think when we talk about, of course nobody wants to be sending troops of around the world willy-nilly, but if you look a little bit at recent history, it is quite remarkable how often we do in fact do that. to make a quick look through recent history, we intervened in grenada, panama, iraq, somalia, haiti, bosnia, kosovo,

afghanistan and iraq. so we have now gone a record number of years without an additional intervention. it probably has something to do with the number of troops we have. and i recall, after each one of those interventions, there was a great cry, we will not do that again. this is abnormal. only people with a wonderful memory can think that intervening every two years over 20 years is now all of a sudden an abnormal activity and we will go back to not doing that anymore. that may be true, but i would say if you were looking from a distance at the united states, you would look at that record and say, i am not so sure they will never intervene again. so i would be careful about assuming that is what the american people want. and i would especially say that

given that there are some obvious, possible contingencies looming ahead of us, which are by no means far-fetched and which mike mentioned one. any of which that we might wind up doing. north korea is one. iran is another, even if the president, as i assume he does not get into a military confrontation, iran may suck us into a military confrontation. the consequence of sanctions may be that iran may lash out and do something, or israel may do something that drives us into it, whether we want to be in it or not. this is what our military planners have spent years of worrying about of two of those things happening at the same time. is not a question of whether we could do one or the other. the question has always been, would you do one if you knew the

other might have been and he would be completely incapable of dealing with it? that is why we had a two, or tried to have that two major contingency force. might we have to do something in somalia or yemen, or place i have not thought of yet? that would also be true. i think we need to be cautious before saying, we will take a vacation from that stuff. neither our history or the international conditions suggest that is a good bet right now. that addresses the question of the size of ground forces. because we fought two wars badly because we "a" did not have, and did not want to put enough forces into iraq or afghanistan that might have actually brought those conflicts to a quicker resolution and then less- expensive in the long run. this is another one of those

cases where you say, you might want a larger force but that will be cheaper than a war that drags on inconclusively for five years. you might want to pursue the powell doctrine and send in enough forces to cauterize the situation. that might be cheaper. on the prospects of a coalition helping us, so we do not need as large a force. if anything our traditional coalition partners are decreasing their own military capacity. europe is becoming a shadow of what it once was and what it once was was a shadow. going tooion that we are have significant support. maybe, eventually, we can hope that india will pick up some of the slack in east asia. japan has a large force.

if they are willing to use it, is often a question. ok. the second, and fortuon force aa characteristic is we are back to great power competition. and the most significant competition is china. it is a cliche to say that china is the rising power, but it is a rising military power. it is not going away of new, peaceful development. it is challenging not only our own position in east asia but the independent capacities of allies of ours. i would say that avoiding a conflict with china -- and if you look through history, the odds of a conflict are higher than the odds of not having a conflict in this situation.

the number of times that rising powers have entered into the existing international system without a war are few and far between. and the way to avoid this war is going to require, and we are not going to be able to get away from this, some kind of arms race with china. china is going to keep building and improving its capabilities, and they will accelerate that, in my view. we will be very lucky if they do not. and we are going to have to keep up. if you look at the administration's own approach to east asia it is all about reassuring allies that we are there. you cannot reassure allies you are there if your own capacity is dwindling. i know mike is not calling for a reduction in our forces in east asia, but i think the one thing that is missing from the paper is the realization that those expenditures will have to increase because we are in an arms race out there. that is something that i think will make it difficult for us.

at the broadest level, the question we have to ask ourselves is, what does the liberal world order that we support cost? how much is it worth to us? i would argue that the great, almost miraculously prosperity of the 40 years after the end of world war ii and on was a very much a product of the liberal world order that american power was preeminent in supporting. if we are talking about a reduction of america's capacity to support that liberal world order, and by the way, that may be inevitable in a matter what we do, it would be hastened by are weakening, by our ceding power to countries like china but maybe russia. there will be a cost, and possibly a direct financial cost

to our inability to make sure that the lines of communication are always open. that is one of the great public goods that we provide and benefit from. so that it seems to me also has to be brought into the calculation. you know, it is extremely unfortunate that we happen to have an economic crisis at a time when the international scene is getting more crisis prone. that is a bad break. it is the kind of bad break we had in the 1930's when we had, at the same time, and even related by the way, a great depression and an increasingly perilous international situation. things are not as dire now as they were in the 1930's but, yes, you can have a double bed by over the decade. that is where we are. -- a double bad biorhythm

over a decade and that is wehre we are. the biggest mistake that we could make is to weaken ourselves in the process. saving $60 billion per year so that the defense budget can make its fair share of the sacrifice is too risky and not necessary. we do have to solve our budget crisis, but we would be taking grave risks if we try to solve the by cutting the defense budget. >> ok. good. at least we have a debate. thank you. like to respond to bob and abbas. lice. if they are -- if there are savings to be made, they need to be done in terms of achieving more efficiencies. another context

in which we are already spending way beyond defense expenditures of other countries combined. we account for 45% of the world military expenditure. is bob right that this is too risky? and where we define the efficiencies? >> i am not saying only efficiencies. i said the opposite of that. i think efficiencies are very important. if you are going to discuss the defense budget as much as mike is proposing you do need to think about the force structure, and we should. >> let me start with bob and see what i can say in response. frankly, i agree with everything except his last three sentences. and so i think that's part of why, as i say in the paper, i would only support the cuts

here, i would only consider supporting the cuts i lay out if it is part of a serious national effort of deficit reduction across the board, because my goal really is, even though we see the risk differently, my goal is to shore up long-term national power. if there is no chance of accomplishing that, then i would agree with bob that the $50 billion you might be able to cut from the defense budget is not worth the risk. again, i want to emphatically state that while i do think there is waste, you have to cut muscle not fat in order to get this level of reduction, and you have to take real risks. i would emphatically make that argument. i would support serious consideration of this kind of a plan in the context of other major changes to our federal budget, such as income tax reform that brings in greater net revenue, whether it is higher rates or preferably smaller and fewer loopholes, such as reform to social security that for most workers increases the age and delores

the adjustment rate of cost of living-- and lowers the adjustment rate of the cost of living. i was struck a few weeks ago giving a talk at the university of las vegas, and i asked the students in the room how many of them expected to get social security when they retired, and three of them raised their hand. the notion that we should consider social security as a sacred cow, that does not hold water. the younger generation is already recognized the dilemma. they recognize the need for reform. but that kind of spirit of shared sacrifice will only be established if we ask a -- every major part of the budget to contribute. at the end of the day, i fundamentally disagree with bob. i do not think you can make major progress on deficit reduction unless everybody has to do something. while i always like to ellis for

guidance on fiscal matters, i do think that we need to up the spirit of sacrifice. and the national security area, they are risky. instant loans, they might be less generous. and so what it down the road -- they might loans, be less generous. let me just talk briefly about iran, because i take this country and this problem very seriously, just like bob and martin does, and i am sure most of you do as well. what i would say is the following. i tried to test various scenarios against the 15% smaller ground force. and most of, all the scenarios i can think of, that 15% reduction is not crucial for affecting our basic capability. if we do airstrikes against iran's nuclear facility, which i

do not support but i recognize are not out of that, question certainly, the size of our ground force will not be relevant. if we do e a naval blockade, to prevent them from shipping out oil or importing gasoline, then the size of our navy is much more important. i am generally in support of protecting those of the naval force structure, not every single element, but 90%. i am not looking to make major cuts, partly because i take this scenario seriously. if we are looking to deal with the possibility, however unlikely, of an iranian escalation up to and including an attack on an american city by iranian-trained terrorists that requires us in response to at least raise the specter of an invasion to overthrow the iranian regime, and i am talking pretty unlikely scenarios but

ones that i would agree with hawks need to be kept in mind, we have the capability to overthrow the iranian regime. we do not have the capability to occupy their country, but we do not have that even with today's army and marine corps. we would have to have an army that would probably be twice their current size to do an occupation of iran with a 75 million population correctly over period of years. when i test my smaller force structure against these scenarios, i would argue that either we are still going to have enough or there is no different from what we have today. and i would accept implicitly one of the things i believe bob is arguing. but i would except that you do have to do these kinds of tests. you do have to think hard. and i'm happy to do this in regard to china and i want if people want to have that conversation in the next 45 minutes. i think you need to ask, do we have a strong deterrent for

these scenarios that matter? recognizing that you have to stretch your imagination because there may be a scenario you have not thought of that winds up being important. that is one more challenge. >> the bowles-simpson recommendations -- alice was involved -- suggested there was $100 billion in possible defense cuts. the big ticket items that they identified, the biggest of all was to reduce procurement by 15%. that would produce a $20 billion annual savings. i do not know whether you have looked at that and what that would mean as opposed to the kinds of more surgical strikes at the chairman you are talking

about reduce overseas bases by 1/3, $8.50 billion. bob, you might also address the question of whether we really need all of those force deployments in europe. i could see the argument for korea and japan given exactly what he said, but can we save significant money by drawing driving europe wihtouthout up risk to hide? then there was $9.2 billion in freezing combat military pay at 2011 levels for three years, non-combat military paper. y. let's look at those three specific issues -- reducing overseas bases, cutting procurements in a more draconian way, and freezing noncombat

military pay. alice, would you like to elaborate? >> those were illustrations. both the bowles-simpson group and the other group that i cochaired with the senator demanded she recommended freezes in defense spending is at a hard dollar level. then put together a list of things that illustrated how he might get there. in both cases, the illustrations -- in domenici, there were more heavy on force structure. they included a lot of the same things. in some of the non-military things like retirement and non- combat pay, and particularly the

health system and tricare, but the acquisition, i think, i do not know where 15% came from, but in the bowles-simpson commission there was a lot of focus on waste in the procurement process. political interference and weapons systems that the military has said time and time again they do not want and congress puts back because they're made in everybody's congressional district. and so that is how the acquisition number came in there. >> we will come back to the politics of this in the third round, because that becomes important. >> i'll mention a couple. one is there is one method --

methodological difference occur. if you are talking about established bases in a major allied countries, that is incorrect. the only place where you can save that kind of money to overseas base cuts is in the war zones because we do not have allies who are paying the lion's share of our local costs. in germany and japan and britain we do. . or we are so established that the facilities are not that much more expensive than what we have at home. the way you get the savings is if you cut those forces out of the force structure. if the army troops that are brought home from germany are brought home and demobilize, then you can save that kind of money. the presence we have in germany, britain, japan, korea, you do not have those kinds of costs associated above and beyond what it would cost to have the same

units in the force structure here in the united states. 10% versus a 50% -- versus 15% reduction, i believe that is within the realm of debate. it is worth remembering that 10% will be pretty hard. i do not disagree at all with alice. once in awhile, congress has thought of good weapons systems that the military may have made a mistake about. let's remember, the military ultimately is the secretary of defense, and that person is infallible,. it there have been other -- there have been other secretaries of defense that did not want to buy things. lo and behold the medium weight truck that he wanted bill performed very well in operation desert storm and provided the capability we needed.

