school. the amount of energy focused on that does not balance the amount of people that we focus on who are just trying to come into save their lives. the reason for that is the cost benefit analysis that should be applied at the southern border. there have been changes made by the dhs. the problem is that we have an old system. they have a lot of systems that do not " talk." it used to be that when someone married -- that is a modification that could be

addressed if our systems were more aligned. for me, it is important, but the most important issue is pushing more people through the system. then you will see if those options exist -- b most of the people here who are undocumented would have a way through -- most of the people here who are undocumented would have a way through. the visa overstays are more of an issue then people potentially coming in at the southern part of entry. host: eleanor is president >> today's white house briefing is -- will begin shortly. on -- until then, some more of

this washington journal. host: we will start ask you about the recent piece you had on the washington times on the americans and deterrence strategy. explain what a deterrence strategy is.

how that fits in with broader u.s. defense policy. national security policy. guest: our national security policy is built around deterrence. since the time of george washington, who said one of the best ways to ensure peace is to prepare for war. it -- deterrence intends to tell our adversaries that they will have unacceptable consequences, unbearable consequences if they attack us or allies. all of our defense posture is built around that idea. we do not want war but we want to make sure everyone knows if they attack us or allies, they will suffer. theoretically, everything is built around that. a defense structure and defense

capability, diplomacy that is tough minded and america centric to support that and also we will have economics. our economy has to prosper or the military can't be supported. our whole diplomacy cannot be supported. everything is built on american prosperity. one thing leads to another and all three makes up the deterrent. host: a piece in the washington times. 21st century deterrence needs to be defective against nuclear and major defensive conflicts. that requires constantly evolving military strength. do you think that the u.s. military and defense department budget cap pace over the years from with our -- four with the current pace challenges? guest: you cannot just say we are spending ask and getting the deterrent we need. the answer has never been poor

money or the pentagon. we need to buy smarter and i think we have slipped a bit in the past for years. i am going back may be 10 years. he had been buying things like the f-35, which can't fight. we have the main ballot tanks -- battle tanks, as the japanese lean -- javelin missiles -- we have aircraft carriers that have -- used to be the best symbol of american power. the chinese among others have built area denial weapons that prevent bringing our carriers within range of their ground targets. we have to really think a lot harder and more imaginatively. think you really have to understand why things have to be

bought smarter and put together smarter in order to really have a defect -- effective the current -- deterrence. host: you say are nuclear and conventional deterrence are fading. our economy may already be in a cake -- and capable of sustaining bus -- us. what do you mean by that? guest: we have an ability to fight. he have a massive armed force, whether it is structured correctly or not but we have a economy that is much weaker than it was 20 or 30 weeks ago. you can see it in inflation and the fact that we are no longer energy dependent. you can see it that we no longer import rare metals that are key

to manufacture the systems we need. all of those things point to a weaker economy. our manufacturing is done overseas. we look at shorter wars these days. a long-term conventional war where we are in it for five or six or 10 years. like we were in twentysomething years in afghanistan. our peer to peer ratio. you're not fighting peers in afghanistan or iraq. if we are engaged in a long war in -- against china, our economies will be cut off from china. how will be able to survive? our economy support us and that some horror? i don't think so. --

host: you talk about topamax are willing to trade strength for appeasement. guest: you'd look back at mr. biden's trade record. he gave the russians on their own terms a five-year extension of the new nuclear weapons agreement. he gave them a five-year extension without including their hypersonic weapons. i would not be insist on the hypersonic weapons included? esther biden seems to give away things and not get things in return. he empowered -- the paris climate accords without putting in more restrictions on china and india or the world voters. he is about to do a new deal with iran. a new obama deal. -- a comprehensive plan of

action which will be worse than the original deal. he has about to give away billions of dollars in relief of sanctions to around. -- iran. was about to remove them from the terrorist list. these people do not know anything other than appeasement because they keep giving things away. we need tough minus -- minded diplomacy that is america centric. host: rights for the united -- washington times. your calls and comments at -- want to ask you about the

administration's response to the russian ukraine war. the headline this morning. pentagon looks to vastly expand weapons provided to ukraine. they write in the washington post that the biden administration is poised to the -- dramatically expand the scope of weapons it is providing to ukraine. u.s. officials said on tuesday with the pentagon looking for the transfer with humphreys -- what is your and -- impression on how the u.s. has responded militarily to aid ukraine? guest: i don't believe we should have u.s. troops on the ground or u.s. aircraft in the air. that is a good call by mr. biden. all of this nonsense about we are sending them what they need, we are not. but the ukrainian steve most are air combat power. -- what the ukrainians need our

