Transcripts For CSPAN2 Today In Washington 20110428

ex tent, you've gone down the wrong track. go back and look at the reform process again. we must hope, that it's possible for that to happen. >> make it very quick. >> surely, given what we've seen over the last 48 hours, there hasn't been a willingness to follow that path. if it is not followed in the 11th hour, presumably, there is the means through another resolution would seem the logical thing for the government to pursue that with its international allies on the same basis on the action that was taken. >> we will want to increase the pressure on syria to bend to the will of the international community to ensure that the people of syria are free, safe and secure. i would quickly like to clarify how that happened. the point i want to make in all of these cases are different. the political processes are different in each country. the opportunity is available to us also. as the secretary of state has said, gadhafi very obviously and blatantly discarded any attempt for the political process in a pretty early stage. in other countries that is not the case. as the foreign secretary said yesterday, the political process in bahrain is not as overt as we would like, but nonetheless, it is still there. we are seeking for diplomatic means to engage with them. similarly in yemen where there has been violence and firing on protesters and so on, there is a political process there that we are engaged in. i think we have to adjust our methods according to the particular circumstances. >> and gadhafi had every opportunity, given to him by the international community, to choose a nonviolent path for his country and his people and he chose not to do that. >> we agreed before this hearing began that we would try to spend the final part, we've only got about 20 minutes left, on the effect of .what is happening in libya on the strategic defense and security review. >> you were gentlemanly enough not to call me ridiculous when i suggested you were required to find a billion saving for the end of the month. of course you somehow weren't required to find that billion. but if i look at what the costs are to be in libya, what the missiles cost, each one of them is an enormous amount behind the figures. it's not cheap. must you say, it's coming out of contingency costs. it is nevertheless delayed costs. could you just a a little bit in terms of whether you think a reprieve which you clearly got in march from finding the billion you had been asked to find, what ex tent would you say it might be linked with the operation in libya which clearly was not foreseen? >> one might almost say that was leading the witness. >> chairman, this is cross examination. you're allowed. >> the scsr made clear that we would expect to be able to maintain an enduring operation like afghanistan, an operation like in the kinetic form that we've seen in libya and a smaller one. it has fallen win the parameters that we set. under the adopted posture in the sdsr, so it has come within expectations. programs the level and speed and intensity has come earlier than we might have ever hoped but nonetheless, it has fallen within the realms to what the sdsr was set up to deal with. >> given you said it would take whatever it takes to do and however long it takes, what are the resources we have to allow us, and the bottomless pit of money, for how much longer would u.k. have the means to be a meaningful contributor? >> we have, as the chairman indicated, agreement that the additional costs will be met from the reserve. again, i go back, if i may, to my original point, that it is very important that these issues are discussed, but it's more important that we send a clear message in the current mission that we are not going to be limited by paints. >> i remember them. >> but we will -- we have the result to see through the mission. it's very important that we do not signal any point that we may waver in our commitment to achieve in libya. >> will you forgive me? there is one question i didn't hear an answer. was there a reprieve on the billion pounds funding gap caused by the libyan operations. >> that's also leading the witness because it makes an assumption in the question. what has happened in terms of the wider picture in libya, i think it would be wrong to conflict them, because what is happening in libya is within what we expected our abilities to be under what we set out in the sdsr. we knew that we might be called upon to carry out a mission of this nature, not this specific one, and that is planned for within sdsr and the assumptions we made, but the flexibility we would require of military assets were taken with that in mind. >> when do you intend to admit to the reprieve on the 1 billion pound funding gap. >> i tend to make a statement on pr 11 once we pass the elections, chairman. of. >> fair enough. >> some of my colleagues will question some of the very specific assumptions. has the operation in libya and the financial requirement actually any impact on the defense planning assumptions? >> no. as i say, what happens in libya in terms of the assets that we have devoted to it come within our planning assumptions that we made in the sdsr. that we have a long commitment in afghteghanistanafghanistan, e to carry out a small concurrent mission at the same time in libya. it is within when we expected that we might at some point be asked to do. >> it's still within the sustainable criterias outlined in the strategic country? >> we believe it is sustainable, and we believe that we will have not only the military but political will to carry this through to ensure that the u.n. resolution is fulfilled. >> without opening the sccr? >> there are those that talk about reopening the sdsr, but it's actually the csr. if people mean there should be more defense spending they should say so. if we have a reopening of the sdsr within the same financial envelope with the same policy assumptions in the same real world, given the ex partes we have, we're likely to come to the same conclusions. if people believe we should be spending more, that's a perfectly acceptable argument to make, but they have to say which budgets they want to cut or continue the insane habit of borrowing money at the pace we were doing before. it's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but the two should not be conflated. to say we should we open the sdsr but without change to the financial expenditure, i would likely suggest to the committee might be a futile exercise. >> at the risk of being dumb, we're saying how long it takes, we have the money, it doesn't require the opening, we can meet it. is that what you're saying? >> we are sending i hope a clear signal to this committee to the regime in libya that we intend to fulfill our obligations under the u.n. resolution and we will do what it takes along with our allies to carry out our mission. >> can i just be clear? i understood what was being said about the costs that are current. the current contribution we are making to this particular activity, should it sustain itself over a six month period at the current rate of spend is likely to amount to a billion pounds. >> i'm not able to give the committee figures on that. we will have discussions with the treasury. as i pointed out earlier, the chancellor gave the promise that extra costs of this mission would be met from the reserve. >> right. thank you. >> learning valuable lessons from the current air operations, both for the ongoing libyan events and also for contingency planning. my question perhaps elsewhere in the region or other parts of the world. have any of these lessons caused you to regret or reconsider the scrapping of the hairiers and the carrier based capability of illustrious. >> no, tornado gives us capability that carrier cannot. in addition to the pave way for laser or gps bonds that both hairier and tornado can carry, tornado gives us the standoff, deep penetration of storm shadow and the brimstone missile which is a low collateral weapon for use in urban areas such as misrata. in addition, tornado has a gun, which carrier did not. tornado has longer rates than hairier. tornado has a two man crew which helps with better mission control from the air and if i just may remind the committee of the logistics, legacy, there were not enough hairier to do afghanistan and what we've been asked to do in libya had we taken the alternative decision and kept hairier but not tornado. if ms. docherty is asking had we had another 3 billion pounds would we like to have kept more aircraft, the answer is yes. but we're trig to deal with the government's primary objective of a $158 billion deficit. >> i won't get drawn into this, but you mentioned range and logistics, you probably won't correct me if i was to suggest that we're currently running at least one of our aircraft from norfolk rather than from italy. do you not accept what some commentators have made, that if you had illustrious in the mediterranean, we would not have to have a 2, 3,000 mile refueling change. >> the question is capability. we wanted to have. the ability with storm shadow to achieve the military effect that it does. the ability with brimstone as i've said, a very flexible, precise look at collateral weapon which fits very neatly with our wish, our stated desire to minimize civilian casualties are not options available to us had we had that. it is tempting, i know, for those who want the decision to have been something else, to say that, well, this is all about the money. primarily, this is about the capabilities. the general might want to say something about exactly why this has been beneficial to us. >> i think the fact is, first of all, the italian nation have been generous in providing a huge range of airfields to operate from. i think in many ways, the mounting of this operation from italy, where the command and control is also based, is a very effective way of delivering this campaign. >> can i clarify? are you therefore denying that you're currently flying out of marin? >> some conditions were flown from morrow. >> there are no tomatoes flying from marrow, they are all now in italy, is that correct? that's a big misassumption people have been making? >> they certainly were flown directly out of morrow, but no longer. >> on the issue of tornados themselves, secretary of state, i wonder if you would think that now might be a good time to pause, to use the phrase, on whether or not we should be cutting the number of tornados in raf bases given this operation, tornadoes giving tha operation and potential operations elsewhere? >> well, of course, the way this is likely to come to fruition some time in the summer and i imagine the committee will want to ask a lot of questions about that, of course, the decision to reduce the tornado squad runs is not part of the sdsr. that was part of the previous government's planning. so it was a decision of which ones to get rid of was left to the incoming government with the decision having already been made by the previous government. so it's not part of the stsr and to reopen the csr as well as other elements. but there has been as far as i can tell and obviously we listen to the military advice, there is no operational restriction on this assumptions we're making for numbers at the present time. >> my final question, mr. chairman, how do you ask either/or royal navy and the royal air force to work out what would be involved in spinning back up the capability either more tornadoes or bringing tornadoes back up to their previous level or bringing back all the carrier's striking ability and have you asked them what is the point of no return for making either of those decisions? >> >> once the armed forces have provided us with specific capabilities that would not have been provided by harrier. and that is, i remember the very first time i came before this committee, i said we'd have to make decisions, hard headed ones on the basis of the capabilities required and not sentiment. i'm afraid this is one of those. >> have you asked them what is the point of no return for those capabilities? >> we've made our decision that we were going to retire harrier. since that, we've had the experience of in libya being fulfilled by the tornado and, of course, its fantastic pilots in connection with typhoon. there is no need to reconsideration our decision. >> any more? >> -- in libya having a negative impact on any of you our other operations, in particular operations in afghanistan? >> no. and at all times we have been very clear that our main effort is afghanistan. that is what they do above all else. and in the decisions that the department has ascertained in looking at ha we had available for libya, at looking at what we might require in terms of support, which, of course, isn't what people necessarily see. they see the fast jets and the frontline capabilities. we were always very careful that nothing that we would offer or commit to libya would interfere with our main effort in afghanistan. >> absolutely. now, the facts are