one is released to american jobs. these are good paying jobs. let's encourage the energy sector to expand so we can have a good paying jobs. secondly, we become less dependent on foreign sources. it is part of our growing economy. our economy can grow. . . . but probably more important long term, mr. chairman, the reason why we should pass these bills, to send the signal to the market is the national security issue. we all know that -- in fact, i mentioned opec. there are some countries in opec that are outwardly hostile to the united states. one of them is south america, venezuela. why are we relying on them for the supply of our energy when

we have these resources that i just pointed out to you in excess of two trillion equivalent barrels of oil? so, mr. chairman, this is the first step. this is the first step of starting the process of becoming less dependent on american -- on foreign oil and on foreign energy, i should say, and it is the first step to get our economy in recovery by creating good american jobs. with that i urge my colleagues

>> the previously planned trip followed a mission that killed osama bin laden. the president visited firefighters at the firehouse which lost 15 men on 9/11. this is about five minutes. [applause]

captions copyright national cable satellite corp.

>> let me -- the main reason i came here is because i heard the food is pretty good. but to mayor giuliani who performed heroic acts almost ten years ago, most of all to all of you. i wanted to just come up here

to thank you. this is a symbolic site of the extraordinary sacrifice that was made on that terrible day almost ten years ago. obviously we can't bring back the friends that were lost and i know that each and every one of you not only grieves for them but have also for the last ten years dealt with their families, their children, trying to give them comfort and support. what happened on sunday, because the courage of our military and the outstanding work of our intelligence sent a message around the world but also sent a message back home that when we say we will never forget, we mean what we say. and our commitment to making sure that justice was done is

something that transcended politics, transcended parties. it didn't matter which administration was in or who was in charge. we were going to make sure that the perpetrators of that horrible act, that there would be justice. so it's some comfort, i hope, to all of you to know that when those guys took those extraordinary risks going into pakistan that they were doing it in part because of the sacrifices that were made in this station. they were doing it in the name of your brothers that were lost. and finally let me just say that although 9/11 obviously was a high watermark in courage for the new york fire department and a symbol of the sacrifice you guys are making

every single day, doesn't get much notoriety or attention. any time you run into a burning building, every time that you are saving lives, you are making a difference and that's part of what makes this city great and that's part of what makes this country great. i want to thank you from the bottom of my heart and on behalf of the american people for the sacrifices that you make every single day and i just want to let you know that you are always going to have a president and an administration who has your back the way you've got the backs of the people of new york over the these last many years. so god bless you. god bless the united states of america, and with that i'll try some of that food. all right? [applause]

>> after meting if firefighters he participated in a wreath laying ceremony at the 9/11

memorial. former president george w. bush declined an invitation to participate saying he's chosen to remain out of the spotlight. this is 15 minutes.

>> following the ceremony president obama met privately with family members of 9/11 victims and later he went to a police precinct. this is about 10 minutes.

>> i am not here to make a long speech. i am here to shake your hand and just say how proud i am of all of you. obviously we had an opportunity day on sunday. the reason why it was important was because it sent a signal around the world that we have

never forgotten the extraordinary sacrifices that were made on september 11th. we've never forgotten the tragedy, we've never forgotten the loss of life, we've never forgotten the courage that was shown by the nypd, by the firefighters, by the first responders. my understanding is all of you were there that day and i know you'll never forget. i know it's hard to -- you lost folks who you had worked with for so long. but what hopefully this weekend does is -- it says we keep them in our hearts. we haven't forgotten. we did what we said we were

going to do. and that america, even in the midst of tragedy, will come together across the years, across politics, across parties, across administrations to make sure that justice is done. and so since that time, i know a lot of you have probably comforted loved ones of those who were lost, a lot of you have probably looked after kids who grew up without a parent, and a lot of you continue to do extra extraordinarily great things. for that i want to thank you. what we did on sunday is directly connected to what you do every single day. and i know i speak for the military teams and intelligence teams that helped get bin laden in saying we know the sacrifice

and courage you show as well and that you are a part of this team that helped us achieve our goals but also help us keep our country safe each and every day. i couldn't be prouder of all of you and more grateful to you. and i hope that you know that the country will continue to stand behind you going forward because there will still be threats out there and you'll still be called on to take action to remain vigilant. you'll have an entire country behind you, all right? god bless you. [applause] >> we very much appreciate the fact that mayor giuliani is here because we remember his leadership and courage on that day as well.

and it's a testimony that we may have our differences politically in ordinary times, but when it comes to keeping this country safe, we are first and foremost americans. so thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir, appreciate it. thank you, sir. [applause] >> do you think we need to do two shots? why don't i get this crew over here and then we'll get this one. you guys don't mind, do you?

>> all right, come on, you get right in front of me. you have to be up front. come on. these two right here. come on. all right. >> there was also a wreath laying ceremony commemorating 9/11 victims at the pentagon. vice president biden was joined by secretary robert gates. this is about five minutes.

>> in a few moments a forum on the effect of killing bin laden and relations between the u.s. and pakistan. in an hour and a half the chairman. house armed services committee representative buck mckeehan on defense spending. then a hearing on security concerns in europe and asia in the aftermath of the death of osama bin laden and later, we'll reair the coverage of president obama's trip to new york today for a wreath laying ceremony at the 9/11 memorial.

>> now a forum on the effect of the killing of osama bin laden on relations between the u.s. and pakistan. one of the panelists, former house intelligence committee ranking member pete hookstra saying the killing of the al qaeda leader will force others in the region to rethink their

stance for the u.s. this is an hour and a half. >> before i say anything let remind you to put your phones on vibrate. i appreciate seeing a good crowd for an event we set up this week to talk about the death of osama bin laden and the future of pakistan. this debate started slowly in the aftermath on the news sunday night from the president that osama bin laden had been killed and it has snowballed since then with a lot of public policy discussion in washington about the future of our relationship with pakistan, the reliability of our partnership with pakistan, the importance of our intelligence sharing with that country, the importance of the war that we're fighting in afghanistan and i would say lately

unfortunately some emphasis on the unimportant tans of the war that we're fighting with afghanistan. have seen too many suggestions now that bin laden is dead the war on terrorism is over. were it only so. in any case we have an outstanding panel here to talk about some of these questions and then anything else that you would like to bring up. we have going in the order of the table here today, pete hochstra, he is next we have the director of the south asia center at the atlantic council and a well-known commentator and expert on pakistani military affairs. next to him is our senior expert here at aei on india issues and on all issues

relating to south asia and next is fred kagen who directs our critical threats project. as some of you are aware but new enough that i continue to announce it, we do our panels in a slightly different style than perhaps in past. i hope a little more lively. we do it in what i have come to call "meet the press" style. that means we will not have opening presentations but instead we'll go back and forth with a q and a and discussion among our panelists before we open it up to the questions from the floor. so i'm going to start with pete. thank you for being here. one of the things that i mentioned in my opening is that we are now seeing very, very strong reactions on -- in washington and in islamabad to our decision to go in unilaterally and take outlawed

-- take out osama bin laden. how should we be reacting to this and how you assess the continued cooperation that we have with pakistan, especially from your perspective as a former senior official dealing with intelligence matters. >> thanks, it's good to be here. the first thing i actually missed all the excitement on sunday. i was in london. i was in bed. i woke up monday morning and my blackberry is full of messages my phone has all the messages it can take. something happened. once you started peeling back the layers and seeing the uproar here and in pakistan it's what's news? who didn't know or strongly believe that bin laden would be in pakistan?

