tv Joint Chiefs Gen. Dunford at Atlantic Council CSPAN March 21, 2019 10:31am-11:36am EDT
out the farmers throughout the midwest and everywhere across the country. ifquestion is, do you know the future of this program is going to be expanded or detracted, or whatever? host: we will let the guest respond. guest: i will use a phrase and that is i don't know. the farm lobby is powerful in washington and there are a large number of senators that have farm interests. so, the issue primarily around being production is we have been helped a little bit. there is a major drought in south america that increased the
cost of soybeans, which is the same of u.s. production, plus cash cost, plus >> we will take you live to the atlantic council. they will hear from the joint chiefs of staff and discussion starrnn and barbara talking about u.s. military priorities of today and the future, long-term threats, and more. live coverage on c-span. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. my name is john and i am the vice president of business development. it is my pleasure and honor to welcome you here on behalf of the atlantic council.
as part of the commander's series, many of you in the audience know the saab brand name, but we do not make cars anymore. it's history has been in the defense industry and our foundation goes back to 1937. started to year build airplanes for the swedish government. existence, weof have over 500 defense related products ranging from fighter ins to submarines and ships 29 different product areas and 100 customers -- in 100 countries and 17,000 employees globally has a global defense
company, responsibility are fundamental to lesson we that buildingve upon strong relationships, sweden and the united states is essential to ensure our ability to promote peace and security for on the future. presence in the united states starting in 1978, 41 years ago. one of our core strategies has been the partner with strong u.s. prime. that has worked well for us. the most recent example was the win with boeing. another strong partnership for savvy go -- another strong partnership for some joe has , we the atlantic council celebrate the beginning of our 10th collaboration of the
sponsorship. atlantic council has 2 -- has grown significantly since 1971. further cementing as an influential if not the most important influential resource internationalr discourse. we remain an enthusiastic u.s./ter of a close swedish partnership with canada and europe in general, which seems to marry perfectly with the atlanta -- atlantic charter. these are only a few reasons while our sponsorships are so valuable and important to us. we look forward to many more years of cooperation with the atlanta council and participation in this forum.
i would like to end by saying, i am pleased to see so many of you here today and now, it is my kemp to to welcome fred the podium to introduce our distinguished guest. john, forou so much, those opening comments and endorsement. since you talked about the atlantic council, it is the 10th commandery of the series with saab. wanted to have a big launch event. the gentleman was sitting -- was stepping down, and he came to
deliver the first one and i did the q&a with him. what i discovered his -- what i discovered is we did that have mistaken that was embarrassing. turnedd a bookcase -- we a bookcase on its side and put a carpet on top, so the atlantic council has come a long way. welcome to you all to this public event. it is great to have general jones here who served as chairman of the board twice. the only other person who is done that is our other general. -- this is a conversation with joseph dunford. thank you, general dunford for
being here, and thank you to cnn correspondent barbara starr, and theuld like to welcome board members as well, so thank you for being here. it did begin, this series with saab in 2009 and top leaders came to the council since then to shape the security debate on america's role in the world and beyond. and also our allies. we feel it is pertinent in this rapidly changing security environment to continue the series and we are happy to do that along saab. we are engaged in the leadership of the world with one of the core pillars of the work on focusing what former defense secretary mattis called the new year of great power competition when he did his senate testimony. in particular, our center for
security focuses on developing sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address this barry.ge led by it embodies his egos of nonpartisan commitment and support for u.s. leadership alongside allies and partners. we're looking forward to hosting leaders of nato in early april. the natural defense strategy identified the return to great competition has the greatest challenge to u.s. interests and national security. rising and revisionists competitors like china and russia seek tkibuli power often at america's expense. what i found particularly interesting was the european union. european commission in a statement called china" systemic
china "ouralled systemic rivals," and that a strong language. they wanted his place from there role as guarantors of the international system. their actions seek to redefine norms to authoritarian systems. within this complicated security environment, we feel it is imperative to think carefully about the way we adapt military strategy to guarantee the collective defense of our allies and partners and integrate transformative technology to maintain our competitive edge. he could not have a better guest to discuss these issues in general dunford. has the 19th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general highestis it nation's ranking military officer and a principal advisor to the president of the united states, the secretary of defense and the national security council.
