mr. vickers: sequestration is also particularly mindless. it cuts your least effective program by the same amount it cuts your most effective. it is an abdication of responsibility. mr. olsen: i would say it depends on how the service is prioritized. i think i have used a biological analogy before. organisms shrink to protect the core. special operations forces are not at the core of any big service capabilities, so the services, and they have the luxury of doing it, provide the kinds of things in the budget special operations need. but most of the special operations community in the last decade has not been in the core fighting forces of the community. it has been intelligence analyst, technical controls, these kinds of things. i think what sequestration will do is put more pressure on each of the services to find room in their reduced budget to invest in the kinds of things special operations depends on. >> it is well publicized that there is communication between al qaeda iraq and al qaeda central about the brutality of isis. what is your

mr. vickers: it is growing. it is an important initiative in terms of human intelligence, which is particularly important in this world against a range of challenges that you described. and the department of defense and our military have something to contribute to the overall national effort. it is a partner in that effort. .t is a compliment i would add it as a junior partner. it is not rivaling the size of the cia, but it is important and we have had strong support from the cia in this effort. ms. dozier: it is still growing? mr. vickers: yeah, it is still growing. ms. dozier: you could give us a ballpark figure -- mr. vickers: i won't. [laughter] ms. dozier: ok. but that brings us to another subject. sometimes guns, sometimes remotely piloted vehicles, drones. the targeting end and the rating -- raiding end of special operations gets most of the headlines. it also gives a policy maker a black-and-white solution to the problem. there is a name that wasn't on the list and that name is crossed off the list. ther

mr. vickers: the deal structure is to give us greater access. access is usually a good thing, but we are not fully dependent on it. ms. dozier: to be continued. with that, i open it up to the audience. have a question about sequestration. saw a largeo, we announcement by the army coming down, 40,000 troops. sequestration could take that down another 30,000. that doesn't include cuts to the national guard and reserves. given that we depend so much on military forces for enablers in recruiting, what kind of impact is that going to have given that we are doing more with our special ops forces? ms. hicks: thank you for that softball. i had the pleasure of being in cuts werethe day the announced. it is definitely going to have an effect on special operations forces. it is going to have an effect overall. the united states has made a decision to reduce the amount is going to spend on defense, at least in the base budget, and that's a national level decision. that's a political decision that has to do with what we spend, how we tax, what we spend on en

mr. vickers: the deal structure is to give us greater access. access is usually a good thing, but we are not fully dependent on it. ms. dozier: to be continued. with that, i open it up to the audience. have a question about sequestration. saw a largeo, we announcement by the army coming down, 40,000 troops. sequestration could take that down another 30,000. that doesn't include cuts to the national guard and reserves. given that we depend so much on military forces for enablers in recruiting, what kind of impact is that going to have given that we are doing more with our special ops forces? ms. hicks: thank you for that softball. i had the pleasure of being in cuts werethe day the announced. it is definitely going to have an effect on special operations forces. it is going to have an effect overall. the united states has made a decision to reduce the amount is going to spend on defense, at least in the base budget, and that's a national level decision. that's a political decision that has to do with what we spend, how we tax, what we spend on en

mr. olson for stopping in. our other guests only got as far as denver last night, said he could not join us today. we have with us, dr. mike vickers. former of special operations in the pentagon. kathleen hicks who has held many senior roles in the pentagon. she is now at the center for strategic international studies. i will open on questions that have touched your careers. you have all spent time fighting extremist militants in your different roles. with that experience, looking at the islamic state group and al isis or isil the threat that national security is making it out to be to the u.s. public? and is al qaeda on the back burner for good, or are you just prepping for the next battle? you may begin. [laughter] since you are in the private sector now, feel free to share anything with us at all. [laughter] michael: i think i will take a pass on that one. the threat of a terrorist attack remains a national security threat, clear and present danger along with cyber attack. we have other long-term strategic problems, that they inds everyicymakers' m isil is a bigger threat because they can inspire radical attacks across the worl