matt wood, fred campbell, thank you very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] announcer: we could hear more of the federal appeals court decision when fcc chair talks at the national press club on monday. he was like about the future of wireless technology and other communication issues. that will be live at 1:00 eastern on c-span two. 50 is not a new 30 and 60 is not the new 40. 60 is the new 50, and it looks ok. people have a right to own their age and we are not talking about being over 50 as the. period of decline. >> joanne jenkins talks about the challenges older americans

face and what aarp is doing to assist them. she is the author of the book "assist aging, a bold new to living your life at every age >>." >>the second is people over 100. so when these programs were put in place, life expectancy was 67 or 68. not only are there more people in the system, but they are living longer. so we have to be able to look at these programs and make meaningful adjustments that is going to be allow people live with dignity and a much longer period of time. &a. uncer: 8:00 eastern on q announcer: next, a look at army readiness with general david allen. he spoke about modernization efforts. he also acknowledged the recent mass shooting in orlando, offering his condolences to

those affected by the mass shooting in orlando, florida. from the heritage foundation this is one hour. , [applause] justin johnson: good morning. it is my honor to introduce general allyn to you. to you this one. we'll have a few remarks. as you know, the challenges facing every today are significant from historically small size of the army, increasing threats around the globe, so the army really is facing potentially a turning point. general allyn is the 35th vice chief of staff of the u.s. army. he took that post last august, he is a native of berwick, maine, graduate of the u.s. military academy at west point. previously served as commander of the united states army forces command at fort bragg. he also served as commanding general for the 118th airborne corps, the first cavalry division, a number of other roles leading up to that point, chief of staff and multinational

core iraq. joint assignments include the the joint improvised explosive device organization, operations directorate. general allyn is perhaps the most uniquely qualified for this conversation because of his history of serving in leadership roles at basically every level in the army from platoon through division level, staff assignment at the battalion to the joint staff level. he served in korea, granada, egypt, panama, saudi egypt, -- saudi arabia, egypt, panama, kuwait, iraq, and most recently in afghanistan. he also has a masters degree from the naval war college, so a little bit of a navy thrown in there as well. without further do, let me introduce to you, the 35th vice chief of staff of the u.s. army, general dan allyn. [applause]. daniel b. allyn: well, i don't know about you, but i get a little bit tired of my bio.

it tends to wear me down just thinking about it. good to see to see old friends here today. thank you for joining in. it is an honor, first of all to be here today, but before i begin, brief introductory phase of remarks. i do want to extend our heartfelt condolences to all of those stricken in orlando and all the families recovering from that tragedy. obviously, it reminds us that even here at home, it is a dangerous environment. and i know that our hearts go out to all of the families that are working through the horrific events of this past weekend. so we certainly in the army are all too familiar with tragedy but it is something that most , often brings us together to address how do we go from here and where do we go, how do we move forward.

i suspect as a nation we will do so. that is an opening. we in the army have been focused on this very unstable world for and wet several years, certainly don't see conditions in the world improving in fact, we see instability on the rise virtually in every combatant command area of operation. so what does that mean for the army? well for the army that means , that we have prioritized readiness to ensure that we can deliver the forces and the capabilities that are needed by our combat commanders to enhance stability in these very unstable parts of the world and respond to the crises that emerge. and the challenge for us in the current fiscal environment, most of you, know since 2010, by the time we finish the drawdown path that we are on, we will have

reduced 120,000 soldiers from the strength we were at in 2010. so at a time when crisis around -- crises around the world are on the rise and instability is on the rise, the forces available in the united states army to provide trained and ready capabilities in response to those are in a reverse vector. so we are constantly working to ensure we balance as best we can. the delivery of ready forces and ready capabilities to meet emerging demands. while still understanding the challenges of the future and building the force that we will need for the future. the challenge that you have in a suppressed fiscal environment is, at least for the army, readiness must remain number one, and that means we have a tendency to consume our

