only a nationstate could do that. there are only a couple of nationstates. clearly, nationstates, unlike non-nationstates, while they have a larger capability, also have vulnerabilities. >> nationstates do. >> china and russia. >> they have capabilities. >> the most of his gated and capable pervasive capabilities are represented by those two bank countries. >> when you went to north korea, you said that was on your bucket list. >> some people think that was strange. it stems from the fact that i served in the republic of korea. i was director of forces. got very involved in the issues on the peninsula. so it was always a professional objective. so i did. it was for me a remarkable experience. >> there are reports that there was a 12 course meal between you and a north korean official. you were sent a bill for your part. that seems unusual to me. >> they don't like us to much but they like our money. >> did you like their food? >> the dinner was, and i have become a korean food aficionado it was a wonderful meal. it just was not very enjoyable because i had a

nationstates are under increasing challenge and threat.e see individuals identifying with regional organizations. just the authority of nation states and governments i think is being looked at at a different way than just 20 years ago. this is one of the things that we need to understand and anticipate with foreign governments because if you are going to have the dissolution of the nationstate structure it will be a more chaotic world. on the analysis we have to not only inform policymakers about trends and developments worldwide, but analysis for cia has taken on more dimensions than when i joined. at that time, analytic work was exclusively limited to the finished products we give to others. now analysis drives so much of our activity. talking about operational activities and covert action. that analytic insights, they full advantage of the intelligence that we get as well as taking advantage of the increasingly rich open source environment and social media so that we are -- in social media so we are better able to inform. analysis is be

. >> isis is facing a lot of pressure as a nationstate.rying to present themselves as a nationstate. at some point they will fail in delivering all the services that people expect. bear with me for a moment. if isis fails as a nationstate 30,000 players that isis has. they go back to those countries of origin has trained fighters. as trained terrorists. we have this problem of isis somewhat contained. we will have an even bigger problem in all of these fighters go home. >> that is amazing. that is a pretty unique perspective. i am not sure i have heard a lot of other people say that. chris, thank you for joining us today. i appreciate it. hillary clinton expected to face questions about her e-mail use just moments from now. marjorie tony and brad are back with us right now. you made an interesting point to me a little while ago. 86% of people, democrats that are primarily voters will support her no matter what. >> first of all they have nowhere else to go. i think that is why democrats are so fearful. let's not forget, two weeks ago the "n

nationstates are under increasing challenges and threats. more and more, we see individuals who are identifying with national mobilizations. just the authority of nation states and governments needs to be looked at in a different way than 20 years ago. this is one of the things we need to understand, participate, and work with in foreign governments. if you have the solution of the nation state structure we have had for the past century, it will not work in practice. we have to not only inform policymakers about those trends worldwide, but and analysis for cia has taken on many dimensions than when i first came in 1980. at that time the cia's analytic work with exquisitely limited to the finished products that we give the president and others. now it describes so much of our activity. whether we are talking about an election, different types of operational activities, covert action, that analytic insight, taking tactical advantage of the intelligence we get, as well as taking advantage of the increasingly rich, open-source environment so tha

and it is the first to assume at least some characteristics of a nationstate. spillover from the syrian conflict is raising the prospect of instability in lebanon jordan and saudi arabia. , it is growing, and it will undermine progress against isil. although prime minister of body abbadi has begun to alter the sectarian town in iraq, persistent distrust will limit progress toward a stable political environment. iso -- isil's ability to conduct large-scale offenses in iraq and other allies, stiffen defenses against iraqi forces, sheet -- shia militants and tribal allies. not to mention the iranians. however isil remains a brutal and formidable threat. moving to syria, and parts of western syria, the syrian regime has made gains in 2014, but it will require years to reassert significant control of the country as a whole. the regime has a clear advantage over the opposition, which is plagued by logistical -- by disunity, firepower manpower and logistical shortfalls. right now, they are incapable of militarily ousting assad, and will probably remain so in 2015. ass

