global warming threatens our security. visit secure american future dot org.io the quality of our lives depends on our connections. access to high-speed internet, at home and on the go, is no longer a luxury. it's how our children aaaccess education. it's how we find jobs, discover information, and connect with family and friends. it's the spark that drives innovation, creates investment, and builds a stronger economy. to shape a better tomorrow, at&t is investing in america's future - working to create an internet that's smart, mobile and safe. last year at&t invested more than any other company in the u.s. and we're continuing to invest this year, to expand and enhance our wireless and wired networks. we support a national plan that ensures high speed internet access and enables

adoption by all americans, over the next five years. adoption by all americans, over the next five years. the future is our business. at&t. your world delivered. now, this week in defense news, with vago muradian. >> good morning. welcome to this this week in defense. how does the world's largest users of energy become more efficient and how big a threat is biological weapons. first, the united states has been at war for the past nine years but some military minds say progress have been slow because leaders haven't developed good strategy. one of the leading strategists, said he fedig figuredur out howo strange that.

he's co-authored a new report gaining strategic confidence with his co-author. dis-andyandy, welcome back. you say reversing u.s. competence is an urgent issue. how did we get here and why is it important to change? >> it is important to change because strategy involves use of resources. you would like to have an effective use of resources to achieve your objectives. the strategy is how do you use them. we're in a period now where we have an economic crisis, we have wars ongoing. resources are getting tighter. consequently we can't afford to pursue a rich man strategy toward warfare or meeting security needs. we need to focus on a smart man strategy and that involves obviously good strategy. >> what happens -- why is there degradation in u.s. strategic

abilities over the past decade? >> it is not quite clear why but certainly i think if you look at the situation that we confront right now, it is clear that there has been. recently overly a few days ago the general was talking about a new strategy for afghanistan. we've been there since late 2001. here we are eight years later and still trying to figure out what kind of strategy we're going to use to win that war. incidentally, the strategy that he seems to be coming up with is not different than the strategy we started two years ago in iraq under general petraeus. the question is, in wars that are similar in strategies that are fundamentally in terms of what we're getting the same, why does it take so long and why does it take so long even from one part of the institution to in a sense inform another part that this is the way to go about doing your business. >> and if you have problems with strategic formulation on subordinate parts it makes it

harder to do the grant strategy that the administration wants to execute that cakes into account not only islamic extremist babble but a whole bunch of other -- >> yes. one of the reasons we need a grand strategy is because we haven't had a fundamental shift in the geopolitical environment since the early days of the cold war when you had truman's famous nsc68 study and the eisenhower study. at the end of the cold war there was a shift in our favor. we have these rather long-term or enduring challenges. the problem is secretary gates would say a persistent irregular conflict. the problem of increasingly proliferated world especially in asia. the whole issue of what to do about china who is engaged in the military buildup to push us further and further out of east asia. and these are problems that are not going away any time soon. it is not something you can address with a band-aid.

it needs a strategic focus to come up with a strategy that maximizes your effectiveness and minimizes use of resources. >> how do you fix this problem? it is interesting that you guys note in the study strategy may be a game anyone can play but the evidence is strong that few can play it well. assuming you have exceptional people who do it, what are the fixes to removing obstacles? >> one in particular and one that president eisenhower emphasized was the persistent attention and focus to strategy by the senior leadership of the country. for example, in his first term ike held 179 meetings of his national security council and only al plowed the principals in the room. the discussion were strategy in terms of their focus. ike would say, look, the real value in strategic planning is not the strategy or the document you put on the shelf and say i'll think about this four years from now. it is the planning. it is not the plan but the

planning. persistent attention. we'll be surprised but in thinking about the problem on a consistent basis and looking for areas of strategic advantage, when that surprise comes at least we won't start from square one, we will be living with that problem for quite some time. and so in effect what eisenhower would say to obama is that you need yourself to devote persistent attention to these kinds of issues. i know you're distracted by the economy and other things, but as franklin rose vel was distracted by the great depression, he also had this focus to helping prepare america for the challenges that it would face in world war ii. >> let's try to -- what are some other institutional challenges you would look to dismantle, institutional problems? >> one is the -- there have been advances in the cognitive sciences that indicate there are different parts of the brain that help people in the military, for example, deal with

tactical level problems which require more intuitive solutions and that part of the brain operating versus strategic problems which involve more reflective parts of the brain. that is a simple way of stating it but if you look at my old service, the army, you're promoted basically on how well you do in tactical situations and how you do leading companies, battalions, brigades. that doesn't necessarily mean you're qualified to be a general that thinks in strategic terms. i think we begin to see the need to look at people not just as good tacticians, but what is their capacity or aptitude to do strategy well. we're getting better at identifying the differences between the two. >> let's go to i suppose one of the biggest challenges of the day which is afghanistan and general stan mccrystal put his report out and the joint chief of staffs have said that the situation is getting worse. what is the way forward?

what is the solution for the united states to get out as some people suggest? >> in terms of the way forward, to get you back to counter insurgency 101, and the fundamentals of the strategy that general mccrystal was talking about can succeed. he said the population is the center of gravity in this war. this war is not so much about shooting but intelligence. if we know who and where the enemy is, the war is over. we have to give them a stake in the future. we have to give them a level of security where they feel comfortable cooperating with us. the idea that we saw that didn't work in vietnam with search and destroy, we have to get back to our knitting, basically sit on the population, provide them with security, provide them with reconstruction that can endure that won't be undone by the taliban that leaks through because we're not providing that security. and build on that and over time substitute indigenous afghan forces for u.s. and nato forces.