i firmly believed that eventually we would get him because we're persistent and we kept getting better and i figured that someday we would get that gem of information that would enable us to move forward or he would make a mistake. so finding him in pakistan was not a surprise. the allegations that the military or isi might have some sympathizers and supporters for bin laden within their midst. that is not a surprise. we've known that and strongly suspected that in the intel community for years. we knew it. and that there might be american entries into pakistan that would test their sovereignty. that's not new. what's the big deal? we all new this and you see what is going on on capitol hill and what happens on capitol hill didn't surprise me.

it was a wonderful time for people to make strong political statements. in the long run i think we'll maintain the kind of relationship that we've had with pakistan for an extended period of time. we need pakistan. they need us. we have our internal political issues we need to deal with. they have their internal political issues that they have to deal with but how many times over the last number of years haven't we seen them protesting publicly sending other signals, you know, behind closed doors. and this one just has a higher level of visibility because of the events surrounding bin laden. but the bottom line is i think we'll have to have -- we need this relationship. we need it to continue a strong effort against the -- in the war on radical jihadism and al qaeda and what we're doing in afghanistan. >> one of the problems is, you

may say this as a casa blanca moment and harboring of terrorists in pakistan. anybody who has paid attention has seen that most of the very senior arrests did take place in pakistan. but, of course, they took place in cooperation with pakistani officials. that's part one. part two is yes, you're right, on the other hand to play a little bit of the devil's advocate because i think it's at the heart of the debate that's going on, this is osama bin laden. apparently he was living in -- i reject the term mansion. it requires me to redefine everything i know about real estate. he was living in this place for some years. the notion that nobody in pakistan knew that the most wanted terrorist was living there seems to me to be a little bit troubling. >> no, that's why i said.

i believe there are probably people within isa and the pakistani military knew that he was there. i don't know if we'll ever find out is how far up in the hierarchy the information went. i don't believe the leadership of the government, the military or the intelligence service knew or had access to this information and that they were withholding it from us. we've known in the past on other occasions, sure, they've cooperated on some missions with us. in other missions they've thoroughly undercut our efforts where we identified a target and we shared the information and the planning with them for thursday and it so happened that on wednesday everybody left. and when we got there on thursday there was nobody there anymore. and so that's why we've known

the weaknesses and the fragility of this relationship for the last nine or ten years. there is nothing new here for people who have been looking and studying this relationship. the only question is in this particular instance, with the visibility of bin laden do we believe it went significantly higher? i don't believe that. >> let me push you on one last question as a former member of congress still someone very close to many up on capitol hill. reactions to this. demands to cut off all assistance, cut off all cooperation with pakistan. you characterized them to me before we sat down as an overreaction. what do you think people ought to be doing? >> i do think it is an overreaction. they have to -- for those who propose breaking off relations and cutting foreign aid, the responsibility for them then becomes what is the alternative

strategy in regards to pakistan? it's the same thing that we're facing and i think people on capitol hill need to -- we can't overreabt and break off this relationship if you don't have a new strategy. the same thing we're seeing on the arabian peninsula in northern africa. our political strategy is in at tatters on how to confront radical jihadists. killing bin laden over the weekend provides us an opportunity to move forward but the last thing to do is argue for dramatic changes in the relationship with pakistan. we've got enough relationships in the world to worry about now in terms of how they come together rather than adding to the list. >> i want to pull you in to talk about some of the reactions in pakistan. there has been a real change and it's one that actually fred was talking about here at aei a couple days ago. during the bush administration what we saw was a lot of cooperation.

we saw those arrests taking place at a high level. we saw army i.s.i. going in with our own special forces and making arrests and pulling folks out. during the obama administration for good or ill. i think that's a debatable question, we've seen many more drone strikes and many more targeted elimination inside pakistani territory to the grow displeasure of some in pakistan. i wonder whether that's part of the problem here and the reaction. how do you see the internal dynamics and how do you see the picture looking this way from islamabad? turn your mic on. >> first of all i think i would agree with congressman hoekstra that you cannot end this relationship unless you have plan b and as we often know in the u.s. government you don't have a plan b because it's been

said that if you have a plan b it becomes plan a. and then-- >> we don't have a plan a either. >> then you have to have a plan c. so that's the problem of having too many plans. people like to keep it simple. and there is no simple solution. it is an onion that you have to keep peeling. i take a kind of historical view of this and having looked at this relationship over its lifetime, this is yet another of those elaborate hoaxes that round troo*e identify when he went in the 50s to pakistan and said why are we giving this money to the pakistanis when all they're doing is building containments against the border when we want them to fight against the soviets in iraq and iran, which is many rivers on the other side. so both sides are complicit in this hoax and i think when you describe the relationship under

president musharraf there were complaints. not giving pakistan the tools it needed and that i think will continue. but i see this particular event as offering a supreme opportunity to actually change the relationship for the better and for the pakistanis to begin that change by having a very serious intrarespective analysis of exactly what is their national strategic interest, what is their regional imperative that would bring them closer to afghanistan, reduce hostility with india and put the relationship with the united states on a very honest footing. to start rebuilding that trust particularly between the intelligence agencies. i think that's really where it has to begin. and there have to be some

actions which will work for them while assuring the united states that we are all on the same page. assuring the afghans that we're on the same page. here i'm referring to a clear-cut policy that would end the ambiguity of the relationship with the militants inside pakistan as well as people like the afghan taliban. what is in pakistan's interest? how could that change? i think the current u.s. stance and military posture would have to move much more ground forces against the border and that would certainly concentrate the minds of the pakistanis and perhaps persuade them to end up sending surgates or joining some kind of reconciliation talks with kabul. that's the kind of signaling that would be critical for the pakistanis to start rebuilding that relationship. as for the question of

complicity or protection, i frankly don't think that you could have -- if there is complicity that it would involve people at the lower level only. the reason for that is, $25 million reward is a lot of money and the chance of that leaking out and somebody cashing in that check is very great. so if we find the evidence and if it comes out, i think it will be much more than at the lower level. at the moment, i think we have to wait for that evidence to come out before we make any pronouncements. >> do you think that kind of evidence will ever come out? >> depending on what they captured from the site, the compound, perhaps. i would think another opportunity is for the i.s.i. to now actually create a team that works closely with the c.i.a. and creates the radius of 50 miles around and look in

the other towns around there. to see where else there are similar kinds of habitations and work with the local police and try and see where the other leaders are. because they are relying on couriers. it would make imminent sense for them to be within courier distance so you aren't relying on very long travel to convey ideas and create meetings without using the internet. these are things that intelligence people know much better than people like us. but i would think that if you want to prove your bona fides this is an opportunity for the i.s.i. to work with the c.i.a. and create a closed door team, we'll work together and share information and let's try and get this done. >> it's wise counsel. i have a quick question for you. all of these things you're laying out seem very sensible and while i do have unique

respect for you, i think that imminently sensible suggestions have been made for years about our relationship and yet we have these persistent problems. you know i'm a huge believer in democracy and in civil governance. nonetheless, i wonder how much of a problem democratic governance is going to be in pakistan, much as it is a problem here. you are answering to the clamorings of a public. you want to be reelected whether it's the president, the prime minister and even the chief of army staff. there are these political constraints which seem to be pushing in the wrong direction. and so i wonder how they reconcile this. >> well, i'm not a politician. therefore, i can say these things but it would seem to make imminent sense for me for the politicians to look at this

