as a partner at a law firm. previous government experience includes serving on the national security council with the clinton administration. also served on the u.s. senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee. and governmental affairs committee. so, now we start the panel discussion. i cannot tell you how happy i am that i did not to raise my hand and have someone call on me. admiral, word is you want to , and you wantre to do more with training with liaison work. thewant to get around normal deployment cycles, which has led to complaints from congress from fellow military services and state department. offou are going to start with an easy one, aren't you? [laughter] >> this is more for the entire

panel as well but in all of this that we've heard today, are we over milli to rising foreign policy? a was at the army war college, and that was an issue that came up. a form much like we have here. do you think the military, and especially the aggressive and talented special operations command is able to do this because the state department too embassy ininside the does not get out in the field to deal with locals? >> let me take your first point last. the state department is out and about all over the place. and jane talked about their heroes, that we have. one of the points i raised, i said let me tell you about who my heroes are, the ryan crocker of the world.

guys and dolls that have spent their life serving this nation as ambassadors. people did not fully appreciate this. soon as you step foot outside the embassy, your life is a little bit up risk. as you move from point a to point b in a helicopter or whether you are in a helicopter or envoy, you are at risk. these great americans have been doing this their whole career. any believe the state department is sheltered inside their own embassy is not the case at all, certainly not in my experience. i have been blessed to work with significant reaching amazing state department employees. as far as militarizing foreign policy, i would take this and say we support form policy. unfortunately what happens is

sometimes we are about the only tool available. if it is the only tool you have in the tool chest and reach for it, you will get a certain result. at the end of the day, as i said earlier in the comments, we do what policy makers want us to do. i am happy with that. in terms of building an empire, part of what i am trying to do is provide capability for word. if someone were to ask, why are you doing this? what is the value to the u.s. special operations command. the value is i am putting the world's finest special operation forces, and if they perform well and there is a demand a signal, then frankly the requirement for special operations forces is better understood. easier to defend my budget in all honesty, and they do great work for the american people. if that is empire building, then i am guilty as charged. >> what is the members of

congress and the members of the military do not understand? take the military services i do not think cover problem with this. this 20 months ago there was misunderstanding about the geographic commanders. once they understood it was not my intent to move their forces around, and they talk to other combatant commanders who had had the advantage of having special operations forces in their area, they very quickly said this is a great deal and you ought to support it. they did and we quickly got over that. the services i did not uncover problem at all. we're very dependent on the services. >> the state department and congress? >> what i have to do is to be able to articulate appropriately to my state counterparts what we are attempting to provide them

and to get over some of the misperceptions. there are some misperceptions and his characterization of who we are. the point i always raise is we do not do anything that does not have the approval of the chief of mission. are people's opinions formed by movies and books and believe that is the way we operate, but in fact, it is just opposite. for me to do anything it requires to get the approval of joint staff. remove downrange, the country team and chief of mission have to approve that as well. moved down range, the country team in chief of mission have to approve that as well. >> what about your former colleagues at the hill? there were some reports they thought the admiral was moving around normalt deployment orders. what happened up there? thereid not serve

anymore, and i am not exactly sure who may have complained, but i am guessing the complaints echo something they have heard from the pentagon. turf protection is a great motivator on the capitol hill and the pentagon. it may have more to do with that, the rice bowl syndrome. we even have that at the wilson center. we're trying to break down the silos and have a horizontal structure, which is what all waters nichols did. tot is what he is referring in the 1980's. this combined and leverage all of the services. that is what the 2004 law was intended to do. none of this works perfectly, but working better. in response to your question, at least as i see it, and i am the raised to one -- to raise the question, why is he the enemy, i

think we need to do a much better job of explaining what we do. not just domestically, although i think that matters, but internationally. the goal is to persuade the kid not to strap on a suicide best. we have to project bellevue's better, especially the rule of ject our-- pro values better. operations special has a major role to play in the a strategy that also includes surge in diplomacy and development. those are part of the power that can win at more hearts and minds than the teams in the middle of the night. that is what i was getting

too, that there is a sense of over militarization. become au.s. aid has contracting agency. i did not think many people in this young girl -- in this remote know what it is. long gone. talk about that. i think focusing on any potential differences, the real story is the unprecedented matter in which development work alongside, song by side the military. in support of a common vision. in working collectively as civilian military partners we help to ensure we hope to bring to bear all the instruments of u.s. power and we do so in a very coordinated manner. to your initial question about what we manage to do in a place like afghanistan, that has meant quadrupling the number of

civilians we have in the field from just over 300 to just around 1200. was across government. we have professionals developing at 84 platforms. indeed i came here directly from we are very service much out in the fray.

we work together to make sure we -- to cope i have to tell you along those lines, my time in afghanistan i sat down with a marine colonel and he told me, this has been a civilian surge in this country and have not seen it. there were not enough state department people in the field helping him. they were sitting there just is not enough. i think that is an outdated store. onhink they operate different time lines. standard operating procedures are different.

you are operating in a conflict. you are operating in significant conflict territory. we work -- we are before congress on a weekly basis trying to make sure it is utilized as best as possible. that does not mean we're not out there having accomplish some real goals. >> bring in linda robinson now. the want to address these issues? do we have been out moral? peacoat if i might make quick points on this broader topic. i'd think it is very important that congress supports the budget for state and aid so you

have capable partners out there on the ground. i spent much of the past two years following the special operations initiative call it -- called the village stability operation. the embassy regional security officer, often restricts movement. that i know is a force protection issue meant for safety. can really impede this one team on the ground. i do think there are issues. plus, there are stovepipes between state aid in the military that i think people have to address. as far as the issue about whether a special operations fortunes -- forces are at large,

i have to step back and say i think the big change coming is a big shift away from counter- , yourism, meaning strike know lapper -- unilateral trade operations, capacity, and the question is getting better at it. i think that was the focus of the report i wrote for the council and i think that is certainly what the admiral is looking at doing. i would highlight there are very important personnel development initiatives, because it is all about having sophisticated leaders who can knit together the interagency teams and crack those strategies. >> what does through the bullet points. >> the key recommendation -- i do not believe it is on the menu. this is an independent report. a number of the interview subjects stress because there is

not control of the personnel, they belong to the services and would be beneficial for congress to consider changing the legislation granting co- management of personnel so the individuals can be developed throughout their career in partnership with what the soft leadership thinks they need to do. that is the key recommendation there. we will talk more about this as we get into this, but the other issue i would like to raise is there is tremendous growth at so com, the policy shop has remained the same in terms of size. it also has often been given responsibilities that have nothing to do with special operations. speaking of the policy shop, i

have talked to people who said that staff has grown enormously over the years and has been too bloated as we speak now. >> but for other activities that did not necessarily soften the voice especially when i have to put it to a new focus. this has been a fantastic partner in dealing with u.s. special operations command. having his focus on the key issues that i had to deal with has been invaluable to me. it is a great personal

relationship as well as professional. not grown the shop to the appropriate level where it needs to handle the issues that are starting to come up. the other piece on the working of the talent management, if you will, and having control of the personnel, the report is exactly right. the good news is i have a great dialogue with the service industry. we talked about the trust factor earlier. with all of the service chiefs, and some like gray or tan now -- he has a great stuff. these are a great relationship. allow me some maneuvers based in bringing this off issues for work. as we look at how we will promote guys and build the capability, we are working

shoulder to shoulder with them. we get fabulous support from capitol hill. there are elements of it that question some of the things we do. need to do that. i can not appropriate what we're trying to do, maybe it is not the right thing to do. i trust their experience and lawmakers, but i will tell you from the committees, house armed services committee and senate armed services committee that deal with us directly, we have had incredible support.

>> talking about promotions? >> i am comfortable with where we are. promotion rates are higher than the average rate for services. i do not disagree. i want to make sure that is clear. it would require another large investment in staff to be able to manage and promote all of our officers in listed within the special operations committee. right now i did not have the capability to do that. partnering with the services as it stands right now is probably a better approach to take. maybe in the future, if that opportunity presents itself, we will look that up. >> would you recommend any changes here? special operations command. >> i really would not.

i have learned up close and personal how hard it is to change the structures. good leaderhaving a with demonstrated results builds trust relationships with other people without upsetting rice bowls is a water way to go -- better way to go. i want to make a point on the capacity of peace, which seems a very good, forward plan. adam smith from washington state, the ranking democrat on the house armed services committee came here a couple of weeks ago talking about this. he has been around the world with special operations folks observing what we do. is point was building -- building partner capacity, and maybe this is what you mean, it's not only about building partner capacity inside our government having a government

approach and featuring smart power over hard power, but building partner capacity with other governments. about africa in particular and where we do that. is at least ais question mark about how we're doing in afghanistan but where we do not just of a better chance of proceeding. she has been raising this issue for many years. folks will listen to linda robinson. white security assistance is important. how we have to build up special forces capability.

it is hard to argue it one of the problems over the past number of years has been how you train forces in countries that may be, the leadership -- the military may be somewhat and savoring. pulse salvador is another example where you have criticism back in the 1980's. what me how you move ahead on this issue. the argument can be made that it is good for us to be in a salvador or mali or indonesia because you to drill -- to build those relationships.

the current leader may be an unsavory character, but we get to know who else is in there as well. it is beneficial to not only that country, but the united states as well. >> i think what we found in the military over the years and those that work in the diplomatic corps recognize the same thing. if you engage with people and build the trust factor up, they are less likely to do nefarious things are act badly. the isork with i do next a little bit questionable, we can just talk about civilian control, good order and discipline, talk about human rights. this is part of the engagement. we did not just teach them to shoot moving communicators. we teach them about what we think are universal values. not western values or american values by universal values. that is a very important part of

the engagement. we do this again in full concert with the country team in the embassy. we will work with the industry and tell us whether or not that is a good unit to work for. i am all about the lady law. the last thing we want to do is to be operating in training with folks that have committed gross human-rights violations, the letter of the leahy law. staffand office of joint and others have to improve the process. sometimes the process is a little slow, but not about the law. work through to that process.

we start basics with those relationships are very important. if the country starts to fall, you have insight into what happens. >> it is important to note that it is not a panacea and can be used to cure all problems. i was there in el salvador. there were a lot of human rights concerns in that case. very serious problems. the u.s. up with it over the long term and wound up with a partner that was in iraq

helping with the coalition. it took a long time. >> an interesting point about capping the advisers. i have talked to retired forces who said it worked in our favor. we had a small number. we did not have huge bases. we were in their training these guys and it worked out better in the end. >> i almost think there is an inverse relationship between the size of our footprint and size of effectiveness. is another case where i have worked and have seen it but i think it would be a mistake. a lot of people very skeptical about it. the military is to deform, too severe. i think skepticism is warranted and careful assessments have to be made by the military, but also, obviously the policy makers.

argue afghanistan was the case. i would rather preserve judgment on that. i have watched an element of the afghan special operations forces which has been another under the radar missions that has been carried out in afghanistan. i think there is a danger of becoming more ambitious. i think the small footprint approach, meaning partnered footprint approach is really the wave of the future. >> do you have anything to weigh in on this? particularly training unsavory characters. there are some that are geared maybe we should not be involved there. is there a tension between you and the military about the approach? >> again, i come from a human rights background and did training and security forces in places like indonesia and elsewhere. i think the process these can always be made better and you

can always expedite or accelerate them, but the fact that they exist and were trying to do exactly that and there is adroitness of vision about what we need to do i think is exactly where there is very good agreement. i would just caution -- i would always come to it that engagement within the restraints in not only the letter of leahy but the spirit of leyte, but within those constraints that the engagement is down the road. you see that in the training programs and the lost generation we have. you see it in any sorts of types of engagements. we also have to keep expectations realistic. this is a decade or more long process. when you're trying to build

capacity, it will not happen overnight. >> maybe a small footprint in afghanistan would make more sense than what we see now. >> i think so. i have thought that for a long time. i always thought the point that strategy did not fit afghanistan well. i had arguments with my very good friend when he was there. i thought afghanistan much more resembled the and on them -- vietnam than iraq. that they didff there was impressive, but when it all comes out, what will we leave behind? it makes the point that it is not a route -- about our capability but their capability. you have to have a willing partner. there is a question about whether our partner has always been willing to do the things

that would leave afghanistan to become a staple, unified country. we do not have to go into that now, but i think we have had an uphill battle. and our nato allies, a mighty effort in afghanistan. should bese involved given the robust thanks and especially those of the families who lost their lives. to go with the salvador model have been a better fit in hindsight as opposed to what we have? or should we have gone in low and long? >> i think time will tell. >> i am reluctant to make that assessment at this point in time. i think we will need a little while to determine whether the strategy was successful. i think it is moving in the right direction. we have some great leaders. i am reluctant to make that assessment right now.

