threats in the world but more importantly, it would break faith with the troops and their families. a volunteer army is absolutely essential to our national defense. any kind of cut like that would literally undercut our ability to put together the kind of strong national defense we have today than secretary clinton, you have a harder case to make given public skepticism and where america is spending its money. >> i know it is a harder case because there is a lot of a misunderstanding and rejection of the work that is done by the state department and u.s. aid. we comprised 1% of the discretionary budget. what we have done over the last 2.5 years was long overdue. we basically said we are a national security team. we are all on the american team. by that i mean that we have civilians who are in the field

with our military forces in areas of conflict. we have civilians in the field on their own in other dangerous settings without our military boots on the ground. we are trying to enhance the coordination to achieve our national security objectives. one of the goals that secretary kates and now secretary panetta and i have is to make the case as to what national security in the 21st century actually is. it is the strongest military in the world that has to be given the tools to do the job we send it out to do. it is our diplomatic corps which is out there on the front line all the time trying to deal with very difficult situations but to the betterment of america bus national interests and securities and it is our development experts that with

another face of american power who are trying to deliver a, as we speak, aged 0 to 12 million people on the part of africa who are facing famine and starvation because of high al shabob, which makes our challenge more difficult. between the two of us, we have many years, but probably more than either of his care to admit, of experience in dealing with a lot of these issues. leon, as the chair of the budget committee, director of omb in the 90 bus was part of a process that got us to a balanced budget. this is not ancient history. we're not talking about sometime so far back we cannot remember. "tough decisions were made in the 1990's to cut spending, yes, deal with entitlement issues, and yes, increase revenues.

this is so that we have the kind of approach that got us on a trajectory had we stayed on it where we would not be facing a lot of these issues. i will end restart it -- -- i will end where you started -- i know how difficult this was for our country domestically over the last month. it is always hard seeing the sausage being made. i was in hong kong a few weeks ago. vice said confidently that we would resolve this. we were not going to default. we would make some kind of political compromise. i have to tell you that it does cast a pall over our ability to project the kind of security interest are in america's interest. this is not about the defense department or the state department or u.s. aid.

this is about the united states of america. we need to have a responsible conversation about how we're going to prepare ourselves for the future. there are many issues that are not in the headlines but in the trend lines. we are asserting our presence in the pacific. we are it is of a power. that means all elements of our national security team have to be present. we cannot be abruptly pulling back or pulling out when we know we face some long-term challenges without how we will cope with what the rise of china means. we have so many issues that leon and i'd deal with every day that will not be getting screaming headline coverage by which we know will affect the economic well-being of our country and the security of american citizens >> there was a headline that

bears directly on the budget and the changes in store. cloud was a report yesterday that the pentagon is considering a very substantial revamp of the retirement program for those in the military. 401k and ending eligibility after 20 years and extending it to a normal retirement age, is that the death of change out there? >> that report came as the result of a of an advisory group that was asked by my predecessor, bob gates, to look at the retirement issue. they have put together he some thoughts and they're supposed to issue a more complete report in the latter part of this month no decisions have been made. >> is that the kind of thing you have to deal with? >> you have to consider these kind of things in terms of retirement reforms in the broad form. you have to do it in a way that

does not break faith with our troops and their families. if you're going to do something seriously about grandfathering in order to protect the benefits that are there. >> so it would not affect the people in this room? >> exactly. [laughter] i know my audience. [laughter] you have to do that. you have to protect the benefits that are there but at the same time, you have to look at everything on the table. when i was on the budget committee and director of omb, you have to look at everything and put everything on the table. you cannot approach the deficit the size we are dealing with and expect you will only deal with it at the margins. you have to look at everything and we should. >> secretary clinton, back on the budget and then to the audience. you and your predecessor talked a lot -- and secretary panetta's predecessor talked a

lot about the budget and how development is cheaper than war. "we had that conversation at george washington university. what do you say to secretary panetta about your budget and your needs and your lobbying for more in terms of what he's got and what you need to accomplish? >> obviously,the dod budget far outweighs the combined budget of the state department/usa aideed 12:1. we understand? and we have to put everything on the table. we are going through a difficult budget process. 9 >> that includes where you help to grow? >> it includes everything. i am not saying that we should be exempt. i don't think education and health care should bear all the costs.