readiness as fast as we can generate it. respects, many mortgage our ability to build the force that we are going to need in the near future. so, that is a tough environment to be in, but it is the situation that we face. and i will try to calibrate a bit for you what i mean by the demands that our army 187,700 -- our army faces. today, there are 187,700 total soldiers are serving around the globe. in 140 different locations. those are as i mentioned total force soldiers, but only 5000 of those soldiers are from the national guard and reserve. so meeting our day-to-day current operational tempo, we are operating as a total force in doing so, which is a good new s story. we are sustaining sustaining the operational readiness of our reserve component, but it does

at risk, because as most of you know, the reserve capacity is part of our search capacity to respond to a significant crisis that, as yet today, has not emerged. so we have to balance how much of that available force and reserve component is being leveraged to meet current operational tempo. right now for the army, we are meeting about 64% of the combatant commanders' planned needs that the department of , defense delivers and 64% of% of what is being provided to combat commanders comes from the united states army. that is what we know about when each year starts. and then as is always the case, , there are emerging demands that come out that were not planned for. and the united states army

provides about half of the emerging demand that comes at us. that tempo and that demand signal has been very steady. the number i cited for you of nearly 188,000 troopers, the variance on that in the last two years has been less than 10%. the demand signal is steady, and it describes to you why our chief of staff of the army and secretary of the army have placed the priority on readiness. they continue to meet that demand of trained and ready forces. now simultaneously, we have focused on transitioning from a principally counterinsurgency focused force to one that is ready for high spectrum combat operations. and for many soldiers in the united states army, the force that entered into this war had

had the benefit of about two decades of focus on that type of warfare. and so the average battalion , commander going into a combat six to 10 combat training center rotations where they prepared for that type of operational demand. our current battalion commanders in many cases are experiencing their second or third decisive action combined arms of maneuver in a high-intensity combat environments. and the good news is that is on the rise. we have provided every brigade combat team that has gone to the combat training center this year an opportunity for that type of environment, even those preparing for advise and assist missions in iraq and afghanistan. so we build a bench of trained and ready leaders that can

respond to these types of situations. so the readiness trends, while our search capacity has not been growing, because the emerging demands have continued to place a high premium on that, we had had been able to build the leadership experience of our tactical commanders to be able to respond to high-intensity combat should it emerge. so i am comfortable with the trend lines we are on in terms of achieving our readiness goals. i am less comfortable with where we are at in terms of modernization. we have the trade-off that you face, specially especially in the united states army, our primary weapon system is the soldier. so, rightfully so, about 60% of our annual budget pays for our soldiers and our civilians.

about 50% for our soldiers, about 10% for our civilians. so that leaves 40% less to address readiness and modernization. about 22% of that is consumed in readiness generation, and that leaves about 18% for modernization. and when you look at the 700 to 800 portfolios that we currently have for equipping our army, that gets spread very, very thin. we have been forced to prioritize our modernization efforts to address the emerging demands, particularly in high-intensity combat, and we have a very focused effort on divesting obsolete or redundant systems so that we can apply increased funding toward our priority needs. my expectation is that this

picture that we are currently facing is not going to change in the near future. and so, we must look internally to the best of our ability to make the most of what we have, to address the emergent needs that are out there, and i think the prioritization that we have undergone over the course of the past year, to address that has been very, very helpful to us in that effort. it it is an uncertain world, and world, but i am often asked, what is it that keeps you up at night? my immediate immediate response to that question is, nothing. i'm so darn tired by the time i get home i sleep very well, thank you. truthfully, what enables me to sleep very well is the quality of the leaders that we have in the united states army at every echelon.

