there are 3000 or so at the guatemala-mexico border. caravans forming in el salvador and central america. we have to be prepared for the arrival of a large group. because of the size, we want to handle it effectively and safely. we saw when the group crossed the honduras-guatemala border, they were forceful. even riskier on the guatemala-mexico border, where near-rioting occurred on the bridge. we saw those tactics, which are different than we have seen in past groups, and we want to be ready for that. we will take this opportunity to harden points of entry. last fewl leave the moments of this and take you live to the live institute in washington. james mattis getting set to speak. live coverage on c-span.

it is my honor to welcome everybody here this evening, as well as everybody joining us online. follow the conversation on twitter. it is #mattisusip. i want to send a warm welcome to and to of the board, senior military advisory groups who met with us earlier this afternoon, and of course, a special welcome to the guest of honor, secretary of defense james mattis. the u.s. institute of peace was find it -- was founded in 1984 as a nonpartisan national institute that is dedicated to reducing the kind of violence that poses a threat to u.s. national security. these are the kinds of conflicts

that defense secretary mattis has spent a lifetime addressing. passionate confederates were themselves veterans of world war ii and korea. their experiences created their determination to found and support an institute that was dedicated to preventing and resolving violent conflict. we pursue this mission by linking training and analysis with action on the ground and in , here and with policymakers in washington, d.c. and partner organizations and governments around the world. over the course of our 34 year history, usip has worked closely with the state department, and with the department of defense. fact, by legislation,

secretary mattis is a member of our bipartisan board of directors. he is ably represented by john root. our work with dot includes facilitating a review commission , which is a body convened by congress to examine and make recommendations regarding national security. that includes working together in conflict zones. usip worked with local leaders in the most violent part of iraq to foster local peace accords. local tribal leaders credit that accord with enabling their community to withstand the invasion of isis. so we are also proud every year ellows. military f we have three of them in the audience.

welcome, gentlemen. ofknow these are the kinds partnerships that enable everybody to do their best work. they remind us what research tells us, that the more inclusive the peace process, the longer-lasting the peace. there are few who understand this more than two nights guest of honor, secretary mattis. in 2003 when then-secretary mattis commanded the first marine division in iraq, he prepared soldiers not only to be effective fighting forces, but also building ties with the local community. he knew that fostering that kind of trust and respect would lead to the kind of strong relationships that would help their mission succeed. in the 2018 national defense strategy, secretary mattis has renewed this call for building partnerships based on trust, respect, and accountability.

the strategy asserts that the united states will strengthen and involve our alliances in an extended network capable of deterring or meeting shared challenges of our time. we are certainly in a time of great change. we see changes in the national security landscape, challenges to the free and open international liberal order, continued challenges that emanate from fragile states, and resurgent competition with great powers. these kinds of alliances cannot be overstated, so i thank secretary mattis for joining us tonight for a very important conversation about national defense strategy at this critical time. of aings the experience long and decorated career in the marine corps, as well as his deep knowledge of history and an unwavering commitment to public

service. joining him in this conversation distinguished, dedicated public servant -- security advisorational stephen hadley. please join me in welcoming both of them up to the stage. enjoy the conversation. [applause] sec>> what we thought we would do is, the secretary and i will have a conversation on some of the issues of the day. mr. hadley: we will probably go 35 minutes or so. the last 20 minutes or so we

will have questions from the audience. the way we would like to do that is there are three cards in the audience. write your questions on those cards. we will also take some from the media. will try to start on time and end on time. let me begin with the national defense strategy, which if people have not read they ought to. it is an extraordinary document. it describes the present time as one of global disorder. it talks about the decline of rules-based international order established at the end of world war ii. we see that disorder today in the headlines, weather about russia, north korea, iran, or china. all of which is contributed to defense strategy's characterization is the most complex and volatile security environment we have experienced in recent memory. as you survey this landscape,

