welcome to this week in defense news. i'm vago muradian. as government spending comes under increasing pressure, we'll hear a case why foreign aid shouldn't be raided. plus, one author's surprising look at the transformation to democracy. but first think about america's war on global terrorist groups and you're likely to focus on special operations forces and better intelligence. but while those have played an important role, far more critical has been the dramatic changes in how america thinks about its enemies, how to fight

them, and the speed at which intelligence has been converted into operational gains. new york times national security eric schmidt tells that story in a remarkable beautifully new reported book, "counter strike, the unfold story of the secret campaign against al qaeda." gentlemen, week to the program. >> thank you. >> eric, let me start with you. one of the purpose of the books is to tell citizens about fighting for that. >> in short, what has happened is that on 9/11, al qaeda and terrorist organizations in the 10-year since, they have learned about who they are, how they operate, and how the operator knows. they have also been able to figure how not to fight them. that is just to go after and kill and capture your way to victory. what we talk about in our book is how there is a realistic approach on how the u.s. government agency is working closely together with their foreign allies and they are combating terrorists much more

effectively and efficiently. >> it all came in a fashion. we'll get to that in just a second. what i want to ask you, tom, is after 9/11, a whole bunch of thoughtful people said we need a broader deterrent strategy. we did a nuclear strategy and come plied them to combating terrorists. who is responsible for that theory. has it worked, how effective is it? >> it is a bottomless effort as you described it. as we said in our book, president bush, the war on terror, he never convened a national security council meeting to talk about a grand strategy for terrorism. and you shop at the pentagon, some bright thinkers have reached back to the cold war for lessons that have to deter an adversary. really, the essence of deterrence is threatening things your enemy holds dear to shape their thinking. they don't hold territory or military basis. there are things you need to operate, finances, weapons, safe houses. so even if bin laden was not

deterrable, all the members of the network could be threatened to change their behavior and achieve an effect. >> a part of it was also messaging and the messaging strategy as well to try to discredit that every turn, the terror groups and their message. >> absolutely. >> and so what this program does, they try to get inside the heads of the terrorists. what virtual values do they hold? they value their prestige, their honor, their place in society and they value success. if you can get in and undermine that, then you are on your way to getting inside ahead of the terrorists half way through there. >> intelligence has been key to winning the wars. americans have been reading japan's mail, brits were reading german codes to have an idea of what the battle ways would be. >> there have been quite a few. what we have learned is that al qaeda was obsessive about recordkeeping than the nazis. >> which is a great group in

the point. there were no takers. >> yes, they video taped everything like tommy lee and pamela. what the military learned to do, vago, is not just hit a safe house to hit or kill the badguys, but exploit what was there. watch a follow on the raid and that very night before the friends of the first targets knew they were gone. then all that data was sent across the alphabet soup of the intelligence agencies to find safe houses, recruiters, financial networks. in fact, the fight against terrorism is really a fight for intelligence. >> and well that was the first one in iraq, which helped us change our whole strategy there. and abbottabad as well. what are some of the key lessons? >> you have what became the al qaeda role. and al qaeda, as they said, they had all these records, individual fighters coming in. various countries around the middle east. now, this was assembled by the special operations command. and in turn they gave it to the

state's department who could then go to each of these individual countries and say look, you may not agree with the u.s. policies, but these are fighters that will be coming back to hurt you, so we need you to visit authentic documents. here is a way for you to track these people down. and this became one of the key aspects of the military working on the intelligence organizations and the foreign governments to track down the pipeline of the suicide bombers coming into iraq. >> and that was something that was the lieutenant, the general who did that when he was over the former military at the state department. now, you mentioned the notion that the administration, they didn't hold kind of a grand strategy national security council meeting. why not? >> well, president obama, he sees himself as the war on terror. he didn't leave himself as the finance president or the messaging president. and so at least in his first term, he was very much focus on capture and kill. to be fair in the second four years, he did involve into overseeing a far more realistic