on a daily basis, those leaders are performing extraordinary, heroic actions. they are making tough decisions in very, very complex and unpredictable environments. and they are making extraordinary contributions to stability around the globe. and so i would love to talk to , you about those leaders or any other topic that is on your mind. and with that, that concludes my prepared remarks, and i look forward to your questions and your areas of focus and interest. [applause] james jay carafano: thank you all. i'm the vice president for the hearing. i thought we just have a conversation but a few comments that were sparked by your remarks. i will can get off, and then if you have a question, i would get to you if you raise your hand. we have some microphones. please wait for the microphone

and state your name and affiliation. we'll broaden the conversation in the time that we have. so one question i want to ask is, you know, one of the things that heritage does every year is index with the u.s. military where we try to gauge and a consistent way the level of u.s. military capacity from year to year. so one of the concerns that we talked about in the 1970s and again in the 1990s is this idea of the notion that when you add everything up at the end of the day, not have enough trained and ready forces to conduct the operations that you have and to prepare for the future. having to make compromises somewhere in that triangle. that really left you vulnerable, maybe looking at a broadway the raw numbers showed. my question is, how concerned are you about that today? how do you do find risk, and where do you see the u.s. army in terms of it? daniel b. allyn: i think you highlight the daily challenge that are chief and secretary face, and that is, how, how do you deliver the most capable force you can in a resource constrained environment?

and you can't have it all. that is just a rough fact. and so, our focus on readiness and ensuring that no soldier, no unit is sent into a mission for which they have not been adequately prepared, adequately equipped, and expect to be well -led. that promise is one we will adhere to. now the downside of that is, we are definitely facing the potential that two to three years down the road the ability to ensure that we deliver the most modern equipment possible is where we have accepted risk. and so, you know, there is a number of ways you tackle that problem. fundamentally, it is a math problem, right? so we have begun to look at how we prioritize prioritize -- how do we i were ties delivery of capability to a

-- prioritize delivery of capability to a smaller number of units rather than try to spread the butter for 35 years across the portfolio. we know that by doing that their -- there is a couple of dynamics at play, frankly. technology is changing so fast that we think by the time you field a smaller set, you are going to be going after new or, -- newer more modern capability , anyway. so it is less of a problem that it may have been in the past. i think we're all of us struggle is, should we get into a scenario where it is up here -- thatr or a near peer requires a massive response from the united states military and at the end of that pipeline, you're going to stand a chance that some of those forces will not be as adequately prepared and equipped as they should be. james jay carafano: so really it's taking risk in terms of

modernization capacity, it will get you so far, but then down the road is where the risk really rises up. so trying to square that, you he mentioned the total force. active force,the the army reserve. sober -- so how are things of the army national guard these days? thever people deal with apache issue and how is the relationship going? how is that picture of trained and ready forces? daniel b. allyn: first of all, when i say army, i mean total army. so that is tends to be how we communicate. we communicate as one army, we are one army, we fight and plead -- bleed as one army. so first and foremost, your army is doing very well, thank you very much for your interest. as you know, the national commission on the future the army brought forward a number of recommendations on how we could deliver a more capable force in

the future. 63 of them in all. actually, one of the recommendations is so important , we made it twice. so there's actually 62 that we are focused on. there are a number of those that include increased capacity, increased focus on delivering readiness, and as you mention, one of the recommendations retained for apache battalions in the national guard. between our unfunded requirement list to congress for their presidents budget of this year, and the budget that we are in the current stage of preparing, you will see a number of those d, andendations actione the challenge that we face, to be brutally honest, is that the national commission brought forward a great in-state, a

better future army, and a number of ways to get there, but it was not provided means, and a strategy strategy has to put all three together. so what we have done is looked within our budget to get after the most important issues first, and some of those clearly involve increasing our readiness, delivering more training center rotations to our national guard brigade combat teams, which you'll see next year's budget, reestablishing a brigade in korea. that is a critical capability, the commission made a recommendation we have resourcing strategy to get after that. of course, the four apache battalions, whether that is addressed in the currents and eaa or we address it through another submission, we attend to

