here to help. we have to respect them. connect with them and work with them. we know we have to have an inside outside tragedy -- strategy. sometimes they do not listen to us. maybe we should do let the dream defenders did in florida. maybe we should go march on the capital and sit down and sit in until they pass the legislation that we need. we need to get ungovernable. too much novocain in our movement. let's march on capitol hill and sit there because we have some right wing reactionaries. a tea party who could care less about us unless we tell them to understand what we are about. civil disobedience. let me say this. we have $1.2 trillion in our

hands. we need to use economic sanctions. we need to use boycotts. we talked about that in ferguson with the stores in the shops owned by people other than us. but is not an indictment they should be contributing to us if they can i contribute, we need to get them out of the community. i will make this point. trayvon martin. all the talking heads -- we don't get opportunities. nieneed to let mickey and min play with themselves for a change. we need to have an economic sanction campaign. we could go up against the koch brothers. we spend billions of dollars in florida in terms of the hospitality industry. -- fortave to do

lauderdale alone, the money was spent. innie. mickey and m let them play with themselves for a while. if we had done that, they would have caved. ofwould've went against one the most powerful forces in this country -- the koch brothers. we can defeat the koch brothers because the people united will never be defeated. i have to say this. no national civil rights leader will call for the economic sanctions campaign. the people on the streets were ready for the economic sanction campaign. we could not gettin any. nobody called for it and we wondered why. maybe it is because you look at these conventions and the sponsorships are coming from all of these corporations. these are my friends. they are great people. at a certain point, the economic

benefits and the chump change these people are giving us is not worth taking the fire out of our movement. we need to be on the aggressive movement in terms of economic sanctions. tonight tocame here stress this point. leaders tofor young take the lead. young leaders must take the lead on this issue. i say that because it is a matter of principle. those who are being most affected. ande who are being frisked shot down in the street and harassed are mostly young people. since they are the ones being affected, they should be at the center and in the lead. know, i am that, you a life time member of the ansi -- naacp. i do not want to see them -- i a

m saying this constructively -- without them, we would not be where we are today. that also comes a time maybe they should step aside a little bit. move over and get these young take the lead. there was a gathering in october. the theme for the night should be young leaders must take the lead. reverend sharpton, i enter stan he is complicating -- i understand he is contemplating another march on washington. whether there is a gathering or a march, we knew we'd -- we need one that is exclusively led by young people. let young people take the lead. young people must take the lead. we must support them in that. i will make this point as an example.

the march on washington commemoration -- a dreamed offender. m defender. he got up to speak in a lot of people's microphones were being cut off. i'm sure it was accidental but how was it the most harmful movement, two movements, moral defenders,the dream how do they end up not being allocated sufficient time to get their point across? how is it that philip agnew did not get a chance to talk? it was accidental probably. a young leaders lead march, that would never happen because we need to stand back. we need to move over. let them speak, organize. let us advise. philip agnew and the dream defenders, step up.

terri bellefonte sponsored many people. the hip hop caucus. the malcolm x grassroots movement. leaders of a beautiful struggle. with the algebra project. in new yorkoup called the islamic group. that howard university government association is in the house and they are organizing students all around the country. let the word go out. aside, reverend sharpton, and other civil rights leaders. let the young people take the lead. young people must take the lead. i close with this quote from our imacs. -- malcolm x.

" we declare our right on this human earth to be respected as a human being. to be given the rights of a human being in the society. whichs earth, in this day we intended to bring into existence by any means necessary. we say freedom by any means necessary. freedom. freedom. >> by any means necessary. >> freedom. i cannot hear you. >> by any means necessary. >> let's get it done. [applause] >> all right. and longtime warrior in the struggle for justice and freedom for our people not only here in the u.s., but around the world. we have come to the end of our program. forant to thank you all attending, being patient,

listening and for participating. give your selves around of applause. [applause] we want to thank the people outside, too. there are dozens of folks outside on the sidewalk who had been patient listening to us. toally, if you would like view this again and for those who were not able to catch it tonight, this entire program will be archived on the website in the next day or two. please visit us. as we used to say in the you.ution, -- thank [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, it pentagon briefing on ukraine and isis. then, a preview of the upcoming nato summit. on newsmakers, congressional budget office director discusses the cbo reports that says the federal deficit has fallen but the debt has risen to the highest level since 1950. he also talks about jobs, wages, and the cbo's estimate related to the affordable care act. at 10 a.m. sundays and 6 p.m. eastern on c-span.

next, the defense department briefing with pentagon press secretary john kirby. he talks about the latest movements by russia's military in ukraine, strategic planning by the defense apartment, and the cost of u.s. military and humanitarian occupations in ir aq. this is about 45 minutes. >> the secretary will first stop at rhode island to deliver a keynote speech at the southeastern new england defense ministry alliances defense and

innovation days conference. in keeping with the conferences focus, i expect the secretary to address the challenges facing our military technologic e dge. about these issues and in his speech to the chicago council. this would be opportunities talking greater detail about the need for innovation and how we develop and procure new capabilities. the secretary will also visit the naval war college. the secretary will join president obama and secretary kerry. as you know, the focus of the summit will be afghanistan, the crises in the ukraine and middle-east. the secretary has participated in some missions and views it as an adornmen important opportunity t. an important part will be nato's

partnerships and from wales, the secretary will travel to georgia. this will be his first visit to georgia as secretary but he has met with his georgian counterpart before and the georgian prime minister earlier this year while in munich. the georgian military has been a valued partner of the united states and the secretary looks forward to thanking the people of georgia. georgia shares our concerns about russia's actions in ukraine and that will be at the top of the agenda during the visit. secretary hagel will next travel to turkey for his first visit as secretary. it is a key nato ally. they share our deep concerns with the threat posed, the regional threat tposed. secretary hagel has long-standing l relationship with the leadership and views this is an important

opportunity. i will take questions. ukraine, could you paint the picture as best you could in terms of what the latest movement of russian enforcem -- forces into ukraine and what numbers? that represents an escalation in their involvements and whether you would consider this an invasion. >> there was a lawful lot there. i would not be telling great specificity about what the russian armed forces are doing. that is for their defense ministry to speak to. we don't have a perfect view of what they are doing. we have continually seen them build up their capabilities along the border. we have continued to see them advance weapon systems, some very sophisticated, into use in ukraine in support of the separatists. we havelier this week,

long believed that russian forces, military forces have been a part of that movement. they are helping the separatists use, if not use it themselves, in support of separatists. we have seen this continue to build and build and build. now, you see nato with imagery that has shown that not only the last, but also how on the couple of weeks that effort has intensified. forcesukrainian armed have gotten more capable and been able to retake territories in eastern ukraine, we believe that has helped foster moscow's intention to intensify these efforts. it is a continuation of what we have seen all along. want to put onou it, whatever you want to call intensification of the same behavior we have been seeing russia do for several months.

so, our position has not changed. we continue to look for ways to support the ukrainian armed forces. we look for ways to reassure our nato allies. we continue to call for russia to stop escalating attention. >> talking about looking for ways to support the ukrainians -- are you preparing any new initiatives? are you considering training inside of ukraine with u.s. forces? >> i am not aware of anything specifically inside of ukraine. a 20 year plus relationship with the military of ukraine and that will continue. we believe it has helped with their own professionalism and command-and-control capabilities. simply the association with us. about have anything specific to announce. we are continuing -- there are some other exercises in poland coming up.