for selfish interests. they should act in pakistan's interest. it's in pakistan's interest to send a state of hostility in the region whether it's with afghanistan or india. and certainly to end the state of hostility with the united states, which is likely to be the case if this situation deteriorates. i don't think we can muddle through on this one. there are going to be forces here and inside pakistan that won't allow you to continue on the old path. i think this is an infection point, they need to take charge. that said, i am very disappointed that an opportunity was lost yet again by the civilian government in pakistan to take charge of the decision making, policy making, to create a national discussion on what to do next. the prime minister who is the head of government took off for

paris a day or two after this event and that's where he is. this is not the way you run policy and take back what has been ceded to the military for a long time. i think the military needs the civilians to work with them and there needs to be a single policy emerging out of pakistan and not dual policies emerging out of islamabad. that causes confusion and creates much greater fissures than pakistan can live with. >> it will exacerbate the problems we see in the relationship right now. let me bring you in as well. one of the things he suggests is there is a good and there is an even better pakistan that can be built from this. and one of the phrases that you used in a piece that you had. the moderate pakistan. talk about the challenges that you see and have been writing

about. >> it seems a little differently from the congressman. i do think is an opportunity. those of us who follow pakistan carefully for us it's another terrorist. for the man on the street this is in a completely different dimension. no one knows who some of these people are. it's extremely significant. for the first time in many years we have something understood on the stt in the united states and pakistan. the street of pakistan is quite worrying for me. a couple of example of this year come to mind. in january this year the governor was assassinated. a member of the establishment. the governor of the largest provision. he had shown sympathy to a woman in child under the

anti-blasphemy law saying something against the muhammad. he said it was an injustice and assassinated by one of his bodyguards. what played out afterwards is interesting. 500 people showed up for his funeral. the president who was a close friend and from the same party could not show his face. there were 30,000 people on the streets chanting in support of the murderer. so that gives you a sense of some of the dynamics that are going on under the surface. another thing that comes to mind is in the pupils if you look at favorability ratings. al qaeda had a higher favorability rating than the u.s. last year. 17% and 18%. i don't want to exaggerate what polls me. it's how people answer questions and so on vary and you can interpret them in many ways but i think that we have

to sort of seriously ask ourselves what are the larger dynamics going on in pakistani society. what kind of society will it be? will it be the largely moderate liberal society it was and those are some of the questions that will feed into our debate about pakistani democracy? >> how do we -- this is not an exercise in observation. we have a stake here. one of the reasons why we have one of the largest aid programs that the united states has albeit one of the most conditioned aids program the united states has we understand we have a stake in pakistan's future. the aid is directed at the military in some measure but also the pakistani population. we have a stake in pakistan's future and unfortunately we can't afford to sit by or say that's the a.i.d. desk officer's responsibility.

why aren't you doing a better job? what is the road forward if that's the two elements of society we see? >> the road forward would be to piggyback on what he said. to get the pakistani security establishment to rethink what kind of state pakistan will be. until now, there has been cooperation but there hasn't been the ability to capture the top two people. i think if this is a moment that concentrates minds in islamabad it can be turned into such a moment and we could get deeper cooperation from the pakistani military establishment. you want the pakistan army to become a lot more like other armies. it has legitimate security concerns on its border with india and afghanistan and those are concerns that the u.s. should support but it should not support the illegitimate program, the jihadist project to use it to gain strategic depth. that's the military side and has to be very focused. on the civilian side there were

many pakistanis who are fighting this fight and many pakistanis who are writing and speaking on television against radical islam. those are the people who are our natural allies and the people who we should try and back.

we did not send troops into afghanistan in order to get osama bin laden. since 2001, in order to rid the country of al qaeda debt and in order to beat the caliban -- al qaeda and to beat the talmudic a n and not allow them to return, those are the objectives that president obama restated in

september 2009. they are the objectives that they should have. none of that is affected by the death of a bin laden. there are more countries that are affected by the death of a single leader. interesting things will follow for the movement. to the notion that this is some of the ins is with non sequiturs. -- of this is full of non sequiturs. if we pull back from pakistan and say why do we care, we care because of pakistan. it is good we having this

discussion. for too long we have had a discussion as it can help us in afghanistan. it is not the way we should be approaching the policy. it is probably the largest and densest population. it is a very dangerous and poor country. it has been under military control. these are the facts that matter. american policy has to address the fundamental flaws and threats to itself and the region and pakistan that it poses. there are three fundamental things that have to happen in pakistan for order anything to change. the hardest and last one is that

the ruling elite will have to come to a consensus on the need to accept a very long and bloody struggle to eliminate the organization that has permeated the society. in order to get there, they will have to come to a consensus on the premise that all groups are a threat. they cannot be parsed. this is what the policy has been here. in my view, the key to that is something that they said. they have to come to the realization that it will fail. that has been in nearly nearly

defiant successful pakistan since the beginning of the soviet invasion. you could argue before that. as long as the elements limits the groups in pakistan and they believe these kinds are effective tools, you will not have the consensus about the need to move to these other steps. the united states has the ability to affect the last one. we are on the road to meeting the principles. we have done tremendous damage.

we will see a lot of driving. they will have the safe havens. i believe this to be a part of the changing. the nextel will have to be defeating the network in afghanistan. it to be harder in some respects and harder and others. it will take time. it'll take hard fighting. if we do not complete that, that step, i believe it will be sufficient to validate it. the proxy that is most dangerous is neither [inaudible]

that is the proxy. pakistan and not be stable and successful until it takes on the writers. they will go after that. that is time now to turn things around. even more importantly, we need to be in afghanistan if you have any hope. >> the reacted to different things.

the real question is the whole plan a for plan b problem. i think there is another question that i want to pose to all of you. we are not good with the nuanced policy. i worked in the government. that was bit.

the thing they learned from many other episodes is that we have our own game. no matter what you say, they will turn around and say they do not know what it is about. >> i agree the we should not be using it. this is a great moment. to the extent to dig the cooperation, he talks about in his memoir. the partially gave the full blooded support. they backed into the stone age.

he did not always get the opportunity. the gravity is such that the media attention has the opportunity to do bigger things. these have to go beyond the process. they think the concrete things that are demanded is going after moloch omar. the fallout are there. it to be difficult for any democratic politician.

but understand this. >> i think i know where you are coming from. >> this of the sun never happens. it is involved on all sides. the argument he presented was that a friend of his had gone from new york and said americans are going to the stone age.

it is less than perfect. i am sure the congress and can attest to that. assistantone other assessment that does not apply. this is a one that died in 1991. this is his concept. he took the territory. why would they want to do anything else?

this is our defense policy. every time they talk about pakistan, there is a deep scrubbing. they brought it up. it is a strategic death. it is stable. pakistan does not have to worry about the border. that is something that needs to be reinforced. it can only come about if they get together and say what are the objectives that we can agree? once you agree, you can go

there. you are really honest about dealing. he does the same. they are showing the concerns. in the accompli a role in that. there is much more to be done at the regional level. >> i am glad to hear that clarification. i think one of the reasons why so many confess it, is because it provides a framework to understand why it is they would wish to support it. i think your argument would be the proverbial slam dunk.

so many understanding taliban.ship of the tally it is hard to serve them. they are taking control of other territories. help understand that. >> having talked to enough people, there is the weight. i do not think it is a monolithic view. they are balking at its. -- looking at it. other than that, they can perceive the possibility. it is beyond belief.