-- intend to get after that to the best of our ability. i think what is most important is that we are working together to improve the readiness of the total army, all its components, and that is not an easy challenge. 39 days of training in a given year does not a ready unit to make. so we have really got to address how we increase the resourcing for those units most likely to have to deploy on a very tight timeline in response to a contingency and ensure that we have got additional time and additional funding and additional training for those units. james jay carafano: since most of the constraints are about means and resources, let me ask you a few forward-looking questions. i know much of the planning in the pentagon is based on what we have to operate under, since that is the reality we are in. let's project forward to a new administration and a difference

of national priorities and perhaps loosen the expanding the availability's into the military and services. let's look at two things, first of all, if we could grow the force instead of shrinking it, what you do? would be more forward deployed forces? who would be in the forces you want? what would be first on your list? where you take that? daniel b. allyn: suffice to say, this is a policy decision. political leadership will decide are we going to change our posture or stance? clearly there is recommendations in the national commission's report that address where we should have additional forward presence. the european commander in his confirmation hearing made a clear statement about where his druthers were on sustaining the rotational force presence that

we have there now. as you know, in eastern europe starting on the first of january, we will have a full-time presence in the army brigade combat team. we have committed to resourcing that requirement, and the question was asked of general scott, given the choice would -- given the choice, which would you rather have, forward a rotational? and he stated his preference to have forward station. now from the army's perspective, there is a lot of benefits, particularly toward deterrence of forward station forces but , there's also sustaining cost s that elevate when you do that. so we have got to weigh that and respond to the policy decisions that are made. suffice to say, we know what the capabilities in the army are most under stress, and the

direction that we are on right now to reduce our end strength. we know which capabilities that we need. so we'll be prepared to deal with that should there be a change in direction. james jay carafano: let me put the same question to you in terms of modernization. so if you had additional directed and you could -- direct it toward modernization, what would you do with it? daniel b. allyn: we have already prioritized within our current prioritized within our current modernization plan, so it would be a matter of addressing those priorities. we have high response requirements to deliver protective systems on our combat vehicles and in our aviation platforms. we have great needs to modernize our aviation portfolio both in terms of an improved engine and eventually a new aircraft

platform basically. we have got critical needs in addressing cyber vulnerabilities across our network. we have got to continue to get after that. we have already sustained our focus, despite all the cuts that wetook in modernization, preserved our snt portfolio so that as emerging demands come out there, we have a focused investment strategy and that, but my expectation is as we continue to look after peer competitors out there, there is going to be gaps that we have to prioritize and get after. that is a critical focus as we move forward as well. james jay carafano: let me ask one more question, and then i would like to bring in the audience as well for that. there's a lot of reporting about the army trying to increase the efficiencies with the resources that it has currently.

so different initiatives, reducing the number of non-deployable's, so you have more forces in the field, looking for ways to have -- not have people rush in to spend your funds so you can find a way , to recycle that money and use it more efficiently. so from your perspective, could you address some of those things and which ones you think are actually going to deliver for the army in terms of actually bringing back some resources? daniel b. allyn: yeah we must be , good stewards of the resources we are provided. we know we can do better, and we have a number of initiatives underway to ensure that we deliver on that. for instance, we are, we very much have excess capacity in our infrastructure across the department of defense footprint, certainly in the united states army, about 33% access to current strength levels.

that the likelihood of a flat is not very high. but we have to right size within our own capacity to ensure that, if we can consolidate our current force strength into the buildings that are in the best shape and set aside those that are in poor condition or failing -- james jay carafano: you can give those to the marines. daniel b. allyn: yeah, no. the marines will take care of their own internal issues. i have no doubt in the leadership's ability to do that. but we, you have identified one of the most pressing problem so we have, and that is our personal readiness. quite frankly, it is the number one variable in delivering ready forces in the future as we have come down in size. we are struggling with about 10%

of our four-speed not available. the majority for medical reasons. so we have to find ways to ensure that we get them the help they need and enable them to transition more quickly so that we can get a ready replacement back into the system to meet the needs that are out there for our soldiers. james jay carafano: on that particular issue, that is interesting. do you have a realistic goal of what kind of percentage you could recoup if you dealt with that portion of the force or efficiently? daniel b. allyn: across the entire army, we have 100,000 non-deployable soldiers today. james jay carafano: and that is for people in schools and stuff like that? daniel b. allyn: no, that's predominantly soldiers that cannot fill their position and deploy to perform the tasks for which they were enlisted into the army. so we have 80% of that is in the medical realm.

