[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in a few moments he form on that presidential candidate -- campaign. vice president biden on the auto industry and the economy, his first major campaign speech. after that a discussion of and at american politics. >> i was one who thought we

shall overcome is not an effective way of gaining civil rights and thought more confrontation was needed. >> walter leroy adams on being a radical. >> i believe a radical is somebody who believes in personal liberty and individual freedom limited government. that makes you of radical, and i have always been a person who believes people should not interfere with me, i should be able to do my own thing with so long as i did not follow it -- violate the rights of other people. >> now a discussion on how the presidential candidates are perching national security issues and the u.s. role in the world. hosted by the american interest -- an american enterprise institute, panelists include

peter bergen and robert kagain. -- kagan. >> if everybody would please take their seats, we will get started. ok, welcome, everybody. i am tom donnelly, director of our center for defence studies. i am here to welcome everybody for the moment, not only on the aie, but my partners in crime at the new american foundation, and did center for a new american security. this is a joint projects, and it adds geometrical levels of complexities. but we have been working at 3 for a while.

we are pleased to kick off a series of events examining the core issues of foreign and security policy in this presidential year. the three of us are institutions with different policy perspectives. what has brought us together is a shared belief that this will be a extremely consequential election. voters might make choices based on domestic concerns, but the outcome will effect the world, and the world will be watching. we believe the four statistics concerns are the future of the middle east, the effect of china's geopolitical rise, whether the american military can sustain global leadership, and above all, today's topic -- what role do we see for ourselves in the years ahead? we are lucky to have robert kagan from the brookings institution to lead this conversation. nobody has thought more deeply about the role of american

power than bob has. let me turn to our moderator, and npr's tom gjelten. >> thank you. maybe i need to push the button. good morning to the rest of you, too. as is the custom at these events, we have to remind you to do silence your cell phone. it is a pleasure for me to be here. i am impressed by how many of you have shown up on this spectacular spring afternoon. this should not be a surprise

because you have a chance to listen to the thoughts of a writer who has given president obama his main foreign policy talking point for the state of the union. i am not at all surprised if you are anxious to hear him elaborate on a provocative thesis that the idea that america's declining is actually a myth. a very impressive "new republic" article, and an even more impressive small book in which he spells that out. without further ado, i think you all know robert kagan from his writings, and one of the things most impressive about your record is you are not only a pundit, but you helped to advise administration's and played an important role with the past administration in iraq policy. without any further comment, take it away, and tell us the

message you really wanted to put out with this book. >> thank you, and thank you for crediting me with so much influence, especially since i was living in brussels at the time. i consider that to be extraordinary influence i would like to say a few words. we have a terrific panel. i believe this is a consequential election on an issue that is not being talked about very much, which is foreign policy. it is important and timely there you have pulled this together. it is true that thanks to a certain high-ranking administration official the aspect that as gotten the most attention in my book is the argument against american decline, but the major thrust of the book is about other things, and mostly it is about the special world order that we live in today, and that has

existed since the end of the second world war -- how fragile it is, and how, in my view, dependent it is, ultimately, on american power. let me describe this world order. with all of the difficulties in the world today, it is easy to lose sight how from any historical perspective we continue to live in what can only be described as a golden age of for humanity, and i would say that looking at three fundamental qualities that we have been enjoying for the better part of the last seven decades. the first is one of the more obvious, the enormous spread of democracy. on the eve of world war two, there were roughly 10 democracies. in 1900, there were roughly five. definitions are complicated, but today, there are over 100. if you think in terms of human history, that is unprecedented

and unique. the second thing is the global prosperity we have enjoyed. it is hard to measure passed in gdp growth for the world, but some economists have tried and the estimates are that between the year zero and 1500 global gdp grew an average of 0.1%. from 1500 to 1950, it might of been 1%, but since 1950, it is grown on average about 4% a year. that is a huge, seismic difference. one of the remarkable qualities of that growth is that it has not just been in the trans- atlantic community, but the highest growth rates have happened outside, and we see the growth of china, india, brazil, and other rising economies.

this is a unique situation, and in the course of this time 4 billion people have moved out of poverty into some area of the middle class. that, itself, is truly extraordinary in human history. most of human history has been a story of poverty, tyranny, and also war. while there has been no shortage of wars in this time, we have been scared massive, great- power war, which was a feature of the immediate 50 years prior to the onset of this world order with two world wars in the 20th-century, but prior to that as well, the world knew almost constant great power conflict in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. these are the kind that killed tens of millions of people,

destroyed an international system, and we have been scared of that. if you take those three things together, you realize what an utterly unique. this has been utterly unique time this has been. the difficulties we have had in this time, nevertheless we have been scared the war, the party, and the dictatorship to a remarkable extent. the second point is this world order was created substantially by american power and it rests on the continued exercise of american power in all its dimensions, economic, political, and will not survive the decline of that power. it is not foreordained. it is not the product of natural human evolution. we have seen democracy fail.

we have seen economic orders collapse in the past. we've seen, obviously, wars between great powers break out. nothing about our current era is permanent. it relies on the power that created it to sustain it, and the most important power in that regard has been the united states. the final question, which is the subject that has gotten more attention, is are we not, in fact, in decline, and incapable of sustaining this, even if it is the right thing to do? my argument is that most of the discussion about american decline is based on a myth, and the number one myth that it is based on is that you often hear it said "the united states can no longer do whatever it wants to do, can no longer get nations to do what it wants to do, can no longer have its way in the world." the myth is that there are worse such a time.

if you go back to any decade of the cold war, beginning with the first, for whatever successes the united states achieved, they were at least equal, and in some cases, greater failures. i could move on to the caribbean war, the vietnam war, the oil crisis of the 1970's, the rise of the iranian revolution. i could go on and do go on in this wednesday as a. if you want the details, you can find it there. most of the notion is based on a myth of the past. if you look at the basic measures of power, i would say the united states is roughly where it has been in past decades, not able to do everything it wants, not able to solve the middle east peace crisis, as it has not for the last 40 years, but nonetheless

capable of doing quite a bit more than people think. let me leave it there. >> thank you, bob. >> i will ask bob a question or two, then i will ask our panelists to ask a question, then we will get a discussion going among us up here. i want to point out in echoing what tom gjelten said, it is impressive that we have three different think tanks with 3 marginally different views of the world, but i do not want to bend to far over in the direction of harmony. i hope we can have a discussion because there are serious issues that can be debated, and this sets up my first question for you, bob. in emphasizing that the position of the united states

and the power of the united states has been remarkably consistent through economic crisis, political crisis, three different administrations, yet on the other hand you say that this is not foreordained. this could change. this could change. what is it that explains the permanence of this position, and conversely, what matters? this foreign-policy matter? the presidential leadership matter? what could change this if we have maintain this position throughout the administrations, throughout different ideological perspectives? >> that is an excellent question, and what could change it is a growing consensus either that we simply cannot sustain this role anymore, or that we should not sustain this role anymore. there are certainly spokesman for all of those out there.

even the president, who made this rainy reputation of the climate in his state of the union address, sometimes encourages the notion that we should beat "nation-building at home, not engaging in foreign activity" which i think he is the notion that it is time for a time-out. since we are moving toward the possibility of sequestration, cuts this administration believes would be catastrophic. that is a word they actually used -- catastrophic to american capabilities overseas. if you make that decision and you stick with it a long enough, people do not like to think about the role of american heart power in the world because they think about wars that have not been successful, but they underestimate how important that hard power he is in maintaining this.

i am relatively optimistic that that is not where the american people are going to go. i do not think ron paul will get the republican nomination, much less the presidency. i think there is a strong consensus in the country that although we might be having difficulties, the united states should continue to play this role, and i think you will get it regardless of who is elected. >> also explain why there has been continuity despite republicans and democrats in the white house -- would you say, historically, the consensus has largely been maintained? >> since world war two. there was more fluctuation, obviously, in the past, because americans made a decision after world war one to of dissent themselves from the international scene is as best they could. the major continuities are one,

the belief in the special nature of the united states, which goes back to the funding, and has driven american foreign policy consistently, regardless of who was president. the notion that the united states is the keeper of a fundamental truth, about which there are no other truths, and the united states has the special role in the world. the other element has been power. the more power the united states has had, the more it has taken on these responsibilities despite the complexities of what it means. the lesson of both world wars that americans in a way in justed and became part of their psyche, was the world does not work well without us. this notion is constantly challenged and question, but that remains the fundamental premise of american thinking. >> it seems like you are arguing against the zero-some

analysis of the world. you do talk quite extensively about the rise of the rest, and you say there rest can rise without u.s. position declining. >> the rise of the rest needs to be analyzed more specifically. it depends on who is rising. i do not consider the rise of brazil to cut against american power, and i did not mean that in the sense that brazil is not significant enough, but it is part of the world order. the most dramatic rise was the rise of japan and germany during world war. american share of gdp was 52%. by 1969, it was 29%. catastrophic, right?

the only nation that is rising today that raises the real challenge to the united states is the rise of china. in that regard, i welcome the rise of india, because it is a natural check on china. i welcome the rise of turkey, because i think turkey remains interested in furthering the goals of this world order. in my view, most of the rise of the rest is additive to the american position. >> of course germany and japan were more deference to american leadership. >> by a much more willing to put up with independent nations pursuing their own policies because i think they are contending to the overall world order, from which the united states benefits. there are many that did not follow the script, and the

french would be the first to remind us of that. >> i have an idea that what you say about china is the most provocative point of your argument, and i want to bring in richard on that point. you pay attention a lot to china, and the focus on asia from this administration. what are your thoughts about what we have just been saying with respect specifically to china? >> i agree that china poses the most profound challenge that we will face in the rising of these new powers, and i also agree that the rise of countries like india is good for the united states, even if they're not tightly-aligned with the united states because they provide a balance to the rise of china, and the question we will face as a country is how do we

deal with these rising powers like turkey, brazil, indonesia, india, in order to have a balance of power that frames that the environment in which china continues to rise. in terms of the pivot, and many quibble with the term. the united states has never left asia. i would point out that it is a goal, rather than something that can be handed down by fiat. a perfect example is yesterday, when president obama and prime minister kamen word in the rose garden to in their joint press conference, there were four questions the press asked, and these are two key allies that have global ambitions.

not a single point was an east asia. it was on syria, iran, afghanistan, and the global economy, so the united states is going to have to pivot to asia, but it can not come entirely at the expense of what will happen in the middle east and south asia as well. no matter how much we want to focus on asia and deal exclusively with china, these are the things will be in the forefront of our minds. >> how about, robert, if i finish with this, and you can think about things you want to say, thomas donnelly, robert makes this eloquent point about the importance of consensus and continuity in looking at american policy over the last 60 years, and the fact that throw all the financial and political turbulence we have had

-- changes of administration -- the american position has been consistent. is that is the case, what does that say about presidential leadership? what does that say about the conduct of foreign policy? does it suggest that the choices we have made far less consequential, perhaps, than they seemed at the time, and the choices that we yet to have to make, are they less consequential than they appear right now? >> i would agree that there are traditions, and legacies, if you will, that transcend any president, any administration. it is really hard to change a foreign policy tradition when the tradition is a strong and successful as ours has been. there is something to what you say. it has accommodated all kinds

of personnel and obviously parties with different agendas. i would be interested to hear whether there are underlying structures that are changing perceptions that is affecting -- that is changing the ability to play the role that we constantly play. whether we can become a social democracy that is spending 20% to 20% of gdp on what we call entitlement programs or mandatory spending, and debt service -- whether that has any effect on defense budgets, and

whether that has any shifting of governmental priorities. once the impulse reasserts itself, will it mean that the means to return to a more traditional leading-from-the- front-kind of american leadership will be just very difficult? we do not see a democratic party debate because they have an incumbent president. in talking to the politicians that have been left it in the 2010 elections, there was a foreign policy debate that turned into a budget debate. a budget-cutting debate.

so, i wonder whether those kinds of concerns are really going to constrain a future president who might decide to assert a more traditional form of american leadership. >> it seems to me with that at least a couple of moments in the last 60 years were there were quite abrupt changes in the international situation. one was the aftermath of the vietnam war. the other was the fall of the berlin wall and this end of the cold war, and the rapid decline in defense spending that happened in the aftermath after that. bob makes a good point that through both of those watershed moments, there was actually a surprising amount of consistency. we are now facing a situation where we have u.s. forces -- u.s. forces in combat in two

ground wars for more than 10 years 10th there was an interesting thought dead in "the washington post" yesterday talking about combat stress in world war run -- world war i, writing that their reservoir of courage begins to empty where the fear of the unknown starts a process of moral entropy -- atrophy that cannot be reversed. i think we have to look to these issues now in the context of having fought 10 really difficult years in iran and -- iraq and afghanistan, and i wonder what you think the implications of the last 10 years of combat mean for this debate, peter? >> i have to be will points, and first of all, thank you for

arranging this -- two points, and first of all, thank you for arranging this. we are broadcasting this terror i just wanted to mention that in 19 -- this. i just wanted to mention that. we are only spending 1% of gdp in afghanistan. so, as a historical matter, we are not spending very much money on these wars. agree with both bob and yourself, you have undercut in touch with the point of this exercise because you have pointed out that it does not make a difference who is the next president, because essentially policies will continue president obama came in on an anti-war ticket, but we were involved in six conflicts essentially including yemen, a war that was winding down in iraq, tripling the

troops in afghanistan, saying they will stay there for five years. so, not only was there continuity with george bush, but it was actually amplification. when we pulled troops out of the afghanistan, in 2014 we will have the same troops in afghanistan that we had at the end of george bush's term. >> the question is looking ahead, we're now looking at getting out of afghanistan as quickly as we can. >> i am extraordinarily skeptical of that. an agreement will lead 25,000 americans there in some shape or form. they will not be combat troops, and it does not matter who was in office. we have already abandoned

afghanistan twice. no american president is going to do that again. >> i have been failing in my effort. [laughter] >> i am happy to throw a quick hand grenade. >> i am happy to throw a quick hand grenade. part of the point of the article is that because the professional force is so struck -- small, a small percentage of us have done the actual fighting. it is true that there has been an ending of political enthusiasm for these wars but the question is, to go to this, sort of, means-resources, which are changing without actual decisions being made, whether absent some hard choices made to rebuild the means of power, and particularly hard military

power, whether this world order that bob describes will run itself, or what it would like to share the load, so to speak, in a way that fundamentally changes the world? >> i think that is the point. has there been any time in the last 60 years where we have had such a debate over the fiscal constraints this government faces as we have right now? you make the point that defense spending should not necessarily be the focus of that debate, but nevertheless it has introduced a new element, has it not? >> in the interest of not emphasizing continuity, as i recall, the debate over the defense budget during the reagan years was greater than it has been up until about one year ago.

i actually used to make the point that i was somewhat astonished how little the u.s. defense budget, which was creeping up toward $700 billion a year was the subject of political debate in the united states when reagan point of defense budgets were a major democratic party platform. now things are more like where you are saying because of the fiscal crisis. we are capable as a nation, because we have done it in the past, of over-cutting our defense capabilities, and getting to the point where we have weakened our ability to shape the international system, and brought ourselves to a potentially perilous point in the conflicts that we might get ourselves into, because we have

a way of getting ourselves into conflict even when we do not think we are going to do that again. if history is a guide, and that is always a good question, is history a good guide? if history is a guide, something will happen that will lead us to another direction. the trend in the 1990's was declining defense budgets. it was not dramatic. we were only spending $400 billion a year, or whatever the number was at the time. then something happened in 2001 that led to this explosion. that is not the first time that has happened. there is a cyclical quality to this. it is an interesting question about having been in war for so long. my son, who is 13 years old said to me not long ago has there ever been a time when america was not at war?

when i grew up, we were mostly not at war scared for much of my life we were not at war. that is an extraordinary thing. i do not know where that leads. there is a whole generation of young people for home september 11 was a defining moment. many have gone into the military. they go into international relations fields. so, has this conceptual. that we have been in created -- conflicting time for brought in a one ness, or brought to us to the time where we have to do something? where barack obama has been as president is really the most compelling point. if ever there was a time when the world thought america was gone with intervention, they thought it was the election of barack obama, and i get to tell this joke. people told me if i voted for

john mccain we would attack another arab country and vote for another -- and overthrows another leader, and they were right, and i voted for john mccain. that is what happened. >> i also have a feeling that you and richard were on the same page, and richard, i took your comments to mean that the move toward asia -- asia might not be reality, because he's got a lot to deal with in the middle east. >> i would also pick a fight with the pivot. i do not want to get in the way if you want to ask richard the question first. ok. your point is we never really left. the point that is made today in europe and the middle east, to some extent, is if you are pivoting for something, that means you must be going away

from something else, and there are conference organizers in europe having a field day with what it means for europe. that is the subject of every conference in europe. i think it is a mistake for a nation of america's global responsibility talk about picking anywhere. we cannot. our interests remain very much in europe. our interests -- we are not leaving the middle east, as you rightly pointed out. we need to increase our attention to asia, certainly in terms of our capability, but there is a misunderstanding of our role in the world to even talk about to 15 in one direction or another.

-- pivoting in one direction or another. >> you convinced -- confessed to voting for john mccain, so defend his position. he had leon panetta talking about syria, and he said before we put people in harm's way we have to make sure what the mission is, whether we can achieve the mission, and whether or not it will make matters better or worse, and senator john mccain said you do not mention america's leadership. america should lead in this, standing up, building coalitions, and we are not leading, mr. secretary. syria is a case in point where we can play out what does the idea of american leadership mean in the context of a difficult policy conundrum like syria presents right now?