air combat power. --are air combat power. we need to give them more of those things. we have given them effective weapons but for the most part, we need to give them the system they really need. the thing they most need art combat aircraft and we are refusing to give that to them. host: people believed that the u.s. and nato can remain -- can keep boots off the ground there as much as they are giving weapons and advisors and supplies that we cannot get involved militarily in the conflict between russia and ukraine. guest: i think we can and should . nato does not include clean as a member so they are not entitled to the article five protections. it would be different if they were but they are not. we do not have a vital national security interest in ukraine that says -- we still stand for

freedom. we stand for -- in opposition to tyranny. that is why we should and can continue to help ukrainians. host: let's get to our calls. go first, carl in portland, oregon on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate c-span all day represent fair -- news. i would like to hear anything besides military help for the ukrainian. what else is there on the back burner for people to give to the ukrainians? guest: thanks for the call. frankly, there is anything that will mean anything. there are getting a lot of humanitarian aid.

there is endless numbers of shipments of u.s. military -- vertical supplies and so forth -- medical supplies and so forth. they are fighting for their own independence and freedom and a deed to kinds of weapons, -- they need certain kinds of weapons. mr. biden is refusing to get that to them. that is a bad call. host: darrell in eastpoint, michigan. democratic line. caller: i want to mention a couple things. the advantage of the -- [indiscernible] in other words, the ukrainians can have 22 javelin -- and one russian tank. the pressure -- question is how soon can we get them.

americans have many troops on the border versus 1400 -- 14 million ukrainian -- several million within the frontlines and several million to provide bigger support in the district so they have a fantastic advantage. i think the most important is -- ukrainians are fighting for city and country and their freedom. the russians are fighting for boudin's glory. putin's coil -- glory. the russians are hearing about families and family members suffering. as long as we get the javelin fizzles to soldiers quickly, i

think the end will be admirable against the work -- russians. guest: a lot to pick out. basically, the issue is not the cost of the weapon systems. javelin fizzles are cheap compared to others but we are not paying for the may 29. we are not paying for tanks. we are sending them ammunition and military supplies. we need to be supplying the stuff they really need. if poland went to send those aircraft, we should give them permission. we should help them do it. biden refuses them to do that -- refuses to do that. all -- there are more reinforcements coming. we can see coming another

russian offensive, critically the donbass region -- particularly the donbass region. they are building up again so they can take those separate independent republics which is neither separate or independent as part of ukraine and sees them. the russians may want to do that and call it a day but that is not going to end. it will not and on peaceful terms. -- end on peace for -- peaceful terms. they use their little green pants strategy and infiltrated troops not wearing russian insignia and they conquered those areas. the crimean part of ukraine and they are trying to do the same thing in donbass. they are unable to. hundred 90,000 troops can invade. they can occupied -- they cannot

occupy. it is a huge country and the ukrainian people are extraordinarily brave. they are fighting for their homeland. they have a morale and moral advantage. we will continue to see that. zelenskyy has been a wonderful leader. he has refused to be evacuated. he says i don't need a ride. that is a hero. ukraine is lucky to have him. we have a lot of things going on here. we need to continue to support ukrainians. we do not need to send in troops. we do not need to send in american aircraft and i don't think nato will get involved because they are scared as hell of the russians. host: our ukrainian pilots trained to fly american jets and drones?

guest: no. they can fly the drones but not american jets. they are not well trained on them. -- we don't know how to operate them. we get them -- can we get them the migs. we can but mr. biden fuses to do that. -- refuses to do that. i don't know how the russians can escalate it more except going nuclear and i do not think they would do that. host: the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call this morning and one of the things that wanted to ask you because i understand what you saying about raising biden one the things that i see in

watching all the coverage on eight is that we are divided amongst our sales and i think at a time where what we are seeing in ukraine and i think why ukrainians had a session advantage on the russia -- it's because they are united as a people. all we talk about is blaming someone for inaction instead of helping the person. if we are country and we really care about what really is going on we would support the the stations of the praise because he has more information and i think daddies a failure the list and don't care how many

