captions by: caption colorado, llc (800) 775-7838 e- mail: comments@captioncolorado.com welcome to this week in defense news. the armed services ymca has been serving troops sips the civil war. its director tells us how the storied organization is changing to help today's troops. first, it's already a busy summer for defense secretary leon panetta who just got back from a trip to took him to sing b'gosh and afghanistan among many others. back in washington a presidential campaign is under way as a threat of budgetary problems loom that would automatically chop another $500 billion over defense spending over the coming decade. add to that, a war, operations worldwide and investigations into news stories about

classified capabilities in bases and you have the makings of a long, hot sum perp joining us to talk about the late interest the e-ring are two men with great reputations for their candor, pentagon press secretary george little and d.o.d. spokesman captain john kirby. welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> secretary panetta's asian trip was the new since the new strategy. there's been a lot of concern about china's rise and increasing acertificativeness. the united states already has extensive bases in the reachp. there were some 300,000 troops that are there. where are some of the new places we're going to? the philippines and vietnam are two of the places we'll be returning. how many people are we talking about adding and what is it they will be doing in the reachen? >> you are absolutely right. p president and secretary announced in january that we would be rebalancing toward the asia pacific region. as you know, the united states military has had a presence in asia pacific for decades.

what we're doing is reasserting that presence and our commitment to the region. the region is a very important economic center for american interests. it's obviously an important center for american security interests. what this does is reinvigorate our security and military relationships in the region. that's precisely what secretary panetta laid out in his recent visit to the region in shangri- la, he put meat on the bone what that means. that means working more closely with our partners and allies to ensure and reassure them that we are there to stand with them, we are there to ensure that peace, prosperity in the region stays, that we protect maritime freedoms and so forth and so on and that we ensure that everyone in the region follows the rules of the road. that's not just for military purposes but for economic reasons. >> that's right. you'll have the combat ships

that will be based in singapore and 2500 marines as well. but ultimately, and i want to direct this to you, captain, this is in some respects about china and people's concerns about china. where else do we need to be in order to reassure our allies but do it in a way that doesn't teledrive china to feel like it's being cornered and being boxed in and thereby caught, and the concern by some is that will cause the conflict you are trying to avoid. >> there's no reason for china to feel boxed in. this isn't about china actually this is about the region. this is about the security at large across the vast expanse of the earth's surface. we are a pacific power and have been for over 150 years. we have obligations, security commitments there that we'll continue to meet. we have allies and partners who are much threatened there, not by china but by other threats

as well. so we have to make sure we're able to meet those security commitments in a new and dynamic way. you talked about the permanent assignment. there will be some there in the region, but a large part of the rebalancing to the asia pacific is really about rotational deployment so it's trooping coming and going, more activity, more intellectual capital and more exercises being spent in the asia pacific. it's not simply just about a permanent footprint of any kind. >> has this been budgeted? obviously it is a period of fiscal austerity. there's been almost $5 billion in defense cuts. has this shifted in rotations which is an expensive way of doing rotations. has that been factored in? >> absolutely. we have budgeted against that defense strategy and a corner stone of that strategy is our rebalancing to the asia pacific region. so the short answer is yes.

>> when secretary panetta was in new delhi, he game the latest defense secretary to explain frustration with pakistan as an ally saying pakistan wasn't doing enough to combat on its own soil and undermining the country as well as allied efforts in afghanistan, pakistanis are adamant they are doing everything possible in order to do their part in this and that they've taken heavy casualties in doing so. clearly, the relationship is partly derailed. the negotiator torres reopen supply routes to return back to the united states. you have secretary panetta saying what he's saying publicly. other lawmakers are talking about restricting funding. what's the pentagon's next move in this critical relationship? >> principal number one when it comes to our relationship with pakistan is to move forward. we do want a strong relationship with pakistan. you are absolutely right. it's been a tough relationship to work through for any number

of reasons. >> the bin laden raid being one. >> yes. and counterterrorism operations in the reachp. we want to get back to a more settle relationship with the pakistanis. we have concerns about the so- called safe haven in parts of pakistan where militants are able to go across the bored near afghanistan and mount attacks against our troops, afghans and our partners. that is a serious concern. what the secretary was expressing on his recent trip was his belief that the pakistanis need to do more to put pressure on militants on their own soil. it's important to note that terrorists and militants inside pakistan don't just plan against american forces or the american homeland. they're responsible for thousands of pakistani deaths. so this is common cause. we have a fighting interest in fighting militants and terrorists in that country. >> but i mean, when you even talk to senior pakistani

leaders, they say, you don't understand and if you support us more it will make it so much easier for us. instead of looking at it saying, the minute congress cuts off your funding, you under trouble. so even with that financial pressure, you are not getting the change you want. how else do you convince them? secretary mullan, your former boss almost qualify forward pakistani citizenship, he was spending so much time over there. >> look this is a very complex relationship. it is a relationship that has a long and troubled history to it as well. they remember that history over there. >> for example? >> as george said we're really trying to get past as much of that as we can, and move to a better place here. i think it would do well to reduce this trust deficit if, you know, we just both really tried to work harder at not just the words and rhetoric,