>> i am going to hear what you say first. [laughter] >> to push a point that bob made, and going back to my original obsession with domestic politics, he did not hear politicians talking about how do you international system fits together. -- you do not hear about how the international system fits together. even libya and the dialogue around syria is so much about the humanitarian aspect, which is compelling and real, but if you target of a great strategic opportunity, you know, if you are worried about the largest problem in the middle east, iran and iran with a nuclear weapon, this is a tailor-made issue to use as a prism for a larger understanding of

america's role in the world, and again, it seems to me, there is no conversation on the political spectrum about this. look, everybody in the region certainly grasps -- grasps that. it is one of these moments where we might be defining for ourselves in defining american leadership downwards, to channel charles murray in this regard, so there are issues of syria in an of itself, but it is not a dispositive. it is -- i worry that it would be a leading-edge indicator of an america that is in this contraction mode, particularly in the middle east.

>> what would be? if the u.s. were to what? >> there is a series of events. there is the withdrawal from iraq. as you suggested earlier, who knows where the afghanistan drawdown will end and what the pace will be. the message has been, even since the announcement of the obama surge, that time is limited, and we will not commit as much. our role in the arabs bring, and the egyptian revolution, you can then get that in a multiplicity of ways. our ability to decisively constrained iranian nuclear programs -- we can go on and on. it is a region that has a certain amount of the flexion in its own politics, and americans have been working for this moment when a whole

generation of autocrats are losing their grip on their own people. this should be an opportunity for us to seize. again, the overarching message, at least sometimes, appears to be we want to back off and do this from a distance without getting involved in these messy situations. >> do you agree that is the over-arching message, peter? >> this is just a comment. it took two years for president clinton to intervene in bosnia. it took nine days for president obama to intervene in libya. why did he intervene? they actually did something, giving the intellectual framework to allow the u.n. resolution, to allow nato to do something.

what is different in syria? it is a u.n. problem. that is something the obama administration has been trying to deal with, but you have two countries that a veto any kind of operation in syria. i think that will change. i think it is possible china's resolution is reworded. if people are working to make this happen. i'm not an expert on the syrian military, but i think it is more formidable than the libyan auxiliary's from other african countries. it is easy to say that we should do something, but what is it that we should be doing? are we talking about a naval blockade? are we talking about a no-fly zone? the devils are in the details. >> so, what does american

leadership mean with respect to what to do in syria? >> in a way, if we were not in this phase of the election season, if we were in the first year of, let's say, obama's second term, where we were two years ago and we have not done libya, i think we would be moving quickly toward military action in syria. circumstances are everything. i think the president does not think the american people want another military intervention now, and he will not do it before the election, and he may not do it after because he has a ran on his mind. i do not rule out the possibility that he might use force against iran. that is part of the calculation as well. i do not think we would have these conversations about our inability to do anything in

syria. what i find amusing is that people like senator corker said this is not obviously easy like libya. are remember some hall during the bid up to libya, that it was impossible, what could be do militarily? of course the syrian military is stronger, but i would guess our capacity to create a safe zone if we wanted to and carpet out in syria using air power is something -- carved it out in syria using air power is something we can do. i think we should not over state -- as unhappy as i am, i suffered miserably to the clinton years when they would not do certain things, and ultimately two years later than necessary, they did it. my favorite moment from the clinton administration is when asked why they did not do anything about rwanda, they said they were too busy with bosnia, and the question was

busy doing what? this is not the first administration to have the feeling that they're not eager to get into this. i think the trajectory they are on is that they're ultimately going to intervene. if the president does not want to intervene, he really should not say president assad must go. that rhetoric ultimately leads to action. because of the timing, we might not get action when we want it. >> if it gets more difficult to longer you wait, too. >> because lives have been lost in the interim. >> i am a little more skeptical, maybe, then you two, about the idea that we will intervene in syria. i think the circumstances in libya, my reading of that was the europeans were so far out in front, the british and the

french want to do something, a no-fly zone, and the president said everyone is telling me that it will not matter much, and if we do this, we have to do this the right way, so the stars are aligned in the backdrop of all of this. you had the sense that if khadafy was able to start this -- stopped -- gaddafi would be able to stop this in its tracks. i do not doubt the you have a tragedy in syria, but in terms of diplomacy with europeans, it certainly will not authorize force the we did in libya. the administration would then be in a situation to do what it is doing now, or some kind of military intervention without u.n. security council resolution, without arab league endorsement, and i am skeptical that they will. >> the military aspect of this smells to me a little bit more like an excuse than a >> -- explanation. the syrians have not shot down

an israeli airplane in years, if ever. how the conflict would end, and where it would lead are really great questions, but, you know, the conventional syrian military is just the kind of target that our high-tech forces are certainly completely capable of reading devastation upon. >> al qaeda is part of the opposition in a way that we need to be careful appeared >> and they had a whole recruiting infrastructure in syria. >> that was with the suicide bombers in syria. >> this is been an interesting discussion. i want to raise one other issue before i turn it to you folks.

do you talk hear much about education? >> you did not miss anything. >> i did not think so. >> you do not have to read the rest of it. >> there is plenty more in there, i in this point to ask if that is not a weak point in your analysis. america's education decline is pretty clear relative today educational attainment in other countries. is that not a very important part of america's strength, and if it is declining relative to some of the other advanced countries, is that not a worrisome development? >> it is worrisome, and i am not an expert on education, so that is why it is not in the

book. i only pretend to be an expert about some things. my sense about the american education system is that it is a mixed picture. on the one hand, we have the best universities in the world that everyone is trying to get into. so, at the level of higher education, i think the united states is way ahead of the rest of the world. european higher education is in crisis now. i am not sure the people are dying to get into chinese universities. >> they are coming to our universities, and they're going

back home. >> that is the way life is. there are also many come in and stay in. this is anecdotal, but some parts of the american secondary system in high school are very high, precisely because immigration is so great. where my kids go to school as a stream of asian immigrants coming in driving up standards like crazy and making it hard for us to compete. in any case, the overall level is extremely high. there are big gaps, obviously, in the american education system, and in some places they are doing as well as anyone in the world, but many others are not. i do not want to update your question. of course we want to -- you gave your question. of course we need to upgrade our system. as it happens, i think the united states it is still at the forefront of that kind of economy, but you can lose your place. >> we have focused primarily on wars and foreign engagements so far, but you make very clear when you talk about our you're talking about comprehensive national power. any other thoughts before we --

>> just to keep this comprehensive national power thing, it makes perfect sense, but some of these things are better tools for some than others. the soft power, sticky power -- is all important, but you cannot order american culture around the way you can order a american military around. you can order the american economy around, but that has more downside consequences than upside consequences. our whole conversation about our has become -- about power has become, sort of, debased, in some sense. what i like about bob's book, it is when he talks about the international order what is underlying it is security architecture, and you would not discount the value of american political beliefs, or culture, or anything, but making the world safer and -- read music is not an important issue. >> there is no easy illustration of that. over the past two years, at a

time when the american economy has been in terrible shape and the chinese economy has been successful and soaring, and all these elements we are worried about have existed, but if you ask anyone looking at the diplomatic and geostrategic score sheet who has done worse over the last two years, it is actually china. by overplaying their hand in the south china she, -- south china sea, you have south asians coming to the united states. china is a net loser so far. look at what is going on in the international system in terms of syria, libya, and iran. china has been forced again and again into positions they would not otherwise take. they're not in the business of helping democracies overthrow

other autocracies, but they have been forced into this position. for all law weakness in gdp and education and other things, but the level of grand politics, it is still the case we will to enforce. >> you could say china has been a net loser, but you could say europe has not done well either. >> i did not write a book about how europe is in decline. >> you did say that it came at the decline -- at the expense of european power. >> right. but i decided i was optimistic. >> let's open it up to the audience. please follow the ai3 rules,

which for the microsoft -- microphone, then make your statement in the form of a question. >> deere in mitchell. i write the called the mitchell report." -- i write the "michel report." i want robert kagan to respond to the continuity of foreign policy argument. the point of view is that post- world war two, to the present day, for much of that time the differences on american foreign policy were, sort of, easily described as hawks and doves, or terms of that sort. that tended to be more a reflection of party affiliation. that, at some point, and i am

not sure where, nor whether this thesis is right, but at some point that has shifted, and we are not so much in hawks against dogs anymore, but perspectives -- dove's anymore, but perspectives about kinetic positions taken by this government have more to do with the ins and outs. >> are you asking bob if he agrees with that? >> i am asking if that is an accurate perspective. in kosovo, clinton wanted to do it, and the republicans were against it. some of the same situation

pertained in libya. my first question is is that remotely accurate, and if it is, what has made that transition, and how does that augur for the likelihood of continuity moving forward? >> well, i think that it generally has been true throughout american history that the ins were activists and the outs or anti-activists. the president wielded enormous power and influence in foreign policy, and congress is about stopping it. even in the cold war when the democrats were in power, the republicans were fundamentally isolationists, and the democrats for the hawks. that basically persisted until the democratic cracked up in the the vietnam war.

been opposed to war came after nixon was elected. there is a certain continuity there, which i think is still true. there is general continuity throughout the history of foreign policy and this is not always true, but it has been true, the more progressive of the two parties domestically has also tended to be more progressive in their global approach. at the end of the 1890's, the conservative party were the democrats because they were the party of the south to some extent and they were the more isolationists. you could see that flipping woodrow wilson becomes a progressive, and republicans go back to be -- to being conservatives. [inaudible]

>> my name is trevor. thank you for your talk. i wanted to ask the panel what they viewed the role of the international committee, current american partners and the united nations is moving forward in afghanistan, post- 2014. >> nato has made it clear they would be in afghanistan after 2014, and in may there will be a meeting in chicago, and i think the hope was there would be an announcement of a strategic forces agreement with afghanistan and the united states. one of the big impediments' has gone away, which is the question of will the afghan government be able to get detainees in their prison system, and the answer to that is basically yes. the international community has a good reason to be involved in afghanistan going for. we're still in okinawa six decades after world war two.

i do not think we will leave the place we were attacked from when decade ago. we sent a lot of mixed messages about when we are leaving. every time it looks queer heading for the exits, it causes caused -- it looks like we are headed for the exits, it causes consternation. a partnership is a desirable thing because it will effect hedging strategies of the country's surviving afghanistan, making it clear that we will be there. >> a slight wild card is we may have a new french office taking office, not squabble last policy. i've been warned about that. -- who might not swallow the last policy. i have been warned about that. >> my name is hugh. before the editorial i was

thinking we had the a number -- vietnam-ization, because the local population is not keen to their being there. when people make money byhome, t $10 million by opening her mouth, the consequences are tremendous. the guys who serve can attest to it. how can we do with this -- deal with this troop fatigue? >> ok, tom. >> i think it is worth thinking

hard about this. and not leap to conclusions dramatic events. although it is true, stress and suicide statistics and things like that, it is worrisome. for military geeks, if you step back from the headlines of the day, it is remarkable how well the force had sustained this point we should ever take this for granted. if you had asked -- said to me, there -- on september 10 to allow here is what is going to come for the next 10 years, people would have said the force will break. you did not know where the cliff is until you fall off it, to be sure. the performance of this force has been above and beyond and

that includes the reserve components that have played a huge role in this. it is something that is worth watching and being sensitive to. it would be nice if our politicians encourage people not just be thankful for the sacrifices, but to encourage people to share the burdens as well. it is one thing to make folks decastro and another thing to sign up -- a casserole and another thing to support a force. drawing a conclusion from anecdotes -- that is extending from any measurement we would have. -- astounding from any measure we would have. >> thank you.

a good friend who is the anti- marshal in nato talks about the need for a gentle giant and where it. there is no one else. i remember jim morehouse, the cultural attache in paris. he had all kinds of messages. one of those was it is not just commerce that determines our foreign policy. there is a different dimension and you have been talking about it. with that in mind, with the 9/11, all the focus moved to the middle east. nothing was said about central and south america. and yet it is our next-door neighbor. and we went to europe for help

time and time again when they get in trouble. we're watching -- can we afford to be that gentle giant and have some sort of balance? i am talking about this administration and the previous period where there was one friendly meeting with the president of mexico with bush 43 and 9/11 happened and that was it. and so are we able to keep having that balance and looking at all the areas of the world? >> i will do a quick search about latin america. >> it is 130 pages. if i had written this stuff, no one would ever have read the book. i will tell this joke. the line has been the u.s. will do everything about latin america about -- accept think about it.

it is a recurring theme. you could have gotten up any time in the last 100 years and said, should the u.s. pay more attention to latin america? that has been one problem now and the answer to your question is yes. there needs to be more attention and we ought to be able to walk into gum and pay attention to latin america at the same time. it is not that demanding. all that being said, things in latin america are not that bad. in historical terms. things in central america are quite bad. there are positive elements about latin america today including the continuing relative success of democracies. you have the rise of a global power in latin america which that has not been true for a while. there are a lot of things moving in a hopeful direction. columbia has moved in a hopeful direction with american

assistance. the approach has been more or less successful. i was happy to see the obama administration get this trade agreements through. they are of benefit to us than they are two of them. there was so -- there was symbolic commitment. do not underestimate the degree to which latin-american of benefits to some degree with american neglect. it is a careful balance. i am in fundamental agreement with you but i feel like things are not so bad as they could be in the region. >> how about you? right here? >> i think about a national security and you mentioned democracy, education, but there

is an inconsistency and -- in a propaganda sense that america is not doing right. i wonder if you can address even more, for instance, [unintelligible] is bad for our nation but we ignore that. obama is anti-war. and continues to keep prisoners were [unintelligible] out -- [unintelligible] but many are unimportant or become janitors. you get a sense of this inconsistency so we can move forward? [unintelligible]

rather than against humanity overseas? >> i am not sure if there is as much inconsistency as you are suggesting. among the many things i did not like about eisenhower, that speech is among them. i do not know what he was talking about. i do not think our country is controlled by the military industrial complex by any stretch of the imagination. i am not a big fan of that quotation. the u.s. is constantly forced to measure itself as it passes judgment on the rest of the world. there was a time when the u.s. was expressing its moral disapproval of other nations while certain minorities in this country had no rights. in a way, one of the product of the cold war was greater pressure on the u.s. domestically to live up to some of its pronouncements globally.

i would say there are few countries in the world that work harder to try to perfect their imperfections in the u.s. very few nations, there are some, who are more self critical than americans are and work harder to try to address inequities in their system and they frequently fail. hypocrisy is a human attribute. it is an inescapable human attributes. my view is we need to cam -- compare americans to humans, not to angels. compared to humans, americans do pretty well. >> [unintelligible] i can't explain it but there are correlations through american power or the rise in american power and the expansion of domestic liberties. there was a time when civil rights -- the civil rights act

through women's rights and gay rights and rights and rights. i think this is true internationally. there is a correlation between american power and human liberty. to say that it is causal requires elaboration compared to other powers of ages past, we are going back to the original point, this is not only a remarkable and peaceful and prosperous era but the remarkably free iraq especially from -- for rare coins. i would worry that as we become, if we are shrinking, in decline, whether we would be so expensive. granting rights and encouraging

civil liberties is a question that never gets asked. >> it will be accused of inconsistency in the way we apply human rights abroad. consistency is not the highest good in international affairs and american foreign policy. if we can do some things somewhere on the human rights agenda even if we cannot do them in other places, i would rather be accused of inconsistency then be accused of doing nothing. >> this was not intended to -- this was intended to set up the presidential election. this might be a good point to bring up a minor issue that has arisen. that is president obama's apology to afghanistan for the burning of the korans, that was immediately criticized by several of the republican candidates.