before becoming chairman, general dunford served as the 36th commandant of the marine in afghanistan. 102014, the atlantic council 2014,eneral dunford -- in the atlantic council gave to hold dunford -- gave general dunford our award. general, i look forward to your insights. moderating this conversation is cnn reporter barbara starr. trips toade numerous iraq, the horn of africa, so she is one of those great correspondence who likes to get her hands dirty in the field. the public policy honored her with an award for her outstanding work in journalism. barbara joined us at the
brussels' summit in july were she had a conversation with nato secretary -- with the nato secretary-general, so thank you, barbara, for leading this conversation. find courage you to join us congress -- i encourage you to join the conversation on twitter using the hashtag ac defense. thank you for being here, and please join me in welcoming general dunford and barbara to the stage. [applause] >> one general dunford story. every once in a while, you run into general dunford unexpectedly.
one time it was 5:00 and i was walking in some part of the pentagon, and there he is, barbara, what are you working on? i had no idea what i was working on. .ever again will i be caught dunford, ito general have to have something i'm working on just in case. about the notion of the return of great power conversation, so i don't want to be the one to talk about that. i want to get right to it. dunford, let's start with the why. why the return to great power competition? gen. dunford: i was going to make a couple of comments, and i think fred framed the idea pretty well. let me share a quick story.
the sheer, i started -- this addressing the war college. thereparation, i read national security strategy from 1998. what did it say? to put it in perspective, it did not say anything about china. it spoke about russia and the dialogue ongoing with nato. there was a lot about failing states at the extent it spoke about violent extremism and weapons of mass destruction. so, you think about the whole period of the 1990's. we did not have a competitor economically, diplomatically, or militarily. he did not in 1998. you compare that today and you
have two states, both trying to establish preeminence in their respective geographical areas and both trying to assert greater influence on a world stage. from a military perspective, what this really means is the path of capability development that china and russia has been on does challenge us in a number of areas. strategy,al military the first thing you want to do is look at yourself. one is our network of allies and partners in the other the ability to project power when necessary. what has been going on with china and russia? they recognize those strengths and recognize the strength of our allies and partners, and both recognize having carefully , theyd the u.s. power recognize the competitive
advantage historically. what they are seeking to do is undermine the credibility of our alliance structure in europe and in the pacific. from a military perspective, they have been on a path of capability development to make it difficult to move in an area to meet our alliance commitments, and operate freely once we are there across land, sea, air, and cyberspace. in the past, we took for granted to project power to advance our interests. you took advantage to the access our alliance structure gave us. neither of those things can be taken for granted today. in a nutshell, only think about our competition -- in a nutshell, when we think about our competition, we think about credibility with our allies and the ability for the u.s. military to give us a
competitive edge. barbara: let's drill down on the russians just a little bit. intentions and capabilities. you mentioned their intention appears to make it more difficult for the u.s. to project power. intention or a capability there? what is a military intention? do you anticipate the russians are trying to develop a capability to attack the united states? gen. dunford: what they are developing as a capability to deny the united states to meet its commitments. familiar withe access denial. that means to make it difficult for us to get to europe and for us to operate freely once we get there. russia has made significant
investments in electronic warfare and anti-space capabilities. all of it focused on what they perceive to the art of tonerabilities -- perceive our vulnerabilities. capabilities'e side, how soon? two years, three years, today? if they the nice the ability to get to europe? gen. dunford: gimme address the intention of capability. there is no doubt that there capability is specifically tailored to prevent our commitment to europe. with regard to canada denies the ability today? the answer is no, they cannot. can a contest us in a way they could not 15 years ago?