>> now we turn to dan for the whole of government role. i would like to discuss the former secretary bob gates, hillary clinton talked about fully funding the state department. that has not been done. we talk about the size of the military compared to the state department. i absolutely concur with that. i was struck by that admirals' opening remarks about how similar leak we have tried on the diplomatic front to mirror many of the things you're laid out on the military front. talk about it in terms of enhance civilian powers.

working very much under the chief of mission authority. certainly the engagement with partners and something we tried to do from the very outset of our office when richard holbrooke first talked about this. leading a diplomatic campaign to bolster the military effort. we continue to convene them. a third of the numbers are from countries,-majority and has been very important in the communications messaging in afghanistan that this is not some classic civilization but something the muslim world has

joined us on. it has been very helpful in terms of continuing to build the sustainability of what we seek to do after 2014. to use this network last year to mobilize $4.1 billion annually in international support through 2017 and also the international commitment of $16 billion of development assistance in afghanistan through 2015. our efforts tof match and partner on the military effort with the diplomatic one. expanding regional diplomatic efforts as well. several significant conference is over the past several years. one of which was in stable -- instanbul. for whatsponsibility will happen. when it first happened we were not sure it would be held again. it has now met twice more.

the deputy secretary representative there. next year china will host it, which is very significant. toiously but we have sought do in terms of the integrated surges we have zero is talked about, but the diplomatic surge in trying to move forward on reconciliation process in afghanistan as the best chance of long-term sustainability. now the bilateral security agreement. so as you talk about the partnership of the inner agency in the partnership of the international stage and how you have tried to best source that, including in our office, it was seen as a template for this new, more fluid and nimble approach to diplomacy. to have representatives, senior representatives representing the secretary and the chairman and

others sick and our office at the state department reporting through the special representative and reach back authority to their agencies along with academics and others is a very similar approach and one that we have derived a great benefit from. suggested the benefits, the continued we arees we will face, very in sync on this. i think it represents a new way our approachesut to 21st century problems. but the military and diplomatic reference. >> clearly you have a challenge before you. the funding has fallen off the map in this country. it will be more of a challenge than what the admiral is facing. would happily take your

committee in terms of where they currently stand. they represent the constituencies. obviously there is an exhaustion with afghanistan. there is a concern about domestic priorities. we have worked very closely with the operate -- operating committee. to date we have been working very well with them. it is a hard argument to make, but when they're willing to listen to. i hope especially as we enter into the last 18 months and the very first years of transformation decade we will continue to bring them along. has three decades of experience on the hill, most lately as the senate foreign relations committee. it helps a lot. he is enormously popular and respected on both sides of the ideal. it is true the public gives foreign policy of 3% rating on the list of things they care about.

speaking from my experience, a huge number of people in both parties think the foreign aid budget is part of the budget when it is 0.1%. rate, there is this built in the biased against paying attention. i think john kerry has been a significant secretary of state so far and can get congress's attention in a way that will be very helpful. >> i think it is time for questions now. we have a microphone over here. throw some real hard balls. >> identify yourself. right over here. >> cnn. for allve a question panel is in regard to syria. with the new allegations of chemical weaponry used, how the

future of special operations and the potential intervention of u.s. and allies in syria, and if you can, perhaps move back to the smaller footprint approach and is that a potential plan in dealing with syria? thank you. the smaller footprint approach you discussed that would have been a better plan in dealing with afghanistan and how that is viable with syria. if at all. thank you. start with that. thet, syria and again is area of central operation. my responsibility is to provide special operations forces to he builds the as military plan that he will provide to the secretary and president.

and is not as easily as it might -- easy as it might appear. we have contingencies and plans we can provide the secretary in president when they are needed. i did not intend to go into details on that today. anything else on that? issues in myplex portfolio. i didn't have anything to add on syria. >> i think u.s. boots on the ground in syria in any format, whether big or small, is an unlikely outcome. i think the issue the government is wrestling with is whether to provide arms to some folks with the opposition we trust on the ground or not.

the president, my guess is, will make that decision in the near- term now that he said he is considering it. >> this tournament back here with the military bearing. .- gentleman >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. what kind of obstacles to you see to approving those capabilities? >> i did not see any obstacles. i see a lot of opportunities. as i mentioned earlier, i have great relationships with all the service chiefs. as they began to look hard at how they will ship the force of the future in support of the comeback commanders we're talking almost daily. i just had a lengthy discussion the week about how do we

maritime forces and we move forward? we're having a great dialogue on how we partner with the army. the air force, these are natural linkages. the navy in general with navy seals on ships and support to the fleet has always been out there. i do not really see any challenges. a lot of opportunities now that we are drawing down in afghanistan. we will have the capacity to be able to support them in greater numbers. that creates the opportunity of what we're looking for. >> a fast ball there. lot ofi have heard a special operators fume about how the term counter insurgency has gone taken over by one definition of the term, a large army counterinsurgency vs smaller footprint, irregular warfare. could you explain the difference between them as you would expire

it to a afghanistan and how that might play out in transition? >> that sounds like a thesis to me. i am not sure i can answer that in the time we have allotted. there is always differences among those folks with work strategy and work doctrine. i am not turn -- sure the turn of art is as important as the application of strategy. i will defer to the expert on this. do?ow did i >> that was good. the doctor and it is a very complicated one. a lot of people do not know the term for an internal defense. it makes a good counterpoint for koin. it is all about supporting the

counterinsurgency effort of that country. really thethat is model that is coming to the floor now and people should take a look at, whatever name you want to put on it. not so much broader and brett lectern. the key point is you are not in the lead. >> right back there and read. red. the >> i am from yemen. my question is to admiral mckay craven. meanestion is, the you that the government by partners and allies? is that -- if that is the case, how do you deal with the dilemma for how governments are

not be justified by their own local population, at the local level, what are the and it is so delicate they are engaging with the tribes would do more harm than good? fabulous question. i think you're done a great job of characterizing the fast world we live in. this is why i really does require someone who has had years and years of experience to understand how to engage. let me just walking through the process. we will not engage with any government. so that is that one. any thoughts that we are out there in gauging with governments that have not been approved by the state department, it does not happen. the policy makers make a policy

decision on whether or not this is inappropriate government to engage on -- engage with. i did not make judgments on the value of each individual government. once that decision is made that this is a government we are working with, that will help advance their policy goals, that is where we come in. re it is a, from thei straight military plan. if the decision is made to engage, we build a plan and present it to the state department and move forward. it is not my place to decide whether or not we will engage with a particular government. that is the decision of the policy makers. i execute the decision. take a luckily we of the state department official right here. luckily we do have a state department official right now. walk us through how you make that happen?

. >> i will start with the decision to engage with any particular country is obviously very complex one and comes out of an interagency process. once we are there, i think there experimented with a range of different ways we have tried to do exactly this in terms of building capacity in afghanistan. one particular example has been a huge effort to combat corruption. to create the major crimes task force, which was initially with support, but with u.s. law enforcement personnel from the fbi and other civilian agencies to mentor afghanistan professionals and create a resident law enforcement community in afghanistan. we obviously have to -- we select which ministries we can work with most effectively. we have a series of oversight

mechanisms now, which have greatly increased to ensure we do that effectively. we revisited with metrics to we are meeting goals with it. once we have the actual decision, i think there is a variety of models at our disposal in terms of how we can implement that. the decision has to be made in terms of where we see value in engaging. >> how is that ever working for you in afghanistan? ishno one will be pollyanna about what we can achieve. it does not mean we cannot try to do it. we have to make an effort to do it. once we have far fewer civilians, this will be solely on the arms of afghanistan's to continue to carry. we want to see how it goes. >> richard downey from delphi

strategic consulting. thank you for a wonderful discussion here today. given president obama's trip to mexico today and thinking about the last six years where we have had tremendous security cooperation, including the u.s. military and special operations forces, between the united states and mexico, we have seen in recent days a lot of articles about how the current administration in mexico may be ofwing it back from some that cooperation and willingness to cooperate with the united states. i was wondering if you could comment on bad and talk about expectations for how that may affect or how you see that affecting special operations forces or in general the efforts with mexico. to go it will sound like an unsatisfying answer -- >> this will sound like an unsatisfying answer, but i wait to see what

the policy makers will do. the western hemisphere, they are working and in beijing with mexican government. that interagency forum will decide what the engagement looks like with mexico. once that is decided, i will move forward and support it. the reason why i keep coming back to this answer, there is a misperception that we are off on our own developing policy, working with countries, and that is as far from the truth as it could be. there is a real special operations forces anywhere. once it is approved at the appropriate level, the secretary of state and defense or up to the president, until that happens, we do not move forward. >> you have enough on your plate. nothingtunately, i have

to add. regardede a highly mexico's center at the wilson center. we had a panel be a third day on at strategic -- changing strategies to combat the drug problem here, in mexico and latin america's contribution by and obviousugs networks and cartels that go with that. i choose to see this change as positive, and not negative. i am not a mexico expert. i think it changed strategy may end up being more effective. to decriminalize it totally. but to have an approach that is on prevention and treatment more than incarceration. the thought is that that could depress the demand for drugs and different strategies could work better.

though we're it as thrown out. i see it as this strategy may work better. there is a good news story in mexico. the economy is thriving. that story is almost never told. president obama is down there to start the dialogue about changing mexico and the advantages of close collaboration. i did not see as moving apart, i just see course correction in the approach to the drug issue. >> right down here. >> thank you. question for the admiral. in tandem with the development you outlined to develop the growth of the future of the special operations, there are those encourage debate -- occurring in the intelligence community where over the past decade there has been ramping up of the paramilitary capabilities and the public the ciae out there is

in their own mission will scale those down and some of them may be transferred over under your purview. could you talk about the interface between at your command and operations and the parallel functions that have and howing on in the ic, this plays out in practice. >> i will not talk about the future of the cia. i will leave that to john brennan. what can i say is our relationship with the special operations with intel community is remarkable. i think the american people would be very pleased to see the intergovernment relationship we have with all of these agencies, but in my case particularly the intel community. when you look at the average operation any night in mechanist and and all the ones in iraq, we

did not do anything without support of the national deal spatial agency that will provide the gao support. all of those agencies come together. they are all with us in this incredible interagency organization that leverage is the power and information over every one of those intel community elements. of intelt part community, but we live off the great work that they do. it is absolutely amazing. i did not realize this was the anniversary of the raid, but now that she has raised that point, i set up of -- i said it before but always worth repeating, when you look at -- look at that meant as a work that the cia did -- cia did and the work of

others to find osama bin laden, it will go down as the great operations in the history of intelligence operations and the work that these agents do every day for the good of our country and the good of other countries is just incredible. my hat's off to them. question, a to your great relationship and i expect we will continue to strengthen the relationship as we go forward. >> yes, my name is angela dickey, a foreign service officer and a fellow at the u.s. department of peace right now. i am very glad to hear of your get -- great respect and working with ambassadors. we have been talking about the light footprint. from where i sit, your footprint looks huge. yet more people in your command that we have in the state department. , civilian oversight of the

military presumes we have in the civilians to oversee the military. that is a comment i would like to make, because the other point wet was made earlier is that surged 7 lit -- civilians into a rock and afghanistan. afghanistan. we of a 10% staff deficit during those searches. this raises very serious problems for me personally and for our profession. i would just like to make that comment. >> of the comment is a good one. i have tremendous respect for the foreign service -- the folks that are deployed down range. one u.s. ambassador and one country team can certainly provide oversight for a small platoon.

when i talk about the fact we are in 78 countries around the world, is 70 people. afghanistan about 9000. when you look at where they are across other countries, they are in very small numbers. had not think we have ever a problem with civilian oversight of the force that is in a country. i am all about growing foreign service. i will put the plug in as well. i am all about more money for the state department. incredible enablers for the country. anytime we can have these relationships at the low work for and services level all the way up to the ambassadors, that is money in the point for us as a nation.

to go to extraordinary embassadors. extraordinary ambassadors. ann is now in pakistan. she is in harm's way. just a little plug for small women adding great value. >> i want to ask about the relationship between direct action and broader -- broader terrorism strategy, especially in a post-terrorism the environment. particularly on the second anniversary of the day osama bin laden was killed, we're in a very different environment and everyone agrees about that. seen isave

strategically on the verge of strategic defeat, not capable of. people are starting to ask questions about what the next phase of counterterrorism strategy looks like. he described that we are approaching a tipping point in which we must be able to say we're no longer in conflict with an al qaeda-assisted of force and our military assets must be reserved as a last resort, and that diplomatic intelligence and law-enforcement assets must be front and center along with the partner in nations on combating terrorism. i am asking whether you agree with those remarks by j johnson and how we can make sure that the direction -- direct action activities do not become a substitute for a broader,

strategic approach to dealing with terrorism. i absolutelya -- >> agree with j johnson and i think he did a terrific job in framing the way ahead for us. when you talk about how i view, combating terrorism, it means how do we partner? how to rebuild a partner capacity? how do we help countries help themselves so that frankly we can buy down the extremism and those countries can deal with terrorism in their countries at the law enforcement level so it does not become reasonable and global. it is about getting ahead of the threat so i do not have to use threats. at the end of the day it should be the very last resort. that is where we should be proceeding in terms of the future of special operations in the future of combating terrorism. i agree wholeheartedly with j johnson. my view tome in

review the authorization e-mail which has been underpinning for most of the action that both president bush and president obama have been taken -- have taken across the world in response to post/-- post-9/11 threats. for it to respond to those who attacked us based in afghanistan, and no one thought this would be the afterthought 12 years later. there are a number of people in congress who want to review this. i think it is time to start a public conversation. >> real quick, a couple more questions. to that unwrapping

in the previous questions as well. i hope everyone realizes the figure of one to engage in how the white house runs that and the types of deliberations that go into that. obviously it all comes down to the balancing you would expect of what the interests are in that engagement. and on something like afghanistan it is obviously the clearest case in times -- in terms of trying to dismantling data. in other cases when we were able to put our relationship on firmer fwround last summer and restart some. so groups we had, the very first one we had was on law enforcement and terrorism to talk about counter i.d. legislation and some of these things. and then in terms of the capacity piece, again as we

have our draw down in afghanistan, we have to be moving from the efforts we had a few years ago to what is more sustainable over time. that is completely encome bent on what capacity we were able to develop there. >> i probably have time for one more. a on capitol hill there is debate about footprint. in zobrist we saw a terrible -- benghazi we had a terrible loss of life. if we weren't in this situation would small footprint with be a discussion right now. is it driven more economically f. you could address this i'd appreciate it. >> it's not driven by economics, at least not in my case. where it is appropriate to have a small footprint.

as linda said special operations forces are not a panacea for everything and there are times when a small footprint won't do the job. but as we move forward times where a small footprint is a better strategic choice are growing. but it isn't a function of economics. the cost of applying a small footprint forward is pretty small. in my budget within the department of defense is pretty small. and even if we take some cuts which i expect won't happen, i think we'll be able to provide this capability to the secretary and to the president. >> thank the panel. [applause] dmiral, don't be a stranger.