that we are managing the afghanistan campaign today. >> and what about potential negative impact on armed forces personnel in terms of those who may have been in extended readiness perhaps going to afghanistan and having them deployed? >> we've had no impact on what's in place in afghanistan, which is going very well, militarily, and we've had no impact on afghanistan through what has happened in libya. and as i made clear, we always assume that we would be able to carry out a large enduring mission like afghanistan and an intervention like libya as well as a smaller one, that is what we planned for, that's what we have so far been able to achieve, not least i have to say, thanks to the incredible commitment by those in the armed forces. >> but what has been the actual impact in terms of numbers, for example, are you saying that there's been no -- there's been no changes to the -- >> i'm not aware of that. i'm quite sure if that were the case, it would be rather rapidly brought to my attention. >> i mean, i think it is the case, just from what i've heard from constituents and so forth. i think it would be quite helpful to -- i understand you might not be able to answer this today, but if you could look into that, i just think it's important to understand if we're going to be doing things like libya, that we understand what the commitment is. >> i'd be very happy to look at any specific cases that are being cited to see whether that is, in fact, happening. because the aim is that we should be able to endure in afghanistan and maintain that without having the ability to conduct one of these other operations. >> because i can give you anecdotal evidence of that. but presumably you're monitoring the impact that additional operations would be having on the reserve forces. how does that work? >> i think we will give you an answer if you have a specific and precise case. but i think that harmony rules is what we were getting to, individually some of them may well have been broken to all sorts of reasons, delays in aircraft movement, if you're talking about afghanistan. in libya, i cannot cite a specific example that supports your thesis. >> but we'd be more than happy to look at any individual cases. there may be elements that we've been not been aware of. butcertainly be happy to look at. >> final questions? >> the national security council, how has it been operating in relation to all of this and in relation to the decision to support the cease-fire. >> i think it's been operating very well. there's been the subcommittee, the nscl which has met on a very regular basis and the nsclo for officials which meets on an even more regular basis. i think for my own part, and i'm sure if cds was here, i could speak for him, too, that the flow of information -- [ alarm ] that comes to us -- the whips have many ways of letting us know there's a vote coming to you. but that's a new one. the flow of information that comes to us to help us understand at what is happening on the ground and the decisions that we will have to take comes in a timely way. the process now is getting into a rhythm where the meetings are in predictable time scale, and i think that the nac has adapted quickly to what's been, let's face it, a major challenge, early on in its existence. >> do you have the impression that the nsc is on top of an overall strategy for the whole of the region in case this continues for a long time and spreads? >> that the nac does and has looked at the region as a whole. it would simply be untrue to say that any policymaker in the western world has been on top of the speed at which events have happened in the middle east and north africa. nobody, none of the self-professed experts that i've been able to talk to predicted tunisia or egypt or disputed what's happening in syria or what happened in libya. the talks i had in the united states yesterday, the speed of change of events is such that everybody is having to assess and reassess as we go on what the impacts are, what it will mean for skut in the region, what it mean for our national security as has already been alluded to duringing th inthis and what it will mean for our uk and allied interests abroad. i think if there's one thing that politicians would be wise to have in view of the speed of events, it's a little humility that we are not always quite as able to understand what is about to happen next as sometimes politicians like to pretend. >> indeed, sir. and therefore, we need to be prepared for all sorts of eventualities with a defense capability that is strong and always available. secretary of state, thank you very much indeed to all three of you for coming to give evidence to us today. my in-person assessment is that you have fulfilled your mission in presenting a firm resolve to continue with this. our mission to gain clarity exactly where we are going, i don't think we have fulfilled quite as successfully as i think you have fulfilled yours. but no doubt, there will be further opportunities to do that during parliamentary over the next few weeks -- [ bell rings ] little rest, half of the percent of the agriculture budget of the community goes to export subsidies, and this should also -- this is by -- >> 495 and they're subsidized. like 25 cents. >> they are no longer subsidized. >> but i think -- but i think the fundamental problem, if we would like to see a world free of hunger how we deal with the small farmers. how we deal with the 500 subsistence farmers. will 100% of people live in the rural south and more than two third out of them are farmers. so the hungry people of the world are farmers. we can help them if we get them access to the marketplace and market the agriculture but in another form it should be possible in a short year of time to double the years in many african countries if we transfer the necessary know how to them and this is what is missing and this is one of the major problems within the fao and in the fao having the knowledge to do things and to know how to do it but not being able to transfer it to those in need. >> i was not secretary of agriculture of europe but as europe, as united states and also japan they are having to subsidize many, many crops but the truth is that these subsidies are kind of known by all that they have put a huge taxation in the countries in development. my experience over the last year and a half in haiti has shown me precise what's wrong with the system. we need to move in the face of development and i think we spend way too much time into the foot mode and take a lot of times to change the cheap into the development side. i had the chance to spend a lot of time in a beautiful town in the frontier between dominican republic and haiti. it's mainly a rural area. there 99 people live out of the goodness of the earth. and they had true conversations. with people. when that seed to life i don't be worth the money of the seeds plus all the labor that i have to employ to have that harvest. these are real people with real faces. people who tell you -- thank you, people, you gave us so much, thank you. and they tell you politics is politics and loss is loss. and we soon forget we follow that rhetoric with those people with those issues and what's missing and hopefully the next person that will start addressing those is that precisely found somehow they educate themselves to the development are the ones with the less amount of money and they do a heck of a good job. they are to be congratulated. he's too much into the food egg department. the same but not less but they have to be getting more. we need to move from food into development in a true meaningful we. we didn't talk about food being used for energy and fuels which is also one of the big problems. many people will say no of why prices have risen so much in the last years but those are issues that they're going to have to dealt by someone. i don't believe in the institution. and making sure that we are able to develop the agriculture in those countries that still have country. i will always talk for organization and university that we'll deal with the most serious issue we have in these -- in these earth of ours, which is understanding food and nothing but food is the most important source of energy in this planet because it is the true energy that most have. we need to take it once and for all seriously. hopefully it will happen in this century. >> thank you, jose. we're going to throw topeka t-open -- it open for questions. and a question is adding a lilt to the end of your sentence. >> i'm from the international food and trade policy council. i think you gave a great discussion about subsidies and i couldn't agree with you trade subsidies have done an awful lot of damage over the years. i would take slight issue with what you said. we need to be trying to stabilize prices for people in haiti and other poor countries. the whole point of wealthy subsidy is to stabilize farmers in those countries. i think at a global scale i think we would be foolish to try to stabilize prices. if you have price increases it's very positive thing because it sends a signal to the narcotics we need to increase production and that really i think -- we shouldn't lose sight of that. i realize very steep prices are a problem but we need to be careful that it sends a signal for farmers to produce more which leads me to my second point. you have all talked a lot and there is a very important record by government that is making promises of 22 billion doctors. it's not being delivered and we need to make sure that that happens and congratulations to you and representative mcgovern for doing your part in the congress but that's only one side of the story. that developing governments have a role to play so i think we need to get out of the mindset that rich countries helping poor countries and food security is an issue and many governments need to do a better job in serving their countries. there's the private sector. you know, $22 billion is literally a drop in the bucket. some people estimate that there needs to be 83 to 90 billion doctors a year in order to get food security moving in some of these countries. governments alone are not going to be able to do it. so those are my comments. thank you. >> i agree with your comment that we always see everything as the microeconomics. and so we need to understand that life is more than microeconomics. the microeconomy is the belief in little countries and little towns and if you are with some people i would tell them, man, those beans are fresh. come on. buy them. i'll show you how to cook them because they try not to be throwing money away. i will agree with you that it's a very good place and sometimes it's a little pond. >> you say this whole issue needs to be addressed wholistic and there's a lot of parties that need to be involved. it's not just private sector and local governments and a whole bunch of and part of the frustration has been to get everybody to be together and reading off the same sheet of music and i think the administration is trying to do in feed the future and i give hillary clinton and rush a little credit. i just came back from my district and i met with a group of people who literally can't afford to pay for the food to put on the table for their kids. i mean, right here in this country we have a community in america that's hungry and some of them can't afford it but some may be eligible for s.n.a.p. and you go to the supermarket and things go up and up and up. and markets are getting stronger but the fact of the matter is, a lot of places around the world, higher prices means no access and i think that's one of the points that jose was trying to make. and that's a real problem. and higher prices means that organizations at the u.n. world food program can't provide as many meals to people who are in need of attention right this second, who can't wait for a transition for their communities to develop but who have an emergency situation right now. >> thank you. >> hi. i'm ann yonkers in washington, d.c. actually, my question, too, is about prices because one of the -- we have been running farmers markets in and around the metro area now since 1997. we have 11 farmers markets and we're in three states and one of the questions that we always get are about the prices of the food at our markets, at our farmers markets. why are the prices higher than at the supermarket and why do the farmers charge, you know, what they charge? our farmers are not subsidized in any way. and my response has always been, they charge what they need to charge in order to be viable businesses. and i've seen a lot of growth in those businesses but, you know, it seems to me that the -- i just never -- i don't -- it's a very frustrating area if you think that farm income is a national security issue, it is. and so i'm starting to see a little growth in terms of new farmers and new young people starting to farm. but basically most americans don't want to farm because they can't make enough money farming. so we look at it from a producer point of