top moments of regret? i understand there are ups and downs of we have worked -- as we have witnessed. thank you. general ki-moon: it is not good timing for me to talk about what or what hasieved been a good moment for me. i am more of the regrettable speaking.ndly since you have raised this while webelieve that ofnk we are living in an era turmoil and challenges, the , importante shown guidelines and visions by sustainable development to goals and an agenda with goals which covers all spectrums of our

lives of human beings and planet earth. if we are able to implement and by 2030, i 17 goals am quite confident and will be very proud to say we are living in a world much more prosperous, much more peaceful and much healthier. -- much healthier for people and the planet. that is wanting. the same developmental goals, the climate change has been a separate track, a different track. of agreement has to be commended. it has taken longer than 10 years.

when i took over as the itretary-general in 2007, was not working at all. i thought that my priority as secretary-general should be on climate change. i have been really mobilizing all of the leaders and communities and i have been very asking the societies to raise their voices to challenge the world leaders. ,ow, with this paris agreement known as unthinkable, now it is unstoppable. one.y can stop this nobody can stop this one.

they all demand it. they know without changing our course, our consumption and with aion, without going climate resilient economy, capitalizing, then our future will be tragic. that is one thing which i have been able to awaken of the people's minds. that is one thing in which i am proud. and lee's 85to go years our target until 2100. i think we have stuck to very good -- we have made very the steps. , we canimplement this be proud. have,r one, at least i again, tried to change the

mentality of communities and societies that it is not only me n. equallyld lead together with women. there is a gender parity. but more women are living on this planet, and lee's equal rights should be given, politically, socially and economically and this is fundamental for human rights declaration, declaration of human rights. havehuman being, we must this. i've been trying to appoint as womenas many capable womenrs and the number of

i have appointed in my 10 years is much, much greater than the number of women appointed during my seven previous predecessors combined. my successor has committed in his oath of taking ceremony that , i do not of his term know when will be the end of his term -- [laughter] at least 10 years, then this world will be 50-50. by 2030, while the leaders have already committed by 2030, this world will be 50-50 planet. thank you. >> thank you. we have to go. thank you.

>> we have one more question. but we have to go, sir. announcer: portuguese politician willlomat antonio guterres be the ninth secretary-general next year. he was high commissioner for refugees for 10 years. here's a look at his swearing-in three-year -- three days ago rather, it is provided by reuters.

diplomat antonio guterres will replace been key moment as the secretary-general. and look at its wearing in. this video from war tears. -- in this video for more terse. hashe general assembly nominated -- a term of office beginning first january 2017 and ending on 31st december 21. -- 2021. i would knell -- i would now ask mr. guterres to take the oath of office as repeat after me. your right hand. , solemnly guterres

swear to exercise and all loyalty -- and all loyalty ofcretion and conscience functions entrusted it to me as secretary-general of the united to discharge of these functions and regulate my conduct with the interests of the united nations only interview only in a view and not instructionscept in regard to the performance of government or any other authority external to the organization. congratulations. [applause]

>> a live look at trump tower , new yorkthe lobby city as president-elect the donald trump continues today to meet with candidates for potential cabinet positions and senior-level spots as we continue to watch the comings and goings at trump tower. news item from a short time ago, rollcall reporting china's navy has seized and unmanned navy vehicle and international waters of the south china sea according to multiple reports. china considers the south china sea is domain and has build islands out of a reef which is claimed by multiple other countries and the u.s. navy is operated in international waters in the area to ensure freedom of navigation for all countries. at times, sitting ships and flying out -- aircraft. we will continue to watch trump tower in new york city.

announcer: a live look inside of the lobby of trump tower in new york city as the president-elect countries to meet with potential cabinet members and senior-level of hiss as part administration continues to watch this of you through the day. mr. trump is expected to move on to florida and other places over the weekend. a couple of tweaks from jennifer often bloomberg saying donald trump will do thank you rallies in orlando and mobile and take numerous meetings as spend christmas holiday with his family. kellyanne conway, other trump's

transition team and the lobby. -- of the trump transition team in a bound the lobby. -- in the lobby.

announcer: another tweet from jennifer jacobs that donald trump will be a florida this weekend and a most of all next week. that tweet from jennifer jacobs of bloomberg. a look inside the lobby at trump tower in new york city. we will continue to watch and you can watch throughout the day, every day while the camera shot is up on our website, [indiscernible] c-span.org and we will rally in orlando at 7:00 p.m., another

victory rally with the donald trump and mike pence. >> deputy defense secretary robert work is joining the army chief of staff, pacific commander as well as to defense contractors to talk about the future of u.s. determine strategy, focusing on china and russia. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to panel session eight. ,ormer secretaries of defense where we are and where do we need to go.

please welcome barbara starr, cnn pentagon correspondent. [applause] [laughter] >> the vice president of the united states. [applause] >> are we taking a picture? >> you all know the other two guys. >> all right. >> we are taking a group picture, against my will. let me set the stage for this session. i have standing room only and i'm sure nobody is here to hear what i have to think.

we'll have a very, interesting session. like most of the things i do, this is special to me because i do is a long time, very long time had to go i know both of these men. secretary cheney and his given -- two,ssion to give who secretary cheney. that is how i know him. the vice president was the first defense secretary i ever covered. secretary panetta was the first one i ever had to sit and take out when he moved to italian in his soundbite when he was upset about something. [laughter] irber: iraq -- a barbara: really cannot put that on tv. i do not really think we need to go through introductions, if you do not know who they are, you are probably in the wrong place.

i am going to start with a couple of anecdotes. i am taking the two former house members as well as the prerogative of the chair. we have everybody up there, too. hi. one of the things about defense secretary's who cover the outagon, you keep an eye because you never know when they will leave their office and go walking around. both of these gentlemen have a long history of doing that. secretary gates, secretary hagel also. secretary rumsfeld showed up in the cafeteria to it to lunch. secretary gates would walk around wherever he felt like it as a former cia director. in secretary hagel would walk around and either stop tourists or young troops, and start talking to them and ask them what they did. secretary cheney would be found

walking outside on his own, getting fresh air because he wanted it to. foras also quite well known turning up in hallways where you do not expect him. what as a young reporter, i found him in a corridor, in army corridor, and doubly for the deputy defense secretary and they were walking around. they aree, i think lost. it is no way he missed of the this corridor print do you go to the defense secretary and say, are you lost? it gave much has to talk to him. i asked if he was lost. he tells me the office he was looking for and turned him around as said, sir, you want to go that way. get out, walk around. secretary panetta, same thing but i want to share a different anecdote. he would bring the late, dearly

departed golden retriever to the building. one time they turn up in the press area to visit the press, bravo and a security detail. the we are having a nice conversation. it became apparent bravo was ready to leave and go back. bravo had had enough. bravo turned around and walked out of the press room is a this is the dog. the dominoes exactly where the office is. he is not lost. bravo turns around, this golden retriever, knows exactly where he is going followed by the secretary keeping up with the bravo followed by the secretary of security detail. to that old adage in washington, get a dog. pentagon press will be interested to see where general mattis turns up in the building.