how do you prioritize the challenges to american and global security? you have talked about alliances as partners in dealing with challenges. how do you enlist -- how do you assist those? first of all, thank you for doing this, steve. and nancy. know the regard that the department of defense has for this organization. reflect ande to think, which is unusual in this town. [laughter] sec. mattis: we really appreciate that. how do we look at threats in the world? we look at them really from three angles. one is power, one is urgency, and one is will. we are in a competition of sorts to maintain this world and turn it over to slightly -- in slightly better condition than we received. in terms of raw power, i look at

russia and the nuclear arsenal they have. i look at their activities over georgia 10 years, from syria.mea to i could go on and on and on. think it ispower, i clearly russia that we have to look at and address. there aref urgency, two. one is the current fight against i want extremists -- for example, there are 70 nations plus organizations working on that fight that is ongoing. we must continue that. we call it irregular. at the same time in terms of urgency, it is the north korean nuclear missile programs that are clearly violating international sanctions, clearly

a threat to peace and stability. in terms of will, clearly it is china. in china's case, we look at it as different than russia. russia wants security around the periphery by having insecurity with other nations. they want veto authority over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of the nations surrounding them. china on the other hand seems to want some sort of tribute states around them. we are looking for how to work with china. it 15 years from now we will be remembered most for how we set the conditions for a positive relationship with china. look or where, we we can cooperate. we will cooperate where we can. you see the unanimous security council resolutions on

denuclearization of the korean peninsula. where weonfront them must. for example, freedom of navigation in international waters. counterpart, both in beijing and in singapore 10 days ago. he will be here one week from now to continue that dialogue as we sort it out. how do we look at our real strengths here? our strengths are the networks of alliances and partnerships around the world. i will just run through what i have done in the last 30 days. of october iweek was at nato, our most important alliance. 29 nations that work together. everyone of them has its own interests and perspective, but at the end of the day nato is

stronger than ever in terms of 27 nations clearly raising their defense expenditures, nations that were aligned with us from the rollout of the nuclear posturing review. it is a strong alliance, and it is getting stronger. cancun.trip was down to i met with ministers of defense. thought,ck on 2017 and that was a crummy year for democracy around the world. not so in south america. not so in central america. not so in mexico. imperfect, they may be. for economic headwinds. full of the american appetite for drugs. in europe is corroding institutions. but democracy is alive and well. they are holding elections. they do not know who is going to win -- that is the way it should be in a democracy. the first time i heard my

position described, you will love this president nancy, i was the minister of peace. not the minister of defense. from singapore. we are welcome. many nations in private tell us why they need us engaged out there, because they are concerned about what china is doing and the piling up of massive debt. modi.minister you see what happened in sri lanka where they lost sovereignty over their own harbor. one of those issues i will be talking with my counterpart here shortly. two days ago i got back from a dialogue in the middle east, where we talked about moving forward on security architecture that maintains what passes

for peace in the middle east and restores it in several key areas -- yemen being foremost. obviously, syria moving toward the geneva process against russia's example, frankly. we are at least all on the same sheet of music about it. there is a quick rundown about how i see the threats and what we are doing with alliances and partnerships. mr. hadley: thank you. problem,ift to another which i know is on your agenda. ip to try andged us address the root causes of violent extremism. it is a big task, needless to noted thatk force whatime is right to adopt the 9/11 commission called a preventative strategy that is as

much, or more, political as it is madilitary. you see their strategy for violent extremism where non-kinetic measures and building resilience are the priority? as we look back over these difficult years, we just recognized the anniversary of the attack on the french paratrooper barracks and the u.s. marine peacekeeper barracks in beirut. 35 years ago last week. you look at what has happened since that time. you recognize that in most cases, the breeding ground for this is not something that can be addressed by the military. view is that the state department has to lead with a id. we lead with the example of our own country.