view. >> what's your question? >> how do we deal with the issue of price versus value? and the actual productivity, the capacity to produce food? >> well, you know, locally here in the united states, i mean, you know, we're all trying to encourage more local agriculture. >> right. >> and more -- and more family farms. i'll give you an example in massachusetts. you know, one of the things that's helped some of our local farmers is that s.n.a.p. and w.i.c. can be used in farmers markets and we're doing this thing where i'm from where we're empowering health care centers, doctors and nurse practitioners to write out food prescriptions that can be used in farmers markets to basically, you know -- the more people that buy, the more you control the price. i mean, that's -- you know, and i want more local farmers to be able to be successful in the united states, but, you know, i think to the extent we can make it more affordable for people, again, through some of the programs i just mentioned, the more you're going to be able to address kind of the economic security of some of those farmers. i mean, i'll tell you, one of my challenges for a lot of -- is when you go to a supermarket to try to find what's grown locally. and you can't always get the answer from the person who works in the supermarket. i think there's a tendency to want to support local farmers more and more and more. i think some people don't know how to do it because the information is not available. that's another challenge. but these small farmers that we talk about are probably not going to be the farmers that are receiving all these big subsidies right now and, you know, the ones that we're relying on for a lot of our food aid. >> some are bringing the most amazing markets, washington. but also this amazing spectrum represents very small farmers you have all the way from the spectrum with cargo. i have no idea with cargo. a small farmer. they only control, you know, around 25% of the grain exports in america. you know, they control the chicken production in thailand, small peanuts. talk about national security, mr. mcgovern. i mean, for me it would be amazing to see how we are able to make those producers sustainable. that they can have prices that not only meet some people here making big bucks can afford so we can have small farmers who come for the food so that the lower segment can afford it. talking about national securities, we see what happened in the bank industry. we see banks very much put us on the edge of economic meltdown and still i have no clue what happened. >> jose, before -- >> you can start a revolution. [laughter] >> yeah, i know that -- >> yeah but -- >> i'm american now. [laughter] >> talk about american security. we don't have to be regulating government. good for car gil and their investors and to have good companies like this and to have the sources of us and it's really put for thought. and it's such a company to agree so large and they said. and now you're happy to feed your children. i can give you 100 answers but sooner or later we're going to see that having the foot production in the hands of the very food is the business for america and i can tell you it's not going to be good business for the world. that's another food for thought issue that we need to be talking. >> thank you. we'll to have wrap things up. i'd like to thank our panel for joining us today and thank you for being such a good audience. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> we take you live now to the national press club where joint admiral mike mullen will speak to leadership. current wars in iraq and afghanistan and developments in the middle east. this event is hosted by government executive magazine. it's their fifth leadership meeting with admiral mullem. he would be introduced by timothy clark, live coverage on c-span2. >> here in dc, registered now take advantage of our earlybird rates and for more information on the conference please visit excel.gov and we'll start in a minute. my colleague tim clark will begin the program. thank you and have a good day. >> thank you, andrea, for that introduction. welcome to all of you and a special welcome to our guest, admiral michael mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who is here for the fifth consecutive year. thank you very much for being here. it is early. earlier than we usually start, and so a double thank you for this full rung. i was thinking that we could view this as good practice for tomorrow when we have to get up even earlier for the royal wedding. [laughter] . we may not offer quite as much glamour as a royal wedding but i'm sure we'll have a lot of interesting substance to deliver here today thanks to admiral mullen being here. admiral mullen has served our country for 43 years, ever since graduating from the naval academy in 1968 and going off to fight in the vietnam war. he has been chairman of the joint chiefs of staff for the past four and a half years and before that was the chief of naval operations so he has served as the very top of our military leadership under two presidents, democrat and republican alike, which says something about how they view him being a straight shooter and a very talented man. it is also been a period, a decade of continuing war, endless war. and so he has the job of running those wars. the world is not a very peaceful place. the embers in hot in north africa and the middle east in iraq, afghanistan, north korea, iran and we're keeping a wary eye on china as well. that's not to mention the continuing threat of stateless terrorism or the invisible threat of cyberattack and so since these are some of the worries that admiral mullen has from day-to-day but, of course, he's also concerned of the leave and the forces down there and putting pressure on many defense establishment. and these are some of the topics we'll address with admiral mullen, again, welcome and thank you for being here. before we get to the hot news of the day, today's headlines and yesterday's headlines, in recognition in like five months or something in the end of your terrific military career, i thought i'd start with this question. in your long service and especially in your tenure as in your joint chiefs of staff chairman, what did you see your principal accomplishments and strengths? and on the other side of the coin, what has particularly concerned you about the military operations, its reputations and its country and the world. >> from its accomplishments i guess i'd put at the top of the list having to go into iraq in 2004. and assuming the job of cno in 2005 and 2006 were the navy at that time is putting thousands of sailors on shore and coming in as chairman just as we initiated the surge and remembering very well actually as if it were yesterday how bad things were there and i was in iraq last week. and it's night and day. it's truly been an extraordinary shift change and the creation of an opportunity for 26 million people that just didn't exist a few years ago. and that came at a great price, obviously. and that is a reflection, i think, of our military's ability to adapt and change from the classic conventional force to -- i call it the best counterinsurgency force in the world. but it's also more important -- it's a reflection of the extraordinary young men and women who serve, 2.2 men and women, active guard reserve who serve in a joint way many of us could not imagine just a few years ago. and i'm very proud of them. they could not have succeeded without the extraordinary matchless support of their families over the course of this decade. families are obviously critical, always have been critical. but from my perspective what's happened in the last decade is they've become important. and even when you're back from deployment, the stressors that they're under as well as those who are actually deploying some believe even more because of the worry every single day when you have your husband or your wife in the fight. so probably the single biggest area that i am most proud of and just privileged to serve for every day are those -- are those young men and women who make a difference. >> and on the other side of the coin, while you've perhaps started to answer this question, what has concerned you about -- about the military and the status of the military? i know you've talked about the isolation of the military, if that's the right word, only 1% of the families who are actively participating in the military but there may be other things as well. >> well, two immediate thoughts. first of all, i've spoken consistently about the needs for the military to stay apolitical, in what is seemingly increasingly a politicized world, not just the united states. and i think a lot of that has just to do with the 24/7 news cycle and the need, i think, to ensure that we are absolutely neutral. and we serve the civilian leadership, and we need to be very much mindful of that in how we speak about it in how we engage, whether you're active or whether you're retired. so that's something i think we just have to constantly keep out in front of us to make sure we're not coming off track here. i've been in too many countries where that was not the case. it's a fundamental principle for us as a country that we need to make sure that is very clearly and cleanly sustained. and then secondly is what you mentioned, tim. i do worry about the contact we have with the american people. the coming up next we have with the american people. we're less than 1% of the population. we come from fewer and fewer places in the country. and i worry about the things that we don't do anymore. through brac we've moved out of neighborhoods all over the country so we're not in the churches, coaching the teams in the schools, living in the neighborhoods. so the relationship or the understanding is often created by just what's in the media and i don't expect that's going to change in terms of physical size. we're not going to move in. i think we have to recognize that as a challenge. and the reason i'm so concerned about it, is america's military must stay connected to the american people. and if we wake up one day and find out that we're disconnected or almost disconnected, i think that's a very bad outcome for the country. so we all to have work on that. that's part of what military leadership must do and also i think in being a two-way street connecting with leaders and the american people throughout the country. and one of the great avenues for that our guard and reserves who live throughout the country, who serve, obviously, out of communities, local communities, and i think we can do a better job connecting there to ensure that -- that that very important connection between the american people and our military is healthy. >> we have one more question on this. there seems to be at least here in washington a great deal of support for in particular wounded warriors and people who are coming back from having served and getting out. getting out of the service. is that something that is -- is on the surface -- does it go deeper? do you think that sentiment exists across the country? >> i think it goes much deeper than here. i have traveled fairly extensively over the course of the last year, year and a half to meet with local leaders in big cities and in small rural areas. about a month ago i was out in boise idaho a month ago. i find, one, the american people support their men and women and that i ever families, two, that the local leadership that i meet with is -- they're passionate about connecting with our veterans as they return home and their families. and i've tried to work to be able to better make that connection. the way i describe it here in washington, our yellow pages in the pentagon is still about 4 inches thick. those of us that work in the pentagon don't understand it. if i'm out in rural america and i have a good idea, how do i connect with someone in the pentagon or the va to try to get that idea across the goal line to help and support our young men and women, and they are by and large -- most of your young men and women are not going to stay in the military, make it a career, although we have a substantial number that do, they are returning at a time at a very robust gi bill so tens of thousands of them are going to school and i think there are generations -- i call them -- they're wired to serve. so they're in their mid 20s. they've seen some difficult times in some cases clearly. but i think they offer a gradually potential in the country and with the local investment customized locally which must be because i don't think dod can do it. i don't think va can do it. i think the three of us, dod, va and communities across the country, working together can focus on employment, health and education. and i think with a small investment there, they'll take off and provide decades of service. they, i find, while some of them, and particular the wounded, their lives may have changed but their dreams haven't changed. they still want to go to school, start a family, put their kids