>> is more people the answer at a time when the leader of the country is not doing the right kinds of things to bring the country along. >> you need troops to begin to provide that stability at a significant level to expand upon it and trade u.s. and nato forces over time for afghan forces providing that security. in iraq we saw we needed something we called a surge. we needed additional troops in order to have a critical mass to begin to provide security so that people could see and observe and see the success there and build upon that. that is a judgment call upon general mccrystal. the sense of admiral mullen and the joint chiefs is not to break the force. sometime tough risk the one to do the other, the risk we confronted in iraq and that is the general -- that the challenge that general mccrystal

faces in afghanistan y. you. how can the pentagonou save energy? stay tuned. we'll be right back. need a lift? hey buddy, i appreciate the ride, you know. no problem. ♪ mind if i take a shortcut?

yeah, sure. ♪ i knew the subaru legacy was the smart choice... what i didn't expect... was the fun. the all-new subaru legacy. feel the love.

experts may disagree about when fossil fuels will run out but everybody agrees that at some point they will run outer. for the world's largest single energy user the u.s. military that spells trouble. some members of congress want the pentagon to adopt new technologies, like wind and solar power and to build nuclear power surface ships. we have sherry goodman who serves as therurgin the clinton adminisgation and general counsel of the cna. sherry, welcome to the show. >> thank you, good to be here. >> is there a wider recognition in the pentagon that they actually have a bad energy problem? >> there is indeed growing recognition that our energy posture is in vulnerability for the u.s. military and we are taking steps now, d.o.d. is taking action to address that.

for example, recently the marine corps held a summit and asked for an energy audit across the entire marine corps. the other services are taking action to reduce dependence on fossil fuel to make the military more effective, by reducing our dependence on fuel and improving our overall energy posture. >> what do you think are some sort of immediate mid-and long term things the department should do right away to mitigate energy use? >> well, first d.o.d. needs to understand the cost of fuel. it takes a lot more -- it costs a lot more to send a gallon of gas to refuel a fighter aircraft than it does -- than the price we actually pay within the defense budget. we understand those costs are tens of times more than we're actually seeing in the defense budget. understanding the cost of fuel we're able to do something

responsible about it and reduce the vulnerability the troops face in convoying fuel to the front. >> which is a vulnerability as well. >> putting our men and women in union at risk. we want to reduce human risk that the troops face today. we can do that foremost by energy efficiency. moving to measures that range from using foam to insulate tanks instead of heavy and expensive generators, for example. something that is already being done for our troops in iraq and afghanistan. so those are some -- that is an example of something that can be done today. over the midterm we can look at alternative fuels that the military can use to power ships, aircraft and tanks and, for example, the air force is looking at algae-based biofuels as a possible blend or alternative to the future to fossil fuels.

there are a number of others. we'll look at reducing vulnerability of our installations to power outages. today, you know, our installations for the part are tied into a national electric grid. that is vulnerable to either natural disaster or deliberate attack. >> right. >> we want to reduce those vulnerabilities by going to smart grid technologies and finding better ways to power our bases. >> one of the things representative gene taylor, chairman of the house power committee, pushing the notion of more nuclear powered surface ships, to return nuclear power to surface ships and even for destroyers and cruisers that we had until the 1990s's. some say nuclear power should be used for small nuclear generators to power forward bases and things like that. what is the view? how widely can you use nuclear

power given the concerns and opposition that goes along with that? >> as a nation and in the global society we live we have to tackle the threats of climate change. climate change is a threat multiplier for instability for fragile regions of the world. as we look to repower our economy to reduce those threats we're going to be looking at a range of new types of energy sources and of using more efficiently sources like nuclear, which are indeed, you know, carbon-free. so that is important. moving to these low and no carbon sources. i expect to see more of a mix in certain areas, more opportunities for nuclear power. >> and citing is the big issue here. >> for land basing, you look at the feasibility of that but i think there is a role, an appropriate role at least certainly for nuclear power facilities. and potentially for other opportunities, as well. >> sherry, thanks very much for

joining us again. how big is a threat from bioterrorism. that is next. you're watching this week in defense. bleerz because of one word, imagination and reality have merged. because of one word, a new generation-- a fifth generation-- of fighter aircraft has been born. because of w america's air dominance for the next forty years is assured. that one word... is how.