when we'd talked about the fact that we were going to look for ways to make the training regime more aggressive and more comprehensive in europe, we meant what we said and we continue to do that. i don't have anything particular to announce today. >> do you have a cost of the iraq operation you can share? regarding the options that president obama -- he asked secretary hagel -- can you clarify for us how those options are different than the options that were under development or were developed before following the arrival of the visors? >> let me get the cost and i will do my best with the second one. if i don't get the new wants right, just tommy. stop me. it has buried since the beginning in mid-june. on average, it is costing about

$7.5 million per day. a snapshot ofon the operation that has occurred as of the 26th of this month. it didn'tht imagine, start out at $7.5 million a day. activitiesempo and has intensified, so too has the cost. abouty right now, it is 7.5 million dollars a day that is being funded out of the overseas contingency operation fund for 2014. we are well within our limits in that regard. as the secretary said to you last week, we think we have it covered in terms of funding. began -- operations sent our activities in iraq have begun in mid-june. that was the first finding we put in some personnel.

when we first added some security personnel in baghdad, it was not testing us -- costing us $7.5 million. it changes every day. we can add it up for you but since june 16 -- roughly $7.5 million per day. i didn't bring my calculator. we can figure it out. are looking for a total, that is a pretty good way to thumbnail it. june 16 to today. it is not like it has been $7.5 million every single day. it didn't start out that much. that is on average. you have to be careful with how you characterize the total balance figure. it has been supported by the overseas contingency funding. we are well within the limits. you had a second question on options. you guys know this is a planning

organization and the discussion of plants is a process. that is something that we haven't been thinking about for quite some time. and, i would also tell you that the situation on the ground continues to change. it is very fluid. as it changes, so to do the kind of plants the central command planners are working on. there have been and will continue to be discussions both here and and the pentagon and across the river with the state department and the white house. that is what options look like and what they could look like. it is figurative. we get to a point where we are ready to have a more full-fledged discussion, the pentagon will be ready. >> the options developing are trying to combat isil in iraq and syria.

is that right? >> the president yesterday was talking specifically about options for military action in syria. that is what the president was referring to yesterday. those are the plans and options he is looking for from us and that we are working on. it is important to remember, we have been operating inside iraq from perspectives of conducting airstrikes. nothing is changed. we continue to conduct of them. airstrikeslmost 110 total since they began. the discussion the of operations in thiraq because operations in iraq continue. >> this was a new request from the president or something. >> the president was referring planning options inside syria. truthful ifess than

we hadn't been thinking about that before yesterday. of course, we have. two points. we are not at the point where we are prepared to have a discussion about the options with the commander-in-chief. number two, this is not a small point, the commander-in-chief, secretary hagel have all said whatever the options are for syria, it will not just be military. it cannot be. there will not be a military solution. it will not happen. it has to be more comprehensive and regional and factor in more elements than just military. had toe have certainly work on what those options could look like, there are other parts of the government that are working as well on options they might need to pursue in the future going forward. >> how contingent are your options on gathering

intelligence on isil? >> any operation requires knowledge of the situation on the ground. the best you can get it. have as muchnt to information and is accurate information as you can possibly have. i think you can expect without talking about specific, hypothetical or future operations that whatever options we prepare and are prepared to conduct will be reliant upon getting in obtaining and analyzing the best information as you can on the ground. >> when the congress was asking what the united states can do to work the momentum of isil in i raq, chairman dempsey said they didn't have a clear picture. you'reair to say gathering a clear picture of syria will take

several weeks until you can have a fulsome discussion? >> we don't have a specific timeline. i am not prepared to do that and it would not be prudent for me to do that. any time you will conceive oor prepare for a military option, you will want to get as much information as you can. the taxpayers would expect this -- to want to do this thing with -- if we get asked to do a in syria, to do it with as much information as possible. i would not speculate about how or when or how long. >> will the public be worried ? can a lot be done from the iraq border or southern turkish border? abouthout talking , iential future operations am not validating the premise of

the question which is that we definitely will conduct strikes inside syria or that we will conduct surveillance one way or the other. there are many ways in which we can gain situational awareness. some of that requires the use of air aassetssets and some of it doesn't. i will leave it at that. >> having accurate information about isis -- could you confirm if isis militants have capabilities? we have seen the post mentioned this in the morning. >> if they have drones of their own? report but iress have nothing that would back that up at all. >> yesterday, president obama some are ambivalent about dealing with isil. some are financing them.

do you have more information? gulfou say some gulf states are in one hand facing isil and on the other financing them? >> i will not elaborate on that at all. >> is it fair to say there is no strategy yet? talk about going ahead -- the pentagon's role in developing that strategy. the secretary will talk about this in turkey and nato with the partners. talk a little bit about the way ahead. what are the plans you are looking at, what do you hope to achieve? pentagont having the having a greater role. iraq would be part of that strategy. >> if i try to answer that question in every aspect, i would be basically -- you are asking me to lay it all out.

guys -- we would make your job easier in my nonexistent. nonexistent. the president said this pretty well yesterday that this was really about grading isil's ability to operate and continue to conduct the violence they are doing inside iraq. if you take it from that perspective, that is where you are going. there are many ways to do that. not all of them are military. let us talk about the military ways. some of the military ways is the way we're doing inside iraq which is through the use of airstrikes. even surly hit them and we have been -- you can certainly hit them and we have been. we're hitting what we are aiming

at inside iraq. we know that inside iraq, we are having an effect on their ability to operate. we are being disruptive to their own operations, to their command-and-control, their ability to move around. you can have an effect in that way. it is called kinetics. it basically means you have a very targeted, precise effect. we can do that. there are other ways you can from a military perspective try to disrupt and degrade their ability to operate through humanitarian assistance. one of the things, you mentioned it, the secretary is committed to trying to move forward on a train and equip program for a modern syrian opposition. we hope to get the money appropriated for fiscal year 15 which is coming up soon so we can move out on this. there are a lot of hurdles that remain to be leapt in terms of

getting us there. you have opposition you can rely on. at least one willing partner in the region to help sponsor some of the sites for training. we are working our way through it. inside the military component element of national powers, there are lots of things we can do that don't include airstrikes totally. you guys have been covering this longer than i have been in the pentagon. 13 years at war. if we learned nothing over 13 years of war, you cannot completely eliminate extremism everywhere through simply kinetics, airstrikes alone. while we must be ready for that option and we will be at the appropriate time to discuss those options with the commander-in-chief -- that alone is not going to be the answer. collects if there is to be 1 -- >> if there is one to be in iraq, most people -- sense of how the greater

the iraqi army is. do you anticipate some kind of train and assist down the road? that is entirely possible it can move to a more of an advisory mission. that has not happened yet but that is certainly a possibility going forward. we haven't reached that level yet. that decision has not been made yet but it is certainly an option. we still have those two joint operations in baghdad. they continue to support and advise and assist. there is some advising going on but we have in place to teams at what units at of her grade level or higher which was the thought. that is still under active consideration. you all right. that together a more regional approach. modernwant to build a opposition which would require some of the train and equip, advise and assist to a modern opposition.

