breach that the u.s. takes such action is designed to prevent the violations from recurring. in terms of a treaty based obligation, that is our focus but i am not aware of one of the nature that you are discussing. >> we can certainly agree there is an agreement under hil -- ihl to respected. to respect to means that you issue respect for the agency be they cia armed forces, whoever is acting for them to and robert jacks were the will have to respect that. that certainly means that these people who are acting for the state will have to know who those are. internally, the instructions have to be pretty clear. accountability is not a possible if the details are not

disclosed, at least to some extent, to the public. i think we can construct an obligation to -- and here to clear standards that are being applied -- and here to clear standards that are being applied. >> prof. austin, rick, thanks. >> i have a lot that i would like to say, but i will not. i will focus on this specific issue of the cia and its accountability which i think is critical here. we are discussing drones here

today, but i think it needs to be seen in the broader context of the cia's operations around the world. some of the types of killings that take place like my grave in afghanistan, raised similar -- night raids in afghanistan raised similar issues. we need to look at the actual circumstances. it's we have no comment. we cannot confirm or deny that we are engaged in any of these exercises, but if we were weyou can be rest assured that we are fully following the law. , i think that is a nonsensical situation. i want to draw your attention to the magnitude of the situation now and what is happening from it. this special forces operations, which are part of all of the different branches of -armed

services, now 60,000 personnel the budget request for next year is $6.5 billion. that is not the cia special forces. that is just the military. the special forces, according to reports now operating almost -- alternate with the cia. in other words, one does not know in any given operation whether it is military special forces that are carrying it out or cia. the bottom line is that what we have got this a hugely growing area of complete ambiguity as to who was actually carrying out a an operation, and therefore where the accountability would lie. i want to interject as a practical element. and then what kopp nils said -- what nils said about halfthat you can forget accountability.

ç?ç >> money mistrals stevenson formerly with the consulate in washington. this is a wonderful concert -- conversation organizing the frameworks for these concepts. at the state department one day i saw a bumper sticker a "blanc ebersol anything -- "law never solved anything except fascism communism, and slavery." i'm not going to say "fights over values." i'm going to say "engagements

overvalues" to try to use more neutral language, but anybody who saw the cover of "time" magazine with the young lady from afghanistan whose nose had been amputated over a frivolous disputes involving a gender issue, i believe should be aware that is a value that everybody respects. it's one must, at the same time, respect the sense that the taliban and other people to -- that it is important to preserve and protect our ladies, if a man is making an observational standpoint. i will not get into gender issues more here. but the point is, that analytical work has been done. where is a framework developed by a political scientist and an international lawyer starting in the 1930's when they saw that

fascism was going to be a world problem to organize thoughts about how to make policy decisions that would be authoritative. and in law, and in policy, and they organized a vocabulary, which took away the vocabulary value-laden distinctions between law and policy and said, people are making these decisions -- and they articulated a whole decision tree of the sequence in which important decisions are made right down to the man who pulls the trigger on a drone over somewhere. i rose at the word ambiguity. one man's ambiguity is another man's new ones. -- nuance. these things have worked out and is just a matter of applying

them, don't you think? >> thank you. when >> and daniel bethlehem from the uk. first, thank you for what i think is a very fascinating discussion. i commend the presentations and looks forward to reading the paper in more detail. i would like to make a comment and ask a question, and in particular to for so -- sir philip austin's observation. most international military lot is not specific. we do have a number of things at focus on weapons specific issue scott, but most of international humanitarian law, as nils has

said, is focused on how one conducts hostilities. and i agree with everything he has said on the rule of law for this topic. yeah proportionality necessity and you have -- you have proportionality, necessity and you have the important distinctions. in the opening remarks of this paper there was a suggestion that the students in their work have ranged beyond this. the question i would like to point is what is it that makes drone technology different from the cruise missiles that have been used recently in respect of libya or a sniper's bullet backs? i would be very cautious, indeed if every time we come to a new technology we have a technology specific standard if the weapon is perfectly capable of being encapsulated by the general principles. i wonder if this debate has

risen because the concluding paragraph of the paper says it is somehow emblematic of a number of other issues whether there really is a new and critical real issue here. >> thank you. the gentleman in the front. >> i am a journalist and also on visiting the center for american progress. i have a question for chris. i met recently with a jab at the air force -- jag at the air force. they explain the procedure that the jags follow in the targeting of applications with drones. can we are talking about afghanistan, iran, as opposed to pakistan or the cia. i am wondering if the army also

takes part in these sort of jag operations in deciding on whether or not someone can be targeted. how it is a question of whether the army and the air force collaborate on this, because in fact, often in afghanistan the iraqi air force and army are working together on this particular operation. and then i'm going to pause at a hypothetical question. let's suppose we are in marja and helmand in afghanistan and i have been targeted by an air force grown. a let's say i and sophisticated enough to understand the system, or let's say, i have called nils and said, what do i do? a drum has attacked my family. however my tooth -- a drone has attacked my family. how am i able to contact an army jag? how do i contact the jag system

so i can track down the people who made the legal decision, how does that happen in a practical terms, not theoretical terms? because this is something that does not -- that does take place. and this is a legal system that i, as a victim, and my family, should be able to appeal to. you do fall acres -- follow a system of rules that you have enunciated. thank you. >> i will take one more question >> i am the former legal counsel of the united nations. presently come i am with the board of trustees of italian law in london and sweden. i commend the panel. this is an extremely important issue you are discussing. the first question i have is, is there really an armed conflict in a particular situation? the reason i put this question is that this is closely related

to terrorism and i am constrained -- extremely concerned when the war on terrorism was forged. it has done a great disservice to your country and also to the world at large. it has blown the distinction from actually fighting criminality and actually fighting a war. i would like to draw your attention to the madrid agenda against terrorism adopt on the 11th of march 2005 by the madrid club, which is an organization of former heads of state and government. they were adamant that terrorism is criminality and you have to fight that the way you fight criminality. therefore qana, if you have not discussed this, it is very important to draw the distinction here because often what you are doing here when you use drones is, sure, attacking people who are engaging in terrorism. whether it be in a civil situation or terrorism in the context of war.

that is the second element. if it is an armed conflict, here as a layman, i am very concerned that if you identify a target which is permissible, it is a question of timing. how do you know that these people will normally hide in a cave where you could perhaps attack them with a drone? all of a sudden, they are surrounded by civilians and an attack would be completely unacceptable. this is one issue that i am thinking about a lot when i hear this discussion. how do you know in the exact moment when use the drone that the target is permissible and it is not surrounded by so many civilians that is completely unacceptable? and also, i have someone making a reflection on outsourcing issues in this context to private entities and so on. here, i have a very strong view.

i take exception to this way of using these firms and so forth for civilians to do this kind of work for the simple reason that this responsibility should rest squarely with people with political responsibility for this. it should be a government at the end of the line who is responsible for it and not some kind of company. and i am concerned to knownoted that the red cross is also concerned because these people are not educated as far as humanitarian law is concerned. >> on going to turn to the panel now. there was a question that a jump in raised about, is this any legal issue about those who are targeted, do they have the right

to know what is that is being applied to them? is it the case that someone in diyala -- in pakistan or afghanistan can interact with this legal system here at all? and what do you think about that question? also, the issue of whether or not drone technology itself somehow brings these dilemmas to light in a way that helps them to answer questions of technology or is this a larger question of gaps in clarity? and then there is the larger question of going back to the role of the intelligence community and private actors and contractors. chris, you first. >> it bodes very poorly for marcos' military employment

opportunities ahoy, the need to -- opportunities, and need to have name tags. this idea of approaching or how one would find out that -- there certainly is interaction. assuming for the sake of discussion we can refer to afghanistan as the proverbial battlefield, there are opportunities for those engaged in the hostilities there whether it is those engaged with the afghanis or those engaged with the reconstruction team spirit and i would advise that you do so at some risk as you are already to to -- our destruction teams. and i to advise that you do so at some risk as your r.t. in an area that is targeted. but there certainly is interaction not the local u.s. and allied coalition forces, as well as the afghans for that

discussion. and i think we all know just from the open new sources that there is some degree of ongoing discussions between the afghan government and the taliban and other groups about forms of reconciliation. i could not speak to any specifics in a local area, but i would address the one statement that yes, the army -- we certainly do play a role in target operations. it tends to be a slightly different level. the air force focuses more on air operations and the drones that the armey tends to employ are a of a smaller nature and generally more surveillance than employing munitions. but we certainly do target the army's munitions and commands working their way up. as a general proposition all weapons systems in the u.s. are subject to a review that

determines whether or not they comply with the relevant restrictions of the law of armed conflict or the international humanitarian law. essentially, the drone technology in that sense is no different. and i am not sure what it is about the technology that leads people to the conclusion that maybe it is distinction -- distinctive, particularly compared to something like a cruise missile. in one of the research i did you can actually find the same set of facts. a drone can loiter for hours at a time and you would find opposite views on that aspect. if you have one person -- you have one person that said they found the drone had the most complex weapons capabilities ever because they could loiter for hours at a time. and another person said they are a terror device, they can monitor for six hours over head. i do not have a particular answer to mr. bethlehem pose a

question, but i agree that it has been subject to a legal review and the specific focus about technology is perhaps this place. -- misplaced just to reiterate -- misplaced. >> just to reiterate we want to talk about the standards. this is indispensable. if we do not have standards for a live to be taken that our system is arbitrary, to say the least. unfortunately, the result of these kinds of situations have not been very encouraging. what we're doing with this technology is not as important as the fact that we get it. is it a government statement? is it jurisprudence that takes on cases and start creating

standards? or is it a multilateral process of states coming up with treaties or multilateral organizations? i think some form of shape -- through some form of share the standards will be clarified. that is really important. -really grateful for daniel bethlehem's -- i am really grateful for daniel bethlehem's participation. drones cannot capture anyone. if they attack and leave wounded people shooting these wounded people would be prohibited. but they cannot capture them. it brings certain operational difficulties that have legal ramifications. it is often at a great distance by people who live lives otherwise that are fairly similar to a normal civilian lives, although, what they're

doing is leading to direct hostilities, in the least. but that can lead to some legal ramifications. these are complex systems sometimes guided by specialized civilians. these questions have been raised. these questions are perhaps drone specific or weapons control -- remote-controlled weapons specific. they do raise as much more general issues under the rule of law, but also on the clarity of standards. perhaps you have to stop and say, look, it is part of a discussion on what is law enforcement, what is the armed conflict. it is not only the drone question that is the question. let's take one question -- a situation. we all remember years ago the taking of hostages in theater. was this operation governed by

humanitarian law? or was it a law enforcement operation? or was it both and how do the paradigms' interact -- interrelate? we have to knowledge these are extremely difficult questions to answer. what about the drug wars in mexico? the deployment of about 60,000 soldiers and thousands of people being killed or wounded every year. what about the situation in rio? i have the opportunity to see these places to years ago. it is largely out of the control of the local government. but with the capabilities in terms of weapons and violence that are impressive. what about papyrus your organization -- the piracy operation? more and more we are confronted with a situation that we do not quite know -- is this hostilities or law enforcement? we have to acknowledge that

sometimes is both. if the government operates against non state actors, it is in the name of establishing will of lott and security. -- the rule of law and security. this will not go away. i think this will become more important and we should be productive and take on this challenge and propose solutions that are acceptable for all involved stakeholders. there is no clear answer so far but it has been a great challenge for us all to me. " thank you. peter? >> that brings us to the end of our time. i want to thank everyone in the way that they have already heard and just emphasize, i think, my own sense in nils' comment about the rule of law and the idea that justice seems to be done. these kinds of issues we have tried to raise in the paper that

is presented today. thank you very much to the human rights group and to the american enterprise institute and the american society. we are taking advantage of this moment also to celebrate naz. let me turn it over to dick. >> i am the chairman of the leaders society. it gives several awards this -- each year. we co-sponsored our first student writing competition. the awards were given on a couple of days ago. the longest running award that we have is the lever award -- leiber award and is given for a book and an article each year and is a very intense competition. when cosco beat runs it out of

england and we have an international -- ben scobie runs at out of england and we have an international competition every year. the award is not only a nice certificate for framing, but also a check for $500. that is going to naz for the article that she wrote. a mouthful of a title but one that gives you some insight into the richness and the breadth of the discussion that naz brings to her daughter -- her moderated discussions at least once a month at apcr. and we at the lieber society are appreciative of what she has done today, but also what she does every day and making sure

that these discussions are not only brought and rich, but reflect the diversity of views -- broad and rich, but reflect the diversity of views. i would like you join me in congratulating her. [applause] >> house and senate members have been spending a working week in their home districts. that gives you a chance to catch up on the dates you have missed in the first few months of the 112th congress. short-term spending bills, it repeal of health care, the hatred act and patten reform all online at c-span's congressional chronicle. search by topic, bill number, or member at c-span.org/congress. >> throughout april, we will feature the top winners of this year's c-span studentcam competition.

nearly 1500 middle and high school students submitted videos on the team, "washington d.c. through my lens. -- through my lens." and just before the washington -- "washington journal" program meet the students who made them. you can see these videos online anytime at studentcam.org. >> shortly we go live to the american enterprise institute here in washington for a discussion on the situation in libya. as you know, the president will be addressing the nation on the via tonight. but this afternoon, speakers including former bush administration official paul wolfowitz will talk about the affect the uprising in the nation is having on the u.s. that will be live action -- that will be live coming up soon. until then, this morning's "washington journal." talking about u.s. and its involvement in the libyan

situation is this op-ed piece by fred stevens in "the wall street journal." "bolivia mission was never about regime change -- the libyan mission was never about regime change." in this, he quotes gates. "the mission was never about regime change." the article goes on to say "does this mean the mission accomplished"?

there is more in the op-ed. it says "at the end of the day this needs to be settled by the libyans themselves." host: our discussion this morning for the next 45 minutes of the program has to do with the evolving u.s. mission in

libya and whether or not it involves regime change. our first call comes from mississippi on the line for democrats. you are on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: good morning. i agree with the way the president is handling libya. we cannot have war with any country we disagree with. host: atlantic city, new jersey. ray on the line for independents. you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. i love your show. i've been watching this intently. i told your producer, basically this is only my opinion. in the beginning of a few of our upper echelon politicians sort of got tongue tied with the question of gaddafi.

there may have been miscommunication. gaddafi have lost legitimacy of a long time ago. no one has done anything about it. one of the things that we have been engaged in -- our foreign policy for the last decade -- what has been known as a new look at foreign policy is what is called game theory. if i influence you this way, you will do that playing to my hand. in fact, people will generally do what is in their best interest. host: in those terms ray what do you think are the best interests of the united states as we move forward in this situation? caller: i'm not the president of the united states and neither or you -- are you.

do not get to hear those intricate things that nobody knows about. based on what i see on tv as an american, i would like to see this resolved with the least amount of bloodshed and have gaddafi gone. host: curtis in florida on the line for democrats. welcome to the program. caller: thank you. i just have a request. i wish your news guys would go a little more back-and-forth. lately it seems like you only want to do the republicans stuff. about to the situation, explain to me why the republicans are jumping all over obama when it looks like he has made a sincere effort to protect our boys and girls in the military. to my knowledge we have not had anyone murdered or killed. would they explain to me why he has tried to do it right and bush and cheney go in there with false information and young boys

and girls come home in body bags? jumping up and down about the debt -- that's 40% of our debt, these two wars. host: do you think the mission has been clearly defined? caller: when is the last time at any war -- during world war ii you have to do what you have to do at the moment. host: curtis in pensacola florida. in north carolina, we have stu -- i'm sorry. in albuquerque dave on our line for others. caller: we are paying for years of wrong policy, anyway. we just keep doing the same stuff over and over again.

i will take my answer off the air. thank you. host: in "the baltimore sun" this morning, their analysis. the president to speak tonight on u.s. aims. they write "barack obama entered the white house as a dovish warrior. what i am opposed to is a rash war, a war based not on reason, but on passion."

