soviet union was the greatest allies of the vietnamese. after our involvement in the vietnam war ended, vietnam went to war against china. we have complicated historical strands rolling through that. your point is a good one. why doesn't the international community stand up as well? they have. we have got contributions from foundations around the world, as well as some governments, because i think everyone wants to put in a little bit of effort to say this is an art interest for our security to have good relations with vietnam, and this is a way we are as a people. we believe in alues in cleaning up our mess. that has always been the strands of american foreign policy, which is we act based on strategic interests and moral values. this happens to coincide with both. host: the next and call comes from tennessee. caller: i am dave. i am a vietnam veteran. i served two tours. 1967 and 1968. and when i came home and got out of the military in 1969, 1970 i started having muscle spasms in my back. and finally, when they put out that agent orange

we faced off against the cold war and soviet union. and there was a game going on, high stakes life and death game going on. and at the end of it in 1984, jean kirkpatrick, as ambassador to the united nations, stepped down from that post and said and this will be a para phrase of her quote, she said what's going on between the united states and soviet union, speaking of the cold war, is a chess and monopoly on the same board and the only question is, will the united states of america bankrupt the soviet union economically before they checkmate us militarily. that race was going on. and the soviet union was seeking to build more and more missiles to try to gain an advantage that would cause us to concede to them at least at a minimum. but ronald reagan came in and pushed the resurgence of our national defense, built the missiles back up again and in the process of doing so, november 9, 1989, the berlin wall came down. that's the power of an economy and power of an ideology over a managed economy, a communist economy, a central command e

scaling back the number of nuclear weapons given what has happenedith the soviet union. that is another one. i believe missile defense is another area where there is a great >> is there a specific question, you talked about achieving sustainable levels. do you have a number in mind? t nt to go back to where we are half of now? pre-9/11? i know i asked this in a provocative way if you thought it could succeed but there are important questis raised if you cancel an international program that has a lot of money that has been invested. what sort of alteatives do you propose that can fill that bill and not aenate the international partne? >> e have already had to countries drop the f-35 because of the high cost of other countries, when they take a look at the increasing costs of that plane, i cannot think that is going to be the problem. the otherhing is the navy opted out which they said they waed to. you cannot then produce enough to make it the cost reasonable for your other partners. let me give you a round number. if you lk at the obama budget, by 2015,nd that's how long

given what has happened with the soviet union. i believe missile defense is another area where there is a great deal of appeal. >>>is there a specific -- you talked about achieving a sustainable level? do you have a number in mind? do you want to go half a where we are now, pre-9/11 numbers? i know i asked whether you thought you could succeee, but there are important questions raised if you cancel an international program ttat has a lot of a buy in and people invested. what alternatives do you propose that can fill that and not alienate aid to international partners? >> we yardy had to countries drop out of the f 35. other countries when they take a look at the increasing cost of the f-35, i do not think that will be the problem. the other thing is the navy pops out, which they said they want to, you can not been produced enough to make the cost reasonable for a rather partners. the me give you round numbers. if you look at the obama budget, by 2015, they are talking about a defense budget of $695 billion. miracles,miracle of the

the russian federation, as a successor to the soviet union, did not withdraw. secondly, these unilateral statements have no binding effect, no legal effect. the agreement that president obama and medvedev signed is the treaty. and as with many other arms control treaties, it provides that either party, including obviously us, may withdraw from the treaty if that party decides that extraordinary events have jeopardized its security interests. the russian unilateral statement merely reflects its current view that they disagree, as we have heard for years, with our commitment to building up on missile defense system capabilities. and it is ot in any way affecting us by undermining that commitment. we remain committed, as you heard, in word and most particularly in financial ways. finally, what we read from medvedev in an april statement. i am not sure it is the one you read from. when asked about the unilateral statement, he said "that does not mean that because of this, if the american side starts to build up of the missile defense statement, that the treaty woul