i am not sure be have seen the last position. it could be approached there. we know there have been meetings. there will be other meetings. we hope this matter will be laid to rest. i do that think there is anyone in the establishment that is looking to have been a taliban government. that to be horrendous for pakistan itself. >> i agree with what you just said.

i want to say that the leadership knows a lot about their understanding of the problem in afghanistan. i do not believe that they do understand afghanistan's postures. to say that they are all postiois to miss the context inh they have been functioning for the last several decades. pakistan is a federated state in which most of the population has lived under a legal system. afghan ones have never live this way. i do think a fair amount is that

the pakistani tend to be content with the notion that we can understand anything. there supercilious with their own comprehension. they bring that understanding a great degree of categorical mistakes by imagining that these are all the same people. >> i want to build off of the fact that what happened is that it is a defining moment. clearly what happened is that it sends a powerful message. we are confident that we can now be more confident.

i am sure that our presence here allies will come up on monday morning. for the people sitting on the fence, they could be getting good at this. for our allies, i am sure most people got into what are we going to do today to make sure we are a available with the information. it provides that kind of an opportunity. it is a blast as we move forward. we can build off of what is going to happen. there is an accelerated withdrawal of troops. its fears me. we built this over the weekend.

we are persistent. we are confident. we are confident we are going to be successful. we will put the resources in. this redefined our procession -- our perception. it is a cancer every time the community would come in. tell us about the search. if we have to make a guess, we think he isn't this part of pakistan. now we know. to be acted on it. the military after competently.

we were successful. it gives us an opportunity to redefine who we are. >> i want to ask a question out of our scope. i want to know what you are going to say. sari. it is all about what i am interested in. we got bin laden. in many ways it is less important than others. there is very little debate about that reality. the way we got him, persistent intelligence and not buying it. we have to pick up a high-value target. we do not have any interrogation programs going on. what does this mean for the next guy? i do not want to take anything

away from the president. he deserves all the kudos. what about next time? >> next time will be harder. i give the president tremendous amount of credit. i believe he gave the direction to leon panetta. it is a high priority. i want to maintain a high priority. the president gave that direction. they made it clear it was still a priority. what he has done is he has given the intelligence community pupils to do their job against bin laden. it is a combination of not be able to use the interrogation techniques. the other thing that is still out there that has been written about today, is i hope the

president will move back from the threat to prosecute the cia folks. they may be engaged. the cia folks that were involved, congress and these people did what the american government wanted them to do. as long as they are still under the threat of prosecution, you still have a lot of folks within the community have the kind of chances that will give us the information and intelligence that we need to be successful. the president gave the right direction. do the jobles them to correctly. >> i want to comment on this. i think it is very appealing.

he spilled the beans. the new act on that information. the success in capturing bin laden is an a cumulative knowledge being collected by the u.s. they know the country will be working with locals. it works independently. this is why the team became an issue. it is the bread and butter. it is the analysis of that information. it is not just the technology.

it is the people. we are seeing improvements. >> i would agree with that. it was not a single. it was good and hard work. when home from the airport on monday. i was doing a radio interview. the success on sunday was the result of a lot of hard work by people that started eight and nine years ago. i got done. the cab driver said he was one of those guys. he was in the afghan region in 2003 and 2004. i did not know what he was doing. he spent his time serving our country. he says thank you. it is amazing. he is back to driving in the u.s.

he said he was tremendously proud. he feels ownership for what happened on sunday. >> i want to open at the question. raise your hand. i will call on me. witt for the microphone. wait for the microphone. >> i would not be sure. there are any number of people who speak saying that bin laden was a symbol of inspiration. general hayes spoke at the university. he said he was an inspiration and a symbol.

he was more than that. he was still capable with in his circle of engaging in operations. that is not take away from the fact that there are franchise and affiliates. there are people that could act affiliated with out his direction. what does that say if this is true about al qaeda's capability? >> my initial answers are always unsatisfactory. we will not know until we see. we are going to see some kind of play out with an al qaeda. it'll take over. he is a more gifted one.

he is a better rhetorician than bin laden. he does not have the credentials in the same way. he makes the struggles with in the leadership. we will have to see how that plays out. we have killed something like 10 al qaeda operational directors of the past several years. it does have an effect on the organization. 9 and had stepped up. the operations have continued. -- nine have stepped up. the operations have continued. one was the founder al qaeda in iraq. not only was he the inspiration for the -- he was the operational commander for it. his role was very important.

he was an approach by one that turned out to be a much more effective operator and to be pursuing a strategy similar to what had been pursuing with a much more ruthlessness. am not suggesting that will be the case. i think we need to be very cautious in imagining that if you remove someone who is operationally irrelevant it will be great. the organization tends to be resilient. the point he made is that it is not only in regard to intelligence. it is why this is a long fight. we have to look for the exit. we have the excuse to declare victory. these are extremely tough ones that generate leadership.

they are designed to do this. they have been added for a long time. we are not done with these guys by any stretch of the imagination. it is very satisfying. >> of the last number of years we have been more concerned about the franchise operations. if there is any retaliation in the short term, i think it'll come out of al qaeda debt in the arabian peninsula. they will not be at significantly effective by bin laden's death. >> if i could just add to that. if you are looking for a figure to replace osama bin laden, this

is probably the one that will fit the bill. they are saying it is a long fight. to have to be prepared to take the message of islam back. they are fighting it at the committee level. it is not sit in with the teachings. there is another way of looking at religion. they had the government in these countries. if they continue to work, they

will look the other way. we had defeated the whole enterprise. >> i wanted to piggyback on that for a moment. he looked around the world, we look at reach teams. they have actively propagated -- at regimes, they have actively propagated it. the larger significance is outside of pakistan's borders. >> it is interesting. there is a difference. iran and saudi arabia are doing

this -- i do not want to say national identity. that is an injustice. this is a national political agenda. it has a lot to do with the identity of this state. and pakistan, it seems to be much less interval to the mistake in the sense about exercising a variety of options. >> on a personal level, you had this question that goes back to the foundation of pakistan. in a nutshell, if you have one

idea that is the idea of pakistan. islam does not have to be particularly shocked every act. there is also a competing idea that we could do this. why do need a new country? this has been going on for a long time. it is accelerating under it. it is not enough to just be a homeland for muslims. we need to have this turbocharged islamic identity. i'm not saying it is black and white. it is a process.

>> we really like to hear your questions. it is interesting as someone who came from pakistan. it is a reverse direction. separated religion from the state. it puts the civilians way over there. pakistan needs to learn that lesson. >> the debate about what is the

basis and the argument that it is fundamentally about this long, i with summits that it belongs to a particular school. it is broader than the question. the and iranian regime is based on a very specific islamic ideologies. in saudi arabia if you have the school for thought. it is in to go with the saudi monarchy. they have different

interpretations of islam. the debate is more open than that. pakistanis could have a debate about the role in the definition of the state and how it functions. it is broader than which version has violence. >> we are going to come back. i think we stink at this. >> but want to ask a two-part question. -- i want to ask a two-part question.

which factor will have had the greatest negative influence on al qaeda? the assassination of bin laden? if you weare given a poison dart and he had an opportunity to aim it at one of the people, moloch how would you use your dark? what does that tell us about your review of what would happen and have the greatest impact on the struggle? >> to you what to start with this one?