most discussions of all right waste in the defense budget are overstated. i do not want to say 15% reduction in per term it is impossible, but i think 10% is already very hard. my paper does consider asking military personnel to pay a little more what you might call normal share of health-insurance costs, because the tricare program is a generous and for good reason. we want to take care of our men and women in uniform and their families. this proposal makes an exception for combat pay and makes no reductions in health care costs for those who are hurt, but nonetheless, i think if we are going to ask military personnel to pay a higher share of their health-insurance costs, i would prefer to continue to give them at least a rate of inflation increase in their pay or better. >> bob, do you want to talk about base closings abroad?

>> mike made the key point. having troops overseas or having them at home is not a big savings one way or the other. you know, i was not privy to how all these things came about, but i thought the commission said two things. one was that the united states has to rethink its role. i think the discussion of cutting bases by 1divided bythere was more about that than about savings -- cutting basese was more about that than about savings. we are getting a little tangled in this debate. i think that it might be, not here, but maybe that is the debate we should be having. i start with a set of assumptions about the wall we have in the world. there is another way of looking at the united states -- i start with a set of assumptions about the role we have in the world.

you're talking about a substantial retraction of our role. if we all agree on our role, there is not enough savings in the defense budget to spend a lot of time on it. it is not that we cannot find it weapons program that is stupid. many are wasteful. increase, ability is and now they are creating ships that can go 1500 nautical miles, and will cause all kinds of problems for us to operate in that space. it will require innovation and duplications, and you know better than i do what it may require, but it may require not that we shrink our naval capacities but that we increase

our naval capacity. we will find areas where we need to increase capability. >> do you want to respond? >> it's a fair point. i will say one small thing in reply, but i will not commit rebutts this concern. we are spending $9 billion each year on missile defense, which is 50% more than ronald reagan spent. even with the reductions that the obama administration has carried out, some of the concerns that have been raised have already been internalized and the way we are thinking about defense resource allocation. do you think it will be adequate? no. i think offensive missiles have an innate advantage over defense missiles. therefore, once the reductions are made that i am laying out, i think we are going to need to go on a path of being able to increase defense funding, not to

immediately on to the reductions but to allow for sustained, long-term, modest growth. that would be one more part of my plan that i think is important. >> i think the scariest thing that bob has said is that we will inevitably get into a long run arms race with china. i think we'd better think how not to have they long run arms race with china, because we are not talking about the soviet union. we are talking about a country that is very likely going to be much stronger in the future economically and we are, and it has a lot more people, and if we get into a full scale arms race with the chinese, it does not end the way the soviet one did it come up with us bankrupting them because they could not afford it. i'm afraid it and thends that we lose. bankrupting us. >> let's talk about the politics

before we go to the audience for questions. we have probably witnessed today's a surprising act of bipartisanship in terms of senate ratifying by more than 2/3 vote the new start treaty. indeed, when one looks at national-security issues, there seems to be a surprising degree of bipartisanship when you compare it with the extreme partisanship involved on domestic issues. so would there be political support for the kinds of reductions that mike is talking about. ? >> it's a good question. certainly one hears a lot out there about the need to put the

defense budget out there, and that has been the plight of some of the new republican voices. on the other hand, there is probably a bipartisan consensus and not to do that. and probably an agreement between the administration and the majorities in congress and not to do that. and so will be interesting to see how that plays. it is worth noting that that incredible, wild man and profligate disefense spender bob gates, when asked about the cuts proposed of 10% said, it would be catastrophic. that is the word used. as long as you have a secretary of defense taking that position and you still have the group that passed -- you could say that the coalition that passed start is what i would call a kind of center-right caucus coalition, because you had to put forward missile defense, and

modernization, which is another question we did not factor in. i think you are not going to have a coalition in congress that will substantially cut the defense budget. >> alice? >> i'm not so sure. i think we will not know for a while how much the conversation has changed as a result of the fixation now, right fixation i think, on the dangers of looming debt. s-at i heard in the bowle simpson coalition was the bipartisanship that defense has to be part of cutting the budget. when you have a strong conservative like tom coburn and mike crapo and others joining with dick durbin to sign on to a

proposal that you just read some have aelementals of, you new kind of conversation. >> democrats have to appear tough on defense in political season. is it conceivable that you have republicans who go along with your kind of proposal? >> a lot would say is, because i think alice and bob framed it well, the specifics matter. you need to ask, if defense is part of the plan is to do something like i have tried to outline, are those risks acceptable? are the ones we should be willing to run or not? another example would be, can we keep the national security industrial base, the defense sector, healthy with a 10% at smaller budget? people have to wrestle with those issues and see the implications of these kinds of

alternative plans. if they feel comfortable with them, then i think it is possible. maybe this is a naive thought, but i think the substance matters. people have to digest a bit of the detail, not at the nitty gritty defense planning level but at a strategic level of what the implications are. that is why am glad we're having the opportunity to discuss this today. >> the triumph of rationalism. let's go to your questions, please. please wait for the microphone. identify yourself, and make sure there is a question mark at the end of your sentence. yes? >> thank you. hi. i appreciated mr. kagan's reference to the character of the american people as regards this issue, but i think it was not a corporate to say that that was contradicted by all of the many interventions, none of which i have forgotten, but none

of those were preceded by any kind of consensus in their favor. yes, the american people always support the troops in harm's way and they want to see them succeed, but also, in many cases, we were misled. we were misled by the gulf of tonkin, buy weapons of mass destruction. i think there is more support for a less interventionist, less occupation-invasion-oriented foreign policy than we are living on here. in general, i think a lot of the top of the suppose a third rail about social security, entitlements, and defense spending is more politicians expressing their addiction to conducting, being conductors of the gravy train than any real on willingness of the american people to actually face these budgetary and national-security reality's peies. is our foreign policy not is of

one of the greater threat to our national security? >> thank you. [laughter] question. sure of the >> i think it's a good question. it is, in part, the history of those often-failed interventions, or ones that began with an assumption that did not turn out to be right that i think is giving people pause about whether we need to keep on doing it. >> well, i mean, we could enter into theories of psychoanalysis of the american people, if you want to, and how they are constantly being misled into wars. that does not change my theory about how democracy works in this country or any other country. you would still left to say that, if that is the case, the

american people are endlessly capable of being misled by whatever evil forces are constantly misleading them, because there is no indication that they have after each successive misleading -- which you should include world war ii, which was also a conspiracy by fdr to get us into a war, and all the other wars in american history which were all conspiracies, that never the less we keep being fooled. the reality is, this is what america does. i could imagine that america gets tired and does not want to do it. but it is precisely, to fight against this tendency to believe that this is not really to we are, and therefore, we should not prepare for the contingencies that we have been engaged in in the past. i am afraid, for better or worse, this really is who we are, and we need to recognize that, just as we need to recognize that americans want all the things they want and do

not want to pay for them. these are all elements of what it is to be an american. i do not think we should kid ourselves that right now, over here in the corner. >> picking up on what alice rivlin said about the strength of rising china, i have a question for bob kagan. the you think that given the fact both america and china out what to pervert -- want to preserve the oceans for trade and so forth and the fact that we both have islamic terrorism problems -- china has a moslem uprisings ever so often -- is

there a possibility that we could be cooperating together on these world-wide problems? >> yes. there is a possibility. i hope that can turn help to be the case. what is interesting is if you take a shot -- what is interesting is china's perception of these things. i do not know how much commonality we have, but setting that aside, on the issue of the commons and how they are going to be protected and who will protect them, the chinese no longer want the united states to be operating in waterways they consider to be close to their territory. this happened over the past year. we have to decide, unfortunately, whether we want to continue to insist on the right of passage to these international waters as

secretary clinton said, or if we want to say to the chinese that they can take this over. that would have implications for japan, southeast asia, etc. that is why contrary to many expectations all of these countries have been coming to the united states as china asserts these rights. china may, i think, being confronted successfully by the united states and its allies, decide to back off and move towards the cooperation you are talking about. from a historical perspective, if you look at the history, the odds are against that. it is not because i am looking for to this competition, it is just because of the odds are they will continue to demand that right and increase their capabilities so the next time they demand it, hillary clinton

can go to hanoi and say, "no." i would love to avoid it, but we have to take the up possibility seriously that we may not be able to avoid it because the chinese themselves do not want to avoid it. >> i like the last two questions as well as alice's answer. i was in japan last week. the japanese are talking about their concerns about china's rise. the japanese, as you know, have reallocated their defense resources more towards their southern islands. i talked to a lot of people in japan and ask them how they felt about their long-term relationship with china. there was not a lot of optimism.