then you're put to the situation that the soviet union had. you can't print it fast enough to get out of debt. you can't borrow enough too sustain you any longer. so you have to announce this country is out of business, we're done. and that's where this country is going. my friends across the aisle, in 2006 -- 2005 and 2006 complained bitterly about deficit spending were right. we should not have been deficit spending. it's a big reason that our friends across the aisle won the majority. . but in the four years since, $160 billion to $1.6 trillion budget. they said the right things. i thought they believed them. you have to stop deficit spending. yet here, after the majority shifted, we have found ourselves with 10 times the deficit that we were beat up for, properly four, five years ago. the deficits have to stop. we're destroying this country. you look back at what president reagan did. had a great economist, art laffe r, and he said if you cut taxes 30%, you will see this economy explode. unfortunately, that 30% tax cut was put in place ove

we have experienced alliances with the soviet union, we have been neighbors with pakistan and iran and we had that experience. the united states is not going to back afghanistan and take it away. -- bag afghanistan and taken away. -- take it away. it is logical for our government to make a decision and explain it to the people of the world, we do not need to apologize for being somebo make. they should speak courageously in front of the world that this is our right. and then that right after recognition of that right, a level playing field, pakistan, iran should recognize we exist and we will build a relationship based on cooperation and mutual respect. use the other one. we have alternatives. >> [inaudible] >my question goes along the line [inaudible] the work we have reported, the gao has reported [inaudible] in spite of the donor nations. give the variety of things the strategy is seeking to achieve, how to prioritize what needs to be done and how to you address the shortfall going forward? there is an economic global crisis that impacts the donor nations contributions. what should

of military to military relationships between the two countries because my experience with the soviet unioni don't know if the strategic arms talks ever achieved much arms control. but the one thing i do know is over 25 year period, we gained a very good understanding of each other's approach and strategy when it can to nuclear weapons, nuclear strategy and so on, and i believe deeply that it helped avoid miscalculations and misunderstandings. i have no interest in a military to military relationship where we basically get together and sing kumbaya all that i think having a relationship where we can talk about things that are really potentially dangerous and our relationship have all kinds of merit and i am a strong proponent of contact with the chinese military for that kind of a dialogue. >> thank you. i'm pleased to hear that. i think my time is up. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, mr. chairman, admiral, thank you for all of your service and the good work you do and all the hard work to do. i have listened with great interest to the questions of my colle

the russian federation, as a successor to the soviet union, did not withdraw. secondly, these unilateral statements have no binding effect, no legal effect. the agreement that president obama and medvedev signed is the treaty. and as with many other arms control treaties, it provides that either party, including obviously us, may withdraw from the treaty if that party decides that extraordinary events have jeopardized its security interests. the russian unilateral statement merely reflects its current view that they disagree, as we have heard for years, with our commitment to building up on missile defense system capabilities. and it is not in any way affecting us by undermining that commitment. we remain committed, as you heard, in word and most particularly in financial ways. finally, what we read from medvedev in an april statement. i am not sure it is the one you read from. when asked about the unilateral statement, he said "that does not mean that because of this, if the american side starts to build up of the missile defense statement, that the treaty wou

the collapse of the soviet union . from my opposition to the 1964 civil rights act to my part in securing the funds for the building of the memorial to martin luther king . from my support for the war in vietnam to my opposition to president george w. bush's war with iraq . i have served with so many fine senators in the congress , and i have loved every precious minute of it. >> ifill: robert byrd was 92 years old. >> brown: again, the major other developments of the day. the u.s. supreme court ruled the right to own a gun extends to states and localities nationwide. the decision will likely force scores of cities to revisit longstanding curbs on guns. senate confirmation hearings began for supreme court nominee elena kagan. she promised to be an impartial justice, if she's confirmed. the justice department announced ten people have been arrested and accused of acting as russian spies and the financial reform bill ran into new trouble. russ feingold said he won't support it. that means the measure is at least one vote

neighbors-- uzbekistan, kazakhstan, tajikistan and turkmenistan-- suddenly became independent when the soviet union collapsed in 1991. uzbeks make up just 15% of kyrgyzstan's population, while both ethnic uzbeks and ethnic kyrgyz are muslim, tensions tene flared before, including land riots in 1990. the catalyst for this round of violence isn't as clear. an interim government now headed by rosa otunbayeva took power in a bloody coupe in april. it accuses the former president, kurmanbek bakiyev, of inciting the unrest to regain control. the situation is being closely watched in washington. kyrgyzstan is home to a major u.s. air base at manas in the north, critical to refueling ongoing operations in afghanistan. the kyrgyz government appealed to russia to send in troops but moscow has so far demurred. for now, u.n. official officials in the capital bishkek say the situation in osh is somewhat calmer but still fragile. >> in general there is a lot of tension and it is still quite volatile. humanitarian aid is coming there, but it is quite difficult to deliver the aid in a proper way to the people who