wavebands we saying. of we -- how are we gonna stand we are attacked and i would like for you to address that police. -- please. guest: you raise a good point and i agree with you but there is a key point you are missing. we are a divided country right now. i don't see any way that will be stopped or you can be united around mr. biden. the problem is not that we are a divided country but we have a president projects is --his acts on weakness constantly. he cannot unite against weekends -- we cannot unite against weakness. we have a president. it is like the situation that -- we had a very very weak prime

minister minutes early and went on to part two apiece hitler's. a faneuil man -- identifying with whom around that they could unite so it's not a question of supporting mr. biden right or wrong, it is supporting biden when he is right in opposing him when he is wrong and he is partly right on ukraine but he is very significantly wrong and he is wrong on things like appeasement on iran and things like trying to -- china. host: deb babbitt is our guest --jed babbit is our guest. were independents and others, (202) 748-8002.

12 briefly look -- i want to briefly look at the democrat's budget -- a total of 773 billion -- nearly 41 perceived power including nine additional adults for ships and 12.6 billion to modernize the army, marine, fighting vehicles. your general sense of the biden administration 2023 proposal. guest: it is a question of what they are doing with the money and when you see that the navy is retiring 24 ships this coming gear and replacing it with nine, you have to wonder because the fleet that the navy says -- they need a 500 vessel fleet to be able to oppose china. we are down to 280 within the next five years.

that does not add up. the air force association is older in terms of the aircraft. it is weaker and less ready to fight then the air force ever has been in its history. the question of military integrity and military capability involves two things and two things only. -- and the readiness of the force and we have the -- wrong things being built. you are seeing more and more aircraft being retired and getting too old. you are seeing ships to being retired. left to wonder are -- if art capabilities don't match and are readiness is in the toilet. we see things going on. the army is now, for example, saying that they will not do

abject or neutral fitness test. it means women and other shoulders get separate standards from other fitness -- for soldiers. that is the opposite of readiness. right now, the force capabilities, the lethality of the force is less than it has been in decades and the readiness is not what he needs to be. those other thing they have to be concerned about. that is not what they are doing with the budget. host: i wanted to play you his comments in response to senator elizabeth warman -- warren and her response to contract members. >> one of the things the defense contractors love to do when they are flush with extra cash is to

use it to boost their stock back -- prices. the top contractors spent $15.5 billion on net ibex, sending their stock prices zooming. that is the most up any -- of any year on record. it is not just members of the congress using inflation as an is used to ask for money from the panic on. i am troubled to hear pentagon officials doing the same. secretary austen, let me ask you directly. are you comfortable with the figure in the president's proposed budget? >> i am comfortable and here is why. you heard me say earlier that we went to great pains to develop the national defense strategy and we do that our budget would have to -- match the strategy so

we went through great pains to make sure to match the strength. this is a robust budget and it allows us to get be capabilities we need to support our operational concepts. host:jed babbit, the response. guest: i will look to other parts of other industries to talk about stock buybacks and inflation stop prices. mr. austin is best categorized as a innocent bystander. from what i can see and read. he does not seem to have a lot of influence over president bynum. he is not one of the key advisors so having said that, he is talking about a robust budget.

he is not talking about lethality and readiness and this is a man who is, quite rightly, imposing wokeness on the military. in many ways and that is the opposite of readiness. wokeness whether military is a form of national suicide. i cannot take mr. austin searcy -- seriously. host: when you say wokeness, what are the specifics that the pentagon is doing? guest: i have a. april 2021, he was talking about how the united states military has to emphasize lgbtq rights in its relations with other governments. that is not something we have a lot of time to do and if there is time allowed, whatever, but this is the kind of thing -- the

military doing things that do not increase lethality and readiness. the army's general neutral physical fitness test out the window. there is a lot of that going on. as mr. austin said, that the most important thing is climate change in diversity. that is not what a military commander needs to be concerned about. he is a mediocre commander. i don't think he is someone that the president even attempts to rely on. host: let's get back to our collars. edward is next up. independent lined -- line. caller: i was stationed in korea for 17 months and -- in the minefields and we were successful in keeping the enemy out of our area. relating to our southern border,

our military is capable of defending our border in little of going to --lieu and going to foreign countries. i have six members in the military and their skills are trained around-the-clock. at this time our military is capable. guest: our military is capable. the military's job is not to defend the border. it is to defend the nation and i have no problem with our border patrol or national guard and then being used for that purpose but i do not think the military job is to defend the border. if it comes down to that, perhaps in a emergency. if the president were to declare a national insurrection of some sort, and maybe, but right now,