i'm wondering what any of you think american leadership, american exceptional ism, and america's claim to stand for human rights and liberty. what does that imply? what does that imply of the u.s. when you have a situation like this when u.s. troops do something that is so offensive to people you are trying to serve? what was the apology appropriate or not in this context? >> it was very pragmatic. the commander-in-chief has a responsibility to his soldiers in afghanistan and that was a way to reduce the tension in the country. that was his primary intent. the other conservation is as the world's only superpower, we can apologize without it being a problem. how does that damage our side? i find that incomprehensible, particularly when an apology is

needed. on november 26, which killed 24 pakistani soldiers and there is an investigation on both sides of order about what happened. there was miscommunication on both sides. pakistan is supposed to be one of our allies. the fact is president of, has not apologized for that. to me that is the opposite mistake. even if it is inadvertent, it is ok to apologize, in my view. >> i am not concerned about the apology. i am worried that it is a measure of sporadic attention. the only thing worse than having to deal with hamid karzai or the political leadership is neglect of doing so. what i would prefer to see is

more active engagement. not managing the people who are our allies for better or worse as well as we might do. >> you are referring to pakistan? >> both. we have a balance that could be sustainable but requires a certain amount of energy to put together. >> i am wondering and we can talk about the extent to which america's role in the world is being talked about on the campaign trail and i wonder if any of you see any of the

candidates doing a good job of thinking about or addressing this issue aside from offering raft of comments about afghanistan and syria. >> the most comprehensive position is powell's. you can critique around the edges on afghanistan but there were 30,000 troops in afghanistan and it went up to 100,000. what do you say? we are going to put 400,000 troops in, stay for decades? there's not much you can say to critique it. same with pakistan. obama tripled the number of drone -- obama quintupled the number of drone strikes. would the republican candidate in office quintuple the quintuple? no one has proposed what the

syrian military intervention would look like, a lease on the republican candidate side -- at least on the republican candidates i'd. -- side. >> as an adviser to governor romney, i think he has done an excellent job. [laughter] now, in fact, he has laid out a comprehensive, by far the most comprehensive approach to foreign policy. perrylawn white paper, given a big speech on the subject -- very long white paper, given a big speech on the subject. as is the nature of most primary campaigns, it has not been the topic du jour. you do not get a chance to lay out your vision of foreign policy when you are debating contraception and all the other

important topics they are debating. the better time to ask this question will be in the general election, because then i think there will be a discussion about american foreign policy. i think there has been room for criticism of the obama administration. i know that one of the major approaches of governor romney, for instance, is that for quite some time in various parts of the world, president obama has not been great with a number of our allies. he is now, by the way, scrambling to repair that image. is meeting with david cameron is intended to undo the slyke was allegedly committed when he returned -- the slight that was allegedly committed when he returned a bust of winston churchill. he has had to work very hard to prove he is a friend of israel. there is the case to be made that in much of the administration's early out reached adversaries and potential competitors, the reset with russia, the outreach to iran, inevitably some of that has come at the expense of

traditional allies who may have been themselves competitors and adversaries of those players. that is a legitimate criticism. >> let richard go first. >> if i could add one thing in terms of the foreign policy debate, having worked for the presidential candidate in 2008 that didn't win, i have some insight into how these debates take shape. this time around, "everybody knows" that this will be an economy election and foreign policy and national-security issues don't matter. we around the table have a vested interest in that not being the case, but it has the added virtue of not being true. both candidates will have to convince voters that they are

the commander in chief who at the end of the day can be trusted with preserving the national security of this country. that is why you are going to see all kinds of speeches and activities to bolster their case for that. even now you see the press pay most attention to the economy, behind the scenes, at a minimum, you will see a real debate on national security matters, and it will matter at the end of the day. >> not to criticize the press, but at every one of these debates, the number of foreign policy questions asked by the media as opposed to the infidelity questions asked by the media -- the ratio is low. >> one attempt to add something of value -- one way to look at this divide is not so much partisan war hawks versus doves. to me it is a generational split the differences tend to be -- senator mccain and senator lieberman being the uber- examples of this, guys with the traditional and conventional view of america's foreign policy and it will, versus a host of younger politicians,

post-cold war politicians, much more diverse and coherent set of policy views -- [unintelligible] no -- ok -- right and left. the point is that they have not congealed around the consistencies and traditional habits, and it has been some time now. in many ways, it has been a continuity of the things we saw during the clinton years, for a whole host of reasons. >> center for a new american security. this is very much a follow-on question. all the panelists address this in part, by not explicitly. what are the issues that will

define how the national security will be determined? how will that come down in terms of one, two, or three issues? >> quickly down the line here. >> any president has to deal with the cards that have been dealt, and the cards that have been dealt this president and the next president are what is happening in the arab world. the most substantial event of our current period is the arab awakening, the arab spring, what ever you want to call it, because however it shakes out is going to reshape that part of the world, which remains a very important part of the world. i would think that managing as best we can, understanding the limitations of our ability to manage it, ought to be at least in the top two. i do think that how the united states -- you are saying beyond

levels global leadership, but the defense budget, given the sequestration issue, really needs to be way up there. >> i would put iran first, because i think that the candidates will draw a distinction on their approach to preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. even if the debate is on the margins, that will be an element in the debate, because we're seeing so much in the news on this. third, i agree that the middle east and the way the middle east is added. -- headed. >> some people have predicted that china is going to be a big issue, certainly in the context of trade difficulties. >> it would be an issue -- maybe if i had four rather than three, i would put china as four. the content of the debate i would put behind those three.

>> the 4 big issues we are addressing are serious. anyone who deviates from that is out of the triumvirate. yeah, write that down. look, we're living in a world that we made. nobody can unmake it or change it better than we can, for better or worse. in historical terms, all the challenges of there are relatively manageable -- out there are relatively manageable, compared to, say, napoleonic france, the rise of germany, or something like that. there are many better reasons to think of a good outcome with regard to china. there are many problems in the middle east, and the iranian nuclear one could be a transformative one that would shift to this collection of issues that we've been able to manage into something sort of --

that gets out of hand. but there doesn't seem to be anything that is beyond our ability, particularly because we are starting from such a position of inherent strength, a century's worth of success establishing this world -- i guess i wanted to start with this framing issue. >> five years ago on this panel it would have been al qaeda and jihadi terrorism. we're not even been discussing that today. al qaeda is basically out of business. it is like being a sovietologist in 1989 -- i need to find something else. something we tend to forget in these discussions is that pakistan is going to be the fifth largest country and it will, it will have more nuclear weapons.

managing our relationship in pakistan is a very difficult and important. and one of the challenges for president obama, president romney, who ever it is, is mumbai 2. the idea that tourists can buy or acquire nuclear weapons is the area of fantasy. what is not fantasies triggering a weapon in a place like pakistan. pakistan has tactical nuclear weapons. you can sketch out the scenario. that is a major foreign policy challenge that any president will have to be thinking of a carefully in the future.

>> i am interning at the cato institute. my question is about the nature of diplomacy. as you saw through 2000, the rise of the status of violence, al qaeda and what not, and also, obama's massive escalation of drone warfare. we were always hyper-diplomatic. but in a time when you are not necessarily talking to nation states, and violence can be a lot more anonymous, and anybody can be attacked by anybody, it seems, a big leveling of the playing field, how does that change our diplomatic priorities, first of all? we saw obama attack in pakistan without contacting the state first. it seems like diplomacy might be taking the back end to simply american policy.

is this something you noticed? do you share these anxieties? >> very interesting question. whither diplomacy? >> the new complexion of the international system is something we have been talking about for well over a decade. without minimizing the issues you have raised, i am actually under whelmed by how revolutionary it has all been. i find state to state relations it remarkably relevant in the current era. i'm not overwhelmed by the presence of non-state actors in the international system. we have obviously dealt with al qaeda and others and will continue to deal with them. but as i look around dealing with most of the crises that people are dealing with, they are very much about state-to- state cooperation, and that includes dealing with weapons of mass destruction, which is

about cooperation among the states on the high seas, protection, shared intelligence resources. that is very much about diplomacy. i continue to believe that diplomacy is still of the greatest value. i don't really think it has changed. >> just today we have seen that the swift organization has agreed to sanction iranian banks. the front page of "the financial times" had a story about iran at's oil output being at a decade ago. as far as the conflict with iran is concerned, diplomacy is front and center. >> even on this question of drone strikes, diplomacy is critically important. you want to have drone strikes? drones after takeoff from somewhere.

most of the time we are securing the rights from foreign governments to do certain things. it is the rare case that we are doing something unilaterally completely on our own. overflight rights, landing in bases, intelligence cooperation, diplomatic and coordination, all those sorts of things get at the heart of what we're doing diplomatically with countries. even in the case of drone strikes, diplomacy's critically important. >> tom, peter, final thoughts? >> actually, everything has been said, it just hasn't been set by me -- said by me. [laughter] we have covered the landscape extraordinarily well. >> all right, thank you all for coming. bob's book is "the world america made." i cannot believe you are not

selling it here. >> it is not all about money. [laughter] >> it is about promoting your message. a very readable, very well written, very well thought out. i like to thank my panelists -- paul kagan, -- bob kagan, peter bergen, richard fontaine -- rival think tanks. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> c-span's bird to the white

house continues. on saturday of the missouri caucuses will continue determining delegates for the national convention. puerto rico holds its prairie with the illinois primary -- holds its primary with the illinois primary following. ap reports the republican delegate count stands at 4954 rec -- mitt romney, two under and 52 for rick santorum, 1314 newt gingrich, and 484 ron paul. delavan hundred 44 are needed for the party's nomination for president. -- 1144 are needed for the party's nomination for president. >> our system is violent -- fundamentally undemocratic in a number of ways. one of the ways is closed breeze. in half of the states in the country, 40% of the voters

cannot participate in the primary. and so they have no say in who gets nominated. and as a result, we get more and more extreme candidates on both ends of the spectrum. >> saturday night at 10:00 p.m., linda killian write independent voters have decided every election since world war ii. the senate and 8:00 p.m., david brock on h ow ro -- how roger ailes turned fox news into a wing of the republican party. and "the unmaking of america." book tv on cspan-2. a discussion of mormonism and american politics. after that a look at mental health in the u.s. military.

the form onair on national security. several live events to tell you about tomorrow. the center for american progress host a forum on the end of the iraq war and national security. that is here at 10:00 a.m. eastern. after 1:00 p.m. eastern, president obama has a campaign fund-raiser in chicago, one of several campaign events he has scheduled tomorrow. also a discussion of religious freedom and democracy. on c-span3 at 10:50 a.m. eastern. >> congratulations to all the winners of the student cam competition. a record number entered a video on the theme, the constitution and you, showing which part of the constitution is important to them and why. watch all the winning videos at

our web site. and join us mornings in april as we show the top 27 videos on c- span. we will talk with the winners during "washington journal." in his first major campaign speech, vice-president joe biden said president obama was right to aid the auto industry. his remarks began with an introduction by representative marcy captor. this is half an hour.

please welcome congresswoman marcy captor. [applause] >> good morning. what a pleasure it is to welcome back president, excuse me, almost, vice-president joseph biden to toledo, ohio. i know that president barack obama knows exactly where joe biden is today. we are so thrilled to be able to at the start of spring and before st. patrick's day which i

now has a fondness in the spice president's heart to thank him for his incredible leadership. his dad had an automotive dealership when he was growing up. for believing in us and believing that the american automobile industry could be reborn and could reignite the american dream again, for all of us and for meerkat. -- america. president barack obama took a chance because all of us can remember back three years ago when literally, general motors, chrysler, jeep, and ford hung on a string. we did not know. we had a huge fight to try to support president obama and

vice-president biden in their efforts to refinance and save this loadstar american industrial platform. in the congress i was thinking back. we only got 237 votes out of 435 in the house to refinance this industry. and you think about who were those other folks who could not understand why this was america's most important industry. because without it, we do not have a defense of the nation, either. we do not have a defense of the nation. [applause] a million jobs hung in the balance. over 120,000 right here in ohio. thousands here in our own community. today as we stand here and welcome the vice president back to toledo, we know that this industry is reborn.

power plants are open again. you are working. there are people being hired. -- our plants are open again. one out of aid to jobs in our state are tied to this industry. if you think about companies like the textile company's of our country, half of what they sell goes in to the automotive industry. semiconductor industry, half of all those products go into the automotive industry. this is a big american industry. and who would have bet three years ago that general motors would have been at the top of the pack again? in terms of global automotive companies. [applause] president obama invites vice-

president biden -- no better represented by the people here today who are celebrating with us. i have someone who spent 29 years in the automotive industry of our community and country, shelley woodson, a united auto worker. sheep will tell our story and we will sell -- send a big -- she will tell our story. >> good morning. it is an honor to be with you here. i am proud native ohioan, born and raised in toledo. i have do -- i have done two things in my career.

i served my country and i build jeeps. [applause] for four years, i was a communications specialist in the air force and for the next 29 years, i worked right here in toledo, first in a historic plant and now it is a toledo complex. i remember my first day at jeep. i walked in there knowing i would be there for the rest of my working life. i was going to be with them until i worked out -- walked out with a pension. that is how my father did it and how my grandfather did it, and it is how workers all over america have always done it. i cannot tell you how many jobs i have done add g. i worked in the paint shop, i worked in the body shop, i put mud flaps on the cars, and topped off antifreeze i radiators. i have sealed the doors and driven cars off at the end of the line and for six years, i

was the only woman working in the entire room. -- the tire room. i will never forget when it was almost ended forever. everyone knows what happened. we know how close we came to having our whole world come crashing down around us. i remember waiting by the phone during the bankruptcy after we got leadoff. waiting for some good news while fearing the worst. more than 1 million of us across the state, across the midwest, and across the country would be out of a job. those of us who helped take care of our parents and siblings like i do simply would not be able to. people would mortgage payments and medical bills and tuition to pay. that would not have anywhere to turn. our communities, the shops and restaurants and local companies

we support would not have had our business. we would not have handled pensions weird with hard work decade after decade. america would not have had an automobile industry. we have not done anything wrong. we came to work every day and made great cars. that is true. i cannot describe what it felt like to face the real possibility that everything i knew was going to be taken away from me after 29 years on the job. it is the most horrible, frightening feeling. i cannot describe what it felt like to hear some people say the american auto industry should be left for dead. it is the most shocking and infuriating thing you can hear. i do not have to describe it, because all you out there know exactly what it was like. there is someone else who knew what we were going through, too.

president obama knew what we were feeling and he knew what we were fearing. and then he made that courageous col. it was not popular. everyone said it would be the wrong political move. it was the right thing to do. it was the right thing to do. [applause] and because he did step up, we're still here. i am still working at jeep, and i am so proud that i am. jeep is a family and thanks to president obama, toledo and jeep are doing well. we cannot keep the wranglers on the lot. i am grateful for the president every day and always will be. that is right. i am so honored to be able to

introduce someone who has been by his side and by our side the whole time. someone who always sticks up for hard-working people, the blue- collar people, the union people. please join me in welcoming the vice-president of the united states, joe biden. [cheers and applause] >> hi, folks, how are you? good to see you all. please excuse my back, i apologize. thank you.

thank you. i want to start off by congratulating mercy capture for two more years. -- marci captor for two more years. i drove those jeeps you built, my daughter still drives a jeep. if i -- i wish my dad had owned a dealership. he managed it. if he did, i would be able to own those new cars in took my girlfriend to the prom in. i had to borrow them. it is good to have a dad in the automobile business. i am back, your back, and the industry is back. the president and i made a symbol that. we bet on you. we bet on american ingenuity and

we want. -- we won. chrysler, fastest-growing car company in america. general motors has seen the largest profits in its history. 200,000 jobs lost before we took office. 200,000 new jobs since the rescue plan was in place. that is 200,000 people who have their dignity returned to them, reinstated, and a paycheck that can raise their -- they can raise their family on. my dad knew something and taught us something. a job is about a lot more than a paycheck. it is about your dignity. it's about respect. it is about your place in the community. it is about turning to your kids and say, it is going to be ok. that is what a job is about.

i do not know of these other guys understand that. and folks, that is how broad -- barack and i measure success. whether the middle class is during -- growing or not, that is the measure of success. a growing, vibrant middle class where moms and dads can look at their kids and say it is going to be ok. that is what i want to talk to you about today. this is the first of four speeches i will be making on behalf of the president. laying out what we believe are clear, stark differences between us and our opponents and what that is for the middle- class. it is the middle class at stake. mitt romney, rick santorum, and newt gingrich, these guys have a fundamentally different economic philosophy than we do. our philosophy, ours is one that

values the workers and the success of a business. it values the middle class and the success of our economy. simply stated, we are about promoting the private sector. they are about protecting the privileged sector. [applause] we are for a fair shot and a fair shake. they are about no rules, no risk, and no accountability. there is no clear example of these two different views of the economy than how we reacted to the chrysler and the of will build industry. it is a cautionary tale about how they would run the government again and the economy if given a chance. remember, and you do remember, and you captured at all. remember what the headlines were saying when you woke up a couple of years ago. "it is bankruptcy time for gm."

forucnch time looms chrysler." government must act quickly to prevent loss of suppliers. for every one of you on the line, there is four people on the line supplying those parts. folks, 1 million good jobs are at stake. on the assembly line, at a parts factory, at the automobile dealerships. down to the diners outside each of those facilities. our friends on the other side, our republican friends, had started a mantra. they started one that said we would make auto companies "wards of the state." governor romney was more direct. let dietrich go bankrupt. -- detroit go bankrupt.

he said that what we proposed " is even worse than bankruptcy." it would make gm "the living dead." newt gingrich said "a mistake." the president did not flinch. this is a man with steel in his spine. he knew that resurrecting the industry was not going to be popular. it was clear in every bit of polling data. he knew he was taking a chance, but he believed. he was not going to give up on 1 million jobs and on the iconic industry america indented. he was not going to give it up without a real fight. that is the kind of president, in my view, we all want. a president with the courage of his convictions, a president

willing to take risks on behalf of american workers and the american people. and folks, that is exactly what we have. a president with the courage of his convictions. he made the tough call and the verdict is in. president obama was right and they were dead wrong. [cheers and applause] and i say to governor romney, this production, his prediction of the living dead. we have now living proof, 1 million jobs saved. 200,000 new jobs created. the toledo powertrain plant adding 250 good paying jobs. gm investing $200 million to build an efficient transmission.

the toledo chrysler assembly complex preparing to bring on a new shift, 1100 new jobs, building the best cars in the world. jeeps, not only to sell in the u.s. but to export abroad. all told, right here in ohio, since reorganization. 15,000 good paying, i yeah, autoworker jobs, jobs you can raise a family on. live in a decent neighborhood on. [applause] american made cars that are once again cars we want to drive and the world wants to buy. and one more thing. the president's historic fuel economy efficiency standards that nearly double the efficiency of cars, seven of the american family is $1.70

trillion at the pump, helping free us from foreign oil dependence. they are against that, too. but you know, even though the verdict is in, our republican opponents will not give up. they cannot deny the automobile industry is back. they cannot deny we're creating good jobs, good paying jobs again. so now they are trotting out a new argument. it is kind of old and new. they say not only should we not have done it, but have not done it, the private sector would have done it. they say the private markets would have stepped in to save the industry. governor romney says the market, help liftet' "will

them out." wrong. any honest expert will tell you in 2009, no one was lining up to land general motors or chrysler any money or for that matter, to lend money to anybody. that includes benning capital, there were not letting up to lend anyone money either. -- they were not lining up to lend money either. they have gone to a new argument. our plan to save the industry was just a giveaway to union bosses and the unions. senator santorum said it was "a payoff to special interests." it is kind of amazing. gingrich and armey and santorum,

they do not let the facts get in their way. -- romney and santorum, they do not let the facts get in their way. no one knows better than you and your families the real price you paid to allow this reorganization to take place. plant closures, wage freezes, lower wages, they know, everybody knows. these companies would not be in existence today without all the sacrifices that you and uaw made. [applause] then they trot out another argument. if gm and chrysler had gone under, it is ok. because ford and other auto companies would have stepped in to fill a void. absolutely 0 evidence for that. in fact, when gm and chrysler

have takenit would the industry down and turned to the recession into a depression ." for would have taken up the slack, set -- ford would have taken up the slack, ford says no. the whole thing would have collapsed. what is real bankruptcy. the economic theories of gingrich, santorum, and romney. they are bankrupt. if you give any one of these guys the keys to the white house, they will bankrupt the middle class again. look, the president and i have a fundamental commitment to dealing in the middle class back into the american economy that they have been dealt out of for so long. ultimately, that is what this

election is all about. it is a choice, a clear choice, choice between a system that is read -- rigged and a system that is fair. a system that says, everyone will be held accountable for their actions, not just the middle class. a system that trusts the workers on the line instead of listening to the folks in the suites. that is the choice. it is a stark choice. to my mind, it is not even a close call. look, a lot of you and your friends and family understand what i understand. as a kid, i saw my dad trapped in the city where all the good jobs were gone after world war ii in the middle 1950's. i remember walking from my bedroom in my grandfather's house and say, dad will have to move away for year. he will move to wilmington.