there was also not a lot of mention of war. i am not interested in debating a 30% cut. i think 10% is in the realm of law will allow us to keep a robust presence in the pacific. perhaps we can reallocate fewer forces to the atlantic. we probably have a larger presence in the mediterranean and the atlantic then we showed. we already been doing that. maybe we should do more. all would agree enough with bob to say that 10% is the vast amount -- is the maximum under the structure. >> i would like to quote the indian national security adviser. "it should not be beyond the

bounds of statecraft for us to manage the rise of these potential great powers of." >> i am en and turn. -- i am and intern. i am from germany. if you look at it, it is the same for the cost to run an army base in germany as it does in the united states. i do not understand why it is much more different? >> you raise an important

concern. we have some americans who want to bring the forces back home, partly because they want the economic stimulus associated with the base code to the american crop economy -- go to the american economy rather than the german economy. there is a broader economic argument that they could stimulate our own economy. there is also the argument to try to consolidate more bases in one, two, or three places. that will allow army families to stay put for a longer time. the typical army life that we are familiar with from history is not as conducive to a spouse holding a job and keeping it for a long time. there are other reasons why

secretary runs fell is looking to consolidate more forces -- secretary rumsfeld was looking to consolidate more forces. japan helps us a great deal. what modest differences there are are partially mitigated by host-nation support. this is not a big deal for an established facility in a major industrial country. >> i wanted to get you to react to something that is a little more short-term. congress has just passed the funding to 2010 levels until march 4. this affects the pentagon's budget. does it affect national security?

specifically to ms. rivlin, republicans are talking about knocking $100 billion out of non security spending this year. does that make sense from an economic point of view? does it threaten the recovery? what is your take on this energy? thank you. >> it is a terrible idea if it only goes to march 4. we should have had all of the budget, not just the defense association long before now. government by continuing resolution is that for everything. i have not examined the $100 billion that you referred to and what they are talking about. i cannot really give you an answer to that. it depends on what baseline you are talking about. >> the state with the question

of the incoming progress -- incoming congress. the incoming crowd seems to have gotten elected on the basis of cutting the budget. does that apply -- i do not know which of you has the desire -- to apply it to the defense budget or does the defense budget sacrifice? >> some do and some don't. during the campaign, what we heard most of the tea party candidates, some of whom were elected, is that we have to get this deficit down. we have to protect medicare, social security, the defense budget, and we cannot raise taxes. i do not know what they are talking about. you cannot get there from here. [laughter] but mckeon has been very clear that they are not going to get

savings out of the defense budget. he is not talking that way at all. i honestly doubt -- probably because some of the incoming budget cutter's positions are incoherent. i really do not expect in this coming year -- and the argument that mckean is very powerful at the moment. we have two wars going on, he will say. there is the simplicity that they will not listen to any of the specifics we have been driving down on. when you have a defense secretary from the opposite party who does not want to cut any more -- >> the question is not where the new members stand. they have to figure that out.

it is the shift in the senior republican leadership that would change the conversation in the next year or two. >> please stand up. >> i am a washington lawyer. we have heard two risk describe -- military risk, which are very dramatic. alice rivlin told us about the economic risk. i wish alice would expand on what that risk is. how do you balance these risks? >> the economic risk, i think, is very serious. we are no longer talking about downturns, recessions, market

disruption. we are talking about potential economic trajectory. come in the could form of a sovereign debt crisis to use the term be used in europe. that has always been thought to be unthinkable. i think we have gotten to the point that unless we change course it could mean a serious a meltdown in the economy. when might that happen? nobody knows. it is happening in europe faster. it is happening to the u.k. faster than they thought. they decided to do something really serious. i am afraid they are going to overreact. we are bigger.

we are able to borrow in our own currency. we have to face the fact that we are not immune. >> china owns a lot of our debt. are we vulnerable in that sense? >> china bought our debt for good reasons. they saw it as a good risk. we are buying their stuff. the question is, how long can this go on? they have to realize that this is unsustainable. they do not have to adopt our debt to make really big problems for us. that creates very serious problems. maybe not total market meltdown.

they do not want us to go down. it is not in their interest to have a catastrophe in the u.s. economy? -- it is not in their kind -- it is not in their interest to have a catastrophe in the u.s. economy. >> alice talks about our serious economic risk. i am take this very seriously. i think it is worth remembering -- and this is not to disagree with her in any way -- our problems are fixable. i try to mention some of the strength in the paper. we still need -- we still do more research and development than anyone else in the world. we had the best universities in the world by any assessment system than any other part of the world. we have great innovations in areas like aerospace and computers.

if we make a course adjustment that is significant but not radical, we can preserve a lot of the strengths and stay powerful. it is the underlying bullishness. >> i totally agree with that. >> i do not in any way question the nature of the risk that alice is talking about. i take them very seriously. my question is, do we want to compel that risk by reducing the military budget by $50 million? i would urge that we think about, even if you just want to talk about dollars, whether the underprepared this in military terms could wind up being more expensive for us. the problem with the defense budget and thinking about his

military risk is we are the captive and potential victim of forces that are beyond our control. we can decide what we want to do about social security act and it is a finite situation. but people can do things out there in the world that we have no control over. we have to prepare for that risk because it could be more expensive. those of you to remember 1948 to 1950, we had an $18 billion defense budget. everybody was madly looking around for a way to cut this thing. some were saying we needed to have a $50 billion budget. north korea invaded south korea, we are at war, the next thing you know we have a $50 billion defense budget. these can wind up driving up

costs and we would be better off paying for them. >> we would be better off with a stronger economy. >> i strongly agree with you. i would say to cut social security entitlements before we cut the defense budget. that is what i would say, but what do i know? >> has -- the economic downturn of fax political power. do we have to turn to a stronger military power in order to maintain our global influence? how does the adjustment of the u.s. military affect the rest of the world? >> i like the way you talk about this, but i am happy to do it if you do not want to. [laughter] 1 dynamic i like and what i have seen in the international system, is it is clear we are still the most powerful country

on earth. we see it now in east in asia where countries are coming to us and asking for help. sometimes we get a snack in the united states for being the country that was to assert ourselves. the bush administration was tarred with this. there are some countries who want us to stay engaged. in our power ensues across the world, it makes them a little bit more nervous that we will go away. they get more enthusiastic about lobbying for our association. we see that also in the broader middle east. there is a dynamic that is very interesting where we have to be sought after by other countries a little bit more. frankly, in some ways it is beneficial to our interest to be the superpower that leads the coalition that wants us to be there instead of always having

to diagnose and address the problem ourselves. >> thank you. it was a very stimulating and thought-provoking conversation. it is first of many we will have on this subject. you have all made a great contribution to it. thank you very much for coming. [applause] >> coming up next, a discussion on alzheimer's treatment and research. then the atlantic council gives the 2010 review of events in southeast asia. later, a look at regulating the whole mortgage market. as we look live at the u.s. capitol, with the 111th congress gavelled out yesterday.

several legislative items were sent to the president's desk. one of them is the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell". the extension of tax cuts and unemployment benefits, the start treaty, and a bill providing over $4 billion for 9/11 1st reboundsponder health care. the 112th congress gavels in on january 5. there will be several new members in the next congress, among them a connecticut democrat, richard blum and faen. another new lawmaker is a indiana republican, dan coats. he beat democrat brad ellsworth to succeed retiring democratic

senator evan by. a discussion on alzheimer's treatment and research from today's "washington journal". this is about 45 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] journal" continues. host: we are joined by the president and ceo of the alzheimer's research group. how much of the government contribute each year to funding for research? not nearly enough. a small portion of the money is used for research over all. there's a growing population of individuals with alzheimer's disease. it is estimated at 5.1 million americans with alzheimer's disease. that's about one alison of aid over the age of 65. out of 8 over the

age of 65. what we are looking at is an incredible group of individuals impacted by this disease. simply at this moment, not enough money being invested in research for the cure. above all of that is also to an investment in infrastructure that is required to support caregivers and to provide care for individuals with alzheimer's disease. host: according to the national institutes of health, alzheimer's research, government funding is estimated at $480 million for 2011. the figures have been dropping since 2006. why is that? guest: i am really not sure. there is enormous amount of sensitivity in washington. every single elected official? i have spoken whisper -- wiht

recognize --everyone i have spoken with amrecognizes this problem. thisease is front and center and we are focusing all of our federal agencies to look at how they could coordinate their service is better. additionally, start to take a serious look at what is required to be this disease, what is required as an infrastructure of care until we end up with silver bullet. it comes down to finances and coordination. host: when have we learned in the last 20 years of research? guest: i think we have learned a lot. there's an enormous amount of hope. the hope is in the hearts and hands of researchers all over the world. i've had the opportunity to meet

many of them in my travels. they are incredibly compassionate and determined to make a difference. there is an enormous amount of expertise. probably the greatest minds on the plan is working on research for the cure for alzheimer's disease. the problem is we are not sure what the cause of the disease is. in the absence of knowing exactly what causes alzheimer's disease, we are really not able to come up with a cure. in the meantime what is left is the burden of regiving for the population we have. mostly it is being picked up not by federal dollars to as much as family members providing the care day in and day out for love once. host: we have set aside the fourth line for those affected by alzheimer's disease. if you are care giver or family member. we want to hear your point of view as well. according to the alzheimer's foundation of america, the

national cost of caring for individuals with alzheimer's is estimated at $100 billion annually. alzheimer's disease costs u.s. businesses $60 billion a year. stemming from lost productivity and senteeism by primary care givers and insurance costs. the annual cost of caring for one individual with alzheimer's ranges from nearly $18,500 -- again, how many people are estimated to havelzheimer's currently? guest: about 5.1 million americans right now. with the ratio being one in 8

over the age of 65, this disease has no place to go but to grow. simply because we are not in a position where at the moment w have a cure. but i think the other piece to the numbers that you just mentioned, peter, is what is not included is the evaluation of what the cost would be around caregivers' actually providing care. if we were to pay them a fair wage for their activities, what would that increase be? it is estimated there is about 11 million caregers for this population of alzheimer's disease. if you were to do the aisle worst, i have heard members as great as $50 billion being added to that number. -- if u were to do the hours. that is being a sore spot families. host: can you make the -- that is being

absorbed by families, the cost. there was talk of aluminum been the cause of alzheimer's disease. there was a statement made three or four years ago. the problem is that at the foundation we ended up with a lot of phone calls from family members, mostly women, who believed they had given their husbands alzheimer's disease because they used to cook in aluminum pots and pans. there was enormous confusion about the statement that was being made. at the momen aluminum has every other possible component and element and is being looked at as a possible cause for the disease. but there's no definite research that is the cause of alzheimer's disease. host: where does it come from?

