About what russia is doing. Its always been a little bit of a mystery to me exactly what they are trying to accomplish here. I take your note on the fact that they inadvertently struck one of our groups here in ones that we control. We certainly have address thad with them. So i think this will be something well have to Pay Attention to. And, again, this is very complicated in terms of how we address this. The activities that russia has supported on behalf of the regime are horrendous. The atrocities should concern all us. It is certainly something that has to be taken into consideration as we look to address that relationship. And, again, as we talk about earlier, im very hopeful we will be able to maintain a relationship with some of the opposition groups we have been able to support. One more . Yeah. Please. Is and then well finish with that. Miami university, also with hamilton society, drake long i would like to ask you turkey entered the war. What do we know about the mull tears goals, the turkish militarys goals and their capabilities especially since this is so unprecedented and how are we incorporating actions into overall strategy. For solving the syrian conflict . Thank you. Thanks for bringing that up. Let me start by saying turkey of course is a nato ally to us. They are an extraordinarily important partner in the coalition. We could simply not do the things we are doing without the support we get from turkey on a daytoday basis, with the basing, access, overflight, with support that they provide to us. Now, like others in the region, turkey has interests. Turkey has concerns. And its important i think for us to recognize this. Theyre certainly very concerned about the Islamic State. It is very well established they are concerned about organizations like the pkk and what that might portend for longterm security and stability for them. And i think you see some of that taking place in the operations. The operations they did along their border i think were very helpful to us. They took care of an Islamic State enclave. They did it with Coalition Support and working with opposition elements. So this is a nato country. Capabilities are well developed. It is a country we have had a long military relationship with. We hope to continue to have that in the future. I think it is is important to what their other concerns or interests are. It just highlights the complexity of what we are dealing with right here. As we enter more some more into the heart of the caliphate, raqqa, mosul. We expect we have to do this. It is a combination of diplomatic discussions and military discussions back and forth to make sure that we are trying to operate in collaboration and coordination with each other towards common goals. At this point, towards defeating the Islamic State but with a recognition there are other things that will have to be addressed here in the long run. Thats a long way of saying this is an extraordinary complex environment. Turkey has interests there. They are great partners. We couldnt do what we do without them. And, by the way, they are a nato ally. And that means a lot to us. And we can never forget that. Thank you, general. Please join me in thanking him. [ applause ] tonight on American History tv, programs from the emerging civil war blogs conference on also a tour of the Andy Warhol Museum and the lives and works of jormg russell and georgia okeefe. American history tv xwinz at 8 00 eastern on cspan3. Next week washington journal will devote the entire program each day to the key issues facing the new Trump Administration in congress. Begin monday december 26th well look at National Security and defense issues, including challenges facing president elect trumps National Security team in the year ahead and james madison. On tuesday, december 27th its trade and job issues examining how congress and the Trump Administration could change current trade laws in an effort to create or save jobs. On wednesday, december 28th, environmental policy, how energy and climate issues might be impacted by the new congress and incoming Trump Administration. Thursday, december 29th well talk about immigration and how president elect trump and the new Congress Might change immigration policy. And on friday, december 30th, well take a look at the future of the Affordable Care act, now the Republican Congress and the Trump Administration will repeal and replace the aca, and the key players to watch in the months ahead. Be sure to watch washington journal beginning monday, december 26th, at 7 00 a. M. Eastern. We have more now from this recent conference on Foreign Policy and events, with National Security experts talking about innovation and Cyber Security challenges. Welcome back. My name, again, is chris griffin, executive director at the Foreign Policy initiative. I ask that you kindly make your way back to your seats. Once again, as a courtesy i ask that please make sure you put your cellphones in silent mode for the courtesy of those around you and of course for our speakers. The next Panel Discussion will be on opportunities and challenges for Defense Innovation and reform. This really will continue on some of the threads that came up in our first discussion between chairman thornberry and senator talent, which should be no surprise. The major topics they discussed were immediate challenges to defense readiness today and the points that chairman