>> among the speakers will hear from this afternoon former deputy to spent -- deputy defense secretary paul wolfowitz. this is live on c-span. >> good afternoon everybody. thank you very much for joining us and welcome to the american enterprise institute. i am danielle pietka, a vice president for foreign policy studies here at aei. i hope everybody is here for the same purpose, to discuss an

event on libya -- what will odyssey don bring libya america, and the arab spring? we do have a sense at the moment of being in the middle of a great historical whirlwind. we are being taken somewhere. i think few of us are certain about where we are going to land. tonight, the president is going to address the nation for the first time from the oval office. he will speak on the topic of the war in libya. none of us are quite sure what is he is going to say, but i think many propose a lot of hope that he will express a clear sense of what the united states is to achieve what our goals are what our plans are for the future, and how we see libya fitting into the broader

question of the revolutions that are going on, even as we sit here today, throughout the middle east and continuing to spread throughout syria continuing to royal yemen bahrain and elsewhere. it is difficult, i think for even seasoned experts to stay on top of. tomorrow the international community will meet in london to discuss many of these same questions. pres. sarkozy and prime minister cameron in the last hour issued a statement suggesting they wanted to gather the international community together to talk about how best to relate to a gaddafi that was not -- a libya that was not led by a muammar gaddafi, how best to help the opposition, and what the international community can do with the no-fly zone in

place. i think part of a problem that many of us see is that there is confused leadership coming from the united states, a sense that the president is not really willing to lead on this matter and has been pressed by others in taking a forward-leaning position that really was not the position of his choice. and a president who is deeply eager to pass responsibility on to others perhaps rightly perhaps wrongly. at the root of this all it begs the question about whether the president of the united states has a vision for what is that is in our national interest to accomplish in libya and elsewhere. despite that criticism, and i think is fair to call it a criticism, we have a president who has in typical american fashion after having explored

every possible option to do the wrong thing he did do the right thing, as indeed, he did in iran and afghanistan. the american forces have stepped up. we are part of the enforcement of the no-fly zone. but where are we today? one of the things that we had hoped to do was to talk about what the military situation is, both on the ground and with nato. it and to assess where that is leading, what we are accomplishing, and how the operation overall is going. to discuss that we have wonderful panelists. we always have wonderful panelists, and today is no exception. just going down the line, ken pollack is the director of the brookings institution. everybody's baidoa is online if you crave additional information. ordaz -- everybody's biography is online if you crave

additional information. ken has a lot of perspective to bring on military history. michael hammond i'm going to guess your title wrong -- michael o'hanlon senior foreign-policy. he writes about military affairs. paul wolfowitz is a visiting scholar at the american enterprise institute and has been following these issues extraordinarily closely and has been writing a great deal. and finally tom donnelly, the director of the center for defense studies. i think what we will do to confuse everybody watching the panel is that we will go in a slightly different -- out of order. for those who have not been here recently the way we always used to do event is that we would have a set piece and i would talk a lot. i have get to that tradition. [laughter] and i apologize to our panelists.

our panelists will of -- what each give a presentation and then return to the floor for questions. we have been doing it a bit differently lately and i hope you all enjoy the change in format. if you do not come i'm sure none of you will hesitate to tell me. we have done a more interactive style. we call it "meet the press." we will do our best to bounce back and forth between our speakers and eventually between our audience and our speakers in a more question and answer style. that is what you should expect. that is how we are going to do it and we will the floor to questions toward the latter part. mike i set you up. i told you i was going to hit you first and ask you a bit about the situation on the ground. how do you see this military operation unwinding? the uc the international community coming together -- do

you see the international community coming together? do we have the smallest coalition of the berlin that we have ever had? -- of the unwilling that we have ever had? are we bringing the right forces to bear to achieve the goals that we wish to achieve, or are we totally unclear on what we want to accomplish in the first place? how does that relate back? >> it is great to be here on behalf of brookings. it is a wonderful opportunity and thank you for the invitation. of course, the questions that you just asked will consumers for a lot of the hour and a half. -- consume us for a lot of the hour and half. first, we all recognize there is a fundamental tension in our goals. on the one hand, we want gaddafi gone, and that is a matter of official u.s. policy. it is a policy that i had the honor of calling for with paul wolfowitz in a co-ed peace.

-- piece. on the other hand, the military mission, as defined by the euan council resolution -- by the u.n. council resolution is explosive that is not even an implied goal although there is room for discussion there. there is a tension about how you could have a difference between these two approaches, to somehow conspired to get rid of gaddafi through economics and pressure when you are not willing to use your military. having said that, in brief assessment of where we are in the campaign. i still believe the president has basically made the right choice. although, it highlights what you said in the introduction and i would agree with this very much the need for more affirmative clear presidential rhetoric. communication is part of the actual policy. it is not a side note to it. and obviously, the whole world is trying to take the presidencyt's temperature on where

he stands. i am excited that he is speaking tonight. there has been too little communication. he cannot reconcile the tension in his policy just by talking more. we are still going to hold that gaddafi leave the scene. on the other hand, we are saying that we will not do that with our forces directly or with any plan. as to why i agree with this approach, of sort of neater to hot nor too cold, the goldilocks approach -- neither too hot nor too cold the golden locks approach, i would say that americans, in general would recognize that we could not stand by and watch the slaughter of the opposition. not only would it be a catastrophe, but it would have made a mockery of the entire winter and spring of revolution in the middle east and change the trajectory that others will comment on, too. but secondly, the ground forces

would have moved too far in the other direction. the basic approach of an assertive air campaign -- and this has been quite assertive. i think this has been the right strategy, at least to start. we are only 10 days in. the initial momentum has been favorable to the rebels. and i think we will all surely agree with that. this is nowhere near its conclusion. by contrast with the 1999 kosovo air campaign which was also motivated by similar kind of thinking -- we have to do something, but we do not want to do everything. we have to keep ground forces out as president clinton said when he began the campaign, but in contrast, this was done in a much more realistic way. we started attacking ground combat if targets. we recognize there were ways that we could effectively strike gaddafi's forces using airplanes, in contrast to because of a case.

we did not signal that we were going to try to line this up -- in contrast to the xhosa. i did not signal that the report to try to line is up in a few days. the president has never indicated, i do not think cannot that we are looking to disengage the united states. -- i do not think that we are looking to disengage the united states. one last point and i will be done. i think where this is going unknowable at the moment. i teach courses on military policy and military calculation trying to analyze combat scenarios and figure out how they are going. i do not know how to even begin a calculation on the battlefield dynamics and the power balances. i think too much is fundamentally unknowable. the rebels have benefited from our air power now to make some inroads into the center of libya, essentially where the

battle has now turned. they took control of ben ghazi and started turning westward. maybe they will do what they did in rwanda in 1994 or in the condo in 1996 and just keep going and be done with it. i would welcome that, too. but i think there's also the possibility of a stalemate and then the question becomes, how much do we want to escalate through more air power? perhaps, and threw arming the rebels? -- through army and rebels? there are three possibilities. the rebels keep going and ultimately mark on tripoli and overthrow gaddafi, or lead to his policy elite deserting him which has the same effect. the third -- the second possibility is stalemate. the third possibility is that somehow gaddafi could reverse the momentum. i do not think that is likely, but the first two possibilities are possible. i do not know which one is more

likely. >> i guess it is likely -- lucky you are not the president. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i'm not going to touch that one. you start out by saying we have a fundamental tension. i do not think there is much disagreement anywhere that those tensions exist. on the other hand, you then suggest we have no idea where this is going to go. you get the feeling that it is a sense of saying, we have just got to do something so let's bomb this side. but if you have no actual vision of where to go, there is no possible means of getting there. in fact, don't you guarantee a stalemate of some sort or other? we do not have any clarity. we do not have real clarity about whether it is legal to arm the rebels. even though there have been reports suggesting that we are

supporting some of back channel army of the rebels. but it is not entirely clear that the u.n. security council resolutions allow that and i would argue that is not allowed under the u.n. security council resolution. is there any way to reconcile these things other than hoping that it comes out for the best? >> just a brief word -- i agree the administration has some difficult choices to make. at the moment, the administration can focus on the speech tonight and i am hoping that this new momentum continues. but chances are in the next one or two weeks they will have to figure of how they are going to escalate. and that could cover a wide range of possibilities, some of which could raise its legal issues arms transfers others of which put involve putting american special forces on the ground. allow to figure out how to get battlefield intelligence and help the rebels coordinate more effectively. and this is my fourth reason

homology to mention -- the 2001 afghanistan -- analogy to mention. the 2001 afghanistan campaign, of course. the administration is going to have to think hard about whether it will contemplate such options. i will let the conversation address that option in the coming minutes but i agree with you. that is a big choice and i do not sense that it has yet been made in the administration. >> part of the challenge tom of coming to you is the communications challenge that mike talked about. secretary gates -- while you are right, they did not race away from american involvement but the secretary nonetheless made some statements that added a new layer of confusion by suggesting that while we do not have a national interest in libya, we do have a national interest regionally. i guess i know how to read bad sitting at a think tank -- read

that sitting at a think tank. i'm not sure how to read that coming from the secretary of defense. even with what the president said in his saturday address when he suggested that we stepped in and of ardeche great humanitarian disaster, as if somehow that was -- and averted a great to humanitarian disaster, as if somehow that was our interests. it was our only interest to avert a humanitarian disaster? or do we have -- as the secretary said, do we not actually have an interest? resolving that with the military means and the progress that has been on the ground. how would you do that? >> i'm going to employ michaels goldilocks analogy just to observe that it is, in fact, porridge, and not something new year and more substantive. -- meatier and more

substantive. the problem is the defacto goal of first and foremost getting rid of gaddafi is pretty well excepted. it is just difficult to say out loud and to articulate and indeed for a host of american domestic political reasons foreign and domestic partners, domestic political conversation, and internationally. and i cannot conceive of any operation were campaign that does not achieve that goal that anybody believes will be a success. we will figure out how to get theirre somehow and we want are making it up as we go along. the establishment of the no-fly zone has been done extraordinarily well, and rapidly, as michael pointed out. it is interesting to speculate what would have been done when the rebels were at the gates of

tripoli. it might have saved the libyans a lot of bloodshed. however, as mike also suggested, in his order of three potential outcomes, the most likely one is some form of operational pause, using the term of his kreag to go back to 1940 in terms of the rebels not being armed well enough to bust through the gates of tripoli. gaddafi does not use his frequent flier miles to go to caracas, or wherever he is going to endaand up, and somebody is going to go the final number a miles. and although it has been a more muscular response and kosovo, it is -- than those of a, then it

has been -- thenan kosovo, it is difficult to see what is coming in the coming days. it will be difficult to make effective use of that air power as things get more nasty. only time will tell. it is not just decisions that have to be made, but a decision that leads us to, first of all getting rid of gaddafi, but also getting ready to shake what comes after. if you have an interest in going to war in the first place, you have at least an equal interest, if not a greater interest, in ensuring that the regime that comes afterwards is not one that leads us down and even worse road than 40 years of gaddafi rule.

part of the task for the president this evening is to take that next step. he does not have to get us to a perfect vision of what his outcome is, but he must take us further down the road that he has ultimately committed us to. >> ok, so you are writing the president's speech. by the way, he is not. [laughter] so, you're writing it. what does he have to say? more important what are the tools that he needs to lay out that we will be using that will take us to the next level? >> again i would say he does not have to be especially specific. it was more, look, he was out of the country, has not talked to the american people or to congress. he just has to express a sense that he is on top of it, and even though he has rounded up this coalition and wants to share the burden, he has to convince us that the outcome is going to be a success.

here are the processes that we are going to follow, but we're going to get -- , you know, again, even without saying i want gaddafi's head on a pike, he has to transmit that idea that the purpose for which we are fighting is the removal of the regime and laying the foundations for a libya that is more like a normal nation. >> in other words, he is going to have to go back to what he said previously and has not said since, and he is going to have to go beyond the language of the u.n. security council resolution which does not call for the use of air power or any other power to remove the regime. that is a difficult corner, that in many ways by trying to do the right thing from a few different directions, we have been ended up -- we have ended up being painted into. you have a whole series of no- fly zones, not all of which has

ended as neatly and beautifully as tom laid out in fact, i'm not sure that any day. talk to us a little bit about that, and also what your historical understanding is of the libyan military dynamic and what that means for us going forward. >> it is wonderful to be back here. it is wonderful to be here on the stage with these four gentlemen. excuse me, 3 denman and one lovely lady. is monday. forgive me. for me, the biggest problem is less the confusion over the goals and more about laying about the strategy how we will accomplish these disparate coal. mike mentioned teaching. i also teach a class. one of the most interesting things about history is that

while having a confusion over goals is never a good thing it is not always have to be crippling. in fact, some of the most successful military campaigns in history have got to start out with very confused goals. the biggest problem is whether you have a strategy that allows you to achieve any of the different goals. what we have not yet seen is an articulate a strategy that can bring us either to the president's stated goal of removing gaddafi from power, or an actual resolution of the immediate humanitarian situation. i believe that it was right to intervene in this situation because of the pressing humanitarian concern. it was a tough decision to make and it was a rapidly unfolding decision, and i think it was the right one. ok, we have done that and staved off the humanitarian catastrophe. now what? that is the big question because you have to bring in some of the history. the problem with the no-fly zones is that they are not decisive military operations.

they do not in of -- in and of themselves contain a way to end this conflict. it is good to be praying every night that someone is going to be putting a bullet in gaddafi's head, but that is not a strategy as colin powell is so fond of reminding us. where do you move forward? to bring in a bit of extra history, we have a history with gaddafi that is not good. i do not think you can imagine any kind of stable political resolution of this current situation in which gaddafi remains in power. many of you probably do not remember this. paul probably does because i think he was in government at the time, but in 1984 during one of his many quixotic invasions of chad it brought the libyan invasion to a halt. gaddafi and a leader of chad --

and gaddafi and the french came to an agreement in which they both would pull out of chad. the french abided by the agreement and gaddafi did not. that is probably the closest analogy of what we have here. the idea that you can stop the slaughter of libyan civilians and then somehow walk away leaving gaddafi in place does not make sense. that brings us back to different scenarios that we have already started putting on the table. again, the history of air power as mike pointed out, if you i do not think the libyan opposition is the equivalent of the northern alliance. what we have going for us is that the libyan military is not the equivalent to the taliban either. what we have been seeing of how they fled at ras lanuf and these other places suggest that you

it might not take a lot. that is pure speculation to go back to the point about the uncertainty. i suspect it is much more likely that if the u.s., if the allies want to employ that approach, we will have to go back and build up the libyan opposition, which will be capable of doing that. i would say the u.n. resolution does not enable that, but i would also say it does not necessarily for did it. that is what we have the cia for. -- i would say the u.n. resolution does not enable that, but i would say it does not necessarily forbid it. if the u.s. is stepping into the background, it is great that the french and british have stepped up, but how long will they do it? if we need two years will we

have the french and british willing to provide air cover to enforce a no-fly zone? the other thing we have going for us is that as the italians learned much to their dismay, it is mostly a no drive zone. are they going to be willing to sustain this kind of effort for the amount of time necessary to build up the libyan opposition to a point or they can go into tripoli? -- where they can go into tripoli? >> i notice you did not bring up iraq. it does animate people in the way that some people are not always happy about. on the other hand, it is hard to escape this pyridine we did end up in a situation where we had a divided country in which the

u.n. partially administered the north. sadam administered the south. we did have occasionally military operation sustained by coalition that may actually be hard to reconstitute. i doubt that a lot of the regional powers would give us the right to fly in and fly out on an endless basis, and then there was the question of armed opposition. you and i were on a slightly different sides of that debate at the time, but i do not think anyone agree -- anyone would agree that it was a much more serious opposition in iraq. in any case, laying that out as the plan b is a very hopeful way of doing so, and also it

allows muammar gaddafi to have this area. let's not forget who he was. nuclear program, a chemical program. missiles. relationships with north korea. a lot of support for terrorism. the uta flight that killed so many. it seems to be the second pick at it, it begins to unravel completely. >> i am glad you minded me of iraq. i am not a big fan of articulating policies, and then doing nothing to actually implement them. that is my fear about what we have done here. i am hoping what we hear from the president is that there is a plan to take this vision of libya without him and turn it into policy. if you want to go much beyond what i it just laid out which is effectively the afghan option

or something like it, you are talking about a ground invasion of tripoli and i do not see any interest out there in that. quite frankly i am not convinced that libya rises to that level of our natural insist -- interests. the i.n.c., i think they're right in there with these guys. i think it is a big issue. is this political sustainability? we saw that with iraq. over the course of time, the coalition got smaller and smaller as we tried to enforce the no-fly zones. the one thing that i hope we have here that we did not have in iraq, is there there was not a plan to bring about somad dam's surmise.

here in libya if we were to simultaneously build up the opposition, we can do it covertly. the cia now has a lot of experience with this and simultaneously be weakening him very significantly. while it is true the libyan rebels are not the =, it is not even the equal of saddam hussein's military. if you can have tight sanctions and the blockade and prevent him from resupplying, over the course of months and years you will neeweaken him. >> the challenge of what rise to the level means is an evolving one. nothing in afghanistan ever rose to the level either until it

did. and he has proven himself imaginative enough to try to rise to that. paul, you have talked a lot about the libyan opposition and what we need to do, who we need to help, what areas are desperate for help, who we need to get off the air. you have written extensively about all of these banks, but for many there is an open question about what the other side actually looks like at all. and having a sense that once muammar gaddafi is gone, we will actually have a group we can work with, even if he did fall on a fork or get shot by one of his defecting leaders. how do we deal with that question? >> i understand the anxiety about this. we might have driven answer to this much sooner than we

realized. we might get very lucky and have catastrophic says us because certainly -- succescatastrophic success, because certainly the change is dramatic. there has been reference to the weakness in the army, but i do not think they have sufficiently underscored a week of situation it is when you have hired africans and put them through the most brutal kind of training so they can verbalize libyans. this is not an army, it is a gang. from what one can tell, and obviously first reports are always wrong. it would appear four or five libyan tanks are the decisive factor in allowing him to keep people off the streets and snipers on roofs.

