And incredibly volatile security environment with a proliferation of threats. In asia, we see more aggressive chinese behavior that has been undermining the rulesbased order. You have what is going on in ukraine, particularly russias continuing meddling. You have a middle east that seems to be on fire, whether it is the Syrian Civil War or the insurgency in iraq or what is happening between israel and the palestinians in gaza. It is an extremely challenging time. The two major times you spent in the government, what years . I was in the Clinton Administration from 1993 to 1998 and again for president obama from 2009 to 2012. You were either Deputy Assistant secretary or undersecretary of defense. What is the difference . Now you are the ceo of the organization you founded, center for no American Security. What is the difference if you are in the government or in a think tank . In government, you are dealing with attorneys, you are focused on the day. Part of my responsibilities was representing the secretary of defense on a socalled deputies committee, the senior level group that is working on developing options for the president. A lot of Crisis Management focus. When you are in a think tank, your utility is not trying to secondguess the policymaker, but help to do some work to raise their gaze, look over the rise in the horizon and say, how do i think more strategically about america . When did you first get interested in Foreign Affairs or Defense Affairs . I had the wonderful opportunity to be an Exchange Student in high school. I think that experience of going abroad, living in a foreign country, really opened up my aperture and got me interested in international relations. That is when i pursued it in my undergraduate education. Where did you do your exchange . I was in belgium. What got you interested in doing that . I was just interested in the world abroad. I grew up in Southern California and i wanted to have a different experience. You lost your dad at age 14 to a heart attack. What impact did that have on your life . Huge. I was very close to him. It was a loss of a wonderful parent, friend, mentor, someone very important in my life. It also ended up giving me the sort of motivation of not taking life for granted, having a sense that you better make today count because you dont know how many tomorrows you will have. What was he like and what was your mother like . My dad was in the Motion Picture industry. He was a director of cinematography. He was very creative, very funloving. He was sort of a big kid. Growing up, he was a wonderful influence. Andom had been an actress transitioned in later life to doing all kinds of things. Aerything from working in bank to working in an art gallery and so forth. She was more of the daytoday they separated so she was the more daytoday caretaker. Very loving, very supportive, always focused on ensuring that even when he had ups and downs, financially the focus was on education. Education is the ticket to pursuing your interest in life. What is more satisfying for you, working in government or in a think tank . I find both very satisfying. I think that Public Service, there is no more challenging and rewarding opportunity in terms of trying to get u. S. National Security Policy right. An opportunity to shape that and get it right, there is nothing that matches that. That said, i believe in a world in a role that think tanks can play in developing new ideas for the policymaker. Also, new talent. One of the principal roles of cnas is not just to be an incubator of ideas but to be an incubator of talent. An experience of launching young people into Public Service. I read that when you went to the pentagon under the obama administration, you took seven people from your new american ,ecurity group. Yes secretary gates once quipped that why do i have to visit cnas when all i have to do is call a staff meeting. That is part of the Mission Statement of the organization, to really develop the next generation of National Security leaders. When was center for a new American Security founded . 2007. What was the reason . We thought that there was room for another think tank in washington. Wanted to create a small think tank focused on National Security that was fiercely bipartisan, meaning instead of being bipartisan in a way that is so careful that you dont go after the tough issues, we wanted to go and create a safe ,ivil space for people democrats, independents, republicans, to try to come up with the best policies for the United States. We also wanted a place to grow the next generation. Most think tanks in washington are populated by farmers. We wanted to populate hours with that creative young energy, people who have yet to give their best in Public Service. How many people on staff . We have about 30. About 7 million a year. We have a much Broader Community of interests in terms of parttime people who occasionally write for us and so forth. Push above iny terms of our output, our impact. Our recent conference drew almost 1800 people. Event. Quite an what kind of people come to an event like that . People who are interested in national Security Policy. Particularly the whole question of, can we recreate some bipartisan basis for consensus . That has completely collapsed and yet it is so important to creating a Sustainable Way forward for the United States. I am looking for the exact one ofou described the things you described, a democratic hawk or a liberal hawk. How would you describe yourself . You are a democrat. I am a democrat but i would say i am a nonideological person. I tend to be very centrist, very pragmatic in my views. Importancee in the in the unique leadership role that the can that the u. S. Can and must play in the world. I believe that while we need a very strong and balanced portfolio of National Security tools, part of that is the military. That