A discussion with the brookings institution. Topics included operations in afghanistan, military readiness and the importance of emerging defense technologies. This is one hour. John ladies and gentlemen, good morning. It is a sincere pleasure for me to welcome our featured and honored guests today. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general mark a. Milley, United States army. Since becoming the 20th chairman of the joint chiefs in 2019, general milley has worked to realize the u. S National Defense strategy, which prioritizes competition with china and russia in American Defense planning. Chairman milley has worked tirelessly with civilian and uniformed leadership towards developing the u. S. Armed forces into a truly modern armed force capable of deterring and heading off the threats of all types that we may be facing today, including those emanating from nearpeer competitors that have now really pronounced once again the idea of Great Power Competition. He simultaneously kept a close and careful eye on the perennial defense issues associated with iran and north korea and violent extremism in the middle east and elsewhere, and in this way, general milleys tenure has coincided with, and by any standard, could be considered a unique period in American Military history, where in these threats are multifaceted, theyre transnational, and theyre multidomain, and given the realities of domestic politics, questions about preserving the apolitical character of the armed forces. And so on. These are all open for intense debate and conversation, so being a great infantry man, general milley has navigated the sometimes challenging terrain. Now prior to his becoming the chairman, general milley was the 39th chief of staff of the great United States army and served in many of the storied divisions of the United States army, including the 2nd infantry division, 10th Mountain Division, he would be a Deputy Commander of the 101st Airborne Division air assault, he would command the 10th Mountain Division climb to glory, sir would command the third corps, and be the commanding general of the u. S. Army forces command. Theres one accomplishment that is not necessarily in his bio, but ill have to mention it today, and i think its one that hes very proud about. He is the proud son of a marine, and that picture behind me is of the Fourth Division going over the beach at iwo jima, where i think his father was a participant. So, general, were really proud of you, and very proud to have you with us today. We know that a very difficult duty is coming up for you in the very near future, and that is for you to remain neutral at this years armynavy game. I know its tough. Were going to keep our eye on you. Those of us from annapolis have Great Expectations for your neutrality, but thank you for all that you have done for our country, i mean that sincerely, and all that you have done for our allies around the world. Id like to turn it over now to a dear friend a fellow here at brookings, senior fellow, mike ohanlon, of our Foreign Policy program, who will kick off the conversation about the defense challenges that you face and we face as a nation, and then hell conclude with some questions and answers. Now, let me also say that this session is very much on the record today. If you have questions, send them to events brookings. Edu or on twitter futureofdefense. And with that, sir, god bless you, thank you for being with us today, and over to you, mike. Mike thank you, john. Thank you, general milly. And i also want to add my personal gratitude not only for you joining us today and for all youve done for the country, but for all the men and women and the military families and veterans who have worked so tirelessly and sacrificed so much on behalf of the country that you i know are proud to represent and lead. So, thank you, sir. And i thought the best way to begin our conversation today was to sort of take stock of how the military is doing in Broad Perspective in its readiness and the state of its people and its families. There have been a lot of stresses and strains. Obviously, covid being only the latest. And so, id love any update you might have on how the military is handling the covid crisis, but also more generally, since were at this moment, as 2020 winds down. Its been 40 years since you finished up at princeton as an rotc and a hockey player star back in the day, so youve watched the u. S military over four decades, and youve been now in leadership at the chairman position. A year and a half and before that, for four previous years, as the army chief. So i just wondered how you would take stock of the condition of the u. S military today, and then well get into talking more about what youre doing to prepare for the future. But again, thank you for being with us, and over to you. Hey, michael. Thanks for the opportunity. And i want to thank general allen for those kind words. I think his picture was on the screen, and over his shoulder was a painting that i noticed, and it was the assault landing on iwo jima, and that beach looks to me like it was approximately the beach that my dad might have landed on with the fourth marine division. And general allen, i think it was his fatherinlaw may have been the chief of staff of the fourth marine division. An incredible battle the bloodiest battle per square mile in american history. Almost 7000 marines gave their lives in in less than 30 days. So im very humbled my dad passed away, as most of the veterans have now, but im very very humbled to be the son of a world war ii veteran at the beach at iwo jima. And also, i might note, my mother served in the navy at a hospital out in seattle, so very proud of both of their service. Mike, you mentioned, you know, 40 years ago at princeton, i had no idea to make a career of the military, but i didnt want to serve. And 40 years ago, the world was a much, much different place. If we roll the clock back a little bit, we should recall that, you know, 1979, the russians rolled into afghanistan as part of an attempt to quell what they thought was a breakaway portion of what they considered their near abroad. You had the iranian revolution in that year, you had the assaults on mecca and medina, and the assaults in saudi arabia, and there were several other critical events that happened in that year, which was my senior year at princeton right before graduation. And we, the military, were utterly committed in in the middle of what we thought was almost a neverending cold war with the soviet union. And literally, we know a decade later, the wall would come down or begin to come down in between the intergerman border. But the 19791980 time frame, when i got commissioned 40 years ago, is a fundamentally a different geopolitical world. If you look at things like technology, you know, 1971, i think, or the 19721973 time frame, early 70s, i think is your first email ever. I think if you go flash forward, call it 20 years, to the 19901991 time frame, thats where you start getting the first websites, then coming