in good schools. typically two incomes and they'd like to own a piece of the rock so what i've tried to do is connect with community leaders in ways to be able to create the knowledge of those who are coming home, who they are and where they're going and what the opportunities are with those who have given so much. part of this focus has been for the families of the fallen, those who paid the ultimate price. and sometimes we have to be more active in pursuing them in terms of support because their lifeline has been that military member. so the services are all very focused on that and i know in community after community after community they all want to say thanks and to make a difference in their lives so that they can -- they can literally put food on the table and take off for the next chapter of service wherever it might be. >> at the same time, you've also expressed concern about homelessness. you referred to what happened after vietnam in that regard. and we have the new effort by michelle obama and stan mcchrystal who support military families. what's the impetus of that as you see it. >> well, many of the issues those -- the military leadership and our spouses have been working on have actually now been raised to the level of the president and the first lady. and the vice president and dr. biden -- dr. biden and mrs. obama have come to together in this initiative called joining forces. and it really is support our military families. and one of the things they do they give a great voice and it's back to this connection piece so i'm very encouraged by that. and it's focused on the needs of our families. and raising the awareness and the opportunity to -- to reach out to them. they are a wonderfully -- military families, a wonderfully independent group. they won't ask for help. it's part of what gets them -- you know, allows them to be as strong as they are, and yet there are -- there are -- we live in a time that has been particularly stressful, tenth year of war, multiple deployments. we see -- my wife deborah sees thousands who have post dramatic stress symptoms. kids, children, who are exhibiting the same kind of thing. and again, it's back to this connection. so i really do applaud the efforts. there's been a lot of work that's gone into it and i'm very thankful that the president and mrs. obama and the vice president and dr. biden have taken this on. it's really a big deal. >> let's turn to the top of the news here. we've just learned that leon panetta and david petraeus will be cia director. you've worked with both. you're not going to comment of the nominations before they're made by the president. but hypothetically -- [laughter] >> are there tea leaves to be read in the appointment of a military man to head the cia at this particular point in time? >> actually, even hypothetically i can't even answer that question. [laughter] >> again, you said it very well. i mean, obviously, the policy is anything before anything official is announced, i really can't comment on it. suffice it to say, that i've worked very closely with leon panetta as well as with dave petraeus. in dave's case in 2004, and i have a great admiration to both men, who are wonderful public servants and their service in their current positions have been extraordinary, and then we'll see what happens. >> okay. i won't ask my second question on that. [laughter] >> let's turn to the budget. the budget trends today and what they portend. you have said that the greatest long-term threat to america's national security is america's debt. you also have said, i believe, the years of pentagon budgets including the off-budgeting of the wars has destroyed budgetary discipline in the pentagon. budgets already tight. personnel reductions have already been taken with senior officer abolished and ses positions as well. i know that you're concerned and many military leaders are concerned about the claim of personnel on resources in the defense departments and the health costs, benefits costs associated with that. how do you view the budget going forward. what are the key challenges as you -- as you see, if you do see, a period of declining defense budget? >> well, i do see that. and the reason i talk about the debt as the single biggest threat to our national security is -- it's basically not very complex math. i think the worse situation that we are in as a country, fiscally, the likelihood of the resources made available for national security requirements continue to go down is very high. this is the third time i've been through this. we did it in the '70s. we did it in the '90s. when you look at the data going back to the '30s, our defense budget goes up and down. and it does so on a fairly regular basis. so certainly this is not unexpected from my point of view. what i've seen and i've been in the pentagon most over the last decade, with the increasing defense budget, which is almost double, it hasn't forced us to make the hard trades. it hasn't forced us for prioritize and it hasn't forced us to make the analysis and it hasn't forced us to get to a point in a very turbulent world of what -- what we're going to do and what we're not going to do. and so i see that on the horizon and we need to be paying an awful lot of attention to that. i have said the defense needs to be on the table. and i'm comfortable with that. that said, i'm required to articulate our national security requirements and certainly advise the president and others but particularly the president about how we best can achieve them with the force that we have and we find ourselves at a particularly difficult time for, let's say, modernization of our air force. we are running out of life in those assets that we bought in the '80s under the reagan administration. at a time where i don't have to tell you or this audience where our national security requirements continue to challenge us. if we'd been sitting here a few months ago, and you asked me what's going to happen in the next couple months, i would not have put japan and libya at the top of the list of countries i'd be sending the majority of my time on for the time that i have. and that just speaks to the unpredictability that's out there. the tragedy and the loss of lives in japan. while there was great focus on libya, at the same time we had almost 20,000 troops and i think 18 or 19 ships in support of that humanitarian assistance and disaster relief for weeks at a time. so the demands, i think, will continue. we just have to be pretty measured about what we're going to -- what we're going to do and what we're not going to do. i've been in a hollow military before. i won't lead a hollow military. i know -- i know what one is and what it can and can't do, and i think it would be particularly dangerous in the world that we're living in now to hollow out. so we have to -- whatever we have, however we get to our future, it must be whole. and you talked about cuts in personnel and that's in the 15, 16 time frame, maybe 14 right now. when i was the head of the navy, out of my budget, it was 60 to 70% of my budget every year, and that's active reserve as well as civilian -- the personnel costs were about that percentage of my budget and i've said it this way, i need every single person i need but i don't need one more. and oftentimes that becomes the -- almost too easy and say, okay, let's immediately do away with forestructure because there's a lot of money there specifically but we must evaluate that against our overall requirement. i've talked about the health care explosion that we've had in our cost, i think 19 billion in 2001, 64 billion in 2015. that's not sustainable. so i think we all have to sharpen our pencils and make sure that every dollar we have is being spent well. and we need to be good stewards of the resources that the american taxpayer gives us. and i just think we really have to -- we're going to have to do the hard work to get the right. we've got to come through this cycle, and we will. we've together come through in a very strong fashion back to what i said in terms of the demands of the national security environment. >> and so do you see the ratio changing, the 60 to 70% of the payroll and associated costs are going to pay the associated share of the budget as you see it. >> i don't know the answer that because we haven't resolved that and we need to recognize the investment as secretary gates have focused on, on the future and how we've talked about that is in terms of -- if we get it right to our people, we'll be okay. if we retain in our military right now this most combat -- the most combat force we've had in our history, if we retained the right young junior officers who have been through this -- if we retain the right young ncos in our officers, we'll be just fine and if we don't, almost no matter what the budget, as we come out of these wars, and i believe we will over the next decade or so, then we're going to struggle. we need on the retention aspect but we should not be blind to the cost and investment to make sure we get it right for the overall defense resources. >> let's talk for a minute and i think an interesting question of the relative importance of the uniformed services and whether or not the army's role in that relative scale will recede in that. secretary gate has said that in his opinion, and i'm quoting here, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big american land army into asia or into the middle east or africa should have his head examined. and you have told young cadets that they will lead with a garrison force. how about the army, a? and b, what will be the most important roles for the army and air force and we could talk a long time about that. sorry about that. why don't we start with the army? >> i love our army, my army. and one of the great joys of wearing the uniform for this long. and part of the reasons i have been privileged to literally do that is offering me an opportunity to grow in every single job and certainly this job has afforded me this opportunity and i don't think i've learned more than any single subject than our army, who i didn't know well. i knew more about the marine corps because of the navy/marine corps relationship and -- but again i learned a lot more about our ground forces and so -- they truly have been a heroic force and both the marine corps and the army. and i've watched the army change. i've watched them go through this counterinsurgency develop its capability in a way and speed i could not have anticipated. when we get -- what do i worry about, when we get in this environment, there are an awful lot of old saw that people have pulled off the show. we went through it before. we went through it in the '90s. i think as we move forward we recognize that we're living in a different world than the last time we went through this or the time before that. that's why the wholeness of this, the comprehensiveness of this challenge in terms of how do we adjust is really important. and i think, you know, a catastrophic adjustment, a massive change in the world that we're living in right now would not be very prudent at all. and i certainly take secretary gates' point but my expectation is, most of the senior leaders leadership think we live in this time of, quote-unquote, persistent conflict and we don't know where we're going to be used and we don't know when, but we need to be ready and i think in that regard, all four services, and they're wonderfully unique and wonderfully joint in ways that we hadn't as i said before imagined before, excuse me. and we need the talents and we need the capabilities of all four services. so i think -- i mean, i think the future is very healthy for all four services. there's a tremendously important role for our navy and our air force along with our ground forces. it's really been that combination over our history that has served us exceptionally well. and one of the immediate old songs is, well, let's just divide the pie up, the budget, and i think you have to do that very carefully. as difficult as it has been historically and it has been when we see these pressures, i think we need to lead as the president has laid out and as secretary gates and i have talked about, we need to lead with a strategic view, a strategy before we just start taking out the meat ax and the scalpels and just reduce the budget and then just figure out how to meet that meet that number and then after that well, what are we going to do after that? that's exactly the wrong way to do it. and i think a very dangerous way to do it now given the world that we're living in. the framework in which we review our national security requirements has really been the qdr. and it's fairly current. a lot of us worked on that. i think given the intensity of the fiscal crisis, the reality of it as well, we need to re-assess that, not throw it out, but look at it and adjust it and given that adjustment, this is where we ought to go. >> let's engage on a tour of the horizon of the world's hotspots, arab, spring and beyond. let's start with