there has been an outpouring on social media with people talking about the nationstate.ir condolences. tweeting heki-moon is deeply saddened by the death of lee kuan yew. u.s. secretary of state john kerry also expressing condolences he is deeply for its role in the world, saying he provided some of the wisest counsel he ever received. president obama paid tribute through a white house press statement, calling him a giant of history. there has been reaction from the general public, one person saying he is an admirable statesman, trans forming prime minister of the nationstate. people are talking about his legacy, about the system he created in singapore. one other person talking about how the system worked because singapore is a small nationstate. back to you. rishaad: that's it for this edition. asia edge is going to be next. we will be recapping the big stories of the day. the top one is the passing of lee kuan yew, the man who guided singapore's transformation. the scene as people continue to commemorate his life. ♪ haslinda: singapore remembers lee kuan yew. the man

nationstates are under increasing challenging threats.more and more individuals in different quarters of the world who identify with subnational groups and organizations. just the authority of nationstates and governments is being looked at in a different way than it was 20 years ago. this is one of the things we have to be able to understand and anticipate and work with foreign governments. if you're going to have basically a nation-state structure that we have had for centuries on the analysis we have to not only help to reform policymakers about those trends and developments worldwide but analysis for cia has taken on more decisions. at that time cia's analytical work was exclusively limited to the finished all source products we have given. now i analysis drive so much whether we are talking about collection whether we are talking about different types of operational activities that analytic insight taking advantage of the intelligence we get through various means as well as taking advantage of the increasingly rich open source enviro

another nationstate trying to create annoyance and also an attack that was to struct of the nature.uld be well served to prepare for an attack that has an impact that may shake some of the continents levels. erik: stock market, bond market, currency markets? agent taddeo: those are very well protected systems and it would be extremely hard. erik: we thought jpmorgan was well protected, too. agent taddeo: i agree. we are always surprised. most of these payment systems and trading systems are closed systems. the biggest that is when you are open to the internet and when you are open to a third-party vendor. if you have a closed network that you can monitor and protect intrusions or keep an eye on better because it is not connected by e-mail or otherwise , it is easier to protect the system. that is what most of our infrastructure is composed of. but we have to actually be very vigilant about it. stephanie: what has been the most shocking hack? agent taddeo: the sony hack has really changed the way many of us think about it. that had three very scary elements. there was the theft of in

nationstates are under increasing challenges and threats. more and more, we see individuals who are identifying with national mobilizations. just the authority of nation states and governments needs to be looked at in a different way than 20 years ago. this is one of the things we need to understand, participate, and work with in foreign governments. if you have the solution of the nation state structure we have had for the past century, it will not work in practice. we have to not only inform policymakers about those trends worldwide, but and analysis for cia has taken on many dimensions than when i first came in 1980. at that time the cia's analytic work with exquisitely limited to the finished products that we give the president and others. now it describes so much of our activity. whether we are talking about an election, different types of operational activities, covert action, that analytic insight taking tactical advantage of the intelligence we get, as well as taking advantage of the increasingly rich, open-source environment so that

isis wants to be a nationstates, but i refuse to elevate them to that state. they aren't armed insurgency/terrorist group that have taken on elements of an army, but they are not a state. nor should we elevate them, and that is what they want to be elevated to. i think we can achieve the same level without elevating them. part of them is to be elevated as the preeminent hottest group on the planet. that is why they spend so much money producing these videos and on the propaganda they put out which is very well produced professionally produced things you never saw from al qaeda. they are to say they are the preeminent and most successful radical jihadist group on the planet area -- planet. they want us to elevate them beyond where they are. they are a significant threat, and they need to be destroyed and i fear that declaring war on them by name would elevate them to a status they do not deserve but at the end of the day, authorization to use force reaches the same basic legal parameters but without the symbolic victory that isis is trying to achieve. >> thank

we deal of nationstates and transnational actors, focus on the former in this question. with nationstates so much of the world actions can be explained by this concept of deterrence and deterrence roughly assembled through capability and will and particularly i'm interested in delving into strategic maneuver and our their ability to strengthen the hands of diplomats by restoring the global response force capability. i'm interested from each of the services starting with the air force your commitment to the global response force with budgetary detail and you can also include modeling and simulation exercises towards that end. to the air force first. >> congressman we are committed to a global response force. the problem masses filling the global response force when our assets are being used. we have a limited capacity now in certain key areas. we have isr mobility air refueling command and control him all parts of the globe. as a result we cannot meet the combatant commanders requirement today. we just don't have enough of it anymore. as you have heard this discussed alre