we work with like-minded nations in this regard. review during the was out of years i the marines on a university campus and had time to think about what had happened, i believed that u.s. foreign-policy have become militarized. so i come back to this job, in my view was that we had to have state department in the lead, and military had to be an enabling, supporting element to this. you simply could not shoot your way out of this problem. frustratedt, i was by some aspects of the state department's budget. in my testimony i said that if you do not fully fund up on fundol hill, if you do not it please buy ammunition for me because i will need it. it was a blunt way of saying why we needed to keep america's foreign-policy and our diplomats

foremost in this effort. at the same time i have dealt with this adversary we're up against in the middle east since in one form or another. i have watched it more since that uneventful year in the middle east. it is clear we will need to get better with our allies on the military side, feeding information to police off the battlefields and collaborating together so that by th we buy time for diplomats to amass a larger effort. i am under no illusions about what they are like. they did not arrive where they are at through a rational process. into many cases, perhaps, we're going to have to deal with that in a military and police matter.

the next generation, we are not going to address it in that way. that one withress education and economic opportunity. people need hope. it cannot be unilateral anywhere in the world. you are breeding the antibodies to what you are trying to do. it must be multilateral. inclusive. the military must remain steadfast while supporting in every sense of the word, not just with its military activities but it's enabling military activities it needs to support the state department. mr. hadley: let's follow up if we can with a specific example. the u.s.-south asian strategy called for a political settlement to the war in afghanistan that protects thjee us's friends from terrorist threats. forces,rt came from

including more robust counterterrorism operations. wasntly, an ambassador appointed to lead diplomatic efforts to initiate talks between the taliban, the afghans, and the united states. so how can our military strategy and operations in afghanistan support and not undermine the peace effort? u.s. and nato military forces have a role in afghanistan after a peace agreement is reached? militaryis: any u.s. coalition role after the piece is reached would be conditions based. that would depend upon the threat. this strategy together, ladies and gentlemen, we put something together called the 4rs plus s. the first are was too regionalized the approach. you did not start with afghanistan. come up with a strategy and then

say, well, we need to look at the countries surrounding it. we start outside and work our way inside. that we hadognized to put more troops in. menreason we had to put the -- to reinforce, the second are -- is to support the afghan security forces are readily by training, advising, and assisting. what we have done is to create an army. we pulled the training wheels off too early. by that, i mean that only the afghan special forces had mentors from nato nations with them. every time they went against the enemy, the taliban, they won against the enemy. in penny packets across the country were afghan security forces that we had pulled all mentoring away from,

so we were going to look at this as a regional problem. it reinforced the troops and realign them so more courses had our mentors with them -- so more forces had our mentors with them. when you fight in mount miss country, the high ground is tough to take it the enemy has it. mountainous country, the high ground is tough to take if the enemy has it. we would be able to always have the high ground. that changes the tactical situation. it is protection of the people that we are trying to do. in some cases, we surrendered ground where few, if any, people lived. thes not a matter of military holding the ground. and 1000 dead in august september. they stayed in the field

fighting, and the taliban has been prevented from doing what they said they were going to do, which was to hold district and provincial centers and disrupt elections. the most important r was the the fourth 1 --urt reconciliation. he is a force of nature. he is hard at work on this, on an afghan-led, afghan-owned peace reconciliation. it is working from our perspective, but it is heartbreakingly difficult to that progress and violence can go on at the same time. i understand those who are disheartened by this, but we never thought in the military this was going to be an easy job. but we are there because we want to protect ourselves from what

happened on 9/11, and this is worthwhile. that is where we are right now. president put this forward, i guarantee you that he challenged every assumption. he challenged every sentence. he challenged every aspect of what we were going to commit to. a very robust discussion in every sense of the word. as allies realize, we were going to stay what had dropped from 50 , that has now reversed and we're back to 49. 1. both of the nations that joined again were arab muslim nations. we have troops coming from partner nations and nato-out like nations that have been added in addition to the 3000 we added when we reinforced the force there. so right now, that is the way we're going forward.

