the future and to sustain a peaceful and cooperative international order. the strategy is built on five key elements. first, we know we are going to be smaller and leaner. that is a reality. we must remain agile, flexible, quickly deployable, and on the cutting edge of technology. second, we must remain strong enough to confront aggression and defeat more than one enemy at a time. if we face the threat of a land war in korea, we have to be able to deal with that and at the same time the possibility of closure of the straits of hormuz. we have maintained that capability. third, we will also continue to invest in the capabilities of

the future. yes, we have to meet our responsibility with regards to reducing the deficit burden, but at the same time, we also need to invest in cyber, unmanned systems, invest in space, special forces operations, and the ability to quickly mobilize in the event of crisis, and also importance of maintaining our industrial base. fourth, our new strategy prioritizes the asia-pacific region and the middle east. these are the areas with the most significant security challenges.

in those regions we will retain and enhance our military presence. we need to ensure we project power and deter aggression. we are also going to help more nations share the responsibilities and the cost of providing security by investing in alliances and partnerships. as i explained, and lastly, we will maintain a presence elsewhere in the world, per tim curley in regions like europe, -- purred to early in regions like europe, africa and latin america. we much use our best skills and systems to build a new alliance, new partnerships, throughout the world by engaging in exercises in

training and assistance and an innovative rotation of the claimant. the benefits of this emphasis on a partner approach to security or apparent to me during a trip that i take to columbia in april. there the united states has spent years training and acquiting the military to take on the park of trafficking organizations that have pledged that nation and others. not only has columbia made significant gains over the past few years against this issue, it is helping to combat trafficking in central america. columbia is now one of 14 countries working cooperatively to disruptnarco traffickers in

central america. i visited brazil and chile. i sought demonstrations that they're growing military capabilities that are enabling them to contribute to security in central america and africa and across the globe. what i saw in these countries reinforced a new reality. in the past, the united states often a sense the primary role of defending others. we built permanent basis, we deployed large forces across the globe to fixed positions. we often assumed that others were not willing or capable of defending themselves.

our new strategy recognizes that this is not the world that we live in any more. implementing this new strategy will demand adjustments across the entire national security apparatus. tonight, let me outline a department-wide initiative, building partnerships in the 21st century. it is -- its fundamental purpose is to improve our security cooperation across three broad areas. first, by taking a strategic approach to security cooperation and making sure we have consecrates -- integrated responsibilities to confront critical security challenges. second, ensuring the defense

department can continue to enhance the skills sets and capabilities needed to build and sustain partnerships. third, streamlining the dept.'s internal prophesies to speed up and improve security cooperation programs and working with the department of state and congress, to do the same. let me talk about the first point, which is a comprehensive and strategic approach to security corporations. meeting future security challenges, approaches that take better advantage of the opportunities for partnership and help us to more effectively advance a common security vision for the future. to that end, i have directed all of the geographic combatant commanders to think and plan strategically when it comes to

security cooperation. , including all of their regional activities from joint exercises, exchanges, operations, to more traditional forms of security assistance. during the cold war, u.s. partnership efforts were directed principally at countering a single adversary, the soviet union. in the 21st century, we must build partnerships that enable us to better meet a wider range of challenges. to that end, i see as building networks that leverage our unique capabilities and the unique strength of our allies that share common interests to confront the critical challenges of the future. that means continuing to work with nations in the horn of africa, the middle east, and

asia to counter dollar -- violent extremism. working with the polls and -- persian gulf. it means advancing collaborative effort with israel to deploy systems like iron dome, which protect is releases since against the threat of rockets. it means investing in new capabilities with allies in northeast asia such as missile defense to counter north korea. we will also work to strengthen the maritime security and humanitarian cissus assist -- assistance capabilities. we will work with partner nations in the western hemisphere to tackle the challenge of illicit trafficking and response to natural disasters. we will strengthen nato's

capabilities in missile defense, meet our article 5 commitments, and ensure we can conduct operation mary's project operations with our european allies. we must ensure that they can assume a greater burden of the responsibility when we do engage. these networks will be supported by innovative small footprint deployments of u.s. forces and capabilities to key strategic locations around the globe. from northern australia to singapore, too --, --, frcombinr for present and capabilities, these will enhance our ability to train and operate with

partners and to respond to future crisis. to succeed, we have to coordinate even more closely with the department of state. my goal is for the departments of state to have a leading role in crafting and conducting u.s.- foreign policy. so we can reaffirm and strengthen our strategic approach to defense partnerships, but it is also clear that building partnership capacity is a key military mission for the future as well. the second area is to enhance dod's capabilities in this area. building strong partnerships around the world will require us to sustain and enhance american

military strength. all of the military services and the department as a whole also must adapt as partnering with foreign -- foreign militaries becomes even more of a mainstay of the u.s. defense strategy, we have to develop a partner in culture. to that end, security cooperation capabilities and skills sets once considered the problems of the -- promise will need to be built up and retained across the force and among civilians. in particular, it is critical that we invest in language training and in cultural expertise throughout the department. building the capacity of defense

ministries and other institutions, which have not been a main focus of efforts, must become more prominent. we need to work cooperatively with state, with u.s.id. and non-governmental organizations to help partner countries so they can modernize and reform in a way that contributes to regional security. the u.s. army's plan to align a brigade combat team with each regional combat command, which will be rolled out next year with africa command, is one example of the kind of approach that will boost our partnership capabilities and regional expertise. more broadly, i want to see the military retain the capability to train and advise foreign

security forces in support of stability operations, like in iraq and afghanistan. i also want us to become better at working with more capable security partners on our shared security interest, part to curley rising powers, like brazil and india can make significant and positive contributions to global security and global prosperity. lastly, streamlining processes to better partner with our more capable friends and allies requires that we make our security cooperation process these more efficient and more agile. as part of this effort, we are working with the state department to ensure that our new and most flexible security cooperation tools, impressive

for the new global contingency fund, are used to their maximum advantage. these dual key programs, which require approval by me and by secretary clinton, have been a big step forward to create incentives for collaboration. our security cooperation programs still rely on a patchwork of different authorities, different funding, different rules, governing defense exports, that depend on processes that are truly cumbersome and were built during the cold war. i strongly support efforts to achieve comprehensive reform in these areas through legislation. i have also directed the department of defense's senior leadership team to streamline and strengthen those security cooperation procedures that are

under our control and that maximize -- maximize our use of the highest priority and most affected programs. we have also made progress in facilitating defense training with a broader range of allies and partners, an area of critical importance to our national security and the global economy. that is one indication -- annual military foreign government sales have grown from an average of about $12 billion at the beginning of the last decade to an average of roughly $38 billion of the last three years. there has also been a tremendous growth in cooperative acquisition efforts with our allies and with our partners, including the joint strike fighter and the nato alliance --

alliance surveillance program. in u.s. industries direct commercial sales, defense trade is a promising avenue for deepening securities corp. with almost capable partners -- cooperation with our most capable partners. our ongoing work is a critical part of fostering that cooperation. each transaction creates new opportunities for training, for exercises, for relationship building. it also supports our industrial base, with roughly one-third of defense industry output supported by defense exports. this is important for american jobs and for our ability to invest in new defense capabilities for the future. india has been one such country that with -- that would benefit from changes to our system,

while in new delhi earlier this month, i announced that my deputy will work with indian counterparts to streamline our respective bureaucratic processes, to better enable defense trade. it is clear to me that there is more that can be done to facilitate defense cooperation with our traditional allies and our new partners alike. we are working to make u.s. government decision making simpler, faster, and more predictable for our partners. this means better anticipating their needs ahead of time, fast tracking priority sales, and incorporating u.s. of its -- export ability requirements of front in the development process. a new special defense acquisition fund is allowing us to begin preparing high demand

items in anticipation of our partner requests. have also built requirements generation teams that sent acquisition experts abroad to help our allies better define and better streamline the requests. a proposed repair fund will allow us to repair equipment and anticipate partner request s. these efforts are a priority for me and for the department of state. i firmly believe that judicious sales or transfers of capabilities to responsible governors are vital in maintaining peace and in determining -- deterring would- be aggressors. security challenges of the future require us to partner.