ogle franc is down there. -- uncle frank is down there. when i get settled, i will bring you down. it is going to be good. a lot of you and a lot of your friends made that long walk to your kids' bedroom. things are changing. hundreds are replacing the longest walk with the difference -- a different j ourn -- different journey. these are amazing cars that people all over the world will want to buy. it is not just the industry is coming back. manufacturing is coming back. the middle class is coming back. america is coming back. this country is coming back.

because of you. god bless you all, and may god protect our troops. go build as cars -- us cars. [applause] ♪

♪

♪

["we take care of our own" by bruce springsteen] ♪

♪ ["keep me in mind" by zac

brown] ♪

♪ >> they would wear garments made of homespun cloth, and this homespun cloth would be much more raw textured, much less find than the kinds of goods they could import from great britain, but by wearing this homespun cloth, women were visibly and physically displaying their political sentiments. >> the sunday night at 9:00 p.m., george mason university professor on the role of women during the revolutionary war.

in a few moments, a discussion of momism and american politics. in a little more than an hour, a look at mental health in the u.s. military. after that, reform on the presidential campaign, national security, and the u.s. role in the world. little -- later, we will hear from vice-president on the auto industry and the economy. >> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal" washington post's david ignatius has the latest on afghanistan, the uprising in syria, and the tenure of iran's current president. then jack gerard discusses the cost of gas, alternative energy efforts and the keystone pipeline. then hubert hammer of the agriculture department, and jerry haggis kurram of the hastert report a look at how

farming and agriculture have changed in the last two decades. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> if there is anything that concerns the american family today it is this. our government has not caught up with the new facts of american family life. families have changed, so why can't washington? new fact, moms working. nearly 65% of all mothers are working, part-time, full-time, all of the time. keeping the family together, making ends meet, making america a more prosperous. it's working mothers need affordable day care and the pay they deserve. too often, they cannot get either. >> this saturday, maryland senator barbara mikulski will become the longest serving female member in congressional history. with nearly 15,000 days in

progress, she will surpass the record held by edith rogers, who served from 1925 to 1960. watch her speeches from the senate floor and other c-span appearances, all archived and searchable online at the c-span video library. next, a discussion of mormon is a man american politics. this boston college forum included a mormon historian, a religious scholar, and a political scientist. this is a little more than an hour. >> we are ready when you are. >> a good evening. my name is mark massa and i am the dean of fidelity -- theology at boston college.

i would like you to -- to welcome you to this form. boston college, as you undoubtedly know, is an old catholic and just with university in america. my school, down this year in 2008, is the newest component of that venerable institution. with the creation of the school, boston college 6 to deliver on its commitment of being one of the premier places in the u.s. where catholics and religious people do their series in cannot, including -- serious thinking, including their thinking about how theology engages the world. an important part of that is fostering informed discussions, like the one we will have this evening, about how theology and religion do and should focus discussions about the serious political and social issues facing our country.

this evening, our colloquialism is entitled, are mormons the new catholics and jews, mitt romney and the state of their union. -- the state of the political union. tonight, i am delighted that this inaugural program has three individuals to set the bar high for this annual event. the moderator for this evening's colloquium is alan wolff, prof. of political science here at boston college, and the founding director of the center for religion and public life. joining him are khristine hagel and, the editor of dialogue, and contributor to the mormon blog entitled "by common consent." we are equally honored to have with us withprothero, a friend

from a graduate school and a contributor to cnn's belief blog, and the author of the much acclaimed book entitled "god is not one." of the aid rival religions of the world and why their differences matter. we are also very grateful to c- span for their broadcasting this event this evening. please join me in welcoming our colloquium participants this evening. [applause] >> thank you very much, father. it is my pleasure to host this event. we will begin right away. the format is going to be -- and i'm going to ask these two distinguished panelists a few questions, start the discussion, they will then respond. we will keep going as a conversation and an expert corporate -- at an upper bridgepoint we will turn to you for questions. as you have been told, if you

have a question, please go up to a microphone and asked it. if this is tuesday, there must be republican primary somewhere. and it seems there is a republican primary, as it happens, the states of alabama and mississippi. when this event is over and you have had time to reflect on all the wisdom you here, you will also pretty much have a sense of what the results are. i can tell you two things about the republican voters in the primary in advance. one is, the large majority of them are southern baptist. and the second is, none of them are really going to get a chance to vote for a southern baptist. ron paul is technically someone from the southern baptist convention, but he is actually a follower of a jewish atheist from st. petersburg, rand, which is his true religion. here's the question, given the

legacy of a certain kind of anti-mormon sentiment that has been characteristic of various protestant denominations throughout our history, will southern baptist boat for mitt romney -- a vote for mitt romney in significant numbers? >> i grew up in nashville, tennessee. my house was about a mile from the southern baptist convention offices, and my inclination is that a very few republican southern baptist voters will vote for mitt romney. and they might not even be able to say exactly why. they just think that mormons are vaguely weird and other. >> do you think so too, stephen? >> i think one of the surprises so far is how willing and evangelicals have been to consider mitt romney. that has been a surprise to me. he won the evangelical vote in new hampshire and in nevada. he was very close in a couple of

states and in the southern state in general, he has been pretty far behind. the other trick is that, as you intimated, allen, his competition is two catholics. that is tricky if you are evangelicals that things that kaplan -- that catholics are not quite christians and mormons are not quite christians. you do not have a lot of places to go in this election. one interesting reason that is the case, you know, i do not wonder at the extent to which the anti- -- i do wonder the extent to which the anti-mormon of sentiment has been so powerful. there has been sentiment about whether you would vote for a moment -- a mormon if the nomination went to one. those numbers have been pretty high since 1967. only about 20% of americans will admit that they will not vote for a mormon. but even there, there is a difference between voting for a mormon in the abstract and then

voting for a particular mohrmann. a lot of voters, including some born-again christians are saying, well, i don't want to vote for a mormon, but i will vote for mitt romney. >> you seem to disagree to an extent with what stephen just said, but you also agree with what he said about southern baptists. the typical white american evangelical voter will not vote for a mormon, but they cannot really articulate the reasons. i recall a conversation with amy sullivan, a blotter and writer for "time" magazine abrupt -- who grew up in an evangelical church. she said that very few republicans know very little about theology. but when it comes to mormons, and a good baptist can give you 12 the logical reasons about why a mormon is not a christian.

>> well, maybe one. >> at the week after the counter cold unit in sunday school at the baptist and methodist church in my town, it was never find in school. it did provide for a lot of the logically grounded conversations. it was a great chance for me to articulate my mormon faith in a way that mormons do not really do either, right? everyone knows that mormons are supremely pragmatic and not ideologically oriented. -- not theologically oriented. i think the way that mitt romney is perceived, even if people do not object to his specific theology, especially since he has not spoken about his beliefs and has made a point not to speak about them, but just the sense that he is awkward, just a little bit not comfortable in

his skin -- i think that all has to do with both his sense of otherness as a mormon, and other people's the sense that mormons do not quite fit. it does not have to be an articulate opposition to something to do with more monism. >> can you speak about that sense of otherness as a mormon? >> yes, i think that from the time that mormons are little kids, they grow up in the church and they hear the refrain "every member a missionary." there is a song and all kids love it when they are growing up. you learn very early on that mormon as a messiah and to be constantly performed. you have this sense, -- that more monism is to be constantly performed. you have this sense, especially if you grow up outside of utah, that you're on stage. you are showing how good momism is by your actions.

without meaning to, and without any ill intent, mormons develop this double consciousness that you are always aware of your audience and always trying to gauge of what might be the best aspect of more monism to show or to hide. moprmoninm is -- momis the best to show or hide. >> there was a highly publicized speech and i remember being called to one of the television studios to watch it live and comment immediately i thought it was an opportunity for him to say something about who mormons are and what they believe. he pretty much decided not to do

that and almost presented himself almost like an evangelicals. i wonder if you could address this. however pragmatic or necessary for romney politically, it was a great opportunity lost for a prominent mormon to say something about his faith in public to his national audience. >> stephen, i know you are familiar with that speech. >> i do not know what he would have had to gain from doing that. >> politically. >> yeah. i thought it was a great speech. it was over a week ago, right? so, some time ago. there was a sense that he made a strong argument for religious liberty. he also made the point, which is something you do not hear from republicans very often, that the u.s. is a country that has oppressed religious minorities. he told the story of the oppression of mormons.

i think it was maybe half a sentence, or a full sentence. mormons were pushed out to the west by persecutions. i thought that was a pretty interesting speech. it has been compared to the kennedy speech in 1960, houston. kennedy did not give any kind of claim about the causes and then. it would not have been smart for him. he did not talk about transubstantiation. it was not -- it would not be smart for him. if you wanted to be the schoolmaster for the nation, that would have been a nice opportunity for him. but i do not think we should expect him to go anywhere near there in the future. >> i also think it has to do with the fact that mormons are not monolithic. people have different personalities. i do not think that romney is especially think-y about his

religion. not that he does not understand it, but he is not intrigued by the theology of it the way i am. he is not a nerdy about it. i think he likes martin is -- mormonism in part because it works for him. it helped him build his family. it encourages clean living. he likes those practical aspects of the church. in college, i had the opportunity to hear him give a lot of sermons. i cannot remember a single one of them. and it is not because i was not paying attention. remember other people's concerns. >> i can remember any of his speeches. [laughter] he does not -- >> he does not grapple with mormon as some -- mormonism in ways that make sense to me or to other people.

maybe would make sense if he were trying to do this call master of the country, but it is just not who he is. >> there are some americans who will not vote for a mormon, or by the title of our symposium today is, "is anti- mormonism the new anti-catholicism"and there is a certain amount of bigotry against the mormon faith. it is obligatory of mormons to combat the ignorance by saying something more positive? >> maybe, but -- you know, this week and last week, the discussion has been about mormon proxy baptisms. that is an interesting place where there could be an opportunity. there is a lovely theological underpinning to that doctrine.

if you believe a certain rituals are necessary for salvation and you have the authority to perform them, it is a lovely universalist gesture to extend those rituals to other people. but if you do not believe that certain rituals are necessary to salvation, and you cannot in any way enter that religious frame of mind, there is no way to discuss the theological nuance, or to explain the doctrinal rationale that makes it seem like a perfectly harmless, and even benevolent and kind of practice to get a mormon. it is a gross offense to everyone else. >> is there anything comparable with other minority religions? >> i think, part of what your questions have raised for meat is the question of -- for me, is the question of how other religions mainstream.

to the extent of tonight about mormon as in, but also catholicism, how does catholicism get from the point of, no, we cannot elect al smith because he is a catholic to that we can elect j.f.k. even though he is a catholic to the fact that we even hardly notice that santorum and others are catholic. how does that happen? >> the machine. >> he is a good example. when he is on tv in the 1950's and talking about catholicism -- i think it goes more with donny osmond is winning "dancing with the stars appear go oh, he is a mormon -- "dancing with the stars" and it is like, oh, he is a mormon, and he is dancing like us.

you started by talking about people saying, when they are voting, they won people to be like them. that is one of the problems with obama. instead of saying that we do not like a black president, we say, i do not feel comfortable with this guy. he is not like me. the way you have a sense of whether he is an ok guy, or he is not too stiff, or he is one of us is not with theology at all. and it is, in part, because our theologies differ. and we do not necessarily want that to go into the public space. but the idea that -- and this is something you have emphasized in your own writings, too -- the idea that we are tolerant and can get along despite our differences, that is what will carry this along. that is where we see these people on "dancing with the stars" or wherever it may be. >> do you think a mormon would

benefit -- do you think mormonism would benefit by being mainstream? >> for me, personally, i think it would be a great loss. and i'm not sure it could come out here as a group. it is still too small. if you look at the example of the community of christ, which is the largest splinter group from the mormon church, they have essentially become another protestant church with loose ties to the book of mormon and to joseph smith's history. they are losing membership and generally in decline in the way that some mainstream protestant churches are. it is not clear to me that without the weirdness and tension with surrounding society that momism -- mormonism could survive. >> the me give you two scenarios.

one is that rodney loses. the other is that brahney wins. -- that mitt romney loses. the other is that mitt romney wins. >> is there another possibility? [laughter] >> all of the above? i don't know, the heightened scrutiny with his candidacy has been very good for mormons in some ways. there is a chance to sort of clarify what we believe. there is attention to practices that need revision. there is another topic in the news this week, a byu professor was talking about some old mormon doctrines about race that should have long since been repudiated, and have not been. and that is a salutary for the church to look in the corners of its history and to think seriously about the way it treats women and the other questions that come out. i think that is useful. i'm not sure we could stand it

for another four years. i could not. >> do you have a perspective on this? >> i'm also thinking that the assumption before was that the way more monism -- mormonism could teach -- the way a mormon politician could teach, i think there is a way that mitt romney could teach in terms of what we do as a community and the family values the side of mormonism, which is the stuff that you are saying was attractive to mitt romney in the first place. but i think this is a provocative and interesting question. i think it would be good for mormonism if " mitt romney were elected. i think it would be a sign, as kennedy was, that this is a tradition that has made it, in a way. and it does not have to be seen

as a dangerous cult to others. i cannot believe about to say this, because i'm not a big mitt romney fan, but i think there is a way in which it could be good for america. we have this election that seems, in a way, already so nasty. i am already imagining that is going to be like the election of 1800 and be the top two of ugly and venomous elections in american history. but if in the end of that you would see, oh, we can have a non-protestant president and this is a place where a religious diversity and religious pluralism have gone far enough we could elect someone like that, i think that might be good for the country. >> this may sound like an odd question, but i mean it quite seriously. when i look at the situation

that mitt romney is basing trying to get the nomination of this party and i look at -- is facing trying to get the nomination of this party, and i look at some of the people he is running against a, here is a man who has been married to only one woman for a very long time. he has a beautiful family. he is the embodiment of american success. and i look at some of the other candidates, it is almost like they're looking for someone less perfect, someone who is broken, someone who has sinned and because he has sinned has found redemption in another way. and there is a particular candidate who has been married and as many times as he has had wives, which is not exactly the picture of the straight and narrow. or in the last election where he seemed to lose support against

mike huckabee, who had gone on a diet and was trying to cure his big weight problem. there is this sense that mitt romney is to perfect for republican voters, who are raised in a tradition that emphasizes the inherent sinfulness. is that part of the problem? >> it could be, and that goes straight to the problem of whether or mormons believe in greece or not. or not.ve in a bracgrace >> do you want to speak to that? >> shourd, mormonism emphasizes predictability and the mormon god is comprehensible to human beings. there is the collapsible of

distance, which is the belief that humans and dogs are not ontological if -- different from -- humans and god are not on the logic -- ontologically different, but just different by degrees of glory. >> so, mormons are not christian, then, is that where you are saying? >> i'm saying that mormons are still developing a robust theology of grace, which has not always been present. >> i was confused about that. this is precisely why mitt romney does not want to start talking about theology. the interesting idea, the kind of broken person who has been redeemed, as the american model. i do think americans love that. it is in our films.

it is in our mythology about our country. i think that is deeply christian, but it has also been americanized. it is not just evangelicals who want the imperfect person. that is one way that they are like us, not that they are sinners in the theological sense, but that they have troubles. for all the discussion in the last couple of days about mitt romney having friends that are nascar owners, and friends with nfl owners, too, part of the problem has to do with money, but part of the problem also has to do with maybe he is just too close to the gods. he is not like one of us. corexit mitt romney makes his mistakes. -- >> mitt romney makes his mistakes. i can only think of that famous christian saying, all your fault. steven, you used the word

republican when talking about mormons, and mormons are not overwhelmingly republicans. you are democrat. and there are many in your family. >> there are 15 of us. >> can you say anything about the attraction of the republican party and how robust is? and will that continue? if mitt romney does lose the nomination -- i doubt that he will. there are many who believe he pretty much has locked it up. but if he does lose, he will have lost it twice. will mormons' say, and my inclination is to vote republican, but this party does not want me. >> the democrats do not really want us, either. mormons became mostly republican

more recently than you would think. probably right around the time of the era, maybe a little bit earlier. it is a reaction to the '60s, pretty much. it is social conservatism in the sense that those were the most important values. and gender and family became boundary issues within the church, too. it always has been. at first, it was polygamous families. then it became these very american, a perfect families. family values were a natural place for people to go in the 1960's. >> is that part of proving your americanness, the family values? the idea in the late 19th century is that you were not family values, right? >> yes, the tour -- the 1920's

through the 1950's. >> if avenue m is going to be the equal rights amendment, the republican party -- you may know the dates on this. but through 1946, the republican platform was for the era. betty ford was one of the biggest proponents of the era. that coincided with the reagan revolution and that sort of thing. >> there was a moment for a year or two where mormons were also in favor of the era. then the general release society president came in with her very large hair on fire and saying we could should come against the era. -- we should come against the era. >> one thing that should be noted, we had two more men candidates. the other one has dropped out. jon huntsman has been known as the most moderate of the republicans.

the eternal question -- i mean, there are all kinds of questions about religion that can never be definitively answered, but there is one about politics that will probably never be definitively answered. that is, was mitt romney the governor of massachusetts, the real mitt romney, and the guy that is running out -- is he a fake? romney has changed his position more than a few times. he is generally identified as not the most conservative of the republicans. although, sometimes he has taken positions a little bit to the right of others. i think is fair to say, other things being equal, or if this were a different republican party, he would be in the moderate rain -- moderate wing. his father was, and that is his family background. why are these two moderate republicans not among the most conservative? with many people who do not know

much about mormonism and just , and youprejudices cannot get more conservative -- well, in fact you can get a lot more conservative. present form is a lot more conservative. anybody? >> -- rick santorum is a lot more conservative. anybody? >> do you know any angry mormons? i do not know any angry mormons. they are -- it seems to be in the rick santorum wing of the republican party you have to be kissed off. there is this cultural communication -- you have to be pissed off. there is this cultural communication that you are walking around feeling pretty good about yourself.