there is no question. it would be more difficult to project power in europe than 15 years ago. as we were focused on dealing with violent extremism, going back to studying what we did in 1990's -- what we did in the 1990's, they developed a range of capabilities to make it more difficult to do with the of sina still in the past. barbara: if i understand you correctly, if there was a contingency, it would be more difficult for the u.s. military to deploy to europe, to defend nato and other allies in europe than in the past? gen. dunford: let me make one thing clear. when i look at nato and i look at the 29th nations of nato, economically, politically, militarily, i have no doubt that with will, we have a competitive advantage over russia can meet s analliance commitments a
alliance. it would be more difficult to project alliance with europe than before. russia is not in a position to deny us the ability to meet our objectives. my evidence of that is i believe today, russia is deterred from conventional action. do we see them doing is driven by the fact we have conventional deterrence in europe right now. barbara: that gets to the question, i suppose, of putin's military intentions and capabilities. heat does have an expertise -- he does have an expertise in that. do you see him having any intention of military conflicts with the u.s., or if he happy to
stay below that line and aggravate things? gen. dunford: you described a great ozone. gray zonecribed a with the military dimension. we're talking about potential putting together cyber operations, economic coercion, unconventional military operations to advance his objections. that is what he's doing. putin haselieve that an intent of attacking a nato ally in the conventional sense because the price, the cost imposed on putin for doing that with exceed -- of doing that will exceed what goes on in your. barbara: but as you pointed out, after crimea, georgia, eastern
ukraine, do you think here is given up on that type of action, or do you think she has further intentions to engage in that strategy -- or do you think he has further intentions to engage in a strategy again? putinunford: clinton -- to things in the elections try to undermine our democracy, and is conducting cyber operations every day in europe. in many cases, it is ongoing. there is no indication that putin will back off the types of actions he has embarked upon since 2015 in georgia and in the zone. barbara: there is not -- can i add crimea instead? crimea, theresay was no ally military solution to that?
gen. dunford: there has to be a political decision, but i will not speculate of what we might not of been able to do in crimea. you are talking nato, article five, and an adherent collective response. the military dimension of our support for the ukraine as a whole is to help its defensive capabilities to stand on its own. we don't have an alliance commitment to the ukraine. you did not have analyzed commitment in the case of crimea. barbara: you have mentioned cyber several times. ciber, when you look at the russians, and we will get to the chinese as well, but ciber is a full military domain. you spend a lot of time thinking
about that. gen. dunford: we do. we recognize that as a domain and i have to look at the path of capability development we had been on and i can remember having discussions about how we would move ahead to develop capabilities. we have developed cyber mission things doing what must be done. our own cyber capabilities have developed quite a bit, but putin has recognized that is one of the areas. believes in -- he investments in cyber. barbara: what came he do -- what can he do in the cyber world? gen. dunford: we cannot think about cyber in isolation. it is a part of a broader campaign. certainly, cyber was an element in putin's element to undermine our efforts in 2016 and can
inhibit our weapons capability. there are a lot of things that can be done. it can be used to steal technology. and clearly, we know the vulnerabilities to our civilian infrastructure, the cyber attacks and the united states. barbara: you have specifically twice said, putin, cyber, the elections and attributed it to him. we know there have been sanctions against russian entities and russian entities were identified as being involved in the activity regarding the u.s. elections, but you have now twice said specifically that it has been putin. so in your mind, putin was involved? gen. dunford: look at the intelligence community, and they
came out some time ago, saying there was no question that russia attempted to interfere with our democratic process in 2016. barbara: but? respectfully, that is russia. you have said putin. gen. dunford: russia is an autocratic form of government. there is very little that russia does that putin isn't aware of. barbara: ok. now, great power competition, the russians. what is your assessment? world view them, in your and the u.s. military, aren't they an adversary? gen. dunford: no, they are a how iitor is would -- is would characterize them. barbara: you have -- you speak many times with the general. i know you are not able to talk --licly without your private
i know you're not able to talk about her private conversations, but why would eat -- why would he want to talk to you? gen. dunford: let me start with military to military relationships. even when countries are having difficulty, military to military relationships are important to manage a crisis india been a crisis occurs. if a manage a crisis crisis occurs. we understand that we need to communicate in the event of a crisis and we think the relationship is important. even in the cold war, we had direct linkages to moscow, given the war between the united states with moscow. with my relationship with the
we are both conducting operations in syria and de-conflicting our operations in syria which is important to advance the campaign. we have used the dialogue and it meant for five times and spoken many more times. by the way, have not shared the details of those conversations because we have successfully kept our relationship from being politicized because we both know the consequences of not having effective conversations. been one of the incidents. russianof the path of capabilities, the pattern of russia operations is as close as it has been to the 1980's in a long time. how many ships they have, how many plains they have, we find ourselves in close proximity to