that takes us to probably what everybody's interested in, the thoughts on the first and perhaps most immediate question. we now have general james mattis as a president-elect's nomination to become secretary of defense. questionshink anybody his capabilities. you are both previous members of the house, let's restore with you secretary cheney, your views on a waiver for a general, member of the military to serve as secretary of defense, what are your thoughts on this? both of you, i want to ask you to a dress this -- address this because it is general mattis, are we all saying, great, let's go ahead. or are there issues to reflect upon and think about why this country has that long that there civilian that there is

control and active duty military person should be out of the military for a number of years before they lead the armed services? general cheney: i think mattis is a great appointment. heartily endorse his selection. passing aon of waiver, of course, is a serious matter with convey and control. wayit was set up in such a we are now going to move people on active duty in the military and move them into that slot. it will always be a civilian or if it is former military within seven years, you have to have a waiver and we have only done that once with george marshall. just a quick story with respect to john marshall. when i was sworn in as secretary

, jim's picture was behind my desk in the office. the first secretary defense. i took it down. i can not want to claw to the same end he did. [laughter] shouldn't say that. >> only a few tv cameras. ipo marshallney: up instead for the service he rendered. and i do not think we have abused the waiver. i think it's appropriate and i would support it. kept johnpanetta: i ke both wereplus i behind my desk in great tribute to the leadership that was there at the defense department. mattis is i think jim

having worked for me as a .ommander is a great soldier somebody who really understands defense and is really thoughtful and i, too, and very pleased with the appointment of jim mattis to that position. in thelieve, obviously rule of civilian control. i think that is important. with the secretary of the understands military policy and also kind of the congress, the american people, relates to president that the has to deal with and brings all of that into the context of defense policy. i do not view the military background as disqualifying or secretary of -- four secretary of defense. we have this ability now to provide a waiver. i guess my view would be in the course of providing the waiver that congress will have hearings

and i think that would be an opportunity to make sure that jim and i think jim does understand the role that he has to perform certainly of civilian side as well is on the military side. that is an opportunity to basically make sure jim understands that role as well. i am pretty confident that in the end the congress will provide the waiver and jim mattis will be our next secretary defense. barbara: is the inclination of congress to move towards this waiver and there's all indications that they will, is it because it is mattis because he is on all accounts what of the most respected generals of this era? does it have a more to do with him in particular that the issue of waiver? secretary cheney: i do not think it is any question that people have tremendous amount of respect for jim mattis and that

obviously is an incentive. at the same time, who the hell are we kidding, 70 years, where did it come from -- 70 years, where did it come from? somebody figured you have a, a after seven years. there is no magic here. the reality is they built it into the law and we're having to deal with it. i think there's a greater tolingness for the congress provide their waiver with somebody like jim mattis. it may not be the case if it were somebody else. cheney: i think we are living in a special time and there are special problems and obligations of this administration is having going forward. i find it them especially important to have somebody with jim mattis' background, a great marine.

he hasn't the experience to prove it. he has a perspective on what needs to be done with respect to the military and defense department. -- he has the experience to prove it. think that because of the circumstances that we find ourselves in in terms of threats, capability, the task before the next secretary, especially appropriate to have somebody with his experience. he has been there and out on the point and had to command troops in combat and that is not bad experience for somebody with going to serve. barbara: you send the new administration will have special thatems and obligations they will have to deal with. let's have both of you, starting with you, sir, drill down on this a bit. what are the special problems and obligations you see topping the list for the trump administration? general

sec. panetta: i'm sure it was before the con -- i look at the increasing threats, the problems with respect to isis and in the middle east. are veryhe challenges great. i think we have, unfortunately, over the course of the last many years, done serious damage to our capabilities to meet those threats. what happened in respect to the budget, the sequester process, the fact that we no longer build defense budgets based on the threat but on the sequester, which is outrageous and was deemed to be outrageous when it was put in place on the supposition it was so bad it would never survive, but lo and

behold, everyone has become comfortable with it. the last eight years, the military has suffered you egregiously- because of the circumstances we had. i love the comments at noon today, but i think there are responsibilities for what has happened. i am very worried about the circumstances we find ourselves in. and frankly, part of the burden falls on the political side of the house, the military side of the house. we have not kept up our share of the bargain in terms of supplying the resources needed to do the job. sec. panetta: to follow up on what dick said, we are living with a lot of very dangerous in the world.

probably more instability and flashpoints then we have seen since the end of world war ii. and you know the full spectrum. you discussed it, whether it is isis or terrorism, whether collapsed states in the middle east, whether iran, north korea, ofsia, china, the whole area cyber warfare that we have entered into, we are dealing with a whole series of potential threats. justreminded of the period when thered war i, were a number of flashpoints in the world at that time related to some of the same challenges we are facing now. terrorism. failed states. territorial disputes. fragile alliances. all of that. and failed leadership. the inability to deal with those

challenges. any one of those things, the failure to deal with those created by the result of world war i. we are living in that period. and the new administration is going to have a look at that kind of world. policyiously, to find that we need in order to deal with that. but then developed the defense policy to confront that kind of world. and the biggest problem right whats that, in line with dick said, you cannot have a strong defense. you can talk about all of the things you want to do in terms of the defense budget. but the reality is you cannot do any of that. unless congress agrees to a budget and provide some certainty as to where the hell we're going. you cannot operate a defense

establishment based on a cr. developot try to defense planning for the future when you are operating under the threat of sequester and the possibility you will have to slash spending from the defense budget. it is the social right now. the ultimate challenge is going to have to be to be able to get a budget, to have congress moved forward and do what it should done a long time ago. it was done in the time when dick was secretary, when we were both in congress. boths the ability of republicans and democrats to sit down into a budget. you have to do everything on the table. you cannot just put 10 you can solve the budget problem by doing discretionary spending. it will not solve it. when two thirds of spending is wrapped up in entitlements. on have to put everything the table.

we did in the reagan administration, the bush administration. ill clinton did a budget that included all of those areas. that created a balanced budget. the more importantly, we had a certain budget. where you knew what you were dealing with and could plan. we have to get back to that. all of the things everyone is saying about the great things that will happen on defense, that will happen with weapons systems and with structure, none of that will happen if you do not get a budget put in place you can plan on. barbara: secretary cheney, let's drill down, take this one step further. all of this discussion audi nctionalityis dysfu comes as threats are getting bigger. i do not think anything is getting better. sec. cheney: i would share that view. [laughter] barbara: when the new admission comes in, things could have been

on inauguration day. hopefully not, but things can happen. have things. so walk us around the world in your assessment and what your advice would be. and you as well, secretary panetta. the threet with biggies. iran, and russia. north korea -- all indications are they are moving ahead with their nuclear program. what is your advice to a new administration on what to do about that? sec. cheney: i think it is important to be honest and direct in terms of our current status. if you look at north korea -- we have lived in a world where there have been nuclear weapons and russia had nuclear weapons, china, but they are, for the most part -- we obviously do not agree on a lot of things, but

they are governed by rational people. that about north korea pay the proposition we are faced with now is the real possibility that north korea will be armed with a nuclear weapon and that have ballistic missile capability to deliver those two the continental united states. that is a very scary prospect. we have to spend all of the effort we can, persuading the effort to join the shut them down. but i do not think we can bet the farm on that. i think we need to be very aggressive about building and deploying defenses against missiles systems. that includes the ability to take out on launch systems coming out of north korea. the thaad deploy

system out of south korea. we need to be prepared to station ships offshore. -- we need to be aggressive about it. the chinese will not like it, but they have to live with it unless they are willing to join against thegress north korean threat. it is very real. about theironly in terms of where the resources are. remember when colored photographs were thrown on my desk of the north korean build nuclear reactor. the spring of 2007. the north koreans were providing nuclear capability to one of the nationsrror sponsoring of the world, syria. it would have ended up in the caliphate.