but showing the degree to which we really want to be a stronger part with pakistan. they do make some strategic decisions based on belief by some that we're leaving that we're walking away that by 2015, we're out of the region. that's just not the case. maybe it's just going to take us to get to 2015 or '16 for them to see that we're still going to be in the region and still care about the future of afghanistan and pakistan. >> the administration has taken a fair amount of criticism for saying it will stay until 2024. let's go to afghanistan. a critical part is getting the air force that has at built to support their own ground operations. a key piece of that is getting russian helicopters, mi-17 helicopters for the afghan air force. senator cornyn who is disappointed that the company

that builds and services these helicopters continues to do business with syria wants to put a hold on this deal. this is a longoing issue, george. how do you convince him that it's in the interest of the united states, even if russell born expert is doing business with syria that the united states needs the helicopters for afghanistan? >> what's going on there is deplorable and disgusting and the regime needs to go, first after. the regime needs to stop its brutality. when it comes to this particular contract and these particular helicopters this is not about syria. what we're trying to do is provide the afghanistan air force what it needs in order to protect its own people. that's what this is all about, these helicopters. this is the source from which they come. the afghan air force has the ability to fly these helicopters and service them. >> in every capacity. >> that's right. that's what we're focused on,

helping the afghans which will help us and help regional security. this also complements their fixed-wing rotary capabilities in their air force. this is what the afghans need. >> how do you make the case to a senator who's got a hold on it because he's upset about something completely different? and one person can stop something like this. >> we're well aware of the senator's concerns. the secretary takes that seriously, and i think he's made it clear that while this is the only legal method we have right now, he's willing to take a look at the contracting process at large over the long term. we'll be right back with more of our talk with pentagon press secretary george little and captain john

. we're back with george little and captain john kirby. george, let me start with you. obviously, the united states government is putting an enormous amount of pressure on syria and folks doing business with syria. obviously, russia has been the target of that as well in terms of pressure to stop arms deliveries to syria. where is this state of planning for possible syria operations? how is syria different from libya? >> good question, vago. the department of defense is a professional planning oh. we have contingency plans for a wide range of situations around the world, and to include syria. we continue to focus primarily on the diplomatic and economic tract to try to bring pressure

on the assad regime to go and before they do, to stop the brutality they are perpetrating against their own people. on the second part of your question, syria is a bit different than libya. the complexities of syria are different than libya. syria has a -- an army that numbers, i believe, over 200,000, sophisticated air systems, in a different neighborhood. [ all talking at once ] >> it is very different, precisely, and the opposition is a bit different. so we can't look at these in similar ways in'sly. they're apples and oranges. >> let's go to see sequestration, john. i want to sort of direct this to you. in testimony last week, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said basically, equated see sequestration with something that could trig area i war that would be something that would be devastating to u.s. capabilities a message

delivered consistently by the administration and military leaders. is that hyperbole? >> i agree with the chairman. the secretary himself said see sequestration would result in a hollow force and the next line he said a hollow force could invite aggression because it could signal to enemies that you are not as ready to defend the country and the national interest as you need to be. so no i don't think the chairman was overstating it at all. see sequestration would be disasterrous. it would result in a hollow force. a hollow force is a force that is a shell but no core that has outward structure that you would think a force of that size would have but not the capabilities, not the training, not the resources inside that, maybe even not the leadership to carry out the missions we're called on. >> earlier this year, secretary panetta said that see sequestration planning would begin in the sum person to

actually start to consider what a world looks like to actually save as much capability as you possibly can without being even more indiscriminate than it's likely to be. >> see sequestration would affect the entire government. we have not been instructed to begin planning. it's a little concerning to me, to be honest with you, vago, that we're even having this conversation. we should be beyond see sequestration. >> i would agree with you on that. >> we still are hopeful that we're going to get past see sequestration. it would be devastating. it would be disasterrous. it would result in over 1 million jobs lost if we electric v. to tack on another $5 billion or $6 billion. >> as defense companies are already making clear given their legal obligations to start notifying people well in advance of layoffs. but originally, there was the

contingency funds were not supposed to be part of it. now the guidance has come from omb that it's going to be part of it. what impact does that have, john, on the entire see sequestration mess? >> back to george's point. see sequestration is not supposed to happen, but yes, overseas congress is he funds are not going to continue to exist if there is a sequester. that could have a dramatic effect on the ability to resource the war in afghanistan. there's no question about that. and our position is, that's the last place we'd want to take resource as way from this department is for the troops that are on the line out there in afghanistan. >> senate arm services committee suggested the pentagon may be asked to tut another $100 billion over ten years as part of a broader deal that makes see sequestration go away. what happens if you have to take another $100 billion out of the plan which you said is a bit of a swiss watch and would

fall apart unless blessed by congress? >> we're working closely with congress, as you know, vago on the ins and outs of the defense budget and where we find the $487 billion in savings that congress has asked us to find. if we have to look at additional moneys, then we also have to perhaps relook at the strategy that we developed. the whole purpose of the strategy was to define the threats and challenges of the future and then to resource against the threats and challenges. so if we're asked to take on another 100 billion or 200 billion or 300 billion, we may have to relook at the strategy. i don't know where the precise dollar figure is. the tipping point for that strategy is something we have to consider. >> i agree completely. it would depend on what kind of cut level we're talking about here, of course. but this was a very tightly driven process. the budget and the defense strategy were done hand in hand, and there's just not a lot of room there.