>> they take it out on mormon immigrants. >> maybe. the star about that. the other thing is, -- sorry about that. >> the other thing is, he is being a pragmatist. to understand him as the nba guy who goes into companies and figures out how to make them work, that is not done ideologically. that is pure pragmatism. in some cases you might want to fire a bunch of workers. in other cases you might want to change your product line or the ceo of your company. you do not go marching in with some ideological concept that will work. i think that is who he is and he has been very consistent about that. it sort of changes his view depending on the situation. in massachusetts, the health- care plan seemed to make sense. it seemed to be at the time a pretty conservative republican

idea that he was sneaking past the the liberals in massachusetts. now the times have changed and it is seen as a left-wing idea, so he has changed with it. i guess that is saying he is a principled flip-flopper, right? or he is a pragmatic person who ends up on different sides of the issue because of his consistent pragmatism. is there something about the mormon tradition that is not that deeply theologically driven, and that would be parallel to a politician who is not very ideologically driven? >> yes, there is this moment when he was running for governor of massachusetts and it was in one of the debates and he was asked about casino gambling in massachusetts. you can practically hear the violence well. there are a million great concern -- the voilins swell. there are a million great

conservative reasons to be against gambling and a million great liberal reasons and to be against gambling and he says, well, i need to see the numbers. he just really is kind of like that. it has more to do with his temperament and his mormonism, but there is this element that from the very beginning, there were only in one place for a couple of years at a time before they got driven out by mobs. mormonism was all about finding shelter and not getting burned out of it and finding things to eat and growing stuff in the desert. there was not a luxury of caring about someone's theological opinion. >> what about this ongoing relation where you have the tradition of the possibility of change? you alluded to this racist moment in american mormon history.

our remember as a kid -- i remember as a kid watching donny osmond on some variety show and they asked him, why can't black men become priests in the mormon tradition, and he said -- because at that time they could not. that changed in 1978 or 75 or something. and he said, well, that is up to the elders of our church and that has been our teaching. i remember thinking, that is bad. that cannot be. and he was defending it. but you know, there was a change. and the church flip-flop on the question, right? >> turned on a dime. >> there you have an example inside the tradition that is not a closed canon. you have this theology that is handed down generation upon generation that is never going to change, but there is an understanding that the church can change, too. >> there is always from the very

beginning this tension between authoritative revelation, this sort of right of the president of the church to receive guidance from the whole church, and this strong tradition of personal revelation and the idea that all people have the right to have access to have inspiration from god. those two things compete at various times. what is scary about mormon moments in american history is when people from the outside are looking at one or the other of those two strains come out one becomes more dominant. it kind of messes with the unstable equilibrium that we have worked out in the church. there is this moment in the church right now where from the 1960's on, there has been emphasis on the authoritative aspect and following leaders, and not questioning, not asking too many questions, not wanting things to change. that probably came to a head in

the late 1980's and early 1990's when a bunch of mormon intellectuals were excommunicated. but since then, there was a gradual opening. the historical department published a real honest history of the mountains maddow massacre. it is a horrible discussion. they lead to, helen whitney have access to the information for documentary and they openely cooperated with that. we are trying to be ok with people talking academically about mormons. i worry that if there is this sense -- you know if the court in new york -- if the "new york times" editorial page is nearing have us, or if the republicans do not vote for mitt romney, that it could crush that moment of revelation and openness that is on the ascendancy. those are always tricky.

>> i want to push to vote on this pragmatism question. you have emphasized mitt romney's pragmatism. steven, you have talked about how the mormon chain -- the mormon church has changed on a dime, so to speak. there is something admirable about that because it suggests that being dog -- locked into dogmatic positions or sectarian positions, we would not admire a church that held fast to principles of racial segregation and we can appreciate the flexibility of trade -- of change. but pragmatism can go to such an extreme that you wonder if you can trust someone who is so pragmatic that he essentially stands for nothing. it seems to me that is part of mitt romney's political problems these days. i confess to having liked him when he was governor of this commonwealth, and always having a certain sympathy from -- for him. i wrote publicly that i thought he was the victim of anti-mormon

prejudice in 2008 and it was a stain on the american political character that he was. i have to say, watching him this time around, the pragmatism is so wildly out of control that i just do not know what is going to come out of his mouth. i do not associate this with mormonism, but as a character issue with brahney. -- mitt romney. in one of these debates, for some reason, wolf blitzer ended the debate by saying "hi, my name is wolf blitzer, and that is my real name." and then he said, hi, my name is mitt romney, and that is my real name. and i started tearing my hair out. his real name is willard. why can he tell the truth about his name? there is a serious question here about whether one can be too pragmatic. as we often say -- i do not, but a lot of americans seem to say

they admire the candidates religiosity because it implies there are certain standards to which the candidate here's -- adheres. when your that pragmatic, there is no standard to which you hear too. any comment? >> pragmatism, at least in the business school model that i am thinking of, is a technique. it is not a goal. it is a way to get to x. how will we get this company to improve? how will we get this company to make its certain amount of money every year? we will do what we need to do to do that. there's a pragmatism with mitt romney that he wants to get the nomination, and he is scarily willing to do and say almost anything. and i agree with you, as someone who lived in massachusetts while he was governor, i have heard him say things that i have been surprised about. there is a difference there, i think, between a kind of native

pragmatism among mormons, or someone who, say, as a republican, wants to get certain things done because those are his republican principles. then he is going to be a pragmatist about how that happens. i think obama is a pragmatist in that regard. i do not think he is that different from mitt romney in his strategy. that is why a lot of people on the left are annoyed with obama, that he seems to not stand for something. i think he stands for something, but he is willing to go about it in fairly pragmatic ways. i'm not really sure anymore what mitt romney stands for. i do think he is a guy who wants to be like his father and he wants to be elected. i think that is driving him more than he wants america to look this way and the best way to make america look this way is for me to be president for eight years. >> i think i do not really know, either, and more what -- anymore what his bedrock is, and that suggests to me it is not a

mormon thing. >> here is a question. either of you can answer. can you envision some day prominent candidates running for high office in the u.s. who is a mormon and a woman? >> yes. >> you do not have to declare now. [laughter] >> no, i do think that is possible. i would suggest -- suspect that she would not have had a comfortable life passage through mormonism if that were to happen. it is not always comfortable to be an ambitious woman if you are a mormon. >> is that changing? >> it is changing slowly. and there is a backlash, i think. two steps forward and one and halfback. it goes slowly. -- and one and a half steps back. it goes slowly. it was said in our general

conference that women should not pass judgment on each other for their tauruses about career and family. you would not think that would be radical -- for their choices about career and family. you would not think that would be radical in 2011, but it is. i think the pragmatism there will be a benefit. it is true that hardly any women have the luxury of staying home and having six or seven or 10 kidd and taking care of them at home. the church will adjust to that reality. >> i have not seen anything written about this at all, but right now, everyone is talking about how when in, and especially independent women, are swinging toward the democrats, in part, because the democrats seem to have framed the contraception issue as more about a woman's access to contraception than a churches and religious liberty. mitt romney rene genser obama and given the importance of a female vote, i've -- running against obama and given the

importance of a female vote, i wonder if he would be -- if there would be trends within the mormon church that have not been sensitive to that, whether or romney would be vulnerable. >> i kind of hope so. >> how much americans know about mormonism, i don't think we know much. you intimated that, too. i do not even think that would necessarily work. >> i actually thought there was a significant amount of learning. there were a lot of serious question and i think he answered them very well. kennedy never talked about his faith and mitt romney never talked about his fate. lieberman did. maybe he had a higher hurdle to overcome. >> if mitt romney is nominated, he is going to be asked about

these things. he will not be able to avoid it. >> and one of the reasons he is probably glad that the issue has been framed in terms of religious liberty is that the mormon position on birth control and abortion is quite pragmatic and tolerant. there is no position. >> and creationism? >> gazprom on not culturally, but dr. naille, quite friendly to science -- yes, not culturally, but doctrinal lee, quite friendly to science. >> given what republicans have to do to win their primary, i doubt whether the issue would come forward now. drugs and mormon sexism is the soft kind -- >> and mormon sexism is the soft kind. it is chivalrous. go up on your pedestal and talked quietly. >> he may start moving to the microphone now, if you wish.

as you are doing that, when i got to college a very long time ago, i had to take a course. it was required on public speaking. it was taught by a debate coach at temple university. he gave us all a question and we had to come in and debate. this was 1960. i was given the question, should george romney be elected president of the united states? he was not interested in running. if you just want to identify yourself quickly and then ask your question. >> michael probiotic, and then a question. i think mitt romney's major problem is that he is in the wrong party. as a mormon or as a moderate, he has a very tough time representing the views of the republican party. i think his advisers are telling

him to stay to the right as long as you can and then when you get the nomination, you can swing to the left. huntsmans had given away millions of dollars to the university and the hospital in salt lake city. they are a leading family in -- mormon family in the country. i think huntsman made it very clear that he was going to switch parties. i think for romney, he should have. >> i did not know that huntsman was talking seriously about switching parties. we heard a lot about this group called americans elected that would like to run a centrist kind of party with people like senator snow. and jon huntsman would be a perfect match for that. >> let's not forget that the person who is going to get the republican nomination is mitt romney, who is a mormon. we can talk about the anti-

mormonism in american culture, but we are in a situation where we are going to have a mormon who is a standard bearer, not just for one of the two parties, but for the republican party. that is an extraordinary moment in american religious history. >> earlier, we were talking about -- or you guys were talking about how whether or or not pragmatism and having a moderate position was typical of mormonism. i would like to bring up that before this year, perhaps the most infamous more men in american culture is glenn becher, who is a thing -- mormon in american culture is glenn who is anything but moderate. i wonder if they will cut recall and his views.

>> i think the most prominent mormon is danny is. >> i think ibeck -- glenn beck disappeared. the new cycle being what it is, he is kind of off the stage. >> is rush limbaugh a mormon? >> snow. it -- no. maybe after he dies. >> i think that is germane. he was not raised as a mormon, so culturally, he is not a mormon. he converted when he was married, right? >> yes. it's interesting factor, he followed me in sunday school and we moved away and he became a sunday school teacher. >> he was inspired by a scout, who is way out there.

>> even for mormons. my publications finest hour may have been the takedown of the book by lou mulally. a fiery, wonderful, scathing review. and the back-and-forth letters. >> i wonder if i may be putting on the spot a little bit. i was at a conference with a lot of mormon intellectuals. proposition 8 in california came up. it was fascinating to hear them talk about it generally. they said three things, and i was curious to what extent they were true. they said, first, people need to know there are a lot of mormons in california. one thing they said was that mormons did not really read, say, the l.a. times. they got most of their information from internal mormon publications, which led them

perhaps not to realize how isolated they were becoming in their political position. secondly, they were told that the threat of prop. 8, temples would have to seal the same-sex marriages. which seems strange to me, because the method is religion, they did not seem to double down against it. the methodists convention does not oppose same-sex marriage the way the mormons and did. and thirdly, the flds people said, you know, if the previous president had been around, he would not have made the strategic error of pushing all of the ships against prop. 8. i wonder if you could comment on that. >> i was not in california, thankfully, during that time, so i cannot comment authoritatively on what people were reading. but it seems likely to me that they were reading not church-

generated memos, but most -- memos from, i cannot remember the names of the different coalitions. the coalition for marriage, or whatever their name was -- they were mostly mormons, but have participation from other people. i i did see claims that mormons would have to marry gays in the temple. which i do not understand that fear. at first, i thought it was artificial. but in talking to people more, i think people were severely afraid. they did not understand it and were truly afraid that somehow this could happen. mormon anxiety around marriage has historical roots. we did sort of have trouble doing the kinds of marriages that we wanted to about a century ago. i think that is always in the back of people's mind. what was the third thing?

>> it might have been a different policy. >> i think that might be true. it came up in the public affairs department of the church, and had a great sense of the optics of things. i think he might have seen what happened, and i do not think the president had the same sensibility. i think they were generally shocked at the backlash. nothing like proposition 8 will ever happen again, because of that backlog. -- backlash. i do not think. >> is that something you do not see in the christian/-- in the christian protestant denominations? there is this focus on the afterlife, the family, and the image of that is always a man and a woman. the evangelicals have to go running to the bible to support

their revulsion or opposition or whatever it might be to homosexuality. they have not grown up with southern baptists over the last hundreds of years. you have to go back and find a reason for the way you want it to be. in the mormon tradition, it is sort of there. >> there is this notion that the unit of exultation is a man and woman together, or a man and a few women, depending on which century are talking about. but there is definitely this theological hadron are nativity -- heteronormativity that does not exist in other denominations as strongly. >> the phrase religious liberty was introduced to the conversation. we all know that in these conversations the last few months, the catholic bishops have staked a strong position.

they have had a clear voice at the table, even in legislative hearings. as have some evangelical denominations as well. i am just curious if we could sort of reflect on if there was less silence for the mormon tradition how would this conversation, this national sort of conversation, be different. if you could reflect on that. >> i am not sure. i think that at the moment there are at least a couple of apostles of the governing body of the church that have taken up this religious liberty flag with great enthusiasm. and, you know, there is obvious history for mormons to be concerned about religious liberty. i think it is probably sort of incentive to find things that

way, and it makes sense -- instinctive to frame things that way, and it makes sense. i am concerned that when mormons' talk about religious liberty, they are talking about something different. they are not talking about birth control. they are talking about gay marriage. by not disambiguating those issues, they hope to gain political allies, but it muddies the theological waters and makes it hard to articulate a distinctly mormon position. >> we have a few minutes. i am going to ask you to ask your questions serially, and then we will try to wrap up. >> thank you for a great conversation. i am laura everett. i am wondering. one of the commitments for those of us to engage in interfaith dialogue is you let your dialogue partner define

themselves. what happens here, with this conversation about who is christian, when you have the great majority of christian traditions -- roman catholic, the broad protestant cents, saying they are christian, and you have the church of latter- day saints say that as well. is there an impact? is there a way through this? what does this conversation look like? >> jesper joseph. my question is somewhat related. you were talking earlier about whether mitt romney would have benefited from a speech or something like that talking about more monism. i immediately thought of now- president obama and his speech on race. that was a significant moment. i am wondering if he would be able to give such a speech in a crisis motion -- crisis moment, if it would be relevant. or does he had his bats?

as we found recently, republicans in alabama and mississippi have not been happy he told them. i do not know the impact of that kind of speech for them. >> i want to clarify that president obama is not a muslim. [laughter] ok. just for those of you who are listening. i have a question about mormons and christianity, but i think it is an interesting question. i did a review years ago of a book by the bushmans, who are well-known historians of more monism. it was a series of books written for use in high schools about american religious history. on the very first page of that book, there was a theological assertion that mormons were christians. i have always talked with my students about that question. i have always used it as a focal teaching point. it is an extremely interesting question to ask whether any group fits any category.

it is an interesting problem. you can do it with all sorts of things. if you are in religious studies, it is particularly nice to do it with a religious group where there is a dispute about whether it fits a certain box. first of all, you have to know something about more monism. you also have to know something about christianity. and you have to have a theory about what christianity is. so there are all sorts of interesting things to happen in order to have that conversation. i was disappointed in that book that it forestalled that question, because it instructed high school students that that was not an appropriate and interesting question, whereas i thought it was. to me, it is clear that if you have a kind of classical nicene creed doctrine of christianity, you understand mormons are not christian. there really are not. if you have, for example, how

much do they talk about jesus -- you talk about jesus in almost any religious group i know, including protestants and evangelicals. maybe they are more christian. most of our -- many of the denomination's and christians we have in america are not christians if we have a doctrinal view of christianity either. if we are going to start kicking mormons out of the christian better for that reason, all of a sudden other people start getting kicked out. is rick santorum a catholic? that is an interesting question. rick santorum disagrees with the catholic church on the majority of social, political, and economic questions. yet he is presenting himself as more catholic than now -- than thou. i am not answering that question. i am just saying i think it is a really important and interesting

one. it is quick to go radiological. -- ideological. it is also easy to say that i am a good liberal, so i am going to say mormons are christians, or i am a good evangelical, so i am going to say they are not. i think romney will have to give a mormon is a speech if he is nominated, but i think it will end up being not about ideology but about the cultural side of the church and will relief from him as a republican and a family-values republican. i think he will do that. but he is not going to talk about celeste you kingdoms and things like that. >> in an ideal world, that conversation starts with the question, with, "what do you mean when you say christian? what is your understanding of that?" neither mormons' nor evangelicals are good at asking those questions. mormon is and has no theological understanding of christianity

either. they do not understand what people say they are not christian. they do not understand the theological history behind the assertion that we are not. there needs to be more teaching on both sides. >> the last word goes to you. >> i am delighted this has been marked by such intelligent and lively conversation. thank you for your conversation tonight. [applause] i would like to thank the center here at boston college, and for all of you, who have been an excellent audience with your questions. i also think c-span for being present with us tonight. thank you for being here and enjoy the evening. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> rode to the white house coverage continues with the republican caucus and three primaries this month. on saturday, the misery caucuses will continue determining delegates for the national convention. the illinois primary is next tuesday. march 24, the louisiana primary. in early april, contests in the district of columbia, maryland, and wisconsin. the republican delegate count stands at 495 for mitt romney, 252 for rick santorum. 1144 delegates are needed for the nomination of president. this includes national committee delegates who told the ap which they support.