agency approach to counterterrorism. >> and let's go to the similarities in the differences between obama and bush and how they have fought this war. what are they? >> first of all you'll start with president obama's inheritance of the drone program. he actually took that program which president obama started to -- president bush started to ramp up in 2008. his first term in office, president obama, cia in 2009 carried out more drone strikes in the pakistani tribal areas than bush did in his entire eight years. next year in 2010, that number doubled again. when he took a program that was already in place, he greatly expanded it. one of the big differences is, however, in the obama administration, they attempted to look at counterterrorism as one pillar in the foreign policy, unlike bush who looked at foreign policy completely through the counterterrorism lands. obama is basically saying yes, this is still important, but it will be one pillar with other things, developmenting aid,

other things crucial to the foreign policies overseas. >> let me ask you a quick question. it really is amazing that most of this relies on the american super commuting capacity to manage records. how important has it been and basically, the technological drive to record everything and to be able to recall it in a moments notice. >> and that will be a great asymmetrical strength. and for example, after the raids, we will talk about a cell phone that will be closed. and a matter of minutes, you can find out that everyone with that cell phone called. and that will be the contacts. that's what happens for iraq and afghanistan, for example, when somebody comes in to sign with the security forces. they could run that cell phone and know that within minutes, whether or not the person is a member of the insurgent or an honest afghan citizen. that kind of networking ability has given the military intelligence community the ability to learn more about the

people they are interrogating. and also again to watch them for long periods and make those kinds of connections. who are these guys, for example, in abbottabad, you knew about the driver, the courier and you walked that all the way back to bin laden. eric, we've got about 30 seconds or so left. where are we on this fight today? you know, is al qaeda broken, is it on the run with your guys on up there, you know, saying tell me how this ends. how does it end? >> clearly what is here is the al qaeda leadership and pakistan that ordered the 9/11 attacks, greatly diminishing their abilities to contain the attacks. al qaeda has developed franchises, places like north africa and in most troubling, yemen. these are franchises that are coming up with smaller harder detectable plots to have home grown extremism. these are the kind of threats we see in our book that we need to conclude there will be another attack and with the united states government and their leaders are starting,

what the president needs to do is build a greater sense of resilience in the public with the inevitable attack. >> and we'll take a few more seconds. how should they be doing that? is it by the president talking specifically about, look, it's going to happen and how we respond to it? is that the best way to say it? >> well, it is lead by the commander in chief. the problem by this environment are the budget cuts. and what that means, that is a mission that we will be getting hit again which will happen. >> right. >> in this polarized environment, no president could be that leaning in acknowledging the vulnerability and it is a very important national defense to actually make it safer and to simply not start it. >> guys, thank you very much for the extraordinary important book. really appreciate it. >> thank you. coming up, as the cut for foreign

$52 billion a year that the nation spends on the state department and foreign aid faces rising pressure including from some republican presidential candidates. but many of the nation's top military commanders and strategists say that such spending is critical and must be better integrated into a whole new economic approach. such spending they say is more important as military spending declines. here to make the case on why spark power is more important today than ever before is

admirable james lloyd, the deputy secretary of homeland security. he's now with the greater leadership coalition that advocates for greater leadership in civilian agency called smart power to advance america's security interest. welcome back to the show. >> thank you very having me. you long made the case for smart power. earlier this year, they cut about $3.5 billion directly from foreign aid. you have not got some presidential candidates who are saying, you know, along with governor perry saying we need to start from $0 and build up. what's the case for smart power? you put a note out on november 18, you and the former marine. what's the case you guys are making? >> bottom line the case is both from a common sense as well as a direct economic impact. and economics is really what we're talking about day in and day out around this town and in this country and around the world. and we'll continue to be there, i think, until we get our acts to be a little better.