forward another almost two decades to 2008, and you get the iphone comes out with steve jobs, so youve had an absolute explosion in Information Technology that did not really exist when i was commissioned. You had all kinds of different radio systems, different munitions, and so on and so forth, and you had a different geopolitical environment. So a lot has has changed, as you well know. As far as you mentioned, taking stock in the military today, the United States military is a very powerful military, and no one should ever mistake it for anything other than that. Adversaries, friends, foes, the United States military is extraordinarily capable. We are very, very powerful, were powerful in all domains, whether its the traditional domains of air, land, and sea, whether its space and cyber, but whats also important to know and recognize as a fact is the gaps between us and potential adversaries, say, china or russia, for example. Those have shortened and closed a little bit over the last 10, 15, 20 years. The United States has been heavily engaged in Counter Insurgency warfare in the middle east that were all very familiar with. At the same time, the chinese, for example, they took stock in our operations worldwide, and they decided they would modernize. And it goes back to Deng Xiaoping in 1979, another critical event from that fateful year, and he modernized his he decided to reform the society of china, modernized their economy, and they had a run of about 10 for quite a while in their gdp growth. And today, theyve slowed down to call it 6 , 7 , something in that range, but thats still extraordinary growth for an economy. So for 40 years now, 41, the chinese economy has really gone on a roll, extraordinarily powerful, and in its wake has come a modernized, reformed, very, very capable Chinese Military. So where the soviet military was the pacing threat, if you will, back in the 70s and 80s sort of thing, and when i was commissioned. Today, i would argue that the Chinese Military and the challenge from a rising china, if you will, that is really the pacing threat of today, so a lot of geostrategic changes, a lot of changes in the environment in terms of technology. Urbanization is rapidly approaching almost 80 of the worlds population by midcentury. So theres a lot of change thats occurred at paces that are much more rapid than any time period weve ever seen in history. So theres been a lot of change, but thanks for the opportunity to comment on it. As far as our military goes, i dont want anybody to mistake, our military is very, very capable, and were ready for whatever comes our way. Were determined to defend the constitution of the United States, and we will protect the American People in our way of life. No one should doubt that. So if i could bear down a little bit on a couple of specific areas within that realm of broader u. S military capability today, and these are areas where sometimes those of us who are defense wonks track the data, and i know you do, too, on readiness, recruiting, retention, condition of equipment, condition of military pay and benefits. I wondered if you had any broad observations on those sorts of readiness trends in todays force. I mean, some people have said todays force is, of course, very tired. Its been doing so much for 20 years in the broader middle east. Other people say, well, but the burdens less than it used to be, we dont have any big deployments in iraq or afghanistan anymore, and we sort of stabilized the budget environment, the Trump Administration has, with the congressional support of both parties, managed to increase the budget a bit, and maybe were in better shape now. I just wondered if you could put some of these, you know, trends of readiness in perspective, compared to the last few years, and compared to where you would like them to be. Let me try to answer that. Let me try to answer it this way. Approximately, the marines, the navy, the air force, etc. , about a third of the forces at the highest levels of readiness at a moment and done. And that is about right, because we would have a certain amount of the force in training, refitting from previous deployment, and about a third of the forces ready to go at a moments notice, at a high level of readiness. Some organizations and units are at a higher level of readiness, others, not so much. But the broad metric for you and others in an unclassified format i would say about a third. Its factually correct. Some units higher, some units less. In terms of recruiting, we are doing pretty well. There are some areas of concern. Pilots and higher tech skills, such a cyber specialists that are in high demand in civil society. Those are very difficult to retain. But recruiting and retention across the board is pretty good. Discipline, excellent. Morale, theres always comments about the force is tired. Its been at war for 20 years. Thats true, but to a certain extent thats true. But most of your younger part of the force has not actually deployed. And if there is one common theme that i get as i talk to troops around the world is they would like to deploy. And its not that they are deploying too much. Its that they have not at all. They are training, and its all important work, but they would actually like to deploy somewhere. And we do have forces that are deployed in a wide variety of situations. Some in combat, some not. One of the things that we started to do is a holistic review of our global footprint and a holistic review of the disposition of the force and the tasks and purposes of all of the forces worldwide. Theres a very strong argument to be made, that we may have forces in places that they shouldnt be, and we may have forces that are needed in places that theyre not right now, and that we need to adjust our global footprint. In some cases, theres an argument we have too many troops overseas and in too many countries. Broadly speaking, i would say the normal traditional readiness indicators of recruiting, retention, standard classified data, etc. , we are in good shape. I wonder if you could speak specifically to the future. You already have mentioned china and the National Defense strategy and innovation and modernization. But before we get to that, if you could add a word on covid and how the force is holding up at this late juncture late in 2020 after almost a year of the pandemic. I know that early in 2020, there were specific problems with certain naval forces that Teddy Roosevelt there had been concerns there was a need, i believe, to suspend basic training for a while back in the spring. But overall, it appeared to me through the spring and summer that the force was holding up pretty well in the face of covid, and mercifully, there werent that many fatalities within the u. S armed forces from covid, either. Could you give us a snapshot here, as we near the end of the calendar year, about how the military is holding up in the face of this terrible pandemic . We are unique, but we have a hierarchal structure. We have discipline. We issue orders, and people