what's going to happen in the next couple months, i would not ve put japan and libya at the top of the list of countries i'd it may have just been a regular be sending the majority of my person who did not like time on for the time that i organized labor. have. and that just speaks to the sure 7 the party, but i am unpredictability that's out it will be pretty sedate. there. the tragedy and the loss of lives in japan. how happy can a party be when it while there was great focus on is held in accords with sharia libya, at the sa time we had law? it is what i can -- what i was almost 20,000 troops and i think told. 18 or 19 ships in support of this is a year of sweeping changes happening in television that humanitarian assistance and news. disaster relief for weeks at katie couric has announced she has lost cbs. she was best known for asking time. so the demands, i think, will continue. those tough questions, like name we just have to be pretty measured about what we're going a newspaper. to -- what we're going to do and what we're not going to do. years of hard-hitting questions, i've been in a hollow military and she is known for the one before. that could have doubled as a i won't lead a hollow military. category on "family feud. i know -- i kno what one is and name something you keep in your attic. what it can and can't do, and i think it would be particularly dangerous in the world that we're living in now to hollow katie is just one of many out. so we have to -- whatever we

departures we have seen. have, however we get to our juan williams is black and a future, it must be whole. and you talked about cuts in friend of muslims. personnel and that's in the 15, 16 time frame, maybe 14 right now. when i was the head of the navy, out of my budget, it was 60 to 70% of my budget every year, and msnbc keith olbermann was suspended from the show by donating money to three democratic campaigns. that's active reserve as well as still, the punishment seemed rather harsh compared to the civilian -- the personnel costs slap on the wrist larry king got were about that percentage of my budget and i've said it this for giving a buffalo nickel to someone. way, i need every single person cnn replaced larry king with peers morgan. i need but i don't need one more. and oftentimes that becomes = -- pierce morgan. the -- almost too easy and say, okay, let's immediately do away rick sanchez, you are gone, but with forestructure because there's a lot of money there specifically but we must you are forgotten. evaluate that against our overall requirement.

i especially love watching the i've talked about the health care explosion that we've had in report from the field. our cost i think 19 billion in you can always tell them to danger anderson cooper is in buyout tate -- tight his 2001, 64 billion in 2015. clothing is. if he is in a yellow slicker, he that's not sustainable. so i think we all have to is in a hurricane off shore. sharpen our pencils and make if he is in a khaki vest, he may sure that every dollar we have be in the green zone. is being spent well. and we need to be good stewards but if he is in a white t-shirt, of the resources that the american taxpayer gives us. he is getting punched and and i just think we really have to -- we'reoing to have to do the hard work to get the right. pulling kittens of the rubble. if you ever see him in a t- we've got to come through this cycle, and we will. shirt, run. we've together come through in a msnbc as a new slogan this year. very strongashion back to what "leaned forward," as it the i saidn terms of the demands problem has been we could not have heard them. of the national security chris matthews yells like a option year in a wind tunnel. environment. >> and so do you see the ratio changing, the 60 to 70% of the -- like an auctioneer in a wind payroll and associated costs are tunnel. going to pay the associated share of the budget as you see people are adapting.

it. >> i don't know the answer that because we haven't resolved that and we need to recognize the investment as secretary gates have focused on, on the future even bloomberg is on line with 20,000 followers less than what and how we've talked about that is in terms of -- if we get it they got when the cobra escaped right to our people, we'll be from the bronx zoo. okay. if we retain in our military right now this most combat - the most combat force we've had in our history, if we retained when one went to egypt, it was the right young junior officers because he had heard it was their pilots' season. who have been through this -- if we retain the right young ncos i have nothing but respect for my good friend brian. brian landed in london to cover in our officers, we'll be just fine and if we don't, almost no the royal wedding while only to matter what the budget, as we turn back around to america to come out of these wars, and i cover the tornadoes in alabama, believe we will over the next incredibly brave and courageous, and that is a direct quote from decade or so, then we're going brian williams. to struggle. this event has grown past we need on the retention aspect washington, and many, with but we should not be blind to celebrities are here. the cost and investment to make

sure we get it right for the overall defense resources. john ham is here. >> let's talk for a minute and i he looks like every republican think an interesting question of things they love. the relative importance of the uniformed services and whether -- look. or not the army's role in that we might as well talk about the relative scale will recede in 2012 republican candidates. that. secretary gate has said that in just look at the options his opinion, and i'm quoting republicans are kicking around. here, any future defense palihn, -- palin, gingrich, secretary who advises the president to again send a big americ land army into asia or into the middle east or africa trump. should have his head examined. this is like "dancing with the stars." and you have told young cadets and not the stars, the dancers. that they will lead with a garrison force. how about the army, a? mitt romney wrote a book called no apologies. "no apologies." and b, what will be the most when you have a book called "no important roles for the army and air force and we could talk a apologies," is that not a tacit long time about that. sorry about that. way of saying you have made a why don't we start with the lot of mistakes? army? >> i love our army, my army. if i say that to my girlfriend, and one of the great joys of we are going to have a follow-up

conversation. wearing the uniform for this long. and part of the reasons i have both rand paul and ron paul have been privileged to literally do that is offering me an been talking about a run in opportunity to grow in every single job and certainly this 2012, which is something they job has afforded me this haven't, with my father and me. opportunity and i don't think we are also not going to get i've learned more than any elected. single subject than our army, i like nothing more than to see who i didn't know well. the debate between father and i knew more about the marine son. "dad, you were when everything." corps because of the navy/marine corps relationship and -- but again i learned a l more about tim pawlenty is considering a our ground forces and so -- they run. if you look at boring in the truly have been a heroic force dictionary, that is more exciting than listening to tim pawlenty. and both the marine corps and the army. and i've watched the army change. i've watched them go through this counterinsurgency develop mike huckabee is considering a run. he said the president was raised in kenya, went to a muslim its capability in a way and school, and he hates america, speed i could not have anticipated. when we get -- what do i worry but decidedly apart from that, about, when we get in this he sounds like a sweet person, environment, there are an awful so these sounds more like my lot of old saw that people have

aunt. pulled off the show. we went through it before. and then, of course, there is we went through it in the '90s. donald trump. he has been saying he will run for president as a republican, i think as we move forward we regnize that we're living in a different world than the last but i assumed he was running as time we went through this or the a joke. time before that. that's why the wholeness of this, the comprehensiveness of donald trump, often appears on this challenge in terms of how fox, which is ironic, because at do we adjust is really fox often appears on donald important. and i think, you know, a trump's head. catastrophic adjustment, a massive change in the world that we're living in right now would if your at "the washington post" table posttrump, and you cannot not be very prudent at all. and i certainly take secretary finish your dinner, do not gates' point but my expectation worry. the fox will eat it. is, most of the senior leaders and if i can for a moment talk leadership think we live in this about the birther issue, in time of, quote-unquote, persistent conflict and wdon't know where we're going to be us and we don't know when, but we need to be ready and i think in that regard, all four this same poll, only 5% more services, and they're said donald trump was not born wonderfully unique and in the u.s.

as it reached a point where wonderfully joint in ways that americans only think someone we hadn't as i said before was -- i know i was born here, imagined before, excuse me. and we need the talents and we needhe capabilities of all and i know my younger brother four services. so i think -- i an, i think was born here, but with my older the future is very healthy for brother, i can only take campus all four services. there's a tremendously important at his word. role for our navy and our air gary busey said that donald force along with our ground forces. it's really been that trump would make a good president, but the also said the combination over our history same thing about an old rusty that has served us exceptionally birdcage that he found. well. the miss usa pageant, grateful and one of the immediate old republicans, because it would songs is, well, let's just streamline their search for a vice president. divide the pie up, the budget, and i think you have to do that donald trump said recently as a very carefully. as difficult as it has been great relationship with the historically and it has been blacks. so unless the blacks are a when we see these pressures, i family of white people, i bet he think we need to lead as the is mistaken. president has laid out and as secretary gates and i have talked about, we need to lead with a strategic view, a strategy before we just start

i like the trump is rich, and he taking out the meat ax and the scalls and just reduce the budget and then just figure out sounds like a no and all. how to meet that meet that mr. trump may not be a great number and then after that well, what are we going to do after that? that's exactly the wrong way to choice for president, but he do it. would definitely make a great and i think a very dangerous way to do it now given the world press secretary. "kim jong il is a loser." that we're living in. "i feel bad for ahmadinejad. he wears a windbreaker. he has no class." ", on the other hand, sell my the framework in which we review own line of pies. our nional security requirements has really been the you can find them at macy's." qdr. and it's fairly current. lot of us worked on that. i can tell you can definitely be you. the 2008 barack obama. i think given the intensity of you would have loved him. the fiscal crisis, the reality of it as well, we need to so charismatic, charming. re-assess that, not throw it was he a little too idealistic? maybe, but you would have loved out, but look at it and adjust

him. it and given that adjustment, i still think we all remember this is where we ought to go. that inauguration day. the first lady was there, and >> let's engage on a tour of the can i say that you looked even horizon of the world's hotspots, more beautiful tonight. [applause] arab, spring and beyond. let's start with libya. now, you, on the other hand, mr. can you talk a little bit about president, have aged a little. how you thout the hand-off to what happened to you? when you were sworn in, you look nato has gone? like the guy from the old spice and how nato has performed? commercial. now, you look like louis gossett obviously, there have been some problems, reluctance by various countries to undertake various missions, shortages of precision senior. missiles among them. i have not said this to anyone, complexity of command and but maybe you should start control but how do you think smoking again. this nato deal has really gone? is this the change you were talking about? >> well, i commanded in nato twice over this last decade, mr. president, look at your once as the fleet commander down hair. if your hair gets any wider, the in norfolk for the nato strike tea party is going to endorse you. fleet and in naples, italy where i commanded all the forces in -- if your hair gets any whiter. the south, which included forces that were assigned to the nato [laughter]

training mission in iraq in 2004 when nato took that mission on i believe the president would agree with me that the mood has as well as the forces in the changed since the beginning of his term. at the beginning of his term, housewives or try to sneak into ba the white house. balkans. i think someone said it pretty well we've done in 18 days what it took us 18 months to do in not anymore. people are leaving. bosnia in terms of standing up but this time next year, it will be just you and joe biden trying the command, committing to a to find total for the copier ssion and execution and i think that speaks volumes about machine, and now you're re- election machine has begun. nato's agility in these times certainly compared to where it you know who is really dragging it? will i.am. used to be and i've been he is writing down words that rhyme with "debt ceiling." impressed with nato and how they execute it and, yes, 28 [laughter] countries are not participating on the combat side but the the heritage foundation projected that joke would get a standing ovation. majority of countries are participating one way or the other, and it's not all about so mr. president, confidence in combat or military capability you. for one, you still have the per se. there's humanitarian assistance. first lady, and, of course, you still have joe biden. there's the kind of support we

need in the hair time what can i say about joe biden environment. that has not already been said so i've been very, very pleased incorrectly by joe biden? with how nato has both stood up having joe biden as vice to this and executed it. a few years ago, when i first president is like taking your blue-collar debt to a fancy restaurant. he is more confident at the me into this job, both olive garden. he talks a little too loud, he secretary gates and i were fairly frequently beat up by mispronounces things, and you critics who say, can't you get always want to lean over to the more nato forces into the fight waiter and say, "i am sorry in afghanistan? about him. he is from france." and, in fact, over the course of the two years, nato has stood up joe biden was not invited to the royal wedding, and he turned to in ways i couldn't imagine just a couple years ago and just like this mission. the president and said, "you, and i think nato is in a much me, and "wedding crasher, ii," i better place than a few years ago. more adaptive, more flexible, more capable. that said, there are some things that have to be addressed that we will learn from this libya will buy the tickets" campaign that i think not jt i am sure it is not for the individual countries but nato as an alliance will have to adjust present to tell joe biden that to -- or adjus having studied $1.50 billion was cut from high- speed rail. those with assistance.

choo-choos. as he broke the news, one of the straps on joe's overalls sadly dropped on one shoulder. paul ryan announced cuts. >> the assertion in the question is like black and white just he believes the american people have said loud and clear, "stop because we've -- we've done it using my tax dollars to take once in terms of -- which is care of me." something actually we've asked other countries to lead more i noticed that his approach to the budget led many to praise him as a serious person, and i aggressively in previous times have to say, nothing is more and they haven't so to say this is it for the future. depressing about politics than the fact that "adult" is not a i think almost across-the-board, whether it's nato or the united compliment. states is -- we just can't be "the pulse" is only a complement that certain. it's working now. to a child. they're leading well. "i am so proud of you. you acted like an adult. we're in very strong support. you even cut your own needs, the mission is executing well. like a big boy."

i fundamentally believe that also, congress, there are a lot we've prevented a massive of things you want us to be impressed by the we are not humanitarian disaster that impressed by. we are not impressed that you gadhafi would have reaped on his -- on his citizens in set by each other during the state of the union. benghazi. that's the mission is to protect the you know what the rest of the libyan people and so in that america calls sitting next to regard i think nato has been someone for an evening with very, very effective. and the combination of us going wildly different political views? thanksgiving. in early, them taking over, them saye not impressed when you leading has worked very well. that bills are too long to read. the health-page bill -- health- >> various people including retired general dubik have called for, you know, more care bill is almost thousands of pages long. involvement. military advisors, preparation for u.n. peacekeeping force of while we are at it, i do not think you read the bills anyway. some sort, and -- and i i believe you vote on them the wondering what you think about same way we choose to update the terms and conditions on itunes. that? and also whether you think we are following the weinberger [laughter] doctrine which says you don't go in unless you know how you're going to get out. well, i have to wrap this up >> well, i think long term -- clearly the strategy -- and this

because i see the red light. is really the political strategy it is the red light on the c- span handi-cam that shows it is is gadhafi is going to be out and needs to be out along with his family. running out of power. clearly the initial limited the roay -- royal wedding, i mission on the part of what we participate in and participate today is tonsure as best we cannot help but think how wonderful it is to live in a possibly can the protection of country where people do not wear hats like that, and it has the libyan people. there are many, many ideas on really been an incredible honor what we should be doing, what for me. nato should be doing andhow to america is the greatest country on earth, and least when my do this. speech started, was still a i can only say being on the nation rated aaa by standard and inside, this is as every single poor's. thank you, and good night. operation is extraordinarily [cheers and applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] complex. it is -- it is not -- when asked [captioning performed by national captioning institute] about well, when does it end and how does it end? those are unknowns right now. there is an extraordinary amount of political pressure that has been brought to bear and i think

that will be not only exist but ratchet up. the arab league has pitched in against, you know, a fellow arab in a very, very strong way. so gadhafi is a pariah. we know. and i actually do believe his days are numbered. if you ask me how many, i don't know the answer to that. so i think the political pressure will continue to that emphasized and focused in a way that sees him leaving as quick as possible. he's a survor. we know that. and so it isn't going to be -- there's no easy solution that's certainly staring us in the face. ..

is our own security, the united compromised byy the turmoil in these countries? >> i certainly do not see that right now. we have a 30-year relationship with egypt and a very strong relationship -- quite frankly, i have been incredibly impressed with how the military leadership in egypt has handled this crisis and continues to handle it. what is a constant in all three of those countries -- this is

about the people. these are internal issues. we have a military-military relationship with yemen, but it has not been for that long. we have worked hard to train them. in that regard, it is vastly different in terms of strength and depth and breadth in yemen than it is in egypt. at the same time, it is internal. it will continue to evolve. your point is well taken. there is almost a viral strain of al qaeda that lives there now. it is the most dangerous strain of al qaeda. we must be mindful of that in yemen as well. briefly, in tunisia, that is another country that is principally driven from the inside.