before the war was completed isn't it treaty that set up the current nationstate system.'m just saying. thank you. [applause] michael: i would like to introduce a very special guest. this is our 17th annual review of the international terrorism coalition for cooperation. with us is the 68th governor of virginia, close friend to the potomac institute, he has been a little bit of everything, from an officer to a prosecutor and the elector of the attorney general, on many corporate boards. most importantly however on many congressional and presidential awards on the gilmore commission, which in 1999 was pulled together to assess the u.s. ability to deal with terrorism. the commission existed not just throughout 99, 2 thousand, but well past 2001. with that the commission was the venue for the first line of advice in strategy on how to deal with a brand-new war on terrorism. the governor was the author of this nation's strategy for dealing with terrorism throughout the early 2000's, he coined, i believe, he should be credited with coining the term -- international cooperation

>> there is always a predisposition on the part of any nationstate looking at another to think the worst. that is how diplomats keep in business. i have been one of those. themselves, intelligence agencies, and defense departments. whatever the country over there says is one thing. we are paid professionals to assume the worst case scenario. often, you see that around the world in relation to china. the largest misperception is this. somehow, china has a growing military capability and military ambition to occupy in time parts of its region. the bottom line is, whatever negative things you can say about the chinese tradition, it is not a substantial part of the chinese tradition as it was with the europeans to say, now we have wealth and power. how do we conquer the next territory? there is a deep civilizational view alive in beijing that there's enough to manage here to not go and conquer the other half of the world. that is a misconception. >> we see here, clearly in the 21st century, the rising power. a country that has not yet decided it is a stakeholder in the world, but seems to wa

generally seen as stable and a beacon of democracy, what will that do to the whole concept of nationstates? and quickly, simon, i had it teacher at usc called warren bennett. he said something that, leaders are like beauty. you know when you see it. so my question for you is, in your research, do you still believe it is something that people are born with? can it be adopted? can they be taught? frank: in answer to your question, i would echo something that nicolas said earlier, which is that i think one of the big problems in the world right now is when someone like xi jinping or putin gets up and they say, look at us. we are on the move. we are making decisions. and then the point to washington or to brussels, and they say and look at these democracies that are really gridlocked. i think in the long run, i do not believe that this is the right argument, because i think they have got a lot -- especially russia, but china as well -- they have a lot of problems with sustainability of the china model and so forth. and i think there are resources that democracies, but particularly the united s

we deal with nationstates and transnational actors. i'm talking about the former not the latter. this idea of deterrence, deterrence being defined by capability and will. here is where i get to the point on the global response force. we have the service secretaries and chiefs here yesterday. they gave a response to this. i'm interested from the secretary and chief as it relates to restoring the global response force and how you see that factoring into our posture going forward. sec. carter: i will start. we do have something called the global response force. we provide carefully for just the reason you describe. namely, it is the most ready force. it is the one that has the greatest deterrent value because it has global reach and is highly ready. one of the things that is concerning about this whole budget drama of sequester year after year and its effect on readiness is if it continues, it is going to affect our readiness, even at the g.r.f. level. that is not good for deterrence. it is not good for the picture of american strength so necessary to avoiding conflict in the first

forced to nowhere against non-nationstates, enough. so here we are. america was there. president obama got elected on that platform. ring the boys and girls home. enough bloodshed. enough casualties. enough. the american people said enough. and now we cannot turn on the tv or listen to the radio without hearing of nazi era atrocities. paul pot po -- pol pot and colombia. you name the dictators. you name the mass murderers. and they are growing. and all the generals, the people we pay to make these decisions say these are really dangerous people, and guess what? you are not going to be able to stop them with just airstrikes, and the american public says, now what? and that is where we are. the american public post-vietnam -- and i grew up close to, by the way. i grew up after the draft and all that. that war did not impact my worldview the way it did the people maybe five years older than me. so i did not grow up with that that presumption that these foreign engagements are roads to nowhere. we now have a situation in our country where we now have a very unstable region