it is not a normal war which makes one think that even a relatively small anti-tank combatants can defeat them. and we may face a situation sooner than we expect, the post -muammar gaddafi situation. we have done nothing to prepare for it. one thing that strikes me as so much of this discussion from the very beginning, even before we had this -- it is not a no-fly zone. it is a good deal more than a flying is focused on the military options. it reminds me bed every problem is a nail. it seems to me from the beginning we have been slow and behind him and following up on the statements that he makes that is a libyan problem and needs a libyan solution. there are libyans out there with astonishing bravery confronting

tanks and machine guns and arms, and we have yet to establish an insignificant president -- presents to find out how twho these people are. there are a lot of people like the former ambassador here who is somebody we have been dealing with for a least a couple of years. there are many libyan officials that we have been dealing with for a long time. they have been issuing statements which we give almost no attention to. there is so much that we could do before we even get to the question of anti-tank weapons. the fact that muammar gaddafi's libya in-state tv continues to broadcast through for international broadcast.

and why can't base shut down the libyan state tv and said that they will stop broadcasting that type of garbage where the woman is accused on libyan state tv of being a prostitute or something worse in the woman who taxer says even prostitutes are patriotic and this woman is not patriotic. why should that garbage be broadcast? why does it take a private initiative which is apparently forthcoming, to start a broadcasting capability for the provisional governor with opposition? i prefer to call them the rebels. it would look at the statements they have made the statements of principles that one would be happy to see them subscribe to if we were engaged with the more actively, we could say we want you to send it to these principles in a formal way. maybe it would be good thing to get a u.n. resolution establishing that when he

departs there will be a national referendum in libya to determine the basic issues of how they will be governed. instead of sitting back here wringing our hands saying we do not know who these people are, therefore we will not recognize them or supply them. as far as we know we're not sending medical assistance. it is the instrument to avoid the steel made option. in i do think we have warded off the possibility of a muammar gaddafi victory. we may not know who the opposition is, we know who muammar gaddafi is. and we have never dealt with muammar gaddafi in the state he will be in if he succeeds in keeping control of half of libya. with 6.5 billion at less and a lot of bank accounts we had not had access to. he will be insanely bent on revenge and much more dangerous than anything we have encountered before.

i personally believe we have whitewashed them in the paseighthim inhim in the past eight years. the instrument lies in making good on what we have said about this is a libyan solution. in a stalemate would not only be a defeat for us, but the longer it goes on when people say libya is not a vital interests they act as the libyan is an item in the south pacific somewhere and reevaluate on its own merits. they talked as if nothing else were going on in the middle east that might be affected by what is going on in libya. it seems to me it is in our interest to get a decisive resolution as quickly as possible because of everything else touching on fire. we will have a hard time handling the whole region. i think we will have a much harder time handling it if we're still debating who is in charge

of the no-fly zone and what the mission is. >> i have not pressed a new one at the table on this question, but we did advertise being beyond the question of libya. as you what what is going on throughout the region, i think it is legitimate for people in the region to ask libya, while libya? really why not serious? why not bahrain? -- really why not syria? there have been 8000 among opposition who have been lost. certainly the numbers and other countries are far less. arguably we have interests in a few of those countries in one way or another. and we're not doing something right. we're not articulating clearly

our interests. we're not articulating why a cookie cutter does not work, and it is not clear to me how we get out there and actually answer the question so we do not walk away having done something really meaningful for an important part of the muslim world and end up with a fast massive group that were angry that we were not there for them >>. >> it is a very important question, but answering it is enormously difficult. i think people have correctly said, and i think john kerry said yesterday that what we're seeing in the middle east is in portland as the fall of the berlin wall in the fall of 1989. it has a sweeping impact across the region. and you need a strategy for the whole problem, but the strategy has to recognize that each individual piece is different.

this is not a place where i think we should go by analogies. but i do think george h. w. bush gets a lot of credit. at the beginning when the wall came down and the french and british allies were wringing their hands about unified germany being a good thing president bush said we are for a unified germany that is the core of the policy. he swept opposition away. one might point out that one place where we failed was in the balkans where we had no-fly zones. i think what is going on is very much connected to people. they are suddenly discovering there is no reason arabs cannot have freedom. and how it might get applied in different situations is obviously different, but i think the one thing that seems to be

clear is the western world has a chance to embrace the idea of freedom for the arab world, and something that al qaeda is in no position to do in iran. if we fail to take advantage of the common interest, we have lost a historic opportunity. >> i agree with everything paul said. i agree with some of the framing of these questions. and why libya and not bahrain? we do have political principles that shaped the way we make strategy. on the other hand, it is not an algorithm. there is still leadership decisions. statecraft must be practiced. here is a case where taking advantage of local development and libya, which were a gift from the people of north africa

and the political winds have changed came within an eyelash of succeeding without us doing any written about atit. this is an are grand strategic interest. it is not just the humanitarian thing. we have been having a generation several generations long conversation about what u.s. policy toward the muslim world ought to be, and we ought to have learned something over the course of those years. we have done a lot of very difficult things to achieve our shoes she defends and tried to introduce representative governments into the region. we still continue to strive and fight and sacrifice american lives to do it.

this one, even though it is not a world-shattering change is part of a larger world historical event, and it is almost non vicious not to see how all of these things are connected one way or another. it may be difficult to come up with a comprehensive answer and step-by-step strategy, but to not see this as an o very profound strategic interests, seems to be exceptionally narrow minded. >> i still think it demands explanation. when you say something like everybody understands, it reminds me the line about the peace process. i do not think everybody does no choice. as-- does know.

>> you effectively invited me to step up on my soapbox so i will try very hard to keep my comments short but this is something i have been writing about the past few months. i think that paul is absolutely right. one of the things we are lacking is the problem that no one is articulating a strategy. i think the same thing is true for the middle east where the administration has kind of sort of said what they think they will do in the middle east. they have not yet articulated a clear strategic framework for what it is that the united states is up to, which in my mind has to be about repudiating the past and framework for the middle east that emphasized the full stability and kept in place a status quo which kept the arab people in misery. i think this is a moment that

will require a great deal of boldness. a bold as we saw for a moment back in cairo but the administration then walk away from all too quickly. we are going to have to put our long-term interest in the middle east in front of our short-term interest. we will have to embrace change, recognize change will mean something different in every part of the region. and in fact, the best part of change is not the explosive kinds of revolutions we have seen, which so far have gone as well as is humanly possible to imagine them going which is the middle east analyst immediately gives pause, because that means what comes next could be awful. it is also about priorities. that is one of my great concerns when it comes to libya, that when american troops are in combat, that is where our attention goes. libya is not unimportant for the

reasons we have been talking about, but we have other priorities as well. starting with egypt which is a far greater consequence to the future of the middle east. if i may also, iraq, where we have had this democratic experience going on, and the administration has done a pretty poor job of pursuing it. i hope their sudden recognition that this is the change that needs to come to the region will include iraq, which again is of great importance. we will have a dialogue with each of these countries because we know these reforms have been in every country, but ultimately will be about concrete actions. we have had a lot of words, but we need more in terms of concrete action. the egyptian government is in danger of running out of money. there are very good egypt and

the list that are afraid they will not be able to pay civil servants in two or three weeks. the biggest employer in egypt is the egyptian government. that would be to *. -- that would be disastrous. if you want to understand why it is the arab economies cannot generate a labor force capable of functioning in an information economy, it is because of the educational practices of the arab world. the air of human delicate -- the arab human development report has been saying this, education is where the change comes from >>. >> this comes back to our criticism, witches the right answer is always the military. i do not think that is a fair

call in any way but you spend a lot of time with our military commanders in afghanistan and iraq. -- this does come back to our criticism, which is the right answer is always the military. we're not going to win the military effort unless we get the civilian side right unless we get the government side right, the economic side right. we keep talking about this as if it is some new things, that we need to bring these great efforts to the opposition, but we have had years to do this and we stink. the evidence on the ground as we are not good at it. we can step up to a certain point when we have to in afghanistan, in iraq, but preemptively we have not been capable of actually stepping up

and educating and opposition and in forcing a better education system and putting in different structures of government. isn't that the other half of the coin that we do not talk about? >> it is well put as a question. i'm going to go in a different direction, because i do not think that the sequence of events we have seen in the middle east this winter and spring, i do not believe it was of the nature that would have allowed pre-existing conceptual frameworks to easily handle it or even more capacity in terms of our experts to handle it. this is sort of the step up moment in a way for secretary clinton and president obama because it is their pay grade that has to now define what the doctrine will be of the kind of american role we're seeing evolves in the middle east and

the time of historic change. it sounds like a friendly as towards what they have been doing. we are at this inflection point where now is the time to push it one level further. to show he is in charge and report well and sounds presidential and smart. his choices so far have been the least of all options and that is true, but it is getting to be a moment where we need a clearer doctrine because not only do we have to sort out what the goal is in libya and i am torture by the question also and see why it is hard, but we have to figure out how to deal with lemon, offering -- yemen, bahrain and syria.

for the most part, these cases are best handled individually, but they're still is a 25% role for grand strategy. that 25% is missing. we're far enough into this that it is time for secretary clint in president obama to explain what broader strategy we have to guide our roles. -- it is time for secretary clinton and president obama to explain what broader strategy we have to guide our goals. i would hope that we do not have to see that. maybe i am wrong but that is my instinct. in yemen, i think it is time to get on the side of pushing him out. these are largely based on individual circumstance, but you

need a broad way to explain to people what your doing so it does not seem like an endless series of individual decisions that does not add up to seizing the historic moment. >> plus you need to have a sense of who the other side is, which is in some parts how we might have prepared ourselves to have a better relationship with the other side come out rather than concentrating only on the guy. >> i would be to really leery about moments of a new doctrine or reinventing doctrine. i think that we have been on the and involving path of broadly consistent path for a long period of time. it has taken us a while to understand that mindlessly supporting stability of the colonial governments in the region did to the liberty that you would prefer.

-- gets you the liberty that you would prefer. again, making the individual case call is always a contingent decision, but there has been ofa defacto strategy of trying to promote political change. we have been on that path with a necessarily being able to say about lied -- out loud. so we have it as a planning metric so it tells us in the future how to respond to the particular cases or at least princess and the direction -- points as in that direction. i would be nervous if the speech that the president gives is we have made a u-turn from past strategy and we will do this always in coalition with help from others, and that everything

we have done previously is not connected to what we're doing now and what we're for to do it the future. >> i completely disagree with you and your analysis and prescription. i think the idea that we have been embracing the notion of pushing change in the middle east defies historical proof which is that consistently every time when we have been asked how important changes for you, we're about 87 on the list. the bush administration adopted it briefly in the obama administration adopted its even more briefly. and under the clinton administration we have the dialogue he would say you need to go to this, and every time he would say you want me to do this or postpone a peace process.

we would sit push the peace process first. at the end of the day was meaningless. we have to make radical change. we have never tried. this is what we need to do now. we need to recognize that that approach over the last 20 years is what has got us into the problem, and now we have to make that change. it is not for tonight's speech, but it is a speech the president needs to give. it is one that he needs to give soon puritan. >> we have had something approximating an alternative government for over a month now and we have not recognized it. we have had some telephone conversations with it. we met briefly with one of the representatives in paris. as far as i can tell, that is all we have done. and >> let me open up the floor

to questions and remind everyone of the rules. could you identify yourself and ask a brief question or i will interrupt you. this gentleman by the camera had his hand up first. >> my name is john gizzy. i would like to pose my question to the whole panel. i was interested in your comment specifically about opposition, but i also know there are no names mentioned. we hear a variety of names

which means we're far beyond opposition, knowing what the opposition to saddam hussein was or even in egypt. can you name a specific person you think would be a good leader? my other question is ever where the rebels have come in they have torn down the flag and raised the banner of the king who was overthrown. is there any chance of the kings great nephew an error coming to power in a constitutional monarchy? >> i do not have the names off the top of my head, but you can do cool and find out how they have named -- you can google to find out who they have named as the provisional minister. my sense is that the nostalgia for the king probably does not go much beyond the flag, but it

think it does reflect the sense that libya was once a civilized country until muammar gaddafi and his kids got a hold of it. i go back to what i said, which is we do not have to sit here in washington putting arresting there in the air and trying to figure out to our opposition -- putting our finger in the air in try to figure out who our opposition leaders are. we should be right out in the open and talking with those people. i have yet to hear a good reason why we should not recognize them as a provisional government. we can certainly have a presence there and be talking to them on a daily basis and putting out the kind of information. finally, if we could help them get up and broadcast we would know the names of these people appear yen >>.

>> [inaudible] i was wondering if you could give me your commentary about russia's negative position on libya.. >> just so everyone can hear, this is a question on russia's approach to the security council resolution abstaining that now being pretty negative in it's public statements. >> there seems to be some split at the top of the russian government on whether they should be completely negative or just neutral. i do not know what drives their policy other than perhaps putan's nostalgia for regimes. when all of this comes out you can pretty much count on the

russians to get into the oil business with whoever is there to do business with. >> the thing that struck me in the resolution was to the five abstainers were. purcell, russia, india china and berlin. -- brazil, russia india china, and berlin. irussia may be having the cells of four empire, but also the chinese who obviously will be in there also commercially and for the natural resources and would never falls after muammar gaddafi are not very large players in determining what that will look like.

>> thank you. garrett mitchel. >> i ami am finding myself a little bit confused which is in a plot to the panel because i think that is an extraordinary panel. here is the question i feel like i will walk or not knowing the answer to come and that is on the one hand it seems the point has been made that the president's needs to talk libya tonight, what he says about libya. if that is the case, and if what

we know is there is a trouble brewing in syria bahrain yemen, into knows where else and that could erupt any time can he really go on television tonight and address libya only, or does he have to make some statement about this is what we're doing on libya and why we're doing it, but we are also clearly aware that this is brewing in various places and lay down some predicate, laid down something that says on the one hand we make these decisions individually but we do not throw darts at a board. we have a point of view, whether it is embracing change or whatever it happens to be.

that is a question. and>> the reason you will walk away without knowing an answer, is because many of us who watched the president do not know how he feels about this. but would you take this on for a second? >> i am going to take solace in the fact that i assume you came in all lot confused, and the fact you were only leaving a little confused is a testimony to how much we of change things. i actually think the right way to handle this would actually be what you laid out which is to start with the people of the united states of america, this is what has been going on in the middle east. here is what we're thinking about it and here is how libya is a part of it. that is how i would like to see the speech laid out. from what i understand, that is not the speech we're going to get. and they are going to give the

libyas speech. i wanted to give that broader speech as soon as possible, because i like that speech. it is not what we're going to get. i think there's thinking is this is american combat troops in harm's way the president needs to explain to the people what they are up to and why they're doing what they're doing and under what conditions they will remain there. i can certainly understand that in the context of american politics. to go that is not what the president has set up until now. what the president has been emphasizing is here are the american troops and here is where there are in harm's way but let me explain to you how we're not in the lead. we will be passing of responsibility. -- we will be passing off responsibility. >> i am not here to defend the administration.

and >> this goes back to the point that tom was making earlier, which is a lot of the problem is how they have explained themselves and their failure to do so. they did a lousy job of informing congress. they did a lousy job of informing the american people. this is a speech the president should have given days ago perhaps even before we went in or perhaps the night it started. it is a little bit late they are doing it this way. they all believe they have a very consist of world view and everything worked out perfectly. my responses great, share it with this because everyone wants to hear it. >> i would like to see -- first of all, there is a special obligation to talk about why you put american troops in harm's way. but it seems to me the first thing is to say the immediate reason

there is a larger reason to be concerned about libya, and that is what is taking place in the broader middle east. i think the second thing, and it cries out how to be done, is how to fill the gap between the military action and our desired outcome and libya. it is not saying i will put troops on the ground. -- it is not by saying i will put troops on the ground. we definitely have an objective and will take more than just economic sanctions and threats from the international criminal court to accomplish it. i would like to see him about talking of recognizing the opposition's. i would like to see the president of the united states explain the bizarre language of the security council resolution that refers to the country as a libyan world and refers to of his regimeo the regime and not the

country. there is a huge gap on libya that should be filled. and for the larger question it seems to me that the fact is what we're seeing is the reputation of the so-called arab exception, we're seeing throughout the arab world, a desire for freedom and that is something that appeals to americans. we are with those people come and we will figure out how to make things work. the last thing is because people tend to equate bahrain in libya and not understand. evolutionary change is much better than revolutionary change.

all of the tyrants should wake up and smell the coffee and recognize that if they do not begin some gradual change, they are likely to face the kinds of resolutions that are bringing down governments throughout the region. take down this gentleman over here. >> -- this lady over here. >> is there any scenario in which muammar gaddafi staying in power would not be a strategic disaster? maybe a week and leader in the west? >> i have already had some good conversations with michael panelist on this one, but i think there are circumstances under which it could be a tolerable temporary outcome but with the following very clear

conditions. first of all we will not recognize him as the leader under any circumstances. first thing is this is not preferred. if we wind up in the stalemate after a few weeks in which we have various assets on the ground that are having a hard time seeing a way to get that strong enough in the short term to overthrow him, i could contemplate a cease-fire in which he was still heavily sanctioned, perhaps blockaded and told by the arab world that he has a certain amount of months to figure out how to go. in temporarily allowing him some control over tripoli. it is not something i want. we would have to negotiate extremely carefully. any kind of cease-fire would have to be monitored by robust

international forces that were big enough to fend off potential small-scale attacks. this is messy not preferred and not one that i would rule out entirely at this point. >> [inaudible] from the "huffington post." could he state what you know about the state of the military and readiness to respond to orders from his bunker. >> ken -- >> i will start. let's go back to mike's point we do not know. this was not a very good military to begin with, but a military with a lot of stuff. there were always a big stockpile of ammunition and spare vehicles. the best thing you can do is to

look at this as a bunch of guys that are shooting. they did not shoot terribly well but when they are going up against completely untrained rebels, they can do a lot of damage. the big question mark is how many tanks artillery pieces are actually operational. it may just be a half-dozen in the west. the problem that we have is we do not have satellite imagery. that may be the actual account. if the other side has no anti- tank weapons sinkx tanks can be a killer. over time the big question mark is twofold. one is psychological. is there a perception that he is winning or losing. and second terms of physical resupply. how much can he get stuff from

elsewhere? despite the fact he has big stockpiles and some of those have fallen into the hands of rebels and some have been destroyed, and the stockpiles will run down. >> i think your question was less about the stockpiles and people's willingness to follow orders. that is why things like getting libyan tv off the air is so important. that is why recognizing opposition would be so important. if this were to move quickly it would be based on a psychological factor. that is going to be done as much by a non-legal means as legal means. >> -- that is going to read done as much by non-lethal means as by letha ml means.