it was very serious business the were to bens concerned about. barbara: secretary panetta, north korea. you have certainly been aware of the intelligence all the way along. what is your assessment on how soon they could put all of the pieces together? a warhead? a missile? and on either an injured constant -- an intercontinental or mobile launch system? sec. panetta: they have the capabilities to begin the process of putting it together within the near future. when and where depends, but the fact is, they are developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. they are testing. i think it is not too long before they have that capability

, if they do not have it now. they have nuclear weapons. they are developing mobile nuclear systems. they are trying to develop the delivery capability for nuclear weapons. it is a very real threat. with a very unpredictable leader. we do not know what this guy is going to do. there is no certainty here. the only guy he seems to get along with is dennis rodman. [laughter] so you do not know what is going to happen. with that kind of unpredictable leader. so it israeli important -- so it is really important to continue to strengthen our relationship in that region. we have a strong defense relationship with the japanese. with southlationship korea. we have 25,000 troops will in south korea. we have to build up their capabilities in order to confront north korea. we have to develop a relationship with other in thees as well

asia-pacific region in order to develop a really strong coalition. we have to put pressure on the chinese. dick is right. china has the ability to be able to influence north korea. they do not like what is going on in north korea. but they also want to keep them friendly. but china has to put additional pressure on them to be able to move it in a better direction. -- wee end result is that had 60 years since that war came to an end. up fact that we have built our capabilities, build a strong defense system in south korea, the fact that we have made very clear we would take action to go against north korea if they , has, in many ways, prevented a war in that area. we need to send the same signals that if they decide to do something drastic that we are

prepared to take action against north korea. you have to draw that line. you, thator both of is very interesting. that has been the u.s. message, that the u.s. will respond. of that has been a very carefully shaped, diplomatically transmitted message. from anyrolled message u.s. administration. candidly, are you concerned that the trump administration, at least in the opening weeks or could -- we will say inadvertently -- be too casual in its language? they must be very careful in how they communicate u.s. policy in the pacific on this matter. sec. cheney: it is one of the reasons having a man like general mattis as secretary of defense to focus on those threats -- he fully understands

these kinds of things. i agree with him, for example, when he disagreed with the obama administration in using military force against the uranium's -- i ranians. one thing that has worked against nuclear proliferation is military force, the threat of it. that goes back to 1941, when the nuclear took out the reactor outside of baghdad. when we took out the program that existed in 1991 in respect to desert storm. when we took down saddam hussein, we shut down any possibility that he would move forward with that. and five days after we captured saddam, another leader in that area surrendered his. pie-in-the-sky

diplomacy, like the administration settled with the iranians. barbara: do think the threat of military force should be more public, stepped up? sec. panetta: you asked about the trump administration's approach to that. i do not think anybody knows what the hell the approach would be at this point. there are a lot of questions. and frankly, which donald trump will enter the oval office. whether it is the tweeting donald trump, the reality tv donald trump, or whether it is the business person, businessman more, who seems to be much willing to engage in the realities we have to deal with. i am pleased he appointed mattis, because i think that could be an important key to making one of the right decisions. i think he will appoint a

secretary of state who understands the world and plays out inhat our world. if you does that, obviously, he will have some experience there to guide him. because these issues will break the day he walks into the oval office. inry president i have seen my time who has walked into the oval office -- i do not care how experienced they are -- when they saw the awesome responsibility the president of the united states has, it is overwhelming. i think it will be true when he enters the oval office. he is facing an awful lot of responsibility. he will have to have some good people who will provide guidance. i think as a result, exercise some care. because the problem is president's words count. this is not something where you can say whatever the hell you think and expect you can change

your mind the next day and say he did not mean that. when you are dealing with foreign policy and countries abroad, your words count. hemy hope in prior is that will have a willingness to work with people and understand these issues and be able to provide the kind of defined policy we will need in order to protect this country in a very dangerous world. sec. cheney: one of the most important things he can do is exactly the opposite of what his predecessor did, with respect to iran and nuclear weapons. mistakes -- the that the situation he has made.ing the belief on the part of many of our friends and allies that they can no longer trust the united states or count on our guarantees.

progress inr reversing obama policies. but secretary cheney -- mr. vice president -- you are someone who has a long history of being very precise in your words, in your thinking, in your analysis. i am not aware of any time you have said anything casually. [laughter] now, barbara. [laughter] barbara: at least i cannot recall. where was that air force general you fired? well, that was another story. we will get to that later. so let's hear it. you hear this casual language. tweeting "i'm

anti-that.or see this, seriously, what concerns does it cause you, if you were sitting with him and could give him some advice about all of this? about language, about meaning of words? what would your advice be? sec. cheney: well, first of all, i am not sitting with him. barbara: would you, a fast -- if asked? sec. cheney: certainly. if the president of the united i wouldsked for guys, be happy to advise barack obama. but he never asked me. [laughter] [applause] so again, language and words. [laughter] see, the man never says anything casual. [laughter] sec. cheney: i think you do need

to be careful. but he will learn as he goes along. i think he is putting -- bringing some good people with him. i am a big fan of my pants. i'm you might well from his 12 years in the house. i think he is a great choice as vice president and will play a major role. is taking. trump seriously the job he has now. staffing up the administration. the reasonsof people get so concerned about the tweets is his way around the press. he does not have to rely upon -- [laughter] [applause] rely upon the modern era, modern technology. he's at the point where we don't need you guys anymore. [laughter] sec. cheney: i apologize. [laughter]

barbara: the question i asked, which none of you heard because you are all laughing -- do you see risk in that? you are two of the men who know, more than anybody, who has stepped foot inside washington, it is all about risk. sec. cheney: and you do have to be careful. there was a time when i made a mistake. i had been secretary for about a week, or 10 days. back in 1989. i was asked by a reporter how i mr. gorbachev. and i said nice things about him, but then i went on to say i thought ultimately he would fail and be replaced by a regime a lot more like the old soviet leadership.