>> if you missed any of this discussion it is available in the c-span video library, go to cspan.org. headed over to the u.s. pentagon where chuck hague sl hosting the british defense secretary this week. in a couple of moments we will bring a conference. the u.s. is considering providing arms to syrian rebel forces. this is expected to get under ay in just a moment.

>> again, we are live at the pentagon this afternoon awaiting a news conference between chuck hagel tapped british defense secretary. it's expected to get under way in just a couple of minutes. expected to take questions on the u.s. possibility of providing arms to syrian rebel forces. while we wait for this to get under way. we'll bring you a discussion on intelligence gathering and sharing from this morning's "washington journal." >> the former director of national intelligence. he served as the first d.n.i. from 2005 2007.

prior no that he served as ambassador to several countries including the u.n., iraq, mexico. served on the national security council lots of different positions within the government. host: is the d.n.i. instructure effective and is it working in your view? guest: i think. so i think the intelligence community needs a manager, somebody who doesn't have day-to-day operational responsibilities who can deal with issues like bument, programs, priorities and serve as the president's chief intelligence advisor host: did you do the daily briefing with the president? guest: it was done by two briefers. i did it six days a week. half an hour every day from 8:00 to 8:30 in the morning.

i thought it was an important process and i thought of myself as in addition to being the d.n.i. and being the president's chief intelligence advisor, i also saw myself as the person responsible for the analytic of the intelligence community. host: ultimately responsible? guest: if i saw material being prepared that i thought needed to be looked at again or modified or changed in some way, restudied. remember it was faulty analysis that got us into trouble in iraq in the first place. we believed intelligence that was not correct about the weapons of mass destruction in iraq and that was one of the main mistakes we were trying to avoid repeating. ost: ambassador, did the stove

piping of intelligence gathering, did it end with the d.n.i. position? did it mitigate it at all? guest: things don't change from one night to the next morning. i would say actually it was getting better even before the d.n.i. was being created and continued to improve after. i think what happened is that 9/11 was a real wakeup call and there was a realizization there had to be more integration of our intelligence product and more sharing across the community and more effort to bring timely integrated intelligence to our policy leaders. i think that began almost right away after 9/11. prior to that, just take the example of the f.b.i. and the c.i.a., they did toned behave

in a somewhat stove piped way. i think there was a particular problem in the law enforcement community particularly the f.b.i. because a lot of their records were being kept at the field office level on yellow legal pads stashed away in some safe around the country. and not enough effort made to analyze it. the importance of intelligence and intelligence analysis was elevated in an organization like the f.b.i. and there began a process of much greater cooperation across the board but principlely between the five or six key federal intelligence agencies. host: when you look at boston now there has been some criticism about information sharing and gathering there. what is your obsization about what happened -- observation

about what happened in boston? guest: let's go back to pearl harber for a moment and a classic case of surprise. of course in retspect what you see is there was a lot of noise happening before pearl harbor that everybody felt was something aput but people couldn't pick out which of those noises represented real signals of threat. this is really always the challenge in intelligence analysis particularly when you talk about threat assessments. how do you discern the real signals from the tremendous amount of background noise going on. so that is part of the problem with respect to what happened in boston. the other point to remember is hindsight is 20/20 vision. you can take any event, any

crime, anything that happens, an intelligence surprise and look at it retro spec tively and you're going to connect the dots. you're going to see signals that aren't obvious when you live through those events which one last point, people have to make decisions based on imperfect knowledge when you live in the present and that's different than when you have the luxury of somebody who is looking backwards at what has happened. host: current debate in this country about cyber security and privacy online. what are your thoughts as the form early intelligence official? is it help to feel have access to people's e-mail and phone records? is there a sense of overreach? guest: first of all, i think we face a tremendous problem when it comes to the issue of cyber security. we shouldn't be naive about

this. there are people who are exploiting the weaknesses in the system, stealing intellect you'll problem. there are people who steal industrial secrets. by the millions of dollars worth of value. it's important we take appropriate defensive measures, not government but industry and the private sector. we have to defend ourselves and take the kind of precaution that is will lessen the chance that you are going to be hacked into or have your materials stolen. then i think there are certain thanges the government can do. i think we need some legislation. there have been effort to legitimate about internet security and the past couple of years about privacy. there is tension about how do you protect the security of

your communication system and your internet and at the same time protect the privacy of our citizens? i think both goals can be accomplished but it has to be talked through and the society and congress have to reach a consensus on that. did you find it helpful to have access to e-mail and phone records when you were d.n.i.? >> myself, i was not operationly involved but the answer to your question is yes. but this had to be demun a legal fashion anded the to be limited to cases where we suspected some kind of foreign intelligence activity in connection with american -- with people in the united states. so a lot of these activities had to do with intercepting phone calls from abroad from

suspicious areas from suspicious people to people in the united states. i believe though as a result of the revelation of this program back in the middle of the last decade and some of the subsequent legislation that we've had and procedures that have been put in place, i believe there are ample legal safeguards with respect to that kind of thing. but if i could come to an end with the classic statement that preb made when he defended that program, he said when al qaeda is calling the united states i want to know who they are calling and i don't think that was a bad summary statement at all. host: what are you doing these days? guest: i'm a private consultant -- former chief

of staff to bill clinton. and we help businesses do business abroad and market strategies and problem solving. then i'm a professor at yale university. i teach a couple of courses at my alma matta on diplomacy and security. this fall i will be offering in conjunction with a colleague a course on intelligence as well. host: what's the reaction of students to you teaching their course? 2k3w0eu7 well the students i get are ones interested in government service. and i'm encouraged by the number of student i encounter who want to enter into public service. last monday was my last class for the semester and i asked my seminar of 20 or so student for a show of hands how many expected to be working in washington next year and i say

half of the class raised their hand. these are people going into foreign service or intelligence community or pentagon or some think tank. host: and finally before we go to calls, your time in iraq, twhaffs? how would you assess iraq today and policy in iraq? guest: he was first ambassador to the new iraq so to speak after we had the coalition authority there which ended at the end of june in 2004. then i was assigned to iraq as the first ambassador which i was there from the 30th of june, 2004 to the middle of march in the following year. the main thing that was accomplished during my time or main two things, first, was the conduct of elections in january of 2005.

the first elections. you remember everybody with ink stained thumbs and the other thing was the government and ourselves finally managed to restore control over the city of pa ludge which was a very embattled place at the time but was indispense to believe affirming and asserting the authority of the government over a critical town in that country. host: and today how do you assess iraq? guest: well, i think it's work in progress. it's still prime minister malachi has shown impressive endurance. he's been in office for seven years now. the political process continues. this is one of the few democratic countries or only perhaps democratic country in the middle east besides israel.

and i suppose you could argue lebanon. but there is still a lot of violence and issues of sectarianism and so clearly i'd say they haven't fully worked out that issue. the issue of tension between the shy i can't majority community and the minorities. you have to hope given what understand 2006 and 2007 when the country was really on the brink, they were on the brink of a civil war, that they don't want to go back to that kind of life and existence. and so hopefully things are going to get better. the other point i make about iraq is that the economic situation in that country continues to improve year on year. you'd be surprised with the violence that goes on in parallel with that the economy is growing at more than 10% a year. of course they had a low base to come up from.

but their oil production and export is up in the neighborhood of three million barrels a day and they are on track to become the second largest oil exporting country in the world one of these days. this country has plenty of resources and plenty of promise. but they still have serious political challenges. host: do you see a direct connection between the war in iraq and the toppling of sa dam ugh sane in the arab spring? guest: that case is made. my tendency is to try to think of each of these countries a little bit on their own merits because it seems each one steems develop in such unique and slightly different ways. it could be that the toppling of sa dam was a contributing factor. but now this arab spring ever

since has really taken oh on a life of its own. host: a lot of top picks on the table. as you can tell from our discussion a lot of different top picks on the table. screen.e on the caller: my comment is the whole system of our intelligence gathering community is five or sections. nt if they could come bain those and the information was available to all sections at the same time, a lot more could be accomplished than waiting for somebody to run a note

across town. i'm not sure how that information is passed on but it's very obvious that somewhere along the line there are definite breakdown that is really need to be addressed. my other comment is to go back to the drug war is the drug war was lost the day it started. you're not going to control people to that point. anymore is not dangerous than alcohol, in fact it's less so. d it has amazing medicinal qualities. i'm a 70-year-old woman and using a marijuana salve that i make myself i am able to get .ff of pain pills

>> good afternoon. secretary hammond and i just completed a productive session regarding our two country's continued common interest. i'd like to thank secretary hammond for their partnership with the united states and friendship n. march i had the opportunity to meet with the u.s., u.k. chief conference. at that meeting that was recreated as a gathering of the american british military leadership during world war ii, much discussion reinvolved around our continued relationship and partnership. our history of being ally and defense of common interest and common values continues to strength b the relationship of our two mill tares. the discussion secretary

hammond and i have had today which we will continue this evening reflect our shared desire to deepen our defense cooperation in the face of a very complex and unpredictable global security. i discussed my recent trip to the middle east which highlighted the many challenges through our shared interest this that region of the world including iran and syria. i expressed appreciation for the significant contribution and sacrifices of british forces to international efforts in afghanistan. i would also like to express my deepest condolences to the people of the united kingdom for the three british soldiers tchilled week. as the transition to afghanistan the security control continues. the united kingdom will continue to play an important role in helping field strong

and effective afghanistan national security forces. as we emerge from more than a decade at war of shared sacrifice our discussions focused on preparing this aligns for the future. yesterday secretary hammond had the opportunity to visit a naval air station to observe ongoing testing of the f.-35 joint strike fighter. the united kingdom's continued commitment to this program and our growing cooperation in new priority areas like cyber assures we have the cutting edge capabilities needed for the future. over the past few weeks, the u.s. and u.k. commemorated the 50th anniversary of the polarries sales agreement which has been the corner stone of r cooperation and to

deterrence. i grate secretary hammond on the navy may want nance of uzz its submarine forces and their continued tround clock patrols which i strongly support their decision to maintain an independent strategic deterrence. strong alignses and partnerships are becoming more critical. more critical because both the united states and united kingdom face the challenge of meeting global threats in a new era of constrained resources. as our department under goes management review here, secretary hammond and i discussed the defense strategy and effort to rebalance forces. d.o.d. has gained many useful insights from british experiences and our staffs coordinate closely on strategy and defense planning. we will also continue to work closely together to ensure the nato aligns has the

capabilities needed for the future which will be a focus of a nato defense ministerial next month we will both attend. i look forward to seeing secretary hammond there and continuing our discussions today, tonight as to how we continue to build an effective partnership around the world. again, thank you secretary hammond and welcome. we are glad you are here. >> thank you very much. i'm delighted to be here. i'd like to thank secretary hagel for his warm welcome. as you know i enjoyed a close relationship with your predecessor and i'm glad we were able to pick up where we left off in discussions with secretary panetta. secretary hagel and i have had discussions about the security challenges we face focused on afghanistan, syria and i ran.

on afghanistan sfite the tragedies that occurred esterday we will see through our task from afghanistan becoming a save ever safe havep for terrorist. both our mill tares take risks as they carry out their dangerous task there is. the missions remain on task and they now lead on providing security for nearly 90% of the afghanistan population. and lead roughly 80% of all security operations. their capability will continue to grow as forces draw down by the end of next year. on syria secretary hagel and i reaffirmed our shared view that the syrian regime must tend violence and stop the slaughter

of it own people and realize it is not the legitimate representative of the syrian people. we believe a diplomatic solution needed to tend bloodshed and assad can have no place in the future of syria. we in the u.k. are stepping up our support to the national coalition and remind the regime that nothing has been taken off the table in light of the continuing bloodshed. we remain increasingly concerned at the evidence of use of chemical weapons and demand the u.n. investigate these allegations. assad should know the world is watching and will hold him and anyone else to at for the use of chemical weapons. as we face up to these security challenges and those posed by iran, we also face significant budget constraints both in lon on the and washington.

secretary hagel and i addressed the issue of defense reform and how we get more bang for our buck. greater military cooperation is a part of this and we need to look at how we can encourage partner countries within nato to reform their forces to take on more of the security challenge with more effective and deemployable forces. of course the u.k. and u.s. will enjoy a very high level of cooperation and interoperationability but we have agreed to explore what more we can do to drive greater efficiency through collaboration together. yesterday as secretary hagel as commented already i went out and saw one of the fruits of our collaboration, a british pilot flying an f-35 b in vertical landing mode and i m am delighted and about the

progress we are making in this project and others such as the common missile come apartment for our next generation of nuclear armed submarines. the u.k. and u.s. remain in lock step on these projects and we will assure the continuety of those vital capabilities. the british american defense relationship is strong and far reaching. of ill remain the bedrock bryn's defense policy and will remain for decades to come. i look forward to working with secretary hague toll strengthen and maintain that relationship in the coming years. >> if you could be as comprehensive as possible here. now that we know the swhouse rethinking the opposition of

rerpgs in syria. hy are you in agreement with rearming the rebels since your top military advisor has said he's skeptical about this? my second question very specifically why since the mergence of the chemical weapon intelligence stepped up or put intensity at looking at what could be done in syria and both of you gentleman mr. hammond you said all options are on the table but there is skepticism about that. why should anyone believe this is anything other than political window dressing by both governments? there seems to be no indication either is going to intersize any option.