>> our system is fundamentally undemocratic in a number of ways. one of the ways is closed primaries. in half the states in the country, all of the voters cannot participate in the primaries. so they have no say in who gets nominated. as a result, we get more and more extreme candidates on both ends of the spectrum. >> saturday night at 10:00 eastern on "afterwards," the swing blocks are independent voters who have decided every election since world war ii. also, david brock on how the president of fox news turned the network into an extension of the republican party. and sunday night at 10:00, a talk-radio host and his thoughts on the current state of politics. book tv, every weekend on c-span

2. >> in a few moments, a look at mental health in the u.s. military. in about 40 minutes, a forum on the presidential campaign, national security, and the u.s. role in the world. after that, vice president biden on the auto industry and economy. after that, we will be year the discussion of an organism in american politics. several live events to tell you about tomorrow. the center for american progress host a forum on the end of the iraq war and national security. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. just after 1:00 a.m. -- 1:00 p.m. eastern, president obama has a fund-raiser in chicago. also tomorrow morning, a discussion of democracy and religious freedom in the middle east, hosted by georgetown university. that is at 10:15 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> i was quite a radical as a

young person. i was the one who thought it saying "we shall overcome" was not a very effective way of aiding civil-rights. i thought more confrontation was needed. >> economics professor, columnist, and substitute host for rush limbaugh, on being a radical. >> i believe a radical is any person who believes in personal liberty and individual freedom and limited government. that makes you a radical. i have always been a person who believed that people should not interfere with me. i should be able to do my own thing as long as it does not violate the rights of other people. >> more with walter williams sunday at 8:00 p.m. on "q&a." now, a discussion of mental health in the u.s. military. from "washington journal," this

is 40 minutes. host: we want to introduce you to elspeth cameron. she is here to talk about mental health in the military and the armed forces. how would you describe the mental health aspect of the armed services health benefits at this time? guest: the army and the other services have been at war for 10 years. they have been deploying back- and-forth and basically, they are tired. there are a lot of -- there is a lot of posttraumatic stress disorder. there is some traumatic brain injuries and there are other psychological effects to include depression, anxiety, and being tired.

host: are we seeing an increase in posttraumatic stress disorder from these two what words -- from these two wars? guest: we have much better data now. posttraumatic stress disorder was an even recognized as a diagnosis until well after the vietnam war. we know it happened before. we called it other names such as shell shock or battle fatigue. we have been measuring it now. we have a series of surveys called mental health advisory teams. we refer to them as m-hats. every year, the army has measured the psychological well-being of the troops. what we have seen, unsurprisingly, over time, is the symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder have been gradually rising. not to enormous amounts.

it is between 15 and 20% of troops have symptoms of that society and ptsd and depression. it shows that the effects of long years of war have taken their toll. host: with the 15% to 20% who are suffering varying degrees of those issues, what is the treatment? what to the services offered to guest: the: there are treatments of it -- what are the services offered? guest: it is very treatable. sometimes, it goes away. some people refer to it as the common cold of psychiatry because lots of people get symptoms and then it goes away. sometimes you need treatment. there are two main types of treatment that we know to be affected. one is talking therapy. there is exposure therapy, a

cognitive behavioral therapy, and then there is medication. there are a number of dedications very helpful. -- medications that are very helpful. there are also treatments that we do not have a good scientific basis for yet. i think they are very promising. those are what we call complementary and alternative treatments or complementary and alternative medicines. for example, acupuncture and add to pressure. there are trials that find a detective. -- find a that effective. a lot of soldiers relate to therapy dogs or trainers and psychiatrists who have dogs in the way they would not do if they are asked to go and see the shrink. there are other alternatives that are emerging. the military is doing a lot of research, both on the conventional treatment and the alternative. host: you are retired from the army. guest: correct. host: do you think they are doing enough to help them

prevent mental health issues in the armed services? guest: i think they are doing everything they can, but we have 2.4 million veterans of iraq and afghanistan. that is a lot of people. the other point is tha tmany members do not want to seek help. even if the army and the other services are offering it, it takes a lot for somebody to get the courage up to go see a psychiatrist or other therapists. host: we are going to put the numbers up on the screen if you would like to talk with dr. elspeth cameron ritchie, retired colonel of the u.s. army, about the armed services. the numbers are on the screen. we set aside our fourth one this morning for active duty and for veterans. 202-628-0184 is the number for you to call. we will also flashed our

electronic addresses if you would like to send an e-mail or a tweet. do you see an increase in issues in mental health issues with some of the repeated deployment we have seen in the last two wars? guest: of course. we see an increase in mental health issues in general issues about life and coping. one of the big problems for soldiers is coming back. re-integrating. what is it like to be in civilian society again? especially if nobody around you has done that. we see that especially with the reserve and the guard who do not have a lot of other military around them. how do you get used to normal, everyday life, washing dishes, mowing the lawn, when you have been the mayor of a small town in iraq or how do you relax when for a year or 50 months, every time you went outside the base, you might have a sniper and on the base, you might have a mortar attack?

it is are to come back home. -- hard to come back home. when your home, you are thinking about going again. people did not bother to read to agree because they think they're going to turn around and they do not want to get re-into -- they do not want to go again. this is hard on the family members. parents and siblings and other people who expect a person to come back and embrace them and do not understand why the service member may be kind of aloof and cold and distant. host: dr. ritchie that her undergraduate degree at harvard enter medical degree at george rushed to it. she did a psychiatric internships and residencies at walter reed and several masters and fellowships at the uniformed services univ.. what made you decide to go into the military out of harvard? guest: the army paid for

medical school. i t was a great deal. after i finished, they offered me for their assignments and further education. you mentioned i actually did two fellowships while i was in the army. the other services have other similar programs or there is a military medical school. the uniformed services univ. of the health sciences, where i got mine mph. i t was a great deal. i had a great career with it. >> -- host: what do you look for when somebody comes in and they are suffering fromptsd? guest: the first thing i'm going to do is talk to them as a human being. i am not one to talk to them as a diagnosis. i will ask them about their job. what do you do? i encourage the civilian

providers to start out with asking the person what their military occupational specialty, mos, is and find out about their background. most soldiers -- all service members are very proud of what they have done and their career. start out by asking them where they went to basic trainee and where have they served. after you have developed a report, then you may want to ask about the signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, a dramatic break injury, and psychological effects of war. -- traumatic brain injury, and psychological effects of war. there is real experiencing what happens, flashbacks, and interests of thought. numbness, and not wanting to connect to people around you and then there is hyper vigilance or being in a lurch. looking around you to see if there is an ied or a bomb on the side of the road. those are the clusters of symptoms.

you also have -- these last for a while and cause a problem and social functioning or work. host: according to the arm for his health surveillance center, 42% of the male soldiers have deployed twice in iraq and afghanistan. 13% have had three deployments. the 4% four times and 1% five times. how many are voluntary? guest: 2 during the military is voluntary. then, it will depend -- to join the military is voluntary. then, it depends on your obligation. people who join are motivated. unlike prior to 9/11, they know they're going to war. by and large, people joy knowing they're going to be deployed. many people like deployment. idf good and bad. -- it has good and bad.

you are serving your country, but you are away from home. it is also very dangerous. i think people should realize that. afghanistan is a dangerous place. host: dr. ritchie is our guest. our first call from scott -- comes from kinetic. -- from conecticut. peter on our veterans line. caller: i respect your education. thank you for your service, ma'am. guest: i appreciate that. i assume you have served, as well. where? caller: i was a military police officer in desert shield and desert storm. guest: good for you. caller: i respect everything you are saying because during my deployment, this was the first time we had first dramatic -- posttraumatic stress disorder on military families. that was the highest number of divorces whereas now we have a more serious mental issue with iraq and afghanistan conflicts.

the mental issues of the people with what they have seen that nobody really can understand. i just recently joined my veterans of foreign wars organization here in canada can and we are trying to start up a not-for-profit to assist with people with ptsd. this is only for veterans because even though there are civilian providers, it is difficult for a veteran to be able to express to a civilian what is the cause of the nature of their ptsd because a lot of times, it is a circumstance someone cannot fathom unless they have and there. -- have been there. guest: that is a good point. i encourage any veteran who has returned and feeling kind of lost and lonely to seek peer support groups like the one you are mentioning. there are a lot over the country. a lot of places. you said you are with vfw -- there are a lot of organizations. if you are feeling disconnected,

look for a group like the one that peter talked about and see if you can qnexa. -- connect. host: bud, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am from the vietnam era. one of the questions that has been on my mind ever since we have gone into iraq and afghanistan is it seems to me that the stress level is different in that even in the non-, you could get away from the front. you could go out to the jungle and get away. you could get away from the stress of battle. in this war, you are under constant stress. 24/7. i have not heard anyone talking about that. i wondered if you had any

thoughts on that issue? guest: yes. very good point. vietnam, you could go for our and our -- for r &r. most people went for a year and then they came back for good. in iraq and afghanistan, there are repeat deployments. there is no safe place, even at the bigger bases. you still have the marchers coming in and people have died. there is no front line. there are a lot of -- there is a lot of discussion about doing r &r but people are reluctant if it means they might be killed on their way there. you're absolutely right. there is a constant level of stress. our soldiers have adapted very well. they do hero commissions, but there is no question that it is difficult.

host: elspeth cameron ritchie retired after 24 years in uniform. she was the chief of inpatient psychiatry and director of proponents see of behavioral health at the office of the army surgeon general. what does that mean? guest: i was doing mental health policy for the soldiers. for the five years i was there from 2005 to 2010, we were always trying to improve the quality of the mental health care or behavioral health care for our soldiers. for example, we dramatically increased the number of providers at our bases. we really tried to lower stigma so that people would come in. people talk about ending stigma. i do not think we will and it, but i think we can look closely at the policies that perpetuate itn try to change them. i had some success in doing

that, although i think there is a way to go. host: dr. ritchie writes for a blog. this is the tweet -- r statistics kept on military suicide? guest: yes. the military has looked very closely at the suicides and that causes of suicide. i have published papers on this. there than others. you can look at the department of army suicide report and the dod task force report that is out there. in general, about 70% of the suicides are because a romantic or other relationship breakups. the others are because of legal or occupational problems, which include hazing. in many cases, it is a combination of different stressors that lead to the

suicide. sometimes, the suicide seems to be related to the high tempo of the unit. i will tell you in the person who wrote in that this problem is a very high priority for the army leadership. recently retired vice chief of staff made it a priority to see what you can do to reduce suicide. it is a tough problem. there is no easy, one answer solution to it. if you look at the task force reports i mentioned, there is literally hundreds of recommendations in there. host: next call comes from emporia, kansas. go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you? guest: good. how are you? caller: you see things at the

back end. you know, diagnosis and so forth. the thing that amazes me is the first of all, it i served eight years in the military. it is not a normal nativity. i went to vietnam. -- id is not a normal activity. i went to vietnam. we do things we do not to a normal life. that is part of the military way. you have got these guys now being deployed at three or four times. what bothers me is that the policymakers will always say the right things. but, these guys who make the policy and send these guys three or four times into harm's way, doing at normal activities, things human beings are not geared to do and to think they're not going to explode at some point, particularly when the mention -- when the mission --

yesterday, there was a post about the president not doing a good job. they're saying the president is not doing a good job of defining the mission. it changes from day to day. can you imagine the impact that has on the people over there? on the other side, you have people who are supposed to be allies. host: are right, we got the point. guest: let me pick on one or two. there is a perception that the generals do not care about how often they are deploying troops. that is not my experience. my experience is that the senior army leadership -- i speak most on army because that is what i knew, but all of them -- the senior army leadership cares about the question of local people immense and what we call dweel time -- dwell time. they tried to increase the dwell time. the mental health advisory

teams showed clearly that you needed to have the least two years and preferably three years back in the states in order to reset to get back to normal. the generals received briefings on those and they really did everything they could to try to increase the dweel time -- dwell time. it is hard when we have two worse. this has been 10 years in afghanistan. host: regarding female soldiers, 31% have deployed twice. seven% three times. two% 4 times and 0.55 times. -- 0.5% five times. are you seeing any different trends when it comes to mental health issues? guest: women in the army are more similar to a man in the army than not.

the rates of ptsd we have measured in men and women are very close. having said that, there is a unique stressor for women that we often do not talking about. one is, very basic -- how do you manage reproductive issues in the field? another is how to take care of small children, aging parents when you're deployed over and over? women are the linchpin and when they are gone, it is difficult. women soldiers, service members are incredibly tough and resilient and a coke and they rely on family and it takes a village to help a female soldier who has kids when she is gone. they are highly motivated. they hang in there. i will say, i do not think there is enough research in this area. most has been done on combat troops. my definition, women soldiers

are not "combat." we need to do more research on what it is like foremothers, daughters, to deploy. host: what are the divorce rates light for military? there was a story in the "washington post." guest: divorce rates went up in the beginning years of the war and then they dropped. it seems like in many cases, the marriage guide used to the frequent deployments. -- the marriage that used to frequent deployments. everybody knew that mom or dad were going to be going away every other year for a year. again, it is hard on the guard and reserve. and around the bases, there is a community that is there to help people cope. reserve, guard, there is not the same community to help the family when they are gone.

host: kathy, you are on with a retired colonel cameron ritchie. caller: thank you, sir. my question is in regard to the tri-care and the costs for the veterans. i would like to know if there is going to be mental health co-pay increases? barriers for veterans to get to a psychiatrist, which is a difficult medical professional to get to from a management -- if you have to wait a long time to get that appointment. guest: yes. i do not want to speak to the benefits of try scare -- try care, specifically. -- tri-care specifically. this is part of the department of defense health affairs.

you can direct that question directly to them by going to their website. i will say that i think it is important to promote good access to care. it is true that psychiatrists often are shorted and, especially child psychiatrist. i think that for military veterans and the general population, we ought to be doing everything we can to improve access to care. host: lee tweets -- how much is a stress increased when units are in remote locations for months at a time? guest: the forward operating base, fobs, are difficult to get to and from so you often have small units who are out there and we send combat stress control members or chaplains to the units to help them. there is no question it is difficult. difficulties of time and travel

and weather -- there are a lot of stressors out there. we, as if i am still in the army, we are trying hard to provide tella -- telemedicine, but there is difficulty with bandwidth. it is not easy. host: this is any know. -- is an e-mail from korea, i presume from a soldier. hi, might the draft have a bearing? guest: i was stationed at twice in korea. korea is near and dear to me. sometimes, the soldiers are pretty much for cuts in. -- forgotten. i was there when saddam hussein invaded kuwait and we felt left out. in terms of a draft, that is a political decision, not really medical. i will say that i think it is great that the army is

volunteer. and so professional. the challenges only about one for -- 1% service there -- in there is a widening gap. i think we have to do something to bridge the gap. i do not know about a draft, but something. host: next call comes from montgomery, alabama. michael, go ahead, please. caller: good morning. thank you for your 24 years of service. i retired after 24 years. thank you for your profession and -- in mental health. i would like to say one thing and that goes back to your first comment. we have been doing this, as you know, since 1991. he got the first group of soldiers that are retiring after 20 years of deployment in work, which is unusual for the average person that joins. you brought up that, you know, they deploy almost every other

year during 20 years. the families learn to cope, but it is not a good situation. i did not always go in when i was not feeling good because there is a stigma on that. i understand now that are retired, maybe i should have because i am getting services now. those things affect the family. over all, after 20 years of seeing someone come and go, come and go, come and go, you can cope, but that is not a good thing over all. you, ma'am. guest: your comment is very good. i am glad you are getting services now. know that some of our policies do keep people from getting treatment. one of my pet rocks is the question on the security clearance questionnaire, had he saw treatment -- have you sought treatments? i still think that is a barrier

people people -- is a barrier. they have modified it. you do not have to say you sought it if you developed problems because of combat. people do not know what is going to be asked. this is for the state department and other employees. i would like to see that question taken off. that is my private opinion, not that of the army. i am no longer in the army. anything you can do to reduce the barriers to care and make it easier to get treatment is the right thing to do. host: what are you doing today? professionally? guest: i am the chief medical officer for the department of mental health in washington, d.c. i grew up there. i have not come back to my stomping grounds. my office is only a few blocks from here. one of the things that we are doing is trying to have a better connection between our department of mental health and

the veterans administration in providing services for veterans in this area. we are only part of a national movement. samsa has it policy academy. they are going state-by-state to see what it is that we can do to do more to take care of veterans. i would encourage anybody who is out there and interested in helping veterans to liaison with what is going on in their state. lots of people want to do something to help, but it does not do much to say that you want to help. you need to find out what the needs are. what the services are and where to get them. -- where the gaps are. we are trying to do that here. there is great work being done in ohio and a lot of other states, too. host: when you were coming on to the studio, i was given this book that you brought with you. you and i did not talk about this. what are we looking at? guest: this is the newest

textbook of military medicine. it is called "come back and operational behavior of health." it is published by the army surgeon general and i and a senior editor. that came out last fall. it is available online as pdf for free. you can go to the website and the dow mota it. -- download it. it has cut 47 chapters, 153 are others. -- 153 authors. it covers really mental health over the last 20 years and it includes issues around humanitarian assistance and disasters and care at walter reed. it has a tractor on -- a chapter on pain management, common psychiatric disorders, stress control, etc. you can go to the website,

download the chapter for free or purchase the book. i do not get anything for it. i think it is a nice update on the military mental health issues. host: here is section 3 -- combat and operational behavior. this is free online. guest: the pdf files are free. download any or all chapters. host: is there any reason why this sergeant is in a painting? guest: i love your work. to get your work, we went to run the pentagon. -- get the art work, we went around the pentagon. the pentagon has great art on the walls. this was one of the paintings. at the beginning of the book, i love this. this is called "hunting bin laden." i think that is a gorgeous painting. it represents so much about the very difficult conflict.

host: "tracking bin laden." pensacola, florida. you are on. go ahead. caller: dr., thank you for what you are doing and what you have done in the past. people do not understand that you see the wreckage. the army nurses in vietnam -- i could not stand the field hospitals. i left as soon as i could. i went back to the unit because i could not stand with the nurses put up with every day. the stresses are not just specifically to combat. some of -- i was one of those in the field all the time. if a mortar comes in, it is a potluck sort of fading. the way you acted react.