libya. can you talk a little bit about how you thought the hand-off to nato has gone? and how nato has performed? obviously, there have been some problems, reluctance by various countries to undertake various missions, shortages of precision missiles among them. complexity of command and control but how do you think this nato deal has really gone? >> well, i commanded in nato twice over this last decade, once as the fleet commander down in norfolk for the nato strike fleet and in naples, italy where i commanded all the forces in the south, which included forces that were assigned to the nato training mission in iraq in 2004 when nato took that mission on as well as the forces in the ba balkans. i think someone said it pretty well we've done in 18 days what it took us 18 months to do in bosnia in terms of standing up the command, committing to a mission and execution and i think that speaks volumes about nato's agility in these times certainly compared to where it used to be and i've been impressed with nato and how they execute it and, yes, 28 countries are not participating on the combat side but the majority of countries are participating one way or the other, and it's not all about combat or military capability per se. there's humanitarian assistance. there's the kind of support we need in the hair time environment. so i've been very, very pleased with how nato has both stood up to this and executed it. a few years ago, when i first came into this job, both secretary gates and i were fairly frequently beat up by critics who say, can't you get more nato forces into the fight in afghanistan? and, in fact, over the course of the two years, nato has stood up in ways i couldn't imagine just a couple years ago and just like this mission. and i think nato is in a much better place than a few years ago. more adaptive, more flexible, more capable. that said, there are some things that have to be addressed that we will learn from this libya campaign that i think not just individual countries but nato as an alliance will have to adjust to -- or adjust having studied those with assistance. >> the assertion in the question is like black and white just because we've -- we've done it once in terms of -- which is something actually we've asked other countries to lead more aggressively in previous times and they haven't so to say this is it for the future. i think almost across-the-board, whether it's nato or the united states is -- we just can't be that certain. it's working now. they're leading well. we're in very strong support. the mission is executing well. i fundamentally believe that we've prevented a massive humanitarian disaster that gadhafi would have reaped on his -- on his citizens in benghazi. that's the mission is to protect the libyan people and so in that regard i think nato has been very, very effective. and the combination of us going in early, them taking over, them leading has worked very well. >> various people including retired general dubik have called for, you know, more involvement. military advisors, preparation for u.n. peacekeeping force of some sort, and -- and i'm wondering what you think about that? and also whether you think we are following the weinberger doctrine which says you don't go in unless you know how you're going to get out. >> well, i think long term -- clearly the strategy -- and this is really the political strategy is gadhafi is going to be out and needs to be out along with his family. clearly the initial limited mission on the part of what we participate in and participate today is to ensure as best we possibly can the protection of the libyan people. there are many, many ideas on what we should be doing, what nato should be doing and how to do this. i can only say being on the inside, this is as every single operation is extraordinarily complex. it is -- it is not -- when asked about well, when does it end and how does it end? those are unknowns right now. there is an extraordinary amount of political pressure that has been brought to bear and i think that will be not only exist but ratchet up. the arab league has pitched in against, you know, a fellow arab in a very, very strong way. so gadhafi is a pariah. we know. and i actually do believe his days are numbered. if you ask me how many, i don't know the answer to that. so i think the political pressure will continue to that emphasized and focused in a way that sees him leaving as quick as possible. he's a survivor. we know that. and so it isn't going to be -- there's no easy solution that's certainly staring us in the face. .. >> my question is, is our own security, the united states security compromised by the turmoil in these countries the? no, i survey don't see that right now. and i think we've had a 30 relationship. with egypt. and very strong relationship with -- quite frankly up in an club without the military leadership has been handled and continued to handle it. and what is a constant in all three of those countries, is this is about the people. these are internal issues. we have a military to military relations with yemen, but it's not been for that long. we have worked hard to drink them. so in that regard it's a vastly different in terms of both strength and depth and breath, and gym and then it in egypt. and at the same time it is internal and will continue to evolve there as well. your point israel taking. there is i think the most viral strain of al qaeda that lives there now and the most dangerous strain of al qaeda lives there, and that we all must be mindful of that in yemen as well. and then briefly, in tunisia, that's another country that this is principally driven from the inside, and so not that the national security requirements of the u.s. -- we clearly need to keep an eye on a fitness to a fact, i don't know, out of the three countries probably the al qaeda threat in yemen is one that is of most concern, although that was a very high concern before recent events in yemen so we will continue to stay focused on them. >> let me see. let's turn to another group of countries. saudi arabia and bahrain. some experts say that suppression of protests there will lead to further revolt, including possibly even in saudi arabia, which has been a longtime key ally out there. are we concerned about that? and what are the obligations of what is happening in bahrain for the fifth week? which, of course, has a major installation there, headquartered there i guess. and do we have contingency plans for the fifth fleet if things will turn bad in bahrain? >> i travel in that area several weeks ago right at the height of the bahrain crisis. and a couple of things really struck me. first of all, how strongly the gulf cooperation council has come together, all of the countries, and the message to me was that bahrain is a red line very specifically. secondly, there was a belief that iran was behind this. i just don't agree with that. all the information that tells us i've seen is iran had nothing to do with what happened in bahrain, like the other countries it was an internal issue. and i do agree about the extent of the crackdown in terms of potentially opening the door to iran. and i have now seen that this doesn't surprise me at all, iran tried to take advantage of the situation, not just their but in other countries as well. which is no surprise. we all continued to be extremely concerned about iran. i want to reassure everyone that we haven't taken our eye off that ball. iran still continues to try to destabilize, they continue from my perspective to develop capability that gets into nuclear weapons. and that they are still the leading sponsor of terrorism from a state perspective of any country in the world. they are more acted out in iraq. and one of the things i have been concerned about is the relationship between the instability in bahrain and how that's impacted our capabilities, or what's going on in iraq as iraq continues to go through the transition. so, it's an area of great focus and great concern. i don't see anything right now that would jeopardize our presence in bahrain, our fifth fleet has been there for longtime. and, in fact, the u.s. navy has been in bahrain since the late '40s. we have a long-standing relationship there. and it continues to be a very strong relationship. certainly it's important that we never get to a point, it never gets to a point in bahrain where that fleet, that capability which is so important, providing the kind of security that, and support, given iran's stress, which none of us would certainly ever want to see askew to the point where that would jeopardize. and i just don't see that right now. >> admiral mullen, you recently returned a few days ago from a trip to iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan. let's spend a few minutes on the issues there. iraq, something of an arab spring arising there a little bit which may be of concern. but i believe you're focused during your visit to iraq was on a pointed question. do they want us there? does the iraqi government want us there, our military there? pass the end of the year, we have 47,000 troops there now, and i believe that there is only something like a three-week window in which the malik a government must actually tell us that he wants us there or else we will have a train moving out of the country and we will be gone. >> will come as you said where 47,000 troops and the current policy is we will be completely out of their butt end of of december i wouldn't give this, i wouldn't limit it, or constrain it to three weeks. what i said when i was out there, we have weeks, not months to address this issue. if the iraqi government wants to address it, and so others, that working is extremely hard. and will continue to do that. we think there are great opportunities with respect to the future of iraq. the challenges are there now are principally political. and the arab spring demonstrations there has certainly not turned into the kind of demonstrations that have existed and other countries. the security environment is good. that doesn't mean we don't have the challenges are that the iraqis, iraqi government doesn't have challenges because there still is a level of violence, but it's the lowest since 2003. i'm comfortable with the development of it and the leadership of iraqi security forces. they tell me that they will have some gaps should we leave 31 december, intelligence in aviation, you know, its logistics maintenance and support. so we are aware of that and we'll just have to see what the political leadership in iraq does. >> and are you not concerned that the governance structures and the civilian governance structures have not kept pace with the advance is in security forces, and so that the people of iraq are not seeing, you know, real results in terms of their own daily lives, their own economic and social lives? >> well, the iraq government certainly has some challenges there. although i think they have improved and will continue to improve. they are rich in resources and i think economically, fiscally in the next few years they really will be in pretty good shape. from a security standpoint, again, i think the security forces have performed exceptionally well. so, in many ways the politicians to get all this organize. their ministries have developed a great deal from a -- have really improved over the course of the last few years. so they are a much better shape in terms of delivering goods and services then used to be, but they still have significant challenges. >> great. i'm going to ask -- they could have three or four but i'm going to ask if you'd like to ask questions in about five minutes here. if you would, please come to one of these two microphones. pakistan. i believe there is tension in our relationship with the pakistani leadership. i believe that when you traveled there just recently, you delivered a pointed message about the pakistan intelligence service, the haqqani network of terrorists which are dedicated, who are dedicated to killing our people. what is the status of our relationship with pakistan? and could it deteriorate to the point where those key supply routes that supply our troops in afghanistan with the needed equipment could be compromised? >> i think theoretically it could devolve, threatened those lines of communications where we bring an awful lot of power supplies and support for the efforts in afghanistan. that said, our relationship is one that continually work on. and right now it is pretty strange. it is straight in great part recently because of the raymond davis? he was the individual that was taken by the pakistanis after a very serious incident where he shot two individuals who threatened him. and we worked our way through that, but in working our way through that it really did strain the relationship. so that's what i -- this was a routine trip for me in the sense that i go there about every three months, but certainly it was not routine in its nature because of the strain -- the relationship that had been so badly strained as a result of the davis case. it's