the plan i have outlined will allow us to do so. by protecting the crown jewels of u.s. technology while putting in place programs and capabilities and processes to build a partnership in the 21st century. only some of this is within the control of the executive branch. , congress must also take action. we will work with them to do so. speaking of congress, the strategy i have outlined cannot succeed without their stable and consistent support. one of the greatest dangers to national security is the partisan gridlock that often

fails to address problems facing this nation. i came to washington over 40 years ago, and in part of a different generation. when i first went to the senate, as a legislative assistant, their were bold leaders like senators mansfield, aiken, dick russell, henry jackson, and others. republicans and democrats who were willing to work together to meet our domestic and our foreign challengees. when i was a member of congress, i saw speaker tip

o'neill and congressman bob michael work with senators bob dole and george mitchell to address the important budget, social security, and foreign crisises together. too often today the nation's problems are held hostage to the unwillingness to find consensus and to find a compromise. in the face of that gridlock, artificial devices, like sequester, are resorted to in order to force action. in the absence of action, sequester could very well threaten the very programs

critical to our national security. both defense and domestic. any new defense strategy is dependent on you and innovative deployments, on diplomacy, on assistance, and it must rest on a reliable political system prepared to make decisions on behalf of the national security. that is a critical ingredient. ot eh success -- to the success of the partition shoddy i just outlined. it is clear that even as we turn the page on a decade of war, the international security environment will remain complex and threatening. but as we look at each challenge we face, it is clear that we

have many allies and partners who share an interest in helping advance a common security vision, and that we are more secure when they are more capable of helping themselves and helping us. nearly 50 years ago, and more than a decade after he left government, dean acheson wrote an article called, "the practice of reading the product -- the practice -- the practice of partnership." he argued for a revitalized military strategy to counter soviet expansionism. a key part of his vision was for european allies to build up their conventional military forces, complemented by a strong u.s. force posture and nuclear

deterrent. he sought a strengthened network of alliances as the key to security and prosperity. what i have described tonight are some of the broad outlines for what i have called building partnership in the 21st century. we must continue to map out a new plan to build up the strength of our allies and our partners across the globe. using both old and new tools. we must, and we will remain the strongest military power on the face of the earth. more than ever, our strength depends on our ability to govern

and to lead, and it depends on capable allies and partners willing to help shoulder the burden of global security. that is the key. and protecting not just our national security but our democracy. thank you, again for having me. , and god bless.d states of america. [applause] fifth >> mr. secretary, thank you very much for your vision and for your support of what the

institute is all about. we will like to share with you a recognition of the earlier dean acheson lectures. please join me here. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> we have another unexpected presentation to make. this is a very special day for the secretary of defense. we are extremely pleased to wish him a happy birthday and all of you as you leave will have a taste of this very attractive cake to take with you. [laughter] congratulations, mr. secretary. ♪ happy birthday to you. happy birthday to you. happy birthday, mr. secretary.

happy birthday to you. ♪ and many more. ♪ >> thank you. f lot.you a hell os >> we did not put all the candles we could have. >> thank you. >> what do we do? [applause]

>> the british prime minister talks about the affect of the european debt crisis on the british economy. you can see it live at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. in washington this week, the national education association is holding its annual meeting. vice president joe biden addresses the form on tuesday. you can see it live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. [applause] now a discussion on the national security. and mitt romney.

we look at the impact of national security issues on past presidential elections. this is in chapel hill, north carolina. it is an hour and 25 minutes. >> we are very happy to welcome david schanzer, the associate professor of the practice for public policy at duke university. he is director at the triangle center of terrorism and homeland security and associate prossor of public picy at unc. he is the director for strategy and outreach i. d. institute for homeland security solutions. he did his undergraduate work at harvard. he also served as editor for the harvard law review.

prior to is academic career, he worked as a law cle for the department of justice. he was a trial attorney for the u.s. department of justice civil division. special counsel for the.s. department of defense. he is also served of the legislative director for senator carnahan and the democratic staff director for the committee and homeland security. he has parlayed his extensive experience in public service and policy analysis to it journalistic and academic career. he has weighed in on many of the issues involving homeland security, foreign and domestic policy, and the intersection of legality and individual rights in the age of terrorism. a gifted teacher, his courses offered at both unc and duke on

9/11 and its aftermath. preparing a new generation of scholars and plic servants to face the challenges presented by the post-9/11 world. we're delighted that he has taken some of his time to brief us on how war, terrorism, and national security will play out in the 2012 elections. please extend a warm welcome to professor david schanzer. [applause] >> thank you. thank you to the bookstore, of great addition to our top of th community. thank you to the audience for coming out on a warm north carolina afternoon. hope i will have a chance to share some ofy ideas with you and your ideas with me as well.

our topic today is the war on terrorism, national security, and the 2012 elections. while i am going to be talking abouthe candidates and their ideas, i am not here to represent one candidate or the other. you heard my background as a kind of no little bit about which way eileen politicay. that is ok. which way i leaned politically. that is ok. i want to -- look a little bit at the kind of back and forth of the campaign and tried to analyze how the candidates are going to make their case on these national security issues. i guess you're tempted to start of the beginning and ask the question, is national security and terrorism bonn to have much of a role in this campaign? i guess one could answer that

question and say, not much. it is all going to be about the economy. we could all go to our local eateries and you heard my background as a kind of no little bit about which way i lean politically. that is ok. i want to look a little bit at the kind of back and forth of the campaign and tried to analyze how the candidates are going to make their case on these national security issues. i guess you're tempted to start of the beginning and ask the question, is national security and terrorism bonn to have much of a role in this campaign? i guess one could answer that question and say, not much. it is all going to be about the economy. we could all go to our local eateries and college and afternoon. i think that would not be fair or accurate. it is clear the economy is going to be the dominant issue. there are a couple of reasons it will not be the sole issue. national security, commander in chief is a threshold issue for any candidate. that is especially so for the challenger. for governor romney, it is the type of issue that if you do

not get over the bar, so does speak, and convince the american populace that you are equipped to properly execute the office of the presidency, the most powerful office in the entire world, then you are going to hit the bar. you are going to crash. you are not going to become president. since president obama has been president for three years and nothing calamitous has happened, this is more of an issue for governor romney. clearly, that will be part of

the vetting that the american public is going to be doing. second reason is an election at a time of war or a time of national unease, these issues rise to the top. while we do have 60,000 troops in afghanistan and the concern of terrorism is still prevalent, i do not think the american public is feeling this is a time of war and national security. their insecurity is coming more from the economic troubles that we have experienced in the last three or four years than they do about national security. nonetheless, because national security issues are still very much on the forefront of the newspapers because we do have troops, that is another reason it is going to be important. there is some irony to that as a matter of fact that the economy is going to dominate. when you look at the powers of the presidency, the president really has virtually nothing that he or she can do about the economy. the power to set interest rates, and to print money rests with the federal reserve, which is independent from the president. fiscal policy, there is nothing that the president can do in

terms of taxation or spending without without getting the agreement of the congress. with respect to national affairs and national security, they are at its apex. the president is in control of the nuclear weapons. the president can make foreign- policy by walking at of his office and walking into the rose garden and state u.s. policy without asking anybody else. obviously, the president is commander in chief of the armed forces and can use that power to project authority anywhere in the globe. the president has amazing powers in terms of national security, limited ones in terms of the economy. speaking a little bit about the

history of national security in presidential elections, i will talk about the different candidates are framing. what is the big picture that they see of national security issues? how did they view the united states' role in the world and ability to shape foreign affairs and national security issues? and then i will talk about the lines of attack. what are their positions, the line of scrimmage, but how will the candidates line up their arguments? what are they going to say about their strengths and weaknesses of their opponent?

we will look at it from both perspectives. that should leave us a little time for questions and discussion. let's turn to history. the period from 1932-1964 saw the democrats win nine national elections. the subsequent 20 years saw republicans win 5 of 6 elections. we've had a number of closely contested elections when even the winning candidate did not even win the majority. i will not try to explain all of this change. but let's talk about how national security has played into that historical trend.

lyndon johnson, as you well know, by 1968, when the election occurred, the vietnam war had become so unpopular, both on the left and on the right, if johnson had lost the country. he decided not to run. the blame for vietnam was pinned mainly on the democratic party. democrats went on to move left and nominate a very strong anti-war candidate in 1972 after richard nixon won the election in 1968. that was not where the country was at that stage, even though nixon had escalated a fairly unpopular war, national security began to take routes and this notion that maybe democrats are not as strong as they need to be on national security. it began to influence national elections. jimmy carter, who is not experienced in foreign affairs,

although he did serve in the navy, won a very tight election in 1976. it should have been -- given watergate-nixon resignation and the unpopular pardon, but he is perceived to not have been a strong candidate on national security. the response of the soviet invasion of afghanistan was deemed as tepid. carter increased spending in the military during his four years in office. he was mired with the iran hostage crisis, which continued until the very day that he

stepped down from office after losing the 1980 election to ronald reagan. reagan hammered home this notion which has been, and has become embedded in national security that republicans were strong, pro-military, patriotism, the idea that he used force for the first time since vietnam in grenada, he called the soviet union the evil empire and on his watch, the communist system was beginning to erode. although reagan's foreign policy record was not entirely unblemished, he projected this notion of a strong president and not rallied people behind

him. he was very popular in that regard. he won a landslide election after winning a close election in 1980. he was able to pass the mantle on to his vice-president in 1988. in that case, we had a very experienced republican running with the advantages of the idea that democrats are weak on national security. by the way, public opinion polls were showing republicans with a 30-point advantage in public polls about to do you trust on national-security issues. george bush was not only the vice president, he was ahead of the cia, ambassador to china, and he ran against michael dukakis.

he had no national security experience. to prove that he was tough, and he got in a tank with an oversized comment. many of you remember that. that was a defining moment, which would not give confidence to the american public. george bush the first goes on to win the presidency. the economy, much like the election today, the economy was the big issue in 1992. the soviet union was no longer. the national security began to take a backseat. in some ways, it opened the door for bill clinton to get elected in 1992. again, republicans continue to have an advantage.