instrument is very important to making our diplomacy successful, to making sure that we can deter aggression and so forth. How robust is it now . I think that under sequestration, pressures, frankly the u. S. Militarys capabilities are being hurt. We see declining readiness, declining investment in the future capabilities of the forces. This is an issue that i think we have to reevaluate as a nation. Whether it makes sense to balance the budget on the back of defense spending. Is awe really need comprehensive budget that puts entitlement, tax reform on the table and so forth. What are the chances that are going to happen . I dont think they are high, but one of my hopes is a new congress, new administration, perhaps we could get back to that conversation. I think every american is frustrated that we arent getting the deal we need to move forward. We have a divided government by design but the founders always believed that pragmatic compromise was going to make that model work. When compromise becomes a dirty word and the parties polarize and go into their corners and refuse to work together, things get very dysfunctional. You wrote a piece back in july of 2013 that talked about a force you were worried about, an much force structure, overhead with too little spending on modernization. Historically, when we have gone through periods of drawdown after wars, we tended to keep too much force structure and not invested enough to make sure those forces are ready to respond to crises and that they have the equipment that they need not only now but for a more challenging future. We also failed to reform how the department of defense does business. We have too much overhead in terms of personnel bureaucracy. We have too much infrastructure in terms of bases and facilities we dont need. Everyone would agree that the way we acquire systems is in great need of reform. It costs too much and it doesnt give the best value. There is ample room for reform. You wrote that the department of defense rarely achieves expected return on investments. Most weapons programs run over cost and over schedule. Today, the system often penalizes Program Managers who dont spend every last dime of their budget. I have been in town for a long time. When i was in the navy, the same thing existed. Spend this money are we are going to lose it. Why hasnt that been stopped . Incentives point in the opposite direction. If i am a Program Manager ieking to advance my career, want to be in charge of a bigger program. The last thing i want to do is have money unspent in my program. On spending what you got to make sure that congress doesnt cut your funding the following year. There are some things that can be done within the pentagon. I want to give credit to the current undersecretary for acquisition to try to get at changing some of these incentive structures. Constrained by all the laws and regulations, the thousands and thousands of pages on the books, governing how we do acquisitions. What is really needed is a zero basing of the system. Through with congress to really rewrite the system based on what we know works and doesnt work. Why hasnt it been done up to now . I think it is a question of critical will. The inefficiency isnt as costly. Budgett there are real constraints, every dollar wasted is a dollar that doesnt go to readiness or modernization. The Inspector General for afghanistan was on here a couple months ago. I want to run a clip from him and get you to try to explain what he couldnt explain. We still dont have a central database of where we spent all the money. Why not . That is a good question. Stillpartment of defense cant give us all the financial records. I spoke to a former comptroller general saying i wont mention which one, but he said, we put the Defense Budget procurement on the high risk list in 1991 and they still havent gotten off. How is that possible . This has been true for several u. S. Government departments. What i do know is the comptroller of the department of defense has really made this a priority, getting the department to work towards the point where they are truly amicable in all financial dimensions. This is a huge endeavor. Everybody understands that this is imperative. It is difficult to make hard choices about tradeoffs and how to manage risk if you dont really know what you are spending on things. And everybody agrees to my knowledge, the department is working towards that goal. You always hear that we spend more on defense than all the rest of the countries in the world combined. Is that true . It is true but i dont know how relevant a metric it is. The u. S. Has such a unique leadership role to play in the world. We have a network of alliances. We are the architect and the underwriter of the international rulesbased order. I dont want to say we are the worlds policemen, but we have an unusual level of responsibility to try to prevent conflict, maine staying maintain stability and so forth. Becausefficult to make our responsibilities are so different. Ofwhat was your opinion going into iraq in the first place . The initial decision to go into iraq was a mistake. That said, by the time i came back into government, when you , theommitted to a war question at that point was, how do you responsibly achieve u. S. Objectives and end our involvement in a responsible manner . That was the focus we had with the obama administration. Reuters did a story a couple days ago, saying there was a study that shows we spent 1. 