guest: the name comes from the founder, who was able to determine its 50 years ago in one of his patients that was coming to them and he was able to capture what were some of the manifestations of the disease. it is attributed to the doctor in this regard. the whope is that as we are learning more -- and folks need to know there is an aggressive move to try to determine what the cause is -- ther's no doubt that over 100 years there's been an aggressive move to use every fac of our knowledge and experience to come to a determination. i believe what we are probably looking at in the next 15 or 20 years is a combination of

treatments that will offset the progression of the symptoms so that we will die of some other natural cause. it is the situation the aids virus presently enjoys. individuals with hiv can live a long time given the treatments readily available. our hope is alzheimer's disease may have that. simply because i don't know if a silver bullet will be found. what our experienc is, is doctors are sayi it might be a combination of different activities, different situations and scenarios. a perfect storm that accursed in the human body that brings about alzheimer's disease. for the last 100 years to now, we are in a situation of trying to find out exactly what is the cause. host: richard is calling from north carolina. go ahead. caller: hi, i want to find out

if they are going to do more research on alzheimer's. i had two sisters that passed away with alzheimer' guest: sure, absolutely. the federal government is looking at this now. i do know from testimony that i recently gave before congress that everyone is sensitive to it and realizes the irritants. the fountion has been asking for an increase in the fiscal year 2010 national institutes of health budget to increase its to 1.4 billion, and to be allocated specifically to the national institutes of aging. the reality of chronic diseases, especially alzheimer's disease,

really need to be head-on because it is an investment that will pay off in the long run. the alzheimer's foundation of america has a very bold attitude in this regard. the private sector is also engaged. a lot of major pharmaceutical companies all over the world are invested as well in trying to determine by research what exactly is the cause. not just with coming up with a cure, but more effective treatments as well. some of us know that there are some treatments available that seemed to slow or offset the progression of some of the symptoms of this disease. regrettably, as with everything, the disease ultimately wins. we hoped that overtime and the more we lea and are able to implement our knowledge, that we will be in the position to hold off the disease and the progression of the symptoms of disease so they will die of some

other natural causes or that their role be a cure. host: the next call is from denver. go ahead, john. caller: good morning. i witnessed my grandmother being the valedictorian and then went then nothenwh -- knowing who i wsa. was. is there a connection with mad cow disease? guest: i have also been impacted with alzheimer's in my family. my mother, two years ago, a relaxed lunch, she had terminal cancer as well as dementia -- in her last month. the incident you mentioned about

your loved one being the valedictorian, being someone of cognitive capacity and intelligence, it is the very traumatic experience. i feel your pain and i have experienced it personally. it is the one thing we have in common, as a nation, many of us have been impacted personally by this disease or we know someone impacted. this is really the time for all of us as a country to start a unifying our voices behind this disease and really pressing congress to do more. the national alzheimer's project act is a good for step. it talks about putting together a national plan and putting together funding and putting alzheimer's disease front and center. it is really going to take our collective voice to get this done. as a nation we will have to make sure they understand how important this is to us and that we want the pain and suffering to stop. that is something tha we, as a

nation, uniting our voices, can do. your question about mad cow disease and the relation to alzheimer's disease has been looked at and continues to be looked at. regrettably, if it was that simplistic, i am sure we would have comup with an understanding of that by now. host: burleson, texas, andrew. caller: good morning. i have a question. you partially answered it. could you elaborate a little bit more on the dementia part of alzheimer's. how does thaconnect? my mother is in the early stages and is living with my sister. her basic thing is she wants to live at home. she has been diagnosed with mild

dementia. i was looking at a program the night when they passed a bill that was supposed to allocate more money for people to start living and palt home. guest: dementia is an umbrella rm. it speaks more to a specific medical state of experiments in one's brain. that impediment we commonly recognized as forgetfulness and the like. dementia is an umbrella term. 60% of all diagnosed cases of dementia is alzheimer's disease. there's also a huntington's disease and louis [unintelligible] all of those involved and

deprivation in the brain. my recommendation is to try to determine by either the approve the position that you are presently seeing or maybe by way of of royal to someone more specialized in dementia, you want to find out exactly what type of dementia we are talking about. treatments will veary accordinto what type of dementia. you want to truly capture an accurate diagnosis because treatment will make the difference. its based on the diagnosis. host: diagnosing alzheimer's thoroughly, is it possible that there are some treatments now for early diagnosis, and is a hereditary? guest: diagnosis of alzheimer's disease right now is probably up percentile that they

are able to diagnose. the most common thing is memory problems. it's the one thing that if you ask someone on the street what alzheimer's is, they say forgetfulness. the alzheimer's foundation of america fully believes there is the opportunity of capturing early diagnosis and that we as a nation needs to speak about that and get educated on wt are some of the cognitive difficulties, what are some of the issues that we might be experiencing, so that we can hold an intelligent conversation with our doctors. many of us have n been talked about how to discuss some of our cognitive issues. if we were having memory problems, how do we communicate that with our doctor? we all have ideas of what causes diabetes.

we all understand hypertension. those types of common knowledge that we have as a nation is the cause of national campaigns. the alzheimer's foundation of america has established national memory screening day seven years ago. that was not talking about alzheimer's disease specifically, but rather stepping back far enough to look broadly at the most common manifestations, that being memory problems. the benefits of that ishat we found tens of thousands of people participated on national memory screening day and went to see a health care professionals to have their screening done. and to deterne whether they have memory problems. then the ability for that individual with education, then they were able to go back and talko their doctor and find out what was the cause of some of their memory problems. what folks need to know is not all memory problems mean you have alzheimer's disease. there are a lot of common causes

of memory problems that are irreversible. vitamin d deficiency, stressed, combination of prescription drugs your doctor has prescribed for other health issues you have. a combination of some of these treatments can cause side effects of memory problems. it comes down to an enormous amount of education and stepping forward and talking to your doctor. the alzheimer's foundation website has lots of information did educate you on how to talk to your doctor. there are treatments right now available early and mid-stage alzheimer's disease that are able to offset the progression of the disease. are they as effective as we want them to be? solutely not. all of us watching right now, when we are sick, we go to the doct and tell them what the issue is and they give us a pill and generally we get better. the commonality of this disease

is it does not presently enjoy that modof operation. what we have is what have. the most precious thing around alzheimer's disease right now in absence of a cure comes down to quality of life. how long can we sustain the highest quality of life for the longest amount of time. that's the goal and objective. i have not met one person in my travels whose, to me and not said they did not want one more presses de with their mother or father or loved one. that is the goal. -- that they did not want one more precious day. host: amarillo, texas, margaret's. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: my husband had alzheimer's. he was 6 most of the time. he was 59 and died when he was

69. -- he was sick most of the time. i kept him at home seven years and finally had to put him in an alzheimer's unit. my husband had been an electrician. we had a business. when this happened, when i had to put him in the alzheimer's ward, we had to sell everything we had for the money. it was awful. i am 78 years oldnd now and i have nothing but my social security check. people are how poor going to survive like this. we worked so hard and my husband worked so hard all of his life. [crying]

thank you. guest: i am very sensitive to your issue, margaret. you represent the many heroes in our country who have stepped up and provided care, not just financial. we could probably talk aut the emotional and psychological and the physical toils that came with being a caregiver for your husband. i have no doubt about that. i know people are listening right now and watching and they feel where you are coming from and understand right now what you have, your social security checks, everything other than that had to be sold to provide care. that's a common issued for loved ones. for people without long-term care insurance, it becomes a difficulty. and not all long-term care insurance covers alzheimer's disee scare.

we need to be sensitive about that. the problem right now is medicare does not afford a benefit for the diagnosis of alzheimer's disease. unless there is some other co- issue that exists that allows you to get mental care and have that scare reimbursed, it comes out of pocket. so it is absolutely difficulty. i know that you cse the facility that you chose and you spend what you spent because you knew that it was in absolute best interest of your husband and it was your love for your has been that made you do that. i know that passion is still there. i know that you would not change anything in that regard because you know that it was love for him that you did that. that is being replicated all over the country. people are going through an enormous fight because of the true love that they have for their loved ones. you are one of the heroes of our country.

there's no doubt. i am glad you took the time treblinka up because i know there are the people listening and watching who have the same experience and feel they are isolated and alone. -- i am glad you took the time to call us up. we don't have the resources to care for this issue across the country, but we can make sure you are not alone and make sure you are appreciated and supported as much as we are able to support. host: i want to have you go back to the medicare and medicaid role when it comes to alzheimer's. guest: regrettably right now medicaid is state-by-state. it allows t opportunity for different states to allocate what they will or will not cover in relion to alzheimer's disease. medicare right now, the one thing we were able to do in the

new health care reform law is we were able to put into law the question of cognitive impairment in new annual medicare exam. it was a big step because medicare does not he a benefit for alzheimer's disease at the moment. by putting in cognitive impairment in to the annual wellness' example, that raised the bar. medicare will be able to focus on some of the cognitive issues as a result, which ultimately alzheimer's will be part of that. is it enough? no, more needs to beone. we are doing the bt we can at the foundation to make sure that we are pushing the argument, that we are trying to get as much done as possible. maybe oneay there will be a benefit for alzheimer's disease.