because it was a time of relative peace and security, issues like the economy, education, health care were the defining issues of that election. democrats came in. clinton's record on national security was somewhat mixed. there was the unfortunate -- the tragic black hawk down incident in somalia early in his presidency. there was a controversy about gays in the military. 20 things later, things have changed. his failure to serve during the vietnam war, all of which led this perception that clinton was not strong on national security. he did execute humanitarian military action in bosnia and in kosovo. he had a mixed record of national security.

in the end, even though he was president for eight years, that did not translate into more popularity for democrats on national security. going into this century, democrats were polled with over 20 points disadvantage. al gore, 2000, no major threats on the horizon, the cold war was over. even though he had more national security experience and military service than george bush, george bush wins and then 9/11 occurred. bush goes on to start the iraq war it in 2003. in 2004 goes against john kerry, a war hero a vietnam

veteran, but nonetheless, some on national-security issues, taking advantage of the idea that democrats are weak and republicans are strong on national security. his success in preventing any subsequent act of terrorism. john kerry did not do a good job of saying what he would do differently about the iraq war. it was a very close election, but many believe he lost the election on the national security issue. interestingly, during bush's term, you can see for the viewers on television, this charge of the polling about which party is better for national security after two decades of very strong republican support. the unpopularity of the iraq war begins to erode republican advantage on this question.

literally, a 30-point gap, december 2003, saddam hussein has fallen. over time, the inability for us to secure iraq, the rise of sectarianism, the advent of al qaeda, what was seen as many stumbles and a lack of clear execution of leadership on behalf of the first bush administration. it goes on despite that. by 2006, the damage is done and the gap is only five points in favor of republicans. when the midterms comment on the democrats' win that election, take control of congress. you can see that pretty much closer contest between democrats and republicans prevails.

right into the run-up of the 2008 election. perhaps the nomination of john mccain and the war hero against the relatively inexperienced barack obama leads to a reopening of the divide. as the election goes on, people become more confident. obama passes the national security test. you can see by december of 2008, when obama is about to take office, he has gained the support of the country on national-security issues. his promise to end the iraq war convinces the country that he is the person to take the mantle. at that point, only a two-point gap. we see some erosion in the early part of the obama administration.

that has not held. here we are, a recent fox news poll from june 7, 2012, shows that while romney has better standing on the economy, if you look at the last paragraph, obama's is trusted more on education, a foreign-policy. this is the first time in recent memory where a presidential candidate on the democratic side is walking into a reelection with the democrats having a better perception of national security. that is our historic background. given that background, how are the different candidates framing their ideas of national security? what is the lens they look through?

it is a fair reading of mitt romney's position to say that he is looking at american exceptionalism. you can tell foreign-policy isn't a predominant issue. the last speech he gave on national security was at the citadel early in the primary season, october 2011. he says -- later in the speech, he goes on

to say -- this idea of american exceptionalism, how we adapted to give us a special god-given role in the world to promote peace and security, but also our own values, values of democracy, free and open speech, economic exchange, freedom of religion, equality between people. i think the idea of american exceptionalism connotes that america has special responsibilities. america must lead, not that we should lead, but that we must. special responsibilities to

patrol the world, make it safe for commerce, make it safe for expression and free enterprise. we also have some special rights attached to that. the idea that we can act unilaterally more than other nations and we welcome the role of an international institution, alliances, if those institutions are alliances are not serving american interest, we can go at it alone. what president obama has also said that we will act unilaterally, we must.

american exceptionalism is a highlighted feature of this way of thinking about the world. what about president obama? governor romney criticizes obama because obama was asked, do you think america is an exceptional nation? i think we are an exceptional nation. the british probably think that they are exceptional. other countries think they are exceptional as well. romney has mocked that as saying, we are not equally balanced. we are first among nations. what is obama's frame? a lot of scholars have struggled to define an obama doctrine. he is very much a pragmatist and one who is a little bit difficult to pigeonhole him. what i believe it is the best description for obama is a frame we can look at to his policies. he believes u.s. leadership and the promotion of u.s. american

values and principles but in recognizing that we do live in a multipolar world. a world that has problems that are global in nature, that america, while we are the predominant military, other nations have those powers that they can apply to international affairs. we need to operate in the world that is, which is america is the most powerful nation in the world, but we cannot impose our will as much as we would like. we are much better off and much more capable advancing our interests if we are acting in conjunction and partnership with other powerful nations around the world. it takes president obama's rhetoric, this is from his

speech accepting the nobel prize in 2009. i do not think you would hear governor romney look at foreign affairs in that way. at another important speech before the united nations general assembly -- yes, president obama identifies what we say as american values as being universal ones.

he says we are committed to advancing the principles, but we understand that we live in a diverse world and that we cannot impose our will on those partnerships. through those frames, i would like to look at how -- what are the lines of attack? how is mitt romney going to go after the obama record? and vice versa. first, mitt romney is going to argue that obama is a declinist.

because he is not willing to assert american exceptionalism, that he believes in the american decline. that china is taking over. we're willing to cede power and leadership. in libya, but we did something called leading from behind. that is not good for america or the world. second, he will try to argue that obama is naive. and talk about how obama wanted to engage with our enemies, believing that trying to work things out in dialogue, even with countries like iran and venezuela and north korea, that that is a naive approach, that our enemies are going to always try to take advantage of us, negotiation is the only way they can be influenced is by

assertion of american power and action rather than dialogue. he will try to characterize obama as naive in that regard. he will say the successes, especially the killing of osama bin laden, were not because of anything obama did, but because they follow the prescription established by the bush administration since 9/11. the successes are not due to him, but because of the framework had been established prior to him taking office. i think those are going to be the main lines of the romney argument against obama. where is my slide? what are some of the arguments that -- the issues he will use to try to support these lines of

argument? obama tried to close guantanamo bay. this was naive, wrong, he was forced not to do it by congress and public opinion. as i said, he tried to reach out to ahmadinejad and iran to try to deal with the nuclear program. he was rebuffed. romney will say this showed america's weakness and lack of resolve. obama has cut the military budget. another sign that he does not believe in american exceptionalism and that we should be spending more on the military, not less. he will argue that we have not been a firm ally to israel and this is evidence of obama's failure to support our allies can be a global leader.

he will argue that we have fallen behind economically because we allow china to dominate and we have not been tough enough on china. early on, he said, we are withdrawing too quickly from afghanistan. we're not listening to our military commanders on the ground. we are doing precipitous withdrawal and that he would listen to the commanders, to try to maintain the gains we have made since our troops were inserted after 9/11. he has backed off of that position quite a bit since then. but that was one of the arguments he had been making. this is part of the evidence that mitt romney will use to try to support that frame that i mentioned earlier. one of the problems with this --

what are the problems with his argument? in many regards, he and a lot of the republicans, politicians and strategists, were really eager to run against not the obama new has been present for the past 3.5 years, but the obama who was running for president back in 2008. they want to run against this inexperienced young person who had never been any role of national security leadership before, who made these statements without engaging. unfortunately for them, obama's 2012 version, has a strong record that he can use to deflect all those charges relating to weakness. here are a couple of them. removing u.s. troops from iraq as promised, winding down the war in afghanistan, neither of

those places, while they are not stable and secure, they also have not resolved into crises. successful international intervention in libya. marshaling of very tough sanctions against iran relating to its nuclear program. being on the right side of history in the arab spring and allowing the protests to take place. the decimation of the al qaeda central organization. a strong record on counter- terrorism. a new nuclear weapons reduction treaty with russia. balanced relations with russia, china, emerging powers. we do not necessarily get everything we want and they do not get everything that they want. but we have good relations where there is dialogue and agenda that is constantly being worked on.

this is a fairly strong record that does not show weakness, it does not show a decline or an erosion of our place in the world. those are some of the reasons i don't think this is going to be an effective line of attack. killing bin laden and the successful campaign against al qaeda really blunts those questions of weakness. nobody is going to want to listen to minor issues whenever a president took these actions. finally, the american exceptionalism, u.s. leading to police the world against all the evils and asserting our values and ideas across the world, it does not jibe with the america that is fairly war weary. the lives of our troops, time of the families and a general sense that we need to focus

rebuilding home, that it undercuts the resonance of a lot of these arguments. both mitt romney and obama are both internationalists, i believe. does the president have some vulnerabilities? the answer to that is yes. i think a lot of them relate to the economic argument. i think that mitt romney will try to pitch obama on foreign policy in ways that resonate the story he is trying to tell about problems with the economy. for example, europe, while obama has very little that he can do about that, virtually nothing, he will argue that obama pursues a european-style

welfare state with excessive government debt and spending. look at what is happening in europe and that is a model of what will happen here. likewise, i think the idea of a rise in china is something that unsettles a lot of people. it feeds into economic anxiety. mitt romney is not the president, so for him, talk is cheap. bashing china, unfair trade practices, saying they are not devaluing their currency to make american products cheaper,

the inability for us to infiltrate as much of the market in china, the idea that china is a growing power on the international stage, all which feeds into a little bit of u.s. economic anxiety. fear about being overtaken and that our jobs are going elsewhere. obama says some tough things about the chinese as well, but this is the disadvantage of being president. he has to balance our concerns about china's activities with other things, like getting support in the united nations for actions with respect to iran, the north korean nuclear program, and a whole host of issues.