we know that we can gain efficiency in terms of speed with which we transition these folks back to full readiness or back to another phase of a soldier for a life journey. but suffice to say that we are probably talking maybe 10,000 that we can expect to get back in by those means. and we have got to continue to work with the veterans administration on the vast majority of the rest of them to ensure that we transition them to veteran administration care as efficiently and effectively as possible and again so we can deliver ready forces. james jay carafano: so is it primarily a resource challenge, or just a process? daniel b. allyn: it takes time. that process now takes too long.

we need to shorten it. we are working with the veterans administration leadership to do that. james jay carafano: i will open it up to the force of you have questions. just raise your hand, we will get a microphone here are the second round. -- for the second round. fromneral, sidney freberg breaking defense. i'm in a different world from friday where there is the technology conference by defense one, secretary carter and others, mr. miller talking about fugitive abilities, exciting technology from robotics and big data and cyber, to direct energy. and now i come back down to earth, i think here -- what part of the third offset ambition ,ision is wrong for the army and to what degree is it a bunch of really cool things that you guys just can't get to in the

budget with modernization where it is, where you have to focus on much more immediate near-term off-the-shelf things like active protection, for example? daniel b. allyn: we are thankful that the defense secretary is pursuing this, because it does enable a focus on what we need 15 to 20 years down the road, which will maintain a much more critical -- we will maintain a much more critical focus on. we know particularly in the area integrated air defense and long-range precision fires that there are very, very specific capabilities that hold promise that we are working very carefully with dr. roper and his team to address gaps that we have that we know they can help us close. and so, we are focused on

building that future army while delivering the forces needed today by combatant commanders. james jay carafano: you talked about the role of integrated air defense. one of our friends here had is in the army commission for saying -- highlighted in the army commission report saying the increasing possibility of operating in the theater where you don't have your superiority, let alone the right. and so we look at the analysis of focusing on the balkans, and we would say, what would be nato's capability to control it be in balance? say, let's have more air force or go back on these capabilities, let's look at these technologies. what would that mix of solutions look like to you? daniel b. allyn: the bottom line

is we are better as a joint force, and we have to take a joint force approach to it. we have got the best air force in the world, best navy in the world, best army in the world, and we are going to keep it that way because we are going to fight together as a joint team. we are specifically looking at what army capabilities are necessary, and frankly, we believe the army is going to play a role in seizing at least temporary control of airspace to enable destruction of enemy capabilities that then enable the joint force to deliver only what they can deliver. ,o you know, we are accustomed in the united states army, to have to fight a close fight. we expect that to be the case in the future. we believe we deliver the types of forces that can operate in that highly contested environment and create conditions favorable to our

nation. james jay carafano: what would that look like? more organic and ability in brigades, -- capability in brigades, more deployable to theaters? daniel b. allyn: i think you are going to see a very distributed force that can harness the joint effects in a very decentralized way and create condition that -- create conditions that enable us to have the kind of outcomes that we need to deliver. james jay carafano: [indiscernible] guy. this >> iwatch everybody. general allyn, thank you very much for highlighting all of these efforts. i am michael krauss, soldier, no longer young, two wars, five contingencies. i've been in three armies. the drafted army, the hollow army, and the professional army.