i military has a lot more to do and a lot more expensive things to deal with. the border is a national tragedy. the president has created a crisis down there and it would be very easy for him to fix it but he does not want to. it comes down to governors like greg abbott who is building his own border wall. that is the answer to it. i salute your members of the military and your family. i still think have a role to play. host: next is jill in woodward, iowa. democrats line. caller: there is a lot of talk about how far we can go to support ukraine. i went to compare that to the past with another country not associated with nato, kuwait, where we put boots on the ground to save kuwait. i wonder if oleum is the only

national interest that we should be thinking about. ukraine does play a huge role in -- security globally so i would like to hear -- really compare why we could go into kuwait but we cannot send plates to ukraine. my other issue is what about the right-wing radicalization of our troops. you said something about going to the border because an insurrection but what about a president who sees a fair election about a insurrection? there was rumbling about trump wanting to call martial law. what about quakes and radical -- kuwait and radicalization? guest: you have good points. you are missing the issue on so-called radicalization. a recent study by the --

inspector general because -- said there was systematic radicalization in the military. the problem doesn't exist. the question in you -- kuwait, i was in the pentagon when that was going on and we believe the criticality of the oil was a national security interests. ukraine does have a significant influence on world glue -- food prices but the question -- we have other adequate supplies? in 1990, when saddam invaded kuwait, there was not enough oil we were getting from other sources. it was a critical national defense issue. we drove saddam out of kuwait.

in god we did not lose a lot of american lives doing so. it was a short war. host: we go to bruce in new york -- joan is on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call and thank you for c-span. jed was talking about the iran deal and what the government really expects to get out of the deal and is putin still part of the negotiations, which, in mind mind -- would be a disgrace to have and be part of anything in negotiations. why is there more -- not more pressure against -- for the american public against sending billions of dollars to them and we know we cannot trust them.

guest: thank you for asking that question. the latter question about why the american people do not take more interest in it, -- i spend my time reading the news, analyzing the news about national security and form policy. too few people in the country really care about it and unless we care about national security and foreign policy, we do not get it right and we only get one chance to get it right again and again and again. that is really the issue. i forget the other parts of the question but -- we have to have a national security policy that is supported by action. host: how would you compare the national security policy of the biden administration with that of the trump administration? guest: wow.

mr. trump was much stronger most of the time. he was much too friendly with mr. putting to suit me but i think, mr. trump got it right a lot more often that mr. biden is getting it right. for example, mr. trump existed that our nato alice spent more on defense -- biden said, no big deal. as we are seeing in ukraine, unless the people understand this, they really miss the lesson of ukraine. nato is not prepared. the commander of germany's army. he said, on february 25, after the ukraine invasion, he said we are bare. we have no options to offer in

defense of the alliance and most other nations forces are in the same status. nato is flat on its back and it shot its last bolt in libya when we went -- the french oil company when it to libyan oil. mr. obama called on our air forces to help nato toss out saddam -- i am getting it wrong -- libya's rick perry -- dictator. nato shot its last bolt. the german army wouldn't be able to put down a decent sized riot in los angeles. host: the previous caller was asking about vladimir putin and his role in the middle east. vladimir putin made inroads into

middle east efforts with their troops in syria and helping the syrian leader. what are the motivations of vladimir putin during those years and getting involved in the middle east and how did that come to be? guest: thank you from -- for reminding me about that. -- when i speak with negotiators directly so we go through the russians. the russians are doing everything they can i am sure to accelerate the iranian's interest and denigrate ours. we have a situation where we are allowing -- biden is allowing the russians to rest the negotiation with iran? how crazy is that? it is wrong for us to be negotiation -- negotiating that

deal at all. if biden goes in with any will. mr. biden believes that he needs to revise the deal in order to make a great foreign policy decision. then to be equal to his present -- president -- predecessor mr. obama. he wants to be better than mr. obama in conducting diplomacy. he will be massively worse in this deal. i hope he fails. the russians are in charge of this negotiation. host: we will go to james in california. the republican line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, james. caller: i want to speak on our continued support for ukraine and i want to tie our policy in. mr. babbin spoke about policy.