he has less liberty to essentially-china. mitt romney can say what he wants. once he gets into office, he can totally change course and it won't matter. the issue for defense spending is a bread and butter republican thing. defense spending is the only type of government stimulus that republicans like. a jobs program. we spend more than we need on defense, in my view. president obama, in his efforts to come up with a budget package to reduce our long-term debt bank has committed to reducing military spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.

mitt romney says he will reverse all of those cuts and add to the military, make the army 100,000 bigger, increase our shipbuilding, increase our procurement. that is a pretty costless thing for him to be able to say. i do not think he will be penalized for being a reckless spender for doing that, but it is good for jobs. people live in communities with defense contractors or shipyards, that is a potent economic argument that mitt romney will be able to use effectively. i think finally the issue of u.s.-israel relations is going to be an important one. obama got off to a bad start when he made the demand that the israelis freeze their settlement activity outside the '67 borders. that was bluntly rejected by the netanyahu government and led

to the termination of the palestinian-israeli peace talks. they have not been able to be restarted. now i think mitt romney, in some regards, does not understand the diversity of the jewish vote on this issue. there are many jewish voters who have reflectively defended in the criticism of israel is bad and will support candidates who do that. there are others who have been somewhat disappointed with some of the actions of israel. not unconditional supporters. there is some diversity of

opinion among jews on this question. i do think the bad start that obama got off to resonated with some population. it shows up in the polls. obama got 74% of the jewish vote in 2008. recent polls show some erosion. that could hurt obama, i think, especially the jewish vote is concentrated in a number of important states. florida is a swing state. you have an older jewish population there, who would be more sensitive to these difficult questions of u.s.- israeli relations. obama is approval ratings in israel or very low after this incident. they have really rebound in the last couple of years. resolutions of the united nations, had a strong position

on that. some of this recent statement about having to use force against iran, if necessary. in some ways, he has rebounded very nicely. i think he will have problems with pockets of the jewish population. ok, what is obama going to say about mitt romney? obama, unlike his economic platform, i think he is going to run on his record of achievements in foreign policy. he is going to make the argument that mitt romney's foreign policy as a return to george w. bush. he left office very unpopular with respect to his foreign policy. obama will argue that he inherited a mess, at a less secure world, and he has made it

more secure. mitt romney is advocating the same policies as george w. bush and will try to paint them as being reckless, too quick to use force, and the like. one more direct line of attack that was tried already was mitt romney did make some statement saying that he did not think we should gallivant around the world and spend billions of dollars trying to find one person. he criticized obama's statement that he would go inside pakistan after bin laden. obama will try to truck that out to show that mitt romney is not tough on terrorism. i think he will try to make the argument that mitt romney is trapped in the past and his statements that russia is our number one geopolitical cell was mocked by a lot of people in

the foreign-policy establishment, including a lot of republicans. the arms control agreement had very strong bipartisan support. they were kind of surprised i did mitt romney making a statement like that. are we rivals? sure. are we upset about their autocratic tendencies of late? absolutely. but does that make us a number one geopolitical foe? a return to the cold war? most people might see that as being somewhat out of touch. we might hear something about that. what are some weaknesses in the obama's argument? it will be hard to disqualify mitt romney as not being qualified. he still benefits from the notion of just because you are a republican, you are going to be

strong on national security. he is intelligent, he has led large organizations, people think of them as a good manager. the obama campaign talked about this argument that mitt romney would not have tried to go after bin laden the same way that obama did. i do not think that worked all that well. that line of attack probably will not be a very effective. an incumbent has the air force one effect. mitt romney cannot do that. obama is consistently going to make himself -- or take instances when he is going to try to be a strong leader,

demonstrating himself as being a global figure with the authority of air force one, making national-security decisions, things like he did going to afghanistan and announcing the agreement to withdraw troops. having the nato summit in chicago recently. these things are going to keep taking place over the course of the election. there could be crises or things that makes foreign affairs issues that don't go the way we might like, like economic crises in europe. the incumbent is then held responsible for those things whether or not he had anything to do that. that is a mixed bag, but that advantage goes to the president. i think mitt romney -- this is not going to play well in a war-weary nation. we will see him tone that down

to a large regard. he will keep advocating military spending. he will not make a lot of noise about afghanistan or iraq, but he has said enough on that record to hurt him a little bit during this election campaign. to the extent that mitt romney has advocated things that make him sound a lot like george bush, american exceptionalism argument, morphing into bush is not a good way for him to go. the public's recollection of the bush years on international affairs is not a good one. the idea that we should've kept troops in iraq longer, even though the iraqis no longer wanted us. strangely enough, i think

republicans really feel like iran is an issue goes to their view to their benefit. obama is a week, he is not willing to use force, he is willing to reach out to ahmadinejad. the president has a pretty good record here. it is one that the american public is pretty comfortable with. he has used covert action to try to box up the nuclear program would cyber warfare. he has organized international communities to the extent that president bush could not. tougher and tougher sanctions come up some of which will take place in the next couple of months. this has brought iran back to the negotiating table on this

issue. i do not think the american public are eager to get engaged in a third war in the middle east in this decade. ironically, where republicans thought they would be able to use iran to fit their paradigm, i think it fits the obama paradigm pretty well. returning leadership, working in conjunction with our partners, keeping the idea of force on the table, but using diplomacy, using diplomatic sanctions to try to achieve our objectives. i think it is beginning to show roots in iran. the public is going to support that approach. that leaves us with the two

individuals, at the american public is going to find that they would both be credible national leaders. they certainly have a different outlook, which will be explored during this election campaign. u.s.-israel relations, china on trade could be vulnerabilities for the president. mitt romney's framing of the world maybe of advantage to the president. that is my analysis. i would be happy to engage in dialogue with you. [applause] >> we are open for questions.

we ask that you wait until the microphone to get to you. don't be shy. >> let me start back there. >> in regard to america's military role throughout the world, do you think the american public's patience is going to give out? >> i think that has a lot to do with energy. our alliance with israel, but the need to have lots of troops there to have stability, a lot of that has to do with our desire to have secure flow of oil.

we are becoming less energy dependent on the middle east. we have new sources of production in north america. mexico. other sources of even oil in north america, russia, elsewhere. we're beginning to find ourselves to be able to wean ourselves -- we are less dependent on middle eastern oil. as long as we, you know, our economy -- i think the american public will understand that investments that we make -- we believe provide stability and security, that is something we will continue to have to do. >> i think this gentleman was next. >> i am curious, there are scheduled cuts in the military better coming up. republican party seems a bit split on that.

some are not too worried about it, others do not want to see it. where do you think mitt romney is going to come down on that? >> let's get everything on the table. president obama, a part of issue at about the deficit should be handled has put down half a billion in cuts on the table. if you recall, when we were having the debt limits debate around this time last summer, nobody found that pleasant, what was agreed upon was that if congress did not cut, find another $1.20 trillion to cut from the budget over the next 10 years, automatic spending

cuts, in addition to what was in the budget already, would go into effect. half would be on national security, and half would be on domestic spending. those cuts have not been made by the congress. the super committee that was created flopped. therefore, this automatic sequester is scheduled to go into effect in january. that would mean an additional $500 million of cuts over the next 10 years. combined with the once they're already in the budget, that would be a trillion dollars. there are not a very many democrats or republicans who are eager to see those cuts. the problem is, this is law.

they are going to happen until a budget deal is made. very few folks think we will be able to do that before the election. to what extent that becomes a campaign issue, i do not know. mitt romney will certainly say that he is against the sequester from going into effect. we should make all the cuts on this domestic side. at some point, it means medicare, health care spending, medicaid. it does not talk about that very much, that that is going to come up. if you are for a large increase in defense spending and you are for canceling what obama has put on the table, you are proposing medicare cuts. mitt romney will swear that is not true. it is not a credible argument. if it comes up, and if you are not for any defense cuts, you are not for any increased taxes, the only way to do the spending will be large-scale cuts in

medicare. that is how it is going to play out during the election. go ahead. >> [inaudible] >> i wonder whether the issue of whether the war in iraq was a mistake will come up in the campaign or will people to try to forget about that? >> well, i think it could possibly could come up. i tried to allude to some of those concepts in my top. obama will try to paint mitt romney as having supported all the policies of george w. bush and the iraq war -- i will note that there was a recent bombing, there are still problems in iraq. i do not know if we will rehash. i do not know if we even rehashed in the 2008 election.

i think it will, in terms of obama trying to link mitt romney to failed policies of the past. >> i have two questions. one is a question of weakness from the left. a lot of people believe that obama might be an anti-war president. in 2008, they voted for him because they expected peace. some people would argue that he has been very active with drones, taking out bin laden. i wonder if that could weaken his position on the left. it is not that they would vote for mitt romney, but they would not vote at all. this weakness might resonate with those who believe that his economic policies have not been as friendly as people hoped. from the right, the other side of being pragmatic is not having a clear vision. the two big threats in the world are pakistan and iran, and

possibly russia. i am not sure how much progress is made on any of those. one thing that some republicans might say, he could push more aggressively with oil in america. oil prices are down to $60 a barrel. >> a lot of questions.