--s is certainly military and those are being considered. i would not get ahead. >> disrupt and degrade isil. is that the plan? >> of those are my words. i don't make policy year. here. the president said he used the word degrade. that is where i will leave that. >> use of the joint chiefs are not ready to go back to the president. he said he had not heard back and he was waiting. hagel rightecretary there said isis was a threat like nothing we had ever seen. we have to be ready for it. this building has talked about it being imminent. for the the confusion

american people. is it urgent or is it not? what is taking the pentagon so long? to strike today, would you be ready? wethe question presupposes are not doing anything as it is. >> why are you not ready to go to the president? why is he saying he is still waiting for you? >> let me try to answer that. the question presumes that we are not doing anything in there is no sense of urgency. you and i know that's not true. we have intensified serve violence flights over -- surveillance flights over iraq. believe me, this the building and the united states military shares the same sense of urgency over iraq and the threat that it poses. there is no doubt or debate about that. when the secretary talked about it like nothing we've ever seen,

some people have taken that the term in means of size and scale of a homeland attack. what is he referring to is that this is a group that does not behave like any other terrorist group we've had to dealt with before. they are grabbing ground and infrastructure and trying to develop streams of revenue. i'm getting there. i just got to get warmed up. [laughter] we also share the same sense of urgency. when the president spoke about exploring further planning options, he was referring to the potential for military options inside syria which we have not done. ofare working on those kinds options for him and we have been. >> right there. why are you not yet ready with

military options for syria? why are you not ready? process,an iterative barb. question assumes this is some sort of binding thing. we get ordered to do it and here's the binder. here you go. it's an iterative process because the situation on the ground constantly changes. it's very fluid. you do military planning and real-time especially in a situation like what's going on in iraq because it changes over time. the thread changes over time. it's not like we have not worked on this. we continue to work on it. planners in tampa and the pentagon continue to refine, optionsupdate planning for potential military activity.

it is an ongoing effort. when we as a government are ready to have that discussion, we will have that discussion. >> why should isis think anything other than you are not ready. why should they take any message away from washington? >> ask those getting hit from the sky about how seriously we are taking the threat. should they think you are anything but not ready to deal with them? anyone with knowledge knows we are ready all the time. that does not necessarily mean that the planning process is complete or decisions to do anything have been made. that we are ready should not be in doubt. friends, enemies, potential adversaries.

>> is the pentagon on the same page as the white house in terms of the threat posed by isis? >> yes. next question? >> this one a little bit more. you -- so if the pentagon has been constantly planning for this, then presumably if the president or the white house or national security staff said that they wanted plans presented today or last night at the meeting yesterday afternoon, the pentagon would have had something ready to go. and then you said that once you're ready for this meeting or ready for this long discussion, once, you know, the administration is ready for the discussion, i mean, is there someone in the administration who's not quite ready for this discussion to happen yet about the potential plans? who is that? >> this has got to be an interagency discussion, court. it's not -- you know, you're asking me an impossible question to answer. we continue to plan and prepare. and i would tell you that the syria component here is a relatively new one. i mean, this -- this -- the

thought process of potentially going into -- you know, doing military air strikes into syria is a relatively new one. so it's not like we've been doing that for months. we've been watching isil for months. we certainly have done a bit of planning and execution inside iraq, but the syria component is relatively new. we continue to refine and work on options. that's our job. but that doesn't mean that, you know, that while you have planners doing it at a low level, that you're ready at a high level to sit down and examine them in great detail. and we just aren't there yet as an interagency team. i wouldn't -- you know, i wouldn't begin to, you know, try to peg it down to an individual here. the way it works is, the commander-in-chief gets to make the decisions. he's the one who sets the policy. he's the one who determines how and when, you know, a military option is going to be pursued.

our job is to be ready to provide him options. that's what we do. we give him options and choices, because those are his decisions to make and they can be very, very difficult. we have to think it through, make sure that the pros and the cons are all there for him to make a decision, and so that when a decision is made, we're ready to execute. >> can i ask about another iterative process that we haven't asked about today? >> absolutely. >> the assessment. would -- did the assessments ever make it to the white house about iraq? i think secretary hagel got them on july 15th, if i'm not mistaken. >> yes, they did. >> when was that? >> i'd have to go back and -- i mean, i don't know if i have a date certain there, court. but, i mean, yes, there was -- they were certainly shared with white house officials, absolutely. >> so what's been the outcome of that? is that why we started to see air strikes in iraq? >> without getting into too much detail about the assessments -- they remain classified -- i can

tell you they certainly have helped inform the activities that we've been conducting inside iraq. there's no question about that. >> julian? >> could you tell us what the current situation of the humanitarian situation in amerli is with the turkmen? and in a related way, have we seen an uptick in operations in iraq over the last 24 or 48 hours, in terms of the pace of bombs? or is it steady -- >> an uptick in our operations? >> yeah, your operations. >> well, on -- and i think this is how you pronounce it, "amerli" -- i'm not an expert -- but we continue to monitor the situation there, as we do throughout iraq. i mean, one of -- as you know, one of the missions we've been assigned inside iraq from a military perspective is to contribute to humanitarian support as needed and at the request of the iraqi government. we continue to monitor the whole country in that regard. and this township of amerli, i don't have anything to announce today, in terms of any decisions

made about that. whatever we do from a humanitarian perspective in iraq will be done in partnership with iraqi security forces and kurdish forces as necessary. so i have no updates there. i'm not quite certain i have anything for you on the intensification. there's been a consistent level of military activity inside iraq, not just from us, but from our iraqi partners. as i said, i think we're up to nearly, if not at 110 air strikes total since they started. and i don't know that -- i mean, i haven't watched the pace of those, but i haven't seen anything that would indicate that it's, you know, seriously upticked in recent days. and most of the strikes -- by the way, i mean, if you just do the math -- and, actually, i think i have it here. you know, of the nearly 110, the

majority of them have been done in and around the mosul dam facility, because, again, back to my point about these guys, they want infrastructure. they want streams of revenue. they want ground, and they still are going after that mosul dam facility, so we still have to keep -- we still have to keep the pressure on them. jon? >> hang on just a second. jon? >> admiral kirby, is this -- was this request for syria options from the white house something that was given to you just in the past couple days? is it something that is just newly being considered? >> no. not at all, jon. no. i mean, this is -- the exploration of options inside syria is -- as i told courtney -- is a relatively new facet of this. but the discussion is not just in the last 24 hours or couple of days, no. >> and can you elaborate a little bit on the advise and assist activities that the guys in the jocs are doing? are they developing operational plans for the iraqi security forces and the peshmerga to take

on isil on the ground? >> i don't believe they're writing operational plans for the iraqi military, john, but your question is better posed to central command. they have a much more -- higher degree of fidelity about what these guys are actually doing. i do know that in the joint operations centers, there is an advise and assist capacity to that. there's a component to that. but they are providing some advice and assistance to iraqi and kurdish forces through their presence in the joint operations center. >> major general dana pittard was appointed more than two months ago to head this iraq effort. we haven't heard from him. any chance that he can brief us on how things look in iraq? >> you're not satisfied with my briefing style? >> you're doing a great job, but... >> yeah, nice try. >> since he is the point man on iraq, any chance we can hear from him or get briefed by him? >> i'll have to take that. i don't know, tom. >> he's not kept under wraps, is he? >> i don't want to share the podium with anybody. it's all about me. [laughter] i'll take it, tom. i don't know. yeah. >> admiral kirby, on the mosul dam, just to go back to that, why are there so many strikes still there after we were told

that the dam was retaken by kurdish forces? >> because isil keeps wanting to take it back. they keep threatening the dam and the facility. and as long as they pose a threat to that facility, we are going to continue to help iraqi security forces preserve their ownership of it. >> but are kurdish forces or iraqi forces struggling to keep hold of it, to maintain control of it? >> they're still under attack almost every day there at the facility. there's a reason that -- and that's reason enough. i think that shows you just how important it was for us to help them get it back, that isil continues to pose a threat around that facility. and you guys know this. it's -- you know, we talk about the mosul dam, everybody thinks about the dam itself. it's a huge facility covering a wide, wide area, because it's not just about the river itself and the actual dam. and so they're -- they continue to threaten it. as long as they continue to threaten it, we're going to continue to hit them. >> has there been a request from baghdad on the amerli situation for a humanitarian mission or

u.s. action? >> i'm not aware of a specific request from the iraqi government for that particular mission. that said, you know, we're watching it constantly. and nobody's taken our eye off of that -- off of that township and the struggles in that township, and, you know, if we get to that point, we'll certainly share as much with you as we can on it. >> kurdistan 24-hour news channel. thank you. it's my first time here. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> picked a great time to come. >> thank you very much. i have a few questions -- a couple questions about kurdish people in iraq and in syria, as well, as you're considering to expanding your attacks to syria.