as we look at everything that is on the table, we have to try to do. reasonable analysis of what our real needs and interests are. it is easy in a political climate, which in no something about as leon does, and -- if you go out to the american public and you ask what is the easiest thing to cut in the american budget, it is always foreign aid. how much do think that represents? people think it is 20%. they say it should represent 10% rate we have a case to make. "it's a case we have been making. there is a new way of looking at which bob gates and i am leon and i are working on the military has always had something called overseas contingency operations in the budget that go to the kind of conflicts and investments that

have to be made in places like afghanistan and iraq. for the first time, we have the congress accepting that we, too, need anoco because we have a lot of costs that will begin to go down over time because they are not part of our base. we are doing things to try to get smarter about explaining what we do and what it will cost for us to do it. the bottom line is that we won national security to be looked at holistic play and we want people to understand that what we will have to be doing in the future is not sending our young men and women to arms with but trying to avoid that in the first place them what is your view of her budget? >> it is absolutely essential area." >> would need to be caught? >> we know we will have to exercise some fiscal restraint as we go through our budget. the bottom line is that what i

hope the congress does not do, what i hope this committee does not do is to walk away from their responsibility to look at the entire federal budget. the entire federal annual budget now is close to $4 trillion. in the discretionary side which is around $1 trillion, it is already has been cut $1 trillion by virtue of the deal made in congress. 2/3 of that budget has not been touched. 2/3 of the federal budget has not been touched. if you want to do with the deficit, you have to do what mandatory spending programs. you have to deal with revenues. every budget summit i have been a part of going back to ronald reagan which was the first budget summit i participated in was a balanced package. it was true for ronald reagan. it was true for george bush. it was true for bill clinton and it has to be true today if

you are serious about dealing with this theme cuts take our first audience question on the budget. >> ask you -- i ask you to identify yourself and we will get a response. >> i am an army former officer. welcome to both of you. i have spent about five years out of last 10 in the middle east and afghanistan. when thing that concerns me as we see the budget tsunami approaching his problems with the teaching of foreign language and culture. that is incapacity that persists now. how can we deal with that as we lose though hundreds of millions of dollars? have we looked at ways in which you can see energize efforts to teach? have we quartet bridget looked at working with academia? -- have we looked at working with academia? >> i think we have to look at creative ways to be able to deal with this.

i am a believer in foreign language training. this country has not devoted enough resources to foreign language training. we have elected to threer's all we have not looked at the reality of the world we deal with. when i was the cia director, i did not think you could be a good intelligence analyst or operations guy without knowing languages. i believe that for the defense department and the state department. there is a recognition that you need to have language in order to be able to relate to the world we live in. my goal would be as we go for the budget and develop restraints that we are created and not undermine the kind of teaching and language training that i think is essential to our ability not only to protect our security but, frankly, to be a nation that is well educated. >> i certainly see amen to that.

we need to look for better ways where we can coordinate our language and culture education programs. i have begun to do that in the state department/ usaid because they have different platforms it and language. i did not think this was the most sensible way to train our development experts and our diplomats. i think we will have to be more creative. we have had more rondeau who needs the ndu team and a number 2 in the state department. we have to get that in our minds which is more likely to be the pattern of cooperation both before deployment whether it is as a military or civilian personnel and then after deployment.