russian ships and airplanes. we make sure we have a framework in which to manage our interactions in the air and at sea in a safe and professional manner. ofmonths ago, we had a spike unsafe and unprofessional incidents. we followed up to make sure we managed our interactions in the air and at sea in a safe, professional way. summarizing, the relationship between two states like russia and the u.s. is important to mitigate the risk of miscalculation. it has been important to ensure we don't have a miscalculation in our day-to-day interactions. barbara: are the russians trying to get you to pull back u.s. presence in russia? u.k.ve six b-52's in the
and equipment moving into poland with missile defense and they are always unhappy. are they trying to get to to i'm not going to talk about the conversation i had, but it wouldn't be a bold statement for me to say that the russians would be more comfortable if we were not physically present in europe and had an enhanced over the past three or four years our posture in europe, we have, a physical manifestation of our commitment to the nato alliance. it's fair to say that given the russian political objectives and what we opened up with here, they would be much happier if there was not a physical manifestation of our commitment to nato because the message was that we were not willing to meet the alliance and that would be easier for them to sell. it's hard for them in the information space to talk about the physical manifestation or commitment to our soldiers,
sailors, and marines. gen. dunford: moving to china if we can -- barbara: moving to china if we can for a few minutes, go down the same path for us. china, great power competition in the military arena. what do you think the chinese are doing? what is their intention, capability, and what concerns you? what do you take the most seriously from them at this time? gen. dunford: sure. look, very different countries, clearly, and this would highlight some of those differences. the broad framework of what they are trying to do, in the case of china they established , having it be a global influence with a global attempt to modify the world order as we know it, both economically and from a security perspective. that is broadly what they are trying to do. in the case of china, the cruise missiles and ballistic missiles,
a significant investment in missiles over the years. undersea capability trying to compete with our submarine space capabilities. modernization of the military, something that we embarked upon in the 1980's. when i visited last year, one of the most common questions i received was -- talk to us about unified command, to which it seemed to me i could learn from you, so please help me understand unified command. the point being they are trying to develop a military capability again that would make it more difficult to push us away, if you will, from our ability to project power in the pacific. similar to russia, capabilities over all domains are designed to contest us in all domains. they have an intention question mark beyond
pushing out the u.s. in the pacific question mark -- pacific ? gen. dunford: i'm not sure what you mean. number one, they want preeminence in the pacific. number two, they want access to beyond themarkets pacific. with those aspirations for global markets, we have seen the establishment of a military base and negotiations in several other countries where they are following economic initiatives. they have clear aspirations that go well beyond the pacific. do they have aspirations to challenge the united states militarily? gen. dunford: i think they have intentions today to challenge our ability to project power into the pacific and meet our alliances. when it comes to russia
and china, your assessment, and i mean this sincerely, do they take the u.s. military seriously? they are not going to attack? neither of them appear to have the intention of attacking the u.s. military? do they take this great power competition? what is your assessment? do either of these countries take the u.s. effort seriously? gen. dunford: look, i don't think you can isolate the military dimension or the broader issue of ensuring a free and open indo pacific. convention,military it certainly is what the department considers the most important responsibility, to to he -- -- deter nuclear nuclear attack. establishing a free and open pacific, there has to be coherent and open action coherently, politically, and in
the security sphere. if you are asking me if the u.s. military alone can establish a free and open pacific, the answer is no. are asking me if the strategy in the pacific constitutes an important element of our ability to be free and open, i would say yes. you dunford: -- barbara: made a lot of news yesterday talking about china and google. i wanted to give you the opportunity to lay that out one more time. you were talking on capitol hill about china, google, and other countries being aware when they deal with the chinese that they are essentially dealing with the chinese military. can you go back and lay out with your specificity the concerns over google, first, and your deeper concerns about american companies understanding what their involvement can be with
the chinese military? barbara: sure. -- gen. dunford: sure. i'm going to answer it a different way, putting google aside for a moment, then coming back to it. when i look at the united states military and think about competitive advantage, why have we historically had a competitive advantage? the partnership that the united states military has with industry in the united states, our ability to tap into the and humanal capital capital, if you will, of the american people, innovative is pretty strong. that relationship is very important. understands it as well. he calls it civil military fusion, breaking down the barrier between the military and industry in china. , high-tech u.s. industry, business in china.