first of all, about the weapons that you and at least seven of your allies have provided to the peshmerga forces, are they military aid or you sell them? >> the military aid and assistance going to kurdish forces? >> do they buy it from you? or are they just free military aid? >> i think we're -- right now, the assistance -- the direct military assistance that's going to kurdish forces is coming from the iraqi government. >> but you -- >> we are helping the iraqi government transport it, but it's not coming directly from the united states. it's coming from the iraqi government. and as i said earlier this week, there are other nations, some seven now, that have signed up to provide materiel assistance to the kurdish forces. and i'll let those countries speak for how they're doing it and under what rubric. right now, for the united states, our role is principally in helping transport, logistically get the stuff to

the kurdish forces. there's been no decision to directly arm the kurds from american stockpiles. >> on syrian kurds, we know there's a group there, the most powerful militant group called pyd, and it's widely regarded as an offshoot of the pkk, which you designate as a terrorist group. does that inhibit you from cooperating with the pyd, as the strongest -- single most strongest force in northern syria to fight isis? because they are really determined and they're willing to fight. >> i don't honestly have anything for you on that. i really -- i don't have... >> -- peshmerga yesterday. isis has held 15 peshmergas, and they showed a video, just like james foley's video. they said that there was a message to the kurdish government to end its alliance with the united states. do you see that as a warning to america, as well, to end its air strikes? >> i think isil poses a threat to -- as we said, to not just the people of iraq, but to the region. and we all take -- we're all

taking that threat very seriously. but if they think that by further violence they're going to somehow weaken our resolve or the resolve of our iraqi and kurdish partners, i think they're sadly mistaken. and you can see that every day, every single day. gordon? >> admiral -- isis is a threat to the region. you don't think isis is a threat to the united states? >> we've long talked about the threat that they pose to the region and the potential threat -- the very real potential threat that they could pose to western governments and to the homeland. right now, they've got global aspirations, and they certainly have aspirations to strike western targets. and i've said this before, and say again today. we don't believe they have the capacity right now, the capability to conduct a major attack on the homeland. but one of the things -- and when we talk about the immediacy of the threat, one of the things that we're talking about is this threat of foreign fighters, this idea that people will go over there from -- you pick the country, they'll get radicalized, they'll get trained, and there's a potential for them to come right on back

home and conduct terrorist attacks, maybe small-scale, on the homeland. >> and just to clear up, have you given the white house an initial strategy on dealing with the threat of isis in syria? >> well, this gets to the whole conversation that we've had. i mean, the -- we continue to plan and prepare for the potential of military action inside syria. a more fulsome discussion of those plans has not occurred. >> okay. and one final one. you said that you're looking at a comprehensive approach, strategy to deal with isis in syria. how many nations have pledged support to help the united states conduct air strikes against isis in syria? >> we're the only nation, in addition to the iraqis, you know, that are working on -- from an air strike perspective inside iraq that are conducting air strikes. i won't talk about deliberations or diplomatic discussions with other countries. the other thing that we've said, in terms of air strikes, the other thing that -- and i've talked about this -- is that many nations have come forward to offer to assist and have assisted with humanitarian missions, like the brits. >> and what about syria?

>> we're not having discussions with the assad regime about our operations in iraq. >> and have other nations pledged their help and support with -- to the united states to conduct air strikes inside syria? >> i'm not aware of any such pledge. and i would remind you that we haven't made a decision to conduct air strikes inside syria. >> any pledges to get a coalition together? >> we haven't -- we haven't made pledges. what we've said is, as a government -- and certainly the pentagon supports this effort -- that we -- that we want a coalition of the willing, we want -- we want to seek partners in this effort. we have partners in this effort. and when you work on a coalition of the willing like that, everybody is encouraged to bring what they can and what they're willing to. they all have domestic -- you know, domestic legislative issues they have to deal with. they all -- every country has to decide for themselves in accordance with the wishes of their people what they're willing to do. but it's not about us mandating it or pledging it. it's about us pledging to

continue that effort of building a coalition. >> can you name some of those countries that have pledged their support? >> i think you're getting -- i think you're getting stifled. gordon. >> just -- stuff, can you kind of square the task force the secretary kind of loosely assembled and what they're doing, what maybe timeframe they have, what the hurdles may be to providing assistance directly to the kurdish forces, and how all this is tied to the strategy question, the broader strategy question? does -- are those two separate things? or does that assistance issue generally... >> no, no, it's tied in. i mean, the -- one of the things that we've said we're trying to do inside iraq is to assists the iraqi security forces, the iraqi government, and the kurdish forces in combating this threat inside their country, because -- and i've said it time and again -- this is ultimately a fight they have to -- they have to win. and we're willing to help them.

that's all part of the mission set inside iraq. so as part of that, as they expend arms and ammunition and they expend their military capacity, you want to help boost that. what we've done so far as a country, as a military, is to help the iraqi government support and supply the kurds. there are other nations that have come on -- and secretary hagel did stand up a task force, a u.s.led effort, to try to encourage and solicit support from other nations to do the same, to supply -- help resupply kurdish forces in particular, because that's where the bulk of the fighting is right now. most of the active expenditure of rounds is happening in the north. and we have had now seven nations that have signed up. i read this out last week, the seven nations that have signed up to do this, the most recent being albania. and some of that's even more effective anyway, because some

of those countries actually possess the kinds of arms and ammunition and materiel that the kurds need, which we don't necessarily have in american stockpiles. so it's mutually beneficial. >> will there be more -- i mean, could we anticipate that, you know, the u.s. would begin to provide much more visibly -- because we don't see it necessarily a lot of what exactly is being provided -- once this strategy is decided upon, in other words -- or do you really have to wait for the strategy question to be answered before the -- >> the strategy question you're talking about is regarding the potential for military action inside syria. that is a separate question from what i think you're getting at, which is helping kurdish forces with the very real, daily threat that they face, and that effort's ongoing now, and we continue to look for willing partners to do that. i don't know if that got you or

not. maggie? okay. >> i almost called you general. admiral, okay -- >> really, you guys are trying to run me out on a rail here. >> sorry about that. so you mentioned just like a couple of minutes ago that it was going to be about $7.5 million per day for the iraqi operation. >> what i said was the average since the beginning is roughly $7.5 million per day. >> that's the average. this morning, general, general jean paul paloméros, he said that he expected the baltic policing exercises to continue at the tempo that they're continuing in because of some of the threat that russia poses. now, some of the military aircraft, u.s. military aircraft are using these exercises. i'm wondering what the budget concern is for the pentagon, given that you've got a pricey iraq operation, a continuing exercising operation in eastern europe, and last year, it was at the point where you guys were