we cannot afford to do with any other way but secondly, it gives us a better results. you may have seen the article in "the washington post" over the weekend of one of the civilian employees in afghanistan. because of his pashto experience, he was able to communicate informally in a way that really captured the attention and eventually the cooperation of many of the afghans. that is what we need across the board. any way we can work together, it will begin to put together this whole government national security team. >> let's start with afghanistan. it is terrible and cause sleep -- it was a terrible and costly wheat last week. americans say with this loss, is this worth it? are we prevailing?

should we stay? what is your response to that? how do you view what is happening in afghanistan? >> it was tragic what happened last week. we lost 4500 in afghanistan. we have lost many more and have seen more that have been wounded. many of our went -- men and women have put their lives on the line. we cannot forget the mission. the mission as the president said is that we have to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-qaeda and a juror that never again find a safe haven in afghanistan from which to launch attacks to this country. i think we have made good progress. i just talked with general allan this morning. we're making very good progress in terms of security particularly in the south and southwest.

those are difficult areas. we now cap to improve the situation in the east but overall, the situation is doing much better. we weekend that taliban significantly. -- we have weakened the taliban significantly. the police and army are right on target as far as the numbers we needed to develop. we're working in the right direction. we are going through a transition and beginning to transition in areas. there'll be other things we have to do. we have to ensure the afghan government is prepared to not only govern but to help secure that country in the long run. i really do believe that if we stick with this mission in that we can achieve the goals that we are after which is to create a stable afghanistan that could make sure we never again a establish a safe haven for the taliban or al-qaeda. >> what is the conversation the two of you had about the reliability and stability of

the karzai government? >> we have a strategy for transition that we are following. it is based on the decision that present obama made upon taking office that we have lost momentum to the taliban. when he came into office, the situation that we found was not very promising. he ordered the additional troops. i ordered and fulfill the more than tripling of the civilians on the ground from 320 to more than 1125. we put in a lot of effort to try to stabilize and reverse what we saw as a deteriorating situation. i met with both believed that

we're now at a place where we can both begin the transition and do so in a responsible way. part of that transition is supporting afghan reconciliation. we have said that for a very long time. i gave a comprehensive speech about our approach in february at the asia society in new york. ambassador marker grossman is leading our efforts to build a diplomatic framework for this kind of reconciliation effort. he is proceeding very vigorously. we know there has to be a political resolution along side the military gains and sacrifice that we have put in a along side the sacrifice and suffering of the afghan people. we want this to be at then-lead and afghan-owned.

>> can happen with the regime your work in west? >> yes, i'd deal with leaders all over the world who have their own political dynamics that they are trying to cope with which are not always wants -- ones that we think are necessarily the most important. they get to call the shots. they are the ones coming out of their culture and they are trying to implement democracy often in places where that is a foreign concept. it can be a difficult and challenging partnership. there's no doubt about it. there is a commitment on the part ofkarzai government to this transition process. when we adopted this process that will go through 2014 at the nato-lisbon summit, it was in concert with the karzai

government making the same commitment. we are also discussing what kind of ongoing partnership, diplomatic development, military, that we will have with afghanistan. president karzai met an important statement just this past week. he is not seeking a third term. that is a very strong signal that there has to be enacted dynamic political process to choose his successor. i have dealt with president karzai now for nearly 10 years. i am looking at john warner. i dealt with him as a senator and i have dealt with him as secretary of state. you have to listen to him because all too often, we come in with our preconceptions about how things are supposed to be. he says over and over again that he does not like this or is

not sure about this. the private contractor issue went on for a long time because we did not quite get what his concerns were. it is not all a one-sided critique. i think there has to be a recognition that we have a dialogue and a partnership and that would both have to work at it. >> question of who predict question on afghanistan -- >> industrial college of the armed forces -- we mentioned a lot about iraq. our allies and pakistan are also critical what is going on in our efforts there. as a strategic partner, water thoughts about how we continue to enhance that relationship given the difficulties we've had recently? >> let me start by saying we consider our relationship with pakistan to be of paramount

importance. we think it is very much in america's interest. we think it is in the long-term interests of pakistan. for us to work through what our very difficult problems in that relationship and this is not anything new. how we have had a challenging relationship with pakistan going back decades. we have been deeply involved with pakistan as the word during the 1980's with the support for the mujahedin. if you remember a "end of because charlie wilson's war," the soviet union is defeated and charlie wilson says let's go to school and work and afghanistan and support pakistan and our political decision was that we were exhausted and we are done. we accomplished our mission which was to break the back of the soviet union. i think the pakistani have a

viewpoint as to be shown some respect.