thornberry raised, as he described it, the eroding technological advantage enjoyed by United States forces Going Forward. We have an Excellent Group that will discuss this topic today and it will be moderated by dr. Thomas mahnken, the chairman and ceo for the chairman of senior and budgetary perspectives. In the discussion today will be Ben Fitzgerald is with the center for a new american security, if i can get that correct. Rebeccah heinrichs with the hudson institute. And last on the panel is mr. Rob weiss who leads the Skunk Works Team at Lockheed Martin. I greatly look forward to your comments. Thanks for joining us. I ask you to join me in thanking them for joining us today. [ applause ] thanks, chris. The panels topic or charge is a very apropos one, not just as was brought up by chairman thornberry and senator talent this morning. At least since world war ii, the United States has sought to maintain a Qualitative Advantage over prospective competitors and adversaries. That was the focus of a lot of effort during the cold war. Over the last quarter century, the u. S. Has enjoyed unquestioned dominance, at least from a qualitative standpoint. In the 1990s, as Charles Krauthammer famously dubbed the unipolar moment. And then over the last 15 years, the focus of defense has been quite, quite rightly, counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. But now, you know, we face the reemergence of competition and increasing possibility or probability of great power conflict, whether because of russias aggression in Eastern Europe, chinas assertiveness in maritime asia. And so i think its quite appropriate, as we close out the Obama Administration and look to the Trump Administration, we kind of take stock of where we are and where we need to be. So certainly in recent years, the Obama Defense Department has placed emphasis on the socalled third offset strategy, the Defense Innovation initiative. And as we approach the end of the Obama Administration, i wanted to ask our panel, you know, how they would take stock of those efforts from their you know, from their standpoint, whether its running a science and Technology Program at a think tank, focusing on Missile Defense and other areas, or from Defense Industry. Where do we stand with the third offset strategy and whatever it will become in future months and years . So theres a lot to unpack in there. And i think sort of my bottom line up front would be, i think that leadership in the pentagon and also frankly on the hill have created a window of opportunity for some fairly significant change. Were going to see i think at noon today more details of the ndaa for 2017. But we already have seen some fairly significant structural changes. And also under the leadership of secretary carter and deputy secretary work, weve seen a focus on the need to improve our military technical advantage. Thats great. Its unclear to me if thats actually going to move forward or what its going to look like. While its great that we all have a common understanding that we need to improve, how we get there is not clear. The third offset strategy i think is important, and helps us address one very particular problem, which is our ability to continue to project power, conventional military power. Thats one thing thats separate from in some ways all this other innovation conversation. A lot of those actions have been very good. The daox is actually great. Were hosting an event with them later this afternoon, not to compete with this. Those have been innovations sort of outside the bureaucracy, around the bureaucracy, were going to create a new office. What we havent seen is a fundamentally different approach to how we generate technical military advantage and how we pair that military, that technology, with new concepts of operation. And i think that thats what we need. Im happy to unpack that in detail but i dont want to monopolize the whole conversation. Rebeccah . How about you . Happy to be here. If i could go back a little bit to 2014, when then secretary of defense hegel introduced the third offset strategy, he talked about what the threats were and why we needed this third offset strategy. Some of the things he talked about were that sort of less sophisticated actors like al qaeda and hezbollah were beginning to challenge the United States in ways we havent seen before. Then of course on the higher end, near peer competitors china and russia were advancing in military modernization programs in ways the United States hadnt seen in decades. And then he listed some specific technologies that they were spending a lot of time and resources and energy in. They were in areas in which they saw a vulnerability that the United States had so they were taking advantage of that vulnerability and exploiting it. And so they were developing new missile technologies. Advanced aircraft, submarines, longer range, more accurate missiles. He mentioned missiles multiple times. The undersecretary i think has been one of the most helpful Administration Officials in laying out specifically where we are getting behind. And i like specificity. And i think in the age of trump were going to have more specificity and less vagueness, which im excited about. That will i think do a lot to help us move forward so we know what were talking about here, so were not just talking about things in vague terms. Undersecretary kendall mentioned in