canceling training exercises and putting folks on furlough. so what's the -- what's the concern and what's the plan? >> well, we're always concerned about having, you know, enough funds and resources to accomplish the mission around the world. as i said, we're able to fund and resource the operations in iraq out of existing overseas contingency operations funds. we're well within our limit there, and we're not concerned about it for '14. as the secretary said himself, once you get into '15, if we're still involved at this level or a higher level, then we've got to have another discussion about what the funding levels might be. your question seems to make it sound like, you know, we were worried before and we're not worried now. we're still worried. i mean, sequestration remains the law of the land. we've got a funding request up on the hill that meets the bba, the budget control act, limits, but -- and, you know, we've got

sort of a stay of execution for '14 and '15. but beyond that, sequestration come '16 will revert and, you know, become again the law of the land, and that's a very real concern going forward. but right now, in iraq and elsewhere around the world, we've got resources sufficient to the military tasks that we're accomplishing. i've got time for just one more. i've been up here a while. yes, sir? >> regarding the operations in iraq, do you have a breakdown of the cost of between air strikes, isr, and humanitarian aid? >> nope. phil? >> admiral, you said in answer to tom's question earlier that you're hitting what you're aiming at in iraq. you're having an effect on isil there and hitting headquarters and other targets that appear to be beyond what you said before. when you characterized this as kind of a defensive mission to protect americans, protect the dam, protect the kurds, has the mission in iraq changed to one of more of an offensive nature, where you're actively going after isil support structures,

commanders? or does that depend on the new strategy the president's... >> look, i don't -- i don't see any change in the types of targets we're hitting. there's been no -- there's been -- and there certainly has been no change in the mission. it remains exactly the same. >> so today, it's still the limited mission that you talked about before? >> absolutely it is. and the targets that we're hitting are all in keeping with the authorizations that we have to use force inside iraq. there's been no change at all. last one. >> congress, the president yesterday seemed to be saying that -- to assuaging fears of the members of congress that something was going to move ahead without them when they were in recess. can you characterize specific, what kind of -- or what level of concern that the secretary has heard from members of congress? and has he been engaged with them does he feel... >> we continue to have -- we've continued to have consultations with members of congress throughout this. just because they're out doesn't mean we're not talking to them and trying to keep them informed. we're doing that, and that will continue.

and i think the president was very clear yesterday about the -- the need to engage the congress in any major future decisions, as well, by default, of the american people, and that will continue. there's -- and the secretary has personally -- you know, and i won't detail every phone call and meeting he's had, but he certainly has -- has personally taken on that job of keeping members of congress as informed as he possibly can. and as a former senator, he well understands their oversight responsibilities and their role in that regard, and he fully respects it. >> those fears or is there -- you know, is the real concern, like we heard earlier in the week? >> the fears of members of congress... >> change, is it okay, you know -- >> i would -- i'm not going to... >> battle with the hill> >> i can't speak for congress or their concerns. it often depends on each member sometimes. what i can tell you is, the secretary remains committed to keeping them informed.

he certainly understands the need to make sure that the congress is fully engaged, and he takes those responsibilities very seriously. thanks, everybody. have a great labor day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up next a preview of the nato summit. an update on military training exercises in the baltic region in response to the ukraine-russia conflict. this is about one hour. -- iwill community or welcome you here to washington.

we made the trip yesterday evening only for you. just explaining the quick process for this one hour. can put some questions to me during the rest of the hour. no problem to schedule an interview if you want to. we have to come back to norfork. thank you for being with us today. part of the is

communication. i have been there for two years now. charge of this formation in nato and i am happy to be assuming these responsibilities. it's very demanding. attended who have not in the past, these meetings are to discuss about the status of the transformation of nato. how nato forces are able to fulfill the task considering the present time. the transformation is there to make sure that nato forces are ready and credible to meet the

challenges of the future. really how i see my mission ahead of this command. this perspective, this is taking place at a very special time. we are preparing very summitvely meeting of a .f the heads of state the allied transformation is a dedicated to nato future, nato's presence. you mydiscuss with expectations of the summit which for manya crucial time

business. world andaces in the , enforcing the need for the strategic vision, strategic foresight of which the allied transformation is in charge. just to give you my feeling that what happens today these days i would say it is not a big surprise for me. why do i say that? first and foremost, personally, i've been involved in many crises around the world and my ,onfusion, my lessons learned it has always been peace,

freedom, democracy could never be taken for granted. effort a lot of goodwill, a lot of good people, a lot of cooperation between the nations, between the allies to achieve that. i saw that in many places in the in other operations. it does not come as a surprise that we live in a very complex which has global implications, as we know which is very interdependent. technology,e new information technology, so on and so forth, we have many wonderful opportunities but there are a lot of risks that

could materialize very quickly in a real threat against democracy, against nations, against peace, against people. it is exactly what we described in our vision a year and a half theand we keep imagining answers to those risks, the best answer that nato can propose. of awould be part discussion, how we make sure that nato keeps its full relevance in regards to all of these threats and risks and concentrating on its three main missions. they are absolutely fundamental. core mission, collective defense. to be very clear, nato has

always concentrated on quality defense. it is true for the last 20 years nato has been involved in many crises. sadly in afghanistan, libya, and .he balkans we have kept in our mind that the collective defense was really the essence of the birth of nato and it is still there. when we opened the door bringing those 28 countries together, we really took this very seriously. natonnot say that neglected but it had to adapt to the reality of the environment. it will be so in the future. lisbon thated in

a criticalgement was part of nato missions and that is exactly what we have done for the last 20 years and i suspect we will carry on doing that where and when it is needed and we should be able to do that. last but not least, which i consider a great success, what we call the corporate security allowing nato to build the very partnerships to make sure that we can deliver together a safer world for the future. it's a difficult, demanding task but on the other hand, we see more and more nations interacting with building these partnerships and that will be a key perspective for them as well

, the summit, how we carry on to build those partnerships with those nations. some of them are willing to join nato at a certain stage and others are not for certain reasons. this is true as well with organizations. the strategic partnership with the eu is absolutely crucial for nato. there is the border of the alliance and the european union, this is the same problem. can in working together they achieve the aim to stabilize, to keep peace and andrity in the european nato area of responsibility, if i may say so. crisis management, security, main missions that will remain

so. now the question is really how we can best achieve those missions with a very demanding environment. enough to leave room for your questions, i will summarize my vision of what should be the future of the nato within a single summary. first and foremost, we must arere that nato forces ready, fit the purpose in a certain way for today and for tomorrow. that has been exactly my priority when i became the head of this command when i focused onreadiness, forces

training, building the capabilities that are needed to modernize our forces to provide more flexibility, to make sure that they are able to adapt to this very diversified, volatile environment. readiness is really the key. -- only if we have ready forces able to be deployed anywhere, anytime when it is needed will we keep the credibility. second is responsiveness. we say that time is running crisesand faster and the are developing faster and faster. we can see the rules of the crises but it is really difficult to predict and that is why we have to improve our ability to build a common strategic plan and we see how it is crucial today with the