let me see if i can get some of them. gas prices, when they go up, it is always bad for the incumbent president. bill clinton would talk about the relationship between the number of cents added to the gas price and how would affect his approval rating. fortunately, for obama, some believe the gas prices would hit $5. they kind of peaked at $4. maybe that will continue throughout the summer and we will not have extraordinarily high gas prices come november. that is an issue that depends on where the prices at the pump in the 30 days before the election.

environmental versus domestic production is a classic democrat-republican issue. we had this argument frequently. obama's record on domestic production is pretty good. he will say that he has increased domestic production of the course of his tenure, whether you are responsible for it or not, you get credit for it if that happens. the republicans will argue that that is everything that bush did. obama got to take advantage of that. obama will argue that he has worked on domestic production. i think the fact that canadian oil, the new sources in mexico, all becoming less dependent on oil from our enemies. obama will be able to make an argument. mitt romney will make the

typical argument on energy. canadian oil, the new sources in mexico that we are becoming less dependent on oil from our enemies. obama will be able to make that argument. romney will make the typical argument we need less reliance on oil from the middle east and russia. in terms of counter-terrorism issues and the left, the idea that obama in 2008 ran as an anti-war president and has not fulfilled those promises. i think the problem obama is based on a lot of issues with respect to what people thought is that people attached to obama what they wanted to hear and did not listen or were willing to look the other way with respect to parts of his record they did not find appealing. independents liked his talk about bringing the parties together and having a less confrontational idea of politics but did not listen with respect to a new health-care plan and other things that were

not on the top of their agenda. with respect to the left and counter-terrorism, when i listen to the obama campaign, he said he would use force to go into pakistan to eliminate the terrorist threat. maybe people on the left were not listening to that part but to me he projected that he was a president who would be willing to use of force to deal with direct threats to our security. what he has done has not surprised me personally and i am not, i do not agree with the criticism from the left about

him and not, let's put it this way, trying to make this a more peaceful world. obama did get our troops out of iraq. he escalated the war in afghanistan but against the will of the military and he set a time line for the surge to end and is drawing that conflict down. he has resorted to sanctions rather than the use of force to do with the iranian nuclear program. i would counsel folks on the left to are disappointed in the obama record to look at the totality of the issues and not just the things that maybe annoy you about the last four years. please. >> i wonder if you could comment on the route recent national

security leaks from the political aspect and the national security perspective. >> from a political perspective, i think republicans are disappointed. they wanted to make obama as a naive, a weak leader and here we have a cyber war, drone strikes, al qaeda leaders getting knocked off every week, and obama essentially conducting a covert action campaign that republicans would have been proud of under the bush administration.

i think that frustrates them to a great degree and the claim about leaks is a way to try to take some of the luster off of that. that is the politics of that. i find it a little difficult to get excited about this issue. dick cheney would go on meet the press" and say things and argue that since he had declassification authority whenever he said it, that means it was no longer classified. there is a little bit of ye doth protest too much with that issue. and said, i had a security clearance and i worked on legal cases where individuals did not fulfil their obligations. that is a serious issue. having been a government

servant, i cannot countenance individuals taking it under their own authority to believe what they think should or should not be in the public domain. i believe we keep too many secrets. we classify too much and we have too many people who are entitled to have security clearances. i am not one who believes in closed government but i feel strongly against this leaking and it is a prevalent part of our national security establishment. this is true before and after obama. can we get some ladies to ask some questions? we should hear from you. we will go here. >> two questions, to what degree given the media focus on the

swing states, to what degree do these issues resonate more or less in a swing states? given you have talked about their campaigns, and the possibility exists that the pacs may follow different directions, will they go in a different manner? >> a lot of what i got in terms of trying to construct the romney narrative, looking at his website and an article that karl rove wrote about how to beat obama in the fall issue of foreign policy, and he is running one of those big pacs. in general, the pacs are going to, there is a some biotic relationship between them,

whether the legal lines are crossed i do not know but i think that if you're going to see certain things coming out of the romney campaign, you see a lot of them coming out of the super pacs. they might try to do something and if the campaign says that worked well, you might see the campaign following them. in terms of the specific foreign-policy issues, having more resonance in certain states, i think, yes, for sure. for example, you see trade policy being a much bigger deal in the rust belt then in the south or the west. there is a big jewish vote in florida, so there are israel

issues and things like at that have more resonance in florida and new jersey becomes a swing state. there are other pockets of ethnic populations, for example the muslim vote is becoming stronger and the hispanic vote is a huge vote and they are interested in immigration policy. i think that leans more to the domestic rather than national security. immigration will be a big issue in the campaign. that is going to be discussed in a lot of the western swing states. the woman in the pink. >> would you comment on syria and the relationship of russia? our view, i know we are watching it, but could you

encapsulate that? >> is a difficult situation. in terms of the campaign, the difference between the candidates is that romney has agreed with senator mccain we should try to arm the opposition in syria to counteract and make it more of a fair fight with assad. the administration has not gone that far overtly. we do not know what they are doing covertly. in number of years ago israel invaded syria and knocked out a nuclear project which they believed was a nuclear weapon. after that, syria invested a great deal of money in anti- aircraft defensive. after a day we were able to knock out gaddafi in debut, our ability would require much more

longer and deeper investment and it would be more difficult to do without injuring civilians. it's wanted to try to use military force, and i think there are few experts to believe that is a good idea, it would be more difficult and more costly. libya is pretty clear geographically and ideologically where the lines were being drawn. in syria, the opposition is more diffuse, less organized, and not as geographically identifiable. that makes it harder to provide a safe haven of corridors or even transfer weapons. there is concern about some of

the opposition to be more in the direction of the fundamentalist extremists. you would be taking on a risk in providing advanced weaponry to them because they might be used for terrorism, possibly against israel or make its way to hezbollah. i do not have any easy solutions. i think what is happening is that more and more pressure is going to be placed on russia to take a more responsible action. maybe a possibility is we have a non-assad regime that is still pro-soviet. maybe the opposition would not be happy but we will get assad out and be more representative. maybe the russians could live with that if they were able to sell arms and have this relationship.

in terms of what i have been talking about, it is easy to call russia your geo-political foe but in the real world they have power whether we like it or not. here is an instance where having a more positive relationship with russia is potentially giving us some leverage or some ability to engage in diplomacy, to address this particular issue. yes. we will get to you next. there is a gentleman here. >> what is the position on north korea? >> i think the position on north korea has been stable throughout the second bush administration through obama. again, talk is cheap for the challenger.

being able to say we have a growing threat and the president has not solved the problem, president bush could not solve the problem, either. our ability to influence the north koreans is very low. they have a huge amount of weaponry they could use against south korea. some sort of unilateral attack or even a strong western attack against nuclear facilities would end up in a lot of lives lost in south korea. that is an option that none of the parties or presidents have felt was on the table. in many ways the only game in town is trying to get to the koreans to the bargaining table and a lot of that, china has the strong leverage against north koreans. north korea is a leadership transition. in an autocratic, closed states like this, what that new, younger, inexperienced leader is very beholden to the military and is in need of seeming strong to his domestic

population. you might see a lot of rhetoric and provocative actions that come out of north korea. but i do not see president romney or president obama from doing differently about it. >> the federal debt is going to catch up with us. it caught up in germany and spain.

what is going to happen? >> our debt problems are not as extreme as europe. in terms of the way we look at things, comparing apples to apples is our debt to gdp ratio. how much is our debt compared to our economy? if we have a smaller economy, that is what makes the difference. our debt, our total debt, which is approaching $16 trillion, i could stand to be corrected but i believe it is close to around 60% of our gdp. right now, what we are looking

at in places like greece and ireland and spain is debt to gdp ratios that exceed over 100%. the feeling is if we get to that point, we would be in a serious crisis. now, left untouched, leaving the defense budget growing, leaving the expansion of medicare, especially, is going to explode in the next couple years as medical care keeps getting more expensive and baby boomers who are in their 60's and still healthy, in 20 years they are going to be 80 and not as healthy. there are a lot of them. even social security is a flipping in terms of its in not bringing in as much in contributions. the explosion can come in the next 15 years from now when our debt to gdp ratio which start approaching over 100% and get into a danger zone. we have a short-term debt problem.

we have a medium-term one and then we have a long term. it is a very clear that every person involved in this says we need to take action on our long- term debt, we need to bring the trajectory of our spending down and there is a debate about whether we need to bring our rate of taxation up to meet that. what is going to happen in november, after the election, i guess it is really january when it happens, is a tax-maggedon. the sequester would take 1.2 trillion dollars out of the economy and it is the expiration of all of the bush, obama, bush extended by obama at tax cuts, which over 10 years, if you take the totality of them, and nobody thinks all of them will go back to the way they were in