follow them. We took some pretty stringent measures early on to protect the force. The reason we wanted to do that, we recognize that our job as a military is to protect the American People. And we cant compass that task and protect the American People and the constitution if we are all sick. We recognize the need to protect the force early on. And we did that. We pulled off the shell for our Global Pandemic op order that has been in existence. We tweaked it a little bit, and we started doing certain conditions on our own force. We learned a lot of lessons from the tr as was known and we started doing isolation and screening prior to getting on ships or any closed operating environment, like a bomber or a fighter jet. So we imposed a whole series of pretty stringent restrictions on ourselves that seems to have made some contribution, but i think one of the biggest contributions to why the u. S. Military has fared fairly well and not perfect, we have had deaths, and those are tragic, we have had troops that are sick, etc. , but relative to the whole, the number of deaths and sicknesses within the military and the force has been relatively small. Probably the biggest contributing factor to that is our demographic. Our demographic is not the same as in civil society. Our demographic, to no ones surprise, is mostly young people who are highly fit, and they tend to fare reasonably well, if infected. Through a combination of our demographic and the control measures that we put on ourselves early on, we have done fairly well overall, and i think we are at least equal to or better than any of the militaries in the world, as it dealt with this particular virus. Second part of that, though, is our contribution to the americans, to helping the American People through the covid crisis. And we deployed at the peak about 60,000 troops in support of covid to support troop ships. The mercy. You saw hospitals sprung up in various cities. We still have today about 23,000 committed to the Covid Operations across the country. We continue to do that. And then, our contribution to operation warp speed is significant. General, gus perna, is one of the senior logisticians, a great human being. Hes out there banging away, and hes going to make sure that we distribute the covid vaccines nationwide here in a very short order. I think next week, or two, or three, they will start the distribution of those. So the militarys made a contribution to protecting the society, and also, weve protected ourselves in the process. I think weve done reasonably well, as a military. Id like to now turn to the future, and youve already teed up some of the big issues in mentioning china and the current and future Global Security environment. Its been almost three years since secretary mattis, with you and others, as part of a team, wrote the National Defense strategy under President Trump that built on initiatives that occurred in the latter obama years, when you first became army chief, like the third offset, as it was called. The armies had its multidomain operations. You helped create the futures command when you were chief. I wondered if you would want to offer some broad commentary on where we stand with this greater effort, in terms of preparing for Great Power Competition hopefully not great power war, but nonetheless, reinvigoration of great power deterrence, and just where you see us at this juncture at the end of 2020. A couple of things. The nds is a very good document. That will be one of the significant contributions that general mattis has made over the years. That document, i think, is rigorous. It was well thought out, at the time. Many people contributed to it, but it really was the pen of general mattis who did that. And thats based in a solid understanding of military history, geopolitics. Is it perfect . No. Theres a few things that need to be tweaked. But its pretty good. Its not a bad document at all. And i think its withstood the test of time here in the last three to four years. Are there things that need to be modified for the next administration . Yes. I think they will do that. One of the highlights in that document talks about a return to Great Power Competition. You could argue the word return. Maybe weve always been in a Great Power Competition, but we were engaged in counterinsurgency warfare against violent extremists and terrorists around the world. And we didnt necessarily recognize some of the changes that might have been happening in the world. We are in a multipolar world, for sure. With china and russia and the u. S. All three being exceptionally powerful militaries. With very powerful economies. Then theres other poles. The eu, india, brazil. We are in a multipolar world. What does that mean . The cold war was arguably a relatively stable geostrategic situation, even though it was nerveracking. It was relatively stable, in part, because you had two poles that others gathered around, but in the international system, there were two essential powers, and they could establish procedures and policies and communications and sops with each other, and over time, that acted as a stability or stabilizing force within the environment. When you get into an environment that has multiple poles, it automatically becomes more complex, almost by definition, and more dynamic. Thats one condition that we are in for sure and likely to remain in for a considerable length of time. Another condition is this rapid emerging technology that has really occurred. If you look back to 1970ish or so, towards the end of the vietnam war, is the introduction of precision munitions. Very few countries have precision munitions in those days. Precision munitions today are our most ubiquitous. Most of your significant powers in the world have precision munitions. Most countries can hit targets at great distance with great precision. And then, in order to do that, you also have to be able to see. So, what has happened, say, in the last, you mentioned 40 years, but lets go back a little bit further. Today, we can see the last 50 years we have had this information explosion. We can see globally better than at any time in human history. So right now, ive got a fitbit on. A gps watch on. There are probably iphones in this room. There are 22 Electronic Devices here. I would imagine the chinese, the russians, and a lot of other people listening in. So you can actually pinpoint people through Electronic Devices very quickly. We have an ability to image, we have an ability to see and hear. We have commercially available google earth that was only available to very sophisticated militaries, and now, its available almost everywhere and to everyone. So youve got an ability to see and an ability to hit at a range that has never existed before in human history. Just those two facts alone indicate that we are having a fundamental change in the character of war. The nature of war doesnt change. The nature of war doesnt change. It has to do with the politics and imposing your will and friction and the human functions of war. It does change