but the bottom line is that, for example, in iraq, it was a huge investment that is now made by the military side of the coin. and to leave it on the table sort to speak to the areas that might uncover themselves in the aftermath in iraq without a consistent investment of a concern for that diplomatic and developmental realities that are a part of iraq in the aftermath of the war. it is very much on the table. if you just shift forward another year or two, we'll be talking about the same thing in afghanistan. so for all of us, the notion is before the militaries that are involved, what are the investments properly to be made that will be keeping the bad spots in the world from deteriorating to the point where the u.s. military engagements are required. then in the aftermath or even to the course of the aftermath, how does the state department and aib, the diplomacy and the developmental things make a contribution to the total u.s.

influence envelope around the world. >> there are those strategists that will say it is much more expensive to be engaged in the development to do it. >> without a doubt. >> yet cuts are coming. how do you prioritize in that environment. where can you make trade-offs, what are the areas you absolutely have to shield? >> first, i think we are focusing on the reality of the budget cuts and that they are coming. but it's the disproportionate side that has been in the mind of either the senate or the house and different marks, if you will, on various pieces of legislation as it goes by that bothers us more than anything else. i mean, this state department budget is 1% of our federal budget. yet they disproportionately shouldered about 20% of the cuts that were made as you described in just a moment ago in the 2011 process that went by. so here we are in the 2012 process, attempting to get a budget for the state department free standing or on the bus that will be closing things out at the end of the year. if you look at both the house mark and the senate mark, they are both $5 billion apart.

we would certainly like to see the committees to put thatting together for us. and to deal constructively with recognizing the fact that disproportionate cuts for the very crucial side with the u.s. influence around the world in a global world or the global marketplace that e we have no choice, but to engage ourselves in and that it has to be dealt with constructively. >> what are some good ways to prioritize and to stretch each side that it does go into foreign aid? >> first of all, i think that there is a metrics associated game plan that will be lining up those things that are proven to be good, bad, and different. for example over the course of the last decade or so, in ethiopia, the food assistance program has dramatically reviewed the elimination of dramatically reducing the salmon associated with the east horn of africa. that's a program that does not deserve to be cut 30%. >> and a huge stabilizing influence. >> a huge stabilizing influence. and it will deal with those

problem spots in a constructive fashion and hopefully engage a requirement for the u.s. military engagement somewhere down the road. so that is a simple example, and those kinds of food programs or the developmental stretching that is actually going on at u.s. sides under the current administrator that they will be doing a real good job of validating and establishing me tricks for every nickel he spends over there. that's the kind of work that's both in process and increase spending that needs to be analyzed very carefully before you make cuts. >> we've got a little less than 30 seconds. is this going to require you guys meeting face to face with each presidential candidates to drive the message? >> well, with letter two, the answer to the president was to point out the brightness of dealing with proportionate cuts associated with the international budget as we deal with everything else across the board. and this sad state of affairs in the aftermath of the super committee not able to come to closures only puts more emphasis on the fact that very

likely the mandatory cuts now will be driving another $600 billion worth of cuts in the department of defense. the parallel in the department of the state will take those programs to an acceptable level as well. >> sir, thanks very much. we appreciate it. alright everybody, get your heads up.

now when i was in the military, i learned that if you stand together, you can stand up to anything! no matter where i was deployed, i always knew that somebody had my back! you boys are your own band of brothers! you have each other! just like i had navy federal credit union... 24/7... live customer support! let's go! let's go! 3 1/2 million members. 3 1/2 million stories. navy federal credit union.

the conventional wisdom about the iraq war is that it was misguided poorly executed and not worth the cost of blood and treasure. but the next guest argues the success and was an inspiration. lieutenant colonel who served in the iraq war and recently wrote the experiences in iraq and at time when the war was going badly for the american forces. michael, thank you very much for joining us from sunny jacksonville, florida. >> thanks for having me, it's my pleasure. >> sir, u.s. troops have not withdrawn from iraq yet. you are terming the mission a victory. most analysts would say the

jury is out. why are you so confident? >> i'm confident for several reasons. number one if you look at the constitution that the iraq city government is operating under right now, then it is the most liberal freedom loving constitution in the region. and although they are, you know, struggling as most new democracy and republicans do, they are working very hard to live by that constitution and i'm confident they will be able to do so. >> even with some of the violence we have recently seen, you think they will be able to pull it out of the long term? >> yes, absolutely i do. we'll see a spike in violence, obviously. will we be seeing violence both from al qaeda and iraq and the militia, perhaps. but the iraqi security forces are ready for that and those organizations, they are not going to be able to recruit the way they did in 2005, 2006. the population is not going to tolerate that. >> and you also make the connection between the iraq war and the arab spring.

