that is a huge question that we all need to answer read some point. host: she brought up -- have you reported on that? guest: sure. united states does not handle death well. most people who go through cancer treatment continue to have chemotherapeutics in their bloodstream till the end. elizabeth edwards was the best cancer advocate. she knew about this. as i read the coverage, she was using some very toxic drugs until a day or two before she died. there are some very large cancer hospitals in this country. if you look at the average amount of time that cancer patients at those hospitals spend in palliative care -- where they understand they are

going to die and they are just trying to be comfortable at the end -- for some of these places, the average amount of time is less than one day, even though there is very good research that basically shows, if you are in palliative care, you will live longer. host: gardiner harris of "the new york times." you can find the story on "the new york times" website. thanks for joining us. that is all for "washington journal." will be back at 7:00 eastern time tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> congress continues their august break and the government is back to work today despite the pounding by irene. millions are still without power and states are reporting massive of flooding and at least 21 dead. we will get the latest on the storm with a briefing by the fema director, craig fugate. that will be on line and on c- span radio. also this morning, president obama will nominate princeton academic alan krueger to replace austan goolsbee. president will make that announcement at 11:00 a.m. eastern.

in today's white house briefing, at 12:30, jay carney will answer questions. that will be live on c-span. tonight on "the communicators," the challenges of securing the infrastructure system in the final part of our series on cyber security. but we know have james lewis, the director of the cyber security project at georgetown, and the founder and research director of the sans institute. "the communicators" at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. what's more videos of the candidates come and see what reporters are saying, and attractive latest contributions with the website for camp aign 2012. twittered deeds, facebook updates, and the latest polling

data. links to media partners in the earlier primary and caucus states at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> the commander of u.s. central command told the audience that the u.s. is winning in afghanistan. speaking at the marines memorial association, general james mattis discussed pakistan and iran. his remarks are just over one hour and he is introduced by former secretary of state george shultz. [applause] >> thank you. i remember when i took over for the director of omb, so i said to mel we will have some arguments over the way but we need to get one thing clear. mel, with the, not once, the

common pot gets, okay? -- what the commandant wants, the commandant gets, ok? gen. mattis has centcom, afghanistan, our record, and practically everything in between including the pirates that plague our activities. is a huge responsibility. you have seen in the program the sensational career that he has had, one career after another. he was in the leadership going into iraq. he was in the original mission into afghanistan. both of those rare executed, in my opinion, with brilliance. it is a huge set of responsibilities that he has had

and now continues to have. he will talk to us about them. there is a good old marine setting, "no worse enemy, no better friend." there is a way of providing security but also making friends and making things better for everybody. general, i have looked into your background a little bit, and i understand that you are a general that likes the unorthodox. you say you like the guys in sloppy pants and muddy shoes or something like that. i looked into your background. you never went to marine corps boot camp, did you?

and ever? let me indicate you about what happens. -- let me educate you. [laughter] the sergeant handed me my rifle and he said, "take care of this. it is your best friend. remember one thing. never point is that anybody unless he were willing to pull the trigger. now empty threats. -- no empty threats." i told that the president reagan once. we need to be careful with our words. if we say something is unacceptable, we should not accept it. if we accept it, let's not say it. let's mean what we say. never point that rifle unless you are billing to pull the trigger. back on the theme of muddy shoes and so forth, i signed up for the marine corps in world war ii.

i thought i was going to become a marine, but i became a boot. only to emerge from boot camp do you become a marine. my group was waiting around, sitting around, standing around and are drill sergeant takes a look at this and says, "do not sit down until i say to sit down." everybody stands up. he says, "sit down!" we all sit down. nevertheless, you learn. we can remember distinctly on this little island we had managed to take with just a few of us in the platoon. there's only one thing of any interest, a church, and the

japanese are coming back. we were just there with nothing. we dispersed all over the place and secured it as best we could. when it was over, we saw the japanese had placed a bomb in the dead center of that church. i said to our guys, "we learned two things. never underestimate your adversary. number two, do not do what they expect you to do." so those are the muddy shoes, i guess, general. it is a privilege for me to introduce this man leading our troops in central command, general james mattis. [applause]

>> thank you, secretary shultz. the word can be overused, but i think this audience will understand why it is a great honor to be introduced by a statesman and a world war ii marine. as far as muddy boots go, we look for people who have a disciplined approach but and and regimented problem-solving ability, both of which have demonstrated, and a man's ability to improvise and you have set the standard for that with your very career. i am very grateful to be here, ladies and gentleman. the ceo of the marines memorial club was my commander and had reservations about me when we attacked kuwait. we worked that out ok. [laughter]

i learned to say "sir" and it all worked out after that. i also would knowledge of some other former bosses in here, secretary perry. serving as your executive officer it taught me to ask the right questions. you know what i mean, and it was an honor to serve under your command in the secretary of defense opposite and i have grown to admire you tremendously. the centcom commander several years after he was my the expeditionary unit commander, i could go on and on, but i am clearly violating a cardinal rule. that rule is never to talk to a group who knows more about a subject than you do. i think i am in trouble when they get to the question and answer portion. this is adding years to my life to be on the west coast rather than when i usually give talks

which is in washington, d.c. it is refreshing to be out here. i like the pacific ocean. i like the vibrancy of this city. when you think of the refreshing ideas come of both technological and political, there is an energy out here that you were probably used to. it is a godsend to come out here and feel it in the air. i am also happy not to be giving this talk in washington because i understand 48 hours ago that they buckled under the weight of its own bureaucracy. [laughter] [applause] in that regard, secretary perry, it will come as no surprise to a former secretary of defense that the pentagon got more work done after the evacuation than before. we should have anticipated? when we have energy stood up in