7 trillion on iraq and then you see other predictions that before it is all over, we will spend 3 trillion to 6 trillion over time. How did we do this without paying for it . This will go down in history as one of the greatest mistakes ever in American Foreign policy in terms of deciding to go into quiters, one of which was necessary in afghanistan, and an optional war in iraq, without ever going to the American People and saying that these were such important endeavors that we needed to actually raise taxes to pay for them. What that did is it created enormous deficits. It said the stage for the economic crisis that occurred in 2008 and it is a hole that we will be digging ourselves out of for a decade or more. It is an enormous mistake. On the whole you idea of the sequester in the beginning . I think the sequester was a dumb idea. I understand the intention. The intention was to create a prospect of something so horrible, these deep acrosstheboard cuts, no distinguishing between egg priorities and things that were unimportant. It was supposed to be a sort of hanging over the heads of the budget negotiators to ensure that they would come to a deal. ,hat this would be so draconian you couldnt possibly not come to a deal. Well, we didnt get to a deal. It came down on our heads. This is not the way to govern effectively. This is not the way to make the budget decisions. I think it has already done tremendous damage. Readiness of all military services has declined substantially. That are being grounded and told they cant fly. In thee only a handful army who would be ready for crisis response. You have ships that dont sale and cant provide that presence for determinants and stability stability. Rrence and once we recognize how dangerous that is, it will cost us far more to recover net readiness of those units that have been stood down than it would have been to keep them at a reasonable level of readiness. What about the size of the force . The size of the force is also at risk. Reviewdrennial defense that was just completed and visions cuts that would take us below the level at which we would need to sustain our strategy going forward. There is very real risk being taken with the u. S. Military because of sequestration. I would hope that after the toterm elections we have got get ourselves out of this situation. Ourill eventually imperil National Security if we continue down this road. Back to the beginning, you went to harvard, how did you get in . Good question. Myen the standards now, eldest son is going through the process, it is such a much more difficult process today. I had a wonderful guidance counselor who said, why do you think about the ib why dont you think about the ivy league . And miracle of miracles, got in. It was a wonderful experience. Not only a chance to meet a much more diverse and International Student body, make wonderful lifelong friends, but tremendous quality of teaching and learning. Who did you meet in the classroom that you might have seen later on in your policy jobs . Actually a number of my classmates have ended up going into Public Service. Dan benjamin who was secretary counterterrorism coordinator of the Defense Department. He was someone i met in the first year. Meal role in is someone neil rowland is someone i met later at oxford. He went on to become deputy secretary of treasury. It is nice when you find yourself looking across at someone you have longstanding relationships and deep trust what about some of your professors . Some of them did. The way i came into the Clinton Administration was very much from the encouragement of several harvard professors that i was working for as a postgraduate fellow. Name somebody that we know. , they had all been in and out of Public Service and were very encouraging of young people to follow suit. If you examine your own life and how you got to where you have been, what triggered that . Where did somebody say, Michele Flournoy is that your maiden name . Where would that have started . I think it was more i got ,ery interested in issues Public Policy issues specifically those of nuclear arms control. It seemed like the one problem, if we didnt solve the Nuclear Tension between the u. S. And soviet union, we wouldnt be around to solve much else. Again, having the good fortune of having some mentors who were going into Government Service and said, why dont you, along and be on the team, that was a great opportunity for me. What was your very first job in government . My first job was the Office Director of a brandnew office in the office of the secretary of defense called strategy. Frightening to think there was was a period when the pentagon didnt have a strategy office. We were mandated to recreate a new strategy office. Internalmost like an think tank for the secretary of defense to help him think more strategically about the issues. Now, former secretary of defense very is perry is one of your Board Members. He is now Madeleine Albright also . She is also one of the original Board Members. Where is the bipartisanship . Give us an example. Staff, as we mentioned, i have served in ocratic and frustrations democratic administrations. Fontaine, we are strongly bipartisan. That trickles all the way down to the staff. Again, we have that same flavor today. Both in terms of people who served in government but also people in the private sector. Where do most of your funds come from . It is a mixture of foundations who fund the projects, corporations who give us general support, and wealthy individuals who provide donations. We are nonprofit. How hard is it to raise the money on a yeartoyear basis . It is always a challenge. When the economy takes a dip. But i think cnas has established a track record of turning out , thatwork that has impact we dont have much problems raising the funds. Does thech impact money that comes in have on a position you will take as a think tank . Non. None. We are very careful not to take money that would buy our research. When we accept corporate funds, we never accept a Corporations Fund to do a project advocating something they produce. We always pull the funds with lots of different contributors to wash out that bias. We dont take positions of institutions. Each of our authors is free to take their own