>> in the conventional sense they are very weak and subject to the kind of military power we can bring to bear or relatively quick organizing in training of the rebels. the question in my mind would be is there a band of loyalists that could form a core of an insurgency? whatever their motivations may be, and undigested freezes will court, depending in part on what comes after muammar gaddafi. will they be integrated into the future of libya? even if you finally eliminate what ever formations and palace guards there may be whether it

be people who were investing in in the past regime who cannot be integrated into society of the future who are not particularly well organized in a large-scale type but our trouble for us for the following government. >> this is another important information point. the press spends a lot of time watching state media in the middle east. this is one of the things i really noticed when i watched our coverage. because most information comes out of state media there is an enormous amount of difference to with that is in many ways unconscious. if conditions how people see their options in terms of going out into the street. 00-- it conditions how people see their options in terms of going

out into the street. we see wholesale media and the way there was not in egypt. it really conditions the willingness to step out an understanding of this scenario, and that is why there's so much agitation on the part of these folks that are on twitter and facebook to get them to stop posting the brothers of wall and all the rest of it. >> james "national journal magazine." it is taken for granted that long-term democratic transformation for the middle east would be a good thing but i am curious for your risk of assessment if the tiger we're trying to ride gets away from us. the situation in bahrain if it gets worse. it egypt democratic transition

goes awry and some really nasty way. i am curious, do you share concern that i have that these even scripted out of control in a way that makes our position very tough in the middle east? >> i want to strongly endorsed that view. in>> just this morning i was doing an interview with one of your colleagues in use the term, we are now writingriding tehhe tiger. we all know revolutions have a bad habit of getting hijacked, we are in the midst of some difficult democratic transitions, and we know those to go badly as well. by the way we have not mention summer of death -- have not mentioned that some of our other friends, iran and al qaeda.

it is going to be a very bumpy and dangerous right for a while. if we get it right, the middle east will be a much better place. but that is a long-term prospect. there is a potential for things to go very badly in the short- term. >> i think the moroccan canisten prime minister spoke and he said arab spring has arrived but the air of summer has not yet come in might be followed by a dark winter. it is a metaphor we are keeping in mind. it does seem to me that often when the question and asked if there is an assumption that this might be going in the direction we do not like, so let's turn it off. one to say it that way you realize how silly it is. -- once you say it that way you realize how silly it is. you need a policy that deals with what is going on there now.

we did not create the tiger, we have to figure out how to read it properly if that is the right metaphor. in > we are not the only people writing the tiger. the still remains an important part of our international life. now the subtext of this is that we're going to get sucked into yet another engagement or involvement in the arab world or muslim world that somehow will deflect us from doing the other more sensible, a great power type of things that only the united states can do. i think this is something that we do not have much of a choice on. you were either writingriding tehe tiger or the tiger is eating us. [laughter]

>> my name is [inaudible] . yesterday's when asked about syria he said a president has been -- a president has been set. should there be a precedent. and maybe this is a way around the hearts and minds of the arab world to see how the private was treated for instance in libya. >> you are the middle east expert. you told us that earlier. >> i think syria is still unfolding. we need to see what happens. obviously we can all hope the people of syria get a better future they deserve. as for what is going to unfold there should the united states -- and this is the beginning. and i think the administration made the right decision when it comes to libya on the

humanitarian basis. as i also said, i am not ready to commit ground troops to taking tripoli. syria, let's see what happens there. i would not rule out any intervention under any circumstances, because the world has a very bad habit of creating scenarios that no one could foresee where do two things that you never imagined, but i certainly think that syria will be a much better place if serious change comes to damascus. i think that the united states should try to foster that as well. >> i would certainly welcome the departure of the president. there was an article i really disagree with reminding us that some change in syria would not be all bad for the united states after the article implied otherwise. it would be great if that happened, but the idea that we can promote it or take advantage of an opportunity is premature

at best. we have not talked a lot about the arab league in this panel which is a slice of group -- decisive group for laying the predicate for intervention. we should continue to at least listen. their intervention in the libyan crisis was a monumental significance. >> can i ask the question, about the arab league? i am curious about that. but also the willingness to speak quickly, and the o.i.c. spoke quickly on libya. how much about was dictated by

the fact he tried to have king of the look killed? is that their policy? do they have a strategy or was this really just a low-hanging fruit that existed out there? >> i want to switch the question of little bit. whenever interest the arab league had in libya pales in comparison to jordan, and turkey and lebanon onand israel. neighbors have very conflicting interests about what happens. we should be an intense a policy with six of those countries, and i would say alllso iraq. i do not think libya is a precedent for anything, other than the fact that if it is

within our power at relatively low military risk to stop the massacre that is something we should consider. i do not see that as what is coming down the pike with syria. we need to see how this evolves. how this situation develops is unpredictable to put it mildly. >> we will have a disagreement after the pane aboutout syria. >> something that no one has mentioned, and there have been calls on left and right with president obama basically committing an act of war against another country without a vote of congress has been called unconstitutional. i think the senate was making for a move to push for an impeachment. and >> why would they leave this

president out? i think we have your question. >> we did have one of you suggest that congress has not been dealt with well. how muchhow much of these are legal questions? none of us are lawyers. i do not want to go too far on the legalism. if anybody wants to address this question of the president's military action and the wisdom of going forward without congress. >> first we recognize the constitutional tension. there is a war powers act that tried to deal with the constitutional ambiguity. i do not think that preclude the administration from doing what it has done. it talks about a 60-day time window. in a quantitative way that is meant to distinguish between a limited military action, of

which there have been many in our history. to imagine congress could never approved every one is unrealistic. having said that, i think that the administration might have considered more than it apparently did trying to go to congress quickly to ask for consideration of approval of a limited use of force in this particular case, given its historic significance, given what the president is trying to do in reshaping the way the world use america's role and the use of force -- world views america's role in the use of force. >> with that, i am afraid we have reached the end of our time. i apologize to everyone i was not able to call on. let me thank you for this terrific event. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> as we have reached the end of this discussion, a reminder that president obama will be making his case for military action in libya, speaking to a national audience and the national defense university here in washington. it starts at about 7:30. we are told it will last about

25 minutes. we'll have it live with your phone calls here on c-span. the u.n. security council is holding an open meeting on the situation in libya beginning at about 3:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. tonight on "the communicators," perspectives on the proposed deal between at&t and the mobile to jeffrey selwa and antitrust -- jeffrey silva and robert bell will discuss the impact on the wireless industry, what the deal faces in the justice department and the fcc and the potential impact on consumers. "the communicators" on c-span2. >> as protests continue in the middle east and nato stands to take control of military options -- operations in libya find a reaction from world leaders on the c-span video library, all searchable, any

time. watch what you want any time. >> reducing federal spending creating jobs, and increasing -- improving the economy were all part of the -- all topics at the conference on saturday including speakers david bossie and greg mourad. the panel was moderated by tim moran. this is about one hour, 10 minutes. we'll show you as much of this as we can until the u.n. security council meeting get under way. >> we're moving into the first of are two morning panels. -- our two morning panels. transforming america. each brings a unique perspective on how we can dismantle big government and reestablished the relationship between citizens and their government. i would like to introduce marilyn rickert, a proponent of the fair tax.

that is an idea that iowans are very familiar with. from maryland, please welcome marilyn rickert. [applause] >> onext up, we were going to have mike george. he could not be here because of a last-minute family issue. we're going to welcome the executive director of strong america now. he is said u.s. veteran. after serving over 12 years on active duty, he'd joined mike george of the george group serving government clients within the department of defense and other federal agencies helping them to eliminate waste and reduce costs. he holds a degree from the university of tennessee and a master's degree in logistics from the air force university on technology.

please welcome peter o. rourke. [applause] next, i would like to welcome greg maraudourad with right to work. greg with right to work has been at the forefront of protecting workers from compulsory unionism. it is fortunate we have him here today. please welcome greg mourad. our fourth speaker is david bossie from citizens united, a conservative grass-roots organization with 500,000 members and supporters nationwide. citizens united made history last year with their victory of

the supreme court. it reinstated first amendment rights for those previously barred from participating in the political process. this victory and leveled the playing field and has been called one of the most important cases in u.s. history. since 2004, he has produced 17 critically acclaimed documentaries including "america at risk" and "rediscovering god in america." please welcome to iowa mr. david bossie. [applause] this morning, we will hear the five to seven minutes of remarks from each panelist. then we will move into the audience participation question and answers. first up, i would like to

welcome to the microphone marilyn rickert. [applause] >> hello, i am here to talk to you today about a topic you not think too much about. liberty and taxation. that seems like an oxymoron. under our current tax system, that is true. i am here to challenge you today about who controls your life. should it be the government using the tax code to determine what you do or do not buy it or are you in charge of your own life? i am here to talk to you about a fair tax bill. it is h.r. built 25 that will give you control of your own life thatback. said a fair tax passes today. what would be the first thing you would notice? your paycheck would be bigger because there were no longer be

federal taxes taken out of your check. imagine that. you would get your check before the government. in america imagine that. your check would be bigger. that is good. the next thing you might notice is what we call our prebate. it is a rebate on what you spend up to the poverty level. you can buy what you need for your family or yourself to live. you have that money to pay for it. let's say you are going to go to work in the battery is dead in your car. on that day the battery is a necessity for you. you will have the cash in hand to pay your taxes to buy the battery. next month, it might be shoes

for the kids. we all have our own emergencies and assessments. it is america. have your your beer. these are things we need to have for liberty. the fair tax is a tax on consumption of the retail level. when you go to buy a new good or service, you pay your taxes. it will be over. no records to keep. nothing to report to the irs. as a matter of fact, the irs is undegone under our tax code. [applause] we figured the states are perfectly capable of collecting any kind of consumption or sales tax. we do not need the irs.

they do not need to know your business. they will no longer know who you work for, how much money you make, how much you spend on the doctor bills. it is none of their business. you go make a purchase and pay your taxes. it is over. there are some people who complain about this. there are people who feel the government should run your life, that you would not make the best choices for yourself. these are the people that like the income tax basically. under the fair tax, you can decide what you are going to buy this day. if you buy a big new fancy car you are going to pay a lot of fair tax. if you buy a normal car like most of us or a used car, there is no fair tax. the rate on the fair tax is 15%

the covers all income tax capital gains all the things to consider income taxes. 8% covers medicare and social security. for most people, they would be paying less in taxes. more people would be paying the tax. for example you may be up until midnight on april 14 tried to get your tax forms done. i do not think your neighborhood drug dealer is trying to fill out his tax forms for what he made on cocaine sales. the same thing with drug runners and pornographers. everybody pays even the foreign visitors to our shores. these are just a few great things about a fair tax. we have a booth in the hallway where we would like to answer all of your questions. congressman king is a co- sponsorship of the bill.

we're grateful for that. he also has a bill in congress, house joint resolution 60 the amendment to repeal the 16th amendment that would make the irs and income tax go away for good. [applause] >> thank you, maryland. we're happy to welcome

it is a significant issue as we talk of raising the debt ceiling and other things. it is one thing we have to address now. strong america now is trying to raise awareness on solutions to our deficit, annual spending rate, and bring a reasonable approach to that into the debate. that is why we're here in iowa and other states to talk to folks about what we can do about that strong america now is here in iowa. we are building a grass-roots organization focused on getting volunteers and others to help us get out the message that there is another way, along with cutting programs and other things that need to be addressed social security, medicare medicaid, all of the mandatory spending side.

that there is another way to address these issues. that is through addressing the issue of waste. we've been talking about fraud waste, and abuse for a long time. it predates me and i am sure a lot of folks in here. that is not what we are talking about. there is waste that we identify with in the federal government that is more systematic. it is frustrating. as you heard in my file -- biom i have been in the air force and navy. i worked with the army of bit on improving their processes and effectiveness. each time i would find examples where the growth of the organization or mission would have wasteful activities start to appear. as we would work with these organizations and groups we would find that at a minimum 25% of the work they would do was waste. it did not contribute to what they were trying to get done. with the military, that is a big deal. think about soldiers sailors or marines during -- spending

25% of their time doing things that did not help them get where they needed to go. we were pretty effective working with them. we have a lot of success working on key programs, helping them to reduce costs. we would usually come in to help them improve their effectiveness. we found we were actually helping them reduce the time and money to get things done. i have one example of that that we've been telling folks about but that really brings it home for everybody. if you remember early on in the iraq war and in afghanistan, we had a problem with improvised explosive devices. pretty nasty, not a great thing to be around if you are over there. they've taken a lot of lives. it was a serious problem for the pentagon to address that. we had a piece of technology. we had the mine resistant

ambush- protected vehicles. they were very effective. the only problem we had was getting that out to the field. we had a group in the navy working on producing those. unfortunately, they were only able to get about five produced per day and then a shift over. -- shipped over. that was not going to make the production rates we needed. the navy asked a group of waste reduction experts to go in and help that group. they did. they were able to raise production up to a least 54 per -- at least 54 per day. there were able to surge up to about 68 per day in getting those out. that was done. it was a great story. [applause] thank you. the really interesting part was that they did this by focusing on processes. there are able to do it without adding any costs for labor.

they were able to get an exponential increase in effectiveness without any new costs. it results in a 90% cost reduction. it shows the idea that can look at government differently and it works. a strong america now, we are trying to convince our elected leaders and those who would like to be elected that this is a process that they need to take seriously and employment at their level. consider and implement at their level. that is what we're doing in iowa. i appreciate your time. we're having folks signed our -- sign our pledge and building a constituency. if you see one of these, the -- signed the -- signed the pledge. learn more about strong american

now and the waste reduction process. i will take any questions. thank you. [applause] >> i am happy to welcome break ground -- greg mourad from right to work. thank you greg. [applause] >> thank you. i am glad to be here. the single most important thing we can do to turn the country around is repealed forced -- repeal forced unionism. this is a gathering of conservatives. whatever issue brought you into this room, your adversaries are funded and staffed by big labor's forced unionism empire. all polling shows that most union members do not agree with the union leadership's politics but they are forced to pay. the union boss has the ability to force their people to pay. they can force any politics they want.