and has sometimes to do mostly with technology. There are other conditions that change it political conditions, demographic conditions, etc. Technology drives oftentimes throughout history change in the character of war, how we fight, the doctrine we fight, with the organizations we fight. I mentioned two wars that have been going on for 30, 40 years or so. But add to that some technologies that are emerging and are coming very, very fast robotics, for example. Its already widely available in the commercial sector for a lot of different uses. We use it, to a limited extent, in military operations. You see explosive Ordinance Disposal teams use them in small penny packets. But you also see some experiments going on in the United States army, in the air force, the navy, to create robotic ships and planes. Its theoretically conceivable that you could have entire tank units without crews, or entire squadrons of airplanes without pilots, or ships without sailors. Im not saying its going to happen, but its theoretically possible. Robotics is coming on, and its going to have a military application in the nottoodistant future. Add in another technology, like Artificial Intelligence thats an incredibly powerful technology that is coming very fast, not only in civil society, in the commercial world, but its going to have tremendously powerful applications in the military. Hypersonics is another one. So theres five or ten rapidly approaching technologies that are going to have fundamental Significant Impact on the conduct of military operations, as we move into the future. In combination with precision munitions and the ubiquitous nature of sensors and the ability to see. What does all that mean . So what . I would argue that the country that masters all of those technologies and develops the proper military doctrines with the proper organizations and the proper Leader Development will have a decisive advantage in the next conflict. Weve seen this before in history, and i have no doubt that although the specifics are different, i think well see that again in the future. When does it all happen . Not really sure. It depends who you listen to. But i think it is reasonable to think that, in the midto late 30s, early 40s, perhaps midcenturyish maybe at the latest, you will start seeing significant use of those technologies and combinations by advanced societies. And its incumbent upon us, the United States, if we want to continue to be a free and independent nation, to master those technologies and make sure that we do the proper application with our doctors and organizations, etc. And organizations, etc. That is what you see happening today, right now. The chinese, russians, the u. S. , and many countries are developing the systems and putting them together in different ways to have some military application in the future. And i think we are on the right path, i believe. But the key here is, none of us are going to get it perfect. The key is to get it less wrong than your enemy is. Its going to be very dynamic, michael. One more question before we get to the budget environment and then we get to some audience questions. I wanted to get a different take on the Defense Innovation and modernization or revolution question. How do you feel about the vulnerabilities in the u. S. Armed forces today that some of these technologies are already creating . Leave aside what would be the situation in 2030 or 2040, as you just mentioned. But im talking about our command and control systems, cyber systems, the Electronic Warfare environment on the tactical battlefield, and what that could do to our radios, our dependence on satellites, and fiberoptic cables. An issue that my colleague, frank rose, often harps on. Do you feel that we have been making progress in mitigating vulnerabilities that perhaps we lagged to develop partly because we were fighting in the middle east against very violent, nonetheless, technologically less sophisticated adversaries . And in that period of time, perhaps took our eye off some of these concerns a little bit. Have we made progress at addressing these kinds of achilles heels in the American Armed forces, as well as the broader National Infrastructure that supports the armed forces . You hit all the key ones right off the bat, in terms of vulnerabilities. Yes, we have made improvements. No, we are not there. There are a whole series of very serious key vulnerabilities out there. Most modern societies, in fact, all modern societies, depend on electricity, for example. And each of these societies are very complex systems. Systems of systems. But they all, at the end of the day, depend on some form of electricity to make all the radios work, and planes, and trains, and automobiles drive, so that is key. We have to also protect the internet, if you will, which was not built originally thought of as a military system that needed to be protected. At the very beginning, the internet did not have a protection from the very beginning. Today, that is a vulnerability. We are quite aware of Cyber Threats to the u. S. And to our friends and allies. Not only from criminals, but from nations. Those areas that you cited are key vulnerabilities. Space, as a domain, is critical. Theres an argument to be made, and many have made it in various unclassified writings, that a country might try to seek a first mover advantage. To blind the United States. The next pearl harbor could happen in space, many people have written. If you took out a series of satellites that were key to our Communication Systems of command and control systems, or navigation systems, our position and navigation and timing systems, that would potentially have a devastating effect and could encourage some country to try and do Something Like an electronic pearl harbor, with either Electronic Warfare systems or attack in space. So we recognize those threats, we recognize those vulnerabilities, and we are moving at a very quick pace with a lot of money into shoring up those defensive systems and redundancy, protecting them, hardening them, but also training. Were assuming that were going to operate in a electromagnetic spectrum that is degraded. If there were a war, and hopefully there never will be, but if there was a war with a very sophisticated adversary, the probability of the electromagnetic spectrum being degraded is almost a certainty, so we have to get comfortable with operating without perfect commandandcontrol systems. We have to get comfortable with operating with degraded gps systems. With mimicking, and jammings on radio, etc. So these are all things that you have to do to protect, but also to operate within a degraded environment. Were working on all of those right now, as we speak. So, before my last question on the budget, i want to ask you a little bit about the overall state of the world as you see it. The several years now into the National Defense strategy and the greater u. S focus on Great Power Competition. And i guess ill ask a little bit of a leading question, because maybe im a little unusual, among