>> can i have three darts? >> it is extremely resilient. killing a single leader would be satisfying but of limited impact. i am torn. i do not know yeah what direction it will take. my inclination would be to use it against moloch omar who has shown himself as an effective inspirational figure. that would not spend that insurgency. that is what i would do. i am not looking for poison darts. any of those of the satisfying.

none will bring this to success. it'll take a long struggle we were talking about. if it moves in the direction that we hope that it will, there are more representative governments in the middle east. there is a general weakening of the end. this will been a far more significant blow to al qaeda. >> thank you. many people are asking questions that it osama bin laden should have been brought to justice earlier? it is a shock to millions of the people.

their lives were affected. saying this for the last five years. it was protected by the military. what is the question? pakistan cannot say that he was not in pakistan. where do we go from here? many more terrorists are still there. we will get them. they were attacked. >> i think we have covered this nicely. he said it was a strategic

choice. we know the strengths and the weaknesses. i think we continue and tried to do everything we can. this how we improve and strengthen that relationship. he did not cut off the relationship. >> i keep nodding at people. why do not we try it this far back corner. >> i'm going back one question. >> i would have both the questions. this is why it is very important.

it is useful. they have a population. they are connected to the world. they have high expectations. they not everyone lives. we have to address them for the government. we can convince them and get their attention. the solution is to provide opportunities to people so they can takeover and run their own lives the way they want to. this is a reason why it had been so hard. he has proven himself. he can afford not to step up. this is such a strategic mistake. i do not think it will last.

>> thank you very much. >> can you identify yourself? >> i am an academic. i am an academic. i and self-confidence. other people are watching the developments. i been trying to calibrate this. what i happening? i found this to be very interesting. it began that night. it has a huge viewing.

it is not my home. it is in pakistan. there was a sinking in. there was a stage about why they are taking the credit for this operation. i think we get this. what is fascinating to see that it is shaping every day. there is a strong sense every appropriations. i think in the conversations it is very important. >> thank you. now? ok. thank you very much. >> there is a very thin moderator.

i am enjoying this kind of the way i enjoy espn. they use it. achan it here to the future. i would like to hear you comment on this. we are talking about a guy who's our debt.

>> that could not agree with the more. >> unless you change events gave, you are not going to be able to do make anything appear in the future. these are huge issues. we are always looking for the short term solution. can we throw money at the problem? money cannot buy you love.

>> i like to come to the sense of my panelists. we are talking about what needs to be done, we are talking about what nisi done to help pakistan. whether they having these problems? the have the things that harm the body politics. they are trying to get at some of the things that have made the government so bad. that includes this very debate about islamism and the one that has served in part.

did not talk about how the state should have been done. i agree with the about the need to look at the long term. he cannot make it to the long term if you do not get there from here either. >> i will sing it. >> thank you. we have talked about some of those perio. we tried to put these together. the death of bin laden will hopefully become the catalyst to talk about these larger issues.

this is an opportunity for us to hopefully raise a discussion and debate with pakistan about how we move forward and the kind of relationship we have. you have things that are part of the discussion. so often it gets lost. we are getting instantaneous feedback. >> i'm with the royal bank. about 10 days a week, i think it

was a journal article i read. the senior officials made a public appeal to drop the allegiance with the united states and joining pakistan in pursuing access with china. given the events of last week in, do you think it is more or less likely that such a statement could be made? >> no one is stepping up here. >> i would be happy to respond to that. i have since learned that it wasn't he.

it raised the possibility. i do not think it makes sense to have an either or approach. it is good economically to have plans for the future. china is a huge one in the region. >> it is hard to exaggerate how important this is. if you look again at public

figures, you find that despite the american aid, is the 17%. it is also among the people. china is seen s rock solid and a reliable partner. the article was not said publicly. it is reported as having been said in a private meeting. >> my question is to par. many in pakistan believe that 9/11 was [inaudible] i been falling social media

cents osama bin laden's death. where do we go? yesterday the corps commander in meeting issued a statement saying saying such an operation was not born to be tolerated in the future. blacks and do not think that would have convinced the most die-hard conspiracy theory. these are people that generally believe 9/11 was an inside job.

there are shades of expires the theories -- shades of conspiracy theories. i think they have been released by the u.s.. the u.s. would have been shaking the discourse. i think the impact would be much more negative. i think this was a mistake. i was surprised by this. >> it is a very similar statement.

the fact that this was just a statement in there is no action, there is no shutting down. the dialogue is still scheduled for later. it is a good sign. it means perhaps now they will try to find a way to begin the dialogue with the united states. i do want to go back to other things in the role of the media. the vernacular medium particularly in india is competing. they have over 60 channels.

it is a very narrow band of audience. it is like if you have ms in msnbc times 10. they are trying to drum up the public a one way or another. he did not find that considered analysis. it is the process of maturing. >> if i can add one thing. my first reaction is the statement coming out.

>> this is not a government statement. the issue is that there is a dysfunctional policy. it is loads apart. all you are left with is the responsibility of this. there is not a single voice. >> they said pakistan should not be independent. >> what else was going to say?

i think this is going to have to be our last one. >> i was in the u.s. government for longtime and now i and many private sector. we have been here about 90 minutes. it seems to me one of the issues that has not been mentioned at all -- 60 million young people. i do not know how many of those have been educated or exposed, but that strikes me as a real serious impediment to fundamental change in the u.s. relationship with pakistan. >> it is true. it is a very interesting thing. there is a zeitgeist in many of these policy discussions. about the pernicious influence of the money that was coming in for such things.

it is really kind of gone by the wayside not go back is a shame -- wayside. which is a shame. >> i have a fairly startling statistic on that spreads in 1947, it had 100 the seventh grade at last count, it had more than 13,000. that gives you a sense of the scale and coat of this -- most of these are not problematic in any way. the best estimates i have seen have been about 10 or 15% our problem. the most famous ones -- but beyond that, the problem is with the government education that is nonreligious. we tend not to look at backed. it is your normal as government school curriculum, what does that teach about history? what does that teach them about

non muslims, particularly the in the and. and to what degree has this mindset that needs to be changed, has that been allowed to percolate all the way down to the school books and what is the impact of that going to be when these young people come of age? >> i agree. they have been talked about and they grew exponentially during the busy hyde against the soviets because there was a reason to create them. in the border region, in particular. most of them are not problematic. the problem is the educational system is a long-term endeavor. pakistan did have a new policy in 2006 for changing the curriculum. it is only now starting to

happen. it does not been privatized, and private companies will not be able to compete to produce the textbooks. on my trip to pakistan in march, i brought back with me in english textbooks of just one classified and class 10 and i've been going through those. it is quite interesting to see what they teach and what they do not teach. what they do not teach is a history of pakistan in the subcontinent a slump -- context. it is always looking to the west. that will need to change. so they do not get a very narrow view and a dyspeptic division of their place in the region where they belong. >> the challenge for the united states and our european allies, we are completely unwilling to make comments about this on a policy level because it is culturally insensitive.

that is a big challenge as well. i will give you a teaser, we said next big challenge is al qaeda and the arabian peninsula on may 17, we will have an event here on yemen and -- on yemen. fred is going to be running that. we have written an enormous amount on this topic this week. i could keep going, i will be leading people out, but there is a lot to read and a lot to see and i refer you to our web site and our facebook page and everybody's twitter account operate with that, let me thank our outstanding panel list and

are terrific audience. thank you very much for being here today. [applause] >> in a few moments, the chairman of the house armed services committee on defense spending. in about an hour, at a hearing on security concerns in europe and asia in the aftermath of the death of osama bin laden. president obama strip to new york for a breathing ceremony at the 9/11 memorial bridge we will be aired before a money aspect of the killing of osama bin laden.