not that the national security requirements of the u.s. -- we clearly need to keep an eye on, if it moves to a fact that. out of the three -- to the fact that. out of the three countries, the al qaeda in yemen is of most concern. it was a very high concern before the recent events in yemen. we will continue to stay focused on that. >> let me say. let's turn to another grouping of countries. saudi arabia and bahrain. some experts say that's oppression protests there will lead to further revolt -- say that suppression of protests there will lead to further revolt. are we concerned about that? what are the implications of what is happening in bahrain for

the fifth fleet, which of course has a major installation there? do we have contingency plans for the fifth week if things turn bad in bahrain? >> i traveled in that area several weeks ago, right at the height of the baring crisis, specifically -- the bahrain crisis, specifically. several things struck me -- how the countries had come together. the message to me is that bahrain is a red line. secondly, there was a belief that iran was behind this. i just do not agree with that. all of the information and intelligence i have seen is that iran had nothing to do with what happened in bahrain. it was an internal issue. i do worry about the extent of the crackdown in terms of a

potentially opening the door. i have now seen -- and this does not surprise me at all -- iran tried to take advantage of the situation, not just there, but in other countries as well, which is no surprise. we all continue to be extremely concerned about iran. i want to reassure everyone that we have not taken our eye off of that ball. they're continuing to try to destabilize. from my perspective, they continue to develop their capability for new nuclear weapons. they are still the leading sponsor of terrorism from a state perspective of any country in the world. they are more active now in

iraq. one thing i have been concerned about is the relationship between the instability in bahrain and how that is impacted -- has impacted our capabilities or what is going on in iraq. so, it is an area of great focus and great concern. i certainly do not see anything right now that would jeopardize our present in bahrain -- presents in bahrain -- prese nce in bahrain. there. and it continues to be a very strong relationship. certainly it's important that we never get to a point, it never gets to a point in bahrain where that fleet, that capability which is so important, providing

the kind of security that, and support, given iran's stress, which none of us would certainly ever want to see askew to the point where that would jeopardize. and i just don't see tt right now. >> admiral mullen, you recently returned a few days ago from a trip to iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan. let's spend a few minutes on the issues there. iraq, something of an arab spring arising there a little bit which may be of concern. but i believe you're focused during your visit to iraq was on a pointed question. do they want us there? does the iraqi government want us there, our military there? pass the end of the year, we have 47,000 troops there now, and i believe that the is only something like a three-week window in which the mlik a

government must actually tell us that he wants us there or else we will have a train moving out of the country and we will be gone. >> will come as you said where 47,000 troops and the current policy is we will be completely out of their butt end of of december i wouldn't give this, i woul't limit it, or constrain it to three weeks. what i said when i was out there, we have weeks, not months to address thiissue. if the iraqi government wants to address it, and so others, that working is extremely hard. and will continue to do that. we think there are great opportunities with respect to the future of iraq. the challenges are there now are principally political. and the arab spring demonstrations there has

certainly not turned into the kind of demonstrations that have existed and other countries. the security environment is good. that doesn't mean we don't have the challenges ae that the iraqis, iraqi government doesn't ha challenges because there still is a level of violence, but it's the lowest since 2003. i'm comfortable with the development of it and the leadership of iraqi security forces. they tell me that they will have some gaps should we leave 31 december, intelligence in aviation, you know, its logistics maintenancand support. so we are aware of that and we'll just have to see what the political leadership in iraq does. >> and are you not concerned that the governance structures and the civilian governance structures have not kept pace with the advance is in security

forces, and so that the people of iraq are not seeing, you know, real results in terms of their own daily lives, their own economic and social lives? >> well, the iraq government certainly has some challenges there. although i think they have improved and will coinue to improve. they are rich in resources and i think economically, fiscally in the next few years they really will be in pretty good shape. from a security standpoint, again, i think the security forces have performed exceptionally well. so, in many ways the politicians to get all this organize. their ministries have developed great deal from a -- have really improved over the course of the last few years. so they are a much better shape in terms of delivering goods and services then used to be, but they still have significant challenges. >> great. i'm going to ask -- they could

have three or four but i'm going to ask if you'd like to ask questions in about five minutes here. if you would, please come to one of these two microphones. pakistan. i believe there is tension in our relationship with th pakistani leadership. i believe that when you traveled there just recently, you delivered a pointed message about the pakistan intelligence service, the haqqani network of terrorists which are dedicated, who are dedicated to killing our ople. what is the status of our relationship with pakistan? ancould it deteriorate to the point where those key supply routes that supply our troops in afghanistan with the needed

equipment could be compromised? >> i think theoretically it could devolve, threatened those lines of communications where we bring an awful lot of power supplies and support for the efforts in afghanistan. that said, our relationship is one that continually work on. and right now is pretty strange. it is straight in great part recently because of the raymond davis? he was the individual that was taken by the pakistis after a very serious incident where he shot two individuals who threatened him. and we worked our way through that, but in working our way through that it really did strain the relationship. so that's what i -- this was a routine trip forme in the sense at i go there about every three months, but certainly it was not routine in its nature

because of the strain -- the relationship that had been so badly strained as a result of the davis case. it's something i've invested a lot of my time in because i think it's important we stay connected. it's an extraordinarily complex country, and actually it's an extraordinary complex region. i've talked about our engagement in that part of the world. you can't pick one country or another. it's afghanistan and pakistan. and you have to take the region, put the region into ctext, if you will, in just about everything that you are doing. so, we've been through a rough patch. we've been throh before with pakistan. and i'm atually hopeful that we can, that we will continue to be able to build on the relationship. we understand each other much better than we did a few yea ago. we are still digging our way out of 12 years of mistrust with no relationship from 1990-2002. that's just not going to be

solved even in a few years we've been working with them. it's going to take some time. but i think a partnership, a strategic retionship with pakistan in the long run is absolutely vital to the security, not just in that region but because of the downside possibilities for security, global security. >> afghanistan, neighboring country, as you say you can't consider them together but with 100,000 troops in afghanistan, and many, many thousands more contractors. i want to ask you, and i beieve the drawdown is supposed to start happening ths summer in july, is that correct? and so, what do you see as the pace of the drawdown plan? are we in there for the really long haul? what do you think speak with we

will start to withdraw troops this summer. general petraeus has not made a recommendation to the present yet so there's no decision with respect to that. but no question that we will. we just don't know how big i will be, or from what part of afghanistan per se. it does speak to a very important message of transition. president karzai i think the 22nd of march identified seven provinces for transition over the course of the next year or so. and then we are focusing on getting to a point by the end of 2014 with afghan security forces have a responsibility for their own security. and we think that's doable. we think we can meet that goal. i, on this most recent trip, which was out in these which is a very tough fight as well as down and helmand, was encouraged by what i've seen from security,

improvements over the course of last year. so what you hear about that, i can just verify having been there, that said, visual be a very, very difficult year. it's already started out to be a tough year. we have tragic losses yesterday. we had eight of our airmen who were killed by this afghan airmen who was insde. and every loss is tragic. we know that. these are particularly difficult because it comes from an insider threat. we are working very hard to eliminate that. not just we had been working on this. so this'll be a very difficult year. it's a tough year for the taliban last year. it's going to be a very tough year on the talibans issue because they are by and large out of their own safe havens in afghanistan, and they're going to come back and try to take them. and i think they will meet a

force that is more than ready for them. we are starting to see signs of reconciliation and reintegration on the ground there. i'm concerned about, one thing, not that i'm not concerned about secuty, the governance peace, the corruption peace for the governance in a few areas. and i would add rule of law to the. those are areas that have to really start to take traction. and we need to improve in those areas in order to get where we need to get to over the course of the next three years. >> it's an interesting story in the par the other day about people in rural afghanistan who feel that they cannot trust the government or the united states forces there, trying to help them because if they do the taliban will target them and go after them. and on the other side, they don't like the taliban either.

and so, what's the answer? >> the talibans are still i think the numbers i've seen, they are in the nine or 10% at that level in terms of how the afghans feel about them. i think most afghan citizens are on the fence to see how this will go. and i'm hopeful that with another year, similar to what we had in 2009, will have much more clarity about what it looks like once we get through this fighting season. so into the tober, november time frame, and we're starting to see some good signs copies of local leaders, local governments starting to function in certain places. so, i'm cautiously optimisticat this point, but i don't want to understate the very difficulty over all, the challenge we have in front of us. >> please come if anyone has a question, come to the

microphone. and let me see. thank you for coming to the microphone. we shouldn't ignore one more country. i'm sorry, north korea and korea in general. very high tension levels there. what are our key concerns? i know you're concerned about that. >> we work very closely with them. it's a critical part of the world to ensure stability. obviously, the proximity to china, the economic engine that china is, our relationship with the country, et cetera so awful lot of people focused on keeping that part of the world stable. we do that and great support of the south koreans. and there have been provocative acts and we were a great deal about those. there's also this guy, kim jong-il is not a good guy. and has acted in ways that have

been very dangerous at times. the word is competitive secretary gates said this very well, the word is in five or 10 years, he's looking at a nuclear capability which threatens the united states. this is not just about local security, in the not too long run. that potential exists as well. and he is by and large starving his people. we know that. and, in fact, his army which is pretty unusual, is having a pretty tough time beating food this year as well, or through this winter. so it's a very, very tough, complex situation and an awful lot of us are focused on a. we need it to be stable. we need him to stop the provocations. and what i worry about his as he continues to propagate, as we look at the succession plan for his son, that the potential for instability and miscalculation d escalation their is pretty

high end of great concern. we continue to focus great aunt ensuring as best we can that it has to goes in the other direction. >> and, of course, should a war erupted we are involved, right, because we have a mutual defense treaty with south korea. >> six to one is the ration of contractors or civil servants. yet civil servants continue to endure public -- what is your position on the total force structure and who should be doing the work for the government speak with civil servants continue to endure what? >> a lot of civil servant bashing. >> i've woked with our military for a long time. and as i talk about the

investment when was ahead of the navy, the total force, if you will, includes our civilian workforce. they have been extraordinary. and will continue to be a vital part of our force in the future. there's no question about it. they bring a level of skill and continuity, and actually dedication and patriotism that eqls that of any of us who wear the uniform. that said, all o us have to be realistic about the budget environment in which we exist, and then look at the best way to move forward. one of the things that i wory about on the civilian side is the rules, when we get into a tight situation like this, the tendency is last in first out. and we've got to pay attention to refreshing our workforce, our civilian workforce.

so we have to figure out a way to reach our goals, whatever they might be in this environment, while at the same time not sacrificing our future. i think the average age of our sibling workforce is about 47 or 48 years old. and wehave to recognize that. so leaders have to be very creative and cognizant of this to ensure that this isn't just about, this isn't just about the next 12 months or the next 24 months, but it's a long-term requirement as well. but we wouldn't be anywhere without the great civilian workforce that we have. >> do you think there'll be a shift in that ratio to more civilian is asian? >> i think that -- were that is going on in the acquisition workforce right now. it has been over the course of the last two or three years, for example. i -- in terms of the overall budget pressure, i think that

ratio certainly haspotential for changing, but i d't know. i mean, it's natural. many of our contractors are what i call in direct support of what we are doing as well. secretary gates has asked all of us to look at this to see how much of it e really need. i think that pressure is going to grow. >> we will take one hit and then the of the microphone is over here. king, we have -- take that question expect i'm captain ed sector i think youwork for my dead years ago. we'll be entering him in arlington in two weeks. >> i'm sorry to hear that. >> the question of going to raise this morning is not new. my sister and brother-in-law both served in the army in the early '80s. my son and daughter-in-law are both active dutynow. my son and marine intelligence officer just came home from his third tour in southwest asia.

my daughter-in-law, a service worker officer has been doing drug intervention off thsouth america. they he been married for six years, and this month they will have been in the same town for one year total. you know, when i was on active duty we paid attention to the joint service couples, and we made promises about allowances in this regard i understand the operational exigencies of our time, but i don't see that anything has changed in the last 30 years in terms of really making the rubber meets the road. literally, my so just deploys, my daughter get some. my daughter just deploys, my son gets home. it's happened again and again and again. is anybodypaying attention to this in terms of retaining people that are critical? >> well, in the mid '90s i was in a position ofleadership in the assignment world, and we

actually initiated steps to assign dual military couples in cross services it and i believe we've got to extend that outside, outside the military. i think we have to pay a lot of attention to dual careers, whether a family has one in the military and one not, not so. i will do to things. one is, i would love to take turning into some research in terms of how much this is -- where exactly we are. i know that we're much better than we were in the mid-nineties with respect to that in terms of those assignments. but you overlay that with demands of the warand the repeated deployments and it's much more difficult issues to manage. i know there is a great deal

more focus on this from a leadership perspective than there used to be. and goes to what i said earlier about guaranteeing the future. if we don't get young men and women like heron and daughter-in-law to stay in, we are not -- our future will be mewhat problematic. i have been struck, it goes back to the dedication and extraordinary young men and women who served right now, i have just been struck by their willingness to do this, to pursue the career. odyssey to meet the needs we have from the national security standpoint, and in many cases even surprised that they will continue to do it because of the kinds of percentages that you just laid out there, one year in x. and yet we have lost -- i have talked to more than my fair share of said i want to get a life, start a family. we just got to slow down. and it's something that i have

addressed and people have dressed very, very closely in terms of not just dealing now, but how does this affect our future. i don't think it is my own take on, i don't think it is deliberate. i do know -- i have run into so many, many couples that have been assigned or detailed very specifically to make it work as opposed to what's odyssey going on. so i would be happy to take your name and e-mail address and get back to you with what exactly we are on that. but i know it's a focus of all the services, and i'm very comfortable we have improved. it's not where we were 30 years ago, but that doesn't mean we don't have work to d. in the long run, i believe we're going to have to assign people, we'll have to put people at the center here as opposed to the institutions. and i think if we do that,

really, no kitty, do that, and assign people accordingly, that this will beell taken care of the. as opposed to the institutions, we are protected of the institutions, face the institutions needs and put that up front and in sort of figure out where people go after that. i just don't think that will work. >> good morning, sir. truth in advertising, retired military, retired air force them former defense contractor, current air force civilian. that being said, libya is maybe a one off but maybe a precedent, and i'm concerned if this precedent would be applied to syria. i came through bosnia, and my personal belief was that, we can fly over all you want but until you put boots on the ground things don't change much. that was my personal belief and

i'm a little concerned about possibly applying the pariah killing his own people through syria, which i perceive to be a significantly greater threat than libya was at the time that we begin this. >> the president has made it very clear that he decries, and we all do, the violence in syria. it needs to stop. i talked about this trip that i took up through the right at the height of the bahrain challenge. is one of the things that struck me, and i think we just have to be very careful about this come is you can't broadbrush this. every single country is unique. every single country is obviously in the region as well. and i don't think we can disconnect a country from its region. i think we have to be very careful about how w address each one, and there are differences and reasons for

differences in each one. and so, the question of, okay, libya, why not burma? i mean, there are, for instance, and i've actally, i have actually heard that question as well. i think it is too broad brushed. to your point, said he is a different country. it's in a different place. and while we certainly deplore -- implored the violence and for the killing, i think whidbey remain full of t uniqueness of syria in both its history, its location and what the potential is, and where we are in that, where they are in that crisis. so, i just don't think that we can say because, you know, one, because one leader was doing something that is absolutely translates to an intervention that involves another leader. i think we have to be very, very careful about that.

my comment about how much the limit of air power per se, but would reemphasize what the president has said come ad i assure you, he has no intent that i am aware of how he made very clear to me, no boots on the ground in libya and that's what we are today. >> we are counting down. we have about three or four minutes left yes, sir. >> good morning, admiral. thank you for your service and your example that you not on a sacrifice your generation but generations to come. thank you. my question is, how effective are civilian, our workforce to our military leadership? >> its evolving to our civilian expeditionary workforce is evolving. i was in kandahar in afghanistan a few months ago and sat down with maybe half a dozen you foreign service officers who had

come from lima, lonon, paris, and rio and found themselves in kandahar excited got every bit as excited as young officer in the military, about doing what they were doing. and i was very taken by them in terms of their dedication and their service. and the excitement that the generated in terms of making a difference in peoples lives. so i think it's improved. i think we need to continue to focus on this because we are living in an expeditionary world. we are not going to be able to just deal with it from the washington perspective for the future. so, all the agencies come and it's going to be harder now that the budgets are tighter, haveto continue to focus on a. but i think we're in much better shape than we were a few years ago. that said, still a long way to go. >> i'm being signaled that our

time has just about run out. so, admiral mullen, i'm going to ask you, if you have any final thoughts for this audience before we give you a round of applause for being here. >> lastly, i would just say thanks to all of you, many of you in the audience have served and make a difference. when i think about the challenges we have been through, this is what we're going to do for the next 10 years, we're going to deploy this many times, when you ask these sacrifices, of our people. and we should be mindful we lost almost 6000 young men and women, and tens of thousands physically injured, and hundreds of thousands with invisible wounds like pts. they have been the best i've ever seen, we just never forget their sacrifices. we are blessed to have them. we are a great, great country for many reasons, and one of the underpinnings of that is this

extraordinary force of young men and women who serve today. and again, i'm privileged to still be in uniform anstill be [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] that is at 6:00 eastern here on

c-span. monday on the "washington journal" the former republican national committee chairman talks about the gop presidential field. after that, the president of amtrak on the future of funding writer ship and potential growth. later, the 2008 financial crisis and the prosecution process for high-profile participants. that's live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> what i tried to do is tell a story with visuals instead of words. i'm basically writing paragraphs. >> with four pulitzer prizes, she's won the award more than any other journalist. >> the great thing about being a journalist is a variety we get to experience. so many parts of the human condition at some different levels. >> she will talk more about her craft tonight. you can download a podcast, one

of our many signature programs available online. president obama has announced a number of changes to his national security team, with the current cia director, leon panetta, replacing robert gates as defense secretary and david petraeus to lead the cia. you can track the changes at the c-span video library. it is washington, your way. >> president obama has announced changes to his national security team. the president has nominated cia director, leon panetta, to be defense secretary and general david petraeus to lead the cia. this is about 25 minutes. seat. good afternoon, everybody. i want to begin by saying a few words about the devastating storms that have ripped through the south in the united states.