opposing memos that are suddenly released, this cracking a part of the earth that happened. when i thought i would do is speak for a kamenetz, hopefully will find a few nuggets of value -- speak for a few minutes. the question and answer part is always the best. i have spent a lot of time outside of the u.s. since i left the u.s. in september 2001, for obvious reasons, we have been attacked and it was time to go to work. i have been gone a lot since then. it is good for me to be out here and do some listening tonight. i hope you will throw some questions out at me and not worry about me being offended. i have fixed -- thick skin. the area for which our answer to your secretary panetta, a great son of the state of california, is the central region. i have served in the region off

and on since colonel jordan took me out there in 1979. the region stretches from kazakhstan in central asia and down to the southern temp of the arabian peninsula, yemen, egypt, lebanon, over to pakistan in the indian ocean. it includes the persian gulf, iraq, kuwait, afghanistan, saudi arabia, jordan, syria, the gulf states, and of course iran. in 30 years of service in this region, i've never seen it so tumultuous, full of promise, and also full of danger. and as the military commander, i am the sentineled. i am supposed to watch out for the dangers while recognizing

and seizing opportunities for keeping peace wherever possible for one more year, one more month, one more week, one more day. sometimes you are just looking to keep peace for one more hour. there is not peace everywhere. we are heavily committed in parts of the theater, but there are other parts matriculate on. i would like to speak first about the arab awakening. i would call it that instead of the arab spring and how we crack policy and adapt to these changes right now, keep hold of our values, our american values, consistent policy to match those values, but balance with pragmatism. the military serves the foreign- policy and foreign policy must deal with reality in a world that does not always comport what we would like it to be. i am charged with the readiness of our forces in the crafting military options for the president.

you all understand that part of the job. when i meet with foreign leaders in the middle east today, i cite four diplomatic killers -- pillars. it is a region that will never go back to what it was one year ago. it will never go back to what we grow up seeing since the tunisian and egyptian revolutions broke up. everything that has happened since, what you saw under television screens going on in syria. it is never going back to what it once was as a result of these changes and pressures that have been unleashed. the four pillars that we use to frame our diplomatic approach within, first, we support each country's political reform efforts to adapt and their own pace. in the middle east is not one thing. every country is very different it is a very diverse. . each country has to adapt to

these changing times with its own special formula. it cannot be imported from the downside and it is not a one- size-fits-all approach. our country supports those reform efforts of the people have more of a say in their government. second, we support economic reforms to broaden the fruits of the economic boon many of these countries are having. more people have to feel hope as a result of the economic situation. it cannot be constrained to just a few. there are good things going on with the bad and a lot of states are in flux were there not even close to doing this. third, we support a renewed middle eastern peace. the status quo right now is not sustainable. it is keeping the pot boiling to some degree, and i will just tell you the we have got to take advantage of the time right now and try to move a middle east peace for word and that is one

of the four pillars of the american foreign policy that we have adapted to the changing times. the last is to support regional security. we stand by our friends, old friends, new friends, we stand by them, their territorial integrity, and we stand against terrorism. many of them work with us, quietly at times, publicly at times, but the bottom line is that we do this and meet with the international community which includes trying to rein in iranian impulses. we're working along diplomatic lines, economic sanctions, and more. much of what we do in support is done very, very quietly. my orchestration of military activities is done to support those four pillars and the state department's efforts. i will say the military and military efforts can and do play a very positive role in fully integrating as a supporting role

to our foreign policy. reassuring our friends and tempering our adversaries designs. the matter how uncomfortable we get about the changes going on, we have an option of disengaging from the world, and might area, and auction of disengaging from the middle east. going deaf to build a common cause with our old friends and new using the americas pragmatic idealism as a guide. in egypt, we have seen the people moving through revolutionary time. it was a question of the military to military regulations over their ethical performance.

certainly when you compare the egyptian military to what is going on in libya with what is going on right now, you can see a military that kept it ethical balance under very difficult conditions. i thought i would lightly tour around the region, tectonic of the countries that would give a deeper understanding, and i want to start with egypt, the most critical country for putting this arab spring on a positive path. their history goes back over hundreds of thousands of years. and have very close military and military ties that we spoke to earlier between the u.s. in leadership and their leadership. they will conduct elections coming up soon. they're eager to turn over the control of the country to civilians and it will be a very,

very long road as they build the political parties and the framework designed to build a democracy. there will be some disappointments coming out, but it will not suddenly give them the jobs that they want, the reformed education system that has languished, the kinds of things that will satisfy their deepest desires. i do anticipate that cairo will return to its historic role in religious thoughts and the arts, but not soon. it will be internally focused for two years, three years, as they get their internal act together and find their own path forward. there are three points that i would make. will inject sustain their traditional -- egypt maintain their traditional mindset going

forward? i think they will, but the role of the muslim brotherhood bears watching. we have to keep an eye on that to see if it gains an attraction. i do not anticipate that it will. moving up the mediterranean coast, talking about lebanon, they are putting together a new government and is home to one of the most well armed non-states in the world, a lebanese hezbollah. it is the only organization trusted in the country and reduce so for a straightforward reason. why are we out to do that? this tormented the fall of the

former prime minister. the have had their officers implicated in the assassination and the lebanese hezbollah is armed and trained by the iranian special forces to export terrorism. this is why we stay engaged in lebanon. there are very tough tensions. we do not want to walk out and leave a vacuum, often not killed by pleasant things, in the middle east. -- often not filled by pleasant things. we are pulling down our forces very quickly and it has been instructive book for me over the last two or three months after. intelligence reports and watch tv that i did not see in the midst of the arab spurring