we had difficult relations with soviet union during korld war but they didn't attack our citizens. in the last eight to seven years of turkish republic history, first time a state is attacking against our citizens. we cannot tolerate this. >> warner: is this breach do you think irreparable? is this a crisis in an otherwise fairly strong relationship though it's had some problems in the past year or something worse? >> it depends on israeli action. >> ifill: in jerusalem today israel's deputy foreign minister said the dispute between the two nations is not a final break. >> we have tried and pleaded with everybody, including the turkish government, to try and stop this provocation. however, i think still the importance. relations between turkey and israel will necessitate a continuation of good and strong ties for the benefit of the entire region. >> ifill: but officials from the two nations have fundamentally different interpretations of what happened on board the flotilla's lead ship during the pre-dawn raid. dozens made their way home today, including this turkish woman and her y

and soviet union and then even russia were competing against each other and spying on each other. some of those habits die hard. i think there is certainly a genuine interest in the obama administration to improve relations. they don't want to see this incident upset the progress they claim has been made with the reset policy but let's also remember that while there may be hard-liners in washington as some russians suspect, there's certainly plenty of hard liners in moscow too including in the foreign intelligence service, the domestic agency, there are people in moscow who depend on the need to perpetuate the myth or the sense that the united states is a threat to russia. >> brown: in old days, there would be a retaliation. do you expect that few? >> i do. even though we've heard some rather calm comments compared to previous instances in the past. i do think that there will be another shoe to drop. it didn't happen today but it could happen in the next few days or even in a couple of weeks. i think that will be telling of how the russian government is really going to respond to

he was one of the senior designers over the soviet union's -- in charge of the soviet union's growing achievement in space power. now, he is 98 years old, anddhe is -- works as an adviser to the chief designer of rockets space corp. this is the book, prepared by more than 40 years of academician chertok. i was author of six chapters. it was published two weeks ago, and i'm absolutely sure that this is the first copy in the united states. i should like to give it as a present to the library of the canon institute. >> thank you very much. >> starting with these preliminaries, let's get right to the plan. let me now pass to the program of the long-term forecast. the first organization has ever risen almost all at once. some serious scientists, engineers, and designers refused to participate in preparation o+ the book. it is quite understandable. they wanted to keep their reputation of serious experts. nevertheless, we have found officers of very good qualification who joined us in this project. first step of focus was collecting experts' opinions. this mathematical, statistical professio

, it's what stalin put up there in the soviet union. in fact, f.d.r. said -- sent his lieutenants to russia back during that period of time when the great depression started early on in the roosevelt presidency, se his lieutenants to look at what stalin was doing because they thought this was the greatest thing in the world. and we need to put that kind of policy here. that's exactly what is going ton right now with the leadership. they may as well send their lieutenant, they should go back and look at history, what stalin did an understand from history that it doesn't work. it will notnd cannot. mr. akin: i appreciate your jumping a little bit ahead. you anticipated where i'm going. the question is, there have been some assumptions made by the democrats about the economy and the question is, are those assumptions any good or not? and one of the things that history does tell us is we should learn something from it. f.d.r.'s treasury secretary henry morgenthau, after trying it for eight year, trurning a recession into the great depressio

in the helsinki human rights process, which was so critical to the eventual dismantling of the soviet union we are very fortunate to have with us here today a national leader, an international leader, and a neighbor from maryland. [applause] >> thank you very much. well, i would have come today just to hear that introduction. what an extraordinarily distinguished career dr. zbigniew brzezinski has had and what the contribution he has made to the united states and to the rational policy of international relations throughout the world. i am so pleased to be here as well as csis with so many distinguished scholars and leaders in international relations and thinkers in our country on very complex and difficult issues that we confront. i am also pleased to be here with a number of good friends whom i have known for half a century almost, i think. i will not out of them here, but i am pleased to be here. stephen flanagan, thank you very much for hosting this event. please give john henramery my bt regards. he is an extraordinary leader, and i have worked closely with him. i am pleased to be here