some strategists and Foreign Policy thinkers, in believing were actually in a somewhat better place than we were five years ago. And i was going to ask you to comment on that. For example, in regard to russia, nato has now established more forward position in the baltic states, and the United States, largely under your leadership as both army chief and chairman, has beefed up its presence in poland, which makes me fear a little bit less that Vladimir Putin could have any designs on nato territory in the western pacific. And again, im not trying to be partisan i think the obama and Trump Administrations both contributed to this dynamic. Weve maintained freedom and navigation exercises in the south china sea, and i think its increasingly clear to china they are not going to be able to claim that or any other waterway as their own internal lake, if its a place where the world depends for the sea lanes and for open access. And finally, on north korea, even though thats obviously a work in progress, not to mention iran being a policy thats in flux and a work in progress, nonetheless, we have some pretty robust deterrent postures that have been maybe even strengthened in recent years, so im not suggesting you want to spike the football in the end zone. I know you wouldnt go there, and i know youve been emphasizing the need for continued vigilance, but do you feel that some of the policies of the last few years have at least given us a measure of greater stability than what we had maybe a half decade ago . Over to you. We want to stay at Great Power Competition. Youre going to have Great Power Competition. Thats the nature of the world. Great powers are going to compete against each other for a lot of different spaces. That is ok. Theres nothing necessarily wrong with that. But make sure it stays at Great Power Competition and it does not shift the great power conflict or great power war. In the first half of the last century, from 1914 to 1945, we had two world wars, and in between 1914 and 1945, 150 Million People were slaughtered in the conduct of war. And you heard john allen talk about my dad hitting the beach of iwo jima, along with three other islands. Massive amounts of blood and destruction. And were still obviously feeling the effects of world wars one and two. And its unbelievable to think of great power war, and now, if you think of great power war with Nuclear Weapons, its like youve got to make sure that doesnt happen. So we want to make sure that the conditions stay at Great Power Competition. Thats an important thing for the military to do. How do you do that . You mentioned deterrence. You want to deter your opponent of even contemplating they could have a war with the u. S. Or that they would be successful against the u. S. Its important that you maintain considerable levels of military power and economic power and that you engage diplomatically. And i think those three things, in combination, can ensure your opponent knows that you are a powerful and capable country, and that its not in a costbenefit analysis with a rational actor, and its not going to make any sense to have a war with the United States. Thats an important fact that needs to be continued and sustained today, yesterday, and tomorrow. The other thing we need to do that is important is make sure that your opponent knows your capability. It doesnt do any good if your opponent in the theories of deterrence has no clue to what your capabilities are. So its important that they know that. Another key part of that is will your opponent needs to know that you have the will to use the capabilities that you have. And part of that is communications. Its also behavior, but part of it is communication. So its important that you have lines of communications, even with your enemies and your adversaries, so that you communicate backandforth. Part of the job im in right now as a chairman is to communicate with our adversaries and very close hold classified back channels. But i do that. In order for our opponents to clearly and unambiguously know that if action a would happen, then reaction b would happen, as a result. So those are all key components i think to deterring, but another piece i think that needs continuous maintenance, and its mentioned in the nds, is our allies and partners. The United States has a critical capability with our allies and partners. Weve always had a strong capability for the last hundred years or so with our allies and partners around the world. We have always been a believer were unilateral if we have to be, but we prefer to be a collective security arrangement and fight with our allies and partners. Its difficult. I had an opportunity in afghanistan to command, and there were, i think, 42 flags underneath us from different countries. Is that difficult . Yes. Does it require a degree of consensus . Yes. But you are much more powerful when you have numbers. Theres great power in nato as an alliance, with all of those countries together. Theres great power with the United States, and japan, and south korea, and australia, and the western pacific, etc. So allies and partners are key to deterrence, as well. So not only you have to have capability and communicate your capability and make sure that your opponent understands the will, but if you have a lot of allies and partners with you, that goes a great deal towards creating that stable environment. And i would argue that in the last five or 10 years, we are not in a terrible position by a longshot, but there is room to improve. And we have to keep banging away. We should never be complacent. Its a dynamic world. The enemy gets the vote sort of thing. We got to continually assess the situation and continually emphasize some of the basics. The basics of deterrence, assurance, and the basics of operating in a collective security arrangement. My last question is on the budget environment. Again, it appears in a bipartisan way that the United States congress and the last two president s, particularly the Trump Administration, have boosted up the Defense Budget to the point where its now almost 750 billion a year, the National Defense budget, which is substantially higher than the cold war average, even after adjusting for inflation. Thats the good news. But the more difficult news, from the point of view of yourself and the Service Chiefs and others, is that it now appears that budgets are likely to remain flat, perhaps at best, going forward, given the size of the deficit, and the debt, the covid environment, and even the world that we saw before covid, because the Trump Administrations own projections a year ago were that the buildup would end and that Defense Budgets would probably at best keep up with inflation. And yet, we know secretary mattis in 2018, when he released the National Defense strategy and the commission that followed all said that we needed 3 to 5 annual real growth indefinitely to properly implement the nds, and that doesnt appear to be likely to happen. So could you give us some sense about your degree of concern