demonstrating in demanding a voice in their own affairs. i do not have all of the answers, but i find it fascinating that they do not feel like they have to demonstrate. they may not be happy with the way things are going, but i think we are not happy, but we still have a voice. violence has been reduced to very low rates. al qaeda still exists but they have been pummeled. we saw them concentrate their killing in shi'ite and killed or wounded over 300 people in one day. they're still dangerous and go after the innocent women and children with no regard for the

rules of warfare. they are a wounded, weekend, but still dangerous animal. supportproviding direct to the militia in iraq. the iranian proxies, because it is not in their best interest, to see a strong, independent, economically viable to iraq next door, and you can understand why. the single biggest threat in is notal qaeda but these proxy militias backed by them. they're trying to influence the decision about u.s. troops remaining in iraq as a training mission and right now, we still have plans to go down to zero.

if they ask and the president in chief agrees, we could see a training capability remain in iraq and there has been no decision made yet. i want to spend just a little bit of time on the security side in afghanistan. we want to get into some detail on this, and i am eager to do so, but what we have is a civilian-military international planned under isaf command and there are many other nations that are not a part of nato that have joined. there are 49 nations fighting together in the largest wartime coalition in recent history. it is important to remember that, because sometimes you can wander in reading the u.s. news if we are in this all by ourselves. believe me. the afghan boys are dying at a

higher rate than ours. canada fell lost more troops per-capita than the united states, as have dystonia and the netherlands. i bring this up not to lessen the pain for what our country is paying in terms of the price of war, both fiscal and in the lives of our young people, but i do want to assure you that we are not in this alone. it is a very strong coalition and it has grown by six more nations. donations to not usually join coalitions that are losing. -- nations do not join losing coalitions. how can i say we are winning? the insurgents are losing territory, leadership, weapons, supplies, and without these, the enemy is significantly weaker today than they were one year ago. most importantly, they are

losing public support which is causing this enemy to do spectacular attacks hitting innocent people which erodes the public confidence in the taliban. they are infuriated. as a result, their own troops will start to shrug off. the enemy-initiated attacks are down. how can that be? we have more troops over there than ever, they are in more areas, so why are the enemy not initiating a tax? they have lost the initiative. that means our troops are starting the fight much more often. that is an indicator that they are in trouble. there is a caution here which is that your military, ladies and gentlemen, is hard wired to see things in "can do" positive terms. i do not think it is patriotic to question the strategy to see

if i can stand and deliver. i am not a marina. i am a u.s. marine. i belong to you. i am accountable to you. i believe in this strategy. i assure you of that, or i would not be standing here tonight saying that. one of the most difficult challenges as you look at this fight and try to understand it, you would not be here if you were not interested in world affairs. one of the most difficult things to grasp is the progress and violence coexisting. the violence is so hard braking, the number of innocence killed, that it becomes the headlines. it is understandable. the news people are not being evil or trying to cook the books. the violence grabs the attention and we forget that violence and progress can coexist, and that is what is going on right now. the enemies only hope is to erode political will and they

cannot stand against our troops. their ethical performance and their ferocity is far beyond what the enemy is prepared to except. was president obama has said, it is a war that we americans did not seek. we did not ask for this war. in security terms, we are winning, and our mission is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda and to prevent them returning. remember that part. some people forget the last part of the mission statement -- "prevent them from returning." and a military, our job is to defeat the taliban and al qaeda and a defeat their hope for victory. by the way, iran is not hopeful in providing new weapons

systems, long-range rockets and all, but we want to set the stage for reconciliation. all wars eventually come to an end. our job is to try and ended as soon as possible. reconciliation is from the top down, we work with the leadership of the taliban and we find which ones perhaps are not so committed which is afghan- led and we're working on reconciliation. from the bottom up, we have reintegration where we convinced the young fighters they are on the wrong side and we have a number of efforts going on, propaganda operations, infiltration of our ideas into their midst has begun to change their mind. over cementing hundred of the enemy have come over to our side. -- over 1700 have come over. people do not join a losing side. some of the headlines your non

reading are, "afghan army platoon goes to the enemy's side." that's never happened. we're putting this enemy on the horn of a dilemma. if you find us, we will fight hard. if you come over, our arms are open. secretary clinton has made a point about how much they have to do to come over. what is it they have to do? to have to renounce violence, led by their constitution, and break with out qaeda. that is all they have to do. they can argue about their political views and do whatever they want to do inside that system. it is imperfect and we're putting it together on the fly under great pressure. we started this at a very low point because after the soviet invasion, the society was turned upside down and inside out.

it is a tough job, but we believe if we can break off the reconcilable from the irreconcilable, and we protect the afghan people and we can open the door to getting this war stopped. how are going to do with it? we will defeat the enemy insurgent networks. we will build up the gap and security forces. the you will see the enemy capability going down as the afghan security forces capability goes up. the windbreak behind this going on is the international coalition to help stand up the afghan forces while treating the enemy very rough while protecting the people and going after the enemy of leadership. we will also support their governments and economic development. again, this is a part of making afghanistan in hospitable to the enemy is returned. we are not in this alone as far

as government and economics. the united nations, the world bank, of international monetary fund, nato, there are all working together. this is not just a u.s. military plan. it is an integrated, international plan. the lover -- lvel of violence is that a good indicator of defeat. let me show you an example. of people say the level of violence has gone up so something may be going wrong, and if i go back to march 1945, i would show you the level of violence was so high at that point in a world warii that we were clearly losing and we were only months away from winning. i am not saying we are months away from winning right now, but i am just discounting that the way to measure success is a level of violence in the country. that is not a good measure when the enemy is seeing more and more the violence is being