the loss of life has been heart breaking, especially in alabama. in a matter of hours, these deadly tornadoes, some of the worst that we've seen in decades, took mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors, even entire communities. others are injured and some are still missing, and in many places, the damage to homes and businesses is nothing short of catastrophic. we can't control when or where a terrible storm may strike, but we can control how we respond to it, and i want every american affected by this disaster to know that the federal government will do everything we can to help you recover, and we will stand with you as you rebuild. i've already spoken to the governors of alabama, virginia, mississippi, tennessee, and georgia, and i've let them know that we are ready to help in any possible way.

i've declared a state of emergency in alabama so we can make all necessary resources available to that state. i've dispatched federal emergency management agency administrator craig fugate to alabama to work with state and local officials, and i'll travel christ to alabama -- travel myself to alabama to work with the families who are reeling from this disaster. i want to commend all the men and women working around the clock for the last few days to save the lives of their friends and neighbors and to begin the long work of rebuilding these communities. these police officers, firefighters, emts and other emergency responders are heros, and they have the thanks of a grateful nation, and we pray for their success, and we stand with every american affected by this disaster in the days and weeks to come. now, as we meet our obligations

to these americans, we're mindful of our obligation to the safety of all americans, and that's why we're here today. as commander in chief, i have no greater responsibility than the security of the american people and the well being of our courageous men and women in uniform and their families. over the past two years, my administration has done whatever it takes to meet these responsibilities. we've been releaptless against -- relentless against al-qaeda and preventing terrorist attacks and saving lives. we brought nearly 100,000 troops out of iraq if an orderly way, ended the combat mission, and focused on afghanistan breaking the taliban's momentum and training afghan forces, and from europe to asia we forged new partnerships and restored american leadership in the world. still, we confront urgent

challenges. in iraq, we're working to bring the rest of our troops home as iraqis secure their democracy. in afghanistan, we're moving into a new phase, transferring responsibility for security to afghan forces, starting to reduce american forces this summer, and building a long-term partnership with the afghan people. there's people across the middle east and north africa who seek to determine their own destiny. we must ensure america stands with those who seek their universal rights and that's supporting the international effort to protect the libyan people, and here at home making the hard decisions that are needed to reduce america's debt, we cannot compromise our ability to defend our nation or our interests around the world. these are some of the pressing challenges that we must meet in the pivotal days ahead, and today i'm proud to announce key members of any national security team with vice president biden

and secretary clinton, will help us meet them. i've worked closely with most of the individuals on this stage and all of them have my complete confidence. they are leaders of enormous integrity and talent who devoted their lives to keeping our nation strong and secure, and i'm personally very, very grateful to each of them for accepting these new assignments. given the pivotal period we're entering, i felt it was absolutely critical that we had this team in place to stay focused on our mageses, maintain momentum, and keep our nation secure. when i took office, bob gates already served under seven presidents, and he carried a clock that counted down the days, hours, and minutes until he could return to washington state with his wife, becky. [laughter] i was able to convince him to stay one more year where i was

able to convince him to talk to becky about staying one more year. [laughter] at some point along the way, bob threw out the clock. he's one of the longest serving defense secretaries in american history, and as a grateful nation, we can agree that bob has more than earned the right to return to private life which he decided to do at the end of june. i'll have more to say about secretary gate's exemplary service in the days to come. every american must know because he helped to wind down the war in iraq, we're in a better position to support the troops and manage the transition in afghanistan. because he challenged conventional thinking, our troops have the life-saving equipment they needed, and our military is better prepared for today's wars, and because he courageously cut unnecessary spending, we'll save hundreds of billions of dollars to be invested in the 21 socialst

century. he's one the finest secretaries in american history, and i'll always be grateful for his service. i'm equally confident that bob's agenda is carried out by another great servant of our time, learn -- leon panetta. he appreciates the military families because he served in the army himself and because he and his wife are proud parents of a son who served in afghanistan, and just as leon earned the trust and respect of our intelligence officials at the cia by listening to them and fighting fiercely on their behalf, i know he'll do the same for our armed forces and their families. the patriotism and management skills defining his four decades of service is exactly what we need in the next secretary of defense. as a former congressman and white house chief of staff, he

knows how to lead which is why he's held in high esteem in this city and around the world and played a decisive role against vint extremism and understands beginning the transitions in afghanistan, we have to be unwaivers against al-qaeda, and as a former omb director, eel ensure as we make tough budget decisions, we'll keep our military the very best in the world. leon, i know you've been looking forward to returning home to your wife, so i thank you for taking on yet another assignment for our country, and i hope you don't have a clock. [laughter] >> i'm also pleased that leon's work at the cia will be carried on by one of our leading strategic thinkers and one of the finest military officers of our time, general david

petraeus. this is the second time in a year that i've asked general petraeus to take on a demanding assignment, and i know this carries a special sacrifice for he and his wife, holy. after 40 years in uniform leading american and coalition forces in the most challenging military missions since 9/11, he's retiring from the army that he loves to become the next cia director. effective early september pending senate confirmation. as a lifelong consumer of intelligence, he knows that intelligence must be timely, accurate, and acted upon quickly. he understands that staying a step ahead of nimble adversaries includes sharing information with my commander of national intelligence, jim clapper, and as he and the cia confront a full range of threats, david's extraordinary knowledge of the middle east and afghanistan uniquely positions him to lead the agency in its effort to

defeat al-qaeda. in short, just as general petraeus changed the way our military fights and wins wars in the 21st century, i have no doubt he'll guide the intelligence professionals as they continue to adapt and innovate in an ever-changing world. i'm pleased to announce my choice for the civilian military team to lead the efforts in afghanistan in this year of transition. i'm nominating a superb commander, lieutenant general john allen to succeed general petraeus as commander of the international security assistance force or isaf. he helped turn the tide in the prosince, deputy commander of central command, respected in the region, and has been deeply involved in planning and executing our strategy in afghanistan. as the troops continue to sacrifice for our constitute as

we tragically saw yesterday, general allen is the right commander for this vital mission. as coalition forces transfer responsibility to afghans, we're redoubling efforts to promote political and economic progress in afghanistan as well. our tireless ambassador helped us increase our civilian presence, and never before have the civilians and troops worked together so closely and so successfully. i personally relied on karl's advice on this mission. after two years in one of the world's most challenging post, ambassador eikenberry's time is coming to a close today. i want to thank karl and his wife for outstanding service. to build on karl's great work, i'm grateful one of our nation's most respected dip my mats, ryan

crocker is returning to afghanistan. this is a five-time ambassador. ryan is no stranger to tough aassignments. few americans know this region and its challenges better than ambassador crocker. he was the first enjoy to afghanistan after the fall of the taliban. he reopened our embraced embassy there. as a former ambassador to pakistan, he realizes the strategy has to succeed on both sides of the border. as ambassador to iraq, his remarkable partnership with general personnel announcements dreys pro-- general petraeus created a political effort in a long term partnership between the two countries. this is exactly what is needed now in afghanistan where ambassador works with our new special representative to afghanistan and pakistan, mark grossman, and i want to thank ryan and his wife christine, a

decorated foreign officer herself, for agreeing to serve our nation once more. so, leon panetta, the defense department, david petraeus at the cia, ambassador crocker and general john allen in afghanistan. these are the leaders that i've chosen to help guide us through the difficult days ahead. i will look to them and my entire national security team for council, continuity, and the effort this time demands, and the people on the front lines, the brave troops, outstanding intelligence personnel, our dedicated diplomats will look to them for the leadership that success requires. i urge our friends in the senate to confirm the individuals as swiftly as possible so they can assume their duties and help me meet the urgent challenges we confront as a nation. we are a nation still at war, and joined by the leaders alongside me today, i will continue to do everything in my

power as commander in chief to keep our nation strong and the american people safe. with that, i'd like to invite each of the leaders to say a few words. i'll actually start with bob gates. >> thank you, mr. president, for your kind words. i want to thank president bush for first asking me to take this position, and you, mr. president, for inviting me to stay on and on and on. [laughter] i also thank my wife, becky, for 44 years of extraordinary patience, but especially the last four and a half years of patience. every single day i've been secretary, our military has been engaged in two major wars and multiple other missions. it's been the greatest honor of my life to serve and to lead our men and women in uniform and our defense civilians. they are the best america has to

offer. i will continue to give my all to them and to the president right through june 30th because obviously there is much left to do. my highest priority from my first day in office has been to do everything i could for our uniformed men and women in harm's way, to help them accomplish their mission, to come home safely, and if wounded, to get them the best possible care from battlefield to home front. i've done my best to care for them as though they were my own sons and daughters. i will miss them deeply. there will be other occasions to speak over the next two months, so for now i'll congratulate leon panetta and thank him. [laughter] leon i believe is the best possible choice to succeed me, and i also congratulate general david petraeus, ambassador

crocker, and general allen. i thank you too, mr. president, for the opportunity to serve and work with you. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to thank you and the vice president and your entire national security team for the trust and confidence that you placed in me. i especially want to thank my good friend bob gates, the guy with the big smile next to me. [laughter] he's a public servant without equal, whose tenure as secretary of defense will go down as one of the most consequential and important examples of leadership in the history of the american government. since he, too, was a former cia director, i'm hopeful that that experience can serve me as well as it served bob as secretary.

speaking of the cia, i also want to deeply thank the good men and women of the cia for all they do without recognition or credit to safe gourd this nation and protect it. they welcomed me to their ranks, and it has been the highest honor of my professional career to be able to lead them. to be able to lead them. ..

>> in my 40 years of public life, they have been tolerant beyond measure and very loving, and because8ññi of that, i lovem all very much. é spent 40 years in public served in the army as an intelligence officer in the 1960s. i was proud to wear the uniform of our country s and my respect -- and my respect and admiration for our nation's armed forces has only grown in the decades since. this is a, a time of historic change both at home and abroad. as the son of immigrants, i was raised to believe that we cannot be free unless we are secure.

today we are a nation at war, and job one will be to insure that we remain the strongest military power in the world. to protect that security that is so important to this country. yet this is also a time for hard choices. it's about insuring that we are able to prevail this conflicts in which we are now engaged. but it's also about being able to be strong and disciplined in applying our nation's limited resources to defending america. none of this will be easy, but i am confident, mr. president, that you can be assured that i will give you the nation's commander in chief my best and

most candid advice about these issues. and that i will be a faithful advocate for the brave men and women at the department of defense who put their lives on the line every day. to insure that we achieve that great american dream. of giving our children a better life and a more secure america. thank you. >> well, mr. president, thank you very much. i feel deeply honored to be nominated to become the 20th director of the central intelligence agency, and i feel deeply grateful for the opportunity, if confirmed, to continue to contribute to the important endeavors to which so many have given so much over the past decade in particular.

during that time i've had the privilege of working very closely with the quiet professionals of the central intelligence agency. i have seen firsthand their expertise, their commitment to our nation and their courage in dangerous circumstances. their service to our country is of vital importance, indeed, it is all the more vital as it is all the more unheralded. in short, i have enormous respect for the men and women of the agency, and if confirmed, i will do my utmost to serve, to represent and to lead those great intelligence professionals as well as to work closely with the dni and the other intel community leaders as director panetta has done so superbly over the past two and a half years. as i return to afghanistan tomorrow, i will do so with a sense of guarded optimism about the trajectory of the mission and the exceptional civil-military team the president will nominate to lead that effort. indeed, i can think of no two

individuals better suited than general allen and ambassador crocker to build on the hard-fought gains that isaf and afghan troopers and their civilian colleagues have achieved over the past year. during the flight back to afghanistan, i will also reflect on the extraordinary leadership that secretary gates has provided over the past four and a half years at the helm of the department of defense. i believe that all in uniform are deeply grateful to him, but none can be more grateful to him than i am. again, mr. president, thank you very much for the opportunity, if confirmed, to continue to serve our nation. >> mr. president, thank you. i'm deeply honored by this selection. and i'm grateful for the support and the leadership of secretary and the leadership of secretary gates and chairman mullen.

sir, i am mindful of the significance of this responsibility, and i am deeply committed to the leadership of the magnificent young men and women of our armed forces and those of the armed forces of this great and historic coalition of nations. i understand well the demands of this mission. and, mr. president, if confirmed by the senate, i will dedicate my full measure to the successful accomplishment of the tasks and the objectives now set before us. mr. president, thank you for your confidence. >> mr. president, i am deeply honored to have your confidence, that of the vice president, that of the secretary of state, that

of the national security adviser of the national security adviser for this important mission. the challenges are formidable, and the stakes are high. 9/11 came to us out of afghanistan. our enemy must never again have that opportunity. i thought i had found a permanent home as dean of the bush school at texas a&m as the secretary of defense had done before me. but the bush school is a school of public service, and, mr. president, i am very proud to answer this call to serve. over nine years ago, i had the privilege of reopening our embassy in kabul after the fall of the taliban. if confirmed, i look forward to returning to build on the progress that has been achieved in recent months working with the courageous men and women at our embassy, with our military,

with our nato allies and the united nations and especially with the people of afghanistan. i also look forward to rejoining my old battle buddy, general dave petraeus, however briefly, and i am delighted that i will have the opportunity to carry forward with another good friend and comrade from iraq, general john allen. thank you, mr. president. >> i cannot think of a group of individuals better suited to lead our national security team during this difficult time. while i'm up here, i think it's important to acknowledge the extraordinary work that my vice president, my secretary of state and my national security adviser have done as well. this is going to be an outstanding team. i'm grateful for the service that they've already provided, and i'm confident that they will continue to do everything that they can to insure america's

safety and security not just today, but tomorrow. let me also just briefly thank their teams, some of whom are going to be shuffling their own lives whether it's at the cia or in afghanistan. all of you have done outstanding work, and be i'm grateful for your service to our nation. and once again, let me thank the families of the individuals here. all of them make extraordinary sacrifices. michelle can attest to that. [laughter] and we know that none of us could be successful were it not for your extraordinary support. so thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> today on "newsmakers," and look at campaign 2012. in discussing how gop candidates are preparing for the new hampshire primary and iowa caucus at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. monday on "washington journal," michael steele, a former rnc chairman about the dozen 12 presidential field. ,fter that, joseph boardman from amtrak. after that, louise story from 'the new york times" at 7:00

a.m. easter on c-span. >> i tried distillate -- tell a story with visuals instead of words. >> with four pulitzer prizes, carol guzy has more than any other journalists. >> we get to experience the human experience. ,"oneght on c-span's "q&a of our signature programs available on line at c- span.org/podcast. >> former senator rick santorum on his view of foreign policy. the pennsylvania republican formed an exploratory committee. this is hosted by the ethics and policy center and is about one hour.

>> welcome. thank you for coming. my name is randy and i am the program director at the ethics and public policy center. senator santorum established this program four years ago and we have featured more than 20 public events with notable speaker such as bernard lewis. the program has provided regular commentary on an -- an analysis on radical islam, religious freedom, and other challenges. this is not a new passion for the senator nor is foreign affairs a new issue for him. he served eight years on the senate armed services committee to help to modernize and strengthen our military.

he served on the senate finance committee with his jurisdiction in international trade issues. he also taught to read this courage of aids and malaria from africa and. in a dozen sex can he give a speech on the gathering storm -- in 2006, he gave a speech on the gathering storm. the senator looks forward to taking your questions. ibid just asked to state your name and organization prior to your question. it is my pleasure to introduce

senator rick santorum. [applause] >> thank you and a good afternoon. thank you for coming out. i want to speak today about our country and president obama as foreign policy. many americans have invested their hopes and dreams in this administration looking forward to a new era of respect and international relationships, ushering in an apiece in the world. how're we doing? how is the world doing? are we closer to a more peaceful world the protect human rights and promote human flourishing? the original title from might talk is, "america and the world the." i changed it to, "americans and the world because it became

clear to me that the citizens of the rest of the world look to us can the traces remain, the traces we elevate, and what we esteem. why? is it because of our military might, pop culture, strong culture, athletes, or welfare programs? i believe we were a great country even before the great society programs of the 1960's. they look to us because we were great from our birth, the declaration of independence. "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." when we conduct our country, that was not completely novel. and had historic and theological roots in western civilization. no country until america

dedicated itself to that proposition. we castoff the doctor and the divine right of kings and we cast off the notion that any man had a right to rule another and held instead that all people had the right to go their own god- given potential. americans were not born to be servants of the state. the state existed to keep men free. what does this have to do with foreign policy? in my opinion, everything. it took a long time for us to meet the goals and principles we set for ourselves, but led by people who did not ignore the moral issues of the day, like abraham lincoln, we extended those principles to americans. lankan understood the global and eternal meeting of our founding principles. he said of our starters, "he erected a beacon to guide their

children and their children's children and the countless married to sean here in the earth in other ages. wise statesman, they knew the tendency of prosperity to agreed tyrants to establish these great self evident truths so that truth, justice, and mercy and of the humane and christian virtues might not be extinguished from land so that no man would hereafter dare to limit or circumscribe the great principles on wednesday temple of liberty was being built." this has been our legacy, our mission. it is here we are and, for the most part, who we have been -- a courageous people who speak the truth, justice, and practice mercy. eight people against the harbingers and the reality of tyranny and oppression. a people of and committed to the

very best principles of western civilization. america and in a nutshell is all about you. your freedom so that you can provide for yourself and serve those whom you love. your family, your god, and your neighbors. not to provide for the government to do it for you. that freedom belongs to each of us equally because recognize that we are all created equal, not in the ability, wealth, or character in the eyes of our creator. america is truly immoral enterprise. establishing ourselves as a nation on this basis, we have inspired and aided those around the world who aspire to our ideals. unfortunately at times we've had to confront those who do not only reject those fundamental rights and freedoms but from mars.