something i've invested a lot of my time in because i think it's important we stay connected. it's an extraordinarily complex country, and actually it's an extraordinary complex region. i've talked about our engagement in that part of the world. you can't pick one country or another. it's afghanistan and pakistan. and you have to take the region, put the region into context, if you will, in just about everything that you are doing. so, we've been through a rough patch. we've been through before with pakistan. and i'm actually hopeful that we can, that we will continue to be able to build on the relationship. we understand each other much better than we did a few years ago. we are still digging our way out of 12 years of mistrust with no relationship from 1990-2002. that's just not going to be solved even in a few years we've been working with them. it's going to take some time. but i think a partnership, a strategic relationship with pakistan in the long run is absolutely vital to the security, not just in that region but because of the downside possibilities for security, global security. >> afghanistan, neighboring country, as you say you can't consider them together but with 100,000 troops in afghanistan, and many, many thousands more contractors. i want to ask you, and i believe the drawdown is supposed to start happening this summer in july, is that correct? and so, what do you see as the pace of the drawdown plan? are we in there for the really long haul? what do you think speak with we will start to withdraw troops this summer. general petraeus has not made a recommendation to the present yet so there's no decision with respect to that. but no question that we will. we just don't know how big it will be, or from what part of afghanistan per se. it does speak to a very important message of transition. president karzai i think the 22nd of march identified seven provinces for transition over the course of the next year or so. and then we are focusing on getting to a point by the end of 2014 with afghan security forces have a responsibility for their own security. and we think that's doable. we think we can meet that goal. i, on this most recent trip, which was out in these which is a very tough fight as well as down and helmand, was encouraged by what i've seen from security, improvements over the course of last year. so what you hear about that, i can just verify having been there, that said, visual be a very, very difficult year. it's already started out to be a tough year. we have tragic losses yesterday. we had eight of our airmen who were killed by this afghan airmen who was inside. and every loss is tragic. we know that. these are particularly difficult because it comes from an insider threat. we are working very hard to eliminate that. not just we had been working on this. so this'll be a very difficult year. it's a tough year for the taliban last year. it's going to be a very tough year on the talibans issue because they are by and large out of their own safe havens in afghanistan, and they're going to come back and try to take them. and i think they will meet a force that is more than ready for them. we are starting to see signs of reconciliation and reintegration on the ground there. i'm concerned about, one thing, not that i'm not concerned about security, the governance peace, the corruption peace for the governance in a few areas. and i would add rule of law to the. those are areas that have to really start to take traction. and we need to improve in those areas in order to get where we need to get to over the course of the next three years. >> it's an interesting story in the paper the other day about people in rural afghanistan who feel that they cannot trust the government or the united states forces there, trying to help them because if they do the taliban will target them and go after them. and on the other side, they don't like the taliban either. and so, what's the answer? >> the talibans are still i think the numbers i've seen, they are in the nine or 10% at that level in terms of how the afghans feel about them. i think most afghan citizens are on the fence to see how this will go. and i'm hopeful that with another year, similar to what we had in 2009, will have much more clarity about what it looks like once we get through this fighting season. so into the october, november time frame, and we're starting to see some good signs copies of local leaders, local governments starting to function in certain places. so, i'm cautiously optimistic at this point, but i don't want to understate the very difficulty over all, the challenge we have in front of us. >> please come if anyone has a question, come to the microphone. and let me see. thank you for coming to the microphone. we shouldn't ignore one more country. i'm sorry, north korea and korea in general. very high tension levels there. what are our key concerns? i know you're concerned about that. >> we work very closely with them. it's a critical part of the world to ensure stability. obviously, the proximity to china, the economic engine that china is, our relationship with the country, et cetera so awful lot of people focused on keeping that part of the world stable. we do that and great support of the south koreans. and there have been provocative acts and we were a great deal about those. there's also this guy, kim jong-il is not a good guy. and has acted in ways that have been very dangerous at times. the word is competitive secretary gates said this very well, the word is in five or 10 years, he's looking at a nuclear capability which threatens the united states. this is not just about local security, in the not too long run. that potential exists as well. and he is by and large starving his people. we know that. and, in fact, his army which is pretty unusual, is having a pretty tough time beating food this year as well, or through this winter. so it's a very, very tough, complex situation and an awful lot of us are focused on a. we need it to be stable. we need him to stop the provocations. and what i worry about his as he continues to propagate, as we look at the succession plan for his son, that the potential for instability and miscalculation and escalation their is pretty high end of great concern. we continue to focus great aunt ensuring as best we can that it has to goes in the other direction. >> and, of course, should a war erupted we are involved, right, because we have a mutual defense treaty with south korea. >> six to one is the ration of contractors or civil servants. yet civil servants continue to endure public -- what is your position on the total force structure and who should be doing the work for the government speak with civil servants continue to endure what? >> a lot of civil servant bashing. >> i've worked with our military for a long time. and as i talk about the investment when i was ahead of the navy, the total force, if you will, includes our civilian workforce. they have been extraordinary. and will continue to be a vital part of our force in the future. there's no question about it. they bring a level of skill and continuity, and actually dedication and patriotism that equals that of any of us who wear the uniform. that said, all of us have to be realistic about the budget environment in which we exist, and then look at the best way to move forward. one of the things that i worry about on the civilian side is the rules, when we get into a tight situation like this, the tendency is last in first out. and we've got to pay attention to refreshing our workforce, our civilian workforce. so we have to figure out a way to reach our goals, whatever they might be in this environment, while at the same time not sacrificing our future. i think the average age of our sibling workforce is about 47 or 48 years old. and we have to recognize that. so leaders have to be very creative and cognizant of this to ensure that this isn't just about, this isn't just about the next 12 months or the next 24 months, but it's a long-term requirement as well. but we wouldn't be anywhere without the great civilian workforce that we have. >> do you think there'll be a shift in that ratio to more civilian is asian? >> i think that -- were that is going on in the acquisition workforce right now. it has been over the course of the last two or three years, for example. i -- in terms of the overall budget pressure, i think that ratio certainly has potential for changing, but i don't know. i mean, it's natural. many of our contractors are what i called in direct support of what we are doing as well. secretary gates has asked all of us to look at this to see how much of it we really need. i think that pressure is going to grow. >> we will take one hit and then the of the microphone is over here. making, we have -- take that question expect i'm captain ed sector i think you work for my dead years ago. we'll be entering him in arlington in two weeks. >> i'm sorry to hear that. >> the question of going to raise this morning is not new. my sister and brother-in-law both served in the army in the early '80s. my son and daughter-in-law are both active duty now. my son and marine intelligence officer just came home from his third tour in southwest asia. my daughter-in-law, a service worker officer has been doing drug intervention off the south america. they have been married for six years, and this month they will have been in the same town for one year total. you know, when i was on active duty we paid attention to the joint service couples, and we made promises about allowances in this regard i understand the operational exigencies of our time, but i don't see that anything has changed in the last 30 years in terms of really making the rubber meets the road. literally, my son just deploys, my daughter get some. my daughter just deploys, my son gets home. it's happened again and again and again. is anybody paying attention to this in terms of retaining people that are critical? >> well, in the mid '90s i was in a position of leadership in the assignment world, and we actually initiated steps to assign dual military couples in cross services it and i believe we've got to extend that outside, outside the military. i think we have to pay a lot of attention to dual careers, whether a family has one in the military and one not, not so. i will do two things. one is, i would love to take turning into some research in terms of how much this is -- where exactly we are. i know that we're much better than we were in the mid-nineties with respect to that in terms of those assignments. but you overlay that with demands of the war and the repeated deployments and it's much more difficult issues to manage. i know there is a great deal more focus on this from a leadership perspective than there used to be. and goes to what i said earlier about guaranteeing the future. if we don't get young men and women like her son and daughter-in-law to stay in, we are not -- our future will be somewhat problematic. i have been struck, it goes back to the dedication and extraordinary young men and women who served right now, i have just been struck by their willingness to do this, to pursue the career. odyssey to meet the needs we have from the national security standpoint, and in many cases even surprised that they will continue to do it because of the kinds of percentages that you just laid out there, one year in six. and yet we have lost -- i have talked to more than my fair share of said i want to get a life, start a family. we just got to slow down. and it's something that i have addressed and people have addressed very, very closely in terms of not just dealing now, but how does this affect our future. i don't think it is my own take on, i don't think it is deliberate. i do know -- i have run into so many, many couples that have been assigned or detailed very specifically to make it work as opposed to what's odyssey going on. so i would be happy to take your name and e-mail address and get back to you with what exactly we are on that. but i know it's a focus of all the services, and i'm very comfortable we have improved. it's not where we were 30 years ago, but that doesn't mean we don't have work to do. in the long run, i believe we're going to have to assign people, we'll have to put people at the center here as opposed to the institutions. and i think if we do that, really, no kitty, do that, and assign people accordingly, that this will be well taken care of the. as opposed to the institutions, we are protected of the institutions, face the institutions needs and put that up front and in sort of figure out where people go after that. i just don't think that will work. >> good morning, sir. truth in advertising, retired military, retired air force them former defense contractor, current air force civilian. that being said, libya is maybe a one off but maybe a precedent, and i'm concerned if this precedent would be applied to syria. i came through bosnia, and my personal belief was that, we can fly over all you want but until you put boots on the ground