started by our forces as the catch them and move against them. this is a difficult relationship of paramount importance with a very checkered past. there have been questions from both sides. if i am asked why we continue to work with pakistan, i will only tell you that my counterparts in islamabad tonight is probably being asked the same questions, why did they continue to work with the americans? we have no choice but to maintain the relationship. a reminder on several issues here that do not seem to get much play in the press here. pakistan has lost more troops fighting these terrorists than all of nato combined. that does not make our news. they have had over 30,000

civilians killed or wounded in terrorist attacks. we had around 3000 on 9/11. they have had 30,000. we will continue to work with pakistan to reduce the safe havens. in 40 years of wearing this uniform, i have never been any more difficult terrain in my life and the border region between afghanistan and pakistan. you know the problems that the americans have maintaining order security along a relatively flat and not difficult to rein in order to the south of here. -- terrain border south of here. the fear of indian drives much of their behavior, yet they moved 25% of their army off of the indian border and moved against the al qaeda terrorists. that is one heck of a statement from a country that has lost

several wars and to india and is very fearful of the indian power along the eastern border. to move those troops all the way across the country into the high country on the western border is quite a statement. countries have interests which is why we work with them. not all interests aligned perfectly, and rough patches do develop between countries. i am reminded of winston churchill's statement that the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without them. it is a difficult relationship between us, but i will also tell you in my own personal background, when i left california in september 2001, in october i went in and spoke with the pakistan leadership in islamabad and i have been ordered to take marine's 350 nautical miles, refuel them, and

land in the backyard against khandahar. they knew my h- hour, d-day, and they never revealed it to the enemy. for all of the disarray in our relationship, a privately behind closed doors, there is more right now that we are doing together than we are not. for example, over half of the al qaeda senior leadership is not in a position to collect on their 401k's. that is largely due to working together quietly with a organization that both of us have a dislike for. we will not solve all the problems, but we are managing them. i want to get to q&a, but i want

to talk about syria because it is very, very important. when you look at where syria is and look at their western border, the mediterranean, and lebanon and little further south, they abut israel, jordan, the kingdom of saudi arabia -- excuse me. close to saudi arabia, iraq, and turkey. when you look at that geopolitical center, you see bloody transition already going on and it is clearly time for assaad to go. if he goes, it will be the worst strategic blow iran has taken. iran, right now, is supporting the bloody repression of

assaad's regime. it was noted in the e.u.'s condemnation of providing assistance inside damascus to keep assaad in power. there is no outside power that should be helping to murder his own people. the syrian people should be able to determine their own future and assaad is standing in the way with iranian help. that is the only way he is still there. iran itself is very problematic. do you have heard me mention it time and time again as we talk about the greatest countries in the region and have may have-- you may have picked up on the theme. libya, sudan, bahrain, latin america, there destabilizing influence can be seen. the centrifuge continues to skin. regimes have isolated

their country. they have ignored the u.n. resolution to abandon enrichment opportunities. it is interesting to look at the u.n. security council resolution. how often do you see china, russia, france, the u.k., japan, austria, the u.s., and others all voting together on an issue? how often do you see something like that? how could we have passed economic sanctions with that group of countries all voting the same way? it says something about how this stabilizing iran's behavior has become. the gulf cooperation council, which is in the persian gulf, kuwait, saudi arabia, bahrain, qatar, uae, oman, the have shown strong unity. i would be a tribute that to iran stimulating this community.

they have no significant strategic allies in the world, none left, and they are supporting assaad's murderous regime and is costing them the little patience the surrounding countries have had for their mischief. in closing, i would just say that the middle east is a wild the turbulent place right now. some of the countries are very quiet and everything is going well. a lot of them are going through some severe transitions. america has a positive role to play, as it must, but the dangers are real. it needs to be guided by american pragmatic realism. let me say a few words about your military. i have been wearing the uniform over 40 years, ladies and gentlemen, have never seen it so strong in its spirit. it is filled with volunteers,

high-quality, all volunteers, young patriots, and have answered their country's call. we have taken some hits recently, but the losses of our shipmates heavily made us more determined to carry out the mission. it is not in any way dissuading us. in this regard, and as a reminder of the talk about strategic decisions, we are joined this evening by a goldstar mother whose son was killed under my command in 2004. dianne, are you here? could you stand? if we could just show our respect. [applause]

her son fell for one reason, trying to keep this experiment that we call america to live -- alive. thank you for being here tonight, and we will pass on this experiment called america to the next generation because of young men like your son. i would be happy to take your questions. [applause] >> we have a whole stack of questions. let's begin with the horn of africa. a couple of questions about piracy and what is going on in the indian ocean and in those parts. >> i am responsible for the waters off of africa. we have afri-com now.

it is a destitute area, young men basically going out to sea and taking over ships. they climb on board, take them to port, hold them for sometimes in excess of one year until very hefty ransoms $1 million, $2 million, $3 million are dropped in by parachute and then they let the ship ago. it is a very lucrative thing for these guys. i will just tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there are military solutions, but this is a political problem. there is no international piracy court so each nation decides if they grab somebody for doing this, as our nation has and we have just put several in jail who killed some american sailors, but without an international criminal court that deals with this, and without some sort of effort to

have a cohesive naval presence out there, we have too many people doing the wrong thing and we do not have a good policy per how to deal with the ones we capture. the result is, once we get the political act together, we will probably continue to have this problem. it is offensive to me professionally then we have innocent seamen held prisoner, abused, held as hostages for upwards of one year at a time and the world not doing a lot about it. it is something you look at and do not feel real good about. there needs to be an international effort, and right now i do not see that happening. >> could you give us your assessment of al qaeda in the region that now, particularly with the upheaval that has gone on since this winter? >> it is a franchise kind of

outfit. in iraq, they are really on the ropes right now. they have very little support. they are being hunted down and are turning to bank robberies to finance themselves. they are still dangerous. up in the high country in the borderlands between afghanistan and iraq, that is still the epicenter of the out qaeda senior leadership. it is not a safe haven anymore. it is under enormous pressure. they are not doing well there. they are still able to maintain a certain degree of the command- and-control. dropping down into the arabian peninsula come for the first 90 days, they are holding to rein in yemen where the political stalemate -- terrain in yemen between the president and the opposition where it has distracted the military.