as a result, we end up in a position where the unions are electing the people in direct opposition to reward them. -- that are in a direct opposition to reward them. -- direct position to reward them. we end up with an of spiral in -- up spiral in government that is out of control. the national right to work committee is an organization dedicated to one simple principle. everybody has the right to join a union. nobody should ever be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. the right to choose who will represent your is a fundamental. even convicted criminals get to choose their own advocate. in unionized work force, if you are stuck with the union whether you like it are now -- whether you like it or not. you are stuck with them and you have no choice. the unions turnaround in demand -- turn around and they demand that people pay for this representation that people did not want or ask for and would

get rid of if they could. in the private sector, the facts are dramatic. -- the effects are dramatic. folks do not want to work in that environment. folks do not want to employ people in that environment. that is quite right to work -- that is why the right to work states consistently outperform other states in most economic measures. -- that is why the right to work states consistently outperform other states in most economic measures. as much damage as it has caused and the private sector -- in the private sector it is far worse when you unionize the government work force. you create a situation where big later -- big labor is still in becomes most powerful force in politics. that is the growth of government because that means growth of their union and dos. -- dues. they brag about their power to elect their own bosses. you end up in a situation where big labor is on both sides of the bargaining table as the employees and the employer that they just elected.

you see an enormous increase in the cost and size of government. eupepsia down a spiral in the -- you see a down spiral in the quality of service from government. -- you see a down a spiral in the quality of service from government. that is where we are today. some states are on the verge of insolvency. that is mostly because they cannot afford these bloated union contracts that politicians have happily signed off on. the national right to work committee rights laws in various states -- fights the laws in various states and in the congress. we're pleased to be working with senator king. senator demint presented one in the senate recently. on the state run -- front we have been in the thick of a lot of exciting battles in the last three months. [laughter] it has been exciting to see. i have been beating the strum for 15 years. the organization has been here for 50. it has finally caught the attention of the public because

of the crisis that government unionism has brought on. we have active efforts to pass laws in maine, montana michigan, and half a dozen other states. governors and legislators have begun to see the economic harm and cost to their state of not being a right to work environment. one fellow testified at a hearing in missouri. he is with a corporate relocation firm. he said half of his manufacturing plants will not consider a non-right to work state when they're looking for places to expand. they write them off immediately. the other half still consider the lack of a right to work, as -- work law as a significant obstacle to be overcome. the benefits to the right to work states are enormous. the national climate in terms of government unionism has changed more dramatically.

a few courageous governors and legislators have begun the hard work of rolling back the monopoly bargaining power they have given the government unions and should have never given in the workplace. i would love to see wisconsin continue the effort. what scott walker and the legislature have done has been amazing. that is especially in the face of the ugliest political tantrum i have seen from by anybody in a generation. i have seen throne by anybody in -- thrown by anybody in a generation. [applause] we can compare that to indiana where we believed we were in a position to pass a new right to work state law this year. that would have made indiana the 23rd right to work state. unfortunately in indiana the huge the majorities have been

stymied by the lack of leadership from the speaker and government. -- gov.. -- governor. both say they support right to work. both have done everything in their power to move it aside in favor of other things this year. sadly, they have put us in a position where the democrats have been able to leave the -- flee the state. that has become the single longest legislative walkout in the history of this country. it is in indiana going on right now and still not over. that fight is not over. when they come back, we will continue to press for it. the people of india want this -- indiana want this. if the leadership does not get it, they will learn differently. nothing we can do in this country will have a greater impact than passing the right to work clause and rolling back -- laws and rolling back forced

unionism, taking away the forced dues pipeline that allows the left to constantly grow the size of government and elect their politicians that against -- fight against everything everyone in this room believes in. they will not give up the power without a fight. they profited enormously by it. they will not give it up without a really ugly fight. it is going to take leaders with principles and courage. i hope that we get them. [applause] >> thank you. i am happy to introduce our fourth panelist, david bossie from citizens united. [applause] >> thank you all for coming. i felt like making a joke that i needed to announce for president, but i figured that you and i would get that all of the time. -- but i figured that you all in iowa get that all the time. [laughter] first of all, i want to thank

congressman steve king for putting on this -- [applause] first for putting on this important -- important conference so that iowans can hear from the person is going to defeat barack obama in 2012. [applause] congressman king is a true conservative, principled leader in washington, d.c. believe me, if congress was filled with more people like steve king, this country would be a lot better off. [applause] after citizens united historic -- united's historic victory at the supreme court barack obama, nancy pelosi, harry reid, and the liberal media attack the citizens united -- attacked the

citizens united decision at every turn and viciously so. our important victory empowered voters by giving them additional information. that is what this was all about. in 2010 midterm elections, the results of getting more information or evidence -- were evident. the citizens united decision was a liberal incumbent's nightmare. no longer do the unions and the george soros'of the world control all of the media and message. so sweeping out the liberals in november, it was a huge victory. it came down and stand down from -- stemmed down from that citizens united decision.

i do not think after a year of being attacked, anybody really understands what it was about. citizens united produced a film in 2007 called "hilary, the movie." [laughter] how many people in here have heard of it? exactly. >> people like michael moore and the left-wing controlled hollywood elite -- all these films attacking conservatives. that is the culture war we are in. we decided to take on michael moorea ad to provide conservative content through film. we made a film and said michael moore can do this. can we?

they said you cannot. we get into this back and forth over why. they said listen, we are in charge and because you are a political organization -- mccain-feingold the ruling law of campaign finance did not just make it civil penalties. it made a criminal penalties. the lawyers told me if we move forward with advertising our film that i would be charged and could go to prison for five years per account for making a movie. i thought we lived in the united states. i thought you are joking. my wife would love to get rid of me but not that way.

i said i am not going to play your silly games. i have always been one who is forward leaning and believed the best defense is a great offense. i did not wait for the commission to sue me i sued them [applause] that is why it is called -- i was that being defensive. oc, i cannot believe the campaign finance law could prohibit us from promoting our films. what could the government not restrict us from doing? that was my question. we took them to court. during oral arguments the deputy solicitor general representing

the obama administration said in open court the government could van books. -- they could ban books. i said i think i just won the case. i think i just want. it looks like i will get five of these guys who don't believe book burning is what we do. i went through that process and could not believe they did this. i said the core of my argument has always been the government was restricting our first amendment rights. we all know now one year later that we won and the justices sided with us.

i thought it would be over and that was it. one week later was the state of the union address. barack obama becomes unhinged. it was quite fun to watch but was really unique. i had never seen the jackals that were the leader of the house and senate applauding the supreme court. it was a shameful moment. everybody remembers now because justice alito -- he is maybe a conservative but that does not make these people that guns. they attacked them viciously and demonize them. you have chuck schumer jeering at the supreme court. it goes to what they are about.

if you look at what the are doing in wisconsin this is what they do. they want civil discourse on one side and are willing to break your head. it is a remarkable thing to live through. it is deceptively named because it was an incumbent protection plan to protect their socialist agenda and nancy pelosi.

thankfully that legislation failed and so did the democrats. the left did not focus on the issues like jobs and the economy and our crushing debt. they played these political games. the american people just washed them away. it was an amazing thing to watch. i did not know we could take over the house. i was around in 1994 and you could see that coming because of the way tom delay had been laying the groundwork for some many years to try to do this. this was an amazing moment and the american people said enough is enough. i always like to quote president

reagan when he was fighting the soviet union. he had one philosophy. we win and you lose. i think newt gingrich said president obama was the spectator in chief. . this is a dangerous world we live in. . on libya president obama is traveling to south america. >> maybe hillary clinton was

right when she had that 3:00 a.m. phone call. that phone is still ringing. he actually said that is an interesting point. hillary clinton pointed out that being a community organizer before you are a state senator in the most corrupt state in the country -- maybe it is not the way to brief presence. president obama loves his nobel peace prize and all of the european accolades. at the end of the day, he house to remember he is the president of the united states and not the prime minister of france or the head of the arab league. president obama, in my opinion, does not believe in american

exceptionalism. we are without question the greatest nation this world has ever known. [applause] we are what president reagan said we are reaching that shining city on a hill -- we are with president reagan said we are -- that shining city on a hill. president obama went on his world apology tour. he goes to europe and cairo to try to convince the world leaders that he is different than that bad guy president bush. he is trying to convince everybody that they like me. we see how that is working out for us. the aimless state of affairs of our foreign policy is truly deadly. his failures in iran and yemen

are catastrophic. turning our greatest allies israel into not so much of an ally. is putting us all in grave danger. that is why we're here today. one of the most important things said recently was by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff mike mullen. he said our gravest threat to our country is our debt. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said our unsustainable $14.2 trillion is our greatest

adversary. that is the head of the military making a statement like the. it is very telling. it is almost as telling as secretary gates saying about libya that we've never done anything like this on the fly before. i am sorry. libya has been our enemy for 25 years. why is this being done on the fly? this is an administration without adult leadership, without principles, without any vision of what america is about. let's talk about our sprawling debt. i call it the secret entitlement program that the obama administration does not want to talk about.

the entitlement program does not deal with medicare or medicaid. it does not deal with social security. it has one function. that is to pay interest to the foreign governments that bankroll our debt. according to president obama is on budget figures -- president obama's own budget features, the debt will quadruple $770 billion in 2020. that is just the interest on the debt. that is the interest on the debt each year. that will become $2,500 for every man, woman, and child in the united states just to service the debt for a year.

those are scary numbers. that is the equivalent of people with huge credit card bills. we've all been there. you are trying to pay it down. you get caught in a cycle because you are only paying interest. you cannot give the principle down. you cannot run a family well like that for more than a short time. you definitely cannot run a country that way. you have to remember that the $770 billion in 2020 that his own numbers are projecting for the debt service only pays down the interest. it does not even touched the principal. that is the and sustainability

of it all. that is the unsustainable problem we are in and heading for. that is why i am so grateful to congressman king for holding these events. it is vital that we hear from the people who are going to be able to take him on. i am the father of four kids. i am desperately worried that i am going to leave a nation that is not as great and well off as we found it, as our parents gave to us. that is a tragedy. it is a tragedy not because we are not working hard. we're all providing for our families. we're paying our taxes. we're working to make a living and making ends meet. it is the irresponsible and unconscionable out of control spending in washington. by the way, it continues.

we have to hold -- that is why i love congressman king. he and a few others have the courage to stand up to our own leadership to say that we did not come here to continue the problem. we're not kicking the can down the road. we're dealing with it now. we may not have a choice later. these are great problems we have today. it is march of 2011. it feels like march of 1979 to me. when jimmy carter was president, our american ship was adrift and our captain was awol. food prices are skyrocketing and the unemployment rate is stagnant to say the least.

america feels like it is in a rut like when jimmy carter was president. it is because of barack obama. i feel like we're going to share a malaise speech coming on. america is ready for new leadership. america is ready for a president that will lead our country and inspire our fellow countrymen. i think in 2012, real changes coming. thank you all very much. [applause] >> you have all been sitting there patiently. you look like you have something to say. we will move into the audience participation part of the program. we will have two of our staffers with microphones. please raise your hand if you have a question. if you do have a question,

please address it to a specific panelist or identify it for everybody to answer. we will allow about 20 minutes for questions and answers. i will leave it to kathy and scott to tell me where we're going. please speak clearly into the microphone. >> ms. rickert, could you explain more about the rebate with the fair tax and what the numbers would be? >> the prebate is a rebate of what you spend up to the poverty level. it is only for citizens and legal residents. if you are a visitor or illegal alien, you would not be eligible for the prebate. the health and human services every year puts out the poverty level. by definition, it is what it

costs to buy the necessities of life for your family size. we would rebate that much at the beginning of each month so you would have the money to pay that. it is dependent upon family size, how many adults and children in the family. we do make a slight adjustment. with the poverty level, there is a marriage penalty. we have adjusted the prebate to eliminate the marriage penalty. you can buy your necessities and supplies tax-free. you can decide your necessities without the government telling you what they think the necessities are. >> i would like to address this to marlyn and david. newt referenced reaganomics. it was a 25% cut across the board on taxes.

nobody will bring the fair tax to the floor for debate. it cuts taxes 100% across the board. it makes it permanent by eliminating the 16th amendment. what politician could say that is wrong? >> in my opinion, not enough politicians have enough backbone to support it. that is one of the big problems. [applause] we have too many politicians and lobbyists and so forth making tons of money off the tax code. we have to make sure that our voices have been heard, not just lobbyists who can write big

checks. hopefully with your help and you calling your congressmen and senators and anybody else you can think of, ask them to support a fair tax, h.r. 25. >> any other questions? >> how does this work with business expenses? does it mean that you still have to file returns? >> for the prebate, you only have to file a postcard of the beginning of the year telling them the size of your family and where to send the money. that is all it takes for the prebate. it will make america the tax haven of the world for business.

you may have heard about ge this morning were big businesses can buy tax loopholes for themselves while small businesses are stuck playing heavy taxes. the compliance costs are high to even file your taxes. it is a huge burden, especially on small businesses. in the end, if you pay the tax on small businesses. you pay the compliance cost. you pay either in the form of higher prices, lower wages in your retirement account. your stock is worth less. you are paying for it all. we stop the games. you are only responsible for own taxes on what you purchase.

>> i have a fair tax question. i consider myself to be a proponent. how do you keep 22% -- god forbid we lose the house and it is 35%. >> the constitution does give congress the ability to set whatever tax rate they want. there are certain things in the tax code. class warfare is dead. the government no longer picks winners or losers were they reward their friends and punish their enemies. if they raise the tax, they raise it on 100% of the american people. that makes it really difficult. i had one congressman who said it means they can never raise taxes again. well, not unless you have a

really good reason. >> my question is for peter and perhaps greg. i am a state senator here in iowa. we are a right to work state. i am glad of that. our house passed a bill that dealt with union negotiations. it was dead on arrival in our senate. how can we make a leaner state government when we do have such strong public unions? how can you work around that to make a more efficient state government? >> a lot of the manufacturing depots that do a lot of our work are all unionized.

even in the private sector when you go to introduce something like waste reduction to an organization, the initial reaction is that this is an attack on jobs and a union. that seems to get over, as you work with them to understand the overall goals. in the federal government, i have not seen any reduction in jobs. i have seen a reduction of wages. i have not seen a cut in removing jobs out of the work force. we have been able to work with the unions to give them to understand the overall strategy and get them on board. when you have an environment with a strong union, you have to get them on board quickly and have them understand it is not about them. on the federal government side, it is dealing with an under-

capability they may have. it is about generating new capability there. we have found it to be fairly successful. you have to work with them. >> long term, your fundamental problem of the unionized government work force has not gone away. you need to begin dealing with that problem. the monopoly bargaining system was designed for the private sector. market forces are in play to keep demands reasonable. in the government sector, it is hard to drive the government out of business or drive the jobs offshore. nothing is held in to check especially when they are electing their own bosses. you need to be in a position where your public realizes the monopoly bargaining system does not fit the government sector. they are organizing against the general public.

there is not some mean-spirited employer with a profit motive. they're organizing against the tax payers. when franklin roosevelt created the national act, even he thought unionizing the government sector was unthinkable. even as late as the 1970's, union leadership thought it would never work. we need to get back to a place where people understand unionizing the government is a recipe for disaster. [applause] >> my question is for everybody. my name is jason seaton. i have been vice chair of the republican committee in florida. i have been as involved as i can with my schedule going on. when i get asked every time what we can do, that is the

main thing i would like to know. what can we do? we have a government that spends an hour i -- that spits in our eye while stomping on the constitution. it was clear we did not want obamacare but we got it. it is clear we do not want these things they're shoving down our throats, but we're getting it. what will give us a tangible result? how can we say that we are in charge, start doing what you are supposed to be doing? even now, we won the election in november and cannot get done what we need to do. what can we do as joe public? how can we do something? [applause]

>> the answer is there are no trick plays. there is no immediate answer. this will be a long time fixing. it is the block and tackle of american politics. replace bad politicians with good politicians. there are no trick plays. we dug this whole for a generation. it will take -- the level of intensity we have seen has to be maintained. this people have to be kept active. we have to keep them in the fight for more than one cycle. we have to keep them engaged until the job is done. [applause] >> i would agree with that. that is what we are doing with strong american now.

they are making an investment in that process. we are working with our staff to raise the awareness about these issues. hours happen to be the deficit issue and raising that awareness so they can talk clearly to their elected officials. we take that back to the leaders up on the hill and say this is a significant issue. uni to have a solution. if you don't have a solution that it does not help us. that is what we are trying to support from our efforts. for [applause] >> the ferrick tax movement is a

grass roots movement. we get to show up at great places and talk to you about the ferrotypes. and if you want to learn more information you can go to our informational site. if you decide this is a good plan and want to get involved in kimveer to our web site. that is where we organize to attend events like this. some people say we [unintelligible] the situation is yours. >> there is about 20 states that are right to work states. how long has it been since there has been a state right to work and what is down the road that is likely? >> oklahoma was the last one. it was held up in the courts but

has been functioning since 2003. they went from last in the nation to job creation to the top of the list. we expected to make indiana the 23rd right to work state. we continue to try that. i think that is the most likely state to go but there are a number of other exciting opportunities. missouri has a right to work state. there is a governor that will veto it. in the end that becomes an issue in the next race. the could be in a position where we've replaced a bad politician with a good one. if he learns to vote right or it

used his signing penn currently i will live with it. we have another situation in new hampshire. it is going to the senate next. we have a governor who said he will veto it. we have a pretty large majorities. if he vetoes it he will have to face the consequences. the governor in maine has been pushing aggressively on a right to work lun lun. we will see how we do there. it will see some floor action. folks in michigan have a groundswell going. nobody expected anything out of michigan but they had been hemorrhaging jobs. folks on the ground realize they have to turn things around. there are exciting things

happening on that front. >> my name is steven. i have a question for greg and peter. what about the repeal of the davis-bacon act? they have a similar law in missouri. i have one more question for the fair tax issue. it is more of an observation. take away the power to write the tax code and you will get it back to the people.