the goal is reconciliation. the ambassador has been a welcome addition to the campaign. mr. hadley: i want to switch to syria, if we can. the usip has been advising the 10th mountain division in iraq and syria over the past year. as the u.s. and its coalition partners seek to fight and decisively defeat isis and prevent reemergence. we also see in syria a despot powerime and competition in terms of russia. and of course, iran as well. this year forces found themselves in a firefight with russian contractors left as many as 300 russians killed and wounded. how do we sort out and think about complexity of this sort? what are the lessons learned from how to confront challenges ,n nonstate actors like isis

while meeting the threat from great power competition at the same time? and how do we operationalize deeper cooperation as you talk about among the defense and development establishments to respond to these complex complex situations? sec. mattis: no one said this was going to be an easy evening. [laughter] sec. mattis: this is a tragedy that has grown beyond my ability to articulate. i have seen refugees in refugee camps. i have seen refugees in bosnia. i have seen them in southeast asia. i have seen them in africa. i have never seen refugees as traumatized as those coming out of syria. not even close. russia'se not for regrettable vetoes in the u.n. that marginalized it, we would

never have gotten to this point. and certainly if not for the iranian regime but not the people giving full support to assad, he would have been long gone. when mr. putin came in, we see the reason i think eventually assad will have to be managed out of power. election run any under the auspices of the syrian regime is going to have any credibility with either the syrian people or with the international community. but what have we learned along the way? been ald make is, it has partner, a nonstate partner, a that between kurd and arab has done the bulk of the fighting in syria.

remember that at the same time, iraqi security forces and popular militias were fighting in iraq. when we came into office, we reviewed the situation and determined that we would have to change what was going on. i went early to nato and sat down at brussels with my counterparts talking about a host of issues in syria, iraq, and isis loomed large. it was clear that foreign fighters returning home to the nearest civilization long rub off of them would be a strategic assault basically on our european partners and other parts of the world. africa, southeast asia, that sort of thing. so we changed tactics from what i would call patrician warfare, where you pushed them out of one warfare,attrition

where he pushed them out of one place and into another. it first, and then move against it.and try to get the civilians out of the way. every battlefield we are in over their is also a humanitarian field. we were not always successful at that. remember that we are up against a merciless enemy who has used locals and innocents as shields. we did our best to avoid those deaths, but some of them were a consequence of war and were more than we ever wanted to see happen. but it was part of the fight. , and moved against them they are now down to 2% of the ground they conceded the most it effort is sustaining. after we go through and push them out, you must immediately

create local security forces in order to hold the ground and then get locals back into position, community councils, so that locals feel they are now in control. control. the international community has been helpful. we have the money to help the people who are trying tocontrol. the international community has been helpful. we have the money to help the people who are trying to recover, but it is emergency services inside syria. inside iraq where we have a government and they did go through an election, putting a government together, we have a government we can support. in syria we have to support the locals, and we are going to work through the geneva process to make our way forward for syria. we are committed to it. russia's best effort to divert the process, not produce anything worthwhile. we are calling on russia to support the u.n., geneva process. will they do it?

it is in their best interest eventually that syria not be the cauldron of violence it is now, so we will keep pressing on it, supporting the u.n. in their effort. a relatedask you question. there has been a lot of discussion about iran wanting to create an arc of influence from hran to beirut. could you say what we are doing to counter iranian influence in syria and to frustrate their ability to birth -- to establish this strategic arc? sec. mattis: our authority to be in syria is on the defeat isis campaign. that is the authority i have from the president, the authority of the congress and authorization for the use of military force, and that is the only specific military purpose

we are undertaking. at the same time, secretary of state pompeo, taking the lead as he should in something like this, has doubled a number of diplomats in the liberated parts of syria. magnificenthas been illustrating the international coalition including funding for emergency services. that continues to go on. will that in itself i getting the locals empowered to represent their own communities, defend their own communities against a return of isis in itself start the iranian influence? it will not, but that is where the geneva process comes in to say iran, you have no business in syria, you have not been helpful. destabilizing in lebanon against the government, the hezbollah.