you highlight the soldier obviously. the soldier is everything to our citizen army. what worries me is the morale of the force and the support of that force by the nation. my question is going to be from one of the statistical indicators for retention, for recruitment, for medical care, for post stress care of the soldier. you mentioned 100k non deployable. you mentioned 180 plus k that have been ripped. how is the morale is my , question? daniel b. allyn: the morale is good in our army today and i , would say that is true across the entire army. particularlyething the sergeant major of the army is focused on it each and every

day. he is specifically spending time on capitol hill making sure that they understand some of those deficiencies being considered in the current -- and the current ndaa will begin to create a condition in the armed forces, not just the army, but the armed forces where it is death by 1000 cuts. a little cut here, little cut there, what is 1% here. it all adds up. the bottom line is, what has enabled us to be the trusted professionals that we are today is this great all-volunteer force that we had built. that all-volunteer force, as you know, emerged from the post- vietnam era and has become a the professional envy of the world. and we need to be very, very, very deliberate in adjustments

that we make and ensure that in pursuit of $1 million here or $1 million there, we are not destroying the very trust that enables us to continue to bring great patriots to serve in our armed forces. and i will tell you, if there is what i believe to be a national concerned that is not been fully addressed, it's a small percentage of the current 18 24-year-old population in america that can serve in the military. the last survey that was done was about 360,000 americans in the 18 to 24-year-old realm that can meet the prerequisites to serve in the military. the army needs 120,000 just to sustain its current force. all right? we are competing against all other services, businesses, samersities for that segment of the population. if they don't see a great

opportunity for service in uniform, then the sacrifice that is inherent in this service will begin to weigh on their decision process, and that is something that we must be very, very focused on as we move forward. james jay carafano: can you talk about were the army is in terms of this? what is the status, how do you see going forward? daniel b. allyn: sticking to your original question about morale, one of the indicators of the strength of morrell is that our retention remains very, very strong. we have over retained in several of the last few years, and we have actually had to ask people to leave because, as we have gotten smaller, we have gotten in certain ranks and grades for the force that

we will be in the future. these people we are asking to leave our professionals. -- are professionals. most of them, over 50% have two or more combat deployments. they have answered the call and done good service for the nation, but as we have gotten smaller, we have had to ask them to consider another phase of their journey as a soldier for life. that has been not an easy task to take on. recruiting is where we see the greater challenge. it's a very competitive environment. frankly, there is still many youth in america. not many parents want their child to join an army that is at war. newsflash. so we are competing against parents, we are competing against a very prolific job market. shape so they are not being -- the economy is in pretty good

shape, so they are not being forced to consider service in the military. so again, that is the one we are watching very, very carefully as we move forward. we know that we will be strained this year to meet the objectives that we have been recruiting. -- that we have in recruiting. we have put more recruiters on the street. we're putting our very best out there. we all have to stay after it. james jay carafano: right here. i will get your question, i promise. i swear. sir. i would like to get your take on what i have heard as a declining emphasis on work that you and i have done together which is in the inter-agency, non-kinetic space. i am talking about space, talking about civil affairs, technological operations, peacekeeping operations as well as security cooperation, all the non-kinetic stuff that really is what teachers, prevents, stabilizes. you talked about the current

threat really being one of instability. so, i would love to get your take on how we reconcile the fact that this is really one of the areas that i have seen the most declining interest and resourcing, and yet it being the most important for the force of the future, for the threats of the future, and most importantly and what you describe as a fiscally suppressed environment. one of the most cost-effective. it is not hardware intensive, it is not smt intensive, it is up here intensive. it's mental hardware. i would love to get your take on how to reconcile it. james jay carafano: is it a part of the 40% requirement with the day-to-day operations you cannot meet? daniel b. allyn: if you do the fundamental math it is not 40% of what we can't meet, but most of what we cannot meet is based on demand that exceed supply. in other words, they are asking