on "washington journal tomorrow morning, we will look at the results of tonight's republican presidential debate in south carolina. our guest will be. crawford. democratic president -- representative tim bishop of new york will take your questions about legislation and subsidies for oil companies. we will be joined by public serve -- publisher. "washington journal" is like every day at 7:00. >> this weekend, on c-span3, david schwartz on the vegas strip in the 1940's break an examination of the life story of a ronald reagan and whether it could happen anywhere else but the golden state. it's a complete schedule at c-

span.org/history. >> house armed services committee chairman says the obama administration proposal to cut defense spending poses a danger to the nation. the congressman also said the reason the u.s. helicopter crashed during the mission to osama bin laden compound was not mechanical failure, but a combination of factors. >> our special guest today took some time to to be with us today. on behalf of the heritage

foundation, i welcome all of you. three years ago, we decided to focus our activities every may on the importance of national defence and the armed forces. this is not only a course -- when the defense authorization bills are front and center. we wanted americans to take the time to think more seriously about what our military forces need to secure our land and liberties. for far too long, they have had to do more with less. throughout protect america month, we will shine a bright light on this situation before congress and for america and we do have a jammed packed month. i do not know if we have these calendars available, but on the back of it, we have all the activities for the month of may. in addition to today, we will host the event with donald

trump's felt, -- donald brown spelled, and alan west and others. we are issuing weekly papers on national defense challenges, beginning with one from senator jenna that you will find outside. we posted a new protect america month page on our website so you can find all the information, including the activities that i just discussed. you can also join the conversation by finding us on facebook and visiting the blog and keeping up with everything at heritage.org. if you would like to ask questions, jot them down on the index cards that we passed out as you entered the room. we will get to as many questions as we possibly can.

finally, at the end, police say -- stacey did as the congressman departs. it is my pleasure to welcome the honorable buck mckeon. chairman of the house armed services committee. i do not think anyone on capitol hill has been more on. and more cogent about the troubling state of our military forces. no one is more concerned about the problems created by underfunding them. as he wrote in usa today after the president announced his defense cuts, there appears to have been no consideration of threats, deterrence, logistics, or capabilities, or even the effect such cuts would have on our three wars, troops, and our national security. the chairman is a much needed boys, -- a much needed a voice

at this critical time in our history. he knows what america needs and is not sacrificing security to spend for other programs. he has been speaking about this for a very long time. we would like to note a very powerful address that he gave here at heritage last year. the chairman has been fighting the good fight in congress since he arrived in 1992. a city recognized as one of the safest in america. he has also served on the house education and a workforce committee on the subcommittee for 21st century competitiveness. please join me in welcoming congressmen buck mckeon. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for your patience.

it is unfortunate, but we do get to vote and we do take that obligation seriously. good to see my former colleagues. thank you for what you are doing for holding this series. this is no better way to open your protect america month to offer gratitude to the team that eliminated osama bin laden great to successfully an attack an enemy on its home turf, that is not an easy thing to do. their professionalism and courage brings great credit on themselves and the united states of america. ronald reagan was a big fan of soviet jokes.

i would like to honor president reagan and give our british allies a pact on the back at this time. during the cold war, the soviets treated the black seeds as their private word -- watchers. the british sent a squadron of destroyers into the black sea on a patrol. a russian commander radioed them and said, it tells what you are doing in the black sea. the british commodore replied, about 20 knots. [laughter] i would like to borrow an old army freight and give you the bottom line up front. the world is at a time of momentous of people rate for the first time since the end of the cold war, american dominance is being challenged by credible

actors. whether or not we are in a period of decline is to be determined. if america stumbles, the world could fall. if we stumble, it will be because we chose to fall. we had a choice, we can keep leaving or we can start falling. bleeding from behind is not a practical for -- leading the from behind is not a practical foreign policy. i commend the president for is leadership, but his leadership and other key areas has been scarce. it is my sense that white house defense decisions are putting this great republic on the fast track for declined. the logic has been baffling to me, expand our military commitments while cutting the funding for our armed forces. that is a recipe for disaster

and decline. mr. obama has been called the post american president. american exception was and has been called into question. our role as a stabilizing, unifying force in the world has been doubted. we have plunged from positions of responsibility as the global order tremors with the forces of hope and change. i use that term not indeed style of political campaigns, but as it exists on the tongues and in the hearts of the oppressed. today, the peoples of the middle east are standing up in defiance of tyranny, filled with hope that their nation contingent -- can change. since our founding, america has been a beacon of light for these movements. new england's minutemen did find a monarch's. liberated europe from a

fascist tyrant and kept watch over western european democracies while staring down the soviets empire. we are at a time where democracy squares off against tyranny. the battleground is all too familiar to west -- the middle east. with the military engaged in degree different theaters of combat, it is important that our nation remains guarded and strong. it must be our top priority to feel the forces to stave off even the most unlikely of contingencies. the arab sprang is brought with both pride and apparel, potential for chaos is high and the danger to our nation is real. during this unpredictable of people, at this momentous shift in the global order, the president announced one of the largest cuts to our armed forces in history.

i will get to that in the minutes. let's take a look at another historical lesson. fisher, we honored the 20th anniversary of the gulf war. some of this might sound familiar. at the time sodom hussein had the fourth largest army in the world, his troops were veterans of an eight-year conflict with iran and equipped with the latest soviet-made weapons. he had promised the mother of all battles. 100 hours after leaving american and allied ground forces in combat, the iraqi army was in the mother of all retreats. the stunning coalition victory in the gulf war was no accident. it was a result of the courage and cunning of our troops,

leadership that believes in a strong america role in international affairs and fighting forces that went into combat with the best equipment, the best training, and the best leadership in the world. consider a lesson here. throughout the 1980's, our strength was built around the threat that never materialized. when trouble pop up unexpectedly, our forces were strong and well-equipped. we should have a million troops to the persian gulf in a matter of a few short months. all while keeping our gloves up in western europe. victory was swept an absolute. i liken this to ronald reagan's famous bear in the woods campaign ad. a menacing bear is portrayed as unpredictable and therefore, dangerous. the point -- and it is a relevant one to date -- is that the unpredictability of warfare means our republic must be

vigilant and it must be strong. it's a unpredictability is a threat, we live in dangerous times. technology has empowered individual actors to commit horrific acts of violence. we saw that on september 11. new powers like china are rising. old powers like russia are rejuvenating. are to oceans are no longer sufficient to protect us. new avenues of commerce and communication like space and cyberspace allow adversaries to bypass our defenses. the spread of nuclear missile technology to allow strong racemes -- average seems to do great harm to our republic. not only had our traditional means of defending ourselves been tossed out the window, the very nature of waging war has evolved so rapidly that there is no way of anticipating how the next major conflict will look.