they have fighters in syria, and they need to get out if we are going to have peace. it is a matter of united states and nato training mission in iraq, i nato element that will make iraqi of a terry something that stands up for iraq and is not reliant on the tehranl of the tamron -- regime. this is a senseless war for the iranian people to be in syria or trying to make iraq into a rump state. it will not work, and it is wasting the resources that would if that wasin iran not a revolutionary regime. if it was a government that cared about its people. it is more about the long-term view that anything we are going to do with the u.s. military to

rebuff the iranian influence in those places, that is best led by diplomats and political leaders who were present their diplomats ind are the international community supporting them? >> will move to a couple of the questions soon. one area where we see increased challenges in managing partnerships is the red sea. in djibouti and the coast of somalia, eritrea and sudan, there is a proliferation of military bases and appointments sponsored by the gulf states, turkey, china and other external actors. how do you see this region? what priority does it have, and what is the administration's approach? has had moreyemen problems than any people deserve to carry. we are calling on all of the

cootiesspecific to the -- the houthis and arabs to meet in september and not talk about subordinate issues or which town they will meet in, but talk about demilitarizing the border so the saudis and our don't have to worry about missiles coming in. to ensure that all the missiles iran has provided are put under international watch and parked somewhere where they can be kept accounted for. as we set the conditions for tourn division -- return traditional areas inside yemen, a government that allows for this local autonomy that the hhoouthis and southerners want.

we have got to replace combat with compromise, and we are mr.ing as we speak with martin griffis, the u.n. special envoy area and i met with him, secretary pompeo has spoken frequently as we try to ms international support. manama.met in that was brought up forcefully, not just by myself and by others as well. it is time to stop this. right now what the iranians have done by bringing in any missiles and this sort of thing has interrupted the freedom of navigation. they are the ones who keep fueling this conflict, and the need to knock it off. they may do it through proxies as they do often, but they do not escape accountability for what they are doing through proxies and surrogate forces. we will still hold them accountable. >> the president has said the

u.s. is leading the inf treaty. how does this -- leaving the treaty. how does this affect the military's readiness plans and the role of nuclear weapons and how will it affect u.s. posture in europe and the pacific rim? sec. mattis: i was going back to some papers when i came into the thennd i noticed undersecretary of state for arms , 10 years ago, called out the russians for violations of the inf. i can go through -- i can take 10 minutes going through year-by-year the efforts of our diplomats to try to get russia to come back into compliance. through denial and deceit, russia has continued not just to do research and development but

now standing up multiple units that are armed with weapons. that is a violation and eventually russia i believe through a slip revealed the missile they sent did not exist -- it did exist. once they realized it was revealed, they said it doesn't violate the treaty. by the way you are violating the truth -- treaty over things we cannot make sense out of. we have done everything we can to poetically. the diplomats are still trying as we speak. we have made it very clear that when nagy nations sign a treaty and one violates it and even nations sign a treaty and one violates, it is a tenable situation. it jeopardizes the trust your need for any other treaty. right now we came out with our

nuclear posture review, talked to all of the nations in the nato alliance and other partner nations, took their ideas on board. when we rolled it out, it was received generally across the board and in the u.s. congress with support. onfar as the inf as a follow issue, we have briefed the nato council and the nuclear counsel in nato more than once. we have had detailed briefs by our technical experts. and a few weeks ago, i said if any of you have any advice, please send it to me. i want to know what options you can find because the only ones i see are highly unpalatable. where are we now? the security adviser carried the concern directly into moscow.