they are automatically going to to, leading to intellectual property finding its way to the chinese military distinction a difference between the parties, the government, and the military. so, my concern many think about things like artificial intelligence, ventures to help develop artificial intelligence in china are going to do two things. they will have help from an authoritarian government to sort of control its own population. again, our country exist for the individual. china exists for the chinese communist party. the technology that is developed in the united states, why is it developed in the united states? because of our system of government.
advancing the world, whether it is artificial intelligence, you name it. if we do want what we describe as the jazz, the united dates of america, to be the ones were actually putting forward an what we have enjoyed since world war ii. it seems to me that the united states military is an important part of the global order remaining as it has been. , in the case of their venture in china, i think it is a reasonable assertion, even in an open venue like this to assert the benefit of that venture for artificial intelligence in china to one of haveventures that
indirectly benefited the chinese military and created a challenge for us to creating a competitive advantage. i think we need to have a debate about that. we ought not to think that it is just business in china. has google reached out to you at all? gen. dunford: i think i have a meeting next week. and possibly lunch today, someone might be here from google. [laughter] gen. dunford: this is not a debate, it's not about versus google, it's about our chinese and all thatment goes with it. barbara: the people that i talked to know nothing compared to you talk to.
you talked about china being deemed the state, devoting a lot to internal security in china. this may not be just about chinese external military programs, but about what they can do to maintain internal security increasingly. do you see the chinese devoting resources to internal security? gen. dunford: 6% of the people the communistg to party. the thing i was struck by is everything is cash. a bicycle, starbucks, the store, what china is able to do is identify patterns of behavior, watch people, determine who is reliable and not reliable. there is no question in my mind
that china will leverage technology to assist the percentage of the population that controls the other 94%. 94%.ding the other barbara: we are going to start in with some questions. it's washington, as everyone in this room knows, make it a question, please. to the best of your ability. us.ral dunford, bear with we are looking from a bright light into a dark room. can someone point out to me where the microphones are, please? ok, the other one is on the other side? back there. ok, great. if you could call on this gentleman right here? if you would identify yourself? >> thank you for doing this, general. because alliances are such a huge part of the national
defense strategy, i wanted to ask if you supported at this time halting deliveries to turkey or under what circumstances you would recommend doing that? gen. dunford: looking five or 10 years down the road, i want to make sure that our turkish and weare close to us want to work that relationship very hard. in terms of visits to turkey, i'm not sure i've gone anyplace else close that many times. and issue is a tough issue we are having a tough time. i would just say that i provided settlement decisions. the presence of the most
advanced fighter aircraft that , we are hopeful that we can find a way to this. barbara: let me go here to this person who has had their hands up for several minutes. >> my name is angelita. --ave a question for actually, for you, sir. [laughter] that, um, the, reality of nonpartisan and independence of the military, because right now i think the militaries getting a wake-up call because russia and china have both push to their elbows in that region. starting from regional supremacy, they are starting with what i was hearing from