when making your new year's resolutions, those of you in this room, how many of you anticipated the tunisian government fault? the predicted there would be a no-fly zone over libya? the predicted that innocent syrians would be gunned down in the streets? i feel like we are walking into the future it blindly, ignoring the lessons of our past president obama should share my concern about staving off america declined. if he does, they are not reflected in his policies. as we rely on weapons systems long past their prime, as the runabout new threats to our livelihood, president obama has

announced plans to shrink our military, that can only be described as historic. 20 major weapon systems have been cut since he took office. more on the chopping block. we anticipate losing thousands of soldiers and marines. that one really concerns me. the navy's fleet is almost half of what it was 20 years ago. the air force is flying airplanes with an average life of 30 years. with equipment that is falling apart and the war entering its 10th year, the strain on the troops can only be described as severe. today's military is composed of young men and women who willingly entered their nation'' call. they were not coerced into combat, they heard the trumpets blast and they answered. your average soldier is more likely to possess a high school diploma or some level of college education than their civilian counterparts. they are more likely to come

from america's middle class. they volunteered to know when that america was at war. though these fighting men and women have much to lose, they're willing to risk all for their family, their faith, their friends, and aflac. -- and their flag. during the cold war, an american soldier was expected to hold a line against the soviet union. today, their emissions of multiplied. some of our officers and men and women have deployed to iraq or afghanistan five times in the past decade. an ideal deployment cycle dictates that for every year we ask a soldier to fight in the middle east, they spend two years with their families. unfortunately, we're still trying to hold up our end of that bargain. i find it disturbing that this combat stress takes its -- the

obama administration has announced plans to cut numbers. i supported president obama surge into afghanistan and i continue to support his strategy. i refuse to vote for any legislation, however, that will increase these stresses honor over deployed fighting forces. if the president expands the military missions, he must expand their funding as well. these amazing man and woman deserve no less than our full support. aside from the wars, our military is expected to faithfully discharge a number of new demanding duties. we ask that they guard the seas, protect our computers, a in humanitarian relief across the globe, protect our assets in space, and deter aggression from rising powers. to ask them to accomplish these

tasks with antiquated equipment, with weapons left over from the cold war, while separated from their families every other year, is simply disgraceful. a young army cook noted that a wealth dead soldier is a happy soldier. i believe that the wisdom applies elsewhere. a well-equipped soldier who knows his family is taken care of it is a happy soldier. i will continue to fight to ensure our troops carry out their duties. i will fight cuts that thinned the ranks when we need the more than ever. i will fight any effort by the president to increase the burden on our brave servicemen and women. my remarks are not intended to be all gloom and doom. there is a way forward, a way to be responsible stewards of the taxpayer's dollar without calling out the force.

cutting military items wholesale given the challenges i've laid out is irresponsible and dangerous. let's be honest, when a $530 million -- billion dollar defense budget, there has to be room for savings. the pentagon is going to need to do some house cleaning, that is the physical reality we're facing. any savings that is identified by the defense department must go back into defense. not to health care, not to social security, not to cowboy poetry, and that is a real one by the way, and not to any other projects the obama administration dean's a higher priority than our security. i want to thank the heritage foundation for leading the charge on identifying deficiencies without compromising our securities. you provide a valuable and credible voice to a debate that requires strategic thinking. this is the heart of our

approach to this year's authorization act. to avoid the hazards of the plan to cut of $400 billion from defense over the next decade, we are crafting a smart piece of legislation that focuses on spending taxpayer money wisely without sacrificing military capabilities. i will give you a few examples. the first is an issue near and dear to the heritage foundation. holistic missile defense. missile defense is a portent -- an important part -- is an important part, so we must get it right. the president's budget request calls for a injured million dollars over the next two years to find a joint american and european missile defense program that has had a poor record of performance. heritage has been a proponent of this joint effort, but the program is broken. we need to harvest would benefit

and savings we have and direct those scarce resources to more urgent priorities, including the ground-based defenses deployed in alaska and hawaii. the only defense we have to defend our homeland against long-range missile attacks. the defense department has plans to temporarily halt the production lines of the bradley fighting vehicle. the defense and the street cannot be turned on and off like a light switch. shutting down production and restarting at a later date cost more than just keeping lines open. this is a no-brainer. with ground forces heavily deployed in iraq and afghanistan, increasing costs to decrease our fleet of armored fighting the vehicles is foolishness. we plan to fund both these production lines in fiscal year 2012. this will spare the pentagon

expensive shutdown and startup costs. keep a robust labor force working. there is a great story from world war ii. general george marshall was approached by an aide to found a new vehicle the army was thinking about buying. it was dirty and fast and the general asked a few more questions and said, ok, do it. that is a little different than the way we do things now. that vehicle was the jeep. we still see them around. we have been another important acquisition program coming up. i am proud of both the air force and the committee are approaching the development. the new bomber will replace b-2.oth the b-1 and

it focuses on the integration instead of invention of new technologies. most of this is classified, but i can tell you that we're building a capable platform that will do one thing very well, penetrates enemy air defenses. we will continue to upgrade the bomber to fit new missions and strategic needs, but those upgrades will happen over time to help alleviate cost to the taxpayer. there is a general electric engine for the fighter. i did not want to bore you with the details of engine acquisition strategy for fit generation fighter jets, so here is a bird's-eye view. we're building to its thousand joint strike fighters. engine costs eat up a quarter of the overall airplane. to help soften those costs, the pentagon originally had to have two engines built by a general

electric team. they would constantly -- history has demonstrated that these competitions enhance performance and reduce costs. with their future air superiority depending on the joint strike fighter program, that struck me as smart planning. unfortunately, the pentagon recently decided that it is wasd canceled the program. it is yardy brought with cost overruns. the engine is 80% complete. it could drag down overall strike pricing by billions of dollars. that is significant. i am curious how the program that will cost $400 billion is in the best interest of the taxpayer.

this sounds like the penny wise purchase strategy that has hounded the pentagon for years. g e and rolls royce are aware of the stresses. instead of being part of the problem, and they decided to be part of the solution. instead of lobbying for the final 20% needed, the ge team has committed the funding for fiscal year 12 on their own at dime. bible except their approach. they believe in their engine. thanks to their willingness to compromise, it will break the monopoly. it will potentially harvest billion in savings while building a more robust by church at all at zero cost to the taxpayer. that reform should be worded -- be rewarded and applauded.

i thank them for coming to us with a smart and viable solution. with the future of u.s. security on the line, there are two pass on the line. speaking cut from the defense budget. it does not address the real federal money entitlements. it will hit the pentagon and the troops hard. they will do certain capabilities. the ranks will be thin. secretary gates recently said after trimming $78 billion that we will approaching the minimum level of money needed to maintain our commitments globally. we are below that figure by an average of 7% each year for the next 12 years. that is the obama figure. we can roll up our sleeves. we can work the defense budget

with a scalpel. if god forbid america does stumble, historians will ask for generations. did america push or fall? i ensure that question never has to be asked and never has to be answered. they have sounded price. continue to offer your sage advice. buzz word together to ensure the shining city on the hill burns bright for future generations. 20 years ago our nation liberated kuwait. america appeared vulnerable. a decade's worth ap's followed.

let stand up and be strong again. let's meet the security challenges. let this republic stands call once more to protect our liberty. america will always leads so that america will always be free. thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much. the audience has been diligent. how much do we need to adequately fund our troops in fiscal year 12 and beyond? >> i do not have a specific

number. as i said, we have cut 20 programs in the last couple of years. some of those maybe should have been cut. i would hope -- we have been working on this for 20 years. i would hope we do a better job of planning ahead. they were talking about the ballistic missile submarine that test 24 missile tubes. they were happy to report that by cutting four of them they saved $1 billion. the cost of the submarine is still not affordable.