guest: we figured that there are strategic competitor, the soviet union had been defeated in afghanistanetter work there was done. we saw the world through purely bipolar terms. we knew it would be essie in Ñiafghanistan -- we do it woulde messy and afghanistan. faugwe thought we would let them fight it out any way they could. we would not be engaged. it was a failure of engagement on our part based on a failure of imagination. we will not have that excuue this next time around if we decide we want to disengage now militarily. we know how bad movie goes. i, for one, don't want to see it again. host: john, on our independent line. caller: i am so infuriated over what is going on with our country<5. to see our troops supporting drug dealers and afghanistan -- who is shipping the opium out? what are we doing there? we started the taliban grid israel started hamas. host: let's go to front royal, va., on our rrpublican line. caller: first of all, i love george bush and i pay all the criticism of him. i hope the school is doing well and i hope the library in dallas is doing well and i hope he

president reagan had, and took the opportunity, to support the people who tried to rise up against the soviet union in the 1980's. host: a couple more calls for andrew mccarthy. travis is on the republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to bring up a point. here in the enlightenment, -- during the enlightenment, people realize that religion was not everything and other things needed to have been in the world. maybe the middle eastern countries need to have an enlightenment. what do you think about that? guest: it is something that has to happen. it is something that's a more difficult sell in islamic ideology. i do not pretend to be a scholar of comparative religions. i do know that scriptures in the west and the religions we are familiar with in the west are deemed to be inspired. there's a human intermediary in the equation. muslims takes a koran to be the verbatim word of allah. on the principles they subscribe to, most of the great questions were believed to be have settled around the ninth century or 10th century. it's a much harder sell to use reason in order to evolve a doctor in

host: why dideengage in at reg guest:d that there a stricmpitor, the soviet union d been defeated i ghistanetter were was do. we sa the wldhroughurely por tes. Ñighanta -- we dould be weght would l tm. fit it out anyayyould. itas a ontd. ur par bas on ile of imagination. will tave tha exce decwe want to disenge now litari. we know h mogoes. ir, n'tant to see ain. host: jo, o indepdent . er: am so iiad over untry. who is sppthe opm out? what are we doing there? we started the liban id is start hamas. hos's go toro royal, george bush ad i paall e criticism ofim. e thechl is doing we isoing well and i hope hes happe. to t issues -- first ofall, head surveilnc oucotry wheth t tngnd forth which got so much cr got so much cr all attime, theyerbl to he same token, i wish th orge h juedightin in irq rifrom the beginni ery dahey ed and weall these people to vestind tall th stuf ,ñ&ognew, d , do do bause i knew tir wor r-wes ere a most pele fl th . eventhough thehave n und on, that does no mean ther noe. ghe ge bushch here a 41sth.w. bush th hereat tas a. the 43rd president wi wch was ishing hisibr

esident reagan had, and took the opportunity, to support the people who tried to rise up against the soviet union in the 1980's. host: a couple more calls for andrew mccarthy. travis is on the republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to bring up a point. here in the enlightenment, -- during the enlightenment, people realize that religion was not everything and other things needed to have been in the world. maybe the middle eastern countries need to have an enlightenment. what do you think about that? guest: it is something that has to happen. it is something that's a more difficult sell in islamic ideology. i do not pretend be a scholar of comparative religions. i do know that scriptures in the west and the religions we are familiar with in the west are deemed to be inspired. there's a human intermediary in the equation. muslims takes a kon to be the verbatim word of allah. on the principles they subscribe to, most of the great questions were believed to be have settled around the ninth century or 10th century. it's a much harder sell to use reason in order to evolve a doctor in when