>> are they a partner or an adversary? >> they are partners, but they did not always see the world the way we do. and they do not always cooperate with us on what we think. i will be blunt. it is not like we are coming to pakistan and encouraging them to do things that will be bad for pakistan, but they often do not follow what our logic is as we make those cases to them. so it takes a lot of dialogue. >> let's talk about pakistan for a minute. there was a story that pakistanis are allies here, handed over parts of the helicopter that went down in bin laden's compound. is that true? >> this is a very complicated relationships. >> is that a yes? [laughter] >> i've got to protect my old hat. >> not a no, though. >> i am not. a comment because it does relate to classified intelligence. we are concerned with the relationships that pakistan has. what makes this complicated is that they have relationships with the akanis. they are going across the border and attacking our forces in afghanistan. is clear there is a relationship there. there is a relationship with l.e.t. this is a group that goes into india and threatens attacks there. they do not provide visas. and yet, there is no choice but to maintain a relationship with pakistan.

why? because we are fighting a war there. because we are fighting al qaeda there, and they do give us some cooperation in that effort, because they do represent an important force in that region, because they do happen to be a nuclear power that has nuclear weapons, and we have to be concerned about what happens with those nuclear weapons. so for all those reasons, we have got to maintain a relationship with pakistan. and -- as i said, it is complicated. there will be ups and downs. the secretary and i have spent countless hours going to pakistan, talking to their leaders, trying to get their cooperation. >> let me ask the two of you to take us into a conversation you might have together in the privacy of several hundred people. [laughter]

this war that you talk about is largely conducted with drones. they are resented and complicate your efforts on the diplomatic front. how you balance that? isn't your best asset your worst nightmare? >> no. no. let me take you back to conversations that are not so current but i think that are relevant. shortly after i became secretary of state, we were quite concerned to see the pakistani taliban basically taking advantage of what has been an effort by the government in pakistan to try to create some kind of peace agreement with the pakistani taliban and to say to them, you stay in swats, and don't bother us. we won't bother you. i was blunt publicly and privately.

you cannot make deals with terrorists. the very people that you think that you can predict or control are neither predictable nor control. i was very pleased when the pakistanis moved into swat and cleaned out a lot of what had become a pakistani-taliban stronghold. and then began to take some chips off of their border with india, to put more resources into the fight against the pakistani taliban. now, as leon says, we have some other targets that we discuss with them. and yet it's been a relatively short period of time, two and a half years, when they have begun to reorient themselves militarily against an internal threat to them.

we were saying is because we think it will undermine the control that the pakistani government is able to exercise. so we have conversations like this all the time, frank. i do think there are certain attitudes or believes that the pakistanis have which are rooted in their own experience, the system like we have, but i think there is a debate going on in pakistan about the best way to deal with what is an increasing internal threat. >> let me just add to that. i mean, the reason we are there is we are protecting our national security. we're defending our country. al qaeda, which attacked this country i 9/11, the leadership of al qaeda was there.

so we are going after those that continue to plan to attack this country. they're terrorist. and the operations we have conducted there have been very effective and it undermines their ability to plan those kind of attacks. let me make this point. those terrorists are also a threat to pakistani national security as well. they attack pakistanis. they go into karachi and a slot blot and conduct attacks that killed pakistani -- and in islamabad. it's in their interest to go after these terrorists as well. >> what is left of the al qaeda network? >> the al qaeda network has seriously been weakened. we know that, but they're still there. those that are suggesting somehow this is a good time to pullback are wrong.