secretary pompeo is engaged with his foreign minister counterparts. and the foreign minister meeting goes december 4, and this will be a front and center topic. i was just in product the day before yesterday. the day before yesterday. i met with other nato nations when i was in manama last saturday. we are doing everything we can to find any option, and if any of you have good ideas, send me an email. americake every nut in has my emailed address. i am sure you can find it and send it to me. i don't think this is the military. this is the u.s. military. we belong to you and we are accountable to you. if you have ideas, send them. that goes to allied officers as

well. i don't think all the great the aircraftom carriers. if you have ideas, tell me what you recommend. we will continue to collaborate very closely with our allies and consult with them, and that is both through the ministers of defense and the ministers of foreign affairs. what does it do to us in charge of military terms? i don't want to go into too much detail, but there are options symmetric and asymmetric that are available. i am not committing to anything now. the presidentsion will take counsel from all of us, and it will be up to president trump, his views on nuclear weapons are well-known. he hates them, and we will be working this issue with him. >> this is a question from our audience. currently i see competitors and

adversaries relying on illicit tode influence and messaging win their national goals without military conflict. how do you see dod and the u.s. government competing and winning in this different age? andcit trade, influence messaging. i have a, an organization that has got 95% of our cyber capability in the u.s. government called u.s. cyber command obviously. the number one mission they have now is the protection of our election infrastructure and identification of the influence campaign. we reveal information.

we keep track of it and work ,ith private internet providers content providers. you know their names. we alert them by the fbi, the police, law enforcement effort. right now it is all hands-on deck and cyber command to keep freeemocratic processes and unencumbered. it is difficult because of freedom of speech. how do you ferret out what is going on from foreign countries that are actually using basically biased information or false information to incite cleavages inside our own society? it will take an informed electorate to maintain this. it is not something military does alone, but certainly we have an obligation to protect the country from that sort of andg and alert the fbi

department of homeland security when we see it coming. we are working hard at it, but it is an area we have got to balance our constitutional freedoms and not inhibit those even as we try to maintain the integrity of the election and the campaign, campaigners' messages so they are not having their message misconstrued by others. tough issue, but we are up for it and looking forward to it because when it comes to protecting the country in this day and age, it is not just about guns and ships. this is a powerful weapon in the hands of people that know what they are doing, and our adversaries do. space for a move to moment. this is a question from the audience. the space is being considered a

war fighting domain. what do you think our objectives should be, and from a planning perspective, what are some new factors planners should think about considering space, time, and force? sec. mattis: space has become competitive. we watch when the chinese shot their satellite out of the air, blew it to pieces. we have watched other nations putting capabilities into space. i would just tell you it is two-pronged. it is defend, we have to defend what we have in outer space, use for navigation, communication, peaceful purposes, commerce, banking, and military intelligence, surveillance satellites will have to put satellites up. they can be defended or can be resilient against attack,

resistant to attack or replaced swiftly, that sort of thing. we will have to defend what we have. also we have to be prepared to use offensive weapons in space should someone decide to militarize it and go on the offensive. we cannot simply play defense. no sport in the world, competitive sport in the world can just lay defense and win. this is not an area we want to be second-place in. make her thatould first we are going to need some it conceptould call of how we are going to conduct ourselves in space, all of us, internationally. then we will have to recognize if nations are not willing to live by those rules such as we have seen on this planet -- here below, we will have to have the ability to defend and the ability to do offense.

he president has been clear wants to organize accordingly. what we will do is put together a command that can compete in space on whatever level and adversary wants to compete, chooses to compete, and then we will ensure we go to congress with how we believe how we can best organize not for bureaucracy but for the capabilities of president and vice president rightly so we don't surrender what we do in space using space for commerce or navigation or anything else. it is critical to the economy, our way of life now. we have grown reliant on it. we are organizing appropriately and we will go forward with congress right alongside this to say i will enable it with legislation and carry out the president s direction. -- president's direction.