the energy to get the economy humming again. the energy to tackle challenges like climate change. what if that energy, came from an energy company. every day, chevron invests $62 million in people. in ideas. seeking, teaching, building. fueling growth around the world, to move us all ahead. this is the power of human energy. chevron. the 2001 anthrax attacks illustrated how vul rabble the united states is to biological weapons. anthrax spores killed five, shut down offices. the convention banned such weapons in 1972. there is no place to verify the research, development or acquisition of biological

weapons. howan y astins i arehe i ak,oov" and he's the deputy director at george mason university. greg, welcome back. >> thank you for having me. >> you called bioweapons the poor man's nuclear weapon. why and how serious a threat is it in a world whereby yoe logical technology is needed from vaccines to better crops? >> one of the real challenges is that they're based on multi-use technologies. they have offensive purpose s defense and for civilian uses. and the civilian uses are widespread and becoming more important economically. so the knowledge and skills to develop biological weapons is spreading around the world and that creates a huge challenge for verification as well as for oversight and intelligence. >> as far as you can tell, how many countries or entitiest tha"

we know of are working on bioweapons? >> that is a hard question to answer. the best estimate that we have from the u.s. government is that there is six suspected states developing biological weapons. but as we know from the 2003 intelligence dias sko, that is a grain -- fiasco, that is a grain of salt. >> what are the states pursuing the technology. >> china, russia, syria, north korea, iran, and cuba as being likely developers of biological weapons. >> is there evidence that terrorists groups that the united states and allies are funding, whether taliban or al-qaeda, or others, are working on bioweapons? >> we know they're interested in developing these types of weapons. there were statements from members of al-qaeda there are interest. we've seen manuals posted on

line. but what we've seen of their capability is very, very limited. >> in developing a bioweapon is one thing. delivering it is actually another. what are some of the challenges associated with taking, you know, the technology even if pu develop a good spore, or what have you, and then developing it into a functional weapon. >> the key obstacle in the weapon process, is developing a cloud of the right particles of the right size, one to 10 microns range and developing a cloud in that size range that are also viable organ nichlts and these are living organ nichlts, fragile, they don't like to be exposed to high levels of heent humidity. this process tends to be very tricky and tends to kill most of the spores or other organisms in the process.

>> it is a very, very difficult thing. it is not like everybody should look at this as a fear that these folks will be able to -- >> yeah, this is a technology that even nation states have had a hard time mastering. iraq's program had very rudimentary aerosolization capabilities and we saw no terrorist groups so far coming close to mastering that type of technology. >> well, how do you determine who's up to no good in a system where the technology itself as you mentioned before is proliferating and has a lot of commercial and social good to it? >> that is one of the hardest challenges dealing with biological weapons' threats. there is a high what is called width signal ratio, trying to figure out what are the pieces that -- beneficial uses of the technology. the key is to have as much transparency as possible for

people who are doing legitimate research and intelligence analysts who are trained in life sciences but also are familiar with the political, economic, social conditions in the country that they're studying so they can look for indicators that something that is happening is illegitimate or is trying to be hidden. >> but as i recall from the iraq case when you would talk, they said some of the agents, anthrax, couple of things that iraq had, they got from american research institutions under the guise that it was trying to protect its crops and doing better medical research. how do you control that flow? i mean, i understand better intelligence. but do you need other sorts of mechanisms to find out who is basically trying to do what? >> there is a much stricter regulatory system in place now to monitor who gets access to these items. and the idea is to try and keep

better track of those types of pathogens. these things are also available in nature so you don't necessarily need to order them from a laboratory to obtain them. but that is the preferred route for both states and terrorists to try to get their hands on these things. >> greg, thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. why the pentagon's acquisition chief is on the right track. tb@

did you know fios has a multi-room dvr? so you can record in one room and watch in up to six others. (cable guy) you can do that with cable! living room. bedroom. kitchen. thank you. (announcer) get the amazing multi-room dvr from verizon fios free for 3 months. you can watch recorded shows in up to seven different rooms. plus get all three fios services, tv, internet and phone for the price of two. call the verizon center for customers with disabilities hurry, this offer won't last. at 800.974.6006 tty/v

pentagon acquisition chief ash carter is spot-on which he says fixing the system will require more than cosmetic change but fundamentally rethinking what is bought and how. talking about costs and schedule. he says schedule is key. greater discipline is needed to keep programs on schedule and be

willing to terminate efforts that are not performing whether they're nascent or mature. he adds the d.o.d. must consider the ramifications of its decision on the industrial base and invest in key capabilities that might be in jeopardy. military and space are so small that recent cancellation of future bomber and transformational communication satellites risk losing key capabilities. some engineers are aging and so you have to fund work for them to preserve their know-how. to find out what programs are needed, need empirical research. invest in analytical decisions. thanks for joining us in this week in defense news. you can e-mail me at vago in defense news.com. have a great week.