ability to exchange information and to raise the level of credibility of this information within nato and outside as well. in response to this evolving environment at the speed of --ht, we must force reinforce the responsiveness of our forces and that will be a key objective for the summit, to define a new contract, if i may say so, for nato forces in terms of responsiveness. forces,no time to build to be reactive enough against the different crises that occur under up. that is why today we have the nato response force to address that, but we are looking for even more responsiveness. that is what the nato response bece should be and it should

available within a few days notice and we were looking for more than that. this is very ambitious, spearheading forces which should be on the very high readiness alert status to be able to demonstrate the will and the presence of nato where and when it is needed in a few hours and not in a few days. arm is perhaps a little more surprising but very important in my perspective -- resilience. see the evolution of crises, first and foremost, what lessons we need to take from the parties that these crises are enduring. single short-term crisis in this world. they are in during in their development, in their consequences and we have to take

that into account. just to remind you that nato and european forces are still in the balkans, which is good news because we are resilient enough to take care of crises and to thosetion and to pass crises, those solutions swiftly enough to make sure that the new generations can take over and we could help the nations to build themselves to build a new system, a new democracy, new political capabilities. it takes time. it takes time. it takes money as well. that is the last, resources. there will be, i am sure, a commitment at the summit. this is for the head of states

to decide. that there will be a to keep and tont the strongn possible willed that the resources that are dedicated to defense and security. this in many countries, big, important powers around the world the rearming of these countries. these are the facts. cannot discuss that. that is just a matter of fact. that there has an enduring and very important reduction in the defense budget of many nato countries because of the crisis. well, because of the

misperception during the last 10 years, the strategy convergence. it is true that some nations could take for granted that piece was there -- peace was there and we were living in a very stable world where the lines, the borders were well global in the world was and everybody shared more or less the same perspective, the same values, the same perspective, which is not true. as a matter of fact, today reinvest,the time to to keep a certain level of investment. there is a kind of benchmark that if every nation in nato could reach 2% of its gdp, that

would be a great improvement. we could hope for even more, but let's be realistic. , we have to make sure that there is enough investment to modernize the forces. that is why the 20% of benchmark importantment is as well. we have to assess that in terms of quality that we see and it is true in the same time when we are looking for more resources that we are as well focusing on spending better. this is the aim of smart defense . how we do that together in multinational corporation will take the best of new technologies to develop new weapons, weapons systems that are less expensive, more easy to maintain, etc. how we train together to reduce the cost and improve effectiveness. all of those trends are

priorities for main command and this is why we outreach as much as we can with the outside world, with industry, with a lot of stakeholders to find innovative solutions to answer to this very complex equation which is on the one hand a very commitment, military commitment. on the other hand, the limit of the resources that we can deploy. i would stress, in conclusion, that this is where i will carry on putting my best efforts to make sure that we keep dedicated, motivated, well-trained people to fulfill the very demanding tasks we have in front of us for the future. beforestrongly advocate make sureof state to

that we invest the best of our efforts in making sure that we keep these people ready to commit themselves in many very tough places around this world for the benefit of peace and security and for the benefit of the alliance. thank you. i hope to answer your questions. if i could just follow up on your vision for the nato response force. would that be in addition to the current nato response force or is that building up the response ? what would you need to do? more command and control? what is the shortfall there? that is a perfect question that we ask ourselves. force?ould be such first and foremost, we must

capitalize on what we have done so far. the nato response force is an outstanding tool, more than 13,000 people, but it is not so much the number but the capability it is able to do. it is a large force that allows nato to plan, to train, to certify these forces. we evaluate and certify the forces on a year-to-year basis which means that we are confident in the quality, the ability of these forces to be employed but as i stressed, i do not see the need to revisit, say, the nato reaction force. on the other hand, we need more responsiveness because of the nature of the new crisis.

the head of state will probably task us to do that but strategy and command alongside with my , wend, philippe in belgium will concentrate on how we develop this very highly responsive force which would be the spearhead of this nato response force and which would be really available in very, very short notice with proper command and control, proper tools to deploy, flexibility and which will be trained and exercised in a very complex and demanding environment. it must be effective. it must be reliable. it must be very adaptable.

we are working on that, obviously. i'm sure that we will propose that in the next few months. i will say by the end of the year somewhere. propose is to perhaps kind of modular forces. one single sized force would not be able to answer the question because the challenges are so different. theill have to bid on flexibility as well of the forest. i am a great advocate because we live in such an environment, and that was my priority when i was the chief of the air force and friends to perform more modularity and it worked very well. we would really work on that to make sure that we have a good crisis or any type of situation.

everything is there. theo not need to reinvent wheel. a lot of nations could contribute to that. i'm very confident that we are needso build a force that the resources as well. if you want to maintain high readiness for your forces, that means you need to put the resources to train them, mobilize them, transport them. it is for us to do as well as smart solutions. defense of the smart project, we are able to find a way. most important, we have the people to do that, people who during themotivated last two decades through the many crises, we have to capitalize that as well. these people know how to deal with this new complex threat. iny have dealt with this

afghanistan, libya, other crises. tactical our best asset in making kit -- capitalize on these people who are really motivated, ready, fully trained. this is where we want to push forward to make plans for the future. if we want to be ready and responsive enough to face the challenges. >> there's been a lot of talk from secretary-general rasmussen in eastern europe to face the russian threat in ukraine. how quickly could bases be established? is that is something you are looking toward announcing possibly as early as the upcoming summit? how urgent is this for you? >> when we are looking for readiness, responsiveness, , considering the

overall environment and the scope of the tasks nato has to fulfill, my answer would be that we are looking for very dynamic forces, very dynamic posture, and a very dynamic resonance where it is needed, when it is needed. reinforce our ability to propose the dynamic presence through the development of the strengthening of some infrastructure which is certainly indispensable to provide a quick answer to deploy forces, to test, to train people to do that with the host nations . by the way, this is the plan they have been developing for years so this is not news for us, the positioning and the

ability to deploy very swiftly in a very strategic places. this is the plan, as i see it. it could not be a static alliance for the future. we must be very dynamic, a dynamic presence, dynamic posture, to make sure that we are able to answer all of these causes. , to ensure that we are of,y and that we would be -- we would be effective, we have to make sure to deploy our forces where and when it is needed. there will be a strong commitment from the potential host nations to propose that as well. it is really a win-win kind of

solution for the future of those nations in the many nato nations. we're seeing that in libya, for instance, a lot of the will nato are used as a basing nation to deploy our forces so we must take care of the overall and the of missions strategic nato to do that in the southeast and the south. we must keep the balance of nato because they have to deal with the overall environment while we are concentrating understandably on the east because of the .ituation in ukraine we have to as well keep this balanced approach. a very dynamic presence, good preparation which means as well some investment in key

infrastructures which are absolutely indispensable to achieve the aim, to deploy efficiently forces where and when it is needed. >> people expect concrete names bases to be and announced at the latest next week. is that something you think you would be able to do already now or that nato would be able to say next week? my command has proposed 140 seven projects where nato can and best to achieve this. i will not name any of those but it covers the full spectrum of what is needed to make sure that our forces are at the ready, that we have flexible posture where we canble deploy when it is needed. i stress again that the nations

are doing a lot of this as well to propose that. there is no pure limit to that. it is a national perspective of lined with the nato perspective. i would say every single nation is able. all of them are very willing to contribute to this effort. you see where we deployed our whats recently discussing i know of policing and i have been a part of that for many years, policing and the baltic states. forces in twoed countries. we are deploying other forces in the southeastern. this is a very dynamic posture that we are dealing with.