then gorbachev had. one of the first calls i got was from my friend jim baker at the state department. he said i was out of my mind. lesson.d my i was a few years ahead of time. [laughter] barbara: so let's talk about the russians. sec. panetta: he would've tweeted about that today. sec. cheney: where is my twitter? barbara: are you on twitter? sec. cheney: i do not know how to do it. [laughter] barbara: well, this is the perfect segue into the russians. both of you, if you were sitting down with vladimir putin, would you trust him right now? or what level of trust on what issues would you have with him? sec. panetta: look, you do not trust putin. you have to deal with putin. pruden has his objectives. putin has his objectives. whoink putin is someone

really does want to restore the old soviet union and tried to, obviously, resource strength to russia. that is his goal. that is what he is after. i think it is really important, when you are dealing with putin, to deal with him from strength in you have to deal with someone like that from strength. if he senses weakness -- any sense to weakness -- she will take advantage of it. that is what he has done in the crimea, in the ukraine, in syria, what he is doing with all of this hacking business. taking advantage of it. i think it raises real concerns about someone like putin going into estonia or another country because he feels like he may have a license to do that. so you have to make very clear what the lines are. and that the united states will not stand by and allow him to go

into another country. strong nato have a alliance. that we will work together. and will respond in kind if that happens. eight that very clear. very clear that we will maintain a presence in that part of the world. clear that we have objectives and will achieve those objectives. that is what it is all about. those are the kinds of signals putin soto send to a he understands where the lines are. can you deal with him? of course you can deal with him. you can talk to him and try to negotiate and deal with some of the challenges we face and try to make progress. but you cannot do that from a position of weakness. you have to do it from a position of strength. barbara: so what would have been the answer, in your mind? crimea, eastern ukraine, do you go to war over russian moves into the crimea and eastern

ukraine? how do you demonstrate that strength? sec. cheney: there is no question what -- mr. clinton is a dangerous man -- mr. putin is a dangerous man. he does not even have a polit bureau he has to respond to. i think he will restore as much as he can to the old soviet empire. i remember when the soviet union went out of business and europe was reunited that he described that as one of the disasters of the 20th century. think he clearly has aspirations to take advantage of weakness. i think he has perceived weakness in the united states in recent years. i worry that he does not require military action. certainly, the threat is there, but i think you would like to undermine nato.

to use his capacity to influence politics internally with respect to the baltics. there are pro-russian parties in this states he could easily provide financial support to create opposition. he could cut off energy surprise -- energy supplied to the baltics so they are 100% dependent on russia for natural gas. he can create a crisis in terms of simply threatening, if you to perhaps beple, even more active and hostile unless the baltics withdraw from nato. the question is how does need a response of that? we have to be careful about it. i think if he sees weakness, he will act on it. i think hethat -- has perceived weakness in recent

years. i think it was a mistake to cancel the antiballistic missiles program. given the fact that we have dramatica pretty reduction in our nuclear capability and have not responded to what the russians are doing and the chinese, to upgrade their capabilities. we operate under the idea that we deemphasize our capability and north korea and others will not go forward. a flawed concept that president obama has adhered to. barbara: so what is your view, then, again, whether you have any concerns or what are your concerns that the president-elect has been publicly favorable towards vladimir putin?

and may want to change his language on that? sec. cheney: i am not here today to advise mr. trump. he changes his language, i have expressed my views. i believe the signals he has received from the u.s. indicate weakness. i believe our friends in europe are nervous to the degree the united states is committed to nato. i think we have to reinforce that commitment. we have to be prepared to reverse course on the defense budget. rebuild the u.s. military. our responsibilities and leadership role in the world. it is important to our allies but also to our adversaries. barbara: secretary panetta, what are your views? i think there is no question there has been publicly repeated favorable language for about an

important are the president-elect. do you think this could be sending the wrong signal or not the signal that there should be done the world -- down the road to the world and to putin himself? i ampanetta: certainly concerned about that, because it creates an impression that somehow, we are not going to be her's -- we're not going to be strong with regards to nato, with dealing with assad, with dealing with isis. that concerns me. as i said, those are words during the campaign. we all understand there are words during the campaign. but people abroad do not understand that it is just a campaign. the messagesad that are being provided. having said that, i am a little more encouraged by this recent

attitude in regards to dealing with nato and with some of the other issues that we have to confront in the world. and that he is beginning to understand that all of these things have implications. i have alike dick, once an individual enters the oval office and enters the responsibilities of the president, that you're going to be a hell of a lot more careful. i hope that is the case. it may not be. but i hope that is the case. because the reality is this is a dangerous world. world.dangerous we are dealing with a lot of these flashpoints. and, very frankly, the relationship with regards to russia is one of those that is ofremely important in terms

the security of the world. our continuing to exercise strong world leadership that makes very clear to the russians -- and this is something that goes back to the truman doctrine. it was harry truman who made the decision, when russia was trying to influence other countries, walking into greece and other countries, that the truman doctrine was not going to allow that to happen. it was what led to nato. it was what led to the marshall plan. because we were willing to draw lines on russia. and very frankly, drying those lines, is what ultimately led to the failure of the soviet union. we have to continue to do that with regards to russia today. make clear where those lines are.

yes, we will deal with them. yes, we will talk about issues that concern both of us and try to see if we can develop areas of agreements. but at the same time, we just have to make very clear that there are lines, that we will not allow them to cross. i think that is the way you deal with putin. go back for a minute to iran. you mentioned general mattis was one who mentioned military action against nuclear proliferation. if the new administration pulls back from the nuclear agreement, this puts -- so far point, are we down the road in the nuclear agreement that you cannot pull then goinghat iran

to resume its program and the u.s. and israelis have to consider military options against it? is it too late to pull out of it? risk of an iranian restart too great at this point? sec. cheney: my point was with respect to general mattis, i have not discussed it with him, but the press report of the time centcomleft his job as commander was he disagreed with the obama administration's .olicy on iran i also disagreed with the policy. is if we lookbout at the long-term consequences of the toys that president obama made, we have already paid a significant price. if you come back to my belief that the things that have worked

to retired or stop nuclear proliferation or the threat of that whenitary action president obama took military action off the table and he had a pattern that when there was a crisis the first thing that he was announce was what he was not going to do and this is one of them. we ended up in a situation where military is no longer a possibility and from that point on the iranians have had their way with respect to using the first negotiations or the agreement now to get just about anything they want. billions of dollars, sanctions lifted, etc. even to the point that when it was time for the president to act on the red line he drew for syria, because they used gas and chemical weapons against their people, he threatened to take action when the chips were down in the syrians violated the red

line, he backed off. i personally believe there has been speculation the reason he theed off was because iranians threatened the nuclear deal and the nuclear negotiations. there is a point now where they are able to influence u.s. policy throughout the middle is that their lever nuclear agreement. barbara: is it too late to do something about it? sec. cheney: i don't think it is too late. you will have to do remorse course and want to send a strong want -- it i would would want to send a strong signal that the military option is very much there and on the byle and i would not begin saying there was no military option with respect to iran.