about the budget environment and any words of advice for the Incoming Congress and new powerbrokers in washington about how to think about the Defense Budget . Thank you. In order to be a great power in the system, i believe he have to have a very strong and capable military. But you also have to have a very strong and capable economy. You have to have a very resilient country, as a whole. You have to have a great education system. Youve got to have great infrastructure, except all things well beyond the purview of the department of defense, but you have to look at it as a whole of which the military is one piece of the whole. And we do cost an enormous amount of money for the american taxpayer. As you mentioned, 750 billion dollars and a 3 to 5 growth rate annually. Not too long it would be a trillion dollars, and so on, so in an ideal world, i believe that we would need 3 to 5 sustained level of real growth in order to continue the modernization programs and the readiness programs and so on that we have. Thats desired. And we would want to have a sustained, predictable, adequate budget in a timely way every year. And again, thats desired, but thats also not necessarily going to happen. And i dont anticipate that it will happen. So, we, in uniform, and in the pentagon, civilian, and military alike, weve got to do a quick reality check on the National Budget and what is likely to in the not too distant future and i suspect at best the pentagons budgets will start flattening out. Theres a reasonable prospect that they could actually decline significantly, depending on what happens in the environment. Again, your military is dependent upon a national economy, and we have had a significant pandemic, weve had a downturn in an Economic Situation nationally for almost going on a year now, weve got significant unemployment, and so on and so forth. The most important priority that you need to do is get take care of the covid piece, get that behind us, and brief into the economy. Once you do that, then you can put additional moneys into a military. These arent things that the chairman does or the pentagon does, these are more National Type priorities, but i expect for us in the uniform, i anticipate in the coming years that its likely to be flattened. Its possibly decreased a little bit. So what does that mean . That doesnt mean that the worlds going to end for us. What that means is that we have to tighten up and take a much harder look at priorities and where we put the monies we do get. And weve got to make sure that were absolutely optimizing the money we do get and we get the most we possibly can in the most efficient and effective way for the defense of the United States. And thats what we have to do. We have to really take a hard look at what we do, where we do it. Thats why i was saying about our overseas disposition, for example. Theres a considerable amount of money that the United States expends on overseas deployments, our overseas bases, and locations, etc. Is every one of those necessary for the u. S. Defense . Is every one of those exercises that we do really critically important . Real hard looks at everything that we do, i think, is warranted. And i have no problem in leading us through that, to the extent that we can. Thank you. That is a nice segue into some of the audience questions, which i will now turn to and weave into our conversation. There are a few questions about our posture in the broader middle east, which youve alluded to already. And the questions are diverse in their concern. Some people wonder why we still have such a big u. S. Military presence in the broader middle east, but others are worried that going down to 2500 forces in afghanistan by early in the new year and maybe pulling forces out of somalia, for example, may put us at risk. I realize that these are charged questions, and a lot of considerations go into them, but is there any way you would help us understand the u. S. Military posture and the trends that are ongoing in the u. S. Military posture towards the middle east . Yeah, i think, again, we have to roll back the clock quite a ways here. Why is the u. S. Military in the middle east to begin with . Youve really got to go back to the 30s, and the discovery of oil, and the british footprint that was in the middle east at the time. And then, the United States coming on the stage as a as a world power in world war i, and then of course, with world war ii. And at the conclusion of world war ii, towards the end of it, a set of rules were drawn up on how the world would be run, and u. S. Diplomats, along with the diplomats of several hundred other countries, all met and decided on a world structure. The rules of the road, so to speak. Today, in the media, people refer that as the rules based liberal World Economic order. So theres different monikers to it, but the bottom line is, rules were set up, and the United States, at the end of world war ii, we suffered grievously in world war ii, but nothing compared to other countries. You know, the soviet union suffered, 20 million killed in germany, and japan, 20 million, china, i think, was 20 or 30 million, just horrendous destruction in some of these countries. And most of them, economically, were just laid flat. The United States had an enormous amount of aggregate power as proportionate to the whole by 1945, and we wrote the rules. And other countries signed up to it. At least one other country didnt like it, the soviet union. So they wrote their own rules, and they broke apart and called it the warsaw pact sort of thing, and the world broke into two that all ended when the wall came down. And pretty much everybody, to include the chinese, subscribed to the rules that we rode back in 1945. So if you had a set, you had to have someone to enforce the rules. And that became the u. S. And our allies and partners. That is the open seas, for example. To make sure that you mentioned freedom of navigation, to make sure that the Global Commons were properly policed. All of that fell to the United States, as the main enforcer of this set of global rules now. Today, people are wondering why we are where we are. Well, thats why we are where we are, because we set up a set of rules, and we, the United States, through various administrations, there was a broad consensus that we would in fact enforce those rules with our allies and partners, but we were the enforcer of the rules. Its a fair question to ask if those conditions still obtain, and if we still, as a nation, want to do that sort of thing. If the answer is yes, then that requires a certain degree of budgetary output and a certain degree of military capability. If the answer is no, then that requires a different solution. So thats an openended question for the American People and the american electorate and our civilian leaders to decide. And i think there is actually a bit of a debate going on in our society right now on what our role is, broadly speaking, in the world. But right now, thats the reason why we are where we are, and in the middle