we continue to have substantially -- substantial weaponry that we have to defeat the soviet union inlear war. that seems to be a place where we can still back. we insist on keeping marines on okinawa for purposes very unclear. it is true there are in efficiencies and we have people that are experts in that. those have to be pressed. the point is, as far as enforcing efficiencies, but when you exempt any agency from budgetary discipline, it becomes hard to enforce and efficiencies. enforcing efficiency from outside is difficult. only when they know that there are limits to what they can spend that they join wholeheartedly in that effort. we have a debt reduction commission -- deficit reduction commission that will be formulating. it will be our intention to circulate a letter to our colleagues to be st to that commission saying we will not vote for a package that does not include substantial reductions in military expenditures going forward. we have a very thoughtful presentation which is the product of a group people who are expert in this area and a range across the political spectr

ronald reagan looked at that and said, you never see something like that except in the soviet union. i hate to say this, but in 2007 o.m.b. did staudy and said that of that $18 billion worth of that property is excess. it is useless it is needless. this year peter orszag updated that report and said there are 14,000 buildings that the federal government buildings own that are excess and 55,000 buildings that are underutilized and not necessary. "the washington post" did an editorial and said until the district of columbia can get hold of all the excess land and buildings owned by the federal government and put those to economic use, the economy of the washington, d.c., would never grow. those of us in the west have been saying that for a long time. in fact, this year i introduced two land transfer bills. in each bill both the forest service and the b.l.m. as well as the army corps of engineers owned land that they did not use, they did not need, they didn't even know about it. one par sell of land was sold to the federal government in the 1940's for $1, and the forest service did not

there was devastation during the occupation from the soviet union. for the first time, roads were paved. the last time i visited, in little shops, the beginning of an economic recovery. now there are sidewalks. to see children going to school, little boys with baseball caps going to school. little girls with white scarves. i have seen it with my own eyes. i know a civil society is being developed. one time, when we read their come on all levels of electricity was 60% of the population. this is a primitive country. -- 6% of the population. we are working closely to establish their and the culture and divert them from poppy production. pomegranates. i did not realize what a market there is for pomegranates. at one time, they were famous for that. wheat production. farmers can actually make more money from that than poppy production. and i will give credit to the u.s., international developpent. there are working with the farmers to establish a civil country. host: texas. hank on the republican line. caller: i have a comment that i know that a number of

we have experienced alliances with the soviet union. we have been neighbors with pakistan and iran. have that experience. the united states is not going to bag afghanistan and taken away. those countries in the region have territorial designs or territorial dispute with afghanistan. it is only natural for a logical afghan government to strategically make a decision and exploited to the people of pakistan and the world that we do not need to apologize for being somebody's allies. does a very natural decision that a nation should make. -- it is a very natural decision that a nation should make. we should speak very courageously in front of the world that this is our right after recognition of that right, which should have a level playing field with pakistan, iran. we can build up a level of cooperation and respect. >> [garbled] [unintelligible] how can the united states and afghanistan prioritize for going forward? there is an economic global crisis around the world. can you address that as to what should be done? >> when the afghan national society came to me in the parliament and i

what would that have meant in the state of the former soviet union? those who refused to inform on their clergy to the police -- the secret police -- they are heroes. the guys who did are so toxic that it cannot be appointed as bishops. a year ago, benedict xvi try to appoint a new bishop -- archbishop of warsaw in poland. it lasted about five minutes. it turned out he had been a collaborator with the circuit -- with the secret police as a young bishop, informing on his own quirky to the cops. given the variety -- his own clergy to the cops. given the variety, there are solutions that seem obvious, but it are not necessarily obvious. it is difficult to craft with detailed policies that necessarily apply to every imaginable situation all the world. the essence of the american norms, immediate suspension for credible accusations of abuse, and permanent removal from the ministry of those accusations are sustained -- i do think there is a critical mass in the holy city that wants to see that become the global policy. i expect that new amendment to canon l

economy than 50 or 60 years ago in a period after world war ii when most of eur e europe, the soviet union and so forth were devastated by the war and we survived in a relatively strong position with a very strong industrial base one that grew substantially during the second world war. so, it was inevitable that our size of our economy relatively to the globe would decline. i don't think that is a reflection of failure on our part. we still are the biggest manufacturing power in the world. we have the highest standard of living. and we gain enormously from trade with other countries. we buy things from them that we can't produce or we can't produce as cheaply and sell our goods to the rest of the world. and sophisticated economic studies have been done this show we are gaining roughly a trillion dollars a year from the trade liberalization that occurred the last several decades. so that is several thousand dollars per family we are better off as a result of or trade relations with the rest of the world. host: this a question about the individual in china. what is their purchasing power? gu