i was at a conference recently up in halifax, canada. one of the points the folks were making up there, they were attributing it to the vendor who set themselves on fire to help spread that revolution to egypt and elsewhere. how do you link iraq with the arab spring? >> i'll tell you. obviously i spent a lot of time talking to a lot of the muslims about it. and what they saw across the region with the removal of the saddam hussain regime is that democracy was possible and that it was possible to remove these dictators. i think it is no coincidence that we saw the first elections in saudi arabia in 2005. and the municipal elections and very shortly after that, we saw movements sweep across the arab world that embraces the dual concepts of democracy and universal rights of the mankind. that's important stuff that came from iraq. >> also, you'll see a little bit of that in afghanistan

where he is running as a politician, you know, which obviously drives his decision making as he wants to stay in office. let's go to the iraq war for a second. you served in iraq in a very tough time. at what point it you recognize that this is really going badly? >> well, i'll tell you that it did not take long for me to, you know, let me back it up a little bit. so i watched the iraq war from 30 vantage points. the first one in 2003, 2004, as a part of the initial invasion force. and i saw the growth of the insurgency in late 2003 early 2004 and i found it a little disturbing, but i thought we were going to be okay. and then i served on details to the central intelligence agencies, where i got to see some behind the scenes and really became concerned about the growing civil war in 2005/2006. i'll tell you that the minute i stepped into that side in january of 2007, i thought that we were in for a world of hurt. i'll tell you that in my

estimate, we were months away from losing completely. as you'll remember, there were intel experts who had said as late as november 2006 that we lost there. >> we've got about a minute left and i want to sort of ask you about how we got out of iraq. but why you think afghanistan is not working because that's your view that, you know, we did the right things in iraq, but not in afghanistan. >> yeah. the short answer is the iraq war was not about us, it was about iraqis. and it was the iraqi tribes becoming fed up with al qaeda that turned into a boom for us. their partnership and their patriotism is what sustained us through that campaign. i have yet to see that kind of nationalism and patriotism overtake the afghan population. i think until we see that, it will be difficult to solidify our gains there. >> do you agree with, i mean i was talking to one flag officer who is very familiar with it,

he was recently skeptical saying we are making progress on the grounds. do you see that in the last 15 seconds we've got left? >> i think we are making progress on the ground. my concern is whether afghans are going to sustain that progress. it's easy to make progress where americans put boots on the ground. it's much more difficult for the afghans to sustain it once we move out of there. >> colonel, thank you very much for joining us,

for years asian nations worry about china's increasing assertiveness and growing military capabilities has looked to washington for reassurance and not always gotten the attention they wanted. now top american leaders are making it clear they are listening. late last month secretary of state, hillary clinton from the decks of the u.s. destroyer in

manilla bay reaffirmed their equipments to the philippines as they pressure them on territorial claims. at the same time, president obama announced 2,500 marines would be posted to a new base in darbin, australia, stressing the tight budget cuts that america would remain specific power. all this irritates china, which accuses washington of trying to box it in. beijing wants to use its growing economic and military power to compel its neighbors to accept its sweeping territorial claims around the south china sea. as a tired america steps aside. obama is right to renew their focus on this region critical to america's long-term security and economic prosperity. but as america reassures allies about china's rise, it is not unnecessarily antagonizing beijing which is the greatest economic rival as well as leading training partner and single biggest lender. thanks for joining us for this week in defense news, i'm vago muradian. you can watch this online on defense tv news or elias

abuelazam mail -- or e-mail me. i'll be

from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over two decades, the sharpest mi issue one, traveling man! ♪ i'm a traveling man, made a lot of stops, all over the world. >> it is good