-- threaten ours. sometimes you do this by simply living out our own creed. tony blair recently read about how we are examples in howard impact people all over the world. he said, "for those people in the bleak wilderness, america does stand out, it shines. it may now be a house in their land that they can aspire to, but it is a house they can see in the distance and in is seen it knowing that how they live is not how they must live." with the unique features of the american experiment, the soft power of examples? argue that there are four fundamentally american contributions to the world that

define not only how we organize our government and how we have organized our lives. first, the free markets which are rooted in excellence, hard work, and innovation. bill gates language of creative capitalism that creates opportunity and rewards success and tolerates failure. is not in itself moral, but more behavior is essential for its efficient operation and of course it is faith which informs our moral behavior. if we can nurture the combination of the contact entrepreneurial genius of our age with properly form consciences, our market economy can become the new frontier of freedom and opportunity. that brings me to the second contribution, religious pluralism. that means people like they have the right to pursue their beliefs and not be abused by government or by the majority.

americans have staked a unique ground between a harsh secular cleansing and the establishment of the church by the state which is of course the been the european history and appears to be the future of islam. this is the only ground upon which we can truly live in peace with our differences and also advance the moral teachings which are essential for the freedom to thrive. third, generosity and humanitarianism. america has a uniquely robust civil society, as observed almost 200 years ago. this is how we primarily love our neighbors. we are generous with our time and their treasure. finally, a system of governance that french human flourishing, seeks the common good, and maximize personal liberty. the rule of law, checks and balances, the separation of church and state, and

federalism. they understood that man's nature is inclined to and no one person or institution should have the opportunity to consolidate power less the freedom of others be taken away. nevertheless, we all know that sometimes the soft power of example is simply not enough. not against carter and dictators who threaten to blow out all moral lights around us. he even though the current leadership may have forgotten, i will never forget the open letter several leaders including spain and the czech republic wrote in 2003. "thanks in large part to american bravery, generosity, and farsightedness, europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent. thanks, too, to the continued

cooperation, we have managed to guarantee preset -- peace and freedom. that bravery and generosity has marked us not only in times of peace but also in times of war. with gone to war and then sennott for rich's, greed, or natural expansion, but we have done so to defend our freedoms and to make us safer by helping others be freer. freedom has been our anchor, our moral guide for nearly every cause both here and abroad and go today, we have lost this mission because our president does not believe in it. he has asked point-blank whether he believes in american exceptions and his answer was, "people of every culture think they are exceptional. when he speaks of are greatness

as a country, he ties it to our modern social welfare system. when he confronts other countries on their human rights abuses, which he does only ruling, he does so by pointing them that we have problems to apologize for. as if on an equal plane with countries like china. a president who does not understand the greatness of america and the american experiment cannot confidently enhance interests. if he will not or cannot lead to, who are around the world will follow? americans are worried about our current foreign-policy because it was reset in a series of apologies to the world for our past actions. when a president goes to the letter speaks a broad and apologizes for our country, and her immediate past policies, we

do not advance our security, we diminish our credibility. such behavior is also consistent with our values and history. john kennedy never apologized for by eisenhower. reagan never apologized for jimmy carter, no. george bush for bill clinton. yes, each president sent to their own agenda, but they each did so based upon the view that our power and greatness was what was most in borgen, not our own domestic political victories and recriminations. each understood this because they understood the long term virtue of america and, both here at home and abroad. now we have caused two very dangerous things, confusion and doubt. we now have a confused foreign- policy in the hottest spot in the world, especially the middle east.

we have allies and freedom fighters over the world to doubt our time tested in time-honored commitment to them. over the past four years, i focused my time and attention on national security managers to the program to promote and protect american freedom, a program like founded to jockey great threats that continue to face our country and from the world around. our work has been focused on two countries, iran, venezuela, and nothing has illustrated the failure of president obama's foreign-policy more than how we dealt with iran, both of the leadership and the people. they have been at war with us for over 30 years. in 2009, there was a chance to and that. there was a chance for freedom. i have many believer and an advocate for that possibility since my service in the senate.

i offered the iranian freedom support act which provided money for the pro-democracy movement in iran. it was opposed. president bush and senator obama, but eventually relenting in the bill was passed, but neither of them as president implemented the provisions. we're not ready when the spark struck. rather than supporting the dissonance, dissonance asking for our help, the president continued the policy of engaging in effectively supporting. the results, and they were brutally crushed. announce a been able to face the leaders who would be grateful for us today, with the same leadership in iran that months to kill us and our allies. let us make no mistake about what happened there in 2009.

we sided with evil because our president believes that our enemies are legitimately aggrieved and unless we have no standing to intervene. in 2003, i secured the passage of the syrian accountability act which was used as leverage to pressure to get out of lebanon. yet, they continued stabilizing and open hostility which has been rewarded by this president. after years of withholding diplomatic recognition, this administration restored it. as our secretary of state was publicly broadcasting that the assaad regime was committed to reform, it was at the same time cracking down even harder in the killing its own people in egypt this year, we chose not to stand by another off authoritarian

leader. it was not a longtime enemy, but an ally. it seems almost by definition that our allies are seen as this administration as complacent with their past sins and therefore our policies have been consistently turn our backs on them. in this case, a power vacuum being filled by the muslim brotherhood. as for libya, it is a morass. if we're going to support the rebel forces, which should have acted swiftly, decisively in the early days of the uprising by recognizing an army and immediately having an no-fly zone. divisive action would have been the end. instead, the president delayed any comment for several days and denounced the support for expelling gaddafi. he gathered by doing nothing to affect your it the policy and

ultimately diverted to the arab league, the french, and the land. with the curve is the that it was now different, and in the meantime because we had abdicated their leadership, nato has been put in a state of disarray. what we're witnessing in the middle east is akin to other abdication of moral authority that have marked the past several years in dealing with other authoritarians threats and militant socialism. from acquiescence to the chinese, to impotence in the face of that is my love expanding their boulevard in revolution, president obama has come at best, refused to defend their interests in. americans are more than familiar as a country with our long battle with secular ideologies of national

socialism, fascism, and marxism. with few exceptions, leaders from roosevelt and reagan were clear in judging them for the ego that they -- evil that they represented. today, they have opted for political correctness and referring to the ideologically motivated enemies as simply "terrorists." as i said here in 2006, terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. the new existential threat to america as yet to be adequately explained by our leaders expect by using the year -- term "terror." it is more, including the non- violent efforts to use sharia law. according to this administration, their ideology

does not matter. they have decoupled what fuels them. the review of the ft. hood massacre does not mention muslim, sharia, or jihad. to the jihadists, there is one law. all man made are an affront to the god-given code. "it was crucial to western civilization. the prophet is the state."

it is crucial to understand this. we stand for freedom and equality. they have a view that opposes freedom of conscience. the abuse and kill christians, jews, and other muslims who are firm that the freedom to believe is as important as the belief itself. millions of such moslems here and abroad want no more to submit to these laws than do the rest of us. they are our natural allies in this fight against the common enemy. we should have no illusions about the extent of this threat. radical muslim is extending its tentacles from africa to america.

at the heart of this thread is iran which is pursuing a nuclear weapon and that the same time it continues to fund jihaddist organizations like hezbollah. has appeasing this threat been successful? have talks and negotiations that turned the threat? did our willful abandonment of the terms relating them to doctrine produce a less virulent and aggressive enemy? no, no, and absolutely no. one other point about state- sponsored jihadism, many such countries did not have the ability to project power or find it jihaddist cells. this will cost us jobs and threatens our national security.

the best way is to produce more fuel here in america. for the other main threat, militant socialism, we see it everywhere. there is the sfot socialism that is turnigng europe into a toothless tiger. there is the worst kind in china. then in latin america. today is the birthday of james monroe, the man who gave us the monroe doctrine, who said we but make no claims abroad. can we honestly say that let

america's better off now that was three years ago? a region driving with prosperity, sovereignty and more? no, we cannot. i focused on venezuela and complained from the beginning even under the bush administration that we were ignoring chavez's threats. we have gone from bad to worse. honduran institutions, real democrats, were fighting a proxy battle, we sided with chavez. they have chosen politics. without u.s. support, columbia has been isolated to the point where the recently chosen to appease cjavez over -- chavez

over the interest of the u.s. let's be clear. they are teaming with iran, russia, and china. we have sat idly by as they have nationalized investments, shut down the free press, and jailed opponents. it was reported that one of the most wanted criminals came to .havez's country fo the venezuelan government shields their passenger list from interpol. the point is this. when they came to a worker

brazilians to fight in iran, why? to reciprocate? if you believe that i have another bridge to sell you. immediately to our south, there is a despair over mexico. it is not a failed state, but it could be. it is certainly more violent than in rockets today. the violence and drug running is a real threat to our country and critical to our border states. consider also the growing presence of jihaddist and south of the border. why has the president not secure our borders? this is putting domestic political objectives of the security of our country. let me be clear again. to negotiate with a hard and the socialist state and to whitewash the threat and actions in this hemisphere, or elsewhere, is to accommodate its leaders and its

aggression, and that is surrender. i, however, remain an optimist about the potential to again lead the world and i do not mean, as some of the white house has said, leading from behind. a reclaiming our legacy of liberty, i know we can make ourselves more secure and of the rest of the world become more stable and free. let me suggest a 10. plan to reverse course, restore our greatness, and reestablished the american standard in the world. first, began by seen the world the way that it truly is. we need to see evil for what it is and confronted. we need to see decency for what it is and nurture it. earlier this month, the president suggested deep cuts in our military. the wrong signal, the wrong effort, at the wrong time. now was not the time to not only -- now is the time to not only be increasing our military preparedness but finished the

task of comprehensive missile defense systems. nothing is so helpful for negotiations toward peace, as reagan shared, as overwhelming strength and defense. to ignore this lesson in the pursuit of utopian ideals of a nuclear-free world is both irresponsible, and i eve, and dangerous. while we're at it, we should restore our missile defense commitments to poland and the czech republic, another case of turning our back on friends. one small country in need of a trends will seek any advantage to being our ally if we do not reverse such decisions. second, we need to understand that we are in a war. theater to define our those less to be politically incorrect the lumpers' rate -- dissuade them from seeking our destruction. they know who they are.

they tell us who they are. they can hurt our efforts has signs of weakness and air resolution. such behavior causes despair among our allies and confusion here at home. motion began reversing course by defining what animates them and in most muslims to agree with us to help us to defeat them. me need a reinvigorated human intelligence apparatus in the middle east to better understand the enemy and identify opportunities to counteract them. ahead we need to change your information operations abroad to promote our core values of freedom and equality, democracy just as we did with the soviet empire's in the 1980's. we will ultimately win it with ideas and ideals, not words of appeasement, and certainly not

flimsy hollywood culture. we must cease his diplomatic equivalent between good and evil. syria does not deserve an investor. the protesters deserves support. israeli housing starts should not be put on a level playing -- plane as hamas attacks. they should not be given a veto on human rights activists we want to support. after supporting popular sovereignty abroad, the administration has aired in failing to support the institutions necessary for a successful democracy. too often, we have a aired in thinking that the first order of business. which should been the democratic

process. from gotten that backward 1930's germany to hammas on the gaza strip. we need to keep our commitment in africa. we cannot turn our backs from the investments and commitments that we have made. i helped to lead to many of those efforts to address third- world debt, global aids, and that investment that i worked on when i was a senator has paid off. over 200,000 babies do not have aids in africa where the rise would have and millions of people are alive today due to american providing anti-retro viral. this is what i call for-life foreign policy. -- pro-life foreign policy.

1% of our budget goes to such aid. we must stand by israel, especially at a time when it appears increasingly to be standing alone. the reason this location and the old order. in the middle east will usher in a new one and anti-israel elements are working overtime all across the world to take advantage of this opportunity. the danger will grow exponentially if iran succeeds in its procurement of a nuclear weapon. the tradition of speaking out and got about prisoners of conscience and the dissidents in prison. never mind american hostages. from the middle east to asia, it needs to be restored. and president reagan instituted the policy of reminding the world that america and that there were others in jail because of their beliefs, it not only reminded us of our blessings, but gave dissonance a sense of hope and the knowledge

that someone cared about them. that a great country was on their side. finally, we need to have a national effort to restore the teaching of american history in our schools. is our children's worst subject. this simply do not know their own story. thus, when they are told ours is a history of aggression and the morality, the have no counter narrative to retreat that. it is worth remembering that ronald reagan's final question in his final address to ask america to instill in our youth "and inform the patriotism." we ignored this lesson and we are reaping the consequences. this will soon consider the likened contribution of ronald reagan's partner in the reshaping the world, pope john paul ii. his faith and formed his courageous stand against the

totalitarian regime. john paul ii warned of the death of a true freedom and it warned that freedom itself needs to be set free. he last visited last year and offered this observation. "the united states is the last superpower. nobody has doubts about that. they also lead economically, but they are getting week. they do not lead a morally or politically anymore. the world has no leadership. the united states was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. it was the hope that whenever something was going wrong that one could count on the united states. today, we have lost that hope." i have not. my sense from traveling the

country is neither have the american people. they are bursting at the seems to have a leader who believes in them and in our country again. in his farewell address to the nation, president reagan reminded us of this money told the story of the uss midway patrolling the seize of south china. a sailor on the midway sought a tiny boat filled with refugees from indochina. air rescue launch was sent to them. as the americans came into view, one of the refugees smiled, "hello, american sailors. hello, freedman -- freedom men." that is who we are. let us not forget that privilege or neglect that legacy. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. [applause]

>> you mentioned about the current administration which is a different relationship with the russian administration which is becoming increasingly oppressive with electoral fraud. heidi think the u.s. should behave in this situation and how the u.s. can help the pro- democracy movement inside russia? what should the u.s. policy be with russia? >> i think they laid that out in the the points that i articulated, but we need to stand up for the principles that our country represents and the stand by the dissidents to seek freedom. we needed to do so in countries that are not just to run by governments that are friendly to the united states, but also in

countries where there are not necessarily so friendly. with a good record at the first, but not so much on the second. i believe that consistency, whether it is russia, china and, iran, libya, wherever that we need to stand up for those principles. that does not necessarily mean we need to get militarily engaged, but we need to stand for others principles. >> i am from the german weekly. thank you for your very interesting speech. i have two questions. the first is about american exceptional is a. what is wrong and others say it their nations are exceptional, too? are we living in a changing world? we have emerging powers like china, brazil, turkey, south africa, and others, american and

is now in the midst of a changing world that will inevitably also change the american role that we can see in relation to china, the growing debt, growing dependence. do you really think that america can continue leading the world as it used to, or does it also need to change? >> i would say that we have an what ation to speak for r makes america exceptional. when you take the last century, we saw a transformation of the world, not just the united states becoming a global power, but the ideas and ideals that make america upset -- exceptional, the concept that

people not being servants of the state, but being free. it has infected, in a good way, the world, and we now have governments all over the world than the number of governments that practice principles and at least some level of freedom have dramatically increased over the 100-year timeframe. we are winning the argument and we need to continue to make the argument. what you are talking about is our own economic situation and our ability to be able to be a dominant economic and military power. that is different than having what i believe is the truth about what the human condition should be. what the role of government should be. you could continue to advocate that even know i think i have mentioned we have big government and leadership in this country that don't necessarily practice

it in this country as much as we should. that is a domestic and internal issue that will be worked through in the next election and hopefully to a desirable result. it will certainly be a big issue in this election -- what is the role of the government in this country? your observation that the changing nature of america as how we relate to our own citizens is going to have impact, i would agree with that. that is why you see that banks you do see wanting to change back to a president who believes in us as opposed to a president who believes in himself and people in power in washington. >> this is a comprehensive foreign policy speech, but you did not even mention afghanistan.

i'm wondering why and second, what is your sense of the mission, where it stands? would you continue the 2014 timetable? are we winning? >> the narrative was looking forward -- i did mention some of the current conflicts and tried not to get bogged down in that. my belief is in afghanistan, we need to conduct a war, and i supported it, we need to conduct the war in away that we can be successful. we need to work in consort with all of the people you assign to the region and, with a plan that has by in, and executed.