that would help so many caregiver is providing care out of their own pockets. host the next call is from lancaster, pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: are you saying the diagnosis of alzheimer's is imated by any other cause? can it not to be seen on an mri or cat scans? my father is slipped into dementia couple yes ago. buildup ofs show the plaque and tangles in the grain. that ise's a pet scabn more specific in this regard and is helpful. there's a need to eliminate possible other causeto make sure what we are talking about is alzheimer's. years after my

fatheras admitted to nursing care facility, the geriatrics physician attending him gives me the explanation still that your dad has a mixed bag dementia. me this is not acceptable. in doing research, i have run across a complication called hydrocephalus. it spoke about the misdiagnoses of patience that actually have hydrocephalus which is treatable and reversible, but the family is being sold your loved one has alzheimer's and and there's a vested interest in the geriatric position who works for the facility because it costs $5,000 a month to keep him there. i find the lack of fairness from a well-known -- host: all right, we gothe

point. eric hall. guest: i would follow your hunch, finding an opinion, talk to another doctor in the field, and have them come up with the diagnosis as well. the education you have bases some concerns and issues and you should follothem. host: a tweet -- guest: yes, regrettably, absolutely. that is an experience that more research is being focused on now. and brain trauma from war veterans, or multiple concussions from, say, sports and sport activities, all of this is raising an enormous amount of research to determine exactly how prevalent that is in the onset of alzheimer's disease.

yes,here seems to be a significant number of researchers who believe that there is a connection there to be had. host: a recall is the president and ceo of the alzheimer's foundation -- eric hall is the president and ceo of the alzheimer's foundation of america. caller: i just have a question on the prevalence of alzheimer's in the united states versus other parts of the world. guest: age is a prevalent risk factor, obviously. aged 65, one in eight over that age, and as the technology has grown, we're abl to live much longer. it is recognizable that medical delopments have allowed that to happen. we have had an increase in alzheimer's disease related to that. in some countries, the life expectancyould not be 78 as ours is your and there would be a lesser incidents.

i would caution people to recognize that this disease does not simply back to the old. there are cases -- does not simply impact the old. there are cases of people in their 50s and early 60's being diagnosed with alzheimer's as well. it does not in any way or shape or form choose one over the other, although it seems to be more prevalent in the older years. host: republican. call: does obesity have anything to do with alzheimer's? guest: where we are out right now is that a lot of the language and messaging surrounding, say, a cardiovascular health, really is applicable now as we're

discussing preventative measures or risk-reducing measures about getting alzheimer's disease. a healthy diet, exercise, making sure we are watching our diet and cholesterol and hypertension and diabetes. all of these things we now know impact directly the brain being part of the physical body and, ubviously, being processed thr as everything we've ten and exercise and everything we do has benefit as well. a lot of the messaging about heart help is now we understand probably very applicable to bring health. host: via tweet -- guest: about 2% of all cases of aleimer's disease that has a hereditary peace. folks e concerned and have issues, it is great to hold a

conversation with your doctor and get more information. if you like, you can come to the alzheimer's foundation of america. we have information on our website on issues srounding hereditary disease, or you are free to talk to one of our licensed social workers who answers the phone. we can get you a lot of information in the mail so that you can educate yourself. host: eric hall, the alzheimer's foundation, when did it begin and how did you get involved? guest: it was established in february 2002. and the founding chief executive officer -- i am the founding chief executive officer. our goal -- first of all, for both of us, we were impacted by alzheimer's disease in our family secondly, it was seen that there was more that needed to be done in the area of care of alzheimer's disease. there was an enormous amount of emphasis and energy and

financial resources going for a corporate don't get me wrong, we hope there is a two or -- going for a cure. it up to me wrong, we hope there is eight -- don't get me wrong, we hope there is a cure, but in the meantime, what we do for the millions of people who are caring for someone with alzheimer's disease? the other thing we are really seitive about is making sure that people with alzheimer's disease enjoy equality of life, enjoy their integrity, that they were given the respect that was due them, and then, also, making sure that families providing care for them to receive all the necessary resources they codicil that they could do their job as effectively as possible. in our mind, it does not fall on the federal government,ut it falls families, and it is in all of our best interest to make sure that they are well provided for and supported.

host: the national tab for caring for individuals with alzheimer's disease is estimated at $100 billion annually. alzheimer's disease costs u.s. businesses about $60 billion a year stemming from lost productivity and absenteeism by primary care givers and insurance costs. the annual costs of caring for one individual with alzheimer's disease ranges from nearly $18,500 to more than $36,000, depending on the stage of the disease. the total cost of care is expected to rise from approximately $172 biion in 2010 to more than $1 trillion in 2015. this figure includes expenditures for medicare, medicaid, private insurance out of pocket costs, uncompensated care. funding from the government, according to nih -- 2006, approximately six harbor $43 million for research.

down to a $480 million today. massachusetts, jonathan, you are on with eric hall. caller: one tng that would make that research more effective is different autopsy protocols allowed information sharing between people, because it is the only way you can detect it was alzheimer's. the only conclusions that can be drawn is the autopsy data can be available to the researchers. also, there is a problem with a research dollars being too tightly targeted to specific avenues. as new promising avenues become available, they cannot jump into the new path cause they will lose their funding, becse the funding was slated for something slightly different. finally, if you are not careful and you get an early diagnosis, it will just allow insurance companies tout back on their coverage. thank you very much. guest: no, i mean, some of the

points are well taken. there are concerns about all of those areas. privacy and outpatients -- privacy around patients, the ability to share the reports. looking inside the brain. you are absolutely right, there is a lot to be had from that type of information. if that could be used by researchers, that would be great. yes, regrettably, the early diagnosis in some regards help policies and entrances -- an insurance dropped individuals with i'd slamme -- with alzheimer's disease. it is a catch-22. left to itself, alzheimer's disease is devastating. if there are treatments available, they need to be accessed as quickly a possible for the good of the individual. if the family is the one providing care, the more time they have to adequately provide

a plan of action around the legal financials and the care plan, it really does come down to being the most beneficial. yes, we have to address those pitfalls that, but with early diagnosis. -- that come about with early diagnosis. host: where is the early alzheimer's research done? guest: it is done all over the world. i have been most impressed -- i am not a scientist, obviously, but i am most impressed by their determination, their desire to truly make a difference. they understand that this is the greatest challenge now facing our country, facing the world. they uerstand that, as we are all aging, not just here, but every country, this is going to be the one disease that is going to have an incredible

prevalence across our society an incredible costs as well, to provide care for all of these individuals with alzheimer's disease. the other difficulty is that individuals who are diagnosed, we can live up for very long time with this disease. it is not necessarily immediately breaking down our immune system. we can live, on average, seven to 10 years, as margaret was talking about with her husband, with this disease. i think researchers in the private sector, in government sector, are looking for the cure, i think they fully understand what is the challenge before us. host: next call, houston texas, michael, you are on the air. caller: how are you? host: good morning. caller: my wife passed away a

year-and-a-half ago from ftd. are you familiar with that? host: the wellhead with your question. describe what it is and go ahead with your question. caller: dementia. she was diagnosed finely at age 59. front temporal lobe dementia. i was part of, and half of them had the same -- i was part of a terror group, and half of them had the same symptoms as my wife -- part of a care group, and half of them had the same symptoms as my wife. it is terminal, but they never mentioned to me that it was terminal dementia. i had to go on line, the university of california-san francisco. there is a doctor at the that as these studies. -- dr. out there that does these studies.

host: did your care regimen change after that? ller: absolutely. my wife cannot read or write the last three years. that lady explained it perftly. it is the most devastating thing to a family. you cannot believe. this was a young, beautiful -- she graduated fourth in her high-school class, a graduate from college in three years, and believable musician, everything. to see the deterioration is unbelievable. guest: i think it highlights the need for the proper diagnosis. again,e utilize experts in the field to help us diagnose what our cause of the dementia we are experiencing you make a great point. we never used the word " terminal" when it comes to demint, and yet that is what it

is that makes the crisis more devastating -- when it comes to dementia, and yet that is what it makes the price is more devastating. host: last call. caller: good morning, c-span. eric, you are doing great work. he mentioned a few things about the nature of the disease itself. you mentioned vitamin d deficiency. personally, i've been studying clinical nutrition for years. there is an enormous amount of information about how thousands of the losses are directly and indirectly related -- thousands of illnesses are directly and indirectly related to nutritional deficiency, and how to possibly reverse and prevent many diseases. when you said b of vitamins, i want listeners to go out and do their own research -- particularly b12 and alzheimer's

disease. there is an enoous amount of information on that. and also, certain nutrients and antioxidants, like blueberries, raspberries, other fruits and vegetables, have shown promising results in treating many black belt -- my plaque buildup conditions in the body. and the work with linus pauling, a giant in the medical field -- guest: i would just say that there is an enormous amount of research being done the area. we're looking at how nutrients impact the body, what are some of the early causes of this disease, and what might be preventable by taking vitamins of whatever sort. the jury is still out. the clinical trials are not quite done. there is still an enormous amount of research being done. i am sure there is a threat in

there that wille ry important going forward. >> next, the atlantic council gives the 2010 review of events in south asia. then a look at regular in the u.s. home mortgage market. then robert groves, the census director, talks about the 2010 national account. on c-span christmas eve, nancy pelosi and other members of congress like the capitol christmas tree, and president obama and the first family attend the annual pageant of peace. later on the 50th anniversary of the first televised debate, michael dukakis and charles gibson talk about preparation for debates and their impact on campaigns. former prime minister tony blair and author christopher hichens on the role of religion.