>> first as to your question . garding rethinking options >> arming the rebels. >> that's an option. was nk secretary hammond clear when he talked about what is the objective for both our countries, certainly the united states, stopping the violence, stability in the region and a transitioning -- helping be part of that transitions syria to a democracy. now those are objectives. any country, any power, any international coalition and partnership is going to don't look at options, how best to accomplish those objectives. this is not a static situation. a lot of players are involved which we must don't look at

options and present those options based on all con teng is with a focus to achieve the objectives the best way we can. so we're constantly evaluating. i think the president noted it a couple of days ago in his press conference about rethinking options. of course we do. >> you are rethinking the administration is rethinking arming the rebels? >> why? what has changed in your mind and does this put you respectfully at odds with the u.s. military who said this is not a good idea? why are you rethinking arming rebels? >> you rethink or look at all options. it doesn't mean you do or l. these are options that must be considered with partners, with the international community. what is possible, what can help

accomplish these about objectives. we have a responsibility to don't evaluate options. it doesn't mean that the president has decided on anything. >> are you in favor of arming the rebels now? >> i'm in favor of exploring options and see what is the best option in coordination with our international partners. >> have you come to a conclusion yet? >> no. >> even after all these weeks you have no conclusion? >> no conclusion about what options we would use? >> you said the administration is rethinking arming the rebels you said yes. you have no conclusion yet about whether you support that arming the rebels sir? >> we are exploring all options to achieve the objectives i just stalked about. these are not static situations and you must always look at different options based on the

reality on the ground, based on what you want to achief, based on the future, based on our international partners. we talked about secretary hammond and i many options. we talked about relationships. when i was in the middle east last week i was in five countries as you know. i discussed syria in all five countries. >> i don't want to repeat everything secretary hagel has already said but i agree with what he has said. it's not a static situation. it's a rapidly changing situation. we've kept all options open. we have not thus far provided any armings to the rebels. what hasn't come out so far is legal alty. both of our nations will only do what we legally can do. certainly in our case for the u.k. we have been stoubt an

e.u. band on supplying arms to the rebels. we will look at the situation when that ban expires in a few weeks time. we will continue to keep that situation under review. but we will do what we are able to do within the bound of legality and we regard that as very important. >> how confident are you that the assad regime is in control of chemical weapons and the u.s. and u.k. know where those weapons are. if a red line has been crossed will any military action be targeted against chemical weapon sights or a broader attempt to change syria and overthrow the assad regime? >> thank you for that.

i think the evidence we have is that the regime is largely in control of its chemical weapons site. that is not the same as saying we are able to account for every last unit of chemical stocks. but there is no evidence that the regime has lost control of significant chemical weapon sites yet. in terms of the location of weapons, i think we have a great deal of knowledge of location of chemical weapons. that is not the same as saying i can put my hand on my heart and say we know where every last item is. in terms of any possible response, i wouldn't want to close off any options. it follows on from the answer to the previous question. we should keep our range of options open and under continue was consideration. we should look at the evolving

situation on the ground and look at the range of options that would be appropriate and legal in any given situation. >> if the regime has only used chemical weapons tactically on a small scale, would you consider it legal to do arming the rebels in order to overthrow the regime? >> >> i don't want to make leem judgments on the hoof. before we made a decision we would expect to have detailed legal advice from the attorney general about whether a proposed course of action was legal and proportionate in the circumstance that is then prevailed. and i think having defined it that way, we need to keep our options as broad as possible within the bounds of legality and proportion alty. >> my question is syria.

i welcome your comments. you said this morning in order to establish chain of custody the international community will need to wait for another attack to gain the right kind of evidence. is that correct and having digital samples and trails collected by both countries degraded over time? >> i think the point i was making this morning was the fact that we have set out our intention to establish evidence of the nature and caliber that would be acceptable in court of law and the very clear message to the regime that any use of chemical weapons in the future which by definition general rates the potential to collect that evidence has a price. i hope we are sending a message that will have a deterrent effect. i'm not a technical expert but i don't think you need to be a technical expert to know that after any use of a chemical

agent there will be a degradation over time of the evidence that can be collected and from the point of view of constructing a chain of custody of that evidence clearly, the longer the period that has elapsed between a use of such an agent and the point where awe quire a sample, the less strong that chain of custody will be. >> so you need a new attack? >> not necessarily need. but if there were future use of chemical agents, that would generate new opportunities for s to establish a clear evidence of use to a legal standard of evidence. >> are you confident that given evidence that you already have or evidence from past attacks, you would be able to work with that or would you need a new attack? >> i think secretary hammond said it exactly right and i

really wouldn't add much to what he said. i would say again what the secretary has already noted, there is a legal issue here as well. so that's why evidence is critically important here. >> [inaudible] . >> you need the evidence if you are going to exercise certain options, a range of those options, that evidence is particularly important. >> i want to add something from u.k. perspective. u.k. public opinion rems the evidence we presented with in 2003 around iraq which turned out not to be valid. there is a very strong view that we have to have very clear very high quality evidence before we make plans and act on

that evidence. >> two questions. on syria to both of you. this is a minor detail. but when you are looking at and samples, are britain america working with the same source of material or separate samples? the white house saided the it's own investigation. are you looking at the same material or different material. and on afghanistan mr. hammond the prime minister said they encourage them to stay in their country. they said it's indefenseable that interterse would be left to their own defense in afghanistan. >> on the first point. i can't comment on the evidence or sources of intelligence that

we are looking at for obvious reasons. but we are working in close collaboration to establish a robustness to the analysis. on the question of sberpers. we may be sending a mixed message through what is written in the media but that's not our intention. we will not abandon those who served us in afghanistan. we are also clear to the extent these are people who have an important contribution to make to the future of afghanistan, educated people, english speaking people, it is our wish if we can to construct an offer to them which attracts them to stay in afghanistan and be part of afghanistan's future. it is clearly the wish of the afghanistan government to see as many of these people as possible make their future in

afghanistan and we think that it send an important message about our confidence in the future of afghanistan that we are seeking to work to allow these people to build a future in afghanistan rather than simply abandoning the country. as to your question regarding the intelligence purr suits. each country, certainly the united states uses its own intelligence agencies and institutions and makes its own efforts. but we also collaborate in this case with the united kingdom and other allies to share intelligence, so both. >> thank you very much. >> [inaudible]

>> finishing up the defense department briefing. if you missed my of it you can watch it in the c-span video library. go to cspan.org. there was much discussion today during the briefing about budget constraints facing the defense department. that was a topic we covered earlier discussing the future of military redness and security in the wake of reduced spending. ere is a quick look. >> do you think that the united states is weekend and that is why we're not taking any decisions to what is happening right now in syria and how

[inaudible] is going to prepare itself in he future military wise? >> are we getting weak senator i think we are but we're doing that by choice in the circumstance. i don't think it was the case that we would get weaker, necessarily the case we will get weaker just because of the stress that was placed on the force in the combined operations in afghanistan and iraq. primarily in my judgment what we're seeing is we're getting weaker because the budget priorities in washington are shifting. some of that is understandable because of the circumstances of the economy that were just explained. others are not so defendable so that at the end of

the day this is something we're doing by choice, not by circumstance. >> let me follow up on that. it's not that the military capability is not there. it's a question of national lsm and obviously i think the experience in both iraq and afghanistan will very much flavor the response to what is going on in syria and the potential expansion of that conflict. a poll jies for using historical analog but after vietnam you couldn't pay people enough to get back into operations but the threat didn't go away particularly in south america. in al insurgents and salvador the u.s. had to respond those. the response was different than the response in vietnam. if have you someone from a

think tank and says the solution is to put large u.s. ground formations on the ground and have them shoot at the country side for a few years is going to get offered a short walk into the pa tom mack. what you see is different, mush more boots on the ground. the actors that have you in a country, the syrian free army and so forth in order to be able to do what they have toth potential to do as opposed to the united states doing it. that's what i think you will see as the ultimate outcome of that. >> a quick look at today's event from the heritage foundation. you can see the entire program later on our schedule or to watch it anytime go to cspan.org. president obama left today for a three day trip to mexico and costa rica. they will discuss immigration

and trade and the drug war. we will bring that to you live here on c-span. and tomorrow the president will gather with central american leaders in costa rica and saturday he'll attend a business conference and be back in washington on sunday. coming up is an event looking at news and social media coverage of mass kassty events and the bombings in boston the sandy hook elementary school shooting. >> we felt this was in our backyard and it was probably a little better than what you experienced because i understand there was really just one or two roads and everybody was really close together and virginia tech is a big campus and also the families were all over virginia and elsewhere. so there were lots of locals to

go to, maybe a bit more breathing room, but other than that the experience seems similar. i have always been a feature writer for my 26 years and i had never had to call a briefing. so the day after i came in and my editor gave me two names. they had just released the names and i had to do that story. and i thought if i quit i won't have to do that. , i took d to my friend him to the corner and said what do i do. call them up and tell them you're sorry and see if they want to talk. by that point everybody was calling. the victims, the families i got most atooched was a family in a community dalled narrows and it's a small town, 2,000

people. and the community as the press came in. they found narrows and trace lane's house and they were parked in front of her house like train cars. that community embraced her and they told the reporters to go away. i found out later one of the men in her church went over and stode a "chicago tribune" reporter i know you think you are from a tough town but if you go messing with traze lane, you are going to see what a tough town is. >> you can see that entire discussion tonight at 8:00 on c-span. >> ronald reagan i think massively made mistakes on defense. the defense budget was not just a waste of money in those eight years, it created the war machine that was used to create

so much havoc in the world and create so much anger and problems throughout the world that were totally unnecessary that made us a imperial power. so that was a real negative. on the other hand he did for the first time since eisenhower stand up for limiting the state. the big government, the state is not a solution to every problem. in fact it can lay down the private economy. the idea of entrepreneurs, the idea of technological change, the idea that people should make their own decisions without some big unanimousny in washington. he stood for those things. i agree with those things. that puts the plus in his column. he lost it. he really needed to stand up for closing more of that deficit.

ronald reagan spent a lifetime before 1980 as the greatest opponent of deficit spending there ever was. and he left a legacy of massive deficits which permitted his followers to say reagan proved deficits don't matter. of was a historical error enormous proportion. q sunday at 8:00 on c-span's & a. >> a former legal advisor to george w. bush explains the position he was in when he approved the drone strike. he was part of a bipartisan talk on the subject joined by bush administration official and an attorney who has hallenged tar getted killings.

> to call this an all-star panel is a bit of an understatement. among them i feel like a guy who splashes paint on houses about to talk about subtle aspects of port trat painting with a group of remember brants. let me introduce the panelists. seated next to me is john bell enjer. he is a former legal advisor to the state department. he speaks regularly on national security law issues. he testified before the house committee on the judiciary subject whrks the k the u.s. target terrorist overseas. seated to john's left is the

director of the national security project which is dedicated to ensuring that the security policies and practices are consistent with the civil rights. she has cases including targeted killings. she is with international rights and humane tarne law. she is a lecturer at columbia law school. >> next is the dean of university of virginia arts and seasonses. former counselor to the department of state. he was director of the 9/11 commission. he has served on task forces and written books. he is currently a member of the president's intelligence advisory board where i dear say the word drone has been mentioned once or twice. then mark is a national security correspondent for the "new york times." he is a winner for the pulitzer

price on the violence in pakistan and afghanistan and washington's response. he is the author of a recently pub lished book the way of the knife which is right on point to our discussion this morning. here is the book. i recently read it and i recommend it to you all. let's dive into the subject at hand. i'd like to turn to jon. you've been in the arena on these issues and if you could frame them for us, the legal and policy aspects of it. >> thanks. thanks for putting this together. when i testified fwfer house judiciary committee a couple of weeks ago. i started and ended my testimony with a plea for more bipartisan. one of the saddest by products is that national security issues have become devicive

when we should be coming together. democrats do it to republicans and republicans do it to democrats and drones is another one of those. the legal basis for the use of drones. i was in the white house in the summer of 2001 when we developed the armed predator and were thinking about using it against al qaeda leaders and bin laden if we could find him. i was responsible for developing legal framework. as a general matter i think it's permissible under both domestic law under the authorization to use military force act and under international law for the united states to use drones to kill al qaeda leaders who are planning attacks against us. the main legality of the program as both the bush administration and obama administration have practiced

it i think are correct. the devil is in the details. and the problem is we don't know a lot of the details. i think the obama administration would never have guessed four years later that they would now be being accused f war crimes have the a.c.l.u. suing them, have the human rights council conducting investigations of whether the obama administration is committing war crimes and violating international law. a british group has sued the british government for supposedly sharing intelligence with the obama administration resulting in the death of a man in pakistan. so four years later the obama administration is now finding some of the same charges that were leveled against the bush administration. a couple of years ago i read an add will drones strikes become obama's guantanamo.