i have concerns that is not happening. we have conditions and time limits that the people on the ground were not in favor of. i think we also have other factors at play, but the bottom line is, a president should involve -- should not involve the american military unless it has a clear path to victory and pursues that aggressively. trilogy advisers. defense secretary gates and incoming secretary leon panetta support a significant defense cuts in the military budget. how concerned are you about america possibility to deal with china's naval buildup and insurer america's dominance of

the seas and ability to secure the sees through the pacific and indian oceans? >> that's an important point and there are others. i would say if you look uprising and has suggested with respect to reducing the size of government, he has picked out the one area which is the only area in the full purview of the federal government. the one exclusive mission that no state or group of individuals can do -- defend the united states of america, is the only area the president believes we should reduce spending. that's a man who has his priorities upside down. i do not say we cannot find substantial savings in the defense department -- i served on the armed services committee

and we found lots of savings in the defense department. i was on the procurement committee and we made lots of defense cuts. most of which we plowed into reshaping our military. my argument is we should cut defense in places that need to be reduced and plow that money back into the areas of importance. my proposal would be we maintained that the funding of the defense department, cut it at all we should improve -- one area i have grave concern about is our navy and our ability to control commerce and we see that with pirates in somalia. imagine if it was a more

systematic problem. as others want to take stronger regional stances, this may be bigger problem in the future. >> i'm with the national journal. you said at the president's suggestion to employee deeper military cuts is the wrong message at the wrong time. are there any defense cuts he would consider putting on the table and what would those be? >> i'm not going to lay out any specific defense cuts today. i have enough for everyone here to talk about. i promise i will lay out a more comprehensive defense strategy. i know a little bit about the budget and served on the committee for a long time. there are things going on in the military where significant savings are coming about that could be applied broader.

we will lay out a clear agenda as we move forward. if i decide to jump into this presidential thing, you have all sorts of details. >> you mentioned that sharia law is an existential threat to united states. there seems to be some confusion about how to define a sharia law. can you point to instances within the united states that it is taking over in a way? >> you have already on the financial sector, sharia law- compliant finance where funds and people doing the investments are differing to people put up by groups, some of which are suspect fit as the authority as to what these funds can be invested in an asia rea-

compliant way. investment houses and others are paying less than reputable people all lot of money to give their blessing for their types of investments. that is a problem. depending on what they are investing in and who they're paying to give their blessing could be ways their resources are going to places that i'm not sure our in our national security interests. you have situations where you have movement in this country to cordon off and create family courts or other types of laws where muslims are only held account to religious laws as opposed to civil laws in this country. that has gone on extensively in europe and is being advocated

for in this country. there are concrete examples of how that is occurring in america today. i am not making the argument america is in the lead on this. the bigger problems and more notable cases are in places where there is a higher concentration of muslims, primarily in western europe am not here. sharia is a code, a civil code of how the government is to operate, things as mundane as personal hygiene, religious practices, it is made up of various text, not just the koran, but various texts and it's a code by which muslims have to live.

>> do you si a connective this to this administration's policy in the middle east? what direction do you see them going in? d.c. various theaters of various solutions? >> i think i laid out what i see as a consistent policy. as the white house said, leading from behind. of anyone who can successfully lead from behind. particularly if you are talking about deploying the military. if you're going to say to our men and women in uniform that you are one to go out and get in the line of fire to defend this country, how dare you stand

behind them? the stand in front of them. if it is worth their sacrifice, is worth you taking the political heat to be out in front of the events of hiding behind them. it is clear to me this president is trying to hide said he does not take political heat. as i mentioned very clearly in this speech, this is a president who believes our policies are around the world were wrong and should be apologized for. anyone complicity with us and our policies by their very nature is suspicious. therefore not to be trusted and not to be supported. if you are now i of the united states, look at our most important and traditional

allies. are any of those relationships better today than when barack obama took office? pick one that is better today that was and look at all of those who have lined up to oppose us. have any of them been confronted? have any of them have any sort of olive branches and order to appease their anti-american notions? you have a president who does not believe in american foreign policy. i think the root of that is he does not believe america is exceptional and has anything to offer the world. when you believe that, there is no reason to advocate for it.

>> i'm with the american independent. i wanted to ask what are your plans as far as aids and hiv prevention in africa? >> i was one of the authors who worked with the president of the global aids bill and worked on securing funding beyond what the administration requested for that. i saw it as a national security issue that states that are dysfunctional, we have seen in the past, particularly in that area of the world which borders and includes large islamic populations, it is a breeding ground for terrorist and state

sponsors of terrorists. obviously, when your population is being decimated by a disease, it's hard to be a successful economic enterprise as a state. i believe was an hour security interest to do it at the given the enormity of our budget, it's a relatively small amount of money at has been a great investment, not just in keeping states from becoming a terrorist havens and state sponsors of terrorism, but promoting the very idea is i talked about in this speech about who america is. as we have seen, when america makes that kind of commitment at a time of great need to a country, it has long-term value for our country.

it builds up relationships that can be to our benefit for a very long time. >> you spoke about worries of defense being cut too much and had the converse question of where would you cut more. are there any areas you worry have been cut too much? >> i think we should deploy a missile defense system. there are some real threats to our country and nobody talks about the bible you are serious, electromagnetic pulses and the ability for a rogue nation to do

something that could be debilitating to our country. if we do not have the ability to respond, it would be devastating for the future of our country. there is no reason not to pursue it to protect us from such an obvious and consequence of threat. that is just one threat. that's my opinion. the most consequential. go-ahead. >> thank you. in 2006, on the campaign trail, you said at the united states was engaged in a war against islamic fascism, largely perpetrated by iran. short of direct military action, how do you proposed to stand up against islamic fascism and for

democracy around the world? >> if you want to talk specifically about iran, we need to be engaging from intelligence perspective as well as through other types of covert activities to engage the pro-democracy elements in countries where we have a tremendous strategic interest. i think iran is one of those countries and we identify iran for what it is. the fact we're tim this -- we are timid in identifying these murderous thugs and theocrats in iran for 2 1/2 years is i'm sure a depressing -- has a depressing effect on those in iran who would normally think they could count on us.

it is well known when you do polling in the middle east, countries where the united states is friendly to the government tend not to be favorable toward the united states in the arab world or persian world. countries where we are truthful about the nature of the authoritarian regimes these people have to live under, we tend to be popular and they tend to like americans. we have thrown away in iran. we had strong support in the streets, not publicly the case you cannot publicly say that in iran. we have forfeited that turning our backs on their strife for democracy and freedom >>

bilateral negotiations and the multilateral approach is not seem to work either. what the suggest we can do? >> i think we have to continue to isolate north korea. we have been put in a compromise position because of our own economic spending binge of being in a position to leverage the chinese more now than we have been able to in the past. but clearly, it is in china's interest to have north korea as a buffer and as a point of distraction in the region. we have to get to a point or that is no longer to their

advantage and clean up our house here. renewing and restoring our alliance in the region and showing we will be good friends to our allies will be good in that regard. >> if you were in charge tomorrow, what would you do with libya and syria? >> i don't have the information necessarily to make those kinds of judgment is that way i would feel comfortable answering those questions. i would have to have a lot more information as to what is going on and the nature of the rebels and the condition on the ground. we have created a no win situation in libya.

if we continue on with this seemingly feckless approach, we will be in a standoff for a long time. we have a constant problem with respect to the supply of oil and that will keep our gasoline prices high. ending that conflict would be a positive thing to accomplish. the question is, who are the people we're dealing with and whether these are folks that would result in something better than we have in place with muammar gaddafi. the same situation in serious -- in syria. in israel, they say we would rather have the devil we know than the devil we don't know. i would find it harder to believe there is anybody in the streets who is much worse what

their relationship with perron and hezbollah, but there is a sense with some folks and i would have to better understand that to make that decision to go forward. but i would make the argument that if we're going to get involved, this is what we should have done. i was not convinced we did have a strategic interest, given the situation with gaddafi. in the case of syria, we have a country that has sponsored terrorism and terrorist who have caused casualties to america and have caused great harm to lebanon and israel.

replacing assad with a better group of folks could certainly be in the national security interest of our country and something we should get involved in. but i would have to have more information. >> [inaudible] and advocated as a form of leadership. he talked about empowering the most able. if by always being the front, the united states might risk losing power economically and militarily, such as being in gauged in three wars. >> i'm not suggesting we always have to lead. but when we do engage, we should lead. the answer i just gave would

give an indication that if it is not in the national security interest of our country to get involved in another country, we should not do it. we should not get involved, the reason for getting involved in libya was a humanitarian reasons. that's not sufficient. in my opinion, that is not sufficient reason to get involved in another country, using military force. you get involved only if there is a national security interests at stake. >> should we take national security interests at stake? >> there are other things to do -- i would not permit that way, but there are other ways you can impact conditions in countries other than through military action.

>> you offered a 10. plan and one of those points is we must stand by israel. the environment for israel is getting tougher due to the changing governments in that neighborhood and all experts say car regardless what kind of government you are going to have, how democratic and how open they are, they will be more critical when it comes to israel. some people in your party and in the democratic party say it was a mistake to support the democratic movement and drop the autocratic governments us like mubarak and others. what is your take? >> we were very quick to side with the rebels in egypt and with an ally of the united states and we refused to side

with the rebels in iran with a sworn enemy of the united states. i find that inexplicable. if we are going to side with a rebellion, we better have a good understanding of who the rebels are. that's why called for better intelligence in the region. i made comments at the time that's we should be standing by our ally before all this happened and the pushing for freedom. freedom does not mean democracy right away. it may not mean democracy for a long time, if you don't have the condition in the country to support a democracy that would end up with freedom. the object is freedom, not democracy. that's so we have to be very clear about.

we need to move our friends slowly, just like our policy with china is one of trying to influence the chinese to become more politically and religiously and culturally free. we don't seem to have a real issues with that but we should be doing it with our allies in the region and the supporting them as they do it. we did not. we decided we were not going -- the president was going to reject involvement in other countries because who are we to say we are better than anyone else? now we are living with the consequences of folks who are tired of living with what we would have never lived with. one more question.

>> thank you very much. i have a question about japan. japan is facing the largest catastrophe since world, like the largest earthquake and nuclear power plant crisis is still going on. do you have a comment on that and is there anything you would do, something different from the obama administration? >> what kind of impact do you see to the u.s. economy because of the decline in the japanese economy due to the earthquake. >> i am not an economist i know there have been lots of reports about what the effect on gdp would be. i will let economists figure

that out. i don't know. i'm not going to comment specifically on the obama administration because i must admit i'm not 100% up to date on all of the things they would have done. japan is one of our best and closest allies and we should be working as closely with them as our best friends and neighbors as they are to help through this difficult time. that is what my policy would be, to try to be as helpful as possible to them through this difficult time and getting japan back on its feet is not only to the benefit of japan, but to the region and our country and the world. we should be all hands on deck to help in that regard.

it has gotten off the front page alone bed and not current on all the things going on, but i would say we should deploy whatever resources are necessary to make sure we contain that problem. thank you very much. we appreciate you coming out today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> today on "newsmakers" -- a look at 2012 with the republican chairman of iowa and new hampshire. they will discuss how the gop candidates are preparing for the caucuses. that's at 6:00 eastern on c-

span. >> on monday, the former republican national committee chairman will talk about the 2012 gop presidential field. after that, the president of amtrak on the future of funding writer ship and potential growth. later, the 2008 financial crisis and the prosecution process for high profile participants. that's live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span. >> i try to tell a story with visuals instead of words. i'm basically writing paragraphs with images. >> with four pulitzer prizes, she's won the award more than any other journalist. >> the great thing about being a journalist is the variety we get to experience. >> she will talk more about her craft tonight. you can download a podcast of

the program as one of our many signature into the programs available online. >> british defense secretary, liam fox, talked about the government's decision not to deploy british ground troops in libya. this is a hearing is 90 minutes. welcome to the committee on operations in libya.

for coming in so soon after what we presumably was a long and grueling flight. before we begin, i would like to make a general announcement about jackets, i never make an announcement about whether people have to wear jackets but they don't. anybody wants to remove their jacket please do. and next, secretary of state please introduce your team. hardly necessary but nevertheless. >> thank you, chairman. gives me great pleasure to introduce my fellow witnesses on my right your left the assistant chief for operations who the committee knows well. and the director of operational policy, who the committee might know even better. perhaps i can, if i may, say a few words before we begin questions, chairman. >> with what in mind, exactly?

>> if i may, one or two brief points about how we see this session and the -- >> this session being this evidence. >> this evidence session. >> okay. >> to set the scene, chairman, britain is taking an active role in international efforts to protect civilians in libya. we do so under the authority of the united nations and as part of a broad coalition which includes arab nations amongst its number. as the foreign secretary told the house of commons yesterday, 60 nations are contributing aircraft or maritime assets to the region, in total 34 nations are either providing or offering various kinds of support including military, logistical or financial support and humanitarian relief. we work very closely across

government to you the national security council and make sure military activity is one of the measures to maintain the pressure on moammar gadhafi's regime. we don't engage closely with our coalition partners. yesterday's chairman said i visited washingtono discuss the issues with u.s. secretary of defense robert gates. in the last few weeks i've visited qatar, italy, cyprus, france and u.s. yesterday. i'm sure the committee would want to join us paying tribute to the bravery and professionalism of the men and women of the uk and our allies armed forces for make such a significant contribution to the operation in libya. this is an active and fluid operation and evolving campaign. >> do bear in mind that the foreign secretary made a statement to the house of commons yesterday, and i think we're aware of the background to

all of this. and i'm sure that things that you have to say will be adequately brought out in the questions that we will wish to ask. >> one point. this is an excellent fluid operation in an evolving campaign and the messages that have come out of this session here this afternoon will resonate with our forces and also with the gadhafi regime. and i hope to committee will under that there are areas of information which we could probably give more completely, but the committee, i hope, will understand that to make too much information publicly at this time could prejudice our efforts. >> yes. thank you very much for making that point because i think it is extremely important. i am sure that the committee will bear that in mind in the

questions that we ask. >> thank you, chairman. >> and the tone that we adopt in what we ask. i would like to begin by asking about the issue of taking sides. it seems to me that we are taking sides. do you agree that that is the impression that is being given, or would you suggest that we are not taking sides? >> oh, absolutely. on the contrary, we're taking sides. we are taking sides of the civilians. that is what the u.n. resolution is asking us to do. and the civilians are being attacked by their own government. it is incumbent upon us under the u.n. resolution from text us so to that extent of course we have to take a side. are we investing in a policy

that has a pre-determined view as to what the government of libya ought to be? no. >> and, if we are taking that side, what are we doing to ensure that that side wins? >> it is not a question of if you mean by side one of the redwr regime or opposition forces what's incumbent upon us to ensure the population is protected. everything that we have done in recent weeks to achieve that by degrading the military capabilities of the regime, by directly targeting their assets that threaten the civilian population, by pushing them as we did from benghazi and a humanitarian catastrophe, by

damaging their ammunition dumps by degrading their fuel supplies, by making their logistics much more difficult, by degrading the command and control, all of these things are a means by which we intend to diminish the ability of that regime to harm the civilian population. >> the worry that i think was expressed by bob haynesworth yesterday in the house of commons is to make sure we're doing enough to make sure that the fighting goes on but not doing enough that it comes to an end. >> there has been some talk as the committee is aware of this concept that we're and i stalemate. i delved with this issue yesterday in the united states. over the last few days we have seen opposition forces make significant gains in misrata. it's not yet clear whether they, in fact, control the city. the situation remains a little confuseed. we've seen the italians decide

to contribute attack aircraft for the first time. kuwaitis donating known the opposition forces. we've seen ourselves and others with mentoring groups in benghazi. i think there's a danger in extrapolating the events of any one short period of time into the wider shape of the campaign. i think if we look back to where we were before the intervention when it was entirely possible that the regime launched a humanitarian catastrophe upon the people of benghazi and where we are today and the military capability of that regime, we are a long way away from that starting point. so i do not recognize it as a stalemate and i think that we made some considerable progress. if we look, for example, at the speed of which nato of able to put together its command and control, i think it's been considerably faster than in previous conflicts and i think the fact that we've been able to send a broad coalition with a high level of fire power

including arab countries in that coalition is a achievement. so i think we are moving forward. so i don't expect the suggestion that not enough is being done. >> so you don't accept that it is a stalemate when you were in the united states yesterday, did you tell admiral mullen that he was wrong? >> well, when i was interviewed, it was quite within earshot of admiral mullen. i have made my view perfectly clear. a moment ago that admiral mullen talked about, he talked about the context of last week. since then, especially in the last 72 hours we've seen a number of factors move in the favor of the coalition. as i said at the outset this is a fluid situation. we must be careful not to look at the situation at any one time and assume that's what the future will look like. >> we'll come back to some of these issues any way during the course of the afternoon.