for a capability that we do not have in sufficient ready capacity, or it is another performing task that is a higher priority. but morgan, to your points, we have been very focused on continuing to deliver what the combatant commanders need for both security cooperation type activities as well as institution-building, many of -- in many of the developing parts of the world. the beauty of that effort as you highlight is that it can be effective in an economy of for ce rule. if you look at the continent of africa as an example, we have a , few thousand soldiers over there hitting well above their weight class on a daily basis, i am talking sergeants and lieutenants delivering strategic effects by building the capacity of our allies and partners to be able to contribute to stability

in that region after we have finished working with them. it is a constant balancing act. we are major proponents of supporting what the combatant commanders need to shape and prevent conflict because we , would much rather stay in that phase than what we are currently experiencing afghanistan, iraq, syria, and other places. there is always going to be tension. i will tell you based on the most high demand keep abilities of the army delivers on a daily basis, civil affairs psychological operations, many , of our enabling capabilities like engineer support, the commitment level that we have for those forces speaks to the fact that they are being employed by our combatant commanders to help contribute. so is it enough, clearly i know

where you feel on that. but it's a balancing act of how much can we give and how do we meet the most critical needs. james jay carafano: we will come down the front. you.i told you, john harper with national defense magazine. you touched on the modernization priorities but on the individual soldier level, what kind of wearable technologies are you hoping to pursue to pursuit to increase the capabilities of the individual soldier? thanks. daniel b. allyn: we have been focused on soldiers for a number of years here. as a soldier who came up from a light infantryman, reducing the weight of the soldiers carry, getting commonality on batteries for the multitude of enabling capabilities that are

our soldiers carry having solar , powered recharging capabilities so we are not dragging generators everywhere we go. the networked radio that we are delivering for our soldiers today is extraordinary. it is giving the capability for squad leaders to do that which only company commanders could do a decade ago. so delivering greater capability to the edge, we have if you look , at the individual body armor that we crossed the berm within in 2003 and compared it to what our soldiers are today, it's amazing, both in form, fit, function, weight, and most important, survivability. we have reduce the weight of our combat helmet for every soldier on the battlefield.

the challenge that i struggle with, frankly, as the vice that i work with new capabilities coming forward. we save a pound here, people want to add a pound there. it is a struggle, but there is a great little pamphlet written about the soldiers mobility of a nation. about six years ago that remains , as true today as it does them. that's what we remain very , very focused on. today, the battlefield, a team leader, or a squad leader, can deliver just about any enabling capability that exists in the joint arsenal, and that is exactly what we must be able to do as we move forward in that -- the kind of environments that we expect to be operating in. >> thank you very much.

i am a doctor. you just mentioned that the challenges and the magnitude of challenges and complexity of challenges, continues to increase continues to increase. , at the same time, the world. is going from transportations to a multi-connected world. in that case, there will be other countries competing with the usa. they are already operating relatively on thin ice because of problems. how do you think the u.s. will really match those ources which are adversities, and you also mentioned in afghanistan, and i would like to know what was , the biggest challenge that you

had to deal with in afghanistan when it comes to degree of difficulty? thank you. daniel b. allyn: two easy questions, thank you. first of all, in the environment that we face today and the environments that we expect to face for the next decade, it is going to put a premium on the united states leadership. so we are not going to be able to back away from that leadership role. many of our partners and allies around the world got smaller before we started doing so. so we are going to have to play a strong role but we will be , dependent upon partners and allies. and so as you look at the types , of activities that are underway in virtually every theater around the globe, we are working closely with partners

and allies on a routine basis to ensure that whatever capabilities they bring to bear, that they are interoperable with hours, -- ours, that is going to be a critical factor factor for us as we go forward. those of you who have been paying attention in eastern europe, you know that we have had a series of multinational exercises there over the last two years. there is a major exercise going on as we speak that poland is actually commanding this operation, and we are providing forces under their leadership. as part of the exercise, we projected forces from the global response force all the way from fort bragg, north carolina, to this exercise, where we conducted a combined forced entry operation with forces of multinational partners as well as the 173 from the station in