this is a good time to keep putting the pressure on, to make sure that we really do not undermine our ability -- their ability to conduct any kind of attacks on this country. >> will they ever be defeated? or is donald rumsfeld right that this is a long war? >> we can go after the key leadership of al qaeda that i think has led this effort, and we have seriously weakened them. we took out bin laden. by weakening their leadership, we will undermine their ability to ultimately put together that jihad they have tried to put together in order to conduct attacks on this country. >> the answer to your question is that we have made serious inroads in weakening al qaeda. there are these nodes in yemen and somalia that we have to

continue to go after, but i think we are on the path to being seriously weakening at al qaeda as a threat to this country. >> let's talk about iraq and then we will take a question on that topic from the audience. we have seen a terrible string of attacks over the last 24 hours that have claimed nearly 90 lives, hundreds injured, leading to grave concerns about the ability of the iraqi government to look after its own security. what is happening in that country? what do you read from this wave of violence? >> what i see happening is that there continues to be a terrorist capacity inside iraq. at the time i left my office, no one had claimed credit, but we believe it could very well be al qaeda trying to assert itself.

sunni extremists. at the same time we noticed there are shia extremists that have been conducting attacks, not to the extent we saw yesterday, but attacks that have killed americans and killed iraqis. i'm of two minds about this. i deplore the loss of life and the ability of these terrorists to continue to operate inside iraq. i know until recently the introductory of violence had been going in the right direction, namely down. we saw that. we were feeling that it is headed in the right direction. the iraqis themselves have more capacity than they did have, but they have got to exercise it. and we spend a lot of time pushing our friends in the

iraqi government to make decisions like many a defense minister and an interior minister so that they can be better -- naming a defense and interior ministers so that they could be better organized to deal with the threat. we are in discussions with them now, because they do want to be sure they have sufficient intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance capacity. they want to be sure that they can defend themselves internally and a externally. that is a conversation that our ambassador are having in baghdad. >> has it been worth it, and should we stay? >> the bottom line is we will maintain a long-term relationship with iraq to insure their remain stable. >> militarily? >> that's a discussion we will

have with them as to what kind of assistance we will continue to provide. the bottom line is, whether it is diplomatic, military, we have a long-term relationship with iraq. we've invested a lot of lives there, a lot of blood in that country. and regardless of whether you agree or disagree as to how we got into it, the bottom line is that we now have, through a lot of sacrifice, established a relatively stable democracy that is trying to work together to lead that country. it happens to be a country that is in a very important region of the world at the time when there is a lot of other turmoil going on, and it is very important for us to make sure we get this right. >> i just want to attend to what -- append to what leon said. the president made a commitment

that we would withdraw our forces from iraq and that he would follow the timetable that was set in the bush administration, which is for our troops to be out at the end of this year. that is a period. that's the end of that commitment. there is, however, a discussion that the iraqis are having internal way about what we would do following that. so i do not want there to be any confusion about that. our combat mission in iraq ends at the end of this year. our support and training mission, if there is to be such, is what the subject -- >> but don't these attacks to demonstrate that the security situation is still precarious, that if the parliament were to ask for an ongoing military presence, it might be more than mere training. there is combat. >> we do not believe the iraqis

have that on their list of asks. >> i think what they want to do is to be able to have -- to confront counter-terrorism within their own country. we have given them hope and training and assistance in that effort. obviously, that is something that as a country they will have to confront, but their main goal right now is to get the kind of training that will allow them to improve their defense capability. >> let's turn to the audience for a question on iraq. in the aisle right here. do we have the microphone? stand and tell us who you are. >> i was in cpa in 2003 and followed iraq ever since. i want to ask you, don't you see it in the u.s. national security interest to see all of the troops leave by the end of the year? i understand what secretary