that's helpful. we know you have to go at 4:00. so this is time limited. so, general, would you mind -- unless you have something essential to add, jeffrey dobbs. >> the u.n. resolution permits also necessary measures to be taken to protect civilian life, but it also excludes foreign occupation force in any form. what do you see as the limitations of the u.n. resolution? >> well, we are quite clear that all necessary measures are subject to the test of being reasonable and proportionate to protect the civilian population. i think what we've done has always fallen within that. there are, of course, limitations to what can be

achieved by air alone. it was accepted that by the u.n. resolution when the no fly zone was created. but our aim was not to impose upon the people of libya a particular form of government. our aim was to protect the civilian population. i go back to the whole aim of what it is we're trying to achieve in libya, which is to ensure men, women and children can sleep safely in their beds, knowing that they will not be attacked by gadhafi's forces. so everything we've done is with that in mind. and we're being extremely capable on two fronts. one is to accept in achieving the aims, we must at all times minimize the chance of civilian casualties. there are those who have said and have said to me as i visited other countries, could we not have done more, more quickly by air and the answer is yes. but to do so, would have only

been possible if we were willing to accept greater collateral damage and higher risk of civilian casualties. and apart from the argument of being on the high moral ground, and having a higher respect for life than gadhafi clearly does, it's been essential in making that coalition internationally not the least with the arab countries we show respect for minimizing civilian casualties. so we've been very clear there's a limitation on what we can do there. likewise when it comes to our mentoring groups we've been very clear to point out it's to give these groups, they are there to give greater organizational capability, to help with logistics and to help with communications. we at times have been very careful to act twin advice of the attorney general what is lawful and what is not under the u.n. resolution. >> of course there are civilians who have no bed to sleep in,

normally because they are in the west of the country they are moving towards the border and there's the possibility of having to create some foreign safe haven for those civilians and in your vow with the deployment of troops to help create and protect those safe havens for civilians and the fighting in the west intensifies the prospect is happening increase would the deployment of troops for humanitarian purposes to see if there are civilian life on the border be within the term of the resolution or would you have to seek a newman date? >> that's something we would have to seek advice on a case by case basis from the attorney general. the basis on which we operate is if there's any new development that we believe is different from that which has gone before, we would seek advice from the attorney general. that's not a question we have yet put to the attorney general

but i expect it's something we'll have to do that. >> have we got troops to deploy if we need to? >> there's no intention to deploy any british troops on the ground in libya. >> even for humanitarian -- >> we have no intention to deploy british troops in libya. >> does the u.n. resolution permit under the current mandate the coalition forces to target colonel gadhafi? >> we, first of all, of course did not talk about specific targeting. but we made it very clear that we believe that the resolution and all necessary measures to protect the civilian population, allows us very clearly legal justification to target where there's members of regime in the control of those take the risks. our aim is to reduce the capability of the regime to make

war on its people. we do not discuss individual targets, but we make very clear what the general case is and those involved capable of understanding that. >> my question simply is would the u.n. resolution permit it if it were to be considered? >> well, that again is a question for the attorney general. it's not a question that's come up because we've not discussed that particular question, we have made very clear we're dealing with command and control aspects. to make that a little clearer, when people talk about, for example, colonel gas any's compound in tripoli it seems to have the aura of some holiday villa. what we're talking about is reinforcing areas that are being used for command and control of military assets, whether they happen to be an accommodation facility incorporated within it. we're clear that our job is to

degrade the regime's ability to make war on the people of libya and continue to do and the resoft of tr resolve of the alliance is diminished. the government made that advice to parliament. we undertake to make subsequent advice relative to parliament, seems to be quite crucial to a decision that we take. >> i'll certainly discuss that with my cabinet colleagues. it has to be a collective decision. we didn't make the legal advice, we gave a summary of the advice. i know this may sound like semantics, but we understand the complexity of this issue. it has been the government's intend to make very clear the basis on which we are operating if there were to be issues that are different from those that we set out before. i will certainly give an undertaking to consult with my colleagues about whether the

government feels it necessary to make such information available. >> what exactly does the issue in libya aim to achieve? has that been agreed. what have you clearly defined your aim? >> well, the uk's aim, if i make begin civilians for gadhafi to comply with u.n. resolution 1973 and for libyan people to have the opportunity to choose their own future. these are fully aligned with nato's objectives, which are to protect civilians and civilian population areas under threat of attack by the regime, to implement a no-fly zone to protect civilians and to implement the arms embargo. these are the sames set out under the u.n. resolution. >> you said it was for the people of libya to choose their own regime.

is regime change an actual goal? is that something that you actually actively are working towards? >> regime change is not part of the u.n. >> neither is the revolution. >> i would have thought it was a very clear aim for all of us that the free decision of people to determine their own future is something we would want to see. i would have hardly thought that would require incorporation into the resolution. i would have thought it was to an extent self-evident, but it is clear regime change would be a major policy initiative and one which is not signed up to in the resolution. >> are we giving mixed messages? i just looked at the letter, the libyan letter from sarkozy in which it is said, if i can find it, where it is suggested that

in fact libya would be -- they can't imagine a future for libya with gadhafi in charge. is that not also tant mount to saying that what we are looking for is regime change. >> the sentence before makes it very clear. it says our duty and our mandate under u.n. security council resolution 1973 is to protect civilians and we're doing that. it is not to remove gadhafi by force, but it is impossible to imagine a future for libya with gadhafi in part. that echos the views that have been put forward by the opposition of forces themselves. when they have already witnessed two cease fires, two unilateral cease fires put forward by gadhafi during which time the population was still being slaughtered, i can understand how they feel about having little faith in a word of a man who has broken it so frequently in the past. >> i can understand that too. what i can't understand is sort of the almost dual speak where

one minute we are saying that regime change and targeting of individuals is part of our mission, and then we're saying it isn't. which is it? >> it is also very important to apply psychological pressure to the regime. one of the ways in which we can hasten the end of this conflict is for the regime itself to recognize that there is no long term future, as long as colonel gadhafi believes there is a future, he's likely to want to continue the conflict. it's essential we send clear messages that he's despised by many of his own people. he's isolated internationally and there is no future for his regime if he continues to believe there's such a possiblist, it's likely the conflict will continue. >> equally, if he believes if he loses power, he will be taken before the international criminal court, that gives him no reason forever thinking of leaving libya and finding a safe haven elsewhere.

>> that argument is regularly put, but i would put the converse. do we really want a situation where we give some of those who commit the most heinous crimes against humanity the ghetto to say if you stop fighting we'll let you go and you will not be subjected to international law. i think it's essential in the longer term, the international criminal court has not only a long reach but a long memory. >> so can i be clear, the nato allies are in agreement with key aims of the mission? are the arab league in agreement with those key aims? >> the arab partners who are with us are very clearly operating under the nato aims, under the nato rules, including the nato mission and nato command and nato targeting. and the aim of our contact group is to ensure that, as many of the country's in the region as

possible come within the broader political umbrella of support. that is one of the ways in which we show that this is not the west, if you like, trying to impose a solution on libya. but this is a broader coalition of nations that sees that there is a people who want to be free, being brutally suppressed and the international community responding accordingly. i think it's one of the great achievements in libya that we have kept so many of the arab countries with us and that so many have been willing to become part and attend the contact group. >> are we at risk of a stalemate between the libyan government and the opposition forces, and what more do you think nato can do within the current mandate to make sure that we don't end up with a constant stalemate and no one actually achieving a major amount of power. >> as i have already said. i don't think we're in a position of stalemate. i think we've seen substantial

progress being made in some areas in recent days. it may not be as fast as people might like or have hoped for, but when we see more countries still being able to be willing to commit themselves to ground attack, for example, and the decision by italy should be hugely welcomed, when we see the progress that has been made in misrata. we have all seen the pictures of the dreadful humanitarian misery there. when we're getting countries like kuwait being willing to come forward as part of one of the countries in the region to commit funding, then we are seeing some movement. when we are seeing the u.s. drones, for example, the armed predator coming into use. when we're seeing targeting a tripoli of command and control close to the center of the region's power base. all these are reasons to assume that this is not a stalemate. >> as part of all this, how will

you judge and when will you know that you've achieved what it is you're supposed to achieve? >> i'm not looking for a date, but can you give us -- it's an impossible, ridiculous question. what do you see the process being by which you make that evaluation, you make that judgment? what discussions are you having with your international collaborators in the nato plus coalition to actually decide what the process and the method is for deciding the exit strategy and particularly, the military component of the exit strategy and how will you decide it? >> i'm sure it is actually possible to give a date, but the only person capable of doing so is colonel gadhafi in terms of when he would stop waging war on his own population. our strategy is clear. militarily, to continue the u.n. enforcement until the threat to civilians is lifted and

politically, to support the libyan people to choose their own future. these criteria and therefore the date really need to be measured by the regime's actions, not gadhafi's words. we've already had gadhafi say he's having a cease fire. we've not seen that. even when a couple of days ago, he was talking about pulling out of miss rautrata so the tribes t involved. there are those who say does the coalition have the nerve, does it have the guts, does it have the commitment to see through this campaign? and the message that i want anyone who is sympathetic or involved in the regime to hear very clearly today is that the international community understands what it has been asked to do. it understands what its duty is and its resolve will not falter until we have achieved

militarily and politically what i have just set out. >> the question i'm asking you, i suppose to the answer to the question i'm asking you is you'll know it when you see it. how are you going to decide that? because you have a very varied coalition of people involved. some might wish to make that judgment earlier than others. what is the discussion either within the contact group or the nato targeting processes or whatever about a common agreed process to make such a decision? >> of course, one side of that, it's relatively simple. the civilian population are safe and they're not being shelled nor is there the ability to do so quickly. for example, i don't regard it as being a cease fire if there is a tank at the end of the street pointing at me and it's just not firing during this hour. that is not safety for the civilian population. so we will have to ensure that the forces do not threaten them and are not capable of infli inflicting that. that is, to an extent,

self-evident. and the allies are very clear about that. our focus is on the implementation of u.n. resolution 1973 which lays out the very clear conditions that need to be met, including an immediate cease fire, a halt to all attacks on civilians and full humanitarian access to all those in need. those are the criteria we believe will fulfill u.n. resolution 1973. >> but in that respect then, it won't just be the actual coalition of actors who are prosecuting the mandate that would be part of that process, but presumably the u.n. itself in some fashion, in evaluating when they say your bit is done. we now move to phase ii, whatever. >> nothing would please us more than for the kinetic element to be over and for us to be able to

focus on u.n. assistance to the humanitarian efforts and to the rebuilding, politically and otherwise, of libya. as to when that can happen, i go back to the point. ask colonel gadhafi, i'm afraid, rather than me. >> if i see him, i will. >> i'm sure you won't. >> secretary of state, we've already provided the libyan opposition with body armor, communication equipment and a number of officers and advisers. presumably you're satisfied with the provisions within 1973. my question is is this the first step towards directly arming the opposition and would that fall within the current u.n. resolutions? >> no, it's not a first step. we've been very careful this is mentoring, not training, as i

made the point, this comes inside the legal advice we get to make sure that we're always very safely inside resolution 1973. our mentoring role is to ensure that the opposition forces are able to organize themselves better, the logistics are better, the communications are better. we believe this is vital to their state and to help protect the civilian population better. it is not a first step nor is it intended to be. >> well, you've made a distinction now which some people would say it's a distinction without difference. rather than argue that, can i ask, do you think that the civilian opposition is sufficiently organized and trained to be able to make proper use of the equipment its got and the equipment we give to it, the relevant equipment we're giving it? >> well, we know that those on the opposition side are very

disparate grouping. they are not trained military. as we've seen from our tv pictures, i saw yesterday a geography teacher and a doctor and others discussing how they had taken up arms to protect the families and the communities without any training. clearly, they are at a disadvantage in that sense. but i go back to the point, if i may, that i made at the outset, that we are not there to be involved in choosing a side that will govern libya ultimately. we're there to protect the civilian population. we judge that as part of that protection of the civilian population to give those opposition forces greater capabilities in terms of organization, in terms of logistics, in terms of communications, is well within what we believe we are able to do. in terms of training and

supplying weapons, there clearly is an arms embargo that applies to two sides. >> the logic -- the question is whether it's going to deliver something as a result of the impasse. we regard the national transitional council, a legitimate political interlow cuted. is it sufficiently organized to represent a realistic government for the country, something that can pull together a current military struggle, a future economy and the rest of it? >> if i may ask to say something about that. but, you know, let's be frank about this conflict. if we want to see our objectives achieved, then one would be seeing a military force capable of taking on the regime.

we've made very clear that we are not in business for that. that's not what the resolution allows us to do. it is not within the aims of the united kingdom or nato. if we want to change the equilibrium nonetheless. the way to do that is to degrade the regime and hopefully bring about a change in the behavior of that regime, vis-a-vis the civil population. that is the option open to us by our continued use of air power and the degradation of the assets of the gadhafi regime. it is clearly the side that we -- the path we have chosen to take within the legality set out by the u.n. resolution. but peter, i think, can give an answer to the more detailed question of the transitional council. >> i think it's true to say that the itmc places huge challenges. we have had a diplomatic mission alongside them for about three weeks. we've been getting to know them

through that process. we think potentially they could become an organization that as you said represents all of libya. they've been quite careful to make sure that they have representatives not just from the eastern part, but also from misrata and the western towns and so on. there are some experienced people there. former justice minister, and there are others with a range of skills. their program is one that we would, i think, find admirable. they seek to establish over time representative governments, moving towards elections and so on. we think they have the right aspirations and potentially the capability, but i won't pretend they don't face huge challenges as well. >> thank you. in relation to the body armor that was supplied.

it was supplied to the opposition forces. with any restrictions on whether it was used by civilians or not? >> no restrictions for distribution by the itnc. >> chairman, the provision of body armor is permitted under the nonlethal military exception to the arms embarg row under operative paragraph 9 a of resolution 970 but does require prior approval from the sanctions committee set up under that resolution. given the pressing nature of the requirement that the committee has already referred to under 4 of resolution 19, it was determined that an immediate dispatch was an appropriate course of action. it was to enable those forces to protect themselves as they defended their communities

against those forces threatening civilians. we believe that there was an overwhelming case for doing so. >> sir, the provision of body armor for the protection of civilians was to enable forces to protect themselves. that's the word you just used. >> it's provision to the opposition, and to any civilian police was to enable them to protect themselves as they defended the civilian populat n population. >> sir? >> please. >> this is to be used for those who are in defensive position trying to stop and attack or in terms of forward infantry trying to charge up the road? i think that's the area we're talking about. >> yes, the primary provision was to enable them to protect themselves as they defended their communities.

so an overwhelming need for those who were protecting the communities and if you look at places where people are trying to protect their own community, they themselves could be as adequately protected as possible, not, i think, an unreasonable thing. >> you would expect this body armor to be used essentially by the soldiers of the opposition in protecting the civilians? is that a fair summary of what you said? >> first of all, it's difficult to determine who is a soldier and who is not. >> that's a very good point. how would you do it? >> i think anybody involved in the protection of civilians fills the criteria. they may well be themselves civilians protecting themselves. where these items of body armor go is, in many ways, moot because they are all involved in this. >> how much is this body armor

worth? that may seem a very small question in the overall cost of all of this, i'm just wondering who provided it and who paid for it? >> it came from contingent stocks which were the current u.k. operations. as for price tag, chairman, i'm unable to give you that. i'll look to see what it is. i'm not sure if sir watkins is able to do that. ahe's very good with numbers. >> i don't have a precise figure, chairman. this is basically stock armor that we had in stock against our potential needs. we are in the process of replacing that armor as part of our routine replacement program, so it was available to be given to the opposition the way we say. i can't give you a precise value on it at the moment. i think it would be quite difficult to value it anyway.

it's not something you can put on ebay and seek bids for. >> there's a huge strategic leap in all senses from an air war to a ground war. not a ground war, a team of observers put on the ground, boots on the ground. i think this is quite a worrying development, because, of course, it will be under security council 1973, but what happens when the military team we put on the ground comes back to you, sir, and says we believe that it is an absolute requirement to help these people that they

have, say, forward air controllers, trainers, liaison officers with the forces, because they are observers, but i'm slightly concerned by what -- if they're observers, are they actually helping the military of the opposition, or are they just watching or are they not watching? there we are. that's my question. what do you comment on that, sir? >> well, we have very clearly defined remit to the team in terms of mentoring to the opposition to improve the transitional national council's ability to protect civilians and civilian populated areas. i said we've been very clear from the legal advice that we have and it should be limited to enabling them to organize their internal structures, to prioritize and communicate more effectively.