the ponzi scheme known as the soviet union went out of business. that's what will happen to us as well. so anyway, one of the things that we have failed to learn from history, i wanted to talk about jobs a little bit, and then spend the remaining time talking about another area in which people just don't seem to be learning here in washington from history. it's not hard to find, it's more accessible than it's been in the history of man kind. you can find all kinds of incredible information. you know, you want to go back and read john quincy adams' incredible closing arguments that went on for over two days. you know. ed in the amistad case. you can get it. you want to read ben franklin's entire speech before the constitutional convention in 1787, where he said if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it possible an empire can rise without his, the lord's, aid? he said, we're told in the sacred writing, unless the lord builds the house, they labor in vain that build it. i also firmly believe he said, without his, god's concurrin

have a choice, keep borrowing or printing and then ultimately you get into the position that the soviet union was in, you can't print it in or can't spend it enough so you have to go up and announce we are bankrupt as a nation and out of business. . and it brings me back, oh, and by the way, one other thing i want to mention, and this happens when you refuse to enforce the laws. we have a president ho decided he's going to impose a drilling monitorum and so the judiciary came in, considered the constitution, considered the act, reviewed all the executions for imposing it, said, this is arbitrary and capricious. you can't do this. there's no basii for doing a moratorium of all of these. you want to go after b.p.? he said -- he didn't say this, i'm saying this, you want to go after b.p. and make sure they're not cutting corners on other rigs because we know they cut them, sure looks like they cut them at least on deepwater horizon? that's one thing. but it on all the rigs -- but to do it on all the rigs, when there were violations for b.p. and in the saae period exxon and shell had one, there's

that we're going to give them housing, health care, food, education and all of the stuff that the soviet union also promised their citizens and who is picking up the tab? a lot of foreigners are buying our debt. foreign holding of american debt was 5% in 1970, that is when i graduated from college. foreign holdings, 1990, goes from 5% to 19% in 20 years. 20 years later, foreign holdings in 2010, 47%. is that healthy? how much longer are the chinese and the other foreign countries going to continue to pay us money that we don't have to pay off american voters just to keep them happy? this is a glide path that will end up in a crash. the gentlelady, congresswoman lummis, has suggested that eastern now, trying to pull this thing out is going to take a number of years. this can't be turned around overnight and this 20-year kind of pattern reflects the fact that what we're talking about is really serious here. but it's still basic economic principles. mrs. lummis: while you are putting up your next chart. in may of this year, we issued some treasury bonds and the sale was undersubscribed, which mea

we have experienced alliances with the soviet union, we have been neighbors with pakistan and iran and we had that experience. the united states is not going to back afghanistan and take it away. -- bag afghanistan and taken away. -- take it away. it is logical for our government to make a decision and explain it to the people of the world, we do not need to apologize for being somebo make. they should speak courageously in front of the world that this is our right. and then that right after recognition of that right, a level playing field, pakistan, iran should recognize we exist and we will build a relationship based on cooperation and mutual respect. use the other one. we have alternatives. >> [inaudible] >my question goes along the line [inaudible] the work we have reported, the gao has reported [inaudible] in spite of the donor nations. give the variety of things the strategy is seeking to achieve, how to prioritize what needs to be done and how to you address the shortfall going forward? there is an economic global crisis that impacts the donor nations contributions. what should

when the soviet union left afghanistan, the government that they left behind did not collapse immediately. it took another three or four years. there were funding the residual afghan government with $4 billion per year in $1,990. that is a lot of money. that is $10 billion today. government was able to withstand the government -- the taliban and not fall. that was until the russian government stopped providing money. it is probable to prop of governments that can fight back. it is terrible to take that line and say that as they need to learn from but the reality is we need to learn from those things. we're not in a position where we can get our maximum situation. we have to think of the sub- maximal options. host: independent line, good morning. caller: i remember a meeting a young paul brankly when he was introduced into the pentagon and i look at him and i look at you and these are our forefathers hundreds of years ago went against all adversity and put everything at risk with our youngest and brightest and that is where i see the hope. look at what he did in iraq. look at what he accom