position. You will find on afghanistan, multiple different authors within cnas have different perspectives. Your bio said that you are also a senior fellow at harvards belford center. What is that . That is the center that focuses on international affairs. I go up and give talks, advise students. One of the things i enjoy most is mentoring young people. If somebody wants to be you someday, what do you tell them . I would say, focus on being excellent in your work. Biaseset other peoples hold you back. Choose the boss, not the job. Who are goingtors to push you to grow to your full potential. What have you learned about government . If somebody comes to you and they are ready to get into it and they say, warned me about what to look out for . The first thing is to have a clear sense of priorities. If you go into government without that, you get overwhelmed by dealing with your inbox every day. You have to have a proactive agenda. Yourdly, no matter what authority is, it takes working horizontally, building coalitions, to actually get anything done in government. You are also a Senior Advisor to the boston consulting group. What is that . It is a Global Management consulting firm, one of the best in the world. I advise them on a broad range of their cases. The couple of years i have spent there, it was really an ba, atunity to get my m chance to understand a different kind of problem solving from a business perspective. Given the business side of the pentagon and government, very very important perspective to have when youre trying to wrestle with these tough problems. When you delve into all the think tanks in this town, you look at who is on their boards and all that, there is an amazing amount of former government, former industry types. What do you say to somebody who is suspicious that there is too much involvement in this militaryindustrial complex . I think those relationships certainly exist. I actually think that a certain degree of dialogue between government and industry is important. We need to be leveraging the capabilities of industry to be prepared for the future. With the perspective of former military officers, the , wepective of younger folks bring in people from all kinds of industry. Theave Board Members from Risk Assessment world to the movie industry, the movie industry, ceos, that diversity of perspective is what is critical when you are in the world of ideas and trying to think about the future of the United States. What is the most powerful think tank in town . It would be hard to say. 2017pire between now and to be the go to think tank on National Security issues. That is what we are aiming for. What is the most liberal think tank in town . Again, hard to say. I think one of the think tanks that identifies with the progressive cause is center for american progress, which has done great work being the democratic counterweight to organizations like the Heritage Foundation or aei. What is the most conservative think tank in military affairs . I would say probably heritage is one of the most conservative. There have been a real plot ofaration proliferation think tanks in town. How important are they to the running of the government . They are important particularly to incubate ideas for the future. When you are in government, you are so focused on the crisis of the day that it is hard to have a lot of time to think afresh about new issues. Think tanks give people new ideas that can be used in the mid to longer term. I think there is more value in that contribution. The couple of weeks ago, f35s were grounded again. Here is an interview from the last couple of years about the f35. I want to run this clip and see if you can have this broken down for us. It is the replacement for the f16, supposed to be our new, advanced purpose fighter jet. It was a plane that was supposed to be in the skies fighting now. It is still in development. It is an incredibly troubled program. It has gone tens of billions of dollars over budget. I borrowed into this program as a way to write about the overall challenges of the Defense Budget. This program is in some ways singular in terms of its cost overrun, its delays and the way it has been structured. Defense effective attribute may not be all of its radars and sensors and missiles and stealth technology, it may designedhe way it is to evade budget cutters in washington. Back to the budget issue again. What do you think . 35 is an example of one of the most challenging acquisition programs we have ever attempted. It is a new generation aircraft. The only fifthgeneration aircraft in the world. Differentotally generation of Technology Capabilities than anything else out there. It has been a very Challenging Program. It has had a number of early troubles, particularly because some of the early production started before development was complete. I think the pentagon more recently has done a good job of working with the prime programor to get the back on track. Investmenthe primary in terms of aviation for the u. S. Air force, the u. S. Navy, the u. S. Marine corps and many of our allies around the world. We have placed a big bet on this aircraft. I think the pentagon is working hard to ensure that it works out the kinks and this goes forward. Why is it taking so long . I think it has taken so long for a combination of reasons. One is the sheer ambition and complexity of the system. Moves the fact that we did in parallel before we were completely finished with development. We started some production. That led to the need to fix problems that arose in those early production runs. Think just trying to keep this aircraft on the experience curve, on a curve that brings down the cost with every successive aircraft produced. I think we are in a better place now than we were two years ago when that interview was conducted. It is still a very Challenging Program to deliver