you. my second question is that the leverage of vladimir putin and fusion thing is that they are sort of visionaries and they have long-term strategies that they can implement. and that that is it related to nonpartisan independence of the u.s. military. what is your vision actually for the u.s. military? a vision for the u.s. military? >> for the defense strategy areas gen. dunford: are we talking about domestic political conditions? >> geopolitics. gen. dunford: first of all it home because you give me a chance to address it, i have spoken quite a bit about the importance of the u.s. military being apolitical. we have emphasized that quite a bit. we have a history i think it washington, george marshall, those are probably the
greatest examples. for me they are true north and how they managed the political space. although i am never complacent granted, the gallup polls routinely say that 78% of the american people trust the military and we wouldn't want it to be otherwise. with regards to the u.s. military dealing with china and russia, the advice that i provide is to make sure that from a capability perspective, we demonstrate the ability to maintain this competitive advantage, meet our commitments and determine russia from provocation and aggression, the -- deterring china from provocation. importantly, the military dimension of a broader andrcement in the pacific in the broader world order that we have all enjoyed is to make sure that we are prepared, small
m, if you will, large diplomatic effort to maintain the rules, but there is a military dimension to it to make sure that from a capability perspective and a concept perspective we are prepared to support. is that the question you are asking i hope? barbara: let's stay on this side of the room first. there are two gentleman. the gentleman i think who is in the blue blazer and behind him after he is done, a gentleman in a white shirt. we will have that microphone stay there for a minute. >> could at, georgetown rotc. you have mentioned a lot the u.s. lagging in our technological capabilities when it comes to ai. but my question is concerning manpower capability. currently i believe only 35% of america's youth are capable of serving in the u.s. military given the standards and i just
wondered how the pentagon is anding to bridge the gap keep our soldiers and manpower on the ground? gen. dunford: it's an excellent question. , 30% arebout 29% capable of meeting the standards for the u.s. military. it is very much a concern. myhough i can tell you from direct observation that we are recruiting and retaining a high-quality force today, as i look at the services around the world, i never come back from a trip not incredibly impressed. there are certain areas where we are falling short of the mark. we have fallen short on recruiting and at least one service in recent years and we have been for some time. we are short literally a couple of thousand pilots across the services. the number of maintainers, it's
a stiff competition for some individuals in our intelligence and high-tech fields and so forth. from which weol can draw for the u.s. military and an all volunteer force is a concern of mine and there have been a number of initiatives to address that. interims of the health of our youth and so forth. i certainly in a future life might the interested in trying to help in that regard. i do think it is a national issue. i hesitate at this point to call it a crisis, but it is certainly a national issue that should be addressed with some sense of urgency, to think that 70% of the youth of america cannot meet the standard, that ought to concern us. a great question, thanks. barbara: let's go to the gentleman in the back with his hand up. please? if you would identify yourself. >> name is eric and i have a question around china and its
regional influence. is the chinese capability in taiwan and in the short term, china would seek to reach regional hegemony and i'm wondering if the general would support increasing support for taiwan in defensive alliances in the region. and he could he comment on security commitments? thank you. that's aord: question, but it really is a policy question and i'm not going to be evasive, but the decision about what level of support we should provide to taiwan is at the end of the day a political decision to make. we have helped taiwan to defend itself. our policy is clear about a peaceful resolution to the situation in taiwan and china. i really probably wouldn't address whether or ought -- whether or not we ought to do more.