al qaeda is gaining strength down there in yemeni. for those of you who are history buffs, if you look at the queen of sheba's area down along the coast, on what they are clearly doing is trying to set up routes in the old smuggler routes into the heart of saudi arabia. you can understand the freedom of maneuvering that would give them. i think they are gaining strength, but they will start running into trouble with the tribes that do not like the sort of islam that they promote. how shall bob -- they have made a connection with al qaeda which is not looking good for somalia. there is a lot of competing interests and whether or not

they will be able to maintain. moving further over, there is al qaeda due west out of sudan and south of the sahara. they are strong, but there are a number of forces, local and european allies, working together against them. they also have their sleeper sells in europe and they are trying to do that -- sleeper cells and trying to do that here. they are losing in some, gaining in some, and the epicenter has more pressure than ever. >> there are several questions about countries outside of the a.o.r., and a couple of work commenting on. the relationship of israel and the arab countries and how the unrest in the last year has

effected that relationship. >> clearly israel is watching what is going on very closely. when you have what has happened with lebanese hezbollah and the war there is a few years ago, you have syrian up rest causing problems and israel has to keep an eye on that. jordan is doing fine and that continues to be a very quiet, stable relationship. egypt has maintained the military leadership, both the peace treaty provisions and a close working relationship with the israel military as they try to reduce the threat. it is going ok, but there is a long ways to go and we will watch how that develops.

the biggest concern that israel has is not in egypt or jordan, or even syria. is iran for obvious reasons. when you think of some of the statements by the iranian leadership and what the u.n. strictures to stop the enrichment which has not been stopped, obviously israel has a very focused interest in that issue. they are keeping an eye on all of it. what think there will be rough times going forward, but i am somewhat of an optimist. >> the emergence of turkey as a regional power. how has that affected centcom a.o.r.? >> turkey, i have seen a positive impact because, in many ways, turkey is seen as a way for a nation to mature toward a

more democratic approach. i have talked to many leaders there who have traveled to turkey to talk about about how they treated the kind of state the have created. they have been very helpful in trying to restraint assaad, but they have made very clear that what he is doing will not receive any kind of solace or support out of angora. it is a positive influence and they are the one nato nation that fights against an active insurgency in their own southeast corner. they are a nation that we work quietly with in a common cause. >> the next question is about command relationships. can you talk about special operations command and its relationship with centcom and

how that is coordinated for individual strikes? >> any special operations command troops come under my command when they are in centcom. special operations command provides me maybe seals, army green berets, army rangers, air force special tactics, marines, and they come under my command. i have army, navy, air force, marine, and a special forces commander in the work in an integrated way. we pick the force with the right skill set for whatever the mission is. it is a very close, warm, and respected relationship because we have been the commander to use most of the special forces. after this many years of working together, ladies and gentlemen, we have grown up together, we know each other, and there is a

bond between us. it is a very smooth and integrated effort. sometimes we put u.s. conventional forces under special forces command. sometimes i will put special forces under the conventional command. it is whatever works for the unique situation on the ground. in no small part, it is due to the initiatives you have put together as secretary of defense and the young and ceo -- young nco's think this is how it's done. the experience we did in the 1990 proxy have paid off. >> can you talk about the threats you see in a military sense in the gcc? will be of iran's threat unconventional or a ballistic missile. they know that if they take on

their neighbors in a conventional sense that they will be exposed immediately. that is not to say they would not do it because wars are often started by irrational impulses. they are growing their enormous ballistic missile capabilities, which is the one thing that has received a lot of attention from our military friends out in the region as they realize how formidable their civilian populations are if the iranians start throwing in long-range rockets. sleeper cells, paid terrorists, that sort of thing. a lot of it is the mischief they are up to all of the time, then you also have this ballistic missile threat that is far more mature, more advanced, more accurate, and much more numerous in terms of missiles than it

ever has been before. the nuclear peace, nobody out there wants iran to have a nuclear weapon, but at the same time they are unconvinced by and large that the international community will be able to stop it. that is their view, not necessarily the american or eu view. >> we do comment on the volunteer force versus the possibility of a draft and how it is expected the country? -- affected the country? >> an all volunteer force is more expensive. we have to compete for the best with colleges and businesses, but i will tell you that i have seen the military when it still had draftees and i've seen it today. when everyone there and wants to be there, it does change the

town. we do bring in very high quality men and women in. we also have a highly, highly capable force. it is truly a national treasure and the envy of any country in the world, not only for the technology but for these young nco's and junior officers are able to do. one of the reasons, general, i am not here today is because i believe we are growing at a military somewhat remote from the body politic in the mainstream american life. that is something, i think, we have to look at. is it good for the republic to have an all volunteer military with the sense of commitment that is not there and it is just a choice? i am not saying i want to see it reversed, but it is something to consider even if it is to come up with another way of serving your country because we do not