a memo he sent over to congress that the United States was getting behind in missile technology, that he specifically mentioned china, but then made clear he wasnt only talking about china, but china and russia were challenging the United States in space. And that posed a unique problem, because Everything Else we do in the pentagon depends on what we do in space. Space is unprotected or does have vulnerabilities or getting behind or others are challenging us in this particular domain, that portends very, very bad things for the United States across the rest of the pentagon. And so i think that is going to be, if i had my way, i think that were going to be focusing more on space, what we do in space, National Security space, surveillance in space. I think that, you know, president elect trump is a new kind of president elect, will be a new kind of president. Sorts of things we sort of have gotten used inside the beltway and inside the pentagon, we sort of know what each other means when we say very vague terms and phraseology where the new president is going to want to be convinced and persuaded. Everybody is going to have to start doing their homework when we talk about what we want the administration to do, and thats a very good thing. It will have to make sense, it will have to be the most Cost Effective way to do it. Things like oh, we just dont put kinetic kill capabilities in space because it might be provocative, i think youre going to have to make your case if thats what you think. I take another perspective and say, we cant just have passive space capabilities, were going to have to have more active defense capabilities in space. And so i think thats going to be the next phase in our ballistic Missile Defense capabilities in addition to directed energy technologies. The mokv were putting on the gmd system to protect the United States homeland. I think were going to see more investments in that. And so all of this means that weve just weve taken too long to come to this place where its no longer a matter of should we do it some day. Its that we have to do that, there are adversaries that are challenging us in those ways and we have to do that. My last point on this, when we began to talk about the think tank world and inside the pentagon, how were going to pay for this new offset strategy, a lot of people talk about legacy systems, well build legacy systems. But now we see, oh, no, were still fighting wars in which we need these legacy systems, the f35 isnt quite ready so were keeping the a10 now, which im very excited about because i love that airplane and so does john mccain. So its going to be around longer, we need it, were using it. So now where are we going to get this money . That means of course well have to increase the top line. Im optimistic that with the new administration we will be increasing the top line and we wont just be bill paying with legacy systems for advanced technologies, well have to do both. That means getting rid of the bca, which i think is the direction that were headed. Thanks, rebeccah. Rob, where do you think we stand with Defense Innovation more broadly . Thanks, tom, great to be here this morning representing the Defense Industry in the conversation. I would like to begin by talking about where we are in the nation from my point of view. One of the great things in my job, i get to go out and interface with many of our young women and men who are defending the nation. And i would contend that we remain to have the best fighting force across the globe, bar none. We have the best people. Theyre welltrained. And they frankly have the best equipment compared to any other nation in the world. That said, theres real challenges, many of which we talked about earlier this morning by chairman thornberry. Were spread too thin. We have a readiness decline, and we have an acquisition system that needs to be more agile. Specifically regarding the third offset, we are investing in virtually every technology thats highlighted in the third offset. Hypersonics, big data analytics, open system architectures, autonomy, big energy, on and on. And were demonstrating a lot of those technologies right now, not only Lockheed Martin who i work for but our competitors and teammates across the Defense Industry. I believe we have a Qualitative Advantage in the technology today. The question is how do we field it more quickly, i believe. And when we look at the adversaries we face around the globe, a lot of this is presence. Were talking about western pacific, Eastern Europe. In order to enable that presence we do need substantial force structure that has been on the decline for many years now. And i think thats one of the big challenges, is transitioning this technology to a larger force structure as we move forward. That will in my view enable us to maintain the Qualitative Advantage across the globe. A response to that. I think while were sitting here, we have a fundamentally like strategic problem. While im very sympathetic about the need for acquisition reform, i believe the need for that, weve seen some positive steps in the last couple of years, weve had an acquisition system that hasnt been great since arguably like the 1970s, yet we were able to maintain Qualitative Advantages. Whats changed . Weve seen in the latter part of the 20th century we still had a neat Strategic Alignment between our strategic needs, which was re