east, specifically. Everything had to do with the production of oil. Because oil and the free flow of oil, that was the primary means by which the industrial world ran itself. We, the United States, actually were never really dependent on mideast oil. We only got a percentage of it, but all of western europe and all of asia and japan, for example, and south korea, were very dependent on mideast oil. So we were the guarantor of the secure lines of communication to make sure that the oil transported from point a to point b. But theres other things at play also in the middle east, besides oil. There are other things, such as american values. Do we think human rights matters . Do we think stopping terrorism is a good thing or bad thing . And so on. Do you think support of israel is good or bad . That is why we are there, in many ways, as to why we are in the middle east to begin with. The specific disposition youre talking about with respect to afghanistan, iraq, somalia, some others, we are in those particular areas specifically today because of various terrorist organizations. We went to afghanistan specifically for another reason. To ensure that afghanistan never again became a platform for terrorists to strike against the u. S. And to a large measure, we have been at least a date successful in preventing that from happening again. We did that through a train advise assist program with the Afghan NationalSecurity Forces and the afghan government. We believe that now, after 20 years, two decades of consistent effort there, we have are achieved a modicum of success. I would also argue that over the last call of five to seven years, as a minimum, we have been in a condition of strategic stalemate, where the government of afghanistan was never going to militarily defeat the taliban, and the taliban, as long as we were supporting the government of afghanistan, was never going to militarily defeat the regime. So we had a condition of strategic stalemate, and the only way that that war should or could come to an end that was somewhat in alignment with u. S. National security interests, and also in the interests of the people of the region was through a negotiated settlement. Now, thats very odious for many people, to think that were going to negotiate with someone like the taliban, but that is in fact the most common way that insurgencies end, is through a negotiated power sharing settlement. Those negotiations are ongoing right this minute, as we speak. Theyre in a very critical stage, in fact, in doha, and weve made some National Decisions to go ahead and reduce our military footprint in afghanistan down to 2500 soldiers by 15 january. President trumps made that decision, and were in the process of executing that decision right now. What comes after that will be up to a new administration. We will find that out on the 20th of january and beyond. But for right now, our plan and the decision of the president , the plan we are executing, is to go to 2500 troops by 15 january. That is also in support of the agreements we signed with the taliban back in february. So thats happening as we speak. The Iraqi Government wants the United States military to continue with a train advise assist program with the iraqi military. We think that is an important thing to do. We think that helps contribute towards the interdicting and preventing further aggression by iran. We also think that is important to continue to sustain. So it doesnt regenerate and come back. The president has also made a decision to reduce our posture in iraq to 2500, also by 15 january. Decisions after that will come from the next administration. In somalia, somalia is an ongoing debate right this minute. Not so much as to what a footprint is, its what a footprint will look like. We recognize the extension of al qaeda, like isis was. That they do have some reach, and they could, if left unattended, conduct operations against not only u. S. Interests in the region, but also against the homeland. So they require attention. Were taking a hard look at a repositioning of the force to better enable us to conduct counterterrorist operations. A relatively small footprint and relatively low cost, in terms of numbers of personnel. In terms of money. But its also high risk. As you saw in the news, we lost an officer from the cia who was a former seal in somalia. So none of these operations are without risk, but we think were approaching it rationally and responsibly to adjust the footprint to what is necessary, in order to continue the operations against the terrorists that are out there operating against the u. S. Just one quick followup on the broader middle east and afghanistan, specifically, and then theres a question about korea, which id like to turn to next. To the extent you can, in an unclassified setting like this, what the 2500 u. S. Troops would rent will look like, i think a lot of us would be curious. And some smaller cabilities, training, advice here and there, interspersed with the afghan forces. Is that a couple of big bases . Maybe one near kabul . To what extent have you settled on what that footprint looks like . We have looked at that in afghanistan. Acting secretary miller has approved the plan to go forward. I prefer, at this point, not to discuss exactly what bases are coming down. Youre looking at a couple of larger bases, with several satellite bases that provide the capability to continue our Train Advise Assist Mission and continue our counterterrorist mission. In regards to korea, there are questions that are focused on the need for vigilance and what is always a tense part of the world. Speaking of going back in time, we have to go back 70 years to the origins of that conflict. Theres obviously been a lot of history that has transpired in just the last few years under the obama and Trump Administrations in regard to korea. How do you feel about the overall situation today . Are you worried about a north korean resumption of nuclear or longrange missile testing . Any comments in particular in regard to korea . I think the alliance between the u. S. And the republic of korea is very strong and resilient. Its a Senate Approved defense treaty. We have 20,500 troops in south korea with significant capabilities. The rok military is very significant. Its one of the better militaries in the world. I am very confident in the military capability to deter any provocations or attacks by north korea. It is also true that north korea has advanced their Nuclear Weapon and missile delivery capabilities. But the deterrence capabilities of not only the republic of korea, but also in combination with japan, and most importantly, with the u. S. , is very significant. So north korea has a wide variety of challenges internal to their own society. Do i expect north korea to do provocations at some point in the future . That is very possible. Theyve got a long history of doing things like that. But i think we have adequate vigilance. We are monitoring the situation closely. As we always do with north korea. And we have adequate