on. It is where we placed our bets and it is unheard of that we deliver on this. It is imperative that we deliver on this. The idea that we have the services, from time to time you hear people talk about bringing them all together. I think there is good reason to have the individual services in terms of how we train people, how we develop specific capabilities and approaches. But i think in the acquisition world, there is a lot more we can do. We need to move in that direction. One of the bigger challenges is that, it used to be that Defense Department research and development drove innovation and the procurement of the most sophisticated systems. Now, a good part of the innovation that the military needs to leverage happens in the commercial sector, and companies dod have no relationship to , may not want a relationship to dod. How do you leverage those technologies, Silicon Valley technologies, for the u. S. Military in the future . It is a totally different problem set. Pentagon, you have the military and the civilians. Civilians telle the military what to do . Position, doesr the military have to answer to you in any way . My authority was derived from the secretary of defense. Lawsecretary of defense by has tremendous authority over the u. S. Military. Inilian control is very real terms of setting the policy and limits of the use of force, in terms of deciding what forces to deploy, in terms of overseeing and guiding the planning of contingency operations, in terms of all kinds of things. The secretary of defense is a very empowered position. Everyone on the secretarys staff has derived authority but not direct authority in the chain of command. How do you know when the military doesnt like what you want to propose . Usually one of two things happens. It will tell you out right. Are pretty confident and forthright. Every once in a while you will hear that they dont like it because they talked to someone on capitol hill. One of the things that both secretary gates and panetta did very well was foster an environment where there is obligation to dissent. You are at the table and you really think the secretary is about to make a bad decision, you better speak up before the decision is made. That expectation where it is ok for people to have dissenting views, that is very important. What did you think of bob gates book . I will forever be a huge fan of secretary gates. He was a wonderful boss and mentor and a great secretary of defense. I think the book had a lot of zingers in it. Given his personality that surprised me a bit. I think he is at a point in his life where he doesnt expect to return to Public Service and he wanted to call it like he saw it. Why did it surprise you . In my experience, he is an incredibly thoughtful, measured inividual who takes care what he says and how he says it . Be more of as to cathartic experience for him, to sort of share not only his intellectual perspective, but some of the emotions he felt. Did he say exactly what he wanted to say . Would it be cathartic for you . First of all, i dont think i am at a point where i am ready to write a memoir. Living my life and having my career go forward. I think every person has their own voice. My voice would be different. I have a piece here that you wrote in june, 2007, the inheritance and the way forward. Can you tell us what that was . That was the first report we did at cnas and the objective was, on the eve of the president ial elections, to describe what the next president was going to inherit in terms of the National Security challenges , and what kinds of considerations he or she might want to take to heart as they crafted a new policy. It was really our first effort to influence the decisionmaking of the u. S. Administration. One of them is, reinvigorate the middle east peace process. That was one of the priorities. I think that as a difficult as this is an as much as the Current Conditions dont seem to support success, it is something that the United States must continue to try to pursue. It is so important to our interests. The truth is, a two state solution is the answer. Israel as to support a democratic jewish state, the demographics are such that we have got to help them achieve that goal by a two state solution. Sooner rather than later. At some point, the demographics in israel will make them choose between being democratic and being identified as a jewish state. We dont want that choice to have to be made. The palestinians too. A tragic story of a people without a state. They need to have a viable state as well. Again, very difficult under the current circumstances. But something we have to keep on the agenda. You wrote in 2007, the next president how has mr. Obama been doing . The context of that was coming out of the aftermath of the iraq war. There was a lot of international questioning of the u. S. Intentions. A lot of grievances over how we were using our power. Right now it is a different situation. What we are dealing with is a much more volatile and difficult security environment. There is a lot of discussion about the need for u. S. Leadership. After afghanistan and iraq, there is tremendous political pressure on the president to pull back. Yet when you look at the nature of the challenges, we cant afford to do that. We need to have a smart policy of International Engagement and continued leadership if we are going to remain secure, prosperous and a reliable ally. Here is what you had to say in september of 2012 about afghanistan. Lets look at that and get your reaction. Lets remember what our strategic objective is. To make sure that afghanistan is never again a safe haven for al qaeda to use against us and attack our homeland. If that is your objective, you have to make sure that the pace of the transition is driven by the ability of the afghans to step up and take the lead with our continued support. I