we have not, at any point, sought any advice on going further in that role. we're very clear that this is about protecting the civilian population. of course, there's a major difference between ground forces and the air war. we all understand the limitations, but in passing the resolution for the no-fly zone, the international community took account of that. we recognized there are limitations, but that it was also very clear that it would be completely unacceptable to effectively have foreign forces on libyan soil for political reasons which i'm sure i do not need to go into. >> has the security council been consulted on the deployment of this team of observers? presumably they're aware, but have they tacitly approved it, or do the russians and the germans and the chinese, are

they content with this? >> we're very clear that, from the advice that the government gets, that we are acting entirely within resolution 1973. we've been very careful at all times to do so. it's a view that obviously shared by a number of other countries in terms of this mentoring process. i think as that we have at all times made very clear that our basis for acting is that we believe it's justified in terms of protecting the civilian population and assisting those who themselves are protecting the civilian population. >> i think that was an answer to a different question. he asked whether the security council had been consulted about this? >> i'm not sure about the legal basis or need to do that. >> they were not formally consulted but they are certainly aware. there's no secret. it was announced by the foreign

secretary and i'm sure our ambassador in new york will have brought it to the attention of the proper authorities there. >> my final question is one of these military officers was captured, are we sure that they will be treated properly under the geneva conventions and not treated by gadhafi as a spy? >> i think that it's hard to tell, but certainly, gadhafi is not rational. we have made every attempt to make sure that they are not captured by defining very carefully the limits of their activity and making sure that we have plans to recover them, if we believe the risk is increasing, just as we have with the rest of the mission. >> get them out, great. thank you. >> even if colonel gadhafi has

scant respect for international law or human life, that those who aren't members of those forces might have those values. >> can i come back to one issue about united nations? the issue of the possibility of seeking a new mandate or new resolution. i mentioned earlier that there was no mention in 1973 of the issue of the libyan people choosing their own government. would that not be preferable if a resolution could be taken through the united nations expressing that as being the end goal? >> well, as i said, chairman, my personal view would be that it is self-evident that we would want the people of libya to be able to determine their own future. why else would we be as an international community

intervening to protect them? i'm not aware of any suggestion that there has been -- that this would require us to go back to the united nations but i'm perfectly happy to discuss it with our colleagues in the foreign colleagues if there have been any such notions. i'm not aware of them. >> we're not yet to the point where the resolution of 1973 has been completely fulfilled by gadhafi. it would seem to us a little premature to be talking already in terms of another resolution. >> can i ask you about nato command and control processes and structures? one question might be are you confident that it's working? the answer is probably yes, but i'd like to explore that a little bit more if i could. about its efficiency and this question of legality within it,

we got a new element now, you mentioned it yourself. we got predators, we got drones. general cartwright in america says the difference is -- what did he say? he said when you're struggling to pick friend from foe, a vehicle like a predator that can get down lower, and get i.d.s better, it helps us. it's the idea of picking out snipers on balconies and things in the american press. how is the targeting process, that includes nato plus nations, albeit in the nato driven process in terms of targeting and making decisions based upon the assets now available? just to remind him that's what you can do if you need to. that's an easy target. the question of drones are more difficult. how is the target process working and are you satisfied of the legalities and other things?

>> i'll pass. >> there are two forms of targeting. first of all the deliberate targeting which is bordered at every level in nato and bordered in the u.k. by the secretary of state where we address very carefully the issues of necessa necessaryty. that's deliberate targeting. that's for fixed sites and installations. the point you make about predator is because that is a dynamic target. it is moving or certainly not visible for a long period of time. the rules for those engagements are even more demanding in that you have to absolutely identify that it is hostile and that it also fills this question of

proportionate a proportionate. in the cockpit of the jet so the pilot is also to be convinced that that target is legitimate. >> the legal advice within the process? >> delivered at all levels by legal advices and fundamentally back to the attorney general. >> i mean at the point where the operation was launched under nato command, we went in the ministry defense, the policy staffs and the legal advisers went through the nato rules of engagement like by-line, compared them to the u.k. rules of engagement and satisfied ourselves that they were legal in every respect. >> to give a sense of what that meant, when we were looking at

how we would go about generically about targeting, as i said at the outset, we were very, very careful that in any selection of targets, we would do so only when we were absolutely convinced there was minimal risk to civilians. when we transferred that targeting process on to nato, we made very clear that the rules under which we had been operating up to that point were the rules, our own forces would be expected to live up to under the nato process. and to that extent, we have, as other countries have, effectively a red card that says our forces will live up to certain ethical values in carrying out this mission. it has not been an issue because nato has, as sir watkins was saying, very much followed what we have followed.

>> i mean, it's important for us to be sure that british people of all sorts are protected because they are subject to the icc, americans of course aren't, there we are, that's an interesting conversation we can have later. >> can i just give an assurance, a personal assurance on that? because when it comes to the conflict and a secretary of state is asked to ally look at specific judgments, i took, as the government took from the outset, that we would set our assessment of acceptable civilian casualties as close to zero as was possible to be. i can give this government can give, this country can give an absolute assurance to people of libya and people of the region that at all times we have sought as far as humanly possible to minimize civilian casualties because it makes a difference to

our moral position in conflict and it makes a difference to our difference in alliing white political alliance. >> i think that's an extremely helpful and very important statement. i'm grateful to you for making it. >> absolutely. and that's what we're trying to ensure. to pursue this question about the target a little further, and the length of the process. it seems as though we have norway and sweden saying they're going to be in for six months. there's talks -- three months, sorry. talk about us being in for six months, turkey, a slightly different position for spain, so on. under the command and control structures, what does that tell us about how that process can run over time should it need to run for a period longer than three months? >> i would have thought you on

this committee would have been well aware of the debates we had on icaf about who was going to be there for what length of time. there are clearly strong parallels here. perhaps the chairman would like to tell us how it operates on the ground. >> i think the nato structure that circumscribes all this targeting business, to use your phrase, is designed for resilience and persistence, that the structure can exist as long as nato requires it to exist. as nations come in and out of the structure. making sure that the legal requirements and the roe is part of that process. it's designed to endure, just recognizing what the secretary of state has said. we're in this for as long as it takes. >> implications for british national security, assessment of, the fact that we're in north africa, we're doing the things the way we're doing it, positive

or negative? what's the impacts of british national security on our actions in libya? >> the governments, in particular, the home office and the office of counterterrorism is monitoring the implications or possible implications very carefully indeed. i can't go into detail, obviously, but it has been monitored day by day. >> thank you. >> you just said we are in it for as long as it takes. have you any idea how long it will take? >> as i said, it's a question that will be well put where woel do so to colonel gadhafi who is the person to most determine how long this will continue. if colonel gadhafi were to stop attacking his people tomorrow, if we were to move to a safe

distance and very clear that it was not a continued threat and we were able to get humanitarian assistance to the people of libya unhindered the in the way u.n. resolution 1973 demands of us, we would all be very happy. it is essential that the international community gives the very clear signal to the gadhafi regime that our resolve is not time limited. we understand what is being asked of us, what our duty is and our resolve will not be time limited, will not be short, will not be finite. >> will it take considerably longer if the americans pull back? i note that pentagon acknowledge that the u.s. is to provide 8 percent of aerial surveillance and 100% of all electronic war mission. will it take longer if the americans pull back their forces? >> well, we are able to carry

out the mission to degrade the regime's capabilities more quickly if we have the speed of targeting and we have the range of assets available to maximize the pace. are we grateful that the americans have, for example, made predator available, yes, we are. do went all nato partners to be maximizing what they do in terms of the activities within nato and the assets they make available? yes. i had no indication yesterday during my visit to the pentagon that there was anything other than resolution in washington about ensuring that resolution 1973 is carried out. >> i'm very concerned about the supply and availability of missiles for both the u.k. and our allies, whether or not we

have sufficient, with the current pace of air strikes. again, i note from the department of defense, they have said, again, 20th of march, 600 precision guided missions have been expended. 455 from the u.s., 147 from the coalition. they also go on to say gadhafi's virtually no air defense left and a diminished ability to command and sustain his forces on the ground. his air force cannot fly his air ships. his ammunition stores are being diminished and command bunkers are being rendered useless, but they still have tactical mobile surface to air missiles which are still a threat. do we have a capability to still have a number of missiles we will need to tackle those mobile surface to air missiles? >> first may i say, that's a

wonderful discrimination of a nonstalemate. the speed and degradation of his military capabilities was about as far of a stalemate as i could describe. excellent description. we believe that we have sufficient munitions and sufficient capabilities to carry out the tasks as set out for us in the nato mission. but the committee will understand why we would not comment on any specific stocks of any specific arms held by the united kingdom. >> are the stocks being replaced under contingency reserve? >> is the cost being met by the contingency reserve? the chancellor made it very clear that it is, chairman. if you'll permit my smile. >> again, i would just like to raise the issue about communication with the public.

are you happy that there has been sufficient communication with british public about this operation, and are you sure and confident that anxiety amongst the british public about mission creek and the risk of further engagement in a long term mission is being addressed in relation to the public's understanding of what is happening? >> we will take every opportunity we can to give those reassurances, which is why i'm actually very grateful that we have had a chance to make some of those very specific points this afternoon and the government has made a number of statements. i don't think anyone can accuse the government of not being forward leaning in terms of the willingness to communicate, for example with parliament, although i do accept the adage that if you want to keep a

secret in the united king.dom, the best place to give it is the house of commons because it's the least likely place to be reported, but the government is very keen that we do at all points make clear that we are acting under the u.n. auspices. this is the international community that has come together, along with arab countries and not just the usual coalition. that we are acting at all times to minimize civilian casualties, that we do understand mission creek and we're being very clear that we are setting out to degrade the war making ability of a regime which had we as a country not intervened would probably have unleashed hell on the people of benghazi. it's very hard sometimes to

stand up and be very proud about something you have helped to avoid happening, but i think in terms of humanitarian catastrophes, what we as an international community stopped happening in benghazi is something that i think history will be rather kind to us for if we have been insufficiently clear about blowing our international trumpet about what we have achieved there. that is perhaps a chrissism we can take to heart. having achieved the effect is of extreme importance. >> yes, and i would just like to turn now to the wider region. if we accept that the motivation is not about regime change, but it's about protecting civilians, we've seen in the wider region considerable repression of a similar nation, perhaps in yemen and bahrain but particularly in

syria. could i ask in terms of the resolution paving the way for a similar resolution in syria. at what point should that happen and if it shouldn't happen, why is libya treated differently? really mindful of the fact that the general public probably don't see the causes of distinction between what's happening in terms of wholesale slaughter in syria as is what's happening in libya? >> i think a good point to, again, i'm going to ask mr. watt kins to see if he has something about the diplomatic. in tunisia and egypt, there was a spontaneous uprising of the poem. the armed forces in both those countries sty ies stood aside a not take the side of the government in repressing the populations who wanted to control their own destiny.

in libya, it was different. in libya, the regime did use its military power to suppress that voice in the most brutal way. the international community passed a resolution, ultimately two resolutions which gave an ultimatum to gadhafi. when he continued to ignore the wishes of the international community, the international community acted. this was after we've been through sanctions, diplomatic pressure, all the means available to us short of military activity to persuade him to take a certain course of action. would we hope that other regimes would learn, that they should not oppress their people? of course we would. what we've seen in syria the last few days has been an appalling spectacle of despotted regime bearing down on its people in a violent and brutal way.

every one of us would condemn that. is there still a chance? i would hope that there's at least a flicker of hope there. i say this for the following reason, that i was in the gulf at the time of the first speech when everybody hoped that it was going to be a reforming moment. senior politicians in the region believed, because i believe they had been briefed to expect that this was going to be an important moment, when syria would turn a corner, the end of emergency law, political reform, allowing the voice of the people to be heard. in the event there was disappointment and anger that that speech contained something very different, but we do know that a reform was at least being considered. we must redouble international pressure now in every way that we can to say there's an

alternative road for syria. you are at a cross roads to an ex tent, you've gone down the wrong track. go back and look at the reform process again. we must hope, that it's possible for that to happen. >> make it very quick. >> surely, given what we've seen over the last 48 hours, there hasn't been a willingness to follow that path. if it is not followed in the 11th hour, presumably, there is the means through another resolution would seem the logical thing for the government to pursue that with its international allies on the same basis on the action that was taken. >> we will want to increase the pressure on syria to bend to the will of the international community to ensure that the people of syria are free, safe

and secure. i would quickly like to clarify how that happened. the point i want to make in all of these cases are different. the political processes are different in each country. the opportunity is available to us also. as the secretary of state has said, gadhafi very obviously and blatantly discarded any attempt for the political process in a pretty early stage. in other countries that is not the case. as the foreign secretary said yesterday, the political process in bahrain is not as overt as we would like, but nonetheless, it is still there. we are seeking for diplomatic means to engage with them. similarly in yemen where there has been violence and firing on protesters and so on, there is a political process there that we are engaged in. i think we have to adjust our methods according to the particular circumstances. >> and gadhafi had every opportunity, given to him by the

international community, to choose a nonviolent path for his country and his people and he chose not to do that. >> we agreed before this hearing began that we would try to spend the final part, we've only got about 20 minutes left, on the effect of .what is happening in libya on the strategic defense and security review. >> you were gentlemanly enough not to call me ridiculous when i suggested you were required to find a billion saving for the end of the month. of course you somehow weren't required to find that billion. but if i look at what the costs are to be in libya, what the missiles cost, each one of them is an enormous amount behind the figures. it's not cheap. must you say, it's coming out of

contingency costs. it is nevertheless delayed costs. could you just a a little bit in terms of whether you think a reprieve which you clearly got in march from finding the billion you had been asked to find, what ex tent would you say it might be linked with the operation in libya which clearly was not foreseen? >> one might almost say that was leading the witness. >> chairman, this is cross examination. you're allowed. >> the scsr made clear that we would expect to be able to maintain an enduring operation like afghanistan, an operation like in the kinetic form that we've seen in libya and a smaller one. it has fallen win the parameters that we set. under the adopted posture in the sdsr, so it has come within

expectations. programs the level and speed and intensity has come earlier than we might have ever hoped but nonetheless, it has fallen within the realms to what the sdsr was set up to deal with. >> given you said it would take whatever it takes to do and however long it takes, what are the resources we have to allow us, and the bottomless pit of money, for how much longer would u.k. have the means to be a meaningful contributor? >> we have, as the chairman indicated, agreement that the additional costs will be met from the reserve. again, i go back, if i may, to my original point, that it is very important that these issues are discussed, but it's more important that we send a clear message in the current mission that we are not going to be

limited by paints. >> i remember them. >> but we will -- we have the result to see through the mission. it's very important that we do not signal any point that we may waver in our commitment to achieve in libya. >> will you forgive me? there is one question i didn't hear an answer. was there a reprieve on the billion pounds funding gap caused by the libyan operations. >> that's also leading the witness because it makes an assumption in the question. what has happened in terms of the wider picture in libya, i think it would be wrong to conflict them, because what is happening in libya is within what we expected our abilities to be under what we set out in the sdsr. we knew that we might be called

upon to carry out a mission of this nature, not this specific one, and that is planned for within sdsr and the assumptions we made, but the flexibility we would require of military assets were taken with that in mind. >> when do you intend to admit to the reprieve on the 1 billion pound funding gap. >> i tend to make a statement on pr 11 once we pass the elections, chairman. of. >> fair enough. >> some of my colleagues will question some of the very specific assumptions. has the operation in libya and the financial requirement actually any impact on the defense planning assumptions? >> no. as i say, what happens in libya in terms of the assets that we have devoted to it come within our planning assumptions that we

made in the sdsr. that we have a long commitment in afghteghanistanafghanistan, e to carry out a small concurrent mission at the same time in libya. it is within when we expected that we might at some point be asked to do. >> it's still within the sustainable criterias outlined in the strategic country? >> we believe it is sustainable, and we believe that we will have not only the military but political will to carry this through to ensure that the u.n. resolution is fulfilled. >> without opening the sccr? >> there are those that talk about reopening the sdsr, but

it's actually the csr. if people mean there should be more defense spending they should say so. if we have a reopening of the sdsr within the same financial envelope with the same policy assumptions in the same real world, given the ex partes we have, we're likely to come to the same conclusions. if people believe we should be spending more, that's a perfectly acceptable argument to make, but they have to say which budgets they want to cut or continue the insane habit of borrowing money at the pace we were doing before. it's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but the two should not be conflated. to say we should we open the sdsr but without change to the financial expenditure, i would likely suggest to the committee might be a futile exercise. >> at the risk of being dumb, we're saying how long it takes,

we have the money, it doesn't require the opening, we can meet it. is that what you're saying? >> we are sending i hope a clear signal to this committee to the regime in libya that we intend to fulfill our obligations under the u.n. resolution and we will do what it takes along with our allies to carry out our mission. >> can i just be clear? i understood what was being said about the costs that are current. the current contribution we are making to this particular activity, should it sustain itself over a six month period at the current rate of spend is likely to amount to a billion pounds. >> i'm not able to give the committee figures on that. we will have discussions with the treasury. as i pointed out earlier, the chancellor gave the promise that extra costs of this mission would be met from the reserve. >> right. thank you.