down -- the bogged down economies of managed economies, whether it was central planning in the soviet union that finally collapsed in 1991 or whether it is the unstimulating economy that has bogged down western europe for a long time, that the vitality in this american economy that keeps chugging along is rooted in the individual entrepreneurs that is the invisible hands that are making decisions every day that turns this economy and makes it move. and we're not about to give up on free enterprise even though we have people that don't believe in it that own the gavels today. even though we have a president of the united states and a white house staff and a lot of a cabinet that don't understand or appreciate nor believe in free enterprise capitalism. and i doubt if there's anybody out there in the white house that can say, yes, i read "wealth of nations," i understand it, i understand the division of labor, i understand the comparative -- comparative advantage that adam smith wrote about. no, they understand karl marx but they don't understand adam smith. this is where we are. and it's why

we figured since our strategic competitor, the soviet union, had been defeated in afghanistan that our work there was done.. we saw the world through purely bipolar terms. we knew it would be messy in afghanistan, but we thought we would let them sort it out, fight it out anyway wanted to. we would not be engaged. it was a, if you will, in failure of engagement on our part based on a failure of the imagination. we will not have the excuse this time around. if we decide we want to disengage now militarily, we know how that movie goes. i, for one, do not want to see that. host: a few quick calls. john on our independent line. caller: hello, ambassador. i am so infuriated over what is going on with our country and tt see our troops supporting drug dealers in afghanistan. who is shipping them the opium out? what are we doing there? israel started tomas s --tarted hamas. host: virginia on our republican line. caller: first of all, i love george bush. i hate all the criticism of him. i hope the school is doing well. i hope the library in dallas is doing well.+ i hope he is happy there. to th

of military to military relationships between the two countries because my experience with the soviet unioni don't know if the strategic arms talks ever achieved much arms control. but the one thing i do know is over 25 year period, we gained a very good understanding of each other's approach and strategy when it can to nuclear weapons, nuclear strategy and so on, and i believe deeply that it helped avoid miscalculations and minderstandings. i have no interest in a military to military relationship where we basically get together and sing kumbaya all that i think having a relationship where we can talk about things that are really potentially dangerous and our relationship have all kinds of merit and i am a strong proponent of contact with the chinese military for that kind of a dialogue. >> thank you. i'm pleased to hear that. i think my time is up. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, mr. chairman, admiral, thank you for all of your service and the good work you do and all the hard work to do. i have stened with great interest to the uestions of my colleagu,

in the helsinki human rights process, which was so critical to the eventual dismantling of the soviet union so we are very fortunate to have with us here today a national leader, an international leader, and a neighbor from maryland. [applause] >> i would have come today just to hear that introduction, doctor. [laughter] what an extraordinarily distinguished career he has had and what the contribution he has made, not only to the united states, but to the rational policy of international relations throughout the world, and i'm so pleased to be here as well with so many distinguished scholars and leaders in international relations and thinkers in our country on very complex and difficult issues. i'm also pleased to be here with a number of good friends, whom i have known for half a century almost, i think. i will not out of here, but i'm pleased to be here. steve flanagan, thank you very much for your hosting this event. please give john kerry of my best regards. he is an extraordinary leader -- , and it worked very closely with him when he was in defense, so i'm pleased to be here with all

we have experienced alliances with the soviet union, we have been neighbors with pakistan and iran andwe had that experience. the united states is not going to back afghanistan and take it away. -- bag afghanistan and taken away. -- take it away. it is logical for our government to make a decision and explain it to the people of the world, we do not need to apologize for being somebody's allies or choosing someone as an ally. it is a very natural decision that a nation should make. they should speak courageously in front of the world that this is our right. and then that right after recognition of that right, a level playing field, pakistan, iran should recognize we exist and we will build a relationship based on cooperation and mutual respect. use the other one. we have alternatives. >> [inaudible] >my question goes along the line [inaudible] the work we have reported, the gao has reported [inaudible] in spite of the donor nations. give the variety of things the strategy is seeking to achieve, how to prioritize what needs to be done and how to you address the shortfall going forward?