things don't change much. that was my personal belief and i'm a little concerned about possibly applying the pariah killing his own people through syria, which i perceive to be a significantly greater threat than libya was at the time that we begin this. >> the president has made it very clear that he decries, and we all do, the violence in syria. it needs to stop. i talked about this trip that i took up through the right at the height of the bahrain challenge. is one of the things that struck me, and i think we just have to be very careful about this come is you can't broadbrush this. every single country is unique. every single country is obviously in the region as well. and i don't think we can disconnect a country from its region. i think we have to be very careful about how we address each one, and there are differences and reasons for differences in each one. and so, the question of, okay, libya, why not burma? i mean, there are, for instance, and i've actually, i have actually heard that question as well. i think it is too broad brushed. to your point, said he is a different country. it's in a different place. and while we certainly deplore -- implored the violence and for the killing, i think whidbey remain full of the uniqueness of syria in both its history, its location and what the potential is, and where we are in that, where they are in that crisis. so, i just don't think that we can say because, you know, one, because one leader was doing something that is absolutely translates to an intervention that involves another leader. i think we have to be very, very careful about that. my comment about how much the limit of air power per se, but would reemphasize what the president has said come and i assure you, he has no intent that i am aware of how he made very clear to me, no boots on the ground in libya and that's what we are today. >> we are counting down. we have about three or four minutes left. yes, sir. >> good morning, admiral. thank you for your service and your example that you not on a sacrifice your generation but generations to come. thank you. my question is, how effective are civilian, our workforce to our military leadership? >> its evolving to our civilian expeditionary workforce is evolving. i was in kandahar in afghanistan a few months ago and sat down with maybe half a dozen young foreign service officers who had come from lima, london, paris, and rio and found themselves in kandahar excited got every bit as excited as young officer in the military, about doing what they were doing. and i was very taken by them in terms of their dedication and their service. and the excitement that the generated in terms of making a difference in peoples lives. so i think it's improved. i think we need to continue to focus on this because we are living in an expeditionary world. we are not going to be able to just deal with it from the washington perspective for the future. so, all the agencies come and it's going to be harder now that the budgets are tighter, have to continue to focus on a. but i think we're in much better shape than we were a few years ago. that said, still a long way to go. >> i'm being signaled that our time has just about run out. so, admiral mullen, i'm going to ask you, if you have any final thoughts for this audience before we give you a round of applause for being here. >> lastly, i would just say thanks to all of you, many of you in the audience have served and make a difference. when i think about the challenges we have been through, this is what we're going to do for the next 10 years, we're going to deploy this many times, when you ask these sacrifices, of our people. and we should be mindful we lost almost 6000 young men and women, and tens of thousands physically injured, and hundreds of thousands with invisible wounds like pts. they have been the best i've ever seen, we just never forget their sacrifices. we are blessed to have them. we are a great, great country for many reasons, and one of the underpinnings of that is this extraordinary force of young men and women who serve today. and again, i'm privileged to still be in uniform and still be with them, and still public in a position to try to make a difference for them. >> thank you very much, admiral mullen, for being with us again. thank you for your service. [applause] [applause]. .. and bracket inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> as this event wraps of the associated press reporting president obama is expected to announce a major reshuffling of his security team. the plan is for the security chief to replace robert gates who is retiring. he is expected to retire in june. general david petraeus, u.s. commander in afghanistan will take over the job at the cia. >> live coverage on c-span2 will continue at 1:30 eastern as pennsylvania senator rick santorum outlines his vision for u.s. foreign policy. he has traveled to iowa and new hampshire. today in national press club speaking at an event sponsored by the ethics and policy center where he holds a fellowship. arizona senator john mccain urging pressure by the u.n. security council on syria. 450 people have been killed in the crackdown. live coverage beginning at noon eastern as the institute looks at the unrest in that country. a panel of experts on the region. with a the nation's first caucus ten month away c-span goes to iowa to get the talk about the potential presidential candidates. c-span will have live coverage of the jim fischer show in iowa. it begins at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend on booktv and c-span2 panels on science, american history, climate change and the constitution and call ins with larry flint and more walter mosley. just a few highlights from live coverage of the los angeles times festival of books. get a schedule at booktv.org and get the schedule on your in box. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch keep public policy events in the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get schedules that our web site and join in the conversation on social media sites. >> now to the university of southern california for a look at the state of same-sex marriage in america. you will hear from the political strategists to spearhead the lawsuit to overturn proposition 8 as well as republican consultant matt klink and college students. this is just under an hour. >> welcome everybody. thank you for coming to our final student talk back political lunge panel discussion of the spring 2011 semester. for those of you who haven't been here before my name is dan schnur. i'm the director at usc and we co-sponsor the lunches every week with college republicans, college democrats and daily trojans. as is the case every week, joined with representative from the editorial board of the daily trojan as a co moderator for our panel discussion. today's moderator is associate director and we're co-sponsored by college democrats who understand their new editorial board and executive board for the 2011/2012 school year. congratulations. i understand college republican selection is a week from tuesday. we eagerly await the results of those elections as well. most of us will be with the results of those as well. today's topic is life after proposition 8. who can marry in america. some of the juniors and seniors may remember in november of 2008 immediately after proposition 8 was passed by voters of california we convene a student talk back lunch on the issue with representatives from the proponents and opponents of the initiative. here we sit two years later and the debate has shifted from the ballot box to the court room and we will talk a little bit today with our panel about how that debate is progressing, where it is headed and how it might resolve its self. let me introduce our panelists. to my immediate right is matt klink, president of sorrel and associate los angeles. he published more than 30 articles in state and national newspapers and magazines. frequent commentator with local and national broadcast news on political matters. sitting immediately to his right is andreanna hidalgo who represents college republicans. mike michael maulano representing college democrats and finally down at the far end of the table is chad griffin, managing partner of griffin shot the, a strategy firm and also board president of the american -- for equal rights which has been the sponsor of the legal challenge to overturn proposition 8. as we do every week, we will ask the analysts questions for the first half of the discussion and at 12:30 we open up to your questions. with that the first question is yours. >> as someone relatively well informed and media communications on the issue now that proposition 8 has reached the courts give us an update where everything stands. >> next month is the two year mark from when we filed the case of kerri versus 14 a year. we had a trial a few months after that that lasted three weeks and this past august on august 4th we got a historic sweeping victory -- a few months ago we had a hearing before the ninth circuit court of appeals and before the ninth circuit two issues had to be addressed. the first issue that was addressed was standing in our case, intervening defendants attempting to feel the case -- appeal the case had standing in court to be there because those who lost actually agreed with the decision and agreed with the decision in our case and refused to appeal. independent group co-founded by james dobson led the appeal so they had to make the case to appeal the case. this is televised on c-span. the second hour was about the merits of the case. a month later the ninth circuit court of appeals certified a question to the california supreme court. we took a brief diversion and went from a federal court to state court and the question that was certified to the california supreme court had nothing to do with gay marriage. it was a specific simple question. under california state law do proponents of ballot measures, meaning those who file them, have standing in court to appeal when the state refuseds? essentially if the attorney general and governor refused to appeal a decision that was against them can an individual or small group of individuals act as the attorney general or act as a governor and appeal? california supreme court set when they call an expedited schedule. at some point in september we will have oral arguments before the california supreme court. they will send their answer to the ninth circuit court of appeals and it is our belief that the ninth circuit, as they did in first round, will move this case quickly. >> thank you. andreanna hidalgo, you have some of bob's not only on the legal ramifications of the supreme court decision, that is the case on who has standing to act and the half of proponents of proposition 8 if anyone. you have given thought to the legal ramifications of the upcoming decision and political ramifications as well. what does it mean politically? >> this is an important case politically. california supreme court rules that they do not have the authority of entitlement which is pretty much standing to tried the case. it means the north bank can address it and they can either uphold district court's decision as unconstitutional or overturn it. if it is up held that is cute. it takes the same sex marriage out of the state level and into a -- the ninth circuit is responsible and governed in multiple states including arizona which is a very conservative state so it will be interesting to see how it plays out in federal court. if it is denied and there is a forte of entitlement, they can't look at it because there's no astounding. that would be a small term gain because the state would be -- same-sex marriages would be allowed in california. ultimately it could have negative implications politically because that pretty much means if the attorney general and governor decide they don't want to defend a proposition that the people of california have voted for that they functionally have a secondary veto, any idea that this could be the case is something that is negative towards democratic -- in california. those are the ramifications. the end could be the same but the means for which they are obtained could cause negative ramifications. you see this taking place at the federal level. basically not defending dumb luck --doma any more. one is passed by the california people. the standing law not being defended by people who we elect to defend the law of the land. is something that will come in to question. >> you raise some interesting points, both about the state versus national fan used for the discussion forward but also logistically whether it was through legislation, through further ballot initiative. if i am not mistaken you want to broaden the discussion before we come back. >> anyone who wants to lay in on this, where is matt? the various implications of tackling this issue at a state level versus federal level. how is that handled? >> thank you for having me. this ultimately is an issue that needs to be decided at the national