need a lot of people in the military. right now, we are meeting all of our recruiting quotas and the retention quotas. we are doing this, by the way, before the economic downturn so do not think this is just an economic decision. these young people believe in what they are doing. it is a great military. is this the kind of society that we want that has a military that is a little bit out there outside the mainstream? that is a potential cost. >> one of the things that california is noted for is our technological advancements. can you talk a little bit about what has been done in recent years to make our job easier and what remains to be done that would continue to improve our ability to ecologically to defeat our foes? >> we need good technology and

we have to be at the top of our game in this. it is just that sort of a world. it is not a perfect world. probably the most radical thing that i have seen in the last 15 years or so is the role of the remote piloted vehicle, the unmanned vehicle, whether it is a droene with a camera, or an armed drone waiting to spot the one enemy you want as we try every day to ever avoid killing innocent civilians. this has given us the capability. the remote piloted vehicle has been a wonderful asset to have. it has really unleashed a lot of boldness by our commanders because they know.

if there is one area i would tell you we really need some help in, it is premature detonation of ied's. this is an incompetent the enemy. they are not hard to defeat. we are losing in what -- a lot ot ied's. if you can only do so many things on defense to ied's. eventually they will make a bigger bomb or have a pressure play down there. if we could somehow find a way to prematurely detonate that, even if it's 15 feet in front of a vehicle, we will save a lot of lives. that is one i'm putting a pitch in for.

>> your thoughts on the relationship of the afghanistan and iraq military with the press? >> now we go live to the rose garden this morning where president obama is expected to nominate princeton academic alan krueger for his new top economic adviser. >> in the aftermath of hurricane irene. as i said yesterday, we will make sure folks have all the support they need as we begin to assess and repair the storm damage. that will continue in the days ahead. it will take time to recover from the storm of this magnitude. defects are still being felt across much of the country, including in new england and states like vermont, where there has been enormous flooding. our response continues, but i will make sure that fema and other agencies are doing everything in their power to help people on the ground. now, even as we deal with this

crisis of the moment, our great ongoing challenge as a nation remains how to get this economy growing faster. the challenge to create a climate where more businesses can post jobs and where folks can find good work to relieve the financial burden they are feeling, where families can regain a sense of economic security. that is our urgent mission, what i am fighting for every day. that is why today i am very pleased to nominate alan krueger to chair the council of economic advisers. come on down. he brings a wealth of experience to the job. he is one of the nation's leading economists. more than two decades he has studied and developed economic policy both inside. and inside. in the first two years of this administration as we were dealing with the effects of a complex and fast-moving financial crisis, the crisis

that threatens the second great depression, his counsel as chief economist at the treasury department proved invaluable. so i am very pleased to point him and outlook for to working with him. it is going to be tough to fill the shoes of austan goolsbee, a great friend and adviser i have relied on for years, but i have nothing but confidence in alan as he takes on it the old one of my readers. i will rely on the council to provide analysis and recommendations not based on politics but based on the best evidence, based on what is going to do the most good for the most people in this country. that is more important than ever right now. we need folks in washington to make decisions based on what is best for the country, not what is best for any political party or special interest.

we will get through this period of economic uncertainty and that is the only way we will build to do what is necessary to grow the economy. it is that spirit that i will be calling upon in the coming days. next week i will lay out a series of steps that congress can take immediately to put more money in the pockets of working families and middle class families, to make it easier for small businesses to hire people, to put construction crews to work rebuilding our nation's roads and railways and airports, and all the other measures that can help to grow this economy. these are bipartisan ideas, but they ought to be the kind of proposals everybody can get behind, no matter what your political affiliation. my hope and expectation is that we can put country before parting and get something done for the american people. that is what i will be fighting for and we have to have a good team to do it. alan, i appreciate your

willingness to take on this assignment. i look forward to working with you once again. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, everybody. >> president obama again this morning nominating princeton krueger to be his top economic adviser. we'll hear more about him this afternoon during a white house briefing at 2:00 p.m. eastern. we will have that live on c- span. and more on dr. alan krueger, if confirmed, he would head the council of economic advisers. he is no stranger to washington. he served one year as assistant

secretary for economic policy and chief economist at the treasury department 2009. he was to economist at the labor department. he received a bachelor from cornell university and his ph.d. in economics from harvard university. we hear remarks now from dr. alan krueger during an address of the center for american progress from april last year. >> in the first decade of the 2000's it has been nothing short of dismal. there are 1 million fewer jobs than there were at the end of 1999. that compares with 22 million jobs added on that during the 1990's. it is tempting to blame the performance on the recession, the deep recession that occurred at in 2008/2009. however, even if you go back to the first eight years of the decade, look from the end of 1999 to the beginning of the recession, december 2007, the u.s. job market added only 7.5

million jobs. if you look over the first eight years of the 1990's, the u.s. stock market added almost 16 million jobs. so, even if you make a more favorable comparison, taking out the recession at the end, the pace of job growth was less than half what it was in the 1990's. that uses the establishment data, a household data being less extreme. still pointing in the same direction. whereas if you look at a fraction of the population employed, you get the same picture. i used to say that the u.s. labor market worked in such a way to provide jobs to the expanding population. when reporters would ask me where the jobs are going to come from i would always point out that isn't it curious that the bigger countries have more jobs? >> we love when people give us answers like that. >> when we give you answers with another question. i think it was a rather remarkable in the postwar period

how employment contracted during recessions, but then we got back on track. and we have a decade with no job growth at all. it's not just because of the deep recession that resulted from the financial crisis. employment to population increased by 1.3 percentage points in the 1990's. the first eight years of the 2000's, it fell by 1.3 percentage points. when asked why, is this an inevitable feature of an advanced economy? is this what happens when more and more countries improve their governance, improve their economies, turned to markets and compete in the global economy? andit a result of technol technological change? for is the weak job growth locked in?