>> the secretary had some interesting remarks in bahrain about yemen, about the killing of khashoggi. pick up on that thread. one of the questions comes from the media. in the wake of the death of commodity -- jamal khashoggi and the considerable casualties in devon, do you believe saudi arabia has made a good faith toope -- good faith effort reduce harm, and what do you hope to see the saudi and uae due to prove as the state department looks towards another certification of u.s. reviewing support to those two allies? i would say the murder of khashoggi is, i would separate it out from the yemen situation. that stands unique, by itself. the president wants to get to the bottom and says we will.

turkey has so far provided evidence for every allegation they have made about what happened. so no one nation controls all the information. i spoke to the foreign minister of saudi arabia two days ago in manama. he said there would be a full investigation. let me swing over to yemen, separate issue. what we have been providing since the last administration or in the last administration, we reviewed it when we came internally. in regards to this war that is going on. -- this war between the arab theition and the houthis, last administration agreed to provide certain information, refueling support so the pilots

didn't feel they have to make a hasty decision to drop or not. than 20% probably less of their aircraft. they have their own. what is it we are pushing for at this point? we have been holding classes on how do you actually establish no fire areas? what do you do for restrictive fire areas? how do you currently the effects of bombs? how do you investigate what happened? some people have a high expectation as demonstrated by the u.s. and nato air forces of what can be accomplished, and we have demonstrated what can be achieved through technology and training and putting it all together. even then we have had mistakes but in our forces we have set a standard that is very high.

the commander of the royal saudi air force has been going from base to base as we continue the trading and conferences for them. he is looking his pilots in the eye, explaining there is never a reason to drop if they don't think they can hit the right target. war, i have experience in it, is one tragedy piled upon another tragedy. welcome to war. but right now we want to achieve a level of capability by those forces fighting against the houthis, that they are not killing innocent people. the longer-term solution, 30 days from now, we want to see everybody around a peace table based on a cease-fire, based on a pullback from the border and based on the ceasing of dropping of bombs that will event -- allow the special envoy who

knows what he is doing to get them together in sweden and end this war. that will be the only way to , improved accuracy of bombs is still a war, so we have to move to a peace effort. we cannot say we will do it in the future. we need to be doing this the next three days. we have acquired this problem for long enough down there. the saudi's and emirates -- soudis and emirates are ready. blocked, had not been we would be on our way now. offrom peter nielsen denmark, you spent a lot of time and energy strengthening cooperation with allies and partners. what do you see as the major accomplishments in this area, and what are the challenges and opportunities looking forward?

sec. mattis: it has been eye-opening. i never aspired to come into this job. i never met president trump before he called me back to bed mr. as president-elect. met with him. i had my views. i was at stanford and had time to study. i did not realize how much other nations -- i had read about it, did not realize how many other nations looked to us as a calming our confidence building partner for them. wherever i go, i find it from south america to the middle east, certainly to the pacific, certainly brussels, the nato meetings, that they all want us to stay. they want us to keep at it. where are we now?

i went to nato, my first meeting . i have been a supreme allied commander before in europe, i knew many of the people on the staff, many of the principals sitting around the table from my previous days, and i assumed when i went there i would lose some rapport with nations' representatives who represented their own nations interests. when i said there was no way i and ask back to america american parents to care more about the freedoms that european children enjoy then european parents did, that they were going to have to pay a modicum for the best defense in the world, and what is that? 2%. only leaves 98% for everything else.

what we can draw from the renaissance and the lightman to survive in this world we have to recognize after 2014 especially things began changing and it was no longer the same europe that it was before putin began his adventures and terrorists began shooting up the streets of paris , brussels and elsewhere. i expected to lose report. i did not. -- rapport. i did not. i learned this when i sat behind secretary perry as executive itretary in 1990 -- what was -- 1997i think. i first heard him say you have paid or we cannot carry this effort. i heard this from secretary cohen and rumsfeld. gates, it from secretary

a four-star when i was nato supreme commander. new.was not the difference was the extremely strong statement of the president that it had gone on long enough. i was trying to think about how to put it to our allies where it was not adversarial. it is not about being antagonistic. i was coming out of denver on my way east to go through senate confirmation. you have heard it 100 times great you know what i will say. the stewardess said in the event we lose cabin pressure, masks will drop. put your own mask on first and then help those around you. ,hat i would call this, we are woman talk about america first, it is not america alone. we are trying to get our own economic house in order, fiscal house in order. we are putting our own mask on