clinton had said in terms of we are leaving, but even to have troops training there afterwards, do not think it is sending a strong signal that we will leave if we do not get a training mission there as well? >> as the secretary said, we are leaving by the end of the year. a combat mission is over. the discussions are what kind of assistance can we provide it with regards to training and other assistance that is provided? we do this with other countries. and i think this would be what i would call a normal relationship with iraq. if we could establish that kind of approach for the future. >> that is why i want to be very clear that a combat mission is over. our troops are leaving, and they are in the process of

literally packing up. that is what we agreed to. i agree we do that that is in america's interest to keep that commitment. but what leon is saying is also important. if a country comes to us with in what we would view as a normal diplomatic relationship and says, my troops be training. they are not what they need to be. i am going to be continuing help on collecting intelligence, learning how to do it for counter-terrorism purposes. i think it would be irresponsible of us not to listen to what they are requesting. in, the iraqis have not made a formal request, but we have reason to believe they are discussing it internally. we do that in kuwait and an bahrain and uae and qatar and saudi arabia. it would be unusual for us to say no, we will not respond to

a responsible request. what it is we do not know yet. >> the bottom line is very interesting, and it is something the country will respond to. which is, that if there is a responsible request, a military relationship of some sort going forward, not unlike the other countries in the region after other conflicts, will be part of the military-diplomatic landscape. >> just for the record, this is going to be a process of negotiation and there will be discussion. the good thing is that the iraqis indicated their willingness to have that discussion. we will have that discussion. as to what ultimately turns out, we will leave it to them. >> a couple of other issues in the time remaining. syria. is it time for the u.s. to unequivocal state that president assad should step

down? there is talk that that is forthcoming from the administration. is today the day? >> i am not a big believer in arbitrary deadlines when you are trying to manage difficult situations, and what we see happening is galvanizing international opinion against the assad regime. that is a far better landscape for us to be operating in that if you were just the united states are just a few european countries. just think of what has happened in two weeks. you had the arab league reverse position. you had king abdullah make a strong statement, and the gulf coordinating council. you have turkey desperately trying to use its influence, which is considerable within syria, to convince the assad regime to quit shelling its own people. yesterday, the foreign minister

made it clear that the regime is not following through on that. i happen to think where we are is where we need to be. a growing international chorus of condemnation. the united states has been instrumental in orchestrating that, and we are pushing for stronger sanctions that we hope will be joined by other countries with far bigger stakes economically. >> i get all of that, but your critics are saying leading means being out in front, that you condemn from the white house -- >> we will continue to condemn that. >> tell them to leave. >> i have to say, i am a big believer in results over rhetoric. i think what we are doing is putting together a very careful set of actions and statements of that well may our views clears.

to have other voices, practically from the region as part of that is essential for there to be any impact within syria. it's not news that the united states is not a friend of syria's. but it is important that we send an ambassador back there. i am proud of what ambassador ford has done, representing the best values of our country. we have done what we needed to do to establish the credibility and, frankly, the universality of condemnation that may make a difference. >> another place to go to since the world is such a to replace --libya. -- such a cheery place. libya. we hear of another defection from the senior ranks of the gaddafi government. we hear the rebel forces may be

having some serious internal tensions and disputes themselves. what is your read on the military campaign and whether gaddafi is any closer to being driven out. >> i have spoken to our commanders in the last few days. the indication is that yes, there are these concerns about the opposition, but we have had concerns about the opposition for a period now. but the opposition is moving. they are moving in the west towards tripoli, towards the coast line. the opposition in the east is moving to bragha and in the direction of tripoli. the pressure is having an impact. the regime forces are weekend. -- weakened. i think, considering how

difficult the situation has been, the fact is that the combination of nato forces and what the opposition is doing, the sanctions, the international pressure, the work with the arab league, all of that has been very helpful in moving us in the right direction. i think this sends is that gaddafi's days are numbered. >> i would like to take one last question from the audience, if someone has one. this gentleman right here. >> defense intelligence agency. my question is -- are the messages we are sending in libya and syria sent a message that the u.s. is not prepared to underwrite stability anymore and we cannot afford it? >> i do not think so. i see it somewhat differently. it's a message that the united