>> what it does is guarantee they pay the union wage. this comes the union work rules. it is a situation where they based it on a survey of what the wages are paid for work. the only people that have the resources to deal with answering the survey is the unions. the yund union contractors are trying to make money. -- non-union contractors are trying to make money. it forces anybody doing government contracting work to live by the union rules. it is the work rules. the problem is when you are in a unionized contract environment

you have one guy it allowed to do this thing and not allowed to do this. it is crazy the lack of flexibility. prevailing wage laws are a disaster. they make everything the government does more expensive. they do nothing to ensure labor peace. >> the history is really interesting. the davis-bacon law was introduced to stop minorities from taking white jobs away. it was the unions trying to protect themselves from non- union workers. >> i would agree. what we have seen when we worked with government agencies that

are highly unionized this that flexibility that drives that cost -- once we have been able to show that how that reflects the cost of government, that waste does not have any constituency. most everybody agrees we need to do something about that. we found that proves to not just the folks advocating for unions, but that change its to happen. we believe in a fundamental change. >> just addressing a fair tax issue, the founding fathers were smart enough. they did not allow income tax in

the original constitution. it took the 16th amendment to burden us with that. it is up to us. [applause] >> these will be our final two questions. >> the question is we do enjoy the tax-deductible contribution. how does a fair tax handle that situation? >> this is what they will scare you with. a deduction is only good when you are taxed. you make your house payment 100% tax-free. your gift to your church or nonprofit organization is tax- free. these are all part of the game

they are playing with we want the games to stop. [applause] >> this will be our final question. >> i was a republican candidate in the last presidential election. i am what you call an extreme long-shot. [laughter] my question for the panel is the military and catholic church had existed across thousands of years in different cultures with dozens of levels. how can we reduce the level of bureaucracy which nothing intelligent will probably happen?

>> i already answered that a couple of times. you have to get rid of the monopoly bargaining system within the work force. before you do that you cannot make any other changes. this is controlled by union contracts which gives them extra power. it ought to be dictating what the government spends its money on. we have a situation where the union sets across the bargaining table and they took up what those bureaucrats will do. it is not democracy to give one voice that much power. >> i will agree with the presence there.

you do seem to have several folks doing the same job i believe if we don't fundamentally change the way we view that working with the other issues and address these issues of deficiency there are a lot of excuses made. that is why we have two different kinds of engines. we have to have redundancy and so much more because there might be a contingency. we do a lot of things with a lot of ignorance. i say ignorance and not stupidity. we start revealing these

redundancies. folks are more than willing to get that out of the way. they have to be pushed there. that is why we are asking for this to be a national issue to drive us through these agencies and force them to change the way they operate. they are providing a big service as cheaply as they can. if you are not stop. don't spend that money there. that is where we are coming from. >> there are several studies about how much the tax code costs. anywhere from $350 billion to $500 billion a year is what it costs us.

>> we will leave this discussion at this point. you can see the remainder of this on our web site. the security council is holding an open session to discuss the situation in libya. live coverage of the meeting under way. >> [speaking foreign language] >> pursuant to resolution 19-17. i now give the floor to ambassador jose --

>> thank you all for convening this meeting and give me the opportunity to present this report concerning libya. the text of this report which will be posted on the web site of the committee gives us a picture of the activities undertaken by the committee. i will read at the main report. it was expanded by resolution 1973. the committee starts to include overseeing the arms embargo and the ban on flights of libyan aircraft. currently there are 18 individuals subject to the travel ban.

since the adoption of the resolution the committee met twice to conduct its work. prior to its first meeting they approved an urgent exemption to the ban on flights to allow a member state to evacuate from libyan territory. after discussing several consultations on march 5 members agreed to adopt these proposals afterward. the committee adopted guidelines for the conduct of its work. this contained a reminder to report to the committee on implementation of the relevant provisions regarding the arms

embargo and asset freeze within 120 days. it agreed -- all of these documents will be made available on the committee's website. in the prior consultation members of the committee will alert proposals by members of the committee. they also had a brief update on the status of recruitment of the panel of experts established by resolution 1973. following a preliminary discussion members agreed to consider under the non objection procedures. an urgent request that involves clarification to the subsidy is

also under consideration. i have concluded outlining the most important aspects of the report. i would like to use this opportunity to highlight elements concerning the work of overseeing the sanctions regime. the committee already had two meetings. they were able to adopt provisional guidelines and can carry out its work. the committee will be working on designation's concerning asset freeze which have to be made within the next few weeks. the secretary is also establishing a panel of experts which will report on its

findings. we hope to have this established soon. a prompt response of the council is a signal of the determination of the council to address the situation in libya to fulfil the aspirations of political reform in a peaceful way. an official implementation is crucial in this regard. hence the importance of member states to engage in its implementation. member states resulting from the resolution and how important it is for the committee to receive reports due within 120 days.

one final word concerning transparency of the work of the committee which we will try to improve. even if this is early in the committee's existence this is taking place before an open briefing. the success of sanctions lies in the implementation of sanctions. we will try to keep it this way as we organize whenever it needed a formal briefing on the work of the committee. thank you very much, mr. president. >> i think the ambassador for his briefing. i invite counsel members to continue our discussion on the subject. the meeting is adjourned.

>> a very brief un security council session on the situation

in libya. it included international sanctions that the meeting got under way 10 minutes after 3:00 and lasted a couple of minutes. the president will be making his case for military action tonight. he will be speaking to a national audience from washington. that gets underway at 7:30. we will have before you at 7:30. as protests continued in the middle east and nato takes control of operations in libya find the latest from administration officials on the c-span video library on your computer any time. watch what you want when you want. tonight, perspectives on the deal between at&t and t-mobile.

an antitrust attorney and debby goldman and the consumer unions discuss the impact of the wireless industry and the sec and the potential impacts on consumers. >> a discussion on national security interests. analysts think about ways to improve security in the recent fatal incidents along the u.s.- mexican border. this was moderated by james condi "national journal." >> i will launch our expert panel. i appreciate all of you being here. we will have an opportunity to

ask questions of the panel as well. to my right is the president of a policy forum on western affairs. he is also an adjunct professor at georgetown before and school of service. jason is the principle of the chertoff group and former chief operating officer. i have the senior fellow at the council on foreign relations and author of "the closing of the american border." sitting to his right is vice president of the national security research division and a consultant at virtually every agency from the pentagon to the joint chiefs. and last thad allen , who

needs no introduction. 23rd commandant of the coast guard and dealt with hurricane katrina and the deep water horizon oil spill. thad may have to leave a few minutes. we are still talking about trying to stop these powerful drug cartels at our border. having spent time with you at those borders this is the goal line stand. we talk about how can you address this -- it is impossible we are trying to do this at the border. >> there was a continuum of events that there is something to be achieved.

>> and the maritime borders. for a number of decades we have been dealing with drug flows out of south america. that threat has evolved over the years. when we look at border security we have to look at the entire chain of where things are developed. david got it just right. we really need to be concerned with the southern border of mexico because that is where the drugs come into mexico.

>> talk about how when we come up with a counter to their preferred routes, this is not something you have 100% solution to. >> the roots of the drug trafficking routes go back to the late 1970's where we had significant enforcement. we saw many qualities of marijuana. on shrimp boats. that is where we first got involved. that threat changed as we closed off the choke points. we saw them shift to cocaine and transit through the bahamas. then they shifted to new faugh fast quote safe for.

-- fast boats. more recently we had two cases in colombia. this presents a huge monitoring problem to try to sort that out. you can take those things out of service. >> i want to go to you for a second. a lot was discussed about operational control. the commissioner made a good argument that they have significant control over places where they need it most. can you talk about this issue of operational control? >> it is a squishy concept because the easiest thing to do is measure the numerator and the

number of people you capture. it is always a ratio. the number of people you capture versus the number that came over the border. one of the things we failed to do is engage in developing the measures so that we can make decisions about where to put the extra dollars. it is easy enough to do to figure out how to measure that ratio but there has not been a will to invest in a putting systems in place to do it. >> talk about how you rate mexico on its side of the border. we have had this meridian issue

where we are trying to help. it seems like there is a stalemate. you tell me what your take is. >> the situation in mexico is pretty severe. they have a very fractured law- enforcement and security services. a number around 17,000 similar to the number of law enforcement agencies we have in the u.s. they have tremendous control problems for dealing with it. they need help with the institutional reforms and building a capacity for managing society. a lot of the assistance we have given them has been in the technology round. what you are starting to see is

more recognition that we have to engage in capacity building. that is the next generation of relations between the u.s. and mexico. this is helping them build a new generation of commanders we can begin to tackle these problems. >> there is this tension where they don't like the big brother in the north telling them what to do. as mexico come to a moment of truth where it is willing to accept that? we can share intelligence with them more? are we getting to a better place? >> some of the others might be willing to comment on that. the work we did on mexican policy issues -- my answer in

2009 would have been yes. there have been setbacks since then and i am not sure where the willingness >> edward, you literally wrote the book on the border security after 9/11. it gets to my opening comments. i've heard about border security for 20 years in this town and i'm still not exactly sure what it means in terms of what it looks like. what does success look like at the border? >> it gets to the whole question of what we are trying to do in this initiative. it helps to stand back and say look, this is something the united states has never tried to achieve in its history a level control over borders, where we know who is coming into the country, how long they stay, and what their legal status is. that's a tremendous undertaking.

we are in the early stages. part of the problem is we have not defined the end game. some of this is a measurement problem as jack talked about. we need performance measures. there also has to be some common sense. the language on a lot of this gets very troubling. we use military language that implies all these people coming to the united states pose a threat of some sort. some of them do, but the vast majority are people coming to work. when this was couched in the form of immigration reform, you offered legal ways and you get rid of a lot of the flow. then you can focus on the genuine threats. that conversation has fallen off the table. i'm worried that we are too focused on the hard measures of enforcement. we want a level of security on the border region.

you could go back to the 1990's. people were scared on the san diego side of the border. now you still have 70,000 apprehensions, but it is largely under control. people feel safe in those neighborhoods. it is under control. it will take a mixture of enforcement measures and legal reform to get us there. i fear that the conversation has deviated very far away from that and purely into the hard measures of what we can do at the line at the border. there's only so much you can do. >> republican president went after a conference of immigration reform. we had aid the immigration -- do you ever get something like a successfully managed border if you do not have some sort of immigration reform? >> i do not think so. unless you deal with the demand side, people will all still --

there's always some other way to get into the united states. you cannot have an open country like the united states and not damage the country in some way. the commissioner said we are still open and welcoming. that is sort of true. i've been dealing with a guy from india who has been living in the united states for years and went back home and then had to wait 18 months to come back to the united states. at that point he lost his job. he has done everything by the books. he is not a threat and we will not let him in. if you look at the canadian border the canadian dollar was strongly flooded into the united states. they do not do that anymore because it is a pain to get across the border. we are not as open and welcoming as we used to be. we need to think about that in the context of this debate. >> ok. jason, you have been on the

front line of this fight for quite a long time. talk to me about what mexico is doing on its side of the border to complement what we are doing. clearly, it seems like there's probably not enough. >> when you take a look at what has been done by president calderon it has been a heroic effort and a lot of lives lost. there's been a tremendous effort to attack these criminal organizations. however, there needs to be a more comprehensive plan for mexico to secure its own borders. not just controlling the borders from central america coming into mexico, but also the maritime borders. we have been in discussion with mexico before i retired a year and two months ago about establishing the equivalent to the united states border patrol.

it would be another way it would have to be defeated for people who are trying to either introduce guns or criminal aliens coming into the country. that has not been able to be accomplished. those type of things need to be increased. mexico customs. an organization like mexico customs is in need of modernization. they are making steps to do that, but they need a transformation of the organizational structure to control the borders of the united states going into mexico. the secretary directed operations all along the border going into mexico for drug money and for weapons going into mexico. i would submit it does not need to be done -- it would not need to be done to the level is currently doing if mexico could control the inbound traffic, as well. there have been significant issues on the policy front and also on the initiative plan,

there has been a lot of different types of capacity building training, but it has not been part of a comprehensible plan that will have a lasting effect. >> will that have to involve a change in the mindset and culture for the mexican government to start thinking about -- we have to watch our border with the north? to them, it seems like it's always an issue of their people trying to get into our country. do they have a threat of money and guns now? do you think they are capable of that change? >> yes, the guns and the money are not all coming south. there are a lot of weapons coming in in the maritime. a lot of things are still coming north from central america left over from some of the old wars that happened there as well. i aggrew up in paris and i spent many years in law enforcement and did a lot of training in colombia.

was a changing over time. they did welcome the u.s. authorities. that has not been something that it seems mexico has an appetite for right now. >> they may have their hands full. michael? >> we talked about the mexican border and it's a pretty negative discussion about the violence and drug runners and the illegal immigrants and the threat from terrorists. we had this visit from calderon one week ago. the tension in that meeting with president obama was palpable. when mexico looks at this issue what does the border issue look like to them? >> there is clearly a lot of frustration. the mexicans have made a lot of gains. we have made a lot of gains but somehow the violence continues.

president calderon has to contend with a lot of political pressures on that side. president obama has to contend with a lot of political pressures on this side. there are mexico's coming up in both mexico and the united states. the politics of this does not help. mexicans are frustrated that more has not been done on the u.s. side. not only in terms of the flow of guns and money south, which is a problem, but also the immigration question which seems to be frozen and off the agenda. if you go to mexico and talk to mexicans violence dominates the headlines, but the immigration issue is very crucial. 10% of the population in the united states is of mexican descent. it is disproportionate -- it's a disproportionate share of the immigrant population. when we talk about immigration in general terms it's not just

the general. from a technical-professional level, there's been enormous progress on in libya side -- on mexico's side, but the politics are not good, not only dealing with the drugs and violence, but dealing with the economy and the demographics, which are critical elements. >> when i look at mexico, you mentioned colombia, and i look at a worrisome parallels to colombia in the 1990's. president calderon decided to take on these cartels. we had this terrible violence. is there concern that in the presidential election, there will be -- they will decide they cannot take this level of violence? is that a danger? >> i think it has gone too far for that to happen, frankly.

i think the violence has spread and intensified. i do not think that would be politically viable or acceptable. it might have been a year or so ago. it's beyond that point. i think there's enough public pressure to continue this, but to try to do it in a broader more comprehensive way and perhaps focus more on institutional reform and justice reform. this is a lesson from colombia. by the way, there are a lot of colombians spending time in mexico these days. they are providing a lot of support and i think is very important. >> colombian government officials. >> government officials trying to look at the other side to try to deal with this problem more effectively and applying the colombian experience to mexico. there are differences, but some

lessons can be learned. first of all, this is long. the mexicans should not believe this will be over in a year or so. colombia took a long time and mexico will take a long time. they also have to have a broader approach. it's not a narrow focus of law enforcement. it needs to be the institutional reform that the colombians did as well. >> thad, you were there at the creation of the department of homeland security. the idea was we needed to think more realistically -- more holistically about this. anyone who did the story is back in the day can recall. give us the update. what was readaccomplished? >> there was tremendous progress, and others work that needs to be done tereus we tried

to achieve that type of integration that was talked about earlier in the prototype in arizona. until we can get an integrated approach and also working the border issues from the outside- in and the inside-out, we will still have work to do. there's progress, but it remains to be worked that we need to focus on. for folks familiar with the joint interagency south it has been extraordinarily successful at melding together joint capabilities an interagency folks. i think we know that model works. trying to fit that on the southwest border is a work in progress. i think we all agree that it needs to be done. in this country, we intend to -- we have had issues with oversight on the hill. it's very fragmented in trying

to achieve that. it's a lot harder than it appears to be, but there it is a mandate and we have to do it. >> i agree with you. that is the gold standard. what is the magic that seems to work so well there? how do you export it? >> the handoff from detection monitoring to the end game. there's an interdiction that occurs on the high seas. it allows us to exercise law enforcement authority and to, sometimes, a territorial sea. it gets harder, believe it or not. you are dealing with multiple federal agencies and whether or not it's a port of entry or between ports of entry. david made a significant point. we have to be on case

management. we have to do that as a team. >> jack, what do you make of the meridian issue and where we are on that? do you sense it has had significant success? it has certainly cost significant dollars. >> it's a step in the right direction, but i think the theme from the panel and even from the questions in the audience is the missing piece in the equation at this time is the immigration reform. immigration management is inextricably tied to border management and border control. an effective deterrent against illegal immigration would go a long way toward helping to reduce traffic at the border. one of the recent comments that was made -- we're headed into national elections here and in

mexico in 2012. immigration reform will probably be tabled until after those elections. as a result, probably a holding pattern. it's helping but it cannot work by itself. i guess the other piece to focus specifically on merida -- it focuses on law enforcement packageand there's a tremendous focus in mexico on all the things that happen after an arrest has been made. you need prisons. they are all in person -- are all important pieces and deserving of our attention. >> we will go back to you. we do not talk as much about the canadian border. canada is our number one trading partner. it's important is the cooperation and understanding

what it needs to be? is it statice " acceptable there -- is its status quo acceptable? >> there continues to be significant misunderstandings on both sides of the border. from the american side, there's a tendency to view canada through the lens of the foils lax bomber. u.s. immigration laws as that time were not tight either. we suddenly imagine they have not made any progress. they have made a tremendous amount of progress. there's a lot of cooperation between the two governments to try to keep out people we are concerned about. from the canadian side, their problem continues to be mistrust having to do with information sharing with the united states.