i think you need to be prepared to reverse course with respect to policies and the obama administration pursuit on iran. ourwhole change in terms of relationship with our friends in a part of the world, the egyptians, the saudi's, the emirates, turning our back on relations with them in order to suck up to the iranians is a major blow to u.s. policy in the part of the world. panetta, youetary look to this question very carefully of what it would take to do a military strike against iran's nuclear program. let's say it did come to that. walk us through that scenario again? the problems you face, with the thereis getting unilaterally, the challenges of going through that airspace, ran --r defense off you

off iran's coast. would we even know about the targets? barbara: without getting --sec. cheney: without getting into classified areas i think it is fair --sec. panetta: without getting into classified areas i think it is fair to say we developed a plan without taking military action against iran and it was a well thought out plan and i developed the kind of approaches that would have been very effective if that was necessary. having said that, the most important thing with iran is, like north korea, we've got to confront an iran that is trying to support terrorism in that part of the world. supports and stability, support

syrialah is involved in now fighting with the russians, it continues to be a destabilizing force in the region. we have to be willing to make very clear that iran cannot continue to do that, and at the certaine everybody has objections about the nuclear deal that was put on the table, but there were five other nations that joined the united states putting that deal together and i think at this stage in the game while you may not like -- i do not particularly like the idea that ofallows within a period time for iran to go back to build nuclear weapons, there is where they areod required not to build a nuclear weapon and i think we ought to continue to work with other countries to enforce. at the same time, it does not mean we ought to back away from

allowing iran to continue other steps that are necessary. i think the thing we have not done very effectively is to , workingtrong coalition of other countries in that region. countries, theab uae, egypt, jordan, turkey, israel, we want to have a working coalition because they all feel the same concerns about iran. they have the same concerns about isis and terrorism and that kind of working coalition would be very effective militarily to deal with the challenges in that part of the world. and we need to have a coalition that can provide a support system or some of these fail states. the reason -- the problem is we go into defeat isis and we leave and instability goes back in. we have to develop a support

system that provides some kind of stability for countries like libya, countries like egypt, countries like yemen. those are areas in which we do not have a strong approach as to wet we are going to do once have been able to establish some degree of peace in that part of the world. presidentat a new needs to do is to establish a strong, working coalition in the middle east to confront iran, but to also confront isis and the other threats. barbara: when you say isis, this fascinates me. it seems desert storm was the last time there was even anything that we thought at the time was victory over an objective. it just hasn't happened since then. isis, youes me about

are the discussion about defeating isis in iraq and syria, but we all know that neither of those things -- and the pentagon knows this, neither iraq or syria defeats isis or violent extremism. your analysis or advice be -- where would you go on trying to contain, if not defeat the threat, multilaterally on a more global basis, a violent extremism? sec. cheney: i think our number one priority has to be to rebuild military -- america's military capability, adopt the fundamental consensus we had for 75 years on a bipartisan basis between democrat and republican alike that the united states had to be the leader in the free world, we had to have first-rate

military capability better than everybody else and the willingness to use it periodically if necessary. i think that did not carry into the obama administration. i think president obama had a different worldview and i think there is a lot of work that needs to be done to go back and rebuild that kind of capability to be called on when it was time to do desert storm. we had a magnificent performance by a first-rate military. we had significant investment over the years. we ended up with a $60 billion war that only cost $5 billion because everybody else chipped in and it was a great success. ways away from that we are in a situation where we are going to have to invest now and provide the leadership to persuade the american people it is absolutely necessary and that we can in fact restore america's place in the world as

the preeminent power and that our adversaries need to fear us. we have a lot of work to do to get there. sec. panetta: i do not disagree with what dick said with the need to establish strength with regard to our military and send signals to the world that we will exercise world leadership, you want tond -- do know what the greatest threat to our national security? it is the dysfunction in washington. very frankly, there is a lot of blame to go around for both sides when it comes to this in washington. the president, the congress, the leadership in congress on both sides have been able to come together when it comes to major issues facing this country whether it is the budget, immigration reform, dealing with energy, dealing with war authority, they have not been able to do it. they are dysfunctional and

nothing is going to happen here unless that dysfunction is broken down and in less the leadership in the congress -- in unless the leadership congress working with the new president is willing to sit down and deal with these issues. we are not going to have a strong defense if they are not willing to negotiate what exactly are we going to do with regard to the budget, what are we going to do in terms of defense goals for the future? that has to be done pursuant to what we do best in a democracy, we govern. we have not govern for a hell of a long time. sec. cheney: leon, everything is ok now, republicans are in charge. [laughter] [applause] >> you dreamer, you. sec. panetta: that was actually my question.

you stole it. sure, you have republican control across the board. you, as former members of the house, explain politics to me here. does that mean they can do whatever they want, they do not need to regard the democrats? does that now put a burden on the republicans that they have -- with the democratic white house because they could always point to the white house and say that is the problem. what are we looking out? sec. cheney: leon talked about some of this -- and i talked about some of this today. when i was secretary of defense, my number one ally was jack mercer, the democrat from pennsylvania. jack would come down at the beginning of every session and we would have breakfast in my office at the pentagon and get out a piece of paper and on one side we have all the stuff he

had to have an on the other side we had all the stuff i had to have a net was basically the structure of the bill on a bipartisan basis. he once took a multibillion-dollar defense bill to the floor and passed with no suspension and no votes. i do not know that we can never go back to that point, jack mercer is dead and i am no longer in office. [laughter] leon and i are qualified to tell them how they should have done it. there is no question that there has been a deadlock and there is plenty of blame to go around. i prefer to say we have a fresh ,tart, we have a new president we have got a unified congress in the standpoint of the house and senate. obviously, the democrats can filibuster if they want and create problems.

we have to find ways to be able to work together going forward. i think what you really need right up front is the strong, presidential leadership and work with the congress to get them on board as well. i think many of them are already threre. we absolutely have to have as our number one priority u.s. military capability, national security policy, our role in the world and we have to come to agreement on that and put the resources to make it a reality and all the other debates and so forth are interesting, but irrelevant until we solve the problem. sec. panetta: a new president is going to run into what all presidents run into, which is into the wall of checks and balances. our forefathers designed it that way. they did not want to put power in a president, they did not want centralized power in a president or a king parliament and they did not want to put power in a chambered court and that is why they developed a

this remarkable system of checks and balances that served the country for over 200 years. atcan be frustrating as hell a formula for gridlock and that is what we have experienced over these last few years, is gridlock. at the time, i remember when i was chief of staff to bill clinton and the house went republican and the senate went republican and the whole point out some basis to negotiate here so we can try to resolve some issues? the first thing we ran into was the budget and i can remember negotiating late into the night in the oval office and we came up with the last offer and the decision was not to accept the offer and the government gets shut down and all hell breaks loose and republicans suddenly realize this is not the right way to do it and to the credit of speaker gingrich at the time

he said it may be better if we negotiate with the new president and we did and we were able to get welfare reform and budgets done and a whole series of things working together. and i think somehow we have to get back to that progress -- process. even though it is a republican president and house and senate, you know damn well in dealing with the membership that they can basically dig in on any issue, republicans and democrats. that is the nature of the system. you are dealing with 535 members and some are honest and some are dishonest and some are smart and summer stupid -- some are stupid and some are crooks. that is the nature of democracy. welcome to democracy and you cannot walk away from that. presidents can be disgusted by it, but they have to deal with it. that is how we govern in this country. abraham lincoln had to basically bribe people to pass the 13th amendment.

i can remember going through that process with bill clinton. we had a war room and basically had to negotiate with every damn member trying to get them to vote the right way and they did the same thing. that is the nature of governing. that is what you have to do and if you think you can suddenly stand up and in a pompous way say "this is what ought to happen" and then not roll up your sleeves and go to work, it is not going to happen. governing is a kick ass process come it is the nature of it. it means you have to roll up your sleeves and engage. if bob is willing to do that, working -- if donald trump is willing to do that and build coalitions around issues -- and i think you can. i think you can develop a coalition around funding infrastructure. why not put that together? why not get it through congress on a bipartisan basis?