states stands for our values, our interests, and our security but we have a clear view that others need to be taking the same steps to enforce a universal set of values and interests. so i view this somewhat differently than i know some of the perhaps commentary has evidenced. if you look at libya, this is a case for strategic patients. it is easy to get impatient, and but i think that when you realize this started in march. there was no opposition. there were no institutions. there was a nothing -- no address even for trying to figure out how to help people who were attempting to castoff this brutal dictatorship of 42-

plus years. the distance they have traveled in this relatively short period of time, the fact that for the first time we have a nato-arab alliance taking action. you have arab countries who are running strike actions, countries supporting with advisers the opposition. this is exactly the kind of world i want to see, where it is not just the u.s. and everybody standing on the sidelines while we bear the cost and the sacrifice, while our men and women lay down their lives for universal value, were we are finally beginning to say, we are, by all measurements, the strongest leader in the world. we are leading, but part of leading is making sure that you get other people on the field. that is what i think we are doing. similarly in syria. it's not going to be new if the

u.s. says al-assad needs to go. ok, fine. what's next? if turkey says it, if other people said, there is no way the regime can ignore it. we do not care very much going on with syria because of a long -- we don't have very much going on with syria because of long history. this is smart power. it is being smart enough to say, we want a bunch of people singing out of the same hymn book. a song of universal human rights, democracy, everything we stood for and pioneered over 200 years,. >> before a close, i want ask you specifically about the kind of coordinated assistance and that your two gigantic departments --

>> he's gigantic. [laughter] >> what you see depends on where you stand. >> we may be small, but some love us. >> i'm talking about somalia. horrible famine, images and suffering brought to americans every night. some say this should be a model for how these departments respond. how much is humanitarian and military, what the integration and coordination is? >> it is a good example of the kind of close coordination between the departments in dealing with the real crisis in that area. veryeality is that it's a difficult situation in somalia. we've got al-shabbad, a real we've got thousands upon

thousands that are starting as well. military side as we have been working very closely with the state department, with diplomatic sources, with ngo's, to make sure we are providing whatever assistance we can provide to help in that region. >> which is technical assistance. >> that is correct. we are doing that on a daily basis. any additional assistance we are prepared to provide. it is a very good team approach. >> i would add a few points. the u.s. was the principal founder of the famine early warning system network. potential famine, we began to pre-position food and materiel. that gave us the chance to be

able to get our equipment and food into these areas quickly. we are talking about 1bobobobobo people in the horn of africa, in an area twice the size of texas. ethiopia and kenya have been responding generously, given their own situation. we have made progress. i remember the last time ethiopia have a famine. that affected 12 million people. now it is down to 5 million, tre right direction. so the u.s. has spent $580 million in helping these people that are starving and trying to help women and children who are the most at risk. at the same time, the united states has supported the african union mission in somalia. and we have been making progress in th i i i i i i i om.

they are working with the transitional government. as you know, he left. they are still posing a real threat an obstacle in south- central somalia to getting food into that area. i say all that, because as you look at the horn of africa, you can see the complexity. and to try to sort out what is the defense role, the diplomatic role, the development role, how we work with the un and work with ngo's, and government? what i have said is that stability in somalia is so much in the interests of first and foremost of the somali people's and in the region and beyond. yet, the u.s. will not put boots on the ground. we remember what happened with the humanitarian mission that

morphed into a military mission that resulted in a loss of american lives. but what we are going to do is empower africans themselves, provide all kinds of support to them, and enabled them to stand up for themselves. and this is the kind of multi- layered approach we are taking and a lot of complex situations now. >> we are virtually out of time. i know that each of you would like to pool your thoughts together. perhaps secretary panetta, talking to those in uniform. secretary clinton to talk to american diplomats and the public through c-span. >> these are challenging times as we have just seen to this discussion. we are involved in two wars and