they are reluctant to cooperate on a real-time basis with the united states, for instance, on sharing information on people coming into canada. does the u.s. government note things about those people that the canadian government should know? it goes back to that case where the canadian government shared a lot of misinformation back to the united states and he was sent back to syria to be tortured. president obama and prime minister harper signed a positive agreement on this. its political dynamite in the canadian context. for the canadian government to say they were in favor of a perimeter security system that keeps threats outside of the north american continent that represents a lot of progress. as payback, they want greater facilitation at the border. they want to make it easier for

their citizens to come to the united states. it's not clear we're willing to put the resources and commitment into that side of the equation. >> with the economy being such a tough issue right now. >> the borders have made it easier. there have been decline in volumes as a result of the recession. i think there's been some effort to use the lull created by the recession to build up infrastructure and improve cooperation to maintain better facilitation as the economy recovers. it has been a window of opportunity. it's the same on the mexican border. one hopes it has given the agencies on both sides a chance to be on top of the higher traffic flowed. >> jason, we heard of the operation in arizona with the federal, state, and local working with mexico. apparently, some good things happened.

did that surprise you? did it surprise you that it took us so long? it sounds like it makes sense. you know the history of these types of joint operations. >> the acct operation was in the planning for about six months before it was implemented several months ago. it makes for a sense having a unified commander for the area. it is good and it is a strong step forward. it's not perfect and it will never get to the point of being that model because of the united states and also dealing with sonora and mexico. that's the way to integrate your resources. i do not think it is widely known that there are about 6000 cdp deployed there. about 3500, yuma and tucson.

there's another 1200 or so. the amount of people on detail they've had a heavy infusion of resources to attack what is known now as their highest risk corridor. taking this approach is the way to dismantle what's happening in those criminal organizations. and also to be able to get to the transportation routes in the united states. that is where the federal investigative authorities play a role going forward. it's important, as we go back to the question that continues to be posed about operational control at the border. i want to illustrate what i believe is one of the most secure pieces of the border. that's in san diego. you talked about the comment about how san diego is more secure today than it was several years ago. i spent two different wars in southern california. i've seen it both ways. as you go to the border, you

have one of the most secure areas of the border. you have a double fence between the two layers of fence, there's a tactical road for border patrol. on the u.s. side, there's also wire surveillance cameras, and stadium liking. i believe you have the best area of operational control. as every action causes a reaction, here is what happened. you also have the proliferation of tunnels that are happening in san diego that are beneath the most secure area of surface control, and also the proliferation under water. some of the boats that are now coming across, or even a few weeks ago, there were two scuba devices. this is what is happening.

it's hard for this country to get its arms around this. there's not one person in this room or this country that has the same point of view on how to deal with some of these issues. i would submit the border is one piece of the strategy, but it is not the whole thing. having the defense strategy is a key point. also, what's going to be the receptiveness of society to have a greater level of control for people here illegally and also the drug issues? as long as there is supply, there will continue to be different routes to try to get the product to market. >> you have this the economy. you have a successful operation in arizona. you have the arizona gov. suing the federal government saying it is inexcusable. do you feel the commissioner's

pain? >> i've never seen politics get into that. [laughter] >> of course it colors the reality and so does the media depending on which channel you watch. it takes positions. that's how society form an opinion. that gets to the troubling point of what america thinks is going on and what remains to be done. >> mike, when you talk about heavy, physical fencing how provocative is that to the mexican government? they have an argument about the fence. they point out the only places that have fences like that are the berlin wall and israel. it's a provocative when we focus so much on this heavy border security structure? >> i think it's a little

sensitive. not only for mexico, but for the rest of latin america. i think this is a broader concern. president obama just came back from a five-day visit to the region. even though mexico, central america, and the caribbean is the most relevant with immigration, this comes up in south america, as well. they talk about this and chile and brazil. the fence is sort of a symbol. stay out. what i think is of great concern to a lot of latin americans is that the foreign policy implications are rarely taken into account. in the end that may be the best thing for the u.s. interest, to protect our borders, but we need to understand how this is viewed by our southern neighbors. if we want cooperation with latin americans on other issues, this will not help. that message is interpreted as -- keep out.

>> i think so, too. questions from the audience. i hope you have some great questions. please identify yourself if you have a question for a specific panelist, point to them or name them. ok. i have one right here. i have a microphone coming to you. >> there was an illusion made at the beginning of the panel to the lack of performance metrics that have been used in assessing border security. i would like to hear from anybody on the panel. what do you think has been the biggest obstacle to instituting and managing performance metrics? >> i believe i mentioned that. i'm not sure what the impediment or the barrier is.

rand just published a paper on this topic. there were four different metrics that we identified as deserving additional investigation that could provide real, concrete guidance to the policy makers. i recall two of them. one is captured-recapture methodology, where you make sure you positively identify someone the first time there captured coming over the border. if they are recaptured at a later date, you can use the gap between the time of their first capture and the second to help inform you about what they perceive to be the barriers to coming back over the border. you can also use the physical location of the capture and the geographic distance that they traveled to provide additional information. another is the scientifically sampled segments of the border and then put in very clear

comprehensive measurement activities so that you can get a clear picture of how many people, what types, for what purpose are coming over different segments of the border. those are just two examples. i think the basic theory is the focus is usually on the operational mission. there's not a lot of focus on the benefits of having better measurement and better understanding of how we are performing. i think it's up to congress to ask these questions and require that these types of measurement systems be put in place. >> there are a lot of performance measurements in place. one of the key metric people are calling for and the agency would love to be able to have to gauge their overall performance -- what is the universe that is

gaining entry in the united states drugs or illegal aliens? you can measure against the universe to give you the data. on the recidivism rate, there is progress. many times you'll see, within hours, because when you bring them back in for the second time you will see the recidivism. that happens over and over. those metrics are in place. the largest metric is certainly -- what is the universe? how do we define that? we heard that a lot of people still come by air and overstay. they represent a significant portion of the overall illegal alien population. do you talk to it that in your measure of border security? we really need to get into a disciplined dialogue on what we want to measure and what the key

metrics are by which we want to gauge the success of the country. >> it's a big public-relations problem, as well. the secretary goes to the hill and tries to explain the fact that apprehensions last year was 450,000, which is the lowest since the 1970's, and this is a good news story. this is positive. it is. it's a hard thing to get across in the public debate. the declining number represents progress. >> we have a question. >> i have a question for admiral allen. how we take what we've learned about maritime domain awareness and the success we've had to better protect our east and west coast lines? >> the best way to discuss this

is giving more of a holistic answer. from a strategic standpoint, we have two overmatches but i will talk and military terms and bring it to the security side. badndwidth and computation. bring all these sensors together and then put these things in the hands of the operators that need the information. this is maritime or land. the issue is that it will create that kind of synthesis. it has basically become a battle land. they're starting to use technologies that are successful in interdicting i.e.d. attacks. we need to think about a separation of the datasets so

we're not dealing with the statutory problem and going to a law enforcement sensitive, trusted internet-based way to use that type of technology. irrespective of maritime land or air, that's the way we're going to look of this problem. >> my question has nothing to do with architectural or engineering. seems as if the overall conversation and from what i have been hearing -- the demand for some of this equation is a fundamental aspect of our key problem. that is, whether it is for

workers coming in illegally or four drugs. do any of the panelists know any efforts that are linking that part of the equation to the site of control on the borders? is that a missing piece of this overall dialogue? >> the big focus in congress right now with lamar smith the republican who has the judiciary committee, is on workplace enforcement. the argument is that if you make it very difficult for people without proper papers to get hired for jobs, that will reduce the demand side. there has been a big focus in congress and in dhs -- expansion of the e-verify program has been central. it's another element of enforcement. it is an important 13 we've known that for 30 years. it was supposed to be a key part of the 1986 grand bargain on immigration reform.

there is a demand for something like 300,000 four hundred thousand, 500,000 low-skilled workers from mexico each year. we have no mechanism that allows them to come over freely. >> we are leaving this, which you can see at c-span.org to go to the pentagon. the vice admiral is briefing reporters. >> good afternoon everyone. thank you for being here today. let me start today with a snapshot of the situation on the ground in libya. slide, please. here is how things looked on friday. forces were outside the city. the bridget was able to

reinforce their positions. there was still inside misrata and showing no signs of relenting. here is what things look like today. the opposition forces are in control of the area and have pushed west within 80 miles of surt. we believe the regime is setting up there and placing tanks throughout the city. likewise for the area where we assessed the positions. reporting from misrata shows very heavy fighting. not much of a change. his regime is buzzing reporters out there today for a purpose we do not know. uncomfortable telling you that we have not received a single confirmed reports of civilian casualties caused by the coalition.

we will continue to be just as precise as we can add keeping up the pressure well protecting innocent civilians. in and around misrata regardless isof who is there to watch, we have been and we will be effective at who we are aiming at. we have been keeping you updated with facts and figures. i will just cover the last 24 hours. as you can see, coalition strike aircraft continue to go after targets on the ground. most of which were targets of opportunity, such as the regime forces near misrata and ras lanuf. gaddafi's 32nd brigade, one of gaddafi's most loyal units. we are still awaiting a good assessment of those strikes. we also struck around tripoli.

we did take out a sa-6 in tripoli. over the last 24 hours, the coalition had the majority of which which were strike related. coalition partners continue to increase their -- to increase. the bar graph shows you our work over the weekend. the green bar is the total for each day. red, the coalition. the numbers continue to rise across the board. the labour share is evening out. i will note the addition of pilots from belgium who are now helping enforce the no-fly zone. the qatari pilots have flown several no-fly zone missions and they were scheduled to fly another eight today. we also now have in the

operating aircraft, the united arab emirates. next slide please. you can see a breakdown of authorities devoted to protecting the people. the numbers at right are totals for the entire operation. from friday to sunday, a total increase in strikes from 91 to 107. the majority were flown by our partner nation pilots. i know it seems as though i'm trying to hammer home a point and i guess i am. u.s. military participation in this operation is changing to primarily of support. one of our submarines has now moved on to previously assigned tasking, having completed all missions assigned. the u.s. is now providing 80% of all air refueling, a 75% of aerial surveillance, and 100% of

all electronic warfare mission. we remain committed to the mission and to the mandate we have been told to enforce. that commitment is very much shared by others and it now will be led by others. the announcement yesterday that nato will assume command of the entire commission -- of the entire mission in the next few days. the details of exactly when and exactly how are still being discussed and i am not able to lay out much of that for you but we will as soon as we have that. i can tell you that we are all very comfortable there will not be in the dropped balls and a handoff. everyone is working hard to ensure the tempo of operations is not disrupted, nor the pressure on the regime lifted. in short, it comes back to my comments at the start. the situation on the ground has certainly been changing. it is changing 3 in the air, the coalition is compliant.

i will now take your questions. >> admiral, the effect, if not the intention of western intervention in libya has been to help the rebels regained the initiative. they're moving west. do you intend to exploit that success by having additional aircraft? >> we're not in direct support of the opposition. that is not part of our mandate. we are not coordinating with the opposition. our strategy continues to be to pressure them where we think it will give us the best effect. we see that possibly occurring given the events you have seen on the battlefield. anytime that you do see an opportunity like that, the commanders in the field will try to exploit that opportunity.

you can see the number of the strikes as a direct result of that. >> are you a-10's? >> we have employed them over the weekend. >> where and what capacity? >> i'm not able to tell you that at this time. >> both saturday and sunday? >> over the weekend. >> you are communicating with the opposition? >> we have no communication with the opposition. >> you make absolutely sure you are attacking regime forces rather than opposition forces? >> that is the challenge the positive identification of the target. that's why the discipline of the air crew from all the coalition partners is critical. right now, it appears that the -- where we are striking, the opposition is not. where we can make a system of positive identification

identifying friend from foe. >> you talked about the allies overall and the majority of the strikes. which countries are participating in strikes? the u.s. still has the lion's share right? >> as an example, if we could go to slide 3 please. you will see the u.s., the u.k., finland, canada, and belgium in the last 24 hours -- and denmark. >> you talked about how gaddafi -- you have been diminishing the ability of gaddafi to command and control forces, but you have not yet see any type of reversed momentum on the ground. what is the situation now? is there any change in that? >> the vix if we saw from friday to today is exactly -- the big

shift we salt from friday today is exactly the result of that. whether it is confusion or being overextended, we had a pretty significant shift. slide one please. where they were this morning. that's a pretty significant withdrawal on their part. >> what's the difference between the types of strikes you are describing and the strikes that would destroy the libyan military? >> i'm not sure what your question is. >> you described the attack on

the headquarters of the 32nd brigade. these strikes against headquarters -- there seems to be a fairly thin line between stopping assaults on civilians and simply taking out the libyan military. >> we are paying attention to the lines of communication the command and control, the ability to resupply those forces that are the most active against the attacks on civilians. what is the difference between this and another conflict? the specific targets -- the target types are not different. it is where we are trying to go after them. >> you are leaving significant --

>> i would say we are not leaving significant firepower. any place we can see ammunition storage facilities or things of that nature, we are going after those. >> it may be easier to ask what you are not going after. >> well, i'm having a hard time understanding your question. once again, we're going after those forces -- >> is it simply to relieve the pressure on civilians in these towns along the coast or is it an all out assault on gaddafi's military to dismember it? >> the targeting objectives from the very first strikes

remain the same. >> what would be something that is not something on the target list? >> i'm just going to stick to the targets we're going after. >> to follow up on david's question, and specifically about surt slide 3 showed american air attacks against libya and maneuver forces at surt. by all accounts we are getting out of libya, there's no threat to civilians in surt. it is gaddafi's birthplace and apparently filled with gaddafi's supporters. what would be the threat to civilians? >> the military forces are command and control related. they are doing command-and-

control for the forces that are to the east to them. once again you want to create confusion at the front and go after command and control at the rear and supply lines in between. and ammunition facilities anywhere we can find them. >> does not say command-and- control facilities on the chart. >> let me check and make sure we accurately captured that. >> specific on the number of ordinance dropped. >> we are up to 199 7 from coalition, and a little over 600 persistent guided, 455 from the u.s. and 107 from the coalition. >> can you give a sense of the level of destruction in the last few days? how are you quantifying it?