why not do some kind of immigration reform on a bipartisan basis? why not do something on the budget to try to establish and approach not only to reforming entitlements, but reforming taxes? those are opportunities, but it isn't just going to happen. we got into a stage -- in our day, governing was good politics. understand? governing was good politics and to ourovern, we go back districts and the fact we could govern and get things done was in our political benefit. i am not sure people think governing is good politics now. that is the problem. stopping things was good politics on both sides. somehow, we have to change that mentality and get both republicans and democrats and the new president sitting down in the same room and negotiating and compromising and getting things done. that is what the american people want to know. we all know the american people were angry and frustrated as

hell. and you know why? because of this function in washington. republicans and democrats were promising al qaeda things they never delivered on and if they cannot break the gridlock and we go through another -- promising all kinds of things they never delivered on and if they cannot break the gridlock and we go through another four years -- barbara: i cannot let you gentlemen go by without bringing the people equation, the soldier-marine equation, the human equation into this discussion. president george w. bush really has made such a commitment in retirement to america's wounded troops and wounded veterans. it is clearly something he has deep, veryal, very

emotional feelings about and it is pretty awesome to see that kind of commitment. it is not something he has to do. he feels it and he does it and i believe mrs. bush accompanies him in this effort. i do not even know what in particular -- what the question is. what strikes me is we are 15 years beyond 9/11. as someone who was in the building that day, you now have young troops joining who were maybe three or four years old. you have a generation beyond that. talk to us for a minute about the human side of this. we have this generation of wounded americans. we have new, young troops coming in. they do not join -- i do not think they joined because of politics. i do not think they joined the military because they are democrats or republicans.

what is the application of -- obligation of presidents and defense secretaries to all of them in the years ahead? chairmaney: i thought general dunford did an effective job today of talking about how enormously valuable that resource is. when you have been through the in your civilian leadership or the pentagon or working with the military, i always look back on the various was far andnd that away the best because of the people i got to deal with, because of the caliber of men and women who were willing to serve. it is an enormous resource we have in the nation, the fact that we have hundreds of thousands, millions if necessary who are willing to sign up and go in harm's way on behalf of the rest of us. we have an obligation,

especially those of us who served in government and are no longer -- no longer an office holder, we have an obligation to provide the resources they need to do the job we asked them to theor us and not to let gridlock, if you will, as leon talks about it, bog us down to the point where we are sitting with a sequester and every year take an approach to the budget, 17% of the defense budget. all of that is troops that are not trained, the equipment that is not up to date, the maintainers that are needed to keep the marine corps f-18's flying. we are failing as a country if we do not provide them with the resources to do what they need to do and want to do on behalf of all of us.

it falls on all of us and i think that especially those of us on the political side of business are obligated to find a way to get it done because we are in a situation where -- and i say and i think nearly everybody i have talked to at this conference agrees, the threats are rising and we will have to move heaven and earth to make certain we always stay ahead of that and then we can, in fact, deliver and it is because of those men and women that sign up and go into harms way for all of us that we have an obligation to. sec. panetta: i agree with dick. as proudest moments i had secretary of defense was having a chance to look into the eyes of our men and women in uniform who are out there, whether it otheraq, afghanistan,

tough posts they had around the world and you look into their , you lookg had 3 sons into their eyes and you see the fact that here are young men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country. they are willing to fight and die for our country. of ahey do not ask a hell lot of questions. they are willing to do what is necessary to protect our country. i often ask myself "if these are young men and women willing to put their lives on the line in order to protect this country, why the hell can't people who are elected to office use a little of that courage to govern the country and take the risks necessary to govern the country?" these men and women are prepared

to do that. we talk about the strength of our military and i know you've got great weapons systems and technology and capabilities, it is not worth a damn without the men and women who are the worriers -- warriors for this country and willing to do what is necessary. i think we owe them the ability to support them, make sure they have the finest equipment, make sure they have the finest support they can have to do battle, but more importantly, to also support them and their families. to make sure their families have decent housing, have a good education, that they have the ability to -- because they of a lot forell those on active duty to support their families and support them when they leave the military and become veterans. when they leave we forget the sacrifice that is necessary.

if we are going to be true to our men and women in uniform, it has to be continual. we have to support them and they are in the military and also when they are facing the tough challenges of being a veteran in this country. if we do that, then i think the united states can always be comforted in knowing that we have the strongest military on the face of the earth. noting that the clock says triple zero behind us. let me wrap up by saying that both of these gentlemen when serving as secretary of defense embraced a tradition of talking to the secretary press corps without laughing -- i am trying to say something nice here. seriously, they boast embraced a they both embraced and set tone of talking to the press

corps and explaining policy and taking us on two trips to interesting places overseas with them, letting us see everything they could about what they were doing and letting us have the access to report on troops across the world. it was so important. journalism is not tweeting. [laughter] i think everyone in the press corps is looking forward to see what comes next. we hope the next secretary of defense, i think he will have the same. it gives me an opportunity, today, to say thank you to both of you for that because on behalf of the pentagon press .orps, it is so important it probably never was your favorite things to do to come down to the briefing room, but it is appreciated and we thank do. all of us

[applause] [applause] [applause] >> thanks everybody. thank you all. good afternoon and john, thank you for that kind introduction. it is very good to be back here

at the reagan forum and i am pleased to join so many longtime friends of mine and the defense department, among the dedicated and patriotic americans here, including two of my predecessors, former secretary of defense and former vice president dick cheney, former secretary of defense leon panetta as well as so many dedicated public servants like chairman mac thornberry and the congressional delegation here today, current colleagues like my deputy bob, the chairman of -- i chiefs of staff believe he had to leave a little while ago, and many others who contribute to our defense enterprise, such as lockheed martin ceo, raytheon ceo tom kennedy, all part of the team

america. thanks all for your continued support for service members and their families. and for all your own contributions to our national security. each of you knows well that america's defense is so vital that to we whom it is entrusted must ensure its excellence across the years and across the domains for conflict, not just in air, sea, land but also in space, cyberspace. from strategic error to presidential administration, across our government and across parties. ensuring that continuity is important at a time of change of administration. i'm proud of the way the men and women conducted themselves during the last presidential campaign. standing apart from politics, staying focused on the mission. i am committed to overseeing the

orderly transfer to the next commander-in-chief. that's something dod takes a lot of pride in and has done for a long time. we are carrying out this year's changeover with the excellence that is expected of us. let me congratulate general jim mattis for being chosen to take my place. i've worked with jim for many years. he is is a friend, and i hold him in the highest regard. of course the excellence the american people expect of our department is to impart to the continuity and leadership defense secretary's of both parties have provided over the last seven decades. each one of them has strengthened dod to meet the challenges of their strategic errors. errors. -- eras. in the future challenges as they sell them. with bold action such as unify the our forces at the dawn of a nuclear age, moving to an all

volunteer force after the vietnam war. leveraging leap ahead technologies like stealth and precision guided munitions and battle networks to fortune on unmatched military edge against the soviet bloc. winning the cold war and defining u.s. leadership in the air that followed in waging 21st century counterterrorism and counterinsurgency campaigns. i myself have lived through, witnessed, and served in all but the earliest of those eras. and the strategic transition between them. contributing to programs involving missile defense and space in nuclear triad during the cold war, overseeing the project to prevent the stockpile of soviet nuclear chemical and biological weapons from falling into the wrong hands after the cold war ended.