my solution let's see if we can cut it. what if we just cut out the submarine? how far do we need to cut it without knowing what our real needs are? i think our budget has been driven by financial needs rather than by our defense needs. we need to find what the mission of the military is, what we need them to do. then we can find it accordingly. >> these are actually two questions. the second one was on the fighter. do you have any details on the corner billion dollars in cuts that president obama wants to make? >> the president gave a speech

and said we will cut 400 billion. the secretary a year ago asked the services to cut $100 billion efficiencies with and their services. they said he will be able to keep this for things you need more. they later came back and said he will be able to keep 70 of it and he will have to use 28 billion to pay for must-needs that you have. they found another 78 billion that you couldn't cut that would result in cutting the army. he went on to say that this as far as we can go.

the president gave the speech for cutting another 400 billion. i think this a downward trend -- that is a great question. why do come up with a number without first assessing what the need is. what are our defense needs? >> the next question is on the same thing. in number people are arguing that the war in iraq is winding down. there is the expectation that it could wind it down in afghanistan as well given the fact that there is a timetable for withdrawal p -- withdraw. they are sometimes references to

the vietnam war. it is a time for a major drawdown for the armed forces. i think and know what you are going to say. can you address that argument? >> noem want peace more than i do. we would all want a nice calm and peaceful world. i live long enough to see the we have the war to end all wars. two years later we had korea. we lost a lot of people in mislead. we did not have the adequate equipment. we lost a lot of people needlessly. after each of these, we run our military down. president obama made a courageous decision the other night to go after osama bin laden. i am sure he probably remember it when carter sent forces out

to rescue hostages and the helicopters could not fly. we have come a long way. we have also started hauling out the military. i've seen it after every conflict and war we had. this is the first time we are cutting back the military. what was the question? >> dividends. >> that is a wonderful thing. everyone understands that if you are not fighting a war in iraq or providing a war, there should the money saved. people should understand that after a decade of fighting in iraq and afghanistan that we have to get a lot of equipment. there is no money in the budget for recess.

we looked to get them back to the point where their equipment is capable to move forward again. that needs to be considered. i do not think our military -- and carry around this thing in my pocket will. number is two counts. we had 19 ships right now in japan. if that is part of the mission, the better to be figured in our

defense budget. >> is there any evidence that this had anything to do? >> no. >> they trained very well for this mission. the equipment they had is very good. i do not think this is classified. when the helicopter came in, the walls surrounding the compound for a very high. it was pitch black. it was totally dark.

the back of the helicopter hit the wall. the second problem is there was about a 15 degree difference. they have a helicopter fully loaded. the lift of the helicopter depends on whether they come in. they could not hold this. this is what happens. it is a mechanical failure. it is not an error by the pilot. it is just a little miscalculation. >> which one had defense spending as a priority?

>> this would be trump. >> i saw this the other day. we have so many candidates. there may be more coming tomorrow. i spoke to mitt romney. he was in line with the things i said today. i know he feels strongly about rebuilding america. he is very strong on not apologizing to the world for america. >> during the debate on the new truth, there were a number of people who were arguing that we

needed to recognize this. that is pretty much the ongoing consistent for people who voted. can you tell us what you can about the progress in terms of what congress will do to provide funding that was there? >> senator kyl has been the voice on that. he has been fighting for that in the house. he has done an outstanding job. yes put money in this year's defense. we have to have him come here and talk to you. he could really give you everything on this. he is our expert. >> thank you very much.

and they had to give back to the meetings. >> thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thank you for coming. i think we are using this for ability. and yet think it is reached for me to say get out of here as quickly as possible. -- i hope you do not think it is rude for me to say to get out of here as quickly as possible. thank you for coming here today. >> quick question on the second engine. the pentagon terminated. sometime it has to be reinstated. how will you go about that?

if you can walk as through the steps. shouldink the department' be willing to supervise the final training that is needed. >> to you think they would? >> i am hopeful. >> will there be a requirement? >> i think we will get it done. >> what about access to government facilities? have you had any discussions? >> we have not. i think we take care of it. >> their bases for shutting it

down was that we cannot afford it. there should not be another objection. this is how we will be moving forward. >> would you find it past 2012? >> we think that 2012 will take care of it. yes? >> how would you fund a defense budget this guy's going forward without borrowing from other ?ountries tha how do just that argument?

>> we are borrowing about 42 cents from every the lot where the data from every dollar. we put yourself in a row box. it is going up like this. it does not go like this. it will take some time. it'll take time. >> i am convinced about the

army's requirements. it comes to transporting the fools collide. could you elaborate on this? -- full squad. >> could you elaborate on this? >> are you talking about the marines? the army? yes. that has not been determined yet. they have not totally selected that vehicle. they are still working on it. we are now working on a new vehicle. we are still in the planning stages. >> i am open to see.

i think it was up in washington that we went into orbit. the looks like they did a pretty good job. we should probably stick with that. that is something we are looking at. and did not have a final answer on that. >> yes? >> there have been some suggestions raised by people in the administration. in terms of making the $400 billion in cuts with policy changes. it redefines the mission to say

we will not do certain things like say missile defense. do you have any concerns about this? what are they? how might you deal with that? >> at least that may be a little more honest. if they lay out roles and missions, we will come back to our shores. would you do that humanitarian issues? do we stop we did in haiti and we have done around the world? let's have a discussion. what do you expect the military to do? how do you find that.

instead of coming out of nowhere and say let's cut this much money people i think you determine what your defense needs arkansas i think it it -- defend need. i think it is putting the cart before the horse. >> the city think that 2012 will take care of it. it to fully develop the engine. what about the provision? it is for the engine in the next bomber. you expect that will pick up? >> here is betting there'll be competition.

the competition does two things. it generally lowers the cause. the issue better product. >> they recommended that women be allowed to have all combat jobs that are now caught off from them including small infantry units. there are some in congress -- there are some sentiment in congress to legislate that, to allow women to serve anywhere in the military. what is your position on that? >> i do not think it will be in our mark.

there may be an amendment to do it. we have not received any to this time. there may be more. i really do not know. but right now i would oppose that. but got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. i would look to a recommendation to strike that dumb comment. i get the feeling that we are all friends here. what i would do is i would go to the said committee on personnel for recommendation. i would ask him to hold hearings and come back with a recommendation.

>> that is kind of the way i like to beat. i think we have very good people. >> there are reports that it involves some sort of modification. they blew it up. >> there are pictures that show it. it has a rotaries' section.

>> i do not know that there aren't any efforts to retrieve any of it. >> do you think that pakistan has the gesture of its interest in maintaining the best possible relationship with the united states and should hand over the wreckage? >> if they asked. that would be great. i do not know. i got no sense from the military that had any concerns. there were things they did not seem concerned about. >> i am curious how you would grayed his performance giving

that he is behind many of the weapons programs what would you like to see from secretary panetta in regards to this? >> i think secretary gates has been great. i think he has had to work with then certain framework. he is being given a budget. he has to make the best with the budget he has. the salutary as only search share for four years. this seems like a long time. i think he has made an attempt to improve how we buy a things. why should we work on something for 20 years and decided we do not need it?

while i disagree with him on a lot of the decisions, he indicated that he understands the role. they were closely together. i am wide open. i take him at his word. >> hopefully you will like it. it is how things have been given to us from the administration. i think it would be good if we were consulted