we do not want to concentrate our forces on a single point. we cannot afford that. we must be flexible and adaptable enough to make sure that we are not caught by surprise, if i may say so, but we are ready to answer to any called. any call.to yes? as we all know, there has been beefing up exercises in the baltic region. the exercises in these countries near russia, what impact have they had? what lessons are you learning about responsiveness? >> your question comes in line with what we just discussed dynamic posture,

readiness, responsiveness. we have worked for many years with all of the nato nations to interact with we the best. what we have done on the last few years that i have been in charge of my command, i have been a strong advocate to develop very dynamic, precise policy. we have improved dramatically with the support of all of the nations, ministers, and heads of state. radically newed level and quality of exercises that nato is able to run. today, to give you a rough figure in nato there is one exercise every two days. this is amazing. this is not very well-known outside of nato but we are training our forces, i would say, on a day-to-day basis.

this is what i call persistence and dynamic posture, training, exercising, including the countries that you quoted but as well in the south. axt year, we are planning major nato exercise which would take place in the south posted and son, italy, portugal far we have trained more than 25,000 people which means in 2015, we will be able to run the major exercise the size of which has not been reached in decades in nato. a very dynamic, high intensity measure. many people are discussing about collective defense. the four main exercises that my command is in charge which means

we take this very seriously. we take every opportunity as well national activities and national exercises with nato. that.e done we have already more than 50 that we --this year facilities since june this year national exercise tore by national exercise that we will link with nato to make that we get the best out of this exercise and that we are able to train andinger size forces according to any toe standards to im-- nato to improve to answer the previous question our ability to deploy the forces needed and when it is needed. provideimportant to even more credibility to collective defense is our aility to integrate within

single nato nation or with nato to integrate and reenforce the national forces defendingin charge of their own mission and nato is there to help and support those forces to increase their ability defend againstto many threats that they can face. that should be trained, that should be rehearsed and this is exactly what we do today. thatld stress we are doing spectrum of the miss and ofm nato. >> specifically to the baltic policing exercise will the tempo we have seen right now because of the russia ukraine acident will we see continuance of that tempo throughout this year and if it thereded by the allies, has been request for nato presence. is that something that you will a longero maintain for

period of time, two years, three years, four years down the road? you aresomething worried about in terms of responsiveness. of initial response in the baltic states. long would wehow beable to provide it. i said in my perception if the there, which is the will worknations they smartly together, which we really -- organize them sufficient and what we have seen nationseginning a few were able to do that or will do that and we have more and more and more contributors able and thatng to par tisdal participan and h is exactly the case today

and this is the job of migrate friend which is in charge of operations to the suitables that.of forces to do we my short answer is yes, have enough access to provide would areided that he which isrganize that the case and to plan forward and this is great training as well i saw thatorces and from moi own air force the lot and newed a environment and new -- and a very, very well -- they are very nations and by the very goods which is news. to my -- what we do. it is verye able and

linked to resilience. side of thert of coin which provides assistance as long as it is needed. and my perception, my vision is that nato is able to do that today. this is the stronger alliance that we have ever seen in the modern age so yes, we have to investment, yes, the nations should work even better together and this is our role, is my role to help them to work together through collective forces initiatives and as i told results butachieved we are looking for more and if i could put that in a nutshell i'm expecting from the next theit next week is not just head of state saying well, okay, that's fine, we have achieved andthing, it is to push us to push transformation of nato

to say you have done a good job, that is fine, but you should do even more be evenwe need to smarter. we need more the ability to work even better together. we need to develop new and modern innovative capabilities. to exerciserain and even better together. more responsive for the so plows carry on onnsforming -- please carry transforming in order to keep it relevant accord. demanding.e that will demand resource. that will demand not on resources but i'm asesources and cautious and vigilant about the nato thanresource of on the how man resources of any nato.n we stud keep the balance. peopleon't get good motivated and we don't get enough good people we are at

risk. ford for nato is a dynamic posture with balanced ro resourced. i'm sorry.hink -- >> no -- strongallies have not as now as -- it seems like russia at all by nato, that is seems that they in the as anato was seen alliance against kind of soviet empire the and now there is -- is there is weakness that was sent to the russians so that they in europe?steps do you have the impression that crisisve too much in to management and not enough in collective defense? is that an impression that was

given to the russians and do you think that 10 or 15 years guy russians could have done what they do t. in the last few months? answers to the many calls he has got to take part in crisis the benefit of security. and and i think nobody can say that we cannot leave the impression that nato is not fulfill its task. nato is ready to fulfill its collective defense task for its members because it is the

charter of nato. the essence of collective defense. this is the essence of the concept of this one for all/all one endeavor. and this should be and i must add that at h stage considering at this stage considering the situation and there has been evolution and ha i will i'm not in because place to command but there has been a lot of command to that i any towabout what happens -- nat happens now and there shouldn't be -- and there is stronger commitment, there shouldn't bemy miscalculation by anybody about the will and protectty of nato to its own members. i can tell you that according to my responsibility of training and exercising the forces, they in very good shape. we can certainly do better and we are looking to improve that they are in very

good shape. lot are able to fulfill a of tasks and i think nobody can take the risk to check to test sure.or >> so you think what happened in ukraine could not happen in another country that is a member of nato because nato is strong and it is -- for any poem people would like to address? >> we have nothing like crystal balls. we have not to speculate, we reality ofe from the the world and forces that we face. you that i am confident. we must be vigilant because of question of resources because we need really to cope that in the long run. resilience is the key.

we should be able to maintain this ability for the long-term. that is why i'm a great of dynamic posture because this is the way we will call defending the to makef the crisis sure there couldn't be any misunderstanding about the ability. nato has notecause got the same presence at the borders that during the cold war able to answer to the call. of capell has a lot capabilities. still that nuclear alliance and that would be recalled during the summit and it has a strong stronger even more flexible conventional capabilities today and thank is the experience which was logged during the last two decades. to that.emind ourself we have very experimented soldier, pilots, sailors -- experienced soldiers, pilots,

sailors who have gone through a lot of different crisis and i from my own experience that we a young and talented people as well who are really part of our that i toe forces and i can -- nato see that in myn proper command. amazing the amount of experience beingave logged while very young. we can capitalize on that so there shouldn't be any miscalculation about the will and capabilities of any to natoo fulfill its task. >> speaking of exercisesnd deter deterrents, can you give us a.c. t.'s view of how hosten the high force should be deployed or exercised to strengthen deterrences? related question is this row form of the n.r.f. and nato's readiness forces is it sufficient and proportional to

have beenussians doing for some time between before ukraine, particularly putin's emphasis on surprise sudden 24 hour rapid and exercises much brigade levele forces you are talking about for the readiness force? >> this is a huge question we time toke a long answer. but in a nut shell, i mean this we try toence of what develop -- if i come back a few seconds on the a.c.t. missions to answer your questions. we are in charge of looking in call thee at what we strategy because we work with them often and fruitfully so we evolution ofg the the strategy just to check how to could evolve and a lot of things which happen today have been more or less foreseen by ourself.cessor and by

it is important to note this said ind that is why i my introduction this we were not so surprised by what happened that itsomewhere we saw could come. and on the basis of those are developing the plans, planning process of nato, capabilities, the equipment and the requirement for requirement and the wellraining exercises as to make sure that one could match with the other and that those forces not only answer to of today but of tomorrow and the next decade time to buildes forces. so, and that is why we need as well a strong and permanent resources because it takes time to build a strong alliance. it took time to build a relevant