2001, we are talking about $5 trillion in taxes. another 1.2 trillion dollars in spending. people believe that could put us into another recession. there will be a tremendous incentive, especially once the election is over, for some sort of political deal to be made between the parties. i think both parties are waiting to see who will be president so they will know what the relative bargaining strength is going to be. if romney winds, the republicans hold onto the house, then the

final plan is going to be more spending, domestic spending cuts, and less taxes. if obama wins, it will be tilted with more taxes, more defense cuts, and a little bit less on the medicare spending. but i believe there will be something because under current law, but things are unsustainable in the long term. everybody knows that. >> we have time for one more question. >> i believe this might be a former student so i am worried. >> that is correct. you mentioned that obama may benefit from the perception of being on the right side of history according to the arab spring issue. i have heard from strategists on

the right that perhaps this could be interpreted as obama abandoning strong american allies, in tunisia and egypt. and that the recent elections of islamic-based political parties may in fact leads to anti-american policies in the region and abroad. do you think that romney will attempt to make that argument? if so, will it resonate with the american public? >> an excellent question from a former student. obviously learned a lot. [laughter] so, i think on the mubarak issue, which is what you are talking about, i think those americans who feel that the united states can somehow impose its will and get the desired effect it wants on every international issue might find that argument to resonate. but those folks are probably voting for romney already. what were we supposed to do? were we going to support

egyptian tanks rolling into cairo to suppress popular, unarmed protesters? i think that is preposterous. if somebody is going to try to start making that argument that we abandoned mubaraks, and then at the same time making an argument that somehow we should be more active to get rid of assad in syria. he is not an ally, but nonetheless it is not all holds together. that said, the question of islam and what direction the arab world is going to take, and fear in some regard that when these countries gained democracy and are able to vote, they are going to bring in governments that want to the more governed by islamic principles than previous ones. the question will be, what does

that mean? obama in some ways is taking a risk and a chance in believing, again, what he to do otherwise is not clear to me. but st. we are going to see what happens in this election and what we want to do is take the islamists at their word they will be committed to democracy, with a more islamic flavor, and hope they start looking more

like a turkey than iran. iran is shia, but we do not want these countries to devolve into these autocratic, theocratic, anti-western entities where there is no true democracy and a harsher version of islam is being pursued. we would like to see more of a turkish model which is a commitment to democratic principles and if people want to be governed by laws that are more in accord with islamic practices, so be it. it is their country. that is what democracy is. we do not know which way it is going to tilt. there will be more of them, obviously. i think the position the government should be taking is, let's see where it goes. let's do what we can to support these governments and in courage them to head down a democratic

path, to liberalize their economies and be supportive and if they head in the other direction to use coercive measures to try to influence them. but this is about the people who live in these countries and our ability to shape this outcome to one that would be a perfect and in our interest is actually extremely limited. how that plays out in the campaign, i am not sure but i do not think governor romney is probably going to go there because there are not any good answers. thank you for your excellent questions and a great session. i really enjoyed it. thank you. >> thank you, professor schanzer. we have three more series coming up. june 27, discussing civility and public discourse. on july 11, talking about gender

issues in the elections. and on july 25, we will have daniel talking about network politics. thank you for coming and for c- span for broadcasting. have a wonderful evening. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> and a discussion of the supreme court ruling on the and then a breakdown of the $105 billion transportation bill passed by congress last week, and later, the washington bureau chief for a german news network. every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the justice department announced

a health-care fraud settlement on monday. -- health care bills settlement on monday. it settles several drugs. james kohl spoke to reporters about the settlement, and later about the fast and furious operation for 30 minutes. >> good morning. we are here today to discuss the latest development in the continuing fight against health care fraud. it is my privilege to introduce people. i am joined by the deputy secretary of the department of health and human services, the acting attorney general, the inspector general for the department of health and human services, the deputy

commissioner for global regulatory operations and policy with the truth -- the food and drug administration, the united states attorney for the district of colorado and the acting executive assistant director for the fbi. it is quite a group. i am pleased to announce the justice department and law enforcement officers have reached a historic $3 billion resolution with the pharmaceutical manufacturer, and this is to resolve multiple investigations into sales, marketing, and pricing practices. this constitutes the largest health-care settlement in united states history and underscores our robust commitment to protecting the american people from the scourge of health care fraud, and it provides the effectiveness and strong relationships we forged with our

partners to help ensure the health and safety of the american people and to safeguard the integrity of the health-care system. under the agreement announced today, gsk will plead guilty of criminal charges and pay a criminal forfeiture for a illegally marketing and promoting the drugs for uses not approved by the fda. this includes treatment of children for depression and treatment of other patients for ailments ranging from obesity to anxiety to addiction to adhd, and they will be charged with failing to report clinical data to the food and drug administration. they will pay an additional $2 billion to resolve civil allegations that have caused false claims to be submitted for these and other drugs as a result of the illegal promotional practices and

payments to physicians. the settlement also resolves the investigation of the elected underpayment of rebates required under the medicare rebate program. today's multibillion-dollar settlement is unprecedented in scope and size. it underscores this administration's firm commitment to protecting the american people.

. .

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coming up next on c-span, nato secretary discusses the situation in syria at his monthly briefing followed by a discussion on the national security positions of president

obama and mitt romney. today, the brookings institution holds a discussion on the current stpwhation afghanistan looking at the goethel govern nance and you can see it on c-span 2. speaking to flortse brussels, nato secretary talked about the situation in syria saying nato has no intention of getting involved militarily in the country and addresses the situation in afghanistan. this is 30 minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you very much for coming.

the secretary general will start with his opening statement and then take your questions. >> good afternoon. syria is still a matter of concern. we are following the situation closely. as you know, nato's core business is security. nato is where north america and europe come together every day to discuss the security issues which concern us. and nato is where europe and north america work together every day to find solutions. in nato, any ally can bring any issue to the table at any time. that is what makes us strong, and that is what makes us an alliance. that is why it is -- that

allies came together last week to discuss syria's shooting down of an aircraft. this is why we continue to follow developments closely and with great concern and why we remain actively engaged in political situations. this is snag directly affects one of our allies. and one of the greatest security threats that the world faces today. we condemn syria's shooting down of the turkish aircraft in the strongest terms and the killing and destruction and human rights abuses in syria. the right response to this crisis remains a political response. and the concerted response by

the international community against a regime that has lost all humanity and all legit ma scri. -- la get ma as i. that is why i welcome the acting group this weekend. the international community has come together. it has clearly endorsed a plan for a democratic position to end the violence. now it is vital to enforce that political plan. every member of the international community should use its influence as a bare knuckle influence to tend bad shed and move syria forward. this country has already gone on for too long and cost too many lives and put the

stability of the whole region at risk. the international community has a duty to put an end to it and to do it now. let me turn to afghanistan. we are working toward our goal of putting -- in the hands of the afghans. as we speak, half the afghan population lives in areas where their own forces are in the lead for providing security. and over the coming weeks and months, that protection will extend to 3/4 of the population. that means that late they are summer, those afghans living in areas protected by their own forces will become the clear ma majority. this is a big step forward. a step towards our shared goal

of seeing afghan troops and police, fully responsible for their country's security by the year 2040, it has been made possible thanks to the courage, skills and sacrifice of our afghan partners. there are still challenges to face. and hard fighting ahead. but afghanistan is making headaway. nato is just one part of the solution. in the bigger picture of the future of afghanistan security, development and good govern nance all had to come together. and together the international community and the afghan people are putting the pieces in place.

over the last few months we have built a strong framework of partnership and mutual responsibility. on which afghanistan can rely as it stands on its own two feet. we address the security concerns by sending a clear message that nato will have a new mission to train, advise and assist afghan security forces after 204. in june the kabul conference sent a clear message of regional responsibility from the countries of central asia and their neighbors to support afghanistan. and to do so well into the next decade.

and next week, the international community will come together in tokyo to show its commitment. show its commitment to afghan's long-term economic development. tokyo is a key opportunity to deliver aid commitments to ensure that afghanistan continues to develop and remain secure long after 2014. >> because even when afghanistan is is fully in charge of its own security, it will still be one of the poorest countries in the world. and the best way to maintain its security would be to help it face this challenge. that is why the tokyo conference is so important.

the international community has laid the foundation for growth by supporting afghanistan in areas such as transport, communications, health care and education. the afghan people need see that the international community will continue to build on those gains. at the same time, the international community needs to know that the afghan authorities will live up to their commitments. president karzai has already pledged to improve govern nance and to fight corruption. to ensure the protection of human rights, including the rights of women. delivering on those mat sers vital. we now have a chance to break the cycle of violence and

extremism in afghanistan. to build long-term security for afghans, the wider region and for ourselves. it's a chance we must all cease. and the that -- and with that, i'm willing to take your questions. >> bbc? you will need to take a microphone from next to your seat. ok. just pull that out and push. >> yes. >> secretary, you talked about the need for good govern nance on the part of the governor but i wonder with people looking on at another three soldiers dead,

shot, these people are infiltrating the nato police and turning their guns on them. >> let me take this opportunity to convey my heart felt condolences to the families of the loved ones who have lost their lives in this very tragic incident. and let me add to that, that right now they are investigating this incident to determine the circumstances. at this stage, we can confirm that it actually was an afghan policeman who turned his gun against the soldiers. we can't confirm that it was a man wearing an afghan police

uniform. let me stress that it's very clear that the enemies of afghanistan do all they can to undermine confidence and trust of the afghan security forces. because they know that we are building up the capacity of the afghan security forces to take full responsibility by the end of 2014. so the taliban has clearly laid out strategy to undermine the confidence. the confidence of -- in the afghan security forces.

