>> guest: that was an issue we had well before goldwater nichols, and goldwater nichols tried to fix that by making sure that we had a principled to the secretary and to the president. if you do that, if you cut out the chairman you are cutting off the joint chiefs of staff which in the conference room is called the tank and in their they discussed various things related to these operational issues they can do to help that combatant commander and if you cut that grew out of this as we found happened during the rumsfeld tenure in office where the chairman and the joint chiefs are pushed to the side and marginalized, if you will, than 200 years of military experience and those six individual joint chiefs are being ignored or pushed to the side and you, the president and the secretary do not necessarily get the best military advice. >> host: does that qualify as -- there's a book written by colonel now general mcmaster about the dereliction of duty. do you want to talk about the importance of that book and the question i want to ask is there a dereliction of duty if you have the chairma

the other thing, if you put that in the law, i think it under cuts the goldwater-nichols, we've been trying to put the chairman as the principal for advise. >> anybody else care to comment? >> i'm comfortable with the access and input. in fact, as the report came along, i could see the changes that we are recommending. i have no concerned, whatsoever, about my advise not being heard. >> the survey is -- been talked about a lot. yesterday there was some question about there's a statement that i think that senator chambliss mentioned earlier today that there, other comments that were provided, e-mails, et cetera, through the process, that suggested that the majority view was against repeal of the current policy. and it was mentioned yesterday that wasn't scientific because it wasn't part of the quote survey. and the statistical, you know, the integrity of the survey was the important part of this process. do you all believe that there ought to be some consideration given to -- we all here, you heard many people traveling abroad and talking with troops individually and the information a

the other thing, if you put that in the law, i think it under cuts the goldwater-nichols, we've been trying to put the chairman as the principal for advise. >> anybody else care to comment? >> i'm comfortable with the access and input. in fact, as the report came along, i could see the changes that we are recommending. i have no concerned, whatsoever, about my advise not being heard. >> the survey is -- been talked about a lot. yesterday there was some question about there's a statement that i think that senator chambliss mentioned earlier today that there, other comments that were provided, e-mails, et cetera, through the process, that suggested that the majority view was against repeal of the current policy. and it was mentioned yesterday that wasn't scientific because it wasn't part of the quote survey. and the statistical, you know, the integrity of the survey was the important part of this process. do you all believe that there ought to be some consideration given to -- we all here, you heard many people traveling abroad and talking with troops individually and the information a

forces command to drive jointness through our military, which in not been done, even though goldwater nicholsas in forest giant law. ultimately, secretary cohen and the general put this join forces command in a place. so my question really is, and i must say with respect -- to meet, there is a little bit of confusion about what the argument here is. secretary, in your testimony, you did say the principal purpose for the creation of jfcom was to embrace joint operations and doctrine has largely been achieved. on the other in, you did say in response to senator levin, still important that -- essentially, it is not been achieved, but it no longer justify as a four- start command. i have three open-ended questions. one is, have we really -- i do not believe we have accomplished the mission of guaranteeing jointness in our military, which is fighting dryly. i wonder if you're going to disband this command, where else are you going to do it, our do you think we have achieved it? second, does is save enough money to justify the closing of the command? >> i would not say it as strongly as you did in

the other thing, if you put that in the law, i think it under cuts the goldwater-nichols, we've been trying to put the chairman as the principal for advise. >> anybody else care to comment? >> i'm comfortable with the access and input. in fact, as the report came along, i could see the changes that we are recommending. i have no concerned, whatsoever, about my advise not being heard. >> the survey is -- been talked about a lot. yesterday there was some question about there's a statement that i think that senator chambliss mentioned earlier today that there, other comments that were provided, e-mails, et cetera, through the process, that suggested that the majority view was against repeal of the current policy. and it was mentioned yesterday that wasn't scientific because it wasn't part of the quote survey. and the statistical, you know, the integrity of the survey was the important part of this process. do you all believe that there ought to be some consideration given to -- we all here, you heard many people traveling abroad and talking with troops individually and the information a