level or the federal level. clearly california has been a trend setter on this issue. because of proposition 8 the issue is money at best and until it winds its way through the courts it will not be solved at any time but ultimately it is something we need a national policy illegally repeal of don't ask don't tell that while it has not been implemented the trainings the going on and reports that i have read about in the newspaper saying everything is going well and cohesion and military readiness arguments that some of the opponents of the repeal made are not very -- similarly with doma, is not the president of the united states's job to determine constitutionality of law. it is the court's job. to say you won't and for something, it may work force people who believe everyone should be allowed to marry but use your eraser and the raise the issue and put in something that you find equally troubling. the flip side could have negative ramifications as well. just to shorten my answer this is a policy. we need a national policy that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry just as men and women. there should be no difference. it is more of a legal financial issue that should be resolved as quickly as possible. it makes us look bad as a nation. >> i want to bring michael maulano into this discussion. andreanna hidalgo -- michael, before we get into this discussion, i know you have some other thoughts on where this broader debate is headed. >> the broader debate is on going obviously. as a matter of when and how demographics, the older voters as you get younger and younger, support for same-sex marriage becomes greater and greater and just passed a majority when surveyed nationwide on all voters. is really a question of do proponents of same-sex marriage want to go through the courts, or push for a national legislation involving doma or they rather -- ballot initiative. it is more of a question of the tactics and timing rather than the actual issue. is inevitable. >> there is public opinion polling that suggests younger voters are more likely to be supportive on same-sex marriage than older voters. maybe you can talk through those venues. legislation versus initiative. >> it is important to put a human face on this. there are consequences every single day when a group of people are specifically and intentionally discriminated against in our laws. gay and lesbian people are directly discriminated against in the federal and state laws and the message that sends and the license that gives to discriminate leads to the horrific consequences that we see across this country weather its is teen suicide, the incident with matthew shepherd or couple years ago in southern california the murder of lawrence king simply because he was gay. so time matters and there should be a sense of urgency. to gain full and complete equality for all people. it is important to make progress at the state level as well as the federal level. i don't think we should let our guard down on any front because there is an opposition and they are trying to make progress every day just as we are and we need to fight this on all fronts and we need to be on the offensive. it is important to note that i believe a ballot initiative is the wrong approach. playing on the playing field of our opposition and it is a place that one fundamental rights particularly the rights of minorities should never be put to a vote of the people. in 1967 when the supreme court decided va said it was unconstitutional to bar african-americans from marion caucasian's a gallup poll was done the following year that said 70% of americans disapprove of interracial marriage. i don't think public opinion or who has the best fundraising or television ads should determine fundamental rights. we should put a lot of things. should your students' freedom of speech be put to a vote of california voters? we have a million dollars we can put that on the ballot and perhaps we can pass it. there are certain fundamental rights that should never be put up by a vote of the people. i do not believe this is an issue that to be determined by public ballot measures. it be determined by the courts and legislatures. >> it is an important point that broadens the discussion to a much larger level. if proponents of same-sex marriage were to begin to collect signatures for an initiative, to codify same-sex marriage. we would be comfortable with that approach? >> i do not believe there should be a public vote on one's fundamental right on any subject. as someone who works in the ballot initiative world there are a lot of things that are appropriate to be voted on by the people but the fundamental rights of a minority are to be determined by the court. that is why we have our constitution. we don't determine the rights of a minority by a popular vote of the people. that is counter to the principles this country was founded upon. it is a mistake to take this back to the ballot here or in any state. >> also think about the resources that get extended on these initiatives. $40 million is a lot of money. especially for a ballot proposition on a social issue. with that money it would be better spent towards litigation which needs to be decided or take a risk with the initiative process in the state of california which can get very volatile especially the ads that were run and amount of money that had to be spent on it. and leaving it to the california people to decide. it is going to be a system that is up held by our state and supported by our state it should receive the full support of the government. that is why we have the courts. so they can shrink down. that is why it is an issue in august when the california supreme court makes their decision. the decisions they make because if the ninth circuit takes and strikes it down, that rule takes that and uphold the district court decision. that will be a much bigger win in the end than another california proposition. >> that brought in the discussion a little bit. broach the topic of a cultural implications in california and on a national level defining marriage? >> cultural implications. there is an interesting mix. can you brought to the question little bit? maybe here's another way to look at it. i understand where you're going. at the same time the proposition 8 is taking place in california there has been ongoing discussion in washington over don't ask don't tell. there are any number of related public policy issues in this broader matrix then occupying public and media attention at the same time. if we step away from one particular policy debate if i understand you -- >> i will quote mark mckinnon who worked for george w. bush and john mccain when he said the wedge has lost its edge. at varying times in the last decade we have seen wedge issues like same-sex marriage issue being put on the ballot by the -- raised legislatively by one side or the other because they perceive they can achieve legislative victory for to motivates a certain group. let's not forget defense of marriage act was signed into law by president bill clinton in large part because the numbers at that time were pretty strongly anti same-sex marriage. even look at president obama who in 2008 was supposed -- came out in support of proposition 8 who has changed his position and said his position is evolve thing. what we have said is an indication, as the young people in america age they're more receptive to and willing to be tolerant of same-sex couples marry in. and i think what barack obama is doing for political but also because i truly believe he does believe it, he is loosening up his script that he had done this issue because he sees the population moving on it. from a republican perspective, john boehner said he was looking to take over the legal side of the defense of marriage act. fiscal issues are running the day right now. the last thing republicans want to do is get involved in a heavy social issue which split people down the middle. i think we are winning the day on fiscal issues and spending and deficits and tax cuts versus growing government. i don't think we want to get involved in those issues. what is ultimately a good thing for gay and lesbians to be able to get the rights that they deserve. it is all wrapped around politics. in california was at the forefront but there are two active federal issues, defense of marriage act and don't ask don't tell. don't ask don't tell is for all of the screaming and crying is turning out to be nothing but a little winter because coming have the marine corps the training schedule is going well and it is not that big a deal for his troops. >> question for michael and chad as well. this isn't just an issue that breaks down only on partisan grounds but perhaps to a greater degree on demographic grounds not only on terms of age differences but also different feelings, racial and ethnic communities. maybe one or both of you can talk a little bit about those demographic challenges for building a coalition. >> my opening statement the younger you go in terms of voting ages the greater support there is for gay marriage and don't ask don't tell repeal and other issues. out of the 18 to 35, voting bloc becomes a larger portion of the actual electoral. it will reflect the elected officials and also recognition there is a quality game women lack to be a soldier or lack quality to be a good spouse, there is a big indicator that on your support of gay marriage if you have any gay friends that tend to be -- not a high probability but a good indicator on what your response is going to be on support on those issues. >> i would add to that end of this issue has over the last year or two become incredibly bipartisan. when we launched our case the two lead attorneys were ted olson who represented president bush and david boys who represented al gore and if those can agree on this issue than so too can the rest of america. president obama has indicated movement on this issue. he did come out against proposition age. it wasn't widely known and more should have been done to let the public know that position but there is no question this issue has -- it is no longer bipartisan. it is non partisan. those who i would call extremes on the other side have been live trying to stop gay marriage, they are a dwindling minority. this week we saw a team member from the national organization of marriage beat that organization and say they had felt very guilty and realized they were taking the wrong position on this issue. tongue will let you in on a secret. whether you know it or not everyone of usi will let you in. whether you know it or not everyone of us has someone with our family orchard tour neighborhood who is gay and lesbian and the more of them come out over time the more likely people are regardless of political or religious affiliation -- one other point. a major national poll last week showed those who identified first and foremost as religious individuals have crossed over in their support of gay marriage. a majority of catholics in america now support the freedom to mary. we have made tremendous progress making this a non-partisan issue. the judge this past year in the doma case that found doma and constitutional with a republican judge appointed by president nixon. the judge that found a federal judge that found proposition 8 unconstitutional was first appointed by reagan, blocked by democrats and later appointed by the first president bush. there have been democratic judges in the other cases such as doma. it has become a bipartisan only in terms of voters in the judicial system as well as state of legislators and federal -- some federal elected officials although some of them we would like to move more quickly than they are moving in both parties. >> one more point. i am not sure it will go away as a wedge issue. it will come up as more vocal in terms of the republican jockeying for the presidential nomination. so appealing to the primary base among other states. i am not sure it will go away in terms of the publicity and as a wedge. >> we will on

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Myanmar ,Chad ,Helmand ,Afghanistan ,China ,California ,United States ,Arab League ,Al Qahirah ,Egypt ,Syria ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Bahrain ,Arizona ,Massachusetts ,Iowa ,Libya ,Lima ,Peru ,South Korea ,Haiti ,Japan ,New Hampshire ,Iran ,Dominican Republic ,Pakistan ,Tunisia ,Iraq ,Thailand ,Israel ,Boise ,Saudi Arabia ,North Korea ,Pennsylvania ,Yemen ,Paris ,Rhôalpes ,France ,Italy ,Italian ,Americans ,America ,Burma ,South Koreans ,Iraqis ,Afghans ,Pakistani ,Afghan ,Iraqi ,Libyan ,Pakistanis ,American ,Raymond Davis ,Ann Yonkers ,Ted Olson ,Jim Fischer ,Michael Mullen ,Larry Flint ,Timothy Clark ,James Dobson ,Los Angeles ,Dan Schnur ,Mike Michael ,Mike Mullen ,David Petraeus ,Hidalgo Michael ,Walter Mosley ,Matt Klink ,Stan Mcchrystal ,Tim Clark ,Barack Obama ,George W Bush ,Michelle Obama ,Al Qaeda ,Rick Santorum ,Kim Jong ,John Boehner ,Al Gore ,Dave Petraeus ,John Mccain ,Hillary Clinton ,Lawrence King ,