italy. so this type of very focused deterrence by interoperable partners is going to be huge part of how we address increased competitors, and deliver the best possible deterrence that the nation can afford. in terms of challenges that we face in afghanistan, what i will tell you, i was just there over memorial day weekend. the afghan security forces continue to perform admirably in a very, very highly contested environment. they have taken very high casualties, but they continue to defeat the taliban and to sustain stability in the most critical regions around the country. there is work to do to finish

the sustainability of that force overtime, so we have got to ,nsure that they are not just you know, a campaign-capable army, but a national, sustainable force as we go forward. signsk the most promising have been their commitment to put the right leadership into their formation. and the result when they do that is pretty significant in terms of enduring effects that they are going to try to achieve. it is a commitment that needs to endure, and it needs to be a commitment that we continue to lead, and that are nato partners continue to support as well. james jay carafano: i'm going to give justin the last question,

but before i do that, i am going to squeeze in one more. what i hate about the administration, new ideas in the 11th hour. so so we talk about the new personal policy, maybe not doing finding other ways to bring in technical people at different levels. it's really interesting personnel management ideas. some thoughts about things we might be able to continue to go with service, shifting back and forth between active-duty and civilian life. i wish they would've started seven years ago but ok, great. of those ideas, anything that you would really want to think that this is something we need to carry the momentum forward regardless who is the next guy or girl sitting in the secretary of defense desk? daniel b. allyn: secretary card is -- carter's initiatives is that we present opportunities to serve in the department of defense that are attractive in a very competitive environment we are in. that is ultimately what we are trying to do is demonstrate that

we are the profession of choice, the people matter to us, and that our policies and practices reflect that. so i think anything that enables us to assure permeability, that attracts talent and enables us to hire in a more responsive way can isat we currently better for the department of defense and certainly better for the united states army. i think the other aspect from the army's perspective on particularly the latest initiatives that were rolled out here in the past week, is it gives the secretaries of the services the authorities to use those tools that are needed, and that's important. you want to have a toolbox that enables you to adjust as you need to, and if you don't need it, the tool stays in the

toolbox. james jay carafano: getting beyond that industrial management approach to human capital management. having a flexible tool kit that allows you to get the talent you need when you need it. right? daniel b. allyn: we all know what life in a bureaucracy could be like right? justin johnson, heritage again. a few months ago general milly used the phrase, high military risk, high-end fear threats. can you unpack that in a way that makes sense outside the pentagon, outside the beltway? what does high military risk actually mean to the army, and what are the causes or underlying factors driving that assessment? daniel b. allyn: our current directive has us focused on delivering the ability to defeat a near peer competitor while denying the objectives of another near simultaneously. while sustaining our commitments

on the homeland sustaining our , current tempo of operations against violent extremists around the world, and ensuring that we can deter iran. so, when you look at those set of tasks that we have been given, and the force that we have available, that's where general milly drew that conclusion. and so, when you have to respond competitor in a theater of war and near simultaneously deploying forces to deny the objectives of another, therein lies the stress as we have gotten smaller across all keep abilities and capacities -- capabilities and capacities. and so that is the genesis of that comment, and it is a fairly fundamental math problem. when you get right down to it.

it is a combination of capabilities and capacity. in other words we have to have , sufficient, ready forces that can deliver on the timelines that combatant commanders need. that is what i want to distress -- that's where we're in distress. thingsow that breadth of that are at the advisors desks, we talked a lot about it today. i really appreciate that. we covered a lot of ground. so please join me in thanking the general. thank you for coming. [applause] daniel b. allyn: thank you, sir. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

not the neway 50 is 30 and 60 is not the new 40. 50 is the new 50. it's ok. people ought to own their age, and we ought not be talking about being over 50 as the time of the client. jenkins talksanne about the health and financial challenges older americans face and with aarp is doing to assist them. she is author of the book "disrupt aging .">> the radio -- "disrupt aging."