but let me also stress that they cannot derail our strategy. our strategy so gradually hand over full responsibility for the security to the afghans. and that process will continue and be completed by the end of 2014. and this is a reason why it is an essential part of our noigs train afghan forces to build up their capability and take the responsibility and these training efforts will continue. >> the french review of security left in october when some of their soldiers were shot. taking this incident apart, what have we learned from that ince accident? is there anything you can do to

stop someone from doing something like this? >> i can assure you that based on lessons learned from these tragic incidents, the afghan security forces have taken a number of measures to prevent these so-called green and blue attacks. for obvious reasons i can't go into details about these measures. but obviously they include screening processes, but also education -- both education of afghan security forces and troops with a view to prevent such incidents in the future. >> yes? >> you spoke today again of

finding a political solution. but do you think that it's time for the international community to put a time limit to find a political solution? >> my first point is that this is a matter of urgency, so the sooner a political solution can be found, the better. after i urge all international actors who have an infrance -- who have an influence in the regime in damascus, to do all they can to influence a peaceful solution, actually, i don't think it would be helpful

in that process to affix a deadline. but it is a matter of urgency to put an end to the violence and bloodshed in syria, and it is a responsibility for the whole international community facilitate that process. >> what about the story saying the -- shot in syrian territory and does nato have any information as to where the turkish jet was shot down? also there's also reports in the international press that there could be an billion that shot down the plane? >> we had a meeting in the nato counsel last week on the

request of turkey. and the turk irk authorities provided us with a briefing and concrete information about this incident. but as a matter of principle we never comment on such briefings and meetings in the nato council. but the outcome of the council was very clear. that the allies pressed unanimously strong support for and with turkey. and that's telling, i think. and further many, in any case, it is of course inacceptable and in contradiction with all international enormous to shoot down an aircraft without any warning. yes, but as i told you, we do not comment on such briefings and meetings in the nato council.

>> i'd love to come back to syria. the international community recognized that there were two players in the field. the syrian forces and the armed groups. in order to come to a political solution, shouldn't we put pressure on the rezem as well as on the nations that arm those groups that are in the field? so they are the armed forces groups that are funded by other nations. so in order to come to a political solution, shouldn't there be pressure on the nations that fund those groups? they are in syria. as i said, we must find a

little solution. and obviously, it's not part of the political process to arm different groups in syria. >> you just said that without any warning the turkish jet was shot down, so it's unacceptable. does that mean that even though other data are shown and it becomes clear that the turkish

jet was on the political air space that turkey will stand in the same position as it mentioned last tuesday? and i asked on the tuesday after the summit that if there were any challenges to turkey's statement. and there were no questions asked and everybody appreciated the briefing. then we saw the telegraph story in which turkey asked for the no fly zone which we see now we see the "wall street journal" news which again refers or makes reference to american authorities about the jet being on syrian air space. how should we read this? nothing being said on the meetings but then afterwards these are coming up all from american authorities that there were references to that? how should we read that? >> my answer to that is very

brief. we all respect. i think the main lesson you can learn from that is that you shouldn't rely on anonymous sources. >> hello. the question is about syria. you emphasized the importance of the political solutions that the juncture but what would be the criteria for nato to intervene in turkey? are you waiting for the u.n. resolutions? but the question is about afghanistan. you emphasized the importance of the meeting with tokyo in the coming weeks, but i understand you are not going the week before that. thank you. >> the last question? >> i understand you are not going to tokyo for the meeting.

why is that? thank you. >> first, on syria, as i have stressed on several occasions, nato has no intention to intervene in syria and as i have stressed today, i think the right way forward so find a political solution. and to that end we need international community to speak with one voice, and i think it would be helpful if the u.n. security council in particular could be at will one voice with the time put pressure on the syrian regime to stop the crackdowns on the civilian populations in syria and to live up to what was the clear outcome of the contract group meeting in geneva. that is to initiate a

democratic position in syria. so again, we have no intention of proceeding militarily, because we do belief a political solution is the correct solution, and yes,it is an important conference. for reasons i can't attend myself, but nato will be represented, and i expect my senior civilian representative in kabul to represent nato at the conference. >> you told of nato's activity engaged in the con knowation from syria. could you tell us more details to whom you speak and when? and the second question, if i

may, could you please tell us more of the situation at the you recollectish border, what do your turkish allies tell you about the refugees and so on? >> first, again, for reasons i think you understand and appreciate, we don't comment on details in such consultations, including when and how they take place. but we have a continuous dialogue with turkey and among all allies. we have not yet received updated information about the situation along the turkish- syrian border. so i compare to what we heard

last week, i can't provide you of new information as of today. but i expect allies to receive updated information this week. >> not asking for specific details but simple yes-no questions. has nato received any formal requests or for deploins or use of awacs in support of turkish air forces and secondly, you say the right response to this point to this situation regarding syria is political. thus has natoen joid contact of individual allies with syrian opposition groups? >> no.

nato has not received requests for deployment of military assets. and no, nato has no nato as an alliance has no dialogue with opposition groups in syria. >> secretary general, how concerned are you by reports of the military buildup by the syrian border? is there any dang they're could lead to a confrontation between syria and turkey? >> no. i comment turkey for having shown restraint despite the tragic aircraft event. i i find it quite normal that turkey takes necessary steps to

protect its population and its territory. >> questions? pakistani, please? >> from abduction television tack stan, with this situation deadlocked so much. but i would like to know that beyond, this many people think this is the only connection between pakistan and nato, but there is beyond in the past offered a lot of training. and pakistan sent question, for pakistani officers. has business continued as usual despite all the death and can it be -- on supply route?

thank you. >> firstly, i still hope that we will see a reopening of the transit roots in the not too distant future, and no, it's not business as usual. we have seen a decline in corporation activities. during recent months. we -- which we strongly regret. because i think it's of mutual interest to have a close cooperation between pakistan and nato. so also in that respect, i hope to see reassumption of those political activities in the not too distant future. >> an agreement was signed by a

prime minister in the way of driving weapons and supplies to and from afghanistan, and could you be precise about what is the -- concerning soldiers and the value -- transport and how long -- agreement and -- >> first of all, i think it's important to correct a misunderstanding. it's definitely not about weapons. we are speaking about transit. transport of what we call non-lethal goods. that's my first point. secondly, as you know, we have been talking with the russians for quite some time to further expand our transit arrangements

with russia. what i can say about that is we expect these negotiations to be concluded. to be concluded very soon. and let me conclude by saying we really appreciate the transit arrangement. the transit arrangement we have with russia. russia and icef nations share a common interest in seeing non-failure in afghanistan, because it would have a negative experience. so it's in their best interest and our best interest to explore the transit experiment. and i hope the talks on this transit exparamount can be

successful. >> thank you, very much. >> on "washington journal" this morning a discussion on the ruling of the health care law with marilyn we are enter serafini. then john horsely on the passage of highway and

infrastructure bill. then mio soric. >> in washington this week, the national education association is holding its annual meeting. today vice president joe biden addresses the forum. you can see it live at 7:00 a.m. pacific and 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. now david, the director of terrorism and homeland security and former justice and department look at national security issues on past presidential elections. his remarks and at the events in chapel hill, north carolina, are 1 hour and 25 minutes. >> we are very happy to welcome

>> we're very happy to welcome to our stage the professor of policy and director at the triangle center of terrorism and homeland security and an associate at u.n.c. unc. he is the director for strategy and outreach i. d. institute for homeland security solutions. he did his undergraduate work at harvard. he also served as editor for the harvard law review. prior to is academic career, he worked as a law clerk for the department of justice. he was a trial attorney for the u.s. department of justice civil division. special counsel for the u.s. department of defense.

he is also served of the legislative director for senator carnahan and the democratic staff director for the committee and homeland security. he has parlayed his extensive experience in public service and policy analysis into it journalistic and academic career. he has weighed in on many of the issues involving homeland security, foreign and domestic policy, and the intersection of legality and individual rights in the age of terrorism. a gifted teacher, his courses offered at both unc and duke on 9/11 and its aftermath. preparing a new generation of scholars and public servants to face the challenges presented by the post-9/11 world. we're delighted that he has taken some of his time to brief us on how war, terrorism, and

national security will play out in the 2012 elections. please extend a warm welcome to professor david schanzer. [applause] >> thank you. thank you to the bookstore, of great addition to our top of the community. thank you to the audience for coming out on a warm north carolina afternoon. hope i will have a chance to share some of my ideas with you and your ideas with me as well. our topic today is the war on terrorism, national security, and the 2012 elections. while i am going to be talking about the candidates and their ideas, i am not here to represent one candidate or the other. you heard my background as a kind of no little bit about which way eileen politically.

that is ok. -- which way i leaned politically. that is ok. i want to -- look a little bit at the kind of back and forth of the campaign and tried to analyze how the candidates are going to make their case on these national security issues. i guess you're tempted to start of the beginning and ask the question, is national security and terrorism bonn to have much of a role in this campaign? i guess one could answer that question and say, not much. it is all going to be about the economy. we could all go to our local eateries and college and afternoon. i think that would not be fair or accurate. it is clear the economy is going to be the dominant issue. there are a couple of reasons it

will not be the sole issue. national security, commander in chief is a threshold issue for any candidate. that is especially so for the challenger, who was an officer of -- for the challenger. for governor romney, it is the type of issue that if you do not get over the bar, so does speak, and convince the american populace that you are equipped to properly execute the office of the presidency, the most powerful office in the entire world, then you are going to hit the bar. you were going to crash. you are not going to become president. since president obama has been president for three years and nothing calamitous has happened, this is more of an issue for governor romney.