one way to answer that is to look around and see how did other advanced countries do. that was the point of this one page. i was surprised if you look at the performance of canada. canada has similar demographics to the u.s., remarkably similar in terms of the age structure. access to similar technology, affected by similar international trends. canada's of job growth in the 2000's, even if you include the recession at the end, which was more mild in canada than in the u.s., partly because they had a different type of financial system. if you look before the start of the recession in canada, employment grew relative to population by almost three percentage points while in the u.s. its fell by 1.3 percentage points. if you look at the u.k., employment grew relative to population. even more remarkably if you look at continental europe.

employment grew relative to population almost as much as it did in canada. now, i have to say, when you look at these trends as a labor economist, it is a real embarrassment for the way that we used to think about the world. we used to think that the u.s. severed inequality because we have flexible labor markets. but the upside was that we had job growth. that has not been the case in the last decade. part of the reason for the excess job loss may be because during the recession, as you compare the u.s. and europe, maybe because it is easier for employers to dismiss employees and bring them back in the u.s. than it is in much of europe. on the other hand, if that's not the full explanation because we have seen more job loss in this recession than you would predict from the construction -- contraction in gdp along. in reflecting on the job situation, it is important to draw a distinction between the steep losses in the recent

recession and the longer-term trend over the last decade. both of them are pointing to a pretty weak job growth. in crafting policy solutions, it is important to keep that in mind. the optimistic inference here is that our poor performance has not been an inevitable result of technological change, globalization, or demographic trends. countries that have been buffeted by similar forces have had better job performance in the last decade. so i see that as an optimistic in france and -- optimistic inference. one can draft policy with that in mind. >> remarks again from dr. alan krueger, president obama's nominee to head the council of economic advisers. he would replace austan

goolsbee, left earlier this month to return to teaching job in chicago. a quick reminder about today's white house briefing. jay carney likely to field questions about the nominee. and the aftermath of hurricane irene, the briefing was set to begin at 12:30, now moved to look like eastern, live on c- span. -- moved to 2:00. c-span has been conducting a series of interviews with presidential candidates. next, jon huntsman, former utah governor, u.s. ambassador to china. it spoke about his strategy for winning the gop nomination and why he accepted if the ambassador to china post in the obama administration. he also shares personal stories growing up in the u.s. naval family and his aspirations to be a musician. it's just over 50 minutes. >> when did you first think about? running about? >> as we were departing china

just this year. there's always taught about higher office when you are governor. i would dismiss that as nonsense and never really focused on the presidency until we returned home from china. there were some. who had act -- there were some folks who actively organized and brought a real world approach to our challenges as a nation. we analyzed the situation as a family and decided to get into the race. >> what is your message? >> i think we bring a very realistic, common-sense approach to recognizing the situation that we face, which is a dire economic set of circumstances where you have high unemployment, record that, the most difficult economic titillation since the depression, and people hurting.

people not just hurting, but people frightened about their circumstances and about their future. so in order to address that, three things will be important going for. i bring all pre. experience. . who understands the fragility and importance of the market and what it means to job creation going forward. -- i bring all three aspects. second, having someone who has been a successful chief executive. a governor who has managed a state. number one stayed in terms of job creation. the best environment for business, so said many magazines, the best managed state in america. all that is important and the results speak for themselves. i think that will be important

to voters. third, someone who understands the unpredictable nature of the world in which we live. it is not going to get any better going forward. it will remain unpredictable and will remain a dangerous place. i have lived overseas four time. i have an intimate knowledge of our most significant economic relationship, china, and our most significant strategic challenge going forward as well -- china. that is something that will be of great value in the oval office. >> you were ambassador to china, but let's talk about you. you were born where? >> in california. >> race in california? >> yes, i was born in the navy. born in palo alto. my mother left the naval base in san diego when my dad was out sea on tour.out at

she went to live with my grandparents for a little while. my grandfather had a small hardware store in palo alto and he was mayor. there was a lot of undervalued real estate. my other grandfather huntsman was principal of a high school. so they, both families, were in the bay area. then we went back to the naval base. then moved to los angeles after my dad left the navy where he took a job later whipped a couple of my uncles in a small egg distribution business. >> what was your dad's experience like in the navy? >> he was in rotc. his father was a naval officer too. in fact, on both sides of my family i come from naval officers. there was an expectation in my father's family that if you did

it right, you would rise up and become a dictator like my grandfather. you would serve in the navy, which was what he had done and his three sons did the same thing. so m-- you would become an agitateducator, like my grandfa. my father went into business after rotc. i thought i could be a musician. i left a couple classes hanging my senior year. i had been junior class president of the year before. i ran for senior class president and lost. i thought i could make it in music. we started a rock band. i pursued that for about one year or year and a half, only to find that was not to be my future. i went back to more traditional

life. ? >> what >> key-- what instrument? >> the keyboard, oragn. -- the organ. we used to play for visitors to the state of utah. i have a daughter who is a concert pianist. i have a son who's a guitar player and another son who is a drummer. >> is there a band? >> there was a hunstman band in the basement of the governor's mansion. my sons and i and a few other musicians. replayed every now and again and we. were we i am not sure we would have made the cut. -- we played every now and

again and we were decent. i wrote a couple songs influenced by the music trends of the 1970's when you had more art rock and classic rock spirit . songs where you had so low breaks that was on display through the late 60's and 1970's, before disco music. >> who had the greatest influence in music in your generation? >> you have to say probably the beatles or the rolling stones, since they were at the cutting edge of rock-and-roll, at least in my generation. they gave rise to, of course, the rock-and-roll that we experienced in the 60's and in