military capabilities to deal with whatever might come our way. The very last question, thank you so much for the time youre spending with us today and all of you, and the men and women in uniform around the world, what you are doing to defend us and their families. There are some questions about weapons of mass instruction. About weapons of mass destruction. Have we learned anything about biological weapons, with the potential of future kinds of biological weapons, by watching this pandemic naturally occurring, as best we know, a naturally occurring outbreak, but nonetheless, that may foreshadow things that could be done deliberately by a future nonstate actors or governments if they create more advanced biological weapons. And then secondly, in regards to Nuclear Weapons, i wonder if in particular the concern about limited nuclear war that weve heard russia threaten at times in recent years, that secretary mattis felt the need to in some ways respond to with the Nuclear Posture review of 2018. If the idea of limited nuclear war is a bad idea that is being put back in a bottle, or if that is of particular concern to you, as well . That some countries might take a little bit too cavalierly and assume they can do a very limited strike or two and still keep things under wraps. The final set of questions has to do with weapons of mass destruction. Over to you. It is a complex question, actually. On the first one, it is clear the devastation that the coronavirus 19 virus has done not only to the u. S. , but to the world. It is incredible when you look back at the decemberjanuaryfebruary timeframe. The economic devastation and obviously the loss of human life. So could that virus or any other type of virus or other biological type systems be deployed for nefarious purposes . To do that by intent, absolutely yes. Is that a concern . Yes. Its a concern. Is that a concern that a nationstate would do that . Nationstates have the capabilities to develop those kinds of weapons and could deploy them, but that would be a very drastic move on the part of any nationstate, which would constitute an utter act of war, which would have a devastating response from the u. S. But of more concern would be a terrorist organization. Someone who may or may not be operating off of rational actor sort of rule sets. That is of great concern. And its actually not all that difficult to imagine biological weapons being developed and then deployed by organizations that would in fact have no compunction whatsoever about deploying those sorts of weapons and causing the level of destruction that they have done. We know that some organizations, in fact, are trying to look at things like that. They dont have that yet, but that is a possibility. Something that we need to be on the guard against, in terms of interdicting and disrupting and destroying any capability like that, but we also need to take the Lessons Learned from this current pandemic and roll those into capabilities to defend ourselves, so in the future, we have stockpiles of ppe and we have organizations that are capable of rapid deployment. We have protocols and procedures that we can quickly and rapidly impose upon ourselves, in order to limit the effects of any sort of biological weapon. All of that is ongoing. We have a very rigorous Lessons LearnedProgram Ongoing with the correct prices. With respect to Nuclear Weapons, i have a very difficult time intellectually getting my head wrapped around a limited nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are so devastating. Theyre even these socalled smallyield Nuclear Weapons, i mean, hiroshima and nagasaki, if im not mistaken, im doing this from memory, i think that they were a 10 kiloton sort of thing and it destroyed 80,000 to 90,000 people in a flash. Unbelievable. So if you took Something Like one kiloton, which someone would argue is a small Nuclear Weapon, that will still be devastating, that would take out lower manhattan. So im not sure what limited means in these terms. I think anytime any leader would decide to cross a nuclear threshold, thats an extraordinarily dangerous moment in time in International Politics and national security, for any leader to even contemplate doing that. And we know some have. Some have developed doctrines and weapons to do that. I think that is a very dangerous path to follow. The other part of that though is again, back to terrorist organizations or some sort of rogue organization, that if they were to get their hands on Nuclear Weapons, then they would use them. That is a problem. Its still a problem in the world, and something we need to pay close attention to. As Nuclear Proliferation occurs, and it is occurring north korea has Nuclear Weapons now and many other countries have Nuclear Weapons we have to pay close attention to the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons because the more nationstates that have them just by common sense, your probability of an accident happening, your probability of theft, your probability of of use goes up and the calculations of deterrence become that much more complex. So Nuclear Weapons are something that need to have lots of peoples very mature, very serious attention on the development, the use, the control, and the procedures and protocols that go around this. Over the last 515 years, since the fall of the berlin wall, a lot of our study and rigor and discipline with respect to Nuclear Weapons has atrophied a bit. Because the cold war went away. And the fear of nuclear war between great powers, the United States and the soviet union, went away. I think that level of academic rigor and discipline, we need to recapture some of that. Because the world is getting more complex, not less complex. And more actors and more Nuclear Proliferation as we speak. I think there is a limited ability, but i do think there are various controls we need to seriously redirect and blow some life back into the study of the entire Nuclear Environment and Weapons Systems out there. Mr. Chairman, you covered a lot. We are so grateful at brookings, and i know around the country for what you have done today. And continue to do. We want to wish you the very best for the holidays and new year. To everyone in the American Armed forces and their families and veterans, thank you very much for being with us. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you and all those listening. Thanks for watching. Cspans washington journal. Every day, we take your calls live on the air on the news of the day and will discuss policy issues that impact you. A discussion on next years defense spending bill with erin mehta of defense news. And then Maryland Democratic congressman jamie raskin will talk about election legal challenges and white house transition. Tennessee republican congressman john rose on congress and the Trump Administrations coronavirus pandemic response. Live washington journal at 7 00 eastern this morning and join the discussion with phone calls, facebook comments, text, and tweets. House of Human Services secretary alex