tanks destroyed? >> we do not have the damage assessment from the last 24 hours. once again, we are not into -- as we do an assessment of the effect on the battlefield, we are not counting tanks and armored personnel carriers destroyed. that's not the effect. that's not how we will measure the effect. we will look at how the maneuver force and the command and control is being uplight. >> that specific brigade gaddafi's is reportedly running its. >> we have not seen the effect yet. from the rest of the strikes the results of where the battle has taken us over the weekend is a direction of how the effect is shown. >> are those allowing you to attack gaddafi's forces in the cities now? >> i'm not going to talk about

how any of the specific weapons systems are employed. >> i'm trying to understand why we do not see any french planes as part of the strike forces. >> there are quite a few french strike missions. it just happened in the last 24 hours, there were not any. >> in sirte if you have a situation where gaddafi's forces are fighting against opposition forces will coalition planes to strike in the sirte area? >> i'm not going to get into the hypothetical. if there are regime forces outside of sirte and they are attacked, we will most likely take them under attack. >> is there still evidence that gaddafi's is in charge of the 32nd brigade? >> i do not have any intelligence regarding gaddafi's son at this time? >> looking at the transfer of

command, when we transferred command from units in iraq or afghanistan, that's usually a month-long process. we seem to be doing this very quickly. what exactly is entailed with shifting command to nato? >> the specifics are still being worked out. the maritime embargo was fairly easy and forward. they started taking on the no- fly zone mission on saturday morning. it will take on the total mission in the coming days. none of the commanders involved are anticipating any problems with that. one of the benefits of trancing to nato is -- as we've been working with nato for many years we understand the command structure. we exercise together. we operate in afghanistan together. there's high confidence we will not drop the ball. >> you mentioned there is

fighting that is still pretty serious and misrata. can you characterize that? ourare gaddafi's forces using tanks? i'm not going to characterize the type of fighting in the city. we're focusing outside the city. >> are there any attacks -- >> i'm not going to talk about other than that -- in around the city. >> aside from the providence, do you have any indication about planes and ships to leave odyssey dawn? >> yes as we're working on defining command arrangements, they are also working on those assets that are required that nato will need to do that. the forces that will not be needed will be redeployed. >> to follow up on that question, in addition to the stuff that's no longer on

station, can you tell us how many are currently there? >> i do not have the number in any of my notes in front of me right now. we can provide that. >> are there any details you can share with us about the humanitarian aid dimension to this? >> we're heavily involved in planning for the humanitarian assistance and doing that with our partners and non- governmental agencies. >> the dutch prime minister said turkey will take over them gauzy -- over benghazi. >> i'm not at liberty to discuss that. >> are they did in in in the cities or the outskirts? >> i do not have the specifics for you. >> in an e-mail published by

"the new york times" a general said he saw little evidence that very few of gaddafi's forces were defecting to a lot of the gains made by the rebels could be very temporary. is that your assessment? >> he is the commander and i will defer to general hamm in his opinion to the opposition is not well organized and it's not a very robust organization. any gain that they make is tenuous based on that. there clearly achieving a benefit from the actions they are taking. i think the generals assessment is very good. >> does he know who the opposition is and does it matter to you? >> we are not talking with the opposition.

we would like a much better understanding of the opposition and we do not have that. yes, it does matter to us and we're trying -- we are trying to fill in those gaps. >> of the 983 do you know of a single instance where a single one of those aircraft came under fire from gaddafi's forces? >> last night we have reporting of what we think it's a ballistic missile launch. it was a pilots in flight report. we are investigating that. that's the only one we are aware of. i will tell you as an aviator every time you fly -- you are assuming you are being shot at. there's a lot of aimed aaa, as

well as a significant number in the thousands of ir-missiles. those are the threats. i only know of that one from last night from reports. >> and not even a confirmed report yet. >> those are the ones that i am aware of. i'm not pouring through the 983 mission reports anymore. >> admiral, 50 a-10 and -- if they are combat -- these aircraft are clearly targeting gaddafi's forces. is that the message with these

aircraft, we are going to take you out? >> they are precision munitions. it's not so much the platform as the weapon that is extending it. i do not call them combat support for combat aircraft. they deliver a precision affect. >> thank you everybody. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> president obama said earlier today that u.s. involvement in libya will be limited in both time and scope. the president will speak to the nation about libya from national defence university later today. we will have that live on c- span at 7:30 p.m. eastern and then take your calls.

the senate is back from its spring recess. this afternoon members continued work on a small business and technology bill. more debate, including amendments on that legislation tomorrow. also u.s. district court judicial nomination for the northern district of new york. the date on that is expected to start momentarily. the house returns tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative business. on the agenda, a bill that would extend airport and airway programs. later in the week, a longer- term federal aviation administration program bill. also, a bill sponsored by house speaker john boehner that reauthorize the the school voucher program. as always, live coverage on c- span. >> tonight, perspectives on the proposed deal between at&t and t-mobile. jeffrey silva and robert bell.

also, debbie goldman discusses what the deal faces in the justice department and the fcc and the potential impact on the consumer. house and senate members have been spending the working week in their home districts. that gives you a chance to catch up on debates. short-term spending bills and the attempt to repeal health care, expansion of the patriot act, and that the law reform, all online at c-span's congressional chronicle. search by topic, bill number, or member at c-span.org/congress. >> mike baker, a former cia officer was on this morning's "washington journal" talking

about possible terrorism because of the u.s.'s role in enforcing the no-fly zone in libya. host: mike baker joins us to talk about libya and state sponsored terrorism. welcome to the program. guest: thanks very muc host: in light of the no-fly zone in libya how much concern that gaddafi may try to exact some sort of revenge especially on the u.s.? guest: given his history and his past involvement in terrorism such as the lockerbie bombing it is a scenario that you have to be made aware of. it is of concern particularly to the intel community in terms

of monitoring what his services may be doing. there is probably a calculus going on with gaddafi. he is a very calculating survivor. he has been in place for some 42 years. you have to look at this and say, he is making the analysis that if he were to engage in some terrorist act as a result of what is happening now it would pretty much spell the end for him. i think he is looking at the likelihood of still being in power with control over the western side of the country. it is a scenario that you have to be concerned about. host: how much do know about

what he is thinking about what is happening in his country right now and who is advising him on what his next move should be? guest: he has in part survived over the years by purging those who moved up through the military ranks and within his government, once they appear to be kidding too much of a profile or their own following. at the end of the day, it is not unlike a lot of other dictators. he relies on a very small circle, which is often his immediate family. the potential of what that means, whether we are talking about gaddafi or any other dictator is, a decreasing ability to obtain human sources that can provide insight into

the plans of someone like gaddafi -- his plans motivations, what he is actually thinking. intelligence operations want to know that about him. you have to look at the variable potential targets and people who may have information. profiled the individualsnto determine who is a like target. we have had a hard time developing quality sources in libya for a long time. it plays out to some this -- degree to unrstand where this may be going on the ground. we know where it is going in the air. the air attack allows for the rebel advaes. in terms of what is going on in his compound and what people are thinking?

very limited. host: why is it difficult to develop this intelligence on the ground in libya and in certain places of the middle east? guest: we do not blend. in order to develop quality sources, you would like to think you have that one-on-o contact, an initial development rather than working through access to someone that has access to them. getting that person can be limited in a place like libya. you can argue throughout other parts of the middle east. we have traditionally relied

heavily on our foreign partners in that part of the world to provide usith additional insight to what is going on in the inner circles. without going too far into sources and methods and other sensitive issues, that is a look at the problem. host: we are speaking with a former cia officer. our discussion for about the next 40 minutes will center around the be and state sponsored terrorism. if you want to get involved, the numbers are on the screen. you can also send us messages via e-mail can't twitter. -- and twitter.

tell us more about diligence llc is?. guest: it is an intelligence firm. when you have my type of background, you wonder what he will do in the public sector. we provide support to multinational financial institutions law firms, whoever may need it. it is something to do due diligence on individual companies that another firm may be considering doing business with a u.s. company could be worried about what their foreign competitors are doing overseas. -- they can create an unlevel playing field. it all falls into the same pocket of information that will

make business dealings more transparent and more profitable and minimize the risk. host: our first call comes from louisiana on average democrat line. -- on our democratic line. caller: i am concerned with the visit of republicans meddling with a price of survival. it is written indelibly on stone that we have had a price of survival. and we have had a government support us. we know who the big threat was with a cold war and what not.

we have to have friends of our enemies and enemies of our enemies. when we cannot exist, we would not remain. we need oil and trade and we have to sell and buy stuff. host: he made an interesting mark -- a remark. one day the friend of your friend is your friend, and then they are your enemy. tell us h intelligence gathering survives in a world like that where the line keeps shifting back and forth. guest: a terrific point. at the end of the day, nothing is black and white. you learn that very quickly in

the intelligence world where oftentimes your choices and who you deal with overseas is not between good and evil. it often times is between that and a less bad. egypt is a good example. b -- ad and less bad. -- bad abdnd less bad. egypt is a good example. how could a m supportubthey support mubarak all this time? it is not that simple. you have to make concessions. every country acts in their own interests. sometimes we end up apologizing for that to win overseas, the

other countries are much more adept at it and less apologetic for doing it. gaddafi in libya is another good example. our friends and enemies and the shifting in the nature of that relationship. for years, gaddafi was on our enemies list. suddenly in 2004, by some calculations, he became our allies. -- ally. now he is on our bad guy list. it is difficult and people are trying to process what is happening in libya right now and acetylene here justification's for what we are doing -- and suddenly herjustification's for what we are doing such as he is a terrorist. at the end of the day y make a decision based on national

best interest. oftentimes, it is not ideal but it is the real woundrld. host: we have a twitter message. your thoughts? guest: an interesting message. a great deal of war is based on terror. you are trying to control a population. you are trying to control your leverage on the opposition. it is an unfortute aspect of it. you argue about what is going on in places like libya right now or in the country run by a dictator or strong man.

there is always an element of terror there. whether it is imposed on people by psychological means for the police or whomever, under the control of the strong arm -- terror is a component of any war. that is a given perhaps. host: albert guess is now president of diligence llc. annapolis, md., independent line. -- our guest is now president of diligence llc. annapolis, md., independent line. caller: we have limited strike

with coalition forces in the u. in iraq, we have been there 10 yes with an effort against someone who did not have weapons of mass destruction that we claimed. it is interesting political respon to a democratic versus a republican predent. guest: that is a very valid point. there is a problem with how this developed and how it was explained. i look at what is going on in libya right now, and i think it was ill-conceived and improperly managed and poorly explained. we are going in now because of the terrorists. the idea is that we wanted to prevent a humanitarian crisis

and protect the citizens. that is used as the basis for this military action. the arab league calling for a no-fly zone was the tipping point for the current administration to say, that is what we need to move forward. i would argue that it could act in its own best self interest, to get rid of somebody they cannot stand. part of the political response may be confusion over where we stand. are we making the mental leap from saying that we are protecting citizens to now we are advancing with the rebels as they push past where they were when we stepped in? that is an entirely different issue. perhaps the president will address that this evening. then there is concern over this

limited approach. at the end of the day, it is relatively ineffective. i think we will see it. now that the fight may go to the urban centers air power is relatively useless. we are workingur way towards a stalemate if we are not putting people on the ground. there is a lot of criticism coming from the democrats as well as the republicans. i think it is more of a failure to understand what it is we are doing in how we tend to accomplish it. if we finish this as a stalemate in gaddafi is still in charge albeit with a theory ltd. reached in the eastern part i do not see how anybody describes this in the result as a success. host: you have no idea what is in the speech of the president for whom he has been talking to

in putting this together. how much consultation should the president have with intelligent sources about how much he can say and what he should say is in the speech? guest: a great deal of context. they have a real seat at the table, with anything like this. they have to see where we are at this point. the problem is, the real world is never get to the point where you develop and operation and pulled the trigger with a lack of information. you never have all of the information you want. if you wait, tngs will go further south or things will pass you by. the president will be given all best intelligence available. that will be explained in

context. this is what we have, do not have, are unsure of. in any situation like this, the intel community has a major role to play. the president makes the call. where do we go with this and how do i put this into my strategy, my policy? i would argue that information is provided as best we have in term of who the opposition is. who are these rebels that we should go in and support? that calculation was that we may not know that much about them. there are elements within the oppositi that are not ailable to us. the decision was made that anything is better than gaddafi.

host: we will have coverage of the president's speech to the nation of the u.s. involvement in libya coming from the national defense university. live coverage at 7:30 p.m. eastern time, 4:30 p.m. on the west coast. for more details, go to our web site at guestc-span.org. next caller. caller: mike x brother in law as a retired navy cmdr. winners in this latest w is a military industrial complex. mike, you are a good spokesperson for the work complex.

is there ever a program of conflict resolution? what if all of the people working for him on confct resolution -- we have all of these people and putting troops on the ground. where is conflict resolution in this scenario? guest: i would argue that there has been a concerted effort to avoid escalating this problem in libya. we saw that early on when there was a great deal of complaining about the fact that we were not getting involved sooner. during the course of that, there was this conflict resolution effort. the problem is there was a drum

beat from both extremes sides. there was a call for a no-fly zone. some wanted to go out there immediely. the arab league started calling for a no-fly zone. once that happened, i think it became very difficult to say we will not take action. the security council called a no-fly zone, and off you go to the races. i think there is an understanding, when you see it in the efforts of the administration to handle this tornado. we do not want this thing to move forward. the resolution does not allow for troops on the ground. the intentions are could. there is a problem with it being

a bit of a mottled mess and wear it is going. ultimately the -- muddled mess and where it is going. we had a 12-year no-fly zone in iraq. many may argue that we accomplished little. i think there has bn an effort of conflict resolution and an effort to t to resolve this. put pressure for gaddafi to leave or back down. when that did not happen, the drum beat for the no-fly zone became unavoidable. off you go. host: ohio, go ahead. call: it is my impression over many years that the united states intelligence agencies have been very in effect in

finding spies within their agencies -- inept in finding spies within their agencies. do you agree with that? what have they done to prevent these people from b train us? guest: a terrific question. we could spend all day on that particularopic. i would argue that -- it is not like the thriller books or feature films. any time a spy is found within your ranks speaking for the cia, the tendency is to say, how could this happen? the reality is that it is an extremely difficult process.

counter intelligence, finding somebody within the ranks of your own service is a very difficult thing to do. then you have to develop it to where you have all of the evidence you need to ensure that you can prosecute successfully. we have had problems. no doubt about that. a free service has had problems. that is the nature of the game. -- every service has had problems. that is the nature of the game. it could be as simple as an emotional issue at home or a financial issue. something tips in that person's life and causes them to betray their agency, their family,

their country. it is a phenomenal issue when you think about the depth of the trail. it is the reality -- death of betrayal. it is the reality of the world. some people are looking for these opportunities. everytime we have had an incident whoever it may be, we take it and learn better how to understand the psychology of the traderitor. you learn how to monitor better within your own rank and file. it is a human business. it is like preventing terrorism. this will never be a zero risk gain a. -- game.

host: let's move on to this e- mail that we got from new jersey. she wants to know if the libyan leader has to relinquish power what would happen next. guest: it is difficult enough to keep tabs on him while he is running the country. if he is not running it, how do we keep tabs on it? it would depend on the terms of his departure and if he would have a safe haven. it is unlikely that it would be a peaceful ending in a resolution. who would offer him an opportunity to live out the rest of his bizarre yrs? the bigger question above that is -- understand where the

viewer is coming from. does he pose a threat once he is out of power? he has tremendous personal nances and resources and a network. once he is out of power the answer is he would work with the host country. whoever agrees to give him a safe haven, he would work with them. it would be an international effort to create the opportunity to get him out and have a peaceful transition. what does the government look like in libya? what does it do to hour sphere of influence in reasonable stability and issues related to it? look at what is happening in other areas. a remarkable piece of hiory in the middle east right now.

host: w are speaking with mike baker, a former cia operative. thank you to al jazeera for helping us out with some of that video. caller: mike, i have alws been fascinated by the cia. earlier, you said that sometimes you have to deal with terrorists like gaddafi which the bush administration did in 2004. the only reason bush focused on removing wmd's from libya with gaddafi's approval was to distract us from the absence of wmd's in iraq. gaddafi held all the cards because he knew the bush administration was using him to pacify the americans who were very angry about laws regarding wmd' in iraq.

host: mike baker, your thoughts? guest: again -- that's not any motive - an emotive subject, is it? if we look at gaddafi and how that played out, i think we had to take up that opportunity. hille still holds a store of weaponry. there are several tons of mustard gas that need to be declared -- need to be destroyed. they destroyed several tons of it in concert with the un in 2004. you have to work withaddafi. does it smell? ye but 's better than the alternative. when an opportunity comesp to say, let's work with him, he is renouncing weapons of mass destruction, we will get in there and work with the un to

start registering the stores of these things destroying -- to start destroying the stores of these things what do you say? no, we are not going to deal with him because he is a terrorist? the reality is you make your choices based on what you perceive as your best national interests. how that relates to doing a -- to diverting people's attention from what happened in iraq, i do not think it have that impact. over the past seven years people have thought very little, if at all, of what is happening in libya. gaddafi co. -- and of gaddafi until these recent times. host: "after five decades the u-2 is still flying high."

talk to us a little bit about the role of the u-2 in intelligence-gathering and the fact that it is still going to be in the arsenal for a while what role it might play in assisting nato and our allies in the forcement of the no-fly zone in libya. guest: the u-2 program has just been an enormous success over the years. if anyone is interested, i would suggest they look into the program.

it has really paid dividends over the decades. there was some this doubt and sadness over the notion that you too would go away -- nostalgia and sadness over the notion that the you-to -- the u-2 would go away. continues to play a role in gathering intelligence, supplementing and being the lead at times in the understanding and planning for strategic operations. it is critical. there was a period of time where you could argue -- 1980's, early-1990's -- where we are focusing more on technical them collection rather than human sources. there were some cries about, why do we need the cia, why do we need an intel service. during the course of that, it beca