what's interesting to me is one of the reasons why we created nationstates, if you go back to the treaty of westville yet we have clear border systems individual country's sovereign rights borders gates guards and guns. this is the territory of united kingdom and united states and south korea. the internet broke all of that. the role for which the government was brought together to be of service to his people particularly at the federal level in this country and others for the purpose of national security has kind have been broken in the internet age. we have organizations of the u.s. government army-navy air force and marines who are responsible for taking our borders. what does that look like in cyberspace? nobody really the systems of control border guards gates customs air traffic control all of that stuff doesn't work on the internet so they are struggling to figure out what it looks like. the branches of government that would protect us that the nation-state level from a national security perspective and then also the domestic level from a law enforcement perspective are completely

as far as a declaration of war is concerned, we only declare war on nationstates. isis is not a state and i do not want to elevate them to that. it is an armed insurgency /terrorist group. they are not a state and we should not elevate them to that. they want to be recognized as a caliphate. i think we can achieve the same goal without elevating them the way they want to be elevated. they have spent so much money producing these videos. that is why they present -- spent so much money on the propaganda. it is professionally produced things that you never saw from al qaeda. we are the most successful and inevitable jihadist group on the planet. a are desperate for us to elevate them beyond what they really are. they are a significant threat to the world and they need to be destroyed. i fear that declaring war on them by name would elevate them to a status that they desperately want that they do not deserve. an authorization to use force reaches the same legal parameters but without the symbolic victory that isis is trying to achieve. >> thank you, senator. i am donna

it may well be that being the president of a modern nationstate that has a monopoly on violence or ateast is supposed to or we are discussing it with terrorism, you have to do what you have to do. your main job is to protect the nation. and i think that is one of the things that perhaps all of us face when we look at king and we say that we admire him. but do we really believe in nonviolence? well, i think most of us would say that we do as long as the police have guns to protect me . and the military who have guns to protect me. maybe we are all hypocritical in that sense. dean: in terms of the connecting issue, as a preacher i would say that with the rhetoric, the ability to speak involves an ability to connect with the audience and to empathize with the audience. and i wonder if modern presidents lose that because of the isolation of the office. king was connected with the movement people he was with, lincoln was much more connected to the average person than any modern president. i just do not know if a modern president remembers his audience after six years in the office. mr. mat

one of the reasons we created nationstates, we have very clear border systems.this is the territory of the united kingdom and south korea. the internet protocol of that. the role brought together to be of service to his people at the federal level in this country and others for the purpose of national security has been broke in in the internet age. we have organizations of the u.s. government. army, navy, air force, marines for protecting national borders. they've been doing it for centuries. what does that look like in cyberspace? nobody really knows you systems of controls customs immigration, air traffic control all of that stuff doesn't work on the internet. they are struggling to figure out what it looks like. branches of government protect us both from the national security is and also the domestic level from in-line fours new perspective or completely program and they have good ways to respond. i will talk about on the policing side. if you had a bank robbery here in manhattan in times square. a guy walks in walks out of the back of many. what do we know

especially nationstate to attack our cyber, we are very vulnerable. there is no price to be paid. i wonder if we should not be developing a theory of deterrence similar to nuclear deterrence in the 1950's and 1960's which served us well until today so that people understand that if they come against our cyber infrastructure, they will pay a price. that is something i hope you can consider. >> i think that is very wise. i appreciate that thought. i think that that is something we need to think through better than we have. what does the doctrine mean, what does deterrence mean in this new domain. at the same time we build capabilities, we need to build doctrine as well. i think that is a very wise point. >> final question -- i am running out of time. you have identified as a priority reform. i hope you will hold to that and i would like to see a little more detail about how you are going to tackle that. i know the chairman has expressed his concern. how do we get procurement not only in terms of cost, but in terms of time lapse. that we are not taking literally decades in developing

and you have a more sophisticated more sophisticated that guys, nationstate adversaries, organized crime that are particularly capable and really after your organization to review implement a best practices. now you do information sharing. information sharing is this nothing particularly complicated, but right now the bad guys can try the same attack against a thousand companies and if they are not picky they will hit ten of those companies successfully. that is enough for them. right now they can probably hit 200 200 out of a thousand. the cost for them is extraordinarily low, and they have a really high return on investment. the idea of information sharing is they try 1,000 companies. the 1st one they succeeded breaking into learn something. be on the look out for this activity. shares. shares that. the other 999 companies received the information and are able to protect themselves. what used to be a scalable thing they can keep trying until they succeed. it is now inverted were every time they try someone is likely to learn what they do share that information inoculate everyone else.