>> gentlemen, thanks very much. we appreciate it. coming um, how the

the armed services ymca has been helping make life more comfortable for servicemembers since the civil war when volunteers would hand out coffee and hot chocolate to soldiers fighting on both sides. today the focus is on helping families of junior enlisted troops with education, child care and other assistance. last year the organization was able to serve 455,000 families. programs range from education and training for spouses to child care and tutoring. mike landers is the president and ceo of the armed services ymca. he's retired navy captain and understands how the stress of military life can weigh on military families. mike, welcome to the program. >> thanks, vago. >> so when people think about ymca, they think of swimming pools, gyms and summer camps. how are you guys different from what we consider and look at as

the traditional ymca and how have you guys been evolving and adapting to the needs of today's troop? >> as you said in your intr, we're 150 years old this year, we're about 10 years younger than the ymca movement. we're part of the ymca movement, but we have a different business model. they have pools and gyms and they rely on memberships to create their revenue stream. we rely on public support to provide the programs that we give to our enlisted families and it's a completely different model all together. we provide social programs, as you said. we have no pools and no gyms and no infrastructure. most of the places we're at are on-board military installations and they give us the room. >> how have you guys adamented to the kind of services, you know, we said hot chocolate and coffee and that kind of stuff, but you guys have really morphed into services you provided. how are you guys changing to meet the needs of today's troop? >> we do an annual assessment of each installation and we adapt every year to comply with what that particular installation needs of us. so every installation i have is

different, every program center is different and we're strictly there to provide those gaps in services that the installation needs from us on an annual basis. >> the defense budget is under pressure, it's going to come under more pressure as time goes on. i mean, in every one of these cycles we end up cutting a little more deeply than we thought we would when it all started out and morale and recreation efforts will get hit as it has been. are you guys ready to be able to address some of those gaps as they develop, especially on a servicewide basis? >> it all comes down to money in the long run. we are close partners with mwr and armcs and those installations that normally provide the social service that is we try to provide as well. we're not in competition with those organizations and every year we sit down with them and say where are the gaps, what can we do to help. and, you know, we've all survived the brac model and all survived downsizing in the past, but i think this one is probably of a scope and magnitude that we're not used to yet and we're going to work closely with those

organizations that usually provide the services. when they get cut, we'll try to stand in and fill in the gaps. >> you guys have really stepped up in sort of helping folks deployed servicemembers with camps, tutoring and mentoring, especially as parents are away for multiple deployments. but that's changing. how are you changing and how are those services going to change over the long term as the needs of members change? >> we try to make military life easier for all these kids and their families. camping has become one of the biggest things that we do. it helps alleviate the stress in the kids' lives, it gives them a week away from the military installations, it lets them be kids again and that's really what it's all about for the kids. we do family residential camps on weekends to try to get folks coming back from deployment reattached to their families again. >> and in 10 or 15 seconds we've got left, how do military families apply and how can they help? >> go to my website, asymca.org. there's a place to volunteer, there's a place to donate, there's a place to sign up if you want more information. we would love to hear from you.

>> sir, thanks for joining us. we appreciate t. coming up in my notebook, a case for international cyber norms and procedures. i didn't quite know thiwhat to expect.our. i'd seen the images on tv, but until you're in the thick of it...

anyway the guys in my unit who'd been here before, told me just ride it out, keep my head down and remember the reason i'm here. and we're paying for it all with my cashrewards card from navy federal. we're earning cash back! bring it. brought it. brung. 4 million members. 4 million stories. navy federal credit union.

reports that america has deployed sophisticated software to spy on and ultimately disrupt iran's nuclear program have spurred calls to investigate leaks about classified u.s. cyber capabilities. the news underscores one what insiders have long known, that america ranks with bradenton, china, israel and russia as a cyber heavyweight. any disclosure of classified information, even through exhaustive reporting rather than leaking, puts governments in an awkward spot and prompts fingerpointing, especially in an election year. governments have been leaking as long as they've been around. the real issue is that cyber space today is literally as

lawless as the ungoverned reaches of yemen and pakistan where terrorists thrive or vast stretches of ocean where pirates roam. governments use it to steal lucrative financial data. but computer viruses are also weapons that can delay iran from going nuclear or crash critical networks like power grids without dropping a single bomb. cyber operations are game changing and have a legitimate role in any national security toolbox, but one that has to be treated with extreme care. the cyber attack on iran spread beyond its intended target, highlighting the risks. question is how to create the international infrastructure rules, norms and procedures for this space, including clarifying when cyber operations can be defined as an attack that can be met with a military response. thanks for joining us for "this week in defense news." i'm vago muradian. you can watch this program online at defensenewstv.com or e-mail me at vago@defensenewstv.com. i'll be back next week at the same time. until then, have a