a nato mission in libya. we are confronted threats from iran and north korea. we are in a war on terrorism. we are fighting concerns about cyber tax, increasing cyber attacks. and we have rising powers, nations like china and india, brazil, not to mention russia, that we have to continue to look at in terms of their role in providing stability in the world. and we are facing resources and budget constrictions now. i don't think we have to choose between our national security and fiscal responsibility, but we are a nation that has a special role in the world. a special role because of our military power, a special role because of our diplomatic power, but more importantly because of our values and our freedoms. the key thing that goes to the heart of our strength is the

willingness of men and women to put their lives on the line to help defend this country. and i think we need to learn a lesson from what they do. the leadership of this country needs to be inspired by the sacrifice being made by men and women on the front lines and exercise the kind of leadership that will ensure that this country remains free and strong. >> i think leon and i carry that responsibility very seriously, because we understand what this country means. we are both beneficiaries of the generations that came before, they gave us our freedoms, that gave us the opportunity is that we have been able to enjoy. and i want to see that continue. i am very proud to be the secretary of state of the united states of america, even during a period that is quite challenging. and there is no guidebook written for it. in looking back at history, i have tried to take some lessons

from other points when these challenges also presented themselves. one of my favorite predecessors is george marshall, who held leon's position and my position. at the end of world war ii, president truman and george marshall looked around the world and said, you know what is in america's long-term interest? rebuilding our enemies. creating stable democracies, creating a free-market economies. and what did they do? they said to people like my father, who had spent five years in the navy, they said all that you want to do is go home and raise a family and start your business and make money and have a normal life. we will continue to tax you to rebuild places like germany. and it was a hard sell. it didn't happen automatically. truman, marshall and others one across the country making that

case. we invested in those dollars, $13 billion in four years, which would be about $150 -- one of the $50 billion in our currency now. we helped to make the world stable and safe and open for all the postwar decades. we have an opportunity right now in the middle east and north africa that i am not sure we will be able to meet because we don't have the resources to invest in the new democracies in egypt and tunisia to help the transition in libya and see what happens in syria and so much else. the problems that leon mentioned -- we hope the rising powers are peaceful and successful but we have to be competitive. we cannot just cold. we have to work and we have to

make a strong case for the continuing leadership of the united states. it is my hope that as we deal with these very real and pressing budget problems we don't know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. budget documents are value statements, who we are as a people and what we stand for and what investments we're making in the future and whether we will continue to be strong and be able to project american power is up for grabs. we will make the best case we can that american power is a power for the good and it has helped to liberate hundreds of millions of people around the world, it helped to enhance the opportunity for people and to give young girls and boys a chance to live up to their own god-given potential and we need to make sure we continue to do that. i think you will be hearing leon

and by making that case and we hope it will find a ready audience in the congress as these negotiations resume. >> and i hope a receptive and listening audience in the public. the public needs to be part of this conversation they need to understand what is at stake. they need to have an opportunity to ask the tough questions and get straight answers from you and others. as the dialogue unfolds, this is of immense importance to the country. thank you all to the men and women in uniform who are serving the country here and around the world and to those in our foreign service and diplomatic corps and most importantly, to secretary panetta and secretary clinton. thank you so much for a fascinating in inside the conversation. [applause] -- insightful conversation. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this morning, the u.s. chamber of commerce hosts a conference on homeland security since 9/11. janet napolitano will be one of the speakers at that conference. live coverage begins at 9:00 eastern time on c-span 2. next on c-span, "washington journal" live with your phone calls. the brookings institution host a discussion about the new congressional deficit-reduction committee. later, the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies looks at non-violent political movements. in about 45 minutes, michael tanner on reducing the federal deficit. deficit.