in more recent years helping develop and field capabilities like the mine resistant protected vehicles for the fights in afghanistan and iraq among other places. in this strategic transition that we're in right now, we must widen the spectrum of our current and future capabilities to account for this great change and the great change economic, political, social and technological underway in the greater and fiercer competition we face. i say this because today dudes -- dod confronts no fewer than five immediate but also distinct and evolving challenges. we are counting the prospect of russian aggression and coercion. especially in europe. something we haven't had to your worry about for 25 years but now we do.

we are also managing historic change in the asia-pacific, the single most consequential region for america's future. we're strengthening our deterrence and defense forces in the face of north korea's continued nuclear and missile provocations. we're checking iranian aggression in the gulf. and helping defends our friends and allies in the east. we're counterterrorism and accelerating the certain and lasting defeat of isil. and of course we're preparing to , contend with an uncertain future. ensuring our military is ready for challenges we may not anticipate today. defending our country and this strategic transition requires our military deters the most advanced adversaries while continuing to fight terrorist groups. to be clear, the u.s. military will be ready to fight very differently than iraq and afghanistan or the rest of the world.

we will, as we must be prepared for a high end enemy which we call full-spectrum. our budget, plans, training capabilities and actions we must demonstrate the potential that if they start a war, we will win it. because a force meant to deter conflict can only succeed if it can show that it will dominate conflict. that is the kind of force i have been determined to build my successors. that's why, amid this strategic transition it's been necessary and will be necessary dod to change, adapt, innovate, not only to meet today's challenges but also ensure defenses continued excellence well into an uncertain future. i want to speak today about the changes underway to respond to

the challenges focusing on the military campaign to accelerate the lasting defeat of isil, are our strong and ballanced strategy on russia on the rebalance to the vital and dynamic asia-pacific. also to describe the actions we're taking and pioneering innovations underway to ensure dod has the technology, the operational plan, the organization, and the people to continue to defend our country and make a better world for decades to come. let me start in the middle east. the region of great turbulence and confusion but where we are not confused. we're clear about our pursuit of america's national interest. among them is dealing isil the lasting defeat that it deserves and that it will certainly receive. we've reached a critical milestone in the military campaign plan as we meet here today american forces are , engaged in intense effort to

isolate and collapse the control over most of in iraq and in -- most in iraq and rocca in syria. from bringing the great weight of our entire range of capabilities to bear in the enabling of capable a motivated -- and motivated local forces. the seizure of these two cities is necessary to ensure the destruction of isil's parent tumor in iraq and syria. the primary objective of the military campaign, and put isil and irreversible path to defeat. reaching this is the result of deliberate actions taken last year. -- a sense last year. going back to last summer i consolidated the work for iraq and syria under a single unified command. streamlining our command-and-control for the fight against isil.

last october, president obama approved the first in a series of recommendations that i and joe dunford made to accelerate the campaign against isil introducing every tool of our , military to the fight from airpower to special operation forces, to trained advice and assist capabilities to our intelligence and cyber tools. i should tell you that since then, president obama has approved every single recommendation the chairman and i have have taken to him for additional forces and capabilities as we saw additional opportunities to accelerate the campaign. the overall coalition military campaign plan we devised last year has three objectives. the first is to destroy isil's parent tumor in iraq and syria. the sooner we crush both the fact and the idea of an islamic state based on isil's barbaric ideology, the safer we will be.

that is necessary but not sufficient, so the second objective is to combat isil's metastases everywhere they emerge everywhere around the world. in afghanistan, libya and elsewhere. in the third objective is to work with the intelligence , homeland security, and law enforcement partners to help protect our homeland some people from attack. that's ultimately our most important mission. this strategic approach of our campaign is to leverage all the tools at dod's disposal to enable capable and motivated local forces to apply pressure to deal isil they lasting defeat. we recommended this strategic approach because the only way to ensure that once defeated, isil stays defeated, is to enable local forces to seize and hold territory rather than substitute for them.

we have been squeezing isil from all sides and across domains through series of deliberate plays to continue to build momentum. when our special operators conduct raids, free hostages and gather intelligence it creates a virtuous cycle cycle a better intelligence generates more targets and more raids, more airstrikes, and more opportunities we can seize to gain even more momentum. as a result since last year, play-by-play, accelerant after accelerant, in town after town, the campaign has delivered significant results. in iraq, we been helping iraqi security forces and passion are -- and the kurdish peshmerga to systematically dislodge isil from city after city, ramadi, falluja, kiara, mark moore. our coalition is now doing the

same in mosul, having isolated the city the iraqis with her -- with our help, taking back easter most of them moving west. there is a complex mission will take time to accomplish but i'm confident that isil stays in moseley -- in in are of -- in mosul numbered. in syria on local partners put in and to isil's expansion and then began to systematically roll it back towards raqqa, an important objective since the so-called capital of the caliphate and the hub for external attack. after helping capable and series -- and motivated local syrian forces defended kobani, we enabled them another forces to retake other talents denying

, isil control over those areas and cutting off their primary lines of communication into turkey and iraq. we are now helping our local partners isolate raqqa from which there's only 15 miles away. isolation face continues according to our plan where generating additional local forces necessary to seize and hold raqqa. in addition to taking back territory, our campaign is yielding results and if denying isil the finances, supplies, freedom of movement command-and-control it needs to survive. we have systematically targeted isil controlled oil wells, trucks for smuggling the oil, revenue repositories. we deliberately focused on the -- on suffering isil controls and syria from the territory of controls in iraq. leaders of the terrorist group can no longer travel between raqqa and mosul without the risk of being hunted down our

expeditionary targeting force or struck from the air. in fact, since we began accelerating the campaign, we have killed some of isil's most senior leaders. while these results are encouraging, we have to stay focused on the continued execution of this plan. the inevitable collapse of the control over most one rock over and rocca -- mosul certainly put isil on a path to lasting defeat. there'll be much more to do after that. to make sure that once defeated isil stays defeated. , we'll need to continue to counter foreign fighters trying to escape and isil's attempt to relocate or reinvent itself. to do so, not only the united states but our coalition must endure and remain militarily engaged. in iraq in particular, it will be necessary for the coalition to provide sustained assistance and carry on our work to train,

equip, and support and support local police, border guards , and other forces to hold areas cleared of isil. beyond security, there are still -- there will still be towns to rebuild, services to reestablish and communities to restore. , those are not military matters but they are part of how after winning the battle one wins the piece. peace. that's why my principal concern that this juncture is international community stabilization and governments efforts lagging behind the military campaign. there will also need to be continued political support for an inclusive and multi-sectarian iraq. in a region ripe with sectarianism the threat of isil , has brought people together for now against the common and. that's really true in iraq

thanks to the unity and leadership of prime minister a body cooperation between the iraqi security forces in the kurdish peshmerga in the battle to retake mosul has reached a level that would've been unthinkable a year ago. we are taken steps to help promote and maintain the unity. we know that's the only way to keep isil defeated. as i said earlier, success in in iraq and syria is necessary but not efficient to deal a lasting defeat. that's why were focused on two other critical objectives of our campaign. combating isil's metastases around the world and helping protect our homeland. when it comes to combating the metastases, we've taken strong actions in support of capable and local forces in libya and afghanistan and elsewhere. in libya, the u.s. military has