and former supreme court justices sandra day o'connor and david souter discuss life on the high court. it is a three day holiday weekend on "book tv." starting friday morning at 8 eastern, the latest nonfiction titles, including jimmy carter and on "after words," jane smiley on the man who changed the world. the man who invented the computer. find the complete holiday schedule at booktv.org. sign up to get our schedules email to your in box. >> it should not take a constitutional crisis, a terrorist attack, or financial calamity to summon from each of us and from this body the greatness of which we are capable. nor can america afford to wait. >> search for speeches and hear

from retiring senators at the c- span video library, with every c-span program since 1987. all on line, all free. it is washington your way. up next on c-span, a look of a conflict between pakistan and india over the kashmir region as well as developments in afghanistan. the conversation was part of a forum on the major forces shaping the politics in afghanistan. from yesterday, this is about an hour and 45 minutes. conversations] >> good morning, everyone. i'm shuja nawaz, director on behalf of the council i would like to welcome all of you to our final event for 2010. a very eventful year,

particularly for the region that we cover, greater south asia, which includes geographic south asia, the gulf, a ron, afghanistan, and central asia. i am delighted that joining me here today are two experts on the region, a visiting scholar at the carnegie endowment in washington. he is advertised at carnegie as an exert on afghanistan, but i would expand that to include pakistan because he is one of the few people that has actually traveled and knows well the border region between the two countries. his research is focused on security and political development in afghanistan and particularly the role of international security assistance as well as looking at what would constitute a viable government in kabul and also

drying scenarios. a very appropriate person to have with us. previously he was a professor of political science in paris and at the institute of political studies. he has also served as the scientific coordinator at the french institute of an italia studies in turkey. he has various other academic attributes and backgrounds, which i won't get into at this point, but we are delighted that he agreed to participate. we are also happy to welcome back to the south asia center mr. ikram sehgal who is a busissman and a columnist and former military officer from pakistan. he is now currently the chairman of a group called pathfinder g. he writes a regular column for one of the leading pakistan

newspapers. we are delighted that he has joined us today to help shed light on what is happening. for those of you that were expecting a thir member of our panel, as were we, i'm kristine was unable to come because of illness. we will miss her. i will see if i can do my best to stand in for her, but i'm sure that's not going to be adequate. i just want to us, again began with a few remarks to set that being. then i will request each of the panelists speak for about ten minutes each. and we will open to questions from the audience. when you do ask a question, please wait for the microphone to reach you. then please a identify yourself for the audience and for the recording that we are dealing simultaneously. lookin back on 2010, it has been a tumultuous year,

particularly for our region, but a year of somewhat mixed results. very quickly as i scanned the region as the india outpacing its neighbors economically and politically. pakistan ends the year in dire economic straits and a political system that is still very much present by not ust t opposition, but members of the coalition of the pakistan people's party that appear to be leveraging their position inside the coalition to get their ounce of flesh from the government. as a result joining the efforts to move forward. in afghanistan there appear to be signs of hope, both locally and in terms of what the coalition is trying to do. the big test ll obviously come in the year ahead. enron is getting ready yet

again. there is some hope that there will be some progress. again, as is usually the case with these talks one does not know if it will be two steps forward and one back or whether one step forward and to back. we wilwait to see ho things progress in 2011. sherlock deck, the good news is it is no longer in the news. things are stabilizing and consolidating the piece that they fought hard to achieve. the good news about bangladesh is that it is back on th path of democracy and growth. in nepal and other countries democracy does still seem to be functioning. that is one of the reasons why we are here today, to talk about things. just a few words about india. india had the headline and got the jackpot this year. all ve members of the security

council of the united nations made the pilgrimage to new delhi with a view to seeking closer ties and economic relationships and also, if they could, to pace economic reationships on military sales on nuclear sales. everyone got something. i think of all the visitors to china probably get the prize because china managed to not only get to india, but also follow it up immediately with the visit to pakistan where he also signed a multi-billion dollar deals. so of the five major bidders to india china ws the best in the region. i cannot talk about 2010 without mentioning the way that the year has ended, with a huge loss with

the death of ambassador richd holbrooke who has left a huge job that needs to be completed, a man that was truly irreplaceable inthe diplomatic circuit. many regard him as one of the most influential diplomats of his generation. it is unclear whether the administration will actually try to fill his job or will try to make do, particularly at this critical stage. so with those opening remarks, i'm going to request gilles dorronsoro to please come and make his opening comments. then he will be followed by mr. ikram sehgal. thank you. >> well, it is a pleasure to be here, and i want to thank you for your nice introduction, even

if i have to mention that i was on the afghans died of the border. recently, of course. so, i think that when you look at 2010 what you see in afghanistan is a very good year for the taliban, naturally speaking. then we can discuss. but naturally speaking, very good year. the taliban movement made progress in the north, the east, the center in pakistan is basically safe. it is a good idea for the center. and you have a huge group in the south which is not producing clear relts at the moment. so that is the first. the second thing is that 2011 is

going to be an interesting year. in 2011 we are going to see if it is working and not. here we are. that is the way to see the larger picture. you have a condition to succeed. none of the world, it easy to win. can the car is two hours from pakistan by car. the full support of the pakistan military. my understanding, what we should say is increasing support. that is at least my interpretation.

so obviously there is something, a question that has never been answered in the u.s., how the u.n. when the people are actually helping the taliban at the same time. how did you do this? you are giving your logistics' and at the same time they are supporting th taliban and at the same time you are giving a lot of money to pakistan and especially the pakistani military. all of that, and indian policy that is absoluty sure to make islamabad. and all of that going on. you cannot have, for example, in new delhi one day. the other day the general came

for intervention. it is just not possible. the cannot have both. this is the key problem. i am not even sure that it was a good idea. as a person, to do that. but as a concept ithas failed. we were to organize it, and it failed. it never produced between afghanistan, pakistan, and india. not even really on the table. so here is the problem. now, what are we going to see probably next year? is it possible to have some positive change? is the situation going to deteriorate? i would say that at this point i don't see any possibility or

the coalition in afghanistan to win against the taliban. what i am seeing is that the european are leaving or at least implementing a strategy with a minimum amount of casualties. at the same time the taliban are going to be stronger. you're in the situation where you will have less troops. then the idea that you can do that does not seem to wor on the ground. i don't have one example where the afghan army has ben able to contain the taliban, not attack, just contain. that is why it will be a terrible year. at the get this point we have to go to the larger picture. we have the problem in

afghanistan, we actually are falling to obectives. structurally different, and different consequences. the first is to fight al qaeda. it is terrorism. then, of course, the first thing coming to your mind, and not in afghanistan. that's a problem. we are spending 150, 60 million a year. going to be much higher. at the same time we are fighti, of course, al qaeda, the taliban. if the taliban wins al qaeda will be back. most of the experts will explain that it is possible to make a deal with the taliban.

the pakistanis are ready to help make that deal. if you considerhe sensibilities this war does not make sense. it just doesn't make sense. there is the second interpretation of the war. following documents from the u.s. army we know that the second objective is actually more global. from afghanistan and pakistan in no way. also in iran. worse than they are today. second objective means that the war in afghanistan, not really the problem. it is an depending upon which

side you are. and of courseit is the key. if you are fighting terrorism the war does not make sense. just think about it. 120 million the year. you will see that does not make sense to fight a few thousand people. but the second objective, that is why we have a problem. pakistan is not telling -- the united states is not going to. much more present in afghanisn and then that is why. impossible task the pakistan army now to fight against the afghan taliban because it's not what they consider their national interest. we are in a situation where particularly we are following different objectives.

it's not very clearl said. and actually producing irrationality. one policy for india and one for pakistan. that doesn't make sense. now, what could we say about 2011? first thing is that the timing is going to be the key element, and that would be my last. the timing will be the key element. why? because if the negotiation stops with the taliban, the pakistani military. it won't be before the next u.s. president. so, the window of opportunity is basically an late spring and summer. october in the united states.

so who will take this sort of risk. if nothing happens next spring is going to be fter 2012. two possibilities. so able to adopt new policy. if it's a new president he will take some time. that is why, actually, what we are seeing in afghanistan, the whole thing is that we have a logical escalation which is not clearly defined. stronger. we don't want to negotiate. just one window of possibility to do something different. again, we don't know exactly what will happen with iran, iraq, and all of that puts more constraint on the u.s. policy toward afghanistan.

thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. eighty-four having me back. i just want to thank you because i waited for a long time to hear a brilliant explanation of the situation. in fact, he took most of my talking points. [laughter] however, i want to pick up, first of all, and give you something of the situation on the ground in pakistan tday. pakistan today, that as first start with the counter

insurgency operations. the counterinsurgency operations which was much delayed has been brilliantly carried out in th last 18 months, first in the north and now the south. now upwards of 6-7 divisions of the pakistan armyave been deployed and rotated in and out. the general those much more about it than i do because he has more access. but, for ten years the pakistan army for once has done its mission. that is to defend the country's integrity. in the process they have give a tremendous sacrifice. test to give you an idea, people were, my badge mates, 17

lieutenant-colonel lost their sons and battle. you can imagine the character figure and the officer-man ratio is 1-10 or 1-12. it has been a tremendous battle. we have lost roughly eight or nine times the same amount of casualties that the coalition has suffered at the same time. incidentally the a ron army has suffered 25%, which is not strange. they havnever been engaged in battle. they did not fight. they joined t taliban.

and they are going to keep in their own camps and allow the united states army and the millions to keep fighting. so, if you look pakistan has given up a very grave sacrificed in the last 18 months. as far as counter-terrorism is concerned, what we hae done in the military basis, certainly the terrorist, but afar as counter-terrism within the heartland of pakistan we are at zero. we have done nothing. people have been caught here and there, but really we have done nothing because there is no counter-terrorism force and pakistan.

our situatn politically, shuja nawaz talked about it. the coalition government. the existence is ingenuous because they are being blackmailed by minority partners , two minority partners, if not one. the julif and mgm. as far as the government is concerned certainly i agree that richard holbrooke lost because he was more pakistan centric. he certainly did a lot for pakistan and the present government. the president pakistan government will find it very difficult to survive, at least invested perceptions without richard holbrook'broad shoulders to support them.

economically we are in a mess. in a sense that just before i walked in the imf package is in doldrums. we cannot deliver the reform. .. >> initially they went in and defeated the taliban. they found out of the taliban was resilient. but, let us go back to the primary mission.