at the time i was being provocative and trying to nudge them to explain the policy basis and be more transparent. at the time i wrote that i i do now think that is seriously at risk. this has become a real problem for them. the problem is, and this is my point, no other country in the world has publicly agreed with the legality of our program. isolated as the obama administration has launched more than 300 drone strikes killing more than 3000 people.

arunthe rest of the world this finding this controversial. of anthe challenge for the convince the rest of the world that what they're doing is lawful. they are rapidly on the back foot, the administration, i know they are working at this inside the white house to do a better job of explaining the legality of the program, who edge of the targeting,

white it is lawful, and why the rest of the world doing. in the a moment, i would be happy to get into the legal details. >> thank you. thek you very much to bipartisan policy center for having this event and for inviting me. let me start out in the spirit of the center, agreeing with a lot john has said. laurathe targeted killing program -- right now, the public debate with respect to those is crippled because we do not have a lot of the information that we need in order to determine the full , a fair civilians.

the idea that people are againstas a policy matter, they raised important questions because they are easier to use without risk to forces, and able to be used in places where we explained to the american public. there becomes a legal issue when drones. it has been widely reported that the cia is using drones. the idea that the program is secret is one of the worst kept secrets in the world.

it takes us to the question of how are we using this weapon, or any other weapon, to carry out the program of targeted killing. that is the heart of this debate. what we know is troubling. there is general agreement amongst international law scholars that the use of lethal force is permissible under international law, human rights law, in response to a specific concrete and imminent threat. it would be permissible against civilians who are directly participating in hostilities

those terms defined under the laws of war. i do appreciate and respect the speeches have been made, as well as the paper that was leaked, those are not the standards that are being applied. this is the white paper that to justify the killing of a u.s. or alleged to be one. the restrictions the paper recognized on what constitutes an imminent threat, when you read it, you realize that what appears to be limitations are, in fact, permissions. it turns out that senior high level official making the determination about lethal force may be used -- actual evidence that a plot is going to place.

all of a sudden, it is expansive, and something similar happens with respect to the requirement and capture. where we are now is recognizing that the requirements raise significant concerns about whether the legal requirements are being abided by. if we have that concern with u.s. citizens, we should have that concerns with non-citizens. one u.s. citizen has reportedly been publicly targeted, three

others have been otherwise killed. there are reports that approximately 4700 non-citizens have been killed. there are fewer things that are well as our national security than even the perception that we are not abiding by the rule of as well as our own citizens and that we are indifferent to civilian casualty. what do i think needs to happen? at a minimum, disclosure on the legal standards with respect to who can be targeted. those decisions are made? who is the senior high level decisions of high-level officials?

civilians who have been killed? those numbers should be disclosed. to the extent the identity is known, that should be disclosed as well. with the kind of debate that we expect of ourselves as any liberal democratic society, one based on checks and balances, without that fundamental transparency which is necessary to accountability. >> thank you. >> i have to first explain that because i am a member of the president's intelligence advisory board, i am constrained about what i can say about this program publicly. i am not here as a administration.

nothing i say should be in the obama administration. i want to take a moment and explain to you an argument about how to conduct warfare in this strange way. the united states has been involved in a global arms conflict with al qaeda and its affiliate organizations for approximately 15 years. al qaeda of new it was engaged in the global arms conflict before the united states government agreed it was in it. to the al qaeda was able forcefully impress on the united states government was in such a conflict most strikingly august of 1998. are 15 years later in

talking about whether that conduct can be conducted with for but we-piloted vehicles in many countries across the world. let me offer you two different paradigms'. in these paradigms' i will try to make this very clear, and maybe to clear. you need to do three things. what, you need to define is the door way to which i must enter that allows me to kill these people? what is the door way? second, having passed through the doorway, i have to define which people i could legally kill as a government. having to find that, i must set some sort of standard for evidence of circumstances under which people so defined can be targeted. contrastingwo

approaches for how to answer all three of these sorts of questions. one approach called and recalled approach./work the second is a constitutional/self defense approach that worries me deeply. for the doorway, if he were in an armed conflict repair rigid approach, the doorway is and must be up public for way. and discussesows it has entered into this armed conflict. congress debates it. the congress may pass authorization for the use of military force expressly authorizing the government to wage war against enemies around

the world. this is a healthy attribute about democracy. under the constitutional approach, the doorway is some entity or person poses an imminent threat to the united states that allows us to defend ourselves. that door way need not be public. that determination can be concluded in secret whether or not the government has determined it is in an armed conflict with some larger entity, and that this rises to the stature of a war or war- like thing rather than being a person or group of people who are dangerous to us in our secret determinations. so you can see the significance of the paradigms'. if you parse the administration public statements on this issue, you will see references to both

of these paradigms'. what you're hearing from me is a strong argument about the significance of one and the dangers of others. now, the second standard i mentioned, what about the definition of the people whom you can tell? kill? i must say the bush of frustration about the main goal this definition and it quite a lot to discredit it. expanded the definition of the term nmb combat and to include anyone who had given or might have seemed to have been given some sort of material support to a terrorist organization equating it with other standards in domestic law, often in the context of guantanamo litigation in which i took part later after are was out of government. pernicious, because the enemy combatants standard is

very important. enemy combatants is someone our military can lawfully capture without a lot of advanced notice. that is a determination that should be approached with care. an enemyrly defined, combatants is someone who as international experts would put it, is directly participating in hostilities. this is sometimes called the dph standard. to its credit, the obama administration has publicly endorsed the standard to defining the enemy combatants. in my view there for has restored credibility to that kind of approach. credibility that was tendered when the obama administration entered office. in the constitutional paradigm, the definition of who can be

killed does not use necessarily these lot of for determinations and does not judge whether that person is a member of the larger entity with whom you are engaged in armed conflict. instead it parses information about that individual and a threat posed by the individual. you will notice that while but i think potentially is pernicious in some ways, it at the same time it begins assuming an extraordinarily high standard of intelligence and evidence about particular individuals that is rarely an attainable in practice. at the third level, that is what evidence and circumstances you mean, we have a great deal of experience and a lot of people who are well trained on the application of the standard in enemy combatants.

ofs is a result of 15 years warfare. this is now a standard that a lot of people understand and know how to apply, and they know how to second guess in mistake applications of it. we have had a lot of trial and error with this. we have seasoning and how to make judgments about this. the constitutional standard, because it will turn on evidence and circumstances are related to the individual determination, assuming the government involved is one of goodwill and does not want to abuse its privileges, it is going to want to send a very rigid set very high evidentiary standards. the irony, as i look back on the years around 9/11, there is a level at which we are a little spoiled about the intelligence we might have about certain people in areas we have been watching very closely now for a

long time. areas that we now know better than people living in fairfax county know the street map of arlington. i am serious. that the assume evidentiary standard is going to be met in other situations we will encounter. that evidence may look a lot more like the pre 9/11 storey. you will see all kinds of uncertainties about someone there, who else was there, a judgment had to be made. repeated questions came up in 1998 and 1999. should we shoot? in every case after the first the decision was made not to shoot. that in retrospect some might question. now step back. i am basically offering a paradigm that is very public about how you get in. it applies fairly well

understood standards about how you work it. then it takes into account the inherent uncertainties of warfare in making judgments about when you can strike. that is because the country has decided it is in a war in can debate that. in another paradigm, a pure constitutional paradigm, you can bypass and do not need an aumf. thesen make constitutional determinations and have ways that are less visible to the public, less open to debate with whom we should be at war, yet then the simultaneously, partly because of that, impose standards of evidence on you that make it harder to deal with the source of enemies we may encounter in the future, whether it might be what would we have liked to have duped -- done in libya last year? if we have had a little more

information than the information we had and have more assets. so let me stop there. >> think you, philip. you, philip. give us the benefit of your thinking. >> thank you. terrific to be here. a last-minute addition to the panel. i am honored to pinch hit and be on this panel. i come at this subject differently than everyone up here. i am the only person not a lawyer, even the former cia guy is a lawyer. reporter, national security reporter were fundamentally we're trying to get at basic questions about what is happening now and what has happened in the past among these issues.

basically sorts of tried to ask the same questions and get answers. what i do in my reporting for the new york times and in my of --s try to all basically describe the history of the war that has been waged. since 9/11 and before, because and reallys a war has been a secret since those early years. i think by now we know the broad outlines and contours of the war afghanistan but what is happening in pakistan and what has happened in yemen and other parts, places like somalia, still those stories need to be told. that is what i have been trying to do. on the that we do focus

idea of drones as a weapon, because there is the science fiction quality to it, the aspect of although they are not robots, the idea of killer robots carrying out this kind of war. it is legitimate to write about this and talk about it, but the deeper question is how they are used in the idea of targeted killing or not so targeted killing in places where at least officially the united states is not at war. that is what i have written about, how this way of four has become the default way the united states does business. theertainly was begun by bush administration, and over time when you are looking at targeted killing it went from primarily a capture strategy and

interrogation strategy to after a few years the detention and interrogation program, especially when the cia started to detour off and targeted killing started to escalate in the obama administration came in a 2009 it expanded its in many ways. as a reporter, it has been very -- it has been the most important story, to understand how the obama administration sees this way of war and what it american for not only policy, but also the question of will there be repercussions or blow back to this war being conducted. john mentioned earlier that he thought it using drones to kill al qaeda is certainly lawful and has supported it. these dayst we see

in many cases is drums -- drones being used on targets that are far from al qaeda leaders and on many ways it existed as a shadow of what it was. so the real questions we have to is the things like, what bar for targeted killing? who is being targeted? is it al qaeda? is it al qaeda affiliates? are the enemies of the state of pakistan? are the enemies of the state of yemen? these are questions the that i think are being answered but obviously we still need to know more about. if this really is the default way of doing business, if we do not expect to see another soonnistan any time very

but to see a lot more yemens and smolensk, then i think probably everyone on this panel agrees there does need to be greater andsparency on the issue greater public discussion and greater accountability for how the war is being waged. and i still find it striking that as a reporter when recently i was covering the john brennan confirmation hearings when john brennan was being confirmed to find that -- i was struck defined the members of the intelligence community that are the dozen people in congress that are authorized to have the highest level of the most classified levels of intelligence inside the government do not have the legal memos that are underpinning the target killing program. the white house makes the point that congress is not entitled to them.

congress believes they are. i think as an outsider, it is striking to me that the members of the intelligence committee that was formed to provide oversight over the cia and other secret agencies do not have these. my own perspective is not having those memos significantly limits their ability to conduct oversight. i think that that is the position they're in, it is a lot tougher for citizens, people not in government to really make informed judgments about what we think about these things and i hope for more discussions in the future. >> thank you very much. react anded to respond to the paradigms' of the philip laid out and just what your reaction to that is and how it expand analysis. >> i responded to philip and take a slightly different angle,

although i see what he is saying and agreed. but the say a couple of things about what the debate is not about. we talk a lot about drone's but the problem is not the use of them. people say the problem is targeted killings. it is not the problem of targeted killings. if we are in a real war, a war with germany and japan and we have developed a weapon in which one could only kill a single person rather then engaged in mass bombings, everyone would say that is wonderful, that is legal and good. it is not actually that targeted killings are bad. targeted killings when they are lawful and legitimate can be good. is thate really here there is a fundamental disagreement around the world that i experienced as to whether the united states really is in a

war at all, and we are about only country in the world who thinks we're in an armed conflict with al qaeda. i spent four years as legal adviser engaged in a dialogue that was really kicked off by the 9/11 commission. one of the commission recommendations was we needed to work with allies to develop common standards for detention based on common article 3. what is now going on around the world is there is a different debate about not the tension, but this administration has decided they do not want to do the attention anymore. so they are now going to just kill people. instead of detaining members of al qaeda, they are killing members. the issue is not the targeted killings. the issues are around the world is is the united states and an armed conflict around the world? can you be in an armed conflict

with a group? can you be in an armed conflict with a group that goes on not just in one country, but a whole lot of different countries? through successful administrations, the bush administration and obama administration have been unable to persuade our allies that after the initial phases of the afghan war that the united states remains in an armed conflict with al qaeda that allows us to use lethal force against members of al qaeda around the world. this is where i was talking about what it's together with what philip was talking about. it is not the law of war -- war verses he was first -- vs. u.s. constitutional law. they apply a paradigm of human rights law. they do not think we're in a war. therefore to the extent the united states may use force lawfully, one has to apply and human rights law paradigm,

meaning one can only target one who poses an absolutely imminent threats. other countries, other international lawyers would say if bin laden is shown to sit in pakistan about to launch an attack and pakistan is unwilling to do anything about it, then the united states may act in self-defense. there is a stark contrast between our view and the united states that we're in a war where we can kill members of al qaeda at no matter where they are. the rest of the world perspective is the united states is not in a war and were very surprised the obama administration adopt this paradigm that european countries was born to be dropped like a hot potato as soon as the obama administration came to office.