-- act and react. this has nothing to do with a survivability when a mortar comes in. the stressors are widely different. i did have a field where soldiers took care of each other. particularly if you have good nco's. changes are the biggest things. any personality changes are the biggest things you watch out for. the stresses people go through that cause that, when you see something that happened -- all of a sudden, somebody changes. host: we're going to leave that there. guest: i am glad you mentioned the nco's because they are the backbone of any unit. there are a lot of people who would like to have a pen and paper screens for mental

health, but i have always said there are -- a good for surjit is the best screening tool. i mentioned the difficulty for the medical personnel. our doctors, nurses, physical therapists, everybody works incredibly hard. we tend to think about the wounded soldiers, but all sorts -- but also care for the local nationals. your hospital may be 90% full of people from iraq or afghanistan and they are taking care of them, too. those people often are difficult. they can be. are they hurt -- they can be very badly hurt. our doctors and nurses to a heroic job. i am biased because i was one of them. i think they do it wonderful job. they often do not get the appreciation they deserve. host: there was an article on fort lewis mccord -- it says the base has become one is -- one of the most troubled in the u.s..

host: is there any particular reason you the base might be singularly high in those types of issues? guest: for the u.s. has had a lot of bad press. -- fort lewis has had a lot of bad press. i would like to wait to answer that. there have been a number of bases that have had difficulties. you remember the murder-suicides at fort bragg. there were homicides at fort carson. campbell has been plagued by suicides. if you have in common is that they are high op-temp people are deploying frequently.

i would like to let the investigation and answer your question. i think the bases need support, not criticism. host: this every soldier who comes back from iraq and afghanistan at least get a cursory pstd screening? guest: yes. they get a place the -- post deployment health assessment. this has been in place since fairly early in the war. they get it as a coming back from kuwait or wherever they are coming from. beginning in 2005, the army first and then the other services added another screening call the police department -- called a post deployment health reassessment. the soldiers want to come home. they are not going to check yes.

after they have been back three to six months, they may be willing to come forward or that is when their marriage is crumbling and that is the time to ask them again. as i said before, soldiers to the -- soldiers do not like to seek mental health. that only go so far because they do not like to answer questions. this is the importance of the unit of the noncommissioned officers knowing their men and women and early reaching out to them after they have gotten back. host: we have touched on this once -- what about the stigma? the stigma of mental health services? guest: there is a stigma and the military, law-enforcement, fire, and in civilian world. we have done a lot to reduce the stigma. one thing that helps is the psychiatrists and psychologists is a -- psychologist being out there.

many bases will send a therapist into the unit. a soldier is not going to want to comment seamy but if they see me in the miss hall -- mess hall, for a while, there is a trust. they are more likely. we rely on our chaplains who are an important part of the mission. soldiers will be willing to go see a chaplain. i mentioned my interest in therapy dogs. we have started to use them. we have golden laboratory -- goldson labs or black labs. the soldiers will come and get the dogs and then stick around. host: we are out of time with our guest, dr. cameron ritchie. thank you for being here.

guest: i want to thank everybody for calling in. >> coming up in a few moments, a forum on national security and the u.s. role in the world. in an hour and a half, vice president biden on the auto industry and the economy. then a discussion of more monism and american politics. -- more monism -- mormonism and american politics. the uprising in syria and the tenure of iran's current president. and the president of american petroleum discusses the cost of gas, alternative energy efforts, and the keystone oil pipeline. hubert hamer of the agriculture

department looks at how farming and agriculture have changed over the last few decades. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> congratulations to all the winners of the studentcam documentary competition. a record number of middle and high school students entered, showing which part of the constitution is important to them, and why. what all the videos on our website, and join us mornings in april, when we show the top 27 videos. and we will talk with the winners on "washington journal." now discussion on how the presidential candidates are approaching national security issues and the u.s. role in the world. hosted by the american enterprise institute, panelists include journalist peter bergen and mitt romney adviser robert keeton -- kagan.

>> if everybody would please take their seats, we will get started. welcome, everybody. i work here at aeu as a relevant fellow -- resident fellow and director of our center for defence studies. i want to look and everybody on behalf of my partners in crime from the new america condition and center for a new american security. . -- this is a new project. we have been working as three for a while. we are very pleased to kick off a series of events examining the key issues of foreign security

policy in this presidential year. the three of us are obviously institutions with somewhat different policy perspectives. what brought us together in this case is a shared belief that this will be an extremely consequential election. voters might make choices based on domestic concerns, but the and the world will be watching. we believe the four statistics concerns are the future of the middle east, the effect of china's geopolitical rise, whether the american military can sustain global leadership, and above all, today's topic -- what role do we see for ourselves in the years ahead? we are lucky to have robert kagan from the brookings institution to lead this conversation. nobody has thought more deeply about the role of american power than bob hess. let me turn to our moderator,

and pierre's tom gjelten, -- and pr's --npr's tom gjelten. he is not only find an experienced reporter and serious student of international affairs, but he has the growth of cost and horsemanship to heard this think-tank pundit roundup. >> thank you. maybe i need to push the button. good morning to the rest of you, too. as is the custom at these events, we have to remind you to do silence your cell phone. it is a pleasure for me to be here. i am impressed by how many of you have shown up on this spectacular spring afternoon. this should not be a surprise because you have a chance to listen to the thoughts of a writer who has given president obama his main foreign policy

talking point for the state of the union. i am not at all surprised if you are anxious to hear him elaborate on a provocative thesis that the idea that america's declining is actually a myth. a very impressive "new republic" article, and an even more impressive small book in which he spells that out. without further ado, i think you all know robert kagan from his writings, and one of the things most impressive about your record is you are not only a pundit, but you helped to advise administration's and played an important role with the past administration in iraq policy. without any further comment, take it away, and tell us the message you really wanted to put out with this book.

>> thank you, and thank you for crediting me with so much influence, especially since i was living in brussels at the time. i consider that to be extraordinary influence i would like to say a few words. we have a terrific panel. i believe this is a consequential election on an issue that is not being talked about very much, which is foreign policy. it is important and timely there you have pulled this together. it is true that thanks to a certain high-ranking administration official the aspect that as gotten the most attention in my book is the argument against american decline, but the major thrust of the book is about other things, and mostly it is about the special world order that we live in today, and that has existed since the end of the second world war -- how fragile it is, and how, in my view, dependent it is, ultimately, on

american power. let me describe this world order. let me describe this world order. with all of the difficulties in the world today, it is easy to lose sight how from any historical perspective we continue to live in what can only be described as a golden age of for humanity, and i would say that looking at three fundamental qualities that we have been enjoying for the decades. the first is one of the more obvious, the enormous spread of democracy. on the eve of world war two, there were roughly 10 democracies. in 1900, there were roughly five. definitions are complicated, but today, there are over 100. if you think in terms of human history, that is unprecedented and unique. the second thing is the global

prosperity we have enjoyed. it is hard to measure passed in gdp growth for the world, but some economists have tried and the estimates are that between the year zero and 1500 global gdp grew an average of 0.1%. from 1500 to 1950, it might of been 1%, but since 1950, it is grown on average about 4% a year. that is a huge, seismic difference. one of the remarkable qualities of that growth is that it has not just been in the trans- atlantic community, but the highest growth rates have happened outside, and we see the growth of china, india, brazil, and other rising economies. this is a unique situation, and in the course of this time 4 billion people have moved out

of poverty into some area of the middle class. that, itself, is truly extraordinary in human history. most of human history has been a story of poverty, tyranny, and also were. while there has been no shortage of wars in this time, we have been scared massive, great- power war, which was a feature of the immediate 50 years prior to the onset of this world order with two world wars in the 20th-century, but prior to that as well, the world knew almost constant great power conflict in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. these are the kind that killed tens of millions of people, destroyed an international system, and we have been scared of that. if you take those three things together, you realize what an

utterly unique. this has been. -- utterly unique time this has been. the difficulties we have had in this time, nevertheless we have been scared the war, the party, and the dictatorship to a remarkable extent. the second point is this world order was created substantially by american power and it rests on the continued exercise of american power in all its dimensions, economic, political, and will not survive the decline of that power. it is not foreordained. it is not the product of natural human evolution. we have seen democracy fail. we have seen economic orders collapse in the past. we've seen, obviously, wars

between great powers break out. nothing about our current era is permanent. it relies on the power that created it to sustain it, and the most important power in that regard has been the united states. the final question, which is the subject that has gotten more attention, is are we not, in fact, in decline, and incapable of sustaining this, even if it is the right thing to do? my argument is that most of the discussion about american decline is based on a myth, and the number one myth that it is based on is that you often hear it said "the united states can no longer do whatever it wants to do, can no longer get nations to do what it wants to do, can no longer have its way in the world." the myth is that there are worse such a time. if you go back to any decade of the cold war, beginning with the first, for whatever

successes the united states achieved, they were at least equal, and in some cases, greater failures. i could move on to the caribbean war, the vietnam war, the oil crisis of the 1970's, the rise of the iranian revolution. i could go on and do go on in this wednesday as a. if you want the details, you can find it there. most of the notion is based on a myth of the past. to the the basic measures of power -- if you look at the basic measures of power, i would say the united states is roughly where it has been in past decades, not able to do everything it wants, not able to solve the middle east peace crisis, as it has not for the last 40 years, but nonetheless capable of doing quite a bit

more than people think. let me leave it there. >> thank you, bob. >> i will ask bob a question or two, then i will ask our panelists to ask a question, then we will get a discussion going among us up here. i want to point out in echoing what tom gjelten said, it is impressive that we have three different think tanks with 3 marginally different views of the world, but i do not want to bend to far over in the direction of harmony. i hope we can have a discussion because there are serious issues that can be debated, and this sets up my first question for you, bob. in emphasizing that the position of the united states and the power of the united states has been remarkably

consistent through economic crisis, political crisis, three different administrations, yet on the other hand you say that this is not sorting. this could change. -- foreordained. this could change. what is it that explains the permanence of this position, and conversely, what matters? this foreign-policy matter? the presidential leadership matter? what could change this if we have maintain this position throughout the administrations, throughout different ideological perspectives? >> that is an excellent question, and what could change it is a growing consensus either that we simply cannot sustain this role anymore, or that we should not sustain this role anymore. there are certainly spokesman for all of those out there. even the president, who made

this rainy reputation of the climate in his state of the union address, sometimes encourages the notion that we should beat "nation-building at home, not engaging in foreign activity" which i think he is the notion that it is time for a time-out. since we are moving toward the possibility of sequestration, cuts this administration believes would be catastrophic. that is a word they actually used -- catastrophic to american capabilities overseas. if you make that decision and you stick with it a long enough, people do not like to think about the role of american heart power in the world because they think about wars that have not been successful, but they underestimate how important that hard power he is in maintaining this. i am relatively optimistic that that is not where the american people are going to go.

i do not think ron paul will get the republican nomination, much less the presidency. i think there is a strong consensus in the country that although we might be having difficulties, the united states should continue to play this role, and i think you will get it regardless of who is elected. >> does that all it -- also explain why there has been continuity despite republicans and democrats in the white house -- would you say, historically, the consensus has largely been maintained? >> since world war two. there was more fluctuation, obviously, in the past, because americans made a decision after world war one to of dissent themselves from the international scene is as best they could. the major continuities are one, the belief in the special nature of the united states, which goes back to the funding,

and has driven american foreign policy consistently, regardless of who was president. the notion that the united states is the keeper of a fundamental truth, about which there are no other truths, and the united states has the special role in the world. the other element has been power. the more power the united states has had, the more it has taken on these responsibilities despite the complexities of what it means. the lesson of both world wars that americans in a way in justed and became part of their psyche, was the world does not work well without us. this notion is constantly challenged and question, but that remains the fundamental premise of american thinking. >> it seems like you are arguing against the zero-some analysis of the world. you do talk quite extensively

about the rise of the rest, and you say there rest can rise without u.s. position declining. >> the rise of the rest needs to be analyzed more specifically. it depends on who is rising. i do not consider the rise of brazil to cut against american power, and i did not mean that in the sense that brazil is not significant enough, but it is part of the world order. the most dramatic rise was the rise of japan and germany during world war. american share of gdp was 52%. by 1969, it was 29%. catastrophic, right? the only nation that is rising today that raises the real challenge to the united states is the rise of china.

in that regard, i welcome the rise of india, because it is a natural check on china. i welcome the rise of turkey, because i think turkey remains interested in furthering the goals of this world order. in my view, most of the rise of the rest is additive to the american position. >> of course germany and japan were more deference to american leadership. >> by a much more willing to put up with independent nations pursuing their own policies because i think they are contending to the over world -- overall world order, from which the united states benefits. there are many that did not follow the script, and the french would be the first to remind us of that.

>> i have an idea that what you say about china is the most provocative point of your argument, and i want to bring in richard on that point. you pay attention a lot to china, and the focus on asia from this administration. what are your thoughts about what we have just been saying with respect specifically to china? >> i agree that china poses the most profound challenge that we will face in the rising of these new powers, and i also agree that the rise of countries like india is good for the united states, even if they're not tightly-aligned with the united states because they provide a balance to the rise of china, and the question we will

face as a country is how do we deal with these rising powers like turkey, brazil, indonesia, india, in order to have a balance of power that frames that the environment in which china continues to rise. in terms of the ticket, plenty have -- pivot, and many quibble with the term. the united states has never left asia. i would point out that it is a goal, rather than something that can be handed down by fiat. a perfect example is yesterday, when president obama and prime minister kamen word in the rose garden to in their joint press conference, there were four questions the press asked, and these are two key allies that have global ambitions. not a single point was an east

asia. it was on syria, iran, afghanistan, and the global economy, so the united states is going to have to pivot to asia, but it can not come entirely at the expense of what will happen in the middle east and south asia as well. no matter how much we want to focus on asia and deal exclusively with china, these are the things will be in the forefront of our minds. >> how about, robert, if i finish with this, and you can think about things you want to say, thomas donnelly, robert makes this eloquent point about the importance of consensus and continuity in looking at

american policy over the last 60 years, and the fact that throw all the financial and political turbulence we have had -- changes of administration -- the american position has been consistent. is that is the case, what does that say about presidential leadership? what does that say about the conduct of foreign policy? does it suggest that the choices we have made far less consequential, perhaps, than they seemed at the time, and the choices that we yet to have to make, are they less consequential than they appear right now? >> i would agree that there are traditions, and legacies, if you will, that transcend any president, any administration. it is really hard to change a foreign policy tradition when the tradition is a strong and successful as ours has been. there is something to what you say. it has accommodated all kinds of personnel and obviously parties with different agendas.

i would be interested to hear whether there are underlying structures that are changing perceptions that is affecting -- that is changing the ability to play the role that we constantly play. whether we can become a social democracy that is spending 20% to 20% of gdp on what we call entitlement programs or mandatory spending, and debt service -- whether that has any effect on defense budgets, and whether that has any shifting of governmental priorities.