first. we are not a worthy outlay or partner for you in the audience if we are not on a fiscally sustainable, economically vibrant path because no nation is maintained its military wherewithal that did not keep its fiscal house in order. that is the approach we are taking. it has not cost me the report -- rapport i anticipated. 27 of 29 nations are raising their funding. and all 29 if you look at the overall, what they account for in terms of defense spending, all 29 today are raising the amount of money they spend and commit. i am relatively optimistic about where we are with allies, with nato being a representative

example of where we are at. has not been easy, lots of strong words, but that is what democracies do. they say where they stand. at the end of the day we are together 100% when it comes to putting germans and italians into the lithuanian forest in a bunch of other nations. servingtenant colonel under the lithuanian brigade commander's command security can see nato working from the front edge of the politics back to brussels and in the nations' capitals. i only have three lines of effort. make the u.s. military more lethal, build schlanger partnerships with our partners and allies and reform how the defense department does business so i can look you all in the eye and say we are spending their money properly and getting more lethal force out of it. i would tell you in that regard for the first time in 70 years we are having an audit done so i

can look you in the eye and say in the midst of all of this we are not taking money and flushing this down the drain. we will fix everything, tell you about it, fix every one. >> want to ask a last question sec. mattis: thank god. >> [laughter] >> it has been quite a tour of the world. we thank you for the time. i want to suggest a fourth line of effort. when you have talked about syria and iraq and afghanistan, yemen ,nd the issue of fragile states a lot of people say if you are going to deal with those problems, you need yes, defense but you need development, you need diplomacy, some say democracy, but in any event some kind of good governance. resourcing allly

elements of that pentateuch, if you will, and how are we doing about coordinating about all of these so we can apply them against the challenges? conflict >> we can always coordinate better when we look at can history with that national argument is king george the third, we set up a government that could never be a king over us. it would not be efficient. we set it up intentionally that three different branches of government would be coequal and compete. one had a bicameral legislature to add more fuel to the fire. so for allies and partners in the room who we frustrate austin, we are accomplishing the very purpose of our founding fathers because we frustrate ourselves even more. always collaborate better.

one thing that bob gates when he was secretary of defense, dr. gates used to say the only thing that allows government to work a trusted levels is personal relation between those at the top. for all you young people in the audience who wonder sometimes about going to work in the government, if you put others first. if you decide to go into government, don't forget with dr. gates said. a longtime civil servant. we can make this experiment in democracy work but we will have to work together on it. we need young people to come in and do it. come together and a spirit of collaboration has to be there if we are going to make it work. know, when you said are we providing enough in development funds? in germany, they have to provide for every dollar that goes into

national defense, they have to provide a dollar to development funds. they have very robust efforts to teach good governance and reward it with development money. it is a disciplined process. one of the reasons we need allies in this world, it is very simple. nations with allies thrive and those without them died. our allies have many of these issues worked out in a much more coherent manner because their programs are developed from the lessd up in a much more complex government then we have and a smaller government. it is easier for them to apply their resources and areas that we could come in and reinforce what they are doing, we can work together with them and get a much better return on the effort.

but we are going to have to work with allies. no one nation on its own can defend itself. no one nation can deal with bad governance or criminal transnational criminals or something like that. we are going to have to work together. ?o come are we doing enough together we are but we could be more coherent on the national and international level. we have to committed. but thanks very much, steve. >> it was a tour de force. thank you for joining me, secretary mattis. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> with seven days until the

midterm elections, c-span is like this evening in indianapolis for a debate between democratic senator joe donnelly, republican mike braun, and libertarian lucy brenton. the pesach begins at 7 p.m. eastern reiki are on c-span. your primary source for camping 2018. joining us is alan miller. he is the founder and ceo of the news literally -- literacy project. good morning. talk to our viewers about the news literacy project. guest: we are a national nonpartisan educational nonprofit that works with educators and journalists to teach middle and high school students how to know what to believe in a digital age and give them the tools to be engaged participants and democracy. i was a journalist for 29 years.