provided air support and forced to isolate and clap their -- collapse their control. as a result, isil is being ejected. in afghanistan, on chairman don my recommendation the president this year gave , expanded authorities to u.s. forces to proactively assist and enable our afghan partners and operations that would have strategic effects. we also the decided to modify our plan to look at 8400 u.s. to retain u.s. troops there rather than 5500 as the earlier plan had called for. we will continue to maintain our financial commitment to the afghan defense and security forces. these robust commitments and authorities in forces and finances will ensure we not only continue supporting the afghan security forces would also sustain our regional

counterterrorism platform. operated out of afghanistan. for example, alongside the afghan partners we recently conducted two large scale against isil in afghanistan. killing the top leader in the country and significantly degrading capabilities there. on the campaign's third objective, protecting the homeland, dod is working with intelligence, homeland security and law enforcement partners at home. and supporting them is job and priority number one. but also abroad. there, we are conducting operations together intelligence with a particular importance of -- particular focus on externalg isis' spacing external operations cadre. we have not only killed the

chief of isil's external operations but taken out more than 130 external plotters. we've gone after al qaeda's branch in syria, we with the fbi -- we work with the fbi to systematically eliminate members of an isil cell outside the united states that was inspiring attacks in our country. and including against our armed forces. we directed the joint special operations command to make that top priority of destroying isil's capabilities. the campaign against ice and the -- isil and its results are another example of the military's continued excellence and america's continued leadership in the middle east and world. no other nation could have brought to bear the resources we have. assemble the coalition we have built, led the execution of a comprehensive campaign that the united states has done. we did so in pursuit of our nation's interests. which in this case, are lined -- aligned with many allies and partners who are also result to

-- resolved to destroy isil. we did so despite major, simultaneous and growing military commitments in europe and asia. let me turn to them. first, i want to discuss europe. where the transatlantic community is standing up to russia's provocation and aggression. that's a big change for many of us who worked productively with russia in the post-cold war era. i know i did the 1990's when we were working with sometimes common rather than cross purposes. at the time militaries cooperated, and when russia agreed to join the peacekeeping force in kosovo. i remember both. today, unfortunately, russia's aggression and provocation appear to be driven by misguided ambitions and misplaced resentment.

russia wants to be considered and understandably so is the important power that it is. indeed its history is rich and its people can and should be proud. in recent years some have interpreted that history and to fuel grandiose visions and provocative destabilizing action. we see that in russia's aggression in ukraine and georgia. it's counterproductive role in the ongoing tragedy in syria, its attacks in cyberspace, it's violation of arms control treaties and other international agreements, and above all, it's nuclear saber rattling. these actions are not what the world expects. rather each threatens to , undermine global security and erode the principal order that it's been so good not only to the united states but to russia

and the rest of the world. let me be clear, the united states does not seek a cold, let alone hot war with russia. we do not seek an enemy. but make no mistake -- we will defend her allies, the positive future that affords all of us. we will counter attempts to undermine our collective security. to do so the united states is following a strong imbalance strategy. we are addressing russia's action while pursuing in pursuing bilateral cooperation where u.s. and russian objectives can be aligned. this strategy for deterrence doesn't simply recycle the playbook used to deter syria during the cold war because that would not match the russian challenge of today.

we haven't had to prioritize deterrence on the eastern flight for over 20 years. and unfortunately, now we do. that's why the united states is strengthening our posture so that we can respond to threats that russia might pose. our latest defense budget request asked for more money, more than quadruple what we allocated the year before. that's intended to allow us to an addition to the two brigades we have stationed in europe, rotate an armored brigade combat team on a persistent basis and pre-position brigades equipment and were fighting gear to be used by american forces flown into europe, among other steps.

increasing military exercises with allies and partners to demonstrate resolve and build the resilience while enhancing operability. updating and confining our plans and trying to overcome areas such as [inaudible] were investing the technologies most relevant to countering russia. are also recapitalizing our nuclear deterrent nuclear deterrence is not only the bedrock but our security and also critical to sustain inlet of russia's nuclear --. the united states is not alone. for more than 67 years nato has been the quintessential example of nations coming together to respond to collective security challenges. as it did during the cold war data will be critical for preserving critical defense in the face of new threats. to ensure it does so were working with allies to adapt and to confront the new challenges nato faces like russia. so nato two has a new playbook.

when that prepares to counter cyber threats and hybrid warfare, to better integrate conventional nuclear deterrence and much more. that's why nato created a joint task force that can deploy task force on 48 hours notice to any crisis on allied territory. it's why nato is deploying forward battalions to us eastern --. the united states will lead a battalion starting next year. it's why nato is providing support to countries like ukraine and georgia to help strengthen and reform their national defense and institutions and improve their ability to work with nato. everything united states is doing on its own and with nato will ensure we continue to stand up to russian aggression and that were ready for longer-term competition.

it's also necessary to keep the door open to working with russia. as i said there's a time in the years after the cold war were russia corporate it and contributed to the principal order rather than undermining it. i remember that personally and many of you. perhaps someday we'll see that rekindled. next, i want to talk about what we are doing the president obama's visit to asia. it provides security to a place that's home of nearly half the global economy and half the global population. to remain a place where everyone can rise and prosper for decades

to come. that's been the american policy and practice since the end of world war ii. regardless what was going on at home in other parts of the andd, during democratic public and in, during times of deficit, war and peace the united states has remained economically, politically and militarily engaged. unlike elsewhere in the world, peace and stability has never been managed by the region-wide formal structure like nato and europe. that made sense because of the history, geography and politics. instead of the united states has

taken a principled and inclusive approach and collaborated with a network of regional allies and partners to enable principles ensuring the countries can make choices free from coercion and intimidation and preserving the freedom guaranteed by international law. because we did so economic miracle left or economic miracle occurred. first japan and taiwan, south korea and southeast asia and now today, china, india rose and prospered. populations are growing, education has improved, self-determination has spread, economies have grown more interconnected and military spending and cooperation are both increasing. america's interests and

objectives in the asia-pacific have endured. we still want peace, stability and progress for all because the region has changed how we meet those had to change along with it. they've been operationalizing one after another we are not only ensuring that we remain the strongest military and primary provider but we are also connecting our allies and partners in a principle of the security network to allow all of us to see more come share more and do more to maintain security in the region. in the first phase which began five years ago they sought to make the regional posture more robust both on our allies, our own parts and partners geographically distributed, politically sustainable. they spend tens of thousands, committed to 60% in the

asia-pacific and asia-pacific and begin to modernize the posture. the second phase we committed to sending some of our best people and most advanced capabilities. our newest aircraft and service vessels to the asia-pacific we also developed new and innovative strategies and concepts and put them into use in more complex exercises on our own and with our partners none larger than this. we have strengthened our bilateral alliances and partnerships. we've now strengthened these relationships so they better reflect the social security needs.

>> continue to watch this program on our website, c-span.org. we take you live to the u.s. house meeting and what's expected to be a brief pro forma session today. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 16, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable george holding to act as speaker pro tempore on this day . signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend monsignor kevin hart, st. peters catholic church, washington, d.c.