clearly, that will be part of the vetting that the american public is going to be doing. second reason is an election at a time of war or a time of national economies and concerned about foreign affairs -- these issuesnease, rise to the top. while we do have 60,000 troops in afghanistan and the concern of terrorism is still prevalent, i do not think the american public is feeling this is a time of war and national security. their insecurity is coming more from the economic troubles that we have experienced in the last

three or four years than they do about national security. nonetheless, because national security issues are still very much on the forefront of the newspapers because we do have troops, that is another reason it is going to be important. there is some irony to that as a matter of fact that the economy is going to dominate. when you look at the powers of the presidency, the president really has virtually nothing that he or she can do about the economy. the power to set interest rates, and to print money rests with the federal reserve, which is independent from the president. fiscal policy, there is nothing that the president can do in terms of taxation or spending without skidding the agreement of the congress. -- without getting the agreement

of the congress. with respect to national affairs and national security, they are at its apex. the president is in control of the nuclear weapons. the president can make foreign- policy by walking at of his office and walking into the rose garden and stage u.s. policy without asking anybody else. and in state u.s. policy, and that is it. obviously, the president is commander in chief of the armed forces and can use that power to project authority anywhere in the glow. the president -- in the globe. the president has amazing powers in terms of national security, limited bonds in terms of the economy. -- a limited ones in terms of the economy. speaking a little bit about the history of national security in

presidential elections, i will talk about the different candidates are framing. what is the big picture that they seat of national security issues? how did they view the united states's role in the world and ability to shape foreign affairs and national security issues? and then i will talk about the lines of attack. what are their positions, the line of scrimmage, but how will the candidate line up their arguments? what are they going to say about their strengths and weaknesses of their opponent? we will look at it from both perspectives. that should leave us a little time for questions and discussion. let's turn to history. 64 sawriod from 1932-195 the democrats win nine national

elections. the subsequent 20 years saw republicans win 5 of 6 elections. we've had a number of closely contested elections when even the winning candidate did not even win the majority. what accounts -- i will not try to explain all of this change. but let's talk about how national security has played into that historical trend. lyndon johnson, as you well know, by 1968, when the election occurred, the vietnam war had become so unpopular, both on the left and on the right, if johnson had lost the country.

he decided not to run. the blame for vietnam's was depend mainly on the democratic party. democrats went on to move left and nominate a very strong anti-work candidate in 1972 after richard nixon won the election in 1968. that was not for the country was at that stage, even though nixon had escalated a fairly unpopular war, national security began to take routes and this notion that maybe democrats are not as strong as they need to be on national security. it began to influence national elections. jimmy carter, who is not experienced in foreign affairs, although he did serve in the navy, when a very tight election

in 1980 -- in 1976. it should have been -- given watergate's-nixon resignation and the unpopular pardon, but the house -- is perceived to not have been a strong candidate on national security. the response of the soviet invasion of afghanistan was deemed as a tepid. carter increased spending in the military during his four years in office. he was mired with the iran hostage crisis, which continued until the very day that he stepped down from office after losing the 1980 election to ronald reagan. reagan hammer home this notion which has been, and added --

become indebted in national security that republicans were strong, pro-military, patriotism, the idea that he used force for the first time , hee vietnam's in grenada called the soviet union the evil empire and on his watch, the communist system was beginning to erode. although reagan's foreign policy record was not entirely unblemished, he projected this notion of a strong president and not rallied people behind him. he was very popular in that regard. he won a landslide election after winning a close election

in 1980. he was able to pass the mantle on to his vice-president in 1988. in that case, we had a very experienced republican running with the advantages of the idea that democrats are we gonna national security. by the way, public opinion polls were showing republicans with a 30 point advantage in public polls about to do you trust on national-security issues. george bush was not only the vice president, he was ahead of the cia, ambassador to china, and he ran against michael dukakis. he had no national security experience. to prove that he was tough, and he got in a tank with an oversized comment. many of you remember that. that was a defining moment, which would not give confidence

to the american public. george bush the first goes on to win the presidency. the economy, much like the election today, the economy was the big issue in 1992. the soviet union was no longer. the national security began to take a backseat. in some ways, it opened the door for bill clinton to get elected in 1992. again, republicans continue to have an advantage. because it was a time of relative peace and security, issues like the economy, education, health care were the defining issues of that election. democrats came man. clinton's record on national security was so much mixed. there was the unfortunate -- the tragic black cod down incident

-- black pop down incident in somalia early in his presidency. there was a controversy about gays in the military. 20 things later, things have changed. his failure to serve during the vietnam war, all of which led this perception that clinton was not strong on national security. he did executes humanitarian military action in bosnia and in kosovo. he had a mix of record of national security. in the end, even though he was present for eight years, that did not translate into more popularity for democrats on national security. going into this century, democrats for being told -- polls with over 20 points

disadvantaged. al gore, 2000, no major threats on the horizon, the cold war was over. even though he had more national security experience and military service than george bush, george bush wins and then 9/11 occurred. bush goes on to start the iraq war it in 2003. in 2004 goes against john kerry, a war hero a vietnam veteran, but nonetheless, some on national-security issues, taking advantage of the idea that democrats are weak and republicans are strong on national security. his success in preventing any subsequent act of terrorism. john kerry did not good -- do a

good job of saying what he would do differently about the iraq war. it was a very close election, but many believe he lost the election on the national security issue. interestingly, during the -- bush's term, you can see for the viewers on television, this charge of the polling about which party is better for national security after two decades of very strong republican support. the unpopularity of the iraq war begins to erode republican advantage on this question. literally, a 30-point gap, december 2003, saddam hussein has fallen. over time, the inability for us to secure iraq, the rise of

sectarianism, the advent of al qaeda, what was seen as many stumbles and a lack of clear execution of leadership on behalf of the first bush administration. it goes on despite bad. -- that. by 2006, the damage is done and the gap is only five points in favor of republicans. when the midterms comment on the democrats' win that election, take control of congress. you can see that pretty much closer contest between democrats and republicans prevails. right into the run-up of the 2008 election. perhaps the nomination of john mccain and the war hero against the relatively inexperienced barack obama leads to a reopening of the divide.

as the election golan, people become more confident -- election goes on, people become more confident. obama passes the national security test. you can see by december of 2008, when obama is about to take office, he has gained the support of the country on national-security issues. his promise to end the iraq war condenses the country that he is the person to take the mantle. at that point, only a two-point gap. we see some erosion in the early part of the obama administration. that has not held. here we are, a recent fox news poll from june 7, 2012, shows that while romney has better standing on the economy, if you look at the last paragraph,

obama's is trusted more on education, a foreign-policy. this is the first time in recent memory where a presidential candidate on the democratic side is walking into a reelection with the democrats having a better perception of national security. that is our historic background. given that background, how are the different candidates framing their ideas of national security? they lookhe lens through? it is a fair reading of mitt romney's position to say that he is looking at american exceptionalism. you can tell foreign-policy is a -- isn't a predominant issue.

the last speech he gave on the national security was at the citadel early in the primary season, october 2011. he says -- later in the speech, he goes on to say -- this idea of american how we adaptedsism,

to give us a special god-given role in the world to promote peace and security, but also our own values, values of democracy, free and open speech, economic exchange, freedom of religion, equality between people. i think the idea of american connotes thatsism america has special responsibilities. america must lead, not that we should lead, but that we must. special responsibilities to patrol the world, make it safe for commerce, naked say for free expression and free enterprise. -- make it safe for expression and free enterprise.

we also have some special rights attached to that. the idea that we can act unilaterally more than other nations and we welcome the role of an international institution, alliances, if those institutions are alliances are not serving american interest, we can go at it alone. what president obama has also said that we will act unilaterally, we must. american exceptionalism is a highlighted feature of this way of thinking about the world. what about president obama? governor romney criticizes obama because obama was asked, do you think america is an exceptional nation? i think we are an exceptional nation. the british probably think that

they are exceptional. other countries think they are exceptional as well. romney has mocked that as saying, we are not equally balanced. we are first among nations. what is obama's frame? a lot of scholars have struggled to define an obama doctrine. he is very much a pragmatist and one who has all little bit -- difficult to pigeonhole him. what i believe it is the best description for obama is a frame we can look at to his policies. he believes u.s. leadership and the promotion of u.s. american values and principles but in recognizing that we do live in an multipolar world. a world that has problems that are global in nature, that america, while we are the predominant military, other

nations have those powers that they can apply to international affairs. we need to operate in the that is, which is america is the most powerful nation in the world, but we cannot impose our will as much as we would like. we are much better off and much more capable advancing our interests if we are acting in conjunction and partnership with other powerful nations around the world. it takes president obama is rhetoric, this is from his speech accepting the nobel prize in 2009.

i do not think you would hear the governor romney it look at foreign affairs in that way. adds another important speech before the united nations general assembly -- we believe that s what we say as american values as being universal lines. he says we are committed to advancing the principles, but we