would fundamentally disagree with your statement that the Training Program is in shambles. It is not. The afghans are already in the lead for more than half the country and doing a remarkably fine job. Do you still feel that way . I think the afghan National Security forces have continued to develop quite well. They are now in charge of security for the entire country. They are securing major urban areas, major transit lines. They secured the election with almost no help from international forces. , although lotsck more work to be done. The real question is afghanistans political trajectory. We have seen the recent elections, the first round of which went better than expected. The second round has created a real contention between two candidates, both of which are claiming issues of fraud. The name of the game is to get through, to work their way through this election dispute, in apoint a representative place that would allow for the first peaceful transfer of power in the countrys history. If they succeed in that, they can succeed in continuing to receive international support. Muddle throughll and continue on the path to development. Why has president karzai and so antiUnited States . Understandrd to given the strategic interest of the country. , when you talkgs to just about every other afghan, they are so grateful for the United States. They want us to be a partner. They want us to continue to support them. They are as baffled as anybody about karzai. Will he still have power after he is out of office . He will have some influence but i think that will wane over time. The real name of the game is a government, whether it is led by dr. Guiney or dr. Abdullah, that it is inclusive. The most promising thing in afghanistan is the next generation of leaders coming up. If you were one of the parents of one of the 2500 or so that died in afghanistan, what would you tell them is the reason . I would say your son or your daughter made the ultimate sacrifice to protect americans run terrorist attacks in the future. The United States in return should ensure that that sacrifice was worth something and we should keep our eye on the objective. It is within reach. It is hard, it is difficult, it will take time, but we can continue in a support role. If we continue in a support role, i believe afghans will get to the point where they can territory from being a safe haven from which International Terrorists can attack the United States. You have been in government twice in fairly highpowered jobs in the pentagon. Do you know a lot more about the world and what is going on out there than the average person Walking Around . Would that change the average persons view, if they could know what you know . I think there is a lot more that you do learn in government than what you can read in the paper. Government, i now see that. You get part of the story and part of the picture but not all of it. I think the thing that most americans least understand is how hard people in government are working on their behalf. Government is not evil. Government is comprised of a lot of altruistic, hardworking americans who are trying to serve the broader National Interest. The vast majority of them are not intentionally wasting taxpayer dollars or sitting around twiddling their thumbs. They are working incredibly long hours for far less pay than they would make in the private sector, trying to do the nations work. It would be a horrible disservice to make government the bad guy in our political discussions. Back to what you said earlier, this business about when the budget year goes, you have to spend all your money. Isnt that in itself a big mistake . It is a very perverse incentive. That is the dynamic on capitol hill, if they see money left often, an account, too rather than finding out why that money is left over, is it because somebody was efficient and save the government dollars, maybe shouldnt a. B. We should reword them by putting that back into a priority area instead of taking it off the table. Inheritance from 2007. The points you made in that presentation was, restored physical discipline. You say, for the past several years the federal government has that happened . It hasnt happened in off. Enough. The number one thing we can do for our economy, for our security, for our leadership in the world, would be to conclude a comprehensive budget deal. That reforms both entitlements and the tax code, and that protects and reinvests in our future. How much power does the secretary of defense within the confines of the Defense Department, there is no auditing. Why couldnt he or she in the future demand there be an audit of the pentagon . I think congress has demanded that the pentagon get there. Why wouldnt the secretary of defense do that in the first race . I think secretaries have endorsed that goal. I dont want to make an excuse. You are right, we need to get there. But it takes work and it takes time because the systems just havent been in place. If you found yourself as secretary of defense, what are some of the things you would do . You watched it in the past. First of all, i think it is a highly speculative premise. However i think one of the most important perspectives and priorities that any secretary of defense needs to have is to understand the stewardship aspect of your mission. Defense policy is not some abstraction. Every time you make a decision, on, are putting someones sp daughter, husband, wife into harms way. Understanding that you are the protector of the men and women who volunteer to put themselves at risk is the most important thing that any secretary has to keep in mind. If you have that frame of mind, that distinguishes the best secretaries from those who may have not done such a good job. That is the number one priority. Second, is a close really thinking about being wise about the use of the military