i approve with -- i agree with the look they are to paradigms'. i would say it is a lot of war a human rights law paradigm from the rest of the world. to go take a generally one way to think about it is the constitutional standard and human rights standards are very similar. what the constitution allows with respect to the u.s. citizen is no question about the rights to revoke those in u.s. court. let me set that aside and pick up from where john left off about how the rest of the world not only does not agree, but we have to be concerned about the president's we're setting for the rest of the world to follow. not just with respect to the use of drums but the legal aspect in which we can conduct targeted killing.

perhaps we can discuss this in a very literal sense. these are the signatures strikes. there is real question whether we're talking about targeted killing in a literal sense. going back to the precedents, no question that multiple other countries, non-state actors will have access to drones, other technology. whatever standard we are claiming to use today, we have to accept other countries will site back to us tomorrow. while we can accept that terrorism is of global threat, the idea that we are engaged in a global war on terror, which allows an executive branch, regardless of which branch it is, to declare people unilaterally -- unilateral enemies of the state and ordered the killing without judicial review.

this is one we must at least debate and seriously consider whether that is the kind of world in which we want to live. it used to be our country callmned what we now targeted killing. it will be the case tomorrow that other countries will carry them out. we look to ourselves as a standard setter for international law, the rule of law. we undermine our own status, legitimacy and ability to argue for rule of law approach if we do not recognize the limitations we want today -- might want for others are ones that we've had to recognize for ourselves. talk very quickly about facts. the reality is the majority of people being killed and now are not senior level al qaeda

leaders but lower-level insurgents who do not necessarily pose a threat to the united states but may pose a threat to pakistan, yemen, and other countries. at the least we need more information and debate about where we are committed to being at war and why and for what reasons in order to be able to really have a sound policy going forward on these issues and informed public debate based on and let theeople policy know what the thoughts are. entirelyot disagree with john. he is right about the human rights paradigm that is out there. i think the paradigms' i am describing are important in american context.

reacting to but, i have to observe countries under attack are the ones that get to decide whether they are out war or not. legalr or not but is a principle, i will make that as a historian. countries under attack will decide whether they are at war or not. if they think they are at war, they will act accordingly. it would not matter what presidents we had set or what labels we have applied. if chinese thought it came from people overseas, they would act as if they were at war, and they would use 100% of their available power to attack the people who had caused that. the absolute limits of what was possible.

people were, those they would do that. frankly, so would any other government that felt a sense of responsibility to citizens to the limits of its power. >> thank you for that. in just a few minutes i will open it up to questions from audiences. a couple more questions i would like to pose myself. that aspected about and legal framework. on the policy side as well, does the use of drones and targeted killing -- we think about the long-term potentially doing more harm than good, john of the winter made a similar point towards the end of recent testimony to congress, so i will come to you next, but a brief answer if you can. >> i think this is something we will come to find out in the years ahead in terms of

throwback for what is being done now. there is anecdotal evidence of radicalization happening as a result of strikes in yemen and pakistan. one of the more famous cases is in may of 2010 when they tried to blow up times square with a truck bomb and was not successful. he went to court and said the reason why he tried to carry out the attack was because of the strikes in pakistan. one example and one person. i know john brennan has said there is very little or no evidence of radicalization. and i think making a firm that judgments right now about the impact is a little dangerous. doing its the cia is job, they should do a thorough analysis about what the other side is doing.

dronee impact that the strikes is predominantly still being carried out are having on the views of people elsewhere and will that mean that more radicalization? will it mean more attacks -- whether it is attacks directed at whatever is left of al qaeda or things like the boston bombing. we do not know much about what motivated them to carry out the attack. theay see more of that in future so what does that mean? >> >> i know you address this. i am a lawyer but my point was to know people who are really in the know are concerned that argues of drones, while certainly effective on one hand, that we certainly -- one can

quibble about whether every last person should have been targeted. the general point was we do not understand how much the united states is becoming hated of around the region because of the use of these drone of strikes. my concern as a lawyer who has to rest -- defend these is we are also losing support among its allies in europe who are willing to give president obama the benefit of the dow and the way they were not willing to give president bush. public, parliament and journalists are beginning to put pressure on their governments to say why are you not think anything about this? are you sharing intelligence? these are really echoes of guantanamo. the look is absolutely right that any country at tax has the

right to decide if they think they're in an armed conflict. it becomes a serious problem for the united states who needs the support of our allies and who is committed to rule of law if none of the allies believe we're in that armed conflict. where philip and i work very hard in the second term of the bush administration was to get job to trya better to engage our allies in dialogue, explain to them what we were doing, explain to them why one can detain people undergo loss of four. what this administration problem is they feel they have been on the side of the angels that they have not had to explain themselves. that is what happened in the first term of our administration. we felt we did not have to grow -- we felt we did have the clout and explain ourselves. philip and i worked hard to try

to convince our allies we were doing the right thing. this is exactly echoes of what happened. the obama administration finding itself not in as deep a hole and more support of allies, but they really need to get on top of this and explain to the allies what they're doing is legal, why it is permissible under international law. >> a very quick response from you. i really think it is time for the country to have a public debate about authorization for the use of military force that the congress passed and fall of 2001. that was 12 years ago. it is time now to take another look at that. that is the corollary of my argument. it is time now to have a renewed

debate about are we still in the war or should we move this to another paradigm that maybe treats this as something less than a global armed conflict because of a different size and character of an enemy we face now. i think it is an important time for that. it this year isn't the right time, 2014 as the posture in afghanistan, which was really the catalytic event for which legislation was passed in the first place, is that moves into a different phase, i think we're really entering a time where it is time for renewed public discussion of these issues of what framework really is appropriate for this particular set of people. >> you had anticipated an answer very well a couple of questions i had. if you have a quick comment on this issue. >> a very quick comment. last week the senate judiciary committee headed by senator dick

durbin had a very useful in telling issue -- hearing on this issue. to the folks that -- to the folks that have not looked at this, i would urge you to do so. but i think the issue is to issues. one, not just a question of the obama administration explaining why it thinks what it is doing is lawful. i did not think even with those explanations our allies or elsewhere will agree that this four-based framework is one that accords with international law. so we really have to think the fact that we have to ratchet that down. we have to do so in accordance with a set of standards that the rest of the world recognizes and we hope to establish. one of the testimony so i thought was most powerful last

and kudos for and fighting for the very first time a young man to describe the human cost and consequences of killing operations in yemen. this is an exceptional young man. he comes from a remote village english and learned went to a university as a result of a scholarship. he sees himself as an ambassador of american values and principles to yemen. six days before his testimony his mountain village was used to strike it. up until then what people knew about the united states was based on his love of the country and american values and what it meant to him about this nation. now what they know is throwing strikes that killed someone that he and other people think could

have been captured by forces, and that instead of this capture what resulted was death, fear, and a real backlash against the united states. we need to hear more from the people impacted on the ground to inform what otherwise maybe -- what may be sterile legal arguments. and recognize that as the general mccrystal said what may is on thekless here perspective of the people on the receiving end very much like for. that is part of what we're doing and part of what we have to consider going forward, including about whether we want at a timeauthority when the public is tired of the blood and treasure that has gone into war-based endeavors and when policy makers are telling

us al qaeda and other organizations have been decimated. it is a debate we have to have and a debate we have to have more information to have. >> thank you. i would like to open it up to your questions now. we do have microphones. if you would like to direct your question, please do so. john gannon. great panel. john mentioned the administration is making efforts to clarify. i have read the speeches. it seems to me more of a rationalization for what we have done, rather than establishing a credible legal framework for where we need to go. a couple of questions that come out of that. what is it with regards to roles and responsibilities?

but whens any trouble we go to the six weeks later we learned that that operation was not conducted by cia, which is supposedly in charge of this but the department of defense. on the issue of roles and responsibilities and accountability that comes out of that, what is the legal foundation for either of those agencies or departments to be involved, and how do we get that clarified so we can have it clearer policy and in bed that in law. theother point is about international implications from a legal standpoint. if you look of the migration of the technology, it is proliferating. it is not just an issue of values and the representing the world. we will be threatened by this technology ultimately if we do

not the establish international law that covers -- governs the use of this kind of capability. how do we move to embed it into a domestic law and get into the international arena and establish international law that more rain this in? i would comment that i expect any president to use whatever capability is available to him or her at the time of an attack. i also expect and history shows we usually do get senses of this -- as the time goes on and we recognize we have to rain this in and in bed and wall, because we are a country of rule of law. thank you. your you could keep response is concise so we can take as many questions as possible in the remaining time. >> a great question. the administration speech is really our great as far as they go. is they needuing to go further to explain for the

multiple reasons you have heard the precise legal parameters why it is lawful to persuade other countries to go along with us. the administration has not felt the need to do that. and they do. to constrainant other countries from the use of drums, we need to be extremely precise in what is a lawful use of legal force and what would be unlawful use of force. i pity the poor department stakes -- spokesperson when china or russia and uses a drone of a spokesperson has to come up and tap dance and said that was an illegal targeted killing in contrast to all of the lawful targeted killings. the reason that can be difficult is we have not been precise. that is a challenge for the administration to explain in more detail. again, i have talked about the echoes of guantanamo. in some ways i see echoes of the cia interrogation program, which was the reaction, perhaps

overreaction to 9/11. now we have the drone of strike proposed by a cia puts the white house and a difficult position of saying no. now we need to get these on better footing in the second term. >> on the roles of emission point, i think the administration hasn't made it clear it intends to move towards greater reliance on the department of defense for the conduct of warfare income 20% 3. i support that.

>> very quickly on this point, it was one of two recommendations that was not ultimately adopted, which was to take military function out of the cia and give it to the dod. if anything not only was not organization the court mission is using droned strikes in targeting in killing the terrors as some center has become part of the agency. so we will see -- there has been indications the administration wants to move back into the other direction. we will see what happens. >> there is no question one of the most unsympathetic characters you could have in connection with being a poster boy for these public policies. the reality is if not him, what about the next as an in person after that. right now the administration takes the position in response to the transparency freedom of information act that we cannot confirm or deny we actually carried out with respect to the due process challenge, the administration takes my challenge the killing of three u.s. listens cannot be subject

traditional review. this is in essence a political question. i think we profoundly disagree, but that is of very dangerous proposition for a system of checks and balances that the executive branch may be able to unilaterally take the life of a debt -- subject to judicial review, even after the fact. >> in the back. >> >> thank you very much. thank you for a very interesting panel this morning.

it is a hypothetical question. better understand the argument for the international legality. it were and use them to attack u.s. military sites here or government offices involved in planning attacks, what would be the international legality of that, given that the u.s. is engaged in a mutual act of war with al qaeda, and the other being response to an imminent threat. if al qaeda was to satisfy the requirement, would that passed the international legality? [laughter] >> we are discussing warfare with remotely piloted vehicles against people with directly- piloted vehicles. >> [inaudible]

>> there is nothing in international law that prohibits the united states. there are consequences from it. it would be legal to go to war and legal for us to wage war against the people who did that. >> governor king. >> historians through history suspended civil rights. we have done things profoundly illegal, sometimes regretted them afterwards but that is what we've done during war. we've never had a war that has lasted 15 years. the idea you can be extra legal for this time and have a program like this that kills people -- i tried to follow this. i do not even know who

authorizes it. i do not know if it is john brennan or a military man or who it is, let alone legal framework for the rationale for this kind of thing. i worry very much that as this technology spreads, we have throughout history been a refuge for revolutionaries. we have people that his stick of government and we make a home for them because we often support what they're doing democracy. we have done that since our earliest days. does that mean some other country has the right to target them on american soil? >> yes? one moment. >> i was in pakistan and october. the foundation for fundamental rights interviewing a lot of the families impacted by the drone strikes.