as you said, the front of the war is not in afghanistan. the front of the war on terrorism is in pakistan. the sooner people realize it, the better. there will have to be a concerted counter-terrorism action within pakistan. this is a hotbed. it is a tenuous situation. at the end of the day, but the fighting that is taking place in afghanistan is taking all of the money and all of the effort. the effort we will have to put inside pakistan, and it will have to be a primarily pakastani effort. why, one may ask, is a country which is the ground zero, the epicenter of terrorism why does it not have a counter-terrorism course d?

because, a counter-terrorism will act against all sections of the whole gambit. why did terrorism come about? because of corruption. organized crime, and because of injustices' there. al qaeda has many facesn pakistan. it is not osama bin laden only. there is lashkar-e-taiba, many number of terrorist organization exist things which now has links with organized crime. because there is no way that a person can travel or send money without the symbiotic relationship between organized crime and terrorism. and that is the heart of the problem. by pakistani politicians will

never allow a counterterrorism force because there are links there. if you go to karachi, why should the mqm oral the people's party about counterterrorism force there? because when a counter is a -- counterterrorism force operates there they will go after their strongholds. they will go after the weapons that are there. they will go after their bases, their sources of supply and logistics. obviously the counterterrorism force does not create any -- in karachi and in pakistan today. now, you know i do agree we have had a tremdous year. obviously india is a great impression and i think they must

have a admired because they have done really well. and at the same time, you know one must look at the last at doak china. china is a great friend of pakistan and yet china went to india and had a very pragmatic meeting with india because china wants honest neighbors to have a good relationsh with all of its neighbors. you must ask yourself this question. india is a great country, there is no doubt about it. but india must learn that it must deal with its neighbors in that sense and that neighbor is not only pakistan, bangladesh, nepal, sri lanka and if you really look at it wired the neighbors -- for india, it is india's turn to come forward and do something if i may use the word to do more with its neighbor.

it has to compromise a little bit. it has an interest the is no doubt but look at the amount -- even trade, 70 milon people in pakistan, 160 million in england , 30 million in nepal, 20 million in sri lka, tremendous amount of prey can have it as a free trade area and that can only come about when it has a good relationship with its neighbors. now, you know, i go back to something about afghanistan. if you really want to be successful in afghanistan, go after the poppy cultivation. it is the poppy cultition that fuels the war in afghanistan and let me explain to you how it fuels the war in afghanistan. >> to start with, is the farmers and they are taxed the taliban. the taliban says grow your poppy and you will pay this tax. the poppy moves into the -- most

are owned by members of the government. so, if you want to -- so by the by the taliban taxes them aso and they get money from them also. so you have a relationship where the poppy cultivation is a source of income for the government people, for the taliban, whatever so you have got to go after the poppy cultivation. i was very surprised when i found there was really no concerted effort to go after the poppy cultivation and afghanistan. that is where you start. if there has to be -- it has to be towards good governance and that good governance will take some doing. but my own feeling is that, and i think we are heading towards the direction for some sort of

accommodation will calm in the future. in a year, two years i don't know but it will come about. but the real war i go back within pakistan. that is ground zero and that is where the thing is. ladies and gentlemen let me tell you very clearly that unless you address the core question that terrorism there and you have a counterterrorism forcehich can be created overnight,. in the 1980s and antenna card explicitly set up and that force did a tremendous job because they reduce poppy cultivation to almost nil and the drug craze was downgraded to 10 or 15%. it has its own personnel. that has its intelligence. overnight, it can be turned into

a relationship with the culture and terrorism. my good friend geoffrey styles gives me a lot of information about -- which is there and already has approval so you have got an entity in place. you have got the funds available anovernight you can have a counterterrorism force which will gain with the main problem. that is to eliminate al qaeda and unless you go and go into the heartland of pakistan, going to the infrastructure of al qaeda, all the logistics, the money laundering, the drug trade, the arms trade, the people who make passports, the people who make i.d. cards etc., the people who do the arms smuggling, you are not going to go anywhere. this problem will grow. thank you very much. >> thank yous ikram.

in view of the fact that we have such and it distinguished audience and people with expertise in the region i'm going to. my claim as the moderator to ask the first question so i'm going to open it up to the qwest -- audience. if you would like to ask a question please raise your hand and identify you and come to the item. please do remember to identify yourself for the audience. >> i am with "nation magazine." so, i am sorry. i am bob with the "nation magazine." it seems to me almost like pakian saying it wants to find terrorists just like i was a -- oj saying he wants to find his wife's killer. maybe i'm missing something here, but a cousin of the unequal relationship between pakistan and india, it seems

obvious to me that pakian has spent a quarter of a century building terrorist groups and still supports them across the board. so, i mean, let's call facts facts here and not talk about how pakistan needs to form a counterterrorism force. pakistan is in the terrorism business it seems to me. >> i think you are absolutely wrg. can you imagine my giving you -- to kill myself. what you are saying the isi is funding the terrorist to kill isi versus. the mo people that have been attacked and pakistan today as far as personnel and families are concerned are the army and the isi so what you are saying is, and the isi officer 90% by the army so what you are saying is here's a group that says okay fine, here is the money. arm and train yourselves and come and kill me, right? that is nonsense.

yes, i agree with you. many years ago and there is no doubt about it, pakistan was not in the terrorism business but in the business of suppoing the freedom fight within kashmir and there is ... it. summerlong defined that was wrong. but today for the last few years certainly that is not a correct thing and you cannot be a correct thing. how can you expect he army officers -- how many generals have been lost in pakistan? six brigadier generals. there is a tremendous price paid. how many families? how many people have been killed in their homes? so you think that is what the pakistan army is? they think that is ridiculous for you to say that pakistan is end -- there is nothing official about it. >> maybe i can add something.

some groups are partially controlled but not totally and there is a very very strange situation. that is the key point. the afghan taliban are not fighting the pakistani army. they are in pakistan especially in qatar and allude to stand. and that is also why there are drone attacks or even attacks on the ground in the frontier

province. it is a situation where most of the farc are in the tribal area. when the taliban, -- for the fighting in baluchistan and nobody can strike baluchistan because the pakistani army, there is a line here. you cannot strike qatar and you cannot strike the cities, so i think that is also part of the conversation. >> thank you. >> can i ask the panel is to address main issues in the obama administration and the threat outside of the taliban that is the haqqani network which of course has the sanctuary north of waziristan but if you could

assess right now but he believed to be the strength of the haqqani network is racially and light of the special operations raised not only in pakistan but on the afghan side where i sat does have much more access to go after them? thank you. >> first, in your question there is the idea that the haqqani network is a outside the talibak is wrong. so far, as far as i know, the haqqani network is inside the taliban. at least give me proof that they are not. did we see in the last 10 years clashes or just a clash actually between the people working for

haqqani and people working for omar? did we see official, i mean, kind of official communiqué fm haqqani? i don't think so. underground, if you are looking at thealiban organization, you know that you have the provincial organization. there is never been a conflict. >> i just want to address the haqqani network and their operations. >> but it is very important to start with that because from that you know that they are part of the larger strategy and you cannot distinguish because where does it stop the haqqani network? the haqqani network implements part of the network and it made total sense so i would be very very careful about that. to answer exactly your question, first older east and they prefer

to phrase it like that in you have seen the taliban organization, specially because the trib are not totally out of the picture. the afghan tribes talk with the taliban. they are being destroyed as political forces. the second is that the eastern taliban network are now very close to jalalabad an kabul. that is why i'm very pessimistic in this area. that is one part of the equation. the second part of the equation is that it seems that people close to haqqani and even the idea of a haqqani network that is totally closed is complicated. basically, targeting specific people in afghanistan often link to terrorist.

that is probably a little bit special in the general picture. annothing indicates so far that there is any kind of pressure under this network from the pakistani army. of course there is a -- in waziristan but there are also technical problems. does not easy to invade and more importantly to stay in these areas and second, so far there is no clashes between the haqqani people and the pakistani army. so, what i'm seeing is that it is very dynamic. their make in progress and they are not under a strategic threat under pakistan's. >> i would just like to add to what gilles has said. both from swat and south waziristan and other elements

that escaped from the pakistani army's operations. that became a point of contention and i think sooner or later the pakistani army will ha to go against the haqqani network and they very well recognize this. the question is very obvious that since they are not active against pakistan they will be starting a new -- because there are much better equipped than the other insurgents. number two, the pakistani army is really stretch now. they will need far more helicopters. fortunately it was a helicopter pilot and i've flown in that area. is a very difficult area and almost inaccessible.

they can be ambush very quickly so what you really need is a lot of effort. i think that is what is at the moment dissuading the pakistan army from finally moving toward the haqqani network but i think there is a growing recnition that at the end of the day ultimately they have got to get rid of terrorism within pakistan. the people that the haqqani network has to be adressed and the pakistani army will have to move against them. >> them. >> if i could add to that just having come back from pakistan and having finished a study of counterinsurgency in the nexus with counterterrorism, my own information indicates also tha pakistan army still has unfinished business in the border region with the kunar province in afghanistan. they also ha unfinished business in the border region between the agencies of thought the. where they thought they were fighting the final battle and

they couldn't clear their whole area. so there are sanctuaries in the valley which connects to afghanistan on the kunar side of the afghan border which the feel they need to clear before they can move additional troops to north waziristan. then there is the weather. winter is now setting in and it is going to be nearly impossible to fight in north waziristan because of the territory. you have favre be heard from the other panelists out the difficult terrain. currently the pakistan army has something like 35 to 37,000 troops inside north waziristan. they are basically trying to dominate the space but they are being attacked and they are being killed almost on a daily basis according to my reports by the people that escaped from south waziristan and that are being harbored by either the haqqani group directly or by their allies in north

waziristan. so there is a co-mingling that is now occurring and they think soon we will be able to say that there is no difference between th afghan, talin and the local taliban in north waziristan. >> if i may just add one thing. that is the problem with the id that you force the pakistani army to fight the afghani taliban. the problem is we are creating a common interest with the pakistani taliban, so-called taliban. and these people were not born to be together with, and interest. they are very different people but the more we are putting pressure, the more we are creating common interest. if you make a deal with the taliban you can secure the afghan side of the border basically.