that is the problem. you do not have a policy. the iran deal you spoke of. it was worked out with one administration and another and -- i administration decides he doesn't like them. he tears it up. it makes america look indecisive. they could be just. it could be an improvement of policy and methods on our part or on the part of who is in the white house. the problem is we do not have a continuous policy. therefore, we are still going to be running around as each administration changes. you say we have a trump or obama or bush part c or a clinton policy. why don't we have a u.s. policy

that is continuous and has some consistency to it? host: thanks, james. guest: you raise an interesting point but that is the difference between a democracy and a monarchy. if you had a dictatorship -- chinese policy has been consistent over 50 years. russian policy over 20 years. democracy is messy and god bless us for it. we do not have the ability and should not have the ability to have one president tied the hand of another. if he -- the president could not mess with it, it was -- he was submitted for ratification but he didn't because he knew he could not get it ratified because it was a bad deal. the same thing goes to mr. trump. he had a right to withdraw from

the deal. you could have made other deals. -- he could have made other deals. they have all been positive and there has not been a lot of outcry anywhere to the contrary. you have democracy versus autocracy over -- or dictatorship. you don't have consistent american policy because american governments are not consistent. that is one of the features of democracy i am happy with. host: let's hear from pat on the independent line. caller: mr. jed babbin, i think your way of thinking is outdated, which is why it is going out the door with yourself and a lot of people in your generation. the problem here -- we have a problem in ukraine. militarily, yes because we have reached the point where he -- it has gotten bloody but we also

have to try and make a deal as fast as we can to prevent any further description -- destruction. my question has been to this point, when they continuously told us before the invasion that they wanted a guarantee that will we would not go into ukraine and not bring in nato forces or american forces or american military installations. what kept us or kept biden, the oligarchs pulled the strings in the country, because it is not a democracy. what kept him from being able to tell those people, we guarantee it. we won't go in and send nato provided you do not invade. host: we will get a follow-up here. guest: that is what biden said. biden said we would not inject

nato forces or provide a total missiles -- nato missiles. he said what you wanted. what else do you want? we have to do a lot. we have been doing a not -- a lot but not enough. in my outdated? maybe but realism. basing the facts, never goes out of date. that is what i always try to do in the fact remains, president bynum is not dealing with facts. he is dealing with fantasies and not making good policy. host: our viewers and listeners can read jed babbin's column at washingtontimes.com. thank you for being with us this morning. >> today's white house briefing is scheduled today. we will show it when jen psaki

comes to the briefing room. right now, more washington journal. host: immigration, are previous segment. (202) 748-8002 --(202) 748-8001 the line for republicans. (202) 748-8001 --(202) 748-8000 the line for impress. (202) 748-8002 the line for independence. on the other hand, chuck says republicans views -- as a wedge issue. an update on the attack

yesterday in brooklyn at the subway station. this is a report from the new york times. new yorkers start their commutes as report -- police searched for the government. millions of new yorkers were -- after shooting 10 people, on a brooklyn train. the police identified a man they called a person of interest. one of the worst outbreaks up balance on the subway. demand, 62. he was named as a suspect. -- convince people that the subways are safe. after months -- have hindered efforts to recover ridership

that fell, at the start of the pandemic. let's go to calls and let's hear from new jersey. mary lou on the independent line. caller: how are you. thank you for c-span. i want to make a couple comments regarding the segment you just had with mr. or -- the things that concerns me is the plane issue of overpopulation. i do not know how many people they think they can squeeze into this country and still have this country auctioning -- functioning properly. of all these people coming day after day, this is naturally going to put strain on the infrastructure, on the water system -- any think you can think of, let a home -- let alone the hospitals and the school systems. you cannot said eight 10 pound

bag of potatoes in a five pound bag. a lot of these people will end up on public assistance and a lot of that assistance is going to the elderly, which i am one. veterans and disabled. people need to start looking at this realistically and say there -- we cannot keep filing people into this country. aside from the fact that they are breaking the law. i was shocked at mr. ore because they are supposed to be a lawyer. they are breaking immigration law plus the illnesses that are coming in but i am concerned about the overpopulation. host: to paul in alexandria, virginia. the publican line. caller: good morning.

i love c-span. keep up the great work. in regards to mr. ore, the bottom prime minister -- biden administration -- indicated 116,000 -- and they were a hundred -- thousands of encounters at the border. in regards to the earlier response -- they were erroneous. or disingenuous at best. pres. sec. psaki: a couple of things to kick us all. tomorrow, the president will travel to greensboro -- north carolina where he will visit a state university for a tour of their research and innovation complex.