it seemed quite apparent the signature strikes you mentioned were quite a significant proportion of the strikes. i did not understand the legal framework for that. people keep using the word targeted killing. that is clearly not targeted killing. this is patterns of activity where they do not know who the individual is. how is that justified? >> i think that is one of the concerns that even for those of us that bank some john starks -- that some drones strikes are illegal. on the one hand they have said and the president has said he is personally approving drone strikes at one point a year-and- a-half ago. suggestre stories to the president was personally

poring over the target list and approving them and they were reserving the targeting only for the people who opposed the most significant threat, and that does seem to be inconsistent with the so-called signature strikes of people who bear a certain signature. so we do not know enough about what the rationale is because the obama administration has some explaining to do. and they have not explained what they're doing for it to be criticized. that gets to a point that almost all of us agree with, which is if we do not want to get further on the back foot around the world and inside the united states, the administration needs to explain who they are targeting and why and what the-- john gannon said. >> just to take this out of the pakistani context, let's propose your talking about a strike against the

taliban encampment and afghanistan. everybody knows the united states conducts military operations in afghanistan against the taliban. then you would say, might say, how do we know it is the taliban and afghanistan? well, there are intelligent indicators about things people have observed that cause people to conclude it is an encampment of people directly participating in hostilities against our forces. and we make judgments. we have made hundreds, possibly thousands of those judgments in afghanistan and iraq without getting into any place else in the world. not all of those judgments are always accurate. in war never are. there is an arcane that terminology about signature strikes, and signature strikes in a way are the kinds of strikes that military's conduct

out war. then you get into the arguments of what are the intelligence indicators that provide compelling evidence that these of the people in combat against you. >> there are three major problems with signature strikes. one is it is a form of lethal force operations that may be conducted and war. this is further away from what is locally referred to as a hot battlefield. not clear the administration is abiding by a direct hostility i wasard or even what the very struck when the former u.s. ambassador to pakistan was asked what constitutes a militant who can be struck here. he said an e-mail between 20-40. he was pressed to say one-man militant is another man's chump who went to a meeting. the legal issue with signature

strikes in this context is it threatens to turn up the perception of civilian status on its head. civilians have up resumption and war and outside of it of not being tartabull. i agree we do not have enough information. we certainly need more information but there is a real threat to their being conducted in armed forces. some of them are not, some of them may be. the final concern is, how did that lead to the counting of civilian casualties? if people are categorized as militant vs civilians and we do not know who the cia is killing until after they're dead, what is the counts? know and what are the numbers? we still do not know that. the pendulum is swinging too far in one direction. as someone who was actually the legal adviser for the national security council before and after 9/11, who responded to all of the 9/11 commission request

for what were you doing prior to 9/11 to make the country safe and why did you not do enough? i can tell you on behalf of someone who has been in the white house, these difficult. all of these things are on one side of the spectrum. on the other hand, if you are the president of the united states and advisers warned to make the country safe, your cia director is giving information that suggests there are threats against you that another 9/11 could happen and you knew nothing -- do nothing, you also have a problem. i am sure the administration looks back and looks at the commission after the 9/11 commission suggestion that not enough had been done and is mindful of that. although all of us have raised concerns about drone strikes, i

do not want the pendulum to swing so far as to suggest these are not incredibly difficult decisions as the president of nited states and advisers. >> the head of the white house of science and technology policy forum spoke at a conference today. here's he is talking about the president's budget request for next year. >> the president's budget continues to call for increased support for n.s.f. and for the d.o.d. for science, which carries much of the load. the budget will support nasa's exciting visit and capture an aster redskins. it would implement the

administration's plan to fund advanced manufacturing institutes hing to recover american manufacturing jobs through innovation. it would do all of this without increasing the debt. all of its increases are offset by strategically selected cuts. far l say it anyway, it is better to choose budget increases strategically than to suffer the dumb across the board cuts that the sequester has imposed. it is of course still not the budget that we in the science and the technology community would want and expect if the overall fiscal constraints facing the nation were less severe. it is far better for the future of science, second nothing and innovation and the quality of life and our security than what the sequestration approach would

deliver. science ke to say, technology and enknow vacation have been out in front of this issue. you're letters and your willingness to speak up about the damage the cut will do and what they will continue to do if not replaced by a more balanced approach, these reports, letters, voices have been very help informal the debate and the administration is grateful for your help. >> you can see all of the remark on our website c-span.org. president obama left on a three-day american trip. his first stop is mexico city. this afternoon, in about an hour, the two presidents hold a news conference. we'll have that live for you. tomorrow, he heads to costa reca

-- rica. he spoke last month about immigration and trade between u.s. and mexico. >> welcome, everybody. we will begin. thank you for coming. if i can ask all of your potato chip bags be discreet in the way you eat them and the up with it -- obligatory notice of tournament -- turning off the ringers on your mobile phones, but encouraging u.s. the same time to plead as much as you want under the hashtag we are using today. i am the president of the policy institute. we have an extraordinary -- panel today.

am here just to welcome our remarkable guests, particularly thenew ambassador from mexico to the united states, who has already become a good friend to many here in washington. and just to introduce what we do here. we are a small, independent think-tank. we have had a project here called the 21st century border initiative for three years now. we have been trying to tell a simple story to policy-makers in washington, which is that, because of an increase investment, better strategy, and greater cooperation between the united states and mexico, perhaps unprecedented, that our border is safer on the u.s. side. the immigration system is better. mexico itself is modernizing and growing to the point where mexico becomes the third largest trading partner, the second-largest in the world, and we now export twice as much to

exico as we do to china. the reality of what has happened to demographically, economically, and politically over the last few years is not something we felt we erratically -- adequately understood. we worked hard to bring these new understandings to many. i am heartened as we began what will be a spirited debate about immigration, our border, our relations with mexico, and it is a pity the president's trip to mexico city in a few weeks, we see a great change in the understanding of these issues. not among all of the policy-makers debating this today, but there is really a growing awareness about how things are different than they used to be. in keeping with that spirit, we are having a wonderful event today. i want to welcome and introduce

ur moderator today and our host, matthew cunningham, who is the chair of our policy initiative. he is well known to many of you who have been working on issues of u.s.latin american relations and the former clinton administration official, a super thoughtful ally of ours edo is prodding us to get ahead of the debate here in washington. he is a dear friend and he will be taking it from here. nelson, welcome. >> it brings the great pleasure to welcome you all here to one of the most timely sessions we have been fortunate enough to put on over the years. i have been attracted to ndn and have been closed for over a decade. it is at the intersection of where politics and policy really

makes the most sense. no where have they been more so than our dealings with latin america and particularly exico. they are not just good policy ut great politics. they have reached out to members at capitol hill on both sides, who are most thoughtful about the u.s. and mexico and our relations between the two this is one of the best programs ndn has put on in a good, long time. it is because of the quality of the panel we have, but also because of the timeliness we have at the moment here not only do we have our president and the mexican president meeting on may 2, a lot less than three weeks,

he and his staff are busy planning that trip right now. the president will meet there for the second time. in that in november when president elect came up here to washington to meet with president obama, shortly before his inaugural. it was a successful meeting. it is telling about the relationship between u.s. and mexico that the president is traveling to mexico in may to meet again with the president to discuss a broad range of ssues. the second reason it is timely is because on the american side, we have not seen the policy environment the so conducive to dealing with the key issues between the u.s. and mexico. the immigration bill is hot and heavy, front and center. arco rubio did ginsburg in

spanish. he had five sunday shows, to talk about immigration. the gang of eight is hard at work on that. guns, u.s.mexico relations. i think the guns may come out not quite as favorable to mexico's longstanding positions as the immigration debate might. would take a 1:2. we will be in good shape. the third is trade. mexico, the united states, now japan, canada, are linked in the trans-pacific partnership talks. talks with many of our key trading allies across the pacific. many of us view it as a chance to help bring nafta into the 1st century. the three are very much on the u.s. agenda. it shows great forward progress.

welcome all of you to what promises to be a truly fascinating session. the second reason this will be terrific is because of our panelists. i will say little bit more about he ambassador of mexico. doris meissner, who i served with in the clinton dministration. she is one of our great experts. also, ted. our series of speakers today, we will have first ambassador medina mora, then we will have a conversation including members of the audience.

we have folks on the web able to send in questions, also. think hard and maybe someone in the room will ask the question. our first speaker is very excited. he has just arrived in ashington. he is immediately planning a presidential visit. that is fast work. he arrived here with a perfect background for dealing with u.s.mexican relations. a longtime government servant on the mexico side, he participated in issues and spent 10 years in one of mexico's leading private-sector companies. since then, he has held a series of government jobs that really speak of experience. he served as secretary of public ecurity.

most recently, he was mexico's ambassador to the united kingdom. as importantly as all these other backgrounds, he has critical posts under the president and was fast to please take on a new role here in this administration. he brings the full 362 u.s.mexico relations. let me turn the podium over to ambassador medina mora. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, really, for having me this afternoon. i would like to think the national demographic for inviting me to make this presentation and hosting this important and timely event. i especially think rosenberg,

doris meissner, and edward alden. the face of change has been faster and more dramatic in the last 20 years. in that time span, we have witnessed exponential growth of mexicans in this country and a significant slowdown in 2010 according to the sector. in this presentation, i would like to share some thoughts about the recent affirmation of mexico, as its bilateral relationship with united states, i would place special emphasis. first, structural change in our country. second, north america, our

shared space, the region of opportunity. third, the mexico-u.s. border. prosperity and competitiveness. four, contribution of mexicans to this country. some regarded it as a unique window of opportunity conducted by fortunate coincidences. the united states and its people want this opportunity and that change has played a minor ole. it might be the case the senate would see a bill this week. similarly, it is not serendipitous that mexico is not now doing much better. both economically and socially. we have made great strides in rder to reach this end we have

worked closely with the u.s. i believe now is the time to cash n the hard work. today, mexico is once again removed. what happens to the faculties across the country is quite different from what some might assume. mexico is on a sustained path of rogress. we are working together every ay to overcome them. in the first 127 days, the main political parties signed a wide-ranging political agreement. congress passed already major

isk structural of forms. it is not a coincidence the washington post and the new york imes, among others, have praised unless. we have not had a majority in congress since 1997. the mexican economy has expanded mexican have maintained growth since 2009. the gdp has increased from $7,979 in 2009, to 2146 in 011. n purchasing above 15,500.

on gdp growth, almost four%, a higher rate, and is expected to grow 3.5% in the year. this is measured by j.p. organ. mexico is also taking care of ts people. the brookings institution has highlighted that 60% of mexicans are middle class. by 2030, 80.5% of mexicans will be middle class. ousing has increased more in the early 1970's. all of these factors that have

taken place review the immigration pressures of the ast. academic think tanks estimate that net migration between mexico and the united states is close to zero. a recent survey shows only 11% of mexicans say they would leave mexico if given the opportunity. a decline of about half from a 1% 2007. -- in 2007. over the last few years, our common border has increasingly become an area of rosperity. it is more dynamic and more secure than it has ever

been. four in the united states and six in mexico, have a population of 92 minute -- 90 million people. much remains to be done. our progress can be objectively measured. the corporation is stronger than ver. for this new era of collaboration, i will share two examples with you. in may 2010, we signed a 21st entury border declaration. for the welfare of the committees of both countries. the two governments works to get it -- worked together and meets regularly.

it insures they say, specific action facilitate the movement of people in a safe, efficient anner. this took place last week here in washington with important outcomes and agreements. the border between mexico and in a states is one of the busiest in the world, if not the busiest, with 43 points of entry and 32 international beaches. around $1.30 billion is traded every day and 300,000 across the tate on a daily basis. however, no new bridges were built in more than a decade. we therefore open three new borders in 2010.

in the coming months, the first new railway crossing will start perations. the growth has just target and has begun operations. it is a huge set. we have succeeded in making them ork. there are only two base specific ctions among many. the nature of the border, and the goodwill of government on both levels, and on both sides of the border, creating interactions that keep us moving forward. north america is reaching critical mass and should remain a region of opportunity.

bilateral trade and investment within the region have grown exponentially. part of the expectations of some of us who were at the tables 20 years ago, in 2012 alone, mexico-u.s. trade reached $494 billion. more than $1.3 billion today. almost $1 million per minute. mexico is the third largest u.s. trading partner. we are a special partner. for one, the mexican market -- he u.s. economy in 2012. in mexico, $273 billion. this is more than the $210 billion of combined u.s. exports or of the country. excluding canada. this is more than u.s. exports to japan and china combined.

of the exports to france, germany, and the data kingdom, 175 billion. furthermore, mexico imports from the u.s. maintain and create jobs in the economy. the u.s. economy says each of the additional billion exports ore than 6,000 new jobs. they helped create 107,000 new u.s. jobs. 6 million u.s. jobs relied on trade with mexico. the state's benefits from exports to mexico, mexico was the main destination for exports

for u.s. states, arizona, california, and texas. according to data compiled by the office of united states trade, services in mexico by u.s.owned athletes were $34.40 billion. that was 2010. $4.80 billion in that same year. above all, mexico and the united states compete together in the economy. for a production and supply chains in north america are deeply integrated. estimated at around 40%. as a reference, it is about 25% for canadian exports, a country with which the u.s. is very much ntegrated.