i think what you are sensing is the difference in using military force against state actors nationstates and these groups of nonstate actors which have a different character to them. the last time we were handled unconstrained authorization to use force was probably eisenhower's orders on the eve of the invasion of europe where he was told to take the armed forces of the united states, deploy them to the continent of europe, and defeat nazi germany. that is probably the last time we have had a completely unconstrained aumf. mr. aguilar: thank you. good to see you again. i want to talk about the aumf just discussed and the wide scope you mentioned. one of the questions i had was the hostility. it does not say anything about the termination of hostilities at the three-year period. is it you're feeling hostilities could continue and we could have actions against isil beyond the three years as currently written and implemented? sec. carter: three years is not a prediction about the direct -- duration of the campaign to defeat isis. it is a recognition of the way our political system works. a

we deal with nationstates and transnational actors. i'm talking about the former not the latter. this idea of deterrence, deterrence being defined by capability and will. here is where i get to the point on the global response force. we have the service secretaries and chiefs here yesterday. they gave a response to this. i'm interested from the secretary and chief as it relates to restoring the global response force and how you see that factoring into our posture going forward. sec. carter: i will start. we do have something called the global response force. we provide carefully for just the reason you describe. namely, it is the most ready force. it is the one that has the greatest deterrent value because it has global reach and is highly ready. one of the things that is concerning about this whole budget drama of sequester year after year and its effect on readiness is if it continues it is going to affect our readiness, even at the g.r.f. level. that is not good for deterrence. it is not good for the picture of american strength so necessary to avoiding conflict in the first p

we face the reemergence of nationstates with the capability and potentially the intent to constrain us. in space and cyberspace, our adversaries are rapidly leveling a plainfield and we face an increasingly network of nonstate actors who can threaten our national security interests overseas and at home. our strategy against isil integrates my lines of effort -- only two of which are military. isil will require sustainable level of effort overextended period of time to create an environment in which they will be expelled and ultimately defeated. in europe, russia seeks to decrease in nato and european union influenced in eastern europe and generate disagreement among our allies on the very future of europe. russian leaders have chosen a very dangerous path to achieve their strategic objectives, lighting a fire of ethnicity and nationalism not senior up instantly five years and it may burn out of -- not seen in over 65 years and it may burn out of control. we must counter russian aggression. altogether the global security environment is as uncertain as i have seen it in my 40 years of se

we face the reemergence of nationstates with the capability and potentially the intent to constrain us. in space and in cyberspace, our adversaries are rapidly leveling the playing field. and we face an increasingly capable network of nonstate actors including the islamic state of iraq, who can threaten our national security interest. our strategy against faisal integrates and balances nine lines of effort. iso's -- iso -- iisil's isil's threat is trans regional and will require an exchange effort over a period of time which will create an environment where they will be defeated. in europe, russia seeks to reduce european influence in eastern europe and generate disagreement on the future of europe. their leaders have chosen a dangerous path to achieve their strategic objectives, lighting a fire of nationalism not seen in europe in 65 years. it may burn out of control. as strategy is to reassure and reinforce our nato allies while considering other instruments of power to counter russian aggression. altogether, the global security environment is as uncertainty as i have seen it in my 4

when you are in that middle area where the nationstate may be organized crime it is kind of a mix between incident response defenses and then there's the threat that you should be able to protect against commonly available individuals etc.. but ultimately it's looking at the risk and how to utilize the framework to appropriately protect themselves whether to stop it at the printer. one thing i want to outline is an article you wrote about a month ago or so that we are sort of dancing around a little bit here talking about some of the responsibilities of the software developers as well. there was an article about google potentially releasing zero days after a certain time frame but they've come to discover. that is important to remember as well that as much as the companies can do to protect themselves whether it is through the response there's lots of moving parts and part of the problem that we have to confront is that a lot of times the companies are receiving the software that have unlimited vulnerabilities and they are opting to be able to discover them on their own so this is a share