once the impulse reasserts itself, will it mean that the means to return to a more traditional leading-from-the- front-kind of american leadership will be just very difficult? we do not see a democratic party debate because they have an incumbent president. in talking to the politicians that have been left it in the 2010 elections, there was a foreign policy debate that turned into a budget debate. a budget-cutting debate. so, i wonder whether those kinds of concerns are really

going to constrain a future president who might decide to assert a more traditional form of american leadership. >> it seems to me with that at least a couple of moments in the last 60 years were there were quite abrupt changes in the national -- international situation. one was the aftermath of the vietnam war. the other was the fall of the berlin wall and this end of the cold war, and the rapid decline in defense spending that happened in the aftermath after that. bob makes a good point that through both of those watershed moments, there was actually a surprising amount of consistency. we are now facing a situation where we have u.s. forces -- u.s. forces in combat in two ground wars for more than 10 years 10th there was an interesting thought dead in "the washington post" yesterday

talking about combat stress in world war run -- world war i, writing that their reservoir of courage begins to empty where the fear of the unknown starts a process of moral entropy -- atrophy that cannot be reversed. i think we have to look to these issues now in the context of having fought 10 really difficult years in iran and -- iraq and afghanistan, and i wonder what you think the implications of the last 10 years of combat mean for this debate, peter? >> i have to be will points, and first of all, thank you for arranging this -- two points,

and first of all, thank you for arranging this. we are broadcasting this terror i just wanted to mention that in 19 -- this. i just wanted to mention that. we are only spending 1% of gdp in afghanistan. so, as a historical matter, we are not spending very much money on these wars. agree with both bob and yourself, you have undercut in touch with the point of this exercise because you have pointed out that it does not make a difference who is the next president, because essentially policies will continue president obama came in on an anti-war ticket, but we were involved in six conflicts

essentially including yemen, a war that was winding down in iraq, tripling the troops in afghanistan, saying they will stay there for five years. so, not only was there continuity with george bush, but it was actually amplification. when we pulled troops out of the afghanistan, in 2014 we will have the same troops in afghanistan that we had at the end of george bush's term. >> the question is looking ahead, we're now looking at getting out of afghanistan as quickly as we can. >> i am extraordinarily skeptical of that. an agreement will lead 25,000 americans there in some shape or form. they will not be combat troops, and it does not matter who was in office. we have already abandoned afghanistan twice. no american president is going

to do that again. >> i have been failing in my effort. [laughter] >> i am happy to throw a quick hand grenade. part of the point of the article is that because the professional force is so struck -- small, a small percentage of us have done the actual fighting. it is true that there has been an ending of political enthusiasm for these wars but the question is, to go to this, sort of, means-resources, which are changing without actual

decisions being made, whether absent some hard choices made to rebuild the means of power, and particularly hard military power, whether this world order that bob describes will run itself, or what it would like to share the load, so to speak, in a way that fundamentally changes the world? >> i think that is the point. has there been any time in the last 60 years where we have had such a debate over the fiscal constraints this government faces as we have right now? you make the point that defense spending should not necessarily be the focus of that debate, but nevertheless it has introduced a new element, has it not? >> in the interest of not emphasizing continuity, as i recall, the debate over the defense budget during the reagan years was greater than it has been up until about one year

ago. i actually used to make the point that i was somewhat astonished how little the u.s. defense budget, which was creeping up toward $700 billion a year was the subject of political debate in the united states when reagan point of defense budgets were a major democratic party platform. now things are more like where you are saying because of the fiscal crisis. we are capable as a nation, because we have done it in the past, of over-cutting our defense capabilities, and getting to the point where we have weakened our ability to shape the international system, and brought ourselves to a potentially perilous point in the conflicts that we might get ourselves into, because we have a way of getting ourselves into conflict even when we do not think we are going to do that again.

if history is a guide, and that is always a good question, is history a good guide? if history is a guide, something will happen that will lead us to another direction. the trend in the 1990's was declining defense budgets. it was not dramatic. we were only spending $400 billion a year, or whatever the number was at the time. then something happened in 2001 that led to this explosion. that is not the first time that has happened. there is a cyclical quality to this. it is an interesting question about having been in war for so long. my son, who is 13 years old said to me not long ago has there ever been a time when america was not at war? when i grew up, we were mostly not at war scared for much of my life we were not at war.

that is an extraordinary thing. i do not know where that leads. there is a whole generation of young people for home september 11 was a defining moment. many have gone into the military. they go into international relations fields. so, has this conceptual. that we have been in created -- conflicting time for brought in a one ness, or brought to us to the time where we have to do something? where barack obama has been as president is really the most compelling point. if ever there was a time when the world thought america was gone with intervention, they thought it was the election of barack obama, and i get to tell this joke. people told me if i voted for john mccain we would attack another arab country and vote for another -- and overthrows

another leader, and they were right, and i voted for john mccain. that is what happened. >> i also have a feeling that you and richard were on the same page, and richard, i took your comments to mean that the move toward asia -- asia might not be reality, because he's got a lot to deal with in the middle east. >> i would also pick a fight with the pivot. i do not want to get in the way if you want to ask richard the question first. ok. your point is we never really left. the point that is made today in europe and the middle east, to

some extent, is if you are pivoting for something, that means you must be going away from something else, and there are conference organizers in europe having a field day with what it means for europe. that is the subject of every conference in europe. i think it is a mistake for a nation of america's global responsibility talk about picking anywhere. we cannot. our interests remain very much in europe. our interests -- we are not leaving the middle east, as you rightly pointed out. we need to increase our attention to asia, certainly in terms of our capability, but there is a misunderstanding of our role in the world to even talk about to 15 in one direction or another. -- pivoting in one direction or another.

>> you convinced -- confessed to voting for john mccain, so defend his position. he had leon panetta talking about syria, and he said before we put people in harm's way we have to make sure what the mission is, whether we can achieve the mission, and whether or not it will make matters better or worse, and senator john mccain said you do not mention america's leadership. america should lead in this, standing up, building coalitions, and we are not leading, mr. secretary. syria is a case in point where we can play out what does the idea of american leadership mean in the context of a difficult policy conundrum like syria presents right now? >> i am going to hear what you say first. [laughter]

>> to push a point that bob made, and going back to my original obsession with domestic politics, he did not hear politicians talking about how do you international system fits together. -- you do not hear about how the international system fits together. even libya and the dialogue around syria is so much about the humanitarian aspect, which is compelling and real, but if you target of a great strategic opportunity, you know, if you are worried about the largest problem in the middle east, iran and iran with a nuclear weapon, this is a tailor-made

issue to use as a prism for a larger understanding of america's role in the world, and again, it seems to me, there is no conversation on the political spectrum about this. look, everybody in the region certainly grasps -- grasps that. it is one of these moments where we might be defining for ourselves in defining american leadership downwards, to channel charles murray in this regard, so there are issues of syria in an of itself, but it is not a dispositive. it is -- i worry that it would be a leading-edge indicator of an america that is in this contraction mode, particularly in the middle east. >> what would be? if the u.s. were to what? >> there is a series of events. there is the withdrawal from

iraq. as you suggested earlier, who knows where the afghanistan drawdown will end and what the pace will be. the message has been, even since the announcement of the obama surge, that time is limited, and we will not commit as much. our role in the arabs bring, and the egyptian revolution, you can then get that in a multiplicity of ways. our ability to decisively constrained iranian nuclear programs -- we can go on and on. it is a region that has a certain amount of the flexion in its own politics, and americans have been working for this moment when a whole generation of autocrats are losing their

grip on their own people. this should be an opportunity for us to seize. again, the overarching message, at least sometimes, appears to be we want to back off and do this from a distance without getting involved in these messy situations. >> do you agree that is the over-arching message, peter? >> this is just a comment. it took two years for president clinton to intervene in bosnia. it took nine days for president obama to intervene in libya. why did he intervene? they actually did something, giving the intellectual framework to allow the u.n. resolution, to allow nato to do something. what is different in syria? it is a u.n. problem. that is something the obama

administration has been trying to deal with, but you have two countries that a veto any kind of operation in syria. i think that will change. i think it is possible china's resolution is reworded. if people are working to make this happen. i'm not an expert on the syrian military, but i think it is more formidable than the libyan auxiliary's from other african countries. it is easy to say that we should do something, but what is it that we should be doing? are we talking about a naval blockade? are we talking about a no-fly zone? the devils are in the details. >> so, what does american leadership mean with respect to what to do in syria? >> in a way, if we were not in

this phase of the election season, if we were in the first year of, let's say, obama's second term, where we were two years ago and we have not done libya, i think we would be moving quickly toward military action in syria. circumstances are everything. i think the president does not think the american people want another military intervention now, and he will not do it before the election, and he may not do it after because he has a ran on his mind. i do not rule out the possibility that he might use force against iran. that is part of the calculation as well. i do not think we would have these conversations about our inability to do anything in syria. what i find amusing is that people like senator corker said this is not obviously easy like libya. are remember some hall during the bid up to libya, that it was impossible, what could be do militarily? of course the syrian military

is stronger, but i would guess our capacity to create a safe zone if we wanted to and carpet out in syria using air power is something -- carved it out in syria using air power is something we can do. i think we should not over state -- as unhappy as i am, i suffered miserably to the clinton years when they would not do certain things, and ultimately two years later than necessary, they did it. my favorite moment from the clinton administration is when asked why they did not do anything about rwanda, they said they were too busy with bosnia, and the question was busy doing what? this is not the first administration to have the feeling that they're not eager to get into this. i think the trajectory they are on is that they're ultimately

going to intervene. if the president does not want to intervene, he really should not say president assad must go. that rhetoric ultimately leads to action. because of the timing, we might not get action when we want it. >> if it gets more difficult to longer you wait, too. >> because lives have been lost in the interim. >> i am a little more skeptical, maybe, then you two, about the idea that we will intervene in syria. i think the circumstances in libya, my reading of that was the europeans were so far out in front, the british and the french want to do something, a no-fly zone, and the president said everyone is telling me that it will not matter much, and if we do this, we have to do this the right way, so the stars are aligned in the backdrop of all of this. you had the sense that if khadafy was able to start this

-- stopped -- gaddafi would be able to stop this in its tracks. i do not doubt the you have a tragedy in syria, but in terms of diplomacy with europeans, it certainly will not authorize force the we did in libya. the administration would then be in a situation to do what it is doing now, or some kind of military intervention without u.n. security council resolution, without arab league endorsement, and i am skeptical that they will. >> the military aspect of this smells to me a little bit more like an excuse than a >> -- explanation. the syrians have not shot down an israeli airplane in years, if ever.

how the conflict would end, and where it would lead are really great questions, but, you know, the conventional syrian military is just the kind of target that our high-tech forces are certainly completely capable of reading devastation upon. >> al qaeda is part of the opposition in a way that we need to be careful appeared >> and they had a whole recruiting infrastructure in syria. >> that was with the suicide bombers in syria. >> this is been an interesting discussion. i want to raise one other issue before i turn it to you folks.

do you talk hear much about education? >> you did not miss anything. >> i did not think so. >> you do not have to read the rest of it. >> there is plenty more in there, i in this point to ask if that is not a weak point in your analysis. america's education decline is pretty clear relative today educational attainment in other countries. is that not a very important part of america's strength, and if it is declining relative to some of the other advanced countries, is that not a worrisome development? >> it is worrisome, and i am not an expert on education, so that is why it is not in the book. i only pretend to be an expert about some things. my sense about the american education system is that it is a mixed picture. on the one hand, we have the best universities in the world

that everyone is trying to get into. so, at the level of higher education, i think the united states is way ahead of the rest of the world. european higher education is in crisis now. i am not sure the people are dying to get into chinese universities. >> they are coming to our universities, and they're going back home. >> that is the way life is. there are also many come in and stay in. this is anecdotal, but some parts of the american secondary system in high school are very high, precisely because immigration is so great. where my kids go to school as a stream of asian immigrants coming in driving up standards like crazy and making it hard for us to compete. in any case, the overall level is extremely high. there are big gaps, obviously, in the american education

system, and in some places they are doing as well as anyone in the world, but many others are not. i do not want to update your question. of course we want to -- you gave your question. of course we need to upgrade our system. as it happens, i think the united states it is still at the forefront of that kind of economy, but you can lose your place. >> we have focused primarily on wars and foreign engagements so far, but you make very clear when you talk about our you're talking about comprehensive national power. any other thoughts before we -- >> just to keep this comprehensive national power thing, it makes perfect sense, but some of these things are better tools for some than others. the soft power, sticky power --

is all important, but you cannot order american culture around the way you can order a american military around. you can order the american economy around, but that has more downside consequences than upside consequences. our whole conversation about our has become -- about power has become, sort of, debased, in some sense. what i like about bob's book, it is when he talks about the international order what is underlying it is security architecture, and you would not discount the value of american political beliefs, or culture, or anything, but making the

world safer and -- read music is not an important issue. >> there is no easy illustration of that. over the past two years, at a time when the american economy has been in terrible shape and the chinese economy has been successful and soaring, and all these elements we are worried about have existed, but if you ask anyone looking at the diplomatic and geostrategic score sheet who has done worse over the last two years, it is actually china. by overplaying their hand in the south china she, -- south china sea, you have south asians coming to the united states. china is a net loser so far. look at what is going on in the international system in terms of syria, libya, and iran.

china has been forced again and again into positions they would not otherwise take. they're not in the business of helping democracies overthrow other autocracies, but they have been forced into this position. for all law weakness in gdp and education and other things, but the level of grand politics, it is still the case we will to enforce. >> you could say china has been a net loser, but you could say europe has not done well either. >> i did not write a book about how europe is in decline. >> you did say that it came at the decline -- at the expense of european power. >> right. but i decided i was optimistic. >> let's open it up to the audience. please follow the ai3 rules, which for the microsoft --

microphone, then make your statement in the form of a question. >> deere in mitchell. i write the called the mitchell report." -- i write the "michel report." i want robert kagan to respond to the continuity of foreign policy argument. the point of view is that post- world war two, to the present day, for much of that time the differences on american foreign policy were, sort of, easily described as hawks and doves, or terms of that sort.

that tended to be more a reflection of party affiliation. that, at some point, and i am not sure where, nor whether this thesis is right, but at some point that has shifted, and we are not so much in hawks against dogs anymore, but perspectives -- dove's anymore, but perspectives about kinetic positions taken by this government have more to do with the ins and outs. >> are you asking bob if he agrees with that? >> i am asking if that is an accurate perspective. in kosovo, clinton wanted to do it, and the republicans were against it. some of the same situation pertained in libya. my first question is is that

remotely accurate, and if it is, what has made that transition, and how does that augur for the likelihood of continuity moving forward? >> well, i think that it generally has been true throughout american history that the ins were activists and the outs or anti-activists. the president wielded enormous power and influence in foreign policy, and congress is about stopping it. even in the cold war when the democrats were in power, the republicans were fundamentally isolationists, and the democrats for the hawks. that basically persisted until the democratic cracked up in the the vietnam war. been opposed to war came after nixon was elected. there is a certain continuity there, which i think is still

true. there is general continuity throughout the history of foreign policy and this is not always true, but it has been true, the more progressive of the two parties domestically has also tended to be more progressive in their global approach. at the end of the 1890's, the conservative party were the democrats because they were the party of the south to some extent and they were the more isolationists. you could see that flipping woodrow wilson becomes a progressive, and republicans go back to be -- to being conservatives. [inaudible] >> my name is trevor. thank you for your talk.

i wanted to ask the panel what they viewed the role of the international committee, current american partners and the united nations is moving forward in afghanistan, post-2014. >> nato has made it clear they would be in afghanistan after 2014, and in may there will be a meeting in chicago, and i think the hope was there would be an announcement of a strategic forces agreement with afghanistan and the united states. one of the big impediments' has gone away, which is the question of will the afghan government be able to get detainees in their prison system, and the answer to that is basically yes. the international community has a good reason to be involved in afghanistan going for. we're still in okinawa six decades after world war two. i do not think we will leave the place we were attacked from when decade ago.

we sent a lot of mixed messages about when we are leaving. every time it looks queer heading for the exits, it causes caused -- it looks like we are headed for the exits, it causes consternation. a partnership is a desirable thing because it will effect hedging strategies of the country's surviving afghanistan, making it clear that we will be there. >> a slight wild card is we may have a new french office taking office, not squabble last policy. i've been warned about that. -- who might not swallow the last policy. i have been warned about that. >> my name is hugh.

before the editorial i was thinking we had the a number -- vietnam-ization, because the local population is not keen to their being there. when people make money by opening their mouths, -- is a psychological effect that is tremendous, and none of us in this room except for the guys that served in iraq and afghanistan can attest to it. how will we deal with this troop fatigue?

>> it is worth thinking very hard about this and not leaping to conclusions about anecdotes, although it is is true that the stress and suicide statistics and things like that -- it is is very worrisome. for us military geeks, if you step back from the headlines of the day, it is remarkable how well the force has sustained us. we should never take this for granted, but if you said to me or a lot of the students of military affairs, and here is what is going to come in the next 10 years -- oh, the force will break. the performance of this force has been above and beyond, and that includes the reserve components, who played a huge role in this guest: t s -- it is something that is worth

watching and being sensitive to, and would be nice if politicians were not just thankful for the sacrifices, but encouraged folks to share burdens as well. it is one thing to serve castro, it is another to invite them to sign up -- serve casserole, it is and other to invite them to sign up. given what they have gone through, the discipline has been astounding by any measurement we have. >> thank you.

a good friend of mine, kind of the andy marshall of nato, talks about the need for a gentle giant, and that we are in there is no one else and probably never will be. i remember jim morehouse, the commercial attache in paris 20s ago, would tell me that the commerce department wore black shoe -- wore brown shoes and state department wore black shoes. it is not just commerce that determines our foreign policy. with that in mind, after 9/11, all the focus naturally moved to the middle east. nothing was said today at all about central and south america, and yet it is our next door neighbor. we went to europe to help them time and time again when they

get in trouble, but are we really watching? i guess the bigger question is can we afford to be that gentle giant and have some sort of balance, and i'm talking both under the previous administration and this administration, where there was one of friendly meeting with the president of mexico with bush 43, and then 9/11 happen and that was it. are we able to keep looking at that balance in looking at all areas of the world? >> latin america -- >> no -- [laughter] >> it is 130-plus pages the line over a very long time is that the united states will do everything about latin america except think about it. it is a recurring theme. you could have gotten up any time the last 100 years and say

we could pay more attention to latin america. we will invade it more easily than pay attention to it. the answer to your question is yes, we ought to pay more attention. we ought to be able to walk and chew gum and pay attention to latin america at the same time. it is not that demanding. things in latin america and not that bad. there are positive developments about latin america today, including the relative success of democracies. you have the rise of a global power in latin america. that has not been true for a while. there are a lot of things moving in a helpful direction. columbia is in a hopeful direction. the american approach in two administration to chavez, basically to ignore him, as been successful.

i was happy to see the obama administration get those trade agreements through. they were symbolic commitments to the region. don't underestimate the degree to which latin america benefits to some degree from a certain amount of american neglect, because when we get heavily involved we tended to be bigfoot, right? i agree with you that things are not so bad as they could be in the region. >> right here. >> thank you. i am an independent tv program producer. i think about the national security, and democracy, education. education.