resources because it takes time to build a strong alliance. it took time to build a relevant capabilities. but if you reduce your efforts you can look at very rapidly -- loss that very rapidly and this of the message about the resources. at the end of the day what we balanceeep is the right between kind of permanent is strongerh credible national forces which to enter and to do that mainly for the defense of their own country but with the overall combiningf nato in all of these forces together and reenforcing where it is needed and when it is needed those forces. response ofgh forces enough, this is a spear head of something much bigger if needed. but this is a clear and visible demonstration of the ability of nato to be present where it is

showd and where it should the visible assurance of this world. so the answer about how he would train, are we i see that to keep thisigh responsiveness of force we should train it on a very short notice and this is exactly what we work on and this differentg in a environment. i would say as often as possible, visible. but this is a price to pay, i say, for if we want a readiness force ad to be able to deploy at short notice without delay and ofa different type environment. so much, much more dynamic be.eption of what it should

were in youru current position and the whole crisis erupted in ukraine, how ukraine, how did that and i apologize if you have already been asked, how did that change your flans and your vision of how training and pursued? should be >> it re enforced us, i speak very frankly here, i really hope trust me that it reenforced myin my vision and priorities. when i come to this command i put readiness training exercising as a first and foremost priority what we cull the connected forces initiatives. i'm a believer that this is the basis ofthis is the the credibility of our forces. happened there showed me that we need to be even more

that we in those term dynamic more more activities and i gave you some figures previously that demonstrate that we are able to provided that we have the will. are many national binational activities which can demonstrate even better the will of the nations a work together and build nato umbrella and that is exactly what we did and that is willning in thest and you see that -- in the east and you will see that developing again inh a full plan to do that 2014 and the next year. the end of theat day the situation even more transformation, in initiative,orces smart defense. someure there will be

projectson about new on defense, project to work future cape develop thcapabilities and this is the well.ews as the current situation is asking for more and more on that. more transformation and more effective, more deliverable, transformation. natou mentioned how training almost on a daily bay is sis. >> yep. compare to twot years ago or four years ago? case?at still the is we try to draw on the experience of the past but there theoom to reinvest dividends if i may say so of the and crisis demand

everything is about the balance and with limited resources we to select what we do. was don't lose -- we cannot afford to lose this and this was invest to capitalize on capabilities aptitudes so those that we have developed should be reinvested in training and exercising. i remember i must remind you yeartwo years guy or one ago some people were asking why were you doing that because there is no more risk bus you relax in a certain way, not -- withdrawal which is the withdrawal by the way of afghanistan, the changing nature in afghanistan, why

reinvesting in the high level training and the answer is quote obviously because we must and that is how it happened. weren a one year time we able and this is just to praise my people more than anything were able to propose a very ambitious and a very dough commanding training and exercise plan that was difficult to sell to the nations because is demanding in some nowadays they understand we we propose such an ambitious plan. are understanding it is not only a tactical perspective this toa strategic perspective any tow to be able to do that -- to nato to be able to do this demonstrate the training. clear endorsement by the ago.ters was done one year

>> and then before all of that, before you started going the been muchould have less frequent? >> the training was basically crisis management and to delivering a training afghanistan which was very demanding, by the way. specific to the crisis and i would say that the nations alone or more -- and links andure nato exercise policy and training was reduced quite dramatically and that is why we reenergize andto to reinvigorate the training because we felt that he would were at risk. that is why i pushed that as a first and foremost priority for arrived.d when i >> you mentioned the demand of

resources. the transatlantic finance ministers have been limited to more nato units than any russian general. looking at the economic gap and shortage as one to natotrategic threats to be a gape seems and shortage not just in capabilities but in operational that as you said, nato has the people, it had the capabilities but it doesn't have money to use them or to said them robustly as you your compatriot, the commander ucom said he has had to ground up to 25% of u.s. combat airpath in europe. one of the largest mediterranean of thein nato, most ships are rustin rusting in port afford toey can't send them out. you said one was r & d.

operational costs. is the alliance investing to training,ore rebust exercise and readiness of having deplorable forces? agree with you that single -- the best intent anthe world could make aircraft this is for sure and i know this better than anybody else. i struggle to keep the relevance in my airof training force and a lot of poe people cd explain that to you and we struggle for the operational investment. of the question, a complex, absolutely fascinating to solvethat we have for military forces, on the one to invest on have the future. and there are opportunities in

because if youre are able to invent that, if you sameble to put all of the sim between science and imagine how he would can reach our objectives in more effective using those technologies. on the other hand we have to focus on the short to middle term. how we maintain what we have today and we take the best of we havebilities that today. how we modernize the legacy mix sure that they are still relevant and we can use it because we will not be able to modernize that on the short-term and on the other hand we have to of thesehe maintenance activities for training and exercise and the answer -- answering as well to the previous question. there was a tendency and this was such a strong advocate in reinvesting in training and exercise because tendency andtrong there still is a tendency of row

reducing thepot -- spot of the operating costs because it sees the less visible part. this is not like investment like thes is not organization something that is less visible but which is so important. this, we have to keep balance and that is why we have to secure those operating, exercising maintenance to keep the we want relevance of our forces and this is true for one single country and true for nato as well. tot we can do is to try organize that better to keep efficiency, better out of the overall investment that it represents. essence is exactly the of connect the forces and i

defense. smart in training together we optimize the training. if the nations are training doing a greate job for themself but they are not improving the overall effectiveness of nato and what we propose to the nation saying you will keep your national investment but let's put that in the perspective and doing that reenforcee can without further investment. so he would are gaining in efficiency. are gaining in effectiveness. >> smart defense. >> and this is exactly the essence. for the 2015 exercise will -- for instance, canada offered a contribution and it be a link and distance and toy will do their own but any tow. we will get the same objective lifeame scenario and the part of the exercise their forces is part of a deployment training. is exactly what i would dynamicxibility and

posture being able to deploy the forces where it is needed. spain and italy and portugal where we will dough to deploy them but only after we have trained the of it distance. and you don't need the people to be together in the same place. thateed they are connected they are together and prepare together and that takes money improves the efficiency. much.nk you very >> my pleasure. question? no? if you have a question. question? put a >> after. >> afterward. thank you. >> moving on. >> pleasure. >> thank you. a timee want to get for --

>> just to -- >> if you need some time. others do nothe hesitate to call me. my call.u before and after the summit. are ready to answer to your questions. >> okay. -- when we reconvene the meeting in a few months time summit with the same team. the dream team. thank you very much for your attention. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] next [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] how campaignsbout use polling information and then a conversation with rob portman. a town hall meeting which looks at the implications of recent events in ferguson,

missouri. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. until the campaign and we have been looking at the elements of campaigns, and we will learn about the science and work of polling. we have two guest joining us. joining us here in studio is doug usher, with the group purple strategies. and from philadelphia, kellyanne conway, a pollster and strategist. to both of you, thank you for joining us. guest: to her for having us. guest: good morning. host: there was "a washington

articlereet -- that said about your j- doug usher, what you think about that? it is true, and is becoming a little more high 538 areas sites like shining a light on the profession. there are cases where things go wrong, and that was the case in the eric cantor case if you months ago. host: kellyanne conway, what would you add to that? i agree, and i would hope there is more great transparency .ndustrywide and scrutiny frankly, there is not enough it's -- of similar scrutiny and transparency