if you find the afghan taliban and the pakistani taliban, the problem is it gets out of control because no foreign army is going to control--. >> thank you gilles. >> the barbara slavin. i want to ask a little bit more about the regional context. you have been so negative every time i hear you say it is getting worse and it will never get any better. i have heard recently samore optimistic discussions coming t of afghanistan for te it where he about trade routes. trade coming from central asia, going through iran, going through the indian courts, way to avoid pakistan province connected with pakistan. a very positive prognostication about mineral wealth and pipeline deals and so on.

is the classy than a quarter full in your view? is there nothing good that is going on? >> thank you for the question because it it is good to make two points. first leg -- is to be right or wrong and basically i used to be called pessimistic or whatever. was right two or three years ago? it seems i was right. was i right in 2003 when i was writing about the taliban coming back to afghanistan? i was right so the problem was not that i was pessimistic. that is my first . the second is, and th is a key elemen when i am pessimistic, it is about certain

element of the afghan situation. when you were basically pulling billions of dollars in afghanistan, of course you are creating an economy that is very dynamic. the real estate in kabul right now is undone, the prices have increased and then you have a very dynamic afghan society. the problem is that it is very fragile and it is artificial twister to extend because basically it is totally -- afghanistan is not at all a remote country. in two cases of course it is going to tip to the outside world. the afghan society is very

dynamic dissent translate into stability. that is the key point. on the contrary. the more you are creating interest to continue the war. the main source for the taliban, financial resources for the taliban, is the --. we are giving according to the places five, 10, sometimes 20% just to be able to work in the countryside right now. so it is unstable. we are putting far too much money in afghanistan and if he put in that amount of money you are creating -- the fight against corruption does make sense. when you are putting $1 million in one province because sometimes it is that amount of money, you cannot do something with the money. so of course you find -- with a suitcase with 40 or $50 billion

going to dubai because there is no way -- okay, it is is the culture and it is bad but also there is no way and most of the people would do the same thing. so those are my two points but thank you for the question. >> did you mean to say massoud's brother? barbara has a quick follow-up and then we will move to. >> just a quick follow-up and that is e nation-building efforts such as it is. again i accept a lot of the money is flushing over into corruption but can you give any evaluation of the efforts that have been made by the prt, by the 1000 civilians, u.s. civilians that are now aprently in afghanistan working on rule of law and all of these other social programs? is that also offered now? >> we don't know. we don't feel the impact.

i ask my students to work on that, just between us. nobody can find a good study explaining what is the impact of the provincial constitution. what is the problem with the afan law? the afghan law, we are checking the inputs so the amount of money basically. we are checking the out put, is the building there? but never the outcome. so we don't know the impact in the political situation and is very interesting because i found actually planned study which is not very well done. basically we don't know the impact. when you have $1 billion in quick emergency aid, 1.2 actually, and 28, so this cash

money. what is the impact on society in afghanistan? basically we do not know. you have hundreds or thousands of entities working in afghanistan. there is no mistake. there is no mistake. nobody knows exactly. the impact on the society, we can see this creating social tensions of course because some people are becoming -- in a few years so there is no market in the real sense of the term and it is creating tensions between groups, tribes, whatever. that is what we are seeing in kandahar very small group of people is taking 80% of the money. one of the key problems is that

there is no reform of the current inspections. there is no judge in kandahar. the situation is worse than three nths ago and i don't see how you can jst not put in any administration and think it is going to work. so that is a key point, is not working very well. >> tnk you gilles. >> it would just like to add that some of the money has come back to pakistan. 60% of the transport is owned by afghans within pakistan actuly. and you know that is a source. the problem is again, we really get nothing for the interest for the rules.

biggest beneficiary and we suffer also at t same time. >> stan kober with the cato institute. a few days ago there was a bombing in iran and a couple of days ago reports in the iranian press that president ahmadinejad called president zardari and basically said you take care of this problem or else. and that is what i want to ask. nobody is talking about the possibity of iranian forces going across the border. irians have been complaining about this for some time. is theiratience runs out and they decide to intervene how does that affect the situation in south asia? >> if you will allow me maybe i can begin to reply and i am sure

gilles and ikram will have if you also. as a historian i go back to 1972 he was discussing just this iran pakistan issue. ipod time there was an insurgency in baluchistan and the shah was basically saying if pakistan doesn't solve this problem, we will. at first he sent over 20 or 30 helicopters to help the pakistan army fight the insurgents but then he was losing patience and it is quite clear that iran has always been very concerned about what happens on the border with pakistan. as for the bombing that was recently reported, from all the public reporting it pears to have been a sectarian issue, because of the processions during the first 10 days particularly on the tenth day

of -- so this may or may not have been related to some of the other terrorist activities that i ran that have been based in pakistan. the biggest complaint in recent years was about jim dole and from all reports that have come out in the last year or so, thus pakistan's intelligence that helped iran capture the ahead. maybe there is a shift in the pakistani calculus and not allowing them to operate in that area and maybe there is a difference of opinion about that that is about all i can add to the discussion. >> just before i came we were discussing this issue about the two borders, the eastern side in the northwestern side.

pakistan is in a difficult position as far as that is concerned. certainly i think our people they did operate on the pakistani side and i think there was a bit of not official but unofficial ignoring them. but at the same time we must remember that pakistanis have very good relationship with the air of country, and south arabia etc. who are definitely not very friendly because of iranian intentions and israeli intentions. pakistan is in a difficult position. it is a serious position that we must address. we cannot afford to have iranian forces coming in because that is all the people need because with the army already stressed, think that would need a catastrophic situation for us.

>> my assessment would be that that -- what i mean is that anytime we have an event it is a bad event. i don't remember an event being positive. when you are trying to make -- is touring and it takes time. it is rational. doesn'make the news very much and when you bomb a car or whatever you are in the news or whatever. all the events are potentially dangerous and for example if there is a second mumbai attack, we don't know what would have happened. my secd is that the situation is getting better in the sense that they have -- in iraq now

thanks to the u.s. invasion and they will have more next year and the year after. and they can, they can deal with turkey for the north, for the kurdish side. so undecided is better. in afghanistan, they think that the strategy is going to work for code that is the general opinion of of the russian diplomats. everybody thinks it is going to work so they just have to wait basically. that is why i don't think that iran will take any risk of a fight or any kind direct confrontation with pakistan. that is is not the right moment. it could give the united states

to -- put more pressure. and away i am -- time is the key element and their main problem. [inaudible] which have been active with the people and therefore afraid of the and the fact that they think that the united states has been financing the kurdish groups for the last few years. they are much more afraid of internal dissent than the more strategic picture. >> thank you gilles. >> mr. dorronsoro wants to clarify one thing. and understand your second goal of u.s. policy to have influence, long-term influee

into central asia and iran from afghanistan. i just wanted to clarify did you think that was a sustainable policy or not? is there anything which is consistent with u.s. interests there? >> for the first question, yeah i was probably not very clear. knowno, my idea was basically it is at some point you find something which is generally not very impressive but something is going to top. so, no it is not. the second question is i have a

clear idea. what i think we should do us much more difficult, vis-à-vis afghanistan. first, india should not help support and finance the groups, people who are trying to sell in washington the idea that they are going to contain the alabama alabama -- taliban if we give them arms and money. and i am not speaking theoretically. it is very practical. so, think it is a very bad idea because the idea that we could withdraw for example. that is what the ambassador was suggesting. when we withdraw from afghanistan and leave the taliban in control of the border it is just totally irrational.

are securities on the border so if you want to make a deal with the people on the border it is certainly -- where there is not as far as i know some kind of transnational threats you know so this policy is both dangerous because it could be the disintegration of. you will have this integration of pakistan. that is a given. so you are putting a system in place that is totally crazy. what they should not do is also try to be very visible. it should be low-profile. and the third thing is, because i mean it is putting pressure on afghanistan and the last point is that they should try to

negotiate with their coalition their security interests. that means we have -- afghanistan should not be a base for jihad this groups for the next 9/11 event or the next mumbai and that is a strong position in the negotiation. on that, we have all the same interests. and that would be part and that should be part of the negotiation with the taliban and pakistan. and it is not just a piece of paper. it is how do you do it? so is it possible for example -- it is doable and.

[inaudible] >> i think in short, there is a red flag for pakistan and afghanistan. i think their particular interest would be solved by the economic and let's have less conflict on on the border etc.. i think that would be -- the pakistani establishment is very suspicious of india and it intentions in afghanistan and they feel that you know everything is done with a purpose. so i think one major thing india can do this to say to pakistan we will help with political ambitions and secondly the as gilles said --. >> if if i could just add to that.

i i think pakistan probably needs to also change its way of looking at afghanistan and no longer see if solely through the prism of the pashtun. i think the the same mistake that goes back to the time of the soviet invasion and the fact that the contiguous area was pashtun made pakistan and allied inside of afghanistan and this constant harping on trying to have a rebalance government in kabul really is not one pakistan many friends inside of afghanistan. apart from alienating a very substantial proportion of the population, which constitutes the uzbek, the tajik and so on. i think that would help and clearly both indiand pakistan do have a common aim in afghanistan whicis stability because of afghanistan is stable then pakistan will be stable and if afghanistan and pakistan are

stable you can start opening the borders between india and pakistan and connect through afghanistan to tajikistan and provide the energy that india will need to sustain its nine and 10% nual growth rate or goes so there are many things that could drive working together in afghanistan rather than working against each other. >> and just come coming you are perfectly right and to the idea that pakistan is going to go -- controlled afghanistan, is not going to work. the day the taliban is back in afghanistan, they will take about of distance and look, the taliban were back in