the 70's, which then turns heavily influenced by the u.k., which then turned to more classical. more classical rock. the beatles, rolling stones, and the who were the most influential. >> what is on your ipod? >> music from the 70's, 80's, 90's, foo fighters. i have some music by muse. "return to forever" on the jazz side. so it is a fairly eclectic

offering. >> your music career begins to fizzle out. you get your high school diploma? and then diploma >> i went on to college. i served as a mormon missionary overseas when i was 19 years old. i lived in taiwan two years where i was introduced to the chinese language, which for me has been a fascination. it has taken me back to asia multiple times, something that i picked up and continued studying through college. it is all consistent with my fascination with the east asia region where i saw it on display in the late 1970's as a young man. i lived in taiwan after the united states had formally recognized mainland china, the government in beijing. so i saw the diplomatic tectonics' shifts that were taking place in the late 1970's.

for the first time as a young man overseas i felt the power of the united states, the consequences of the united states, foreign policy standpoint. you feel that much differently living overseas than you do domestically. that left a lasting effect on me. it's certainly influenced my course of study in college, which was political science and international politics. it had an impact on what ito to do in life. >> americans understand asia? and does the u.s. policy reflected policy specifically toward china that you think is appropriate? >> we have insufficient knowledge of asia. we don't quite understand the economic implications of the rise of asia and what that means in terms of our own competitiveness. when you look into the 21st century, it will be much different century because it will be based on economic competition. the players pretty much all reside in the east asia-pacific

region aside from the united states. the implications are fairly profound. if you visited china 10 years ago compared with today, the differences are absolutely phenomenal. i believe that in order to truly understand the economics implications of the rise of asia and the way in which society has so transformed itself, you have to have visited on a very regular basis, because the rise of asia and specifically the rise of china has happened so quickly. the change of society, the development of society, the rise of their economy is so significant, so consequential with profound implications for our own country, i don't know that we have focused enough attention on what it means. to have. who -- to have who -- wha pres

plugged into asia, i think is important. >> what should we be doing toward china, economically, politically, foreign policy? >> we have to get our own house in order. if we are going to compete with the chinese, if we are going to do what needs to be done as a competitive nation in the 21st century, we have a little nation-building to do here at home, which is to say get our economic house in order. our economic court is broken. we don't have the leverage we used have in the u.s.-china relationship. if we are not going to project that might even though we are still 25% of the world gdp until we get our own economic house in order. longer-term, i would argue the best u.s.-china policy is that which must take place on the home front and that is getting our economy back in working order, which is too great a more

competitive environment. we don't have an environment conducive to job growth. our taxes are dilapidated. they need to be changed. they need to be updated. they need to be simplified, flattened, and made more competitive. we have regulatory barriers and a lot of red tape that makes it difficult for business and for us to maintain any real industrial base in this country. i think there are things like energy independence that are real opportunities for this country that could be job creators and allow this economy to really move forward in ways that would benefit this nation. it is all there. it all needs to be done in order for us to rebuild that core. rebuilding that corps will have a significant impact on how well we are able to compete in the 21st century against the likes of china and india. >> you spoken in the last days about taxes and revenue. clear up the issue on how you bring down a $14.50 trillion debt.

should revenues be on the table? >> i do like the ryan plan. we have to be realistic about where we are. our economy has the ball. if you were in the banking sector, you say we are in a workout position right now. -- our economy has hit the wall. we cannot keep doing things the way we have been year after year. we have to change the dynamics of entitlements. that mean social security and medicare. bob ryan plan calls for in terms of the changes to medicare is right on. -- what the ryan plan calls for. similar to the insurance program that exists in utah. closing the gap on medicare. we have to change the rules of the game. you can guarantee people above 55 years of age that we will

hold true to our commitment as a country. those under 55, that dynamic will have to change. we will act to show more flexibility. we will after broad in the marketplace. the average human being is paying in overuse our lifetime $100,000 to medicare and taking out $300,000, the system is upside down. i like what paul ryan says about that parro i compare. in social security, we are going to have to take some bold measures as well. we will have to back out the retirement age. we have no choice. we will have to move it close to the 85th percentile of the average length of life. we are living a whole lot longer than we were in 1935 when social security came about. a combination of moving the retirement age and maybe indexing the underlying numbers to cpi as opposed to the

assumptions that today are being used. those two things alone would make a significant impact on social security. >> should there be a means test in terms of your income and whether you should receive social security's? >> absolutely. a lot of people in this country do not need social security, don't need medicare. i think we need to look realistically at where we ought to draw the lines. means testing should absolutely be on the table. we have to look get these programs. this is two thirds of our nation's budget. we need to look at these programs and say we cannot afford to keep doing a thing of the old-fashioned way, it will bankrupt the country. you look at the current numbers. 2020, my kids generation, following medicare and social security and interest payments on the debt, there's nothing left in 2020. so what do you do about national security, defense, disaster

relief? we are on a trajectory that is so dangerous economically for this country and it must stop. we are going to have to put entitlements on the table, looked at them differently than we have in the past. the same with the defense department. >> if you are the republican nominee, you'll face a democratic firestorm on the issue of social security and entitlement cuts. >> kindest and that. but we have to talk truth and recognize the facts or what they are. we have to proceed by doing business differently than we have in the past. -- i am understand that. the people of this country understand where we are going. the disservice we are doing to the next generation of americans, or for the first time in this nation, we are not moving our standards of board, we are moving them down. that is the first time we have done that. it is less