>> learning valuable lessons from the current air operations, both for the ongoing libyan events and also for contingency planning. my question perhaps elsewhere in the region or other parts of the world. have any of these lessons caused you to regret or reconsider the scrapping of the hairiers and the carrier based capability of illustrious. >> no, tornado gives us capability that carrier cannot. in addition to the pave way for laser or gps bonds that both hairier and tornado can carry, tornado gives us the standoff, deep penetration of storm shadow and the brimstone missile which is a low collateral weapon for use in urban areas such as

misrata. in addition, tornado has a gun, which carrier did not. tornado has longer rates than hairier. tornado has a two man crew which helps with better mission control from the air and if i just may remind the committee of the logistics, legacy, there were not enough hairier to do afghanistan and what we've been asked to do in libya had we taken the alternative decision and kept hairier but not tornado. if ms. docherty is asking had we had another 3 billion pounds would we like to have kept more aircraft, the answer is yes. but we're trig to deal with the government's primary objective of a $158 billion deficit. >> i won't get drawn into this, but you mentioned range and

logistics, you probably won't correct me if i was to suggest that we're currently running at least one of our aircraft from norfolk rather than from italy. do you not accept what some commentators have made, that if you had illustrious in the mediterranean, we would not have to have a 2, 3,000 mile refueling change. >> the question is capability. we wanted to have. the ability with storm shadow to achieve the military effect that it does. the ability with brimstone as i've said, a very flexible, precise look at collateral weapon which fits very neatly with our wish, our stated desire to minimize civilian casualties are not options available to us had we had that. it is tempting, i know, for

those who want the decision to have been something else, to say that, well, this is all about the money. primarily, this is about the capabilities. the general might want to say something about exactly why this has been beneficial to us. >> i think the fact is, first of all, the italian nation have been generous in providing a huge range of airfields to operate from. i think in many ways, the mounting of this operation from italy, where the command and control is also based, is a very effective way of delivering this campaign. >> can i clarify? are you therefore denying that you're currently flying out of marin? >> some conditions were flown from morrow. >> there are no tomatoes flying from marrow, they are all now in italy, is that correct? that's a big misassumption people have been making?

>> they certainly were flown directly out of morrow, but no longer. >> on the issue of tornados themselves, secretary of state, i wonder if you would think that now might be a good time to pause, to use the phrase, on whether or not we should be cutting the number of tornados in raf bases given this operation, tornadoes giving tha operation and potential operations elsewhere? >> well, of course, the way this is likely to come to fruition some time in the summer and i imagine the committee will want to ask a lot of questions about that, of course, the decision to reduce the tornado squad runs is not part of the sdsr. that was part of the previous

government's planning. so it was a decision of which ones to get rid of was left to the incoming government with the decision having already been made by the previous government. so it's not part of the stsr and to reopen the csr as well as other elements. but there has been as far as i can tell and obviously we listen to the military advice, there is no operational restriction on this assumptions we're making for numbers at the present time. >> my final question, mr. chairman, how do you ask either/or royal navy and the royal air force to work out what would be involved in spinning back up the capability either more tornadoes or bringing tornadoes back up to their previous level or bringing back all the carrier's striking

ability and have you asked them what is the point of no return for making either of those decisions? >> >> once the armed forces have provided us with specific capabilities that would not have been provided by harrier. and that is, i remember the very first time i came before this committee, i said we'd have to make decisions, hard headed ones on the basis of the capabilities required and not sentiment. i'm afraid this is one of those. >> have you asked them what is the point of no return for those capabilities? >> we've made our decision that we were going to retire harrier. since that, we've had the experience of in libya being fulfilled by the tornado and, of course, its fantastic pilots in connection with typhoon.

there is no need to reconsideration our decision. >> any more? >> -- in libya having a negative impact on any of you our other operations, in particular operations in afghanistan? >> no. and at all times we have been very clear that our main effort is afghanistan. that is what they do above all else. and in the decisions that the department has ascertained in looking at ha we had available for libya, at looking at what we might require in terms of support, which, of course, isn't what people necessarily see. they see the fast jets and the frontline capabilities. we were always very careful that nothing that we would offer or commit to libya would interfere with our main effort in

afghanistan. >> absolutely. now, the facts are that we are managing the afghanistan campaign today. >> and what about potential negative impact on armed forces personnel in terms of those who may have been in extended readiness perhaps going to afghanistan and having them deployed? >> we've had no impact on what's in place in afghanistan, which is going very well, militarily, and we've had no impact on afghanistan through what has happened in libya. and as i made clear, we always assume that we would be able to carry out a large enduring mission like afghanistan and an intervention like libya as well as a smaller one, that is what we planned for, that's what we have so far been able to

achieve, not least i have to say, thanks to the incredible commitment by those in the armed forces. >> but what has been the actual impact in terms of numbers, for example, are you saying that there's been no -- there's been no changes to the -- >> i'm not aware of that. i'm quite sure if that were the case, it would be rather rapidly brought to my attention. >> i mean, i think it is the case, just from what i've heard from constituents and so forth. i think it would be quite helpful to -- i understand you might not be able to answer this today, but if you could look into that, i just think it's important to understand if we're going to be doing things like libya, that we understand what the commitment is. >> i'd be very happy to look at

any specific cases that are being cited to see whether that is, in fact, happening. because the aim is that we should be able to endure in afghanistan and maintain that without having the ability to conduct one of these other operations. >> because i can give you anecdotal evidence of that. but presumably you're monitoring the impact that additional operations would be having on the reserve forces. how does that work? >> i think we will give you an answer if you have a specific and precise case. but i think that harmony rules is what we were getting to, individually some of them may well have been broken to all sorts of reasons, delays in aircraft movement, if you're talking about afghanistan. in libya, i cannot cite a specific example that supports

your thesis. >> but we'd be more than happy to look at any individual cases. there may be elements that we've been not been aware of. butcertainly be happy to look at. >> final questions? >> the national security council, how has it been operating in relation to all of this and in relation to the decision to support the cease-fire. >> i think it's been operating very well. there's been the subcommittee, the nscl which has met on a very regular basis and the nsclo for officials which meets on an even more regular basis. i think for my own part, and i'm sure if cds was here, i could

speak for him, too, that the flow of information -- [ alarm ] that comes to us -- the whips have many ways of letting us know there's a vote coming to you. but that's a new one. the flow of information that comes to us to help us understand at what is happening on the ground and the decisions that we will have to take comes in a timely way. the process now is getting into a rhythm where the meetings are in predictable time scale, and i think that the nac has adapted quickly to what's been, let's face it, a major challenge, early on in its existence. >> do you have the impression that the nsc is on top of an overall strategy for the whole of the region in case this continues for a long time and spreads?

>> that the nac does and has looked at the region as a whole. it would simply be untrue to say that any policymaker in the western world has been on top of the speed at which events have happened in the middle east and north africa. nobody, none of the self-professed experts that i've been able to talk to predicted tunisia or egypt or disputed what's happening in syria or what happened in libya. the talks i had in the united states yesterday, the speed of change of events is such that everybody is having to assess and reassess as we go on what the impacts are, what it will mean for skut in the region, what it mean for our national security as has already been alluded to duringing th inthis and what it will mean for our uk and allied interests abroad.

i think if there's one thing that politicians would be wise to have in view of the speed of events, it's a little humility that we are not always quite as able to understand what is about to happen next as sometimes politicians like to pretend. >> indeed, sir. and therefore, we need to be prepared for all sorts of eventualities with a defense capability that is strong and always available. secretary of state, thank you very much indeed to all three of you for coming to give evidence to us today. my in-person assessment is that you have fulfilled your mission in presenting a firm resolve to continue with this. our mission to gain clarity exactly where we are going, i don't think we have fulfilled quite as successfully as i think you have fulfilled yours. but no doubt, there will be

further opportunities to do that during parliamentary over the next few weeks -- [ bell rings ] >> is that a [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> elecampane 2012 with iowa and and iowa's caucuses. that is on c-span at 6:00. monday on washington journal, michael steele, the former republican committee chairman, talks about the 2012 presidential field. after that, joseph boardman from amtrak about potential growth. and after, louisa story. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span.

now, a look at yesterday's white house correspondents' dinner red carpet arrival. after that, from "saturday night live." this is about one hour. [people talking]

>> when i am on the red carpet -- friends in the business. anyway, i love being here. thank you. >> thank you. all right.

>> there have been a few -- >> what is your take?

>> socialize.

[crowd noise]

[crowd noise]

>> >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states.

>> ♪ a real american fighting for the rights of every man i am a real american fighting for the rights ♪ ♪ when it comes back down and it hurts inside you try to take a stand when you heard my friends, then you hurt my pride i am a real american fighting for the rights of every man i am a free american ♪

♪ >> all right, everybody. please have a seat. [cheers and applause] . my fellow americans -- [cheers and applause] mahalo [laughter] it is wonderful to be here at the white house correspondents' dinner. what a week. [laughter] as some of you heard, the state of whole-body released my official, long-form birth certificate. [cheers and applause] .

tonight, i am prepared to go further. tonight, i am releasing my official birth video. [laughter] now, i warn you, -- [laughter] no one has seen this footage in 50 years. not even me. but let's take a look. [beeps] singing in foreign

language] ♪ [applause] >> oh, well. back to square one. i want to make it clear to the fox news table. that was a joke. [laughter] that was not my real birth video. that was a children's cartoon. [laughter] some do not believe me. they have the original -- form

version. -- long-form version. it is good to be back with so many esteemed guests, senators, journalists, in central government in please. [laughter] nonessential government employees. you know who you are. [laughter] i am very much looking for to hearing some of myers denied. -- seth meyers tonight. he is the only one you can do no wrong in the eyes of his bands. seth, enjoy it while lasts. [laughter] i think it is fair to say, with my presidency, the honeymoon is over. [laughter]

koran example, some people say i am too professorial, and i want to change that by providing you with some reading that will help you draw your own conclusions. others say that i am arrogant. and i have found a really great self-help tool for this. my -- i have even led down might become a core constituency, movie stars. just another day, matt damon, i love that guy. matt damon, he said he was disappointed in my performance. well, i saw "the bureau," so

right back at you. my wonderful wife michelle. we made a terrific team this week. i give up bags of candy to the kids, and she would snatch them right back out of their little hands. [laughter] >> [chuckles] snatched them. and where is the national public radio table? [cheers and applause] you guys are still here. that is good. i could not remember where we

landed on that. [laughter] i know you were a little tense when the gop tried to cut your funding, but, personally, i was looking forward to a new programming, like "no things considered." or "wait, wait, don't fund me." [laughter] of course, the deficit is a serious issue. that is why paul could not be here tonight. his budget has no room for laughter. michelle buckman is here, i understand, and she thinks she will be running for president, which is weird, because i hear she was born in canada. yes, this is how it is done.

tim pawlenty, he seems all- american, but have you heard his real middle name? what a shame. jon huntsman is with us. there is something you may not know about john. he did not learn to speak chinese to go there. oh, no. he learned english to come here. [laughter]

and then it was said that mitt romney pass universal health care what he was in massachusetts, and someone should do something about that, and i know the person to do that, donald trump. [cheers and applause] i know he has taken some flack lately, but no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest and the donald -- than the donald. that is because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that are more important, like did we fake the moon landing?

what happened in roswell? and we air istupak? -- and what happened to tupak? [cheers and applause] all kidding aside, we all know about your credentials and experience. for example, no, seriously, just recently, in an episode of "celebrity apprentice," the men's cooking team did not impress the judges from omaha state. and there was a lot of blame to go around, but you, mr. trump', realize there was a real lack of leadership. altman z, you did not blamable john or -- blame little john or

meatloaf. you fired gary busey. these are the kinds of things that would have kept me up at night. [cheers and applause] well handled, sir. well handled. say what you will of t mr.rump. he certainly would bring some change to the white house. so, yes, this has been quite a year in politics, but also in movies. many people, for instance, were inspired by "the king's speech." a wonderful film.

some of you may not know this, but there is now a sequel in the works. because this is a hollywood crowd, tonight, they can offer a sneak peek, so can we show the trailer, please? >> it be grudgingly approved by all -- for all audiences by the president of the united states. the year is 2011, and opposition -- >> republicans could force them to shut down. >> and the president must face -- >> eliminating funding, this is serious business, for the president's teleprompter. from the people who brought you

universal health care. an incredible, a true story. >> another 20 -- aw. they say that, uh -- >> the president has lost his prompter. has he lost his magic >> he has gone from "yes, we can," to "no, we cannot." >> i will also visit chile. i will also visit chile. ok, let's try that again. >> a man never let prepared remarks stand in his way. >> axelrod wanted me to use the teleprompter, but i told him i was much better. >> you broke all of the rules.

>> god rest her soul. oh, she is still alive? god bless her soul. i never seen so many damn insurance commissioners. i am not that old. actually, a ibm. >> it is a story of friendship and the power of the human spirit. >> you are making me feel better. >> but mostly, it is this. for two hours. >> and someone we appreciate. natalie portman. this is not on the teleprompter, but she is a lot better looking. >> two-term winner barack obama. >> and michelle obama.

and the amtrak passenger of the year three decades running, joe biden. >> there goes biden, as the president loses his teleprompter. >> vice president joe biden is here. >> coming to a theater near you. let me close on a serious note. as has been true for the last several years, we have incredible young men and women who are serving in uniform overseas in the most extraordinary of circumstances

and we also need to remember our neighbors in alabama and across the south that have been devastated by terrible storms last week michelle and i were down there yesterday, and we spent a lot of time with some other folks to have been affected. the devastation is unimaginable, and it is heartbreaking, and it is going to be a long road back, so we need to keep the americans and our thoughts and in our prayers, but we also need to stand with them in the months and perhaps years to come. i intend to make sure that the federal government does that, and i have faith that the journalists in this room will do their part for the people of the affected by this disaster by reporting on the progress and letting the rest of america know

when they will need more help. those are stories that need telling, and that is what all of you do best, whether it is rushing to the site of a devastating storm in alabama or raising the situation in the middle east. last month, we have seen journalists threatens, arrested, beaten, attacked, and in some cases even killed simply for doing their best to bring us the story. giving people a voice and to hold leaders accountable, and throw it all, we have seen daring men and women risk their lives for the simple idea, and everyone deserves to know the truth. that is what you do. that is at your best, what journalism is. that is the principle that you

of hold. it is always important an especially important in times of challenge, like the moment that america is facing now, so i think you for your service and the contributions that you make, and i want to close by recognizing not only your service but also to remember those that have been lost and the extraordinary reporting they have been doing in recent weeks. they, too, help to defend our freedom. god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. [applause]

>> oh, -- hello, i am seth myers, and i will be making jokes about many of the people in this room, but do not worry. i assure you that they have all been vetted by chinese president hu jintao. [applause] president obama, a man i greatly admire. it is a great pleasure to perform for the world's greatest/upwards country, and these are my birth certificate jokes, so thank you for the timing on that, mr. president, now and usable.

we were working on these jokes for months. my friends said, what if he releases a before the dinner? why would he do that? he is not quite a wait three years and then release it before the debtor. he told you all of the board submitted jokes? -- birth certificate jokes? is biden still vice president, because if not, i am down to "thank you, and god bless america." i will also be performing for those who are with you tonight as well as the people who are watching at home on c-span. c-span is, of course, the official network of wide shots and empty chairs. every time i tune in to c- span's, it looks like they have just had a fire drill.

c-span is one on the electric bill away from being a radio station. people think bin laden is hiding, but did you know that every day from 4:00 until 5:00, he hosts a day on c-span -- a show on c-span? [laughter] i am not complaining about c- span, mind you. i am thrilled to be on a network that people actually watch. in fact, the fact that i am projecting on four screens makes me the third highest show on nbc. comcast, of course, bought nbc this year. i am assuming by accident, or when goldman sachs cut up the network and bundled.

i figured this was the only room biggest joke woodwork, and it only kind of did. it will not be joining me on the road. it is so amazing to be in washington, d.c., and all of this history, all of these amazing buildings, and yet, here we are, at the hilton. [laughter] the red carpet outside was amazing. "who are you wearing?" "it does not matter. i am going into a hilton." no matter how i do, i am learning hilton honors points no matter how i do tonight. you may not like these jokes, but i will be laughing all of the way to a free one. for those of you who do not know, the white house correspondents association is journalists to cover both the white house and the president, the earlier, a senator told the 90% of what they do is abortion.

but tonight is not about political differences. tonight is about the after party. i cannot tell you how excited everyone is to go to the bloomberg party. it been in new york, no one is excited to go to a bloomberg party. in new york, a bloomberg party is five people smoking outside of a bar complaining about bloomberg. i am congratulate obligated to attend the msnbc party. president obama makes the kool- aid, and everyone their drinks at. too close to my home? there are at suisham on schedule

a party is happening tonight, and i was asked to give everyone a rundown. fox news wants to make sure you bring your driver's license and/or long form driver's license, but if you are blind, do not worry about it. just bring your smile. "the new york times", that used to be free, but tonight there is a cover. selig everyone else, and will probably just go to the huffington post party. peopley're asking other to go to other parties first and then just deal food and drinks and bring it to there. [cheers and applause] do not get me wrong. i liked area huffington. she is like rapid results up in something and walking out the door in james bond.

"well i see you again, james?"