instrument. Of any ofmost costly the instruments of policy that we have. You have to be very careful using it. That said, you cant be afraid to use it. There are times when our National Interest will require the use of force. You have to be willing to go down that road. But you have to be very prudent about it. Get congress to change anything about the way they relate to the military, what would you say to them . I would ask congress to understand, what does it mean to keep pace with these individuals . It is not just Compensation Benefits which are very important. It is also ensuring that they have the funding needed to keep forces ready, to keep them well risk, wheno buy down we do send them into harms way. Right now, what congress is doing is blocking the pentagon on every suggestion of reform of efficiency that has been put forward. You cant close infrastructure because that might hurt some jobs in our district. You cant take down overhead because i am not even sure the reason why. You cant reform acquisition in this way or that way. They have really constrained the departments ability to operate effectively and efficiently. I just think that is a recipe for miss allocating our resources. The Defense Department wanted to eliminate the a10s and Congress Said no. What is the reason . Judged thatgon given the budget constraint, they have to make tradeoffs. The a10 was the least important capability going forward. Congress said, you cant do that. They are keeping the program alive, but they havent given the air force anymore money to cover that. The air force has to cut in to some other higher priority area. If you are congress, if you are going to impose these budget constraints, give the leadership at the pentagon the authority to make the hard choices. You cant have it both ways. Cant cutsay, you this, you cant reform that, and keep them in a budget straitjacket. The pentagon says no more a10s, Congress Says we are going to keep the a10s, did congress go around and say we are going to keep them . Is that how this works . I think there is a lot of support within the pentagon for getting rid of these very solid but old aircraft. Ideal world, you would probably keep them. ,ut congress has said sequestration. What is the airports to do, take down readiness even further . They are up against the wall in terms of budget pressure. They are having to make some very unpalatable choices. Chris is not really stepping up to realize the implication congress is not really stepping up to realize the implication of the budget constraints. They are not taking responsibility for the very hard tradeoffs that the department of defense is having to make. The real answer is to get rid of sequestration. Get a budget deal that doesnt try to solve your debt and deficit problem on the back of the department of defense. That is not the problem. The problem is entitlement spending and the tax code. What are the chances that will ever happen . It is not going to happen in the near term. But i think the American People are getting to a point of frustration with the gridlock and the polarization, the fact that so much is being hurt by the lack of a clear deal and a way forward. I think at some point the politics of this will shift. If you look at the economy, there have been studies that suggest that we are sacrificing several Percentage Points of gdp because of the absence of predictability. You have a lot of capital sitting on the sidelines, investors saying, i am not going to invest until i know what the tax code is going to be. We could be growing much more as an economy if we had that certainty. I think the American People will eventually start voting on this issue. This may not be a fair question, but since you have been involved in government, who has been your favorite Public Servant . I have many. Think i have a huge admiration for secretary of defense gates. I think he will go down in history, whether you like it or didnt, his record as secretary of defense, he will go down in history as one of the greats. I was very privileged to have an opportunity to work with president obama and i think in on first term, he was spot on our foreign policy. I have huge admiration for the quality of his decisionmaking and his judgment in very tough circumstances. I also came to admire secretary clinton, seeing her up close as secretary of state, especially coming out of a direct competition with obama for the president ial nomination. She was a complete she was a class act in terms of her willingness to step in, except the job, be fully supportive of him, work very hard towards the success of his administration. I have had a lot of good examples of people doing excellent jobs. , ceo of thelournoy center for a new American Security, we are out of time. We thank you. Thank you very much. For free transcripts or to give us your comments, visit us at qanda. Org. Also availablere as cspan podcasts. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] next, a bbc review of the latest session of British Parliament. Then a conversation with dan feinberg. And at 11 00 p. M. , another chance to see q a. The British Parliament is in summer recess. Members returned to the house of commons september 1. Westminster in review took back took a look back at the major events from this spring. Including changes to the house floor, and the malaysian airliner that was shot down in ukraine. Mccarthyiaments elisha hosts this onehour program. Hello and welcome to westminster in review, are look back at all the big events in Parliament Since easter. Coming up, the government gets a stamp of disapproval as tens of thousands of people are forced to wait weeks. This is a sorry shamble. The government will do everything he can while maintaining the security to make sure people get their passports in time. Of patients,se children, and the vulnerable is revealed. A callous,or