.he u.s., it's 4% for china when an american consumer buys a product, 40% of the value comes from u.s. parts and components. this is unsurpassed by any other country. the quality is here to be underlined. finally, let me talk about the most important element of this equation. mexicans and the united states have always made great contributions to the economy and the communities they are leaving. the work ethic they display is broadly recognized by the private sector. many are also entrepreneurs. they have continued to create jobs in the u.s.. mexicans make significant contributions to the u.s. economy.

first-generation mexicans contributed about 4.1% of the united states gdp in 2007. following the contribution of mexicans to gdp, up 3.8% in 2009. however, when mexicans are added, the contribution is closer -- the gdp is closer to 8%. mexicans also make local economies grow faster. most mexicans live in california, 37%. 4.3 million. in texas, 21%. 2.5 million. that is above the national average. according to the mexican institute, the cities with more mexican immigrants are l.a., 50%.

allas, 5%. the economy is in these cities grew faster than the national average. the government of mexico ecognizes these. e continue to do so. mexicans remain -- their efforts to reach their efforts to achieve greatness. -- their efforts to achieve greatness. mexicans in the united states need to be on a positive dynamics now in place. our partnership has proven to be a strong one, a positive one that impacts our society. a rare opportunity stands before us. if we seize them together, we will continue to thrive together.

questions of comprehensive immigration reform offers new possibilities. we have been closely and respectfully part of this ebate. whenever crosspieces are needed, to make sure to increase the opportunities of our national spirit on both sides of the border, regardless of the outcome of the process. president barack obama will visit our country. this is a fantastic opportunity to relaunch the relationship and will set the tone for the coming four years. it will also prove crucial to harness the deep energy of our partnership moving forward in the decades to come. i am confident the shared goodwill, commitment, and

transition will lead us there. thank you very much. i look forward to our comments. thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks, ambassador. you set the table for a terrific discussion here this afternoon. coming out to get perspective from the u.s. side, particularly on immigration, is one of our great experts on immigration in this country. this is someone who has been thinking about immigration issues since the carter and administration, who joined the clinton administration, served for seven years, as commissioner of the service. since then, she has been at the migration policy institute and

has continued to lead the discussion in a progressive direction on immigration issues. it is fair to say, doris, in the time you have focused on this, it has been a roller coaster. we have had our down and up moments. this may be one of the better moments we can remember when it comes to a thoughtful rethinking of america's immigration policies, which is so key to our relationship with mexico. toase join me in welcoming the podium and fascinating speaker on immigration, doris meissner. [applause] >> thank you. good morning. this is an up moment in history. will continue to be for the next weeks and months. i will talk from the u.s.

perspective about an element of the big picture that the ambassador has painted. that is the u.s.-mexico border, and the relationship. very much from the standpoint of what is taking place today, travelledat we have over many years and why that is relevant to what is going on now. and will hopefully be going on legislatively in the coming weeks, as i said. the southwest border with mexico today that its origins in the early 1990's. those origins, about with the issue of the southwest border and border enforcement having come to become a national issue, as compared to the local issue it had been for many decades, prior.

it became a national issue because of a couple of things. largely was projected on to the national scene by the governor pete wilson running for reelection in california. and championing proposition 187. having passed, and that for governor, having rested heavily on arguments that the borders are out of control. that assertion, and what the federal government was abdicating its responsibility, to deal with border enforcement and deal with that across the southwest border, became a louder and louder call. it was accompanied by lawsuits in which the state of arizona and others sued the federal

government for neglect. those were basically political assets. they did not have merit. they were dismissed by the court. there were very good examples of very strong political statements and feelings that were out there. the clinton the administration took them seriously. tooklinton administration up the issue of border enforcement as part of its broader anti-crime law enforcement. that efforts were part of democratic thinking and action at the time. they took up the issue of border enforcement in a role that has become a tint to it -- a continuous stream since research. the budgets that went into building the border and building the southwest border capability started in 1994. those budgets, i think when you

look back at the record, the official start. taking border enforcement seriously. and putting a border effort into place that has become, since, a bipartisan support it issue. themuestion of putting into the border has been a continuous stream since 1994. requests and appropriations, when republicans and democrats led the white house and both republicans and democrats led either in the senate or house overall. this is an unbroken chain and continues to go. we see it in day to day. we will see when a bill is announced tomorrow or whenever, having continuing emphasis on border security and on spending on border security.

weh the initial budget, worked on the border in ways that really try to put into place six basic principles for how it is a border enforcement ought to be done. there were changes from the way things had been done prior and what the thinking had been prior to that time. i will dwell a little bit on the ones that have to do with mexico because of what it is we are talking about today. the first principle was, at that time, not practiced, deterrence prevention. the enforcement was the enforcement that prado -- provoked entry in the first place. it meant resources up as close to the border as possible, rather than waiting for people to answer -- enter and then chasing them around. close to the border prevention

of entry. do second principle has to with concentrating resources. rather than spring plan resources evenly, like in the past, the idea was to look at quarters and concentrate resources there in order to gain control in the areas that were the most heavily traveled. others were south of san diego, the tucson corridor, and then south texas. that is where the researchers went. that continues to be the areas that get the most research attention. many have been so researchers since in these 20 years, that there is a tremendous investment of resources all across the border. the third had to do with the

proper mix. it was the proper mix of people, technology, and infrastructure changes. that also was a big change. all of the money had gone into border patrol in the past year the new effort was to try to get a much more effective combination of researchers spirit that continues today. i predict that when the new bill comes out, there will be all kinds of focus on drones and more modern technology, etc.. that combination has been a very important change, as well. number three, they all have to do with efforts made on the u.s. side, principles used that involved mexico in varying degrees. the fourth one of those principles had to do with the engagement with stakeholders, in communities as well as the mexican government.

and cooperation and increased cooperation coronation with mexico. that idea led to all kinds of community-based mechanisms, advisory committees, stakeholders with the border patrol. it also had to do with systematic operation, law enforcement agency to law enforcement agency, between the u.s. border patrol, as well as others on the ground, and mexico. there have been ups and downs over the years. but those efforts at professional coronation, law enforcement agencies, perfectionism -- professionalism, and building trust and sharing information in order to solve problems on the ground as close to where they happened as possible,

rather than having things best -- escalate and become national and diplomatic issues, was a major part of the border buildup effort. it was also a part of the border buildup effort to help mexico build its network in the united states so that mexico was in a much stronger position to provide protection and information and intermediaries in the country for mexican nationals who were in the country that has been a sustained effort that has also been very successful and was part of the overall border enforcement outlook that we brought to the problem. the fifth principle had to do with borders that work. porter's that work were the idea that the borders were they're both to prevent illegal entry, but also to facilitate

legal entry of people and goods. the borders were an important part of both countries prosperity and well-being and that we needed to let them be very more effective and more functional. we created the 20-minute rule. you cannot wait in line for more than 20 minutes to go port of entry in a car. the first entry lanes, the fast traveler lanes, which involved structural changes on mexico's side of the border, which we had never been able to do with mexico prior to that. they were not willing to do those things. we created the kinds of relationships and efforts that allowed for borders that were -- work to serve the economy and our trade and interests. the final principle had to do with orders safety.

the more that the border buildup took place, the more resources that were put in, the more dangerous a place it had become. that danger has continued this phenomenon on the border. it has been a very serious negative aspect of what takes place with border enforcement. mexico did commit to work together on joint accountability for information for those tragedies, and we had never in the past traced back to the families were reconciled on our numbers on what it is that was going on on the border, all that work became part of the relationship and on the u.s. side, a great deal more was done with emergency trading -- training, water availability, vehicles, and so on and so forth. when we look back from today, there is now at least a 20-year history of efforts to work

together with mexico on law enforcement issues. that really had a lot of successful by product. it had ups and downs. there were times where it was better and times where it has been less successful. it is the current key element in the relationship and a key element of a successful building relationships. of trust between the two countries. part of that was also possible because it happened against the bigger backdrop. it was enacted in 1993. what i have been talking about in 1994, and then there was the big decision our two countries made that acknowledged that our futures were tied together. , that we needed to have a

common future and it needed to be developed more affect -- effectively. on those of us working issues on immigration on the borders, part of the arguments for nafta had to do with what implications it would have for innovation and change, changing the immigration relationship. numberser the various in congress i was assigned where making a case for nafta. it was very carefully done. we had assumptions about changing birthrates, giving what we knew was going on at that point. we were able to predict that by about 2014, there would be a structural change in mexico and

that change was really the long term vision that nafta was moving toward because it would mean the drivers of innovation from mexico would begin to abate. these things we were doing on the border that had to do with immigration management, etc., also had the high level set of broader changes that would make it possible for our two nations. it is pretty fascinating now, 20 years later, to look back and see that those actually were pretty much on the mark and not only were they pretty much on the mark, but were ahead of schedule. what it is the ambassador has talked about this morning is really ahead of schedule now and 2013, having begun to really be real as of 2010, 2011. its implications for immigration and illegal

immigration between the two concerned.ere let me move forward with the ambassador has told is so important. it is so important because it is part of the convergence. the convergence of factors is about a set of critical changes that are very significant on the immigration debate. the first major factor is the u.s. recession and the aftermath of the recession. the dramatic drop-off of jobs and job availability in the united states that has been sustaining for illegal

immigration. the second factor, even if we go into a job recovery, most of the future will be the economy, not the kind of economy that generates the massive numbers theobs we have seen during past 30-40 years. as ambassador has talked about, the change is mexico that is real and lasting and are reducing the factors for immigration. the third factor is the enforcement aspect i have tried to counsel. border enforcement could not have done the job alone, it has become potent. it is an important part. these are changes that are here to stay because they are built into the budget and they are built into the post-9/11 capabilities that we have established as part of our overall national security. we have now a situation where

there has been a historic shift. we and mexico have worked together on the border enforcement issues to the extent possible within what has been a broken immigration system. for the us-mexico relationship to mature further, to go to the next level, this issue of the perversity of migration relationship that we are in is a big stone in the road that to be removed. we have got to get a much more rational system in place in order for mexico and the united states to co-exist and work together in ways that have

incredible potential. it is our responsibility, it is not something that mexico can do, it is not proper for them to be in the domestic debate. at the same time, mexico's story, the story of mexico as it has been told here, as we know it, as we come to understand is an incredible an important part of the dynamic. it is a story of how the assumption and the reality on the ground have changed. it should give us confidence, it should give the public confidence that immigration reform can safely take place. in other words, if it has a generous legalization measure in it, counts on the enforcement in order to actually be viable taketually -- so it can

place. the basic underlying differences and changes that bring us to this new illegal immigration from the united states, it is lasting structural changes. it is essential that there be a full understanding of the story as part of the immigration debate. it is also incredibly hopeful to be able to say that what is going on in mexico today creates a platform for a very different future for all of us. we hope it is a platform and we

see it as a platform where the well-being of people in mexico, canada, and the united states is more similar than different. where we have a feature of borders that are managed both to protect our nations, but also to facilitate between trade and travel. and a feature for migration among our nations is a choice, not a necessity. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much, doors. -- doris. a very exciting week for you as we see what the gang of eight will come up with. direct heard from two participants, the ambassador and doris messner. one of our most thoughtful analysts. ted alden is on the council of foreign relations. he has written a book on u.s. border security called "the closing of the american border:

terrorism, immigration, and security since 9/11." theas the director of council on foreign relations task force study on immigration reform cohead by jed bush and my partner, matt mcclarty breaking both perspectives. -- breaking both perspectives. he also had andy card and tom daschle on u.s. trade and investment policy abroad. not only that, he has spent -- he was an active journalist both here and in canada. muchrns out that he spent of his childhood and his education in canada. he will ring a perspective -- bring a perspective to this debate. thank you very much, ted.

>> thank you , nelson. it is great to be here. before we have a chance to go to the questions, we have been involved in this for so long. it has taken more than a decade to forget how consequential this bill could be. in 1965, the u.s. created the architecture of the moderate legalization system. in 1986, the congress tried to solve the problem of illegal immigration. this bill is an effort to do both, to rewrite our system for the future and to establish an ongoing basis illegal immigration. it is a monumental undertaking. it is important not to lose

sight. one of the comments that focused on security, the u.s. economy, and flexibility in the future. one of these things that doris went through in detail, what has made this moment possible is a transformation of the situation along the u.s.-mexico border. when i was a journalist, i was working for "financial times" and i interviewed a key member of the gang of eight. i went to see him in a place called snowflake, arizona where he grew up. it was established by mormons. in the 1970s, 1980s, his family ownen a huge herd of cattle. they would bring them down in the winter and need them -- feed them.

most of them on the farm came from mexico. jeff was candid that they would hire whoever came to work. that would work for 5, 6, 7 months and make good money. it was a system that worked well for those individuals. it worked well for the farm. there was a happy coincidence of interest. thea variety of reasons, numbers of people coming into the u.s. illegally began to spike. the u.s. began the big border

buildup. it was hard for people to come back and forth. i cannot easily, and go back home. -- they could not come easily and go back home. it became a large step population of illegal immigrants. the challenge as i see it is really to re-create through formal means that kind of natural economically driven circular migration that has existed for decades. we are going to make this happen, there are three things. i see them developing and this bill. one is about what is going on at the border. we need to know how many people are getting and successfully, how many are we missing? how secure is the border and making it difficult for people to come to you and says to do that. that is going to be necessary to sustain some kind of faith and integrity in the system which did not exist, has not existed for many years. needdly, we are going to more legal means for people to come. there has been encouraging process on a new program for low skilled workers on a new program for agricultural workers.

we want to create a system where the penalties for coming illegally are high. there are real options for people to come to the united states. thirdly, we are going to need cooperation with our neighbors. particularly mexico, some of this isn't being pioneered between the united states and canada. some people come legally, but they stay up past their visa. how do we know if they have gone home? the canadians are going to share all of their information with the united states, when people come and go back to canada, we will know that. quite possible to do the same with mexico, again to ensure the integrity of the system going forward. second issue of economy.

one of the things i have rarely seen change over the last decade that i've been paying close attention is the recognition of how important immigration is to the u.s. economy. we have looked at immigration as a favor we do for other countries. everybody wants to come to united states, sobel was set at -- we will set a certain number of. it is a real recognition it is a competition for talent. immigrants are extremely valuable for our economy. statistics on foreign students in science and engineering programs were two thirds of university students that come from abroad. starting up companies, all of the things they do out of proportion to their numbers. we publish a report last year on mexican entrepreneurs. we have seen a move in the debate. if you have a debate on immigration, we saw that even in the last congress when

nothing got done -- big votes and the house. we have also seen the second front on the legal side, some real progress in facilitating legal entry. if you look at the visas, for instance, before 9/11, it was far too easy to get a visa and the united states. we do not scrutinize very carefully. toor 9/11, it became difficult. many people got discouraged. anare starting to get to equilibrium. will set up a system that works and a reasonably prompt fashion for the people who want to come

from those we do not want. part of the second term of the bush administration, we mentioned the land border ports of entry. there was a new study last week that a friend of mine worked on that he just released. forl be turned around public release. it showed the value that the union -- u.s. current economy. talkly, i want to briefly about flexibility. the unfortunate things about the system is we have this incredible rigid system. congress sets the quotas, the quotas are fixed. there are some categories that are hard to legislate. they change it once every 20 years. countries like canada or australia or some of the