if directed to do more, the u.s. military would do more, but that's an issue that's more about policy and politics than it is about a military dimension. there is a military dimension to deterrence, but i wouldn't talk about that much more than that. barbara: general jones? >> thank you. october of 1957, the soviet union launched sputnik one. some people are saying we are approaching another sputnik moment with china on the issue of ig and morse pacific we secure ig. would you care to comment on how important that race is? and i think it is a two country race. and what you think about that as an important issue? gen. dunford: general jones, inside the pentagon we certainly look at that as a critical national security issue in the internet of things beyond the 5g and the vulnerabilities of our
systems, our combat systems. but as importantly, something i have talked recently about my counterparts is, you know, our relationship to rely on trust. that trust in part is the assurance that the data that we exchange, the intelligence and information that we share can be done in a way where it's not compromised. bothssue of 5g addresses potential vulnerabilities in the system due to how reliant we will be on it for the internet of things, our combat systems, but also exchanging information with our allies and partners. we very much believe that any future capability along the trusted 5g has to be and we are concerned that we are moving in a direction where if we don't get out in front in tot regard, we will be able trust 5g and be at a competitive disadvantage. barbara: does that mean that you would withdraw cooperation if
you will with a country that is embracing that system? a military? putting 5g aside, when we share information and intelligence, it is done in accordance with strict protocols to protect the information. so, before we exchange information with an ally or partner, they have to make -- meet certain standards in the classified realm. did make that clear. that's what i'm talking about. whether it is 5g or not, today and in the future our ability and willingness to exchange information and intelligence with a partner will be based on their ability to protect that information and the assurance of the systems we are using. you think that 5g can be protected? gen. dunford: this is the nature of general jones question. it's in our national interest to
dominate 5g. this gentleman in front, if you wouldn't mind, he has had his hand up for quite a bit. could you identify yourself, sir? >> i'm a member of the press. from the russian service, voice of america. what worries you most in brush and military capabilities now? what is your main concern? in how they have progressed in the last 12 years, as you mentioned. second, how much do you know about the activity of russian military intelligence in the united states, which came to some maturity last year with the poisoning in british salisbury. what the military intelligence is doing now. the second one is
tougher to answer than the first one in terms of what concerns me most. putting the nuclear peace aside for a minute, talking about capabilities, i could highlight what i spoke earlier about, the proliferation of missiles. we could talk about, you know, increasing competence undersea. we could talk about the electromagnetic spectrum and anti-space capabilities. all of those things would be a concern. but it's really the impact of those systems collectively that really is the issue. and it gets at them being able to put together in a way a challenge to our ability to meet our alliance commitment in europe or operate freely across what i described earlier as all the lanes when we get there. i would be hesitant to highlight one capability in isolation and say it's the one that concerns me the most. it's the one that integrates those capabilities to interdict issuetcome, that is the
and that is what our focus is in terms of a competitive advantage when i talk about a competitive advantage. what i'm talking about at the operational level is the ability to project power when necessary and operate freely. and when i say freely i mean the ability to attend -- establish superiority to do what must be done in any time and place. regarding salisbury, i'm not sure how you want me to comment. i think it's very clear that russian intelligence was involved in salisbury. i think it's clear that the intern national community can conclude that the u.s. held russia accountable for what took place in salisbury. help me out if i'm not answering your question. >> [inaudible] i think i would be out of my lane of expertise of i spoke about inside the united states. i certainly have an awareness about it, but the director of
the fbi would be the best person to talk to about the nature of the threat and what we are doing to disrupt it. i guess i can say that there certainly is a threat in the united states. barbara: from russian intelligence? gen. dunford: sure. that shouldn't be news either, barbara. [laughter] no, just wondering one less time if you would like to expand a little bit, maybe. no, i think the director is the right individual to talk to about it. >> i am a room order from radio free asia. two days ago the pentagon and the south korean governments declared military exercises. toyou think this will lead degradation of the process? second question about counter aroundons in south korea
illicit ship to ship transport in north korea. with regards to the first question, i'm glad you asked it. the first had to do with the re-scoping of traditional on thees that we do korean peninsula. those exercises historically have been done for two reasons. one is deterrence and the second is to develop the capability of our forces on the korean peninsula to do what they describe as fight with high-level readiness. i am absolutely confident, havingely confident, received a message from general abrams on the pencil yesterday, as the exercise is ongoing in the peninsula, that what we have done with the exercises will .llow him to maintain readiness there are a few aspects to that. number one, the squadron level and below with combined
exercises and so forth, there has been no impact. the training of our units hasn't changed at all in the peninsula and in most cases what we have done is leverage command post exercises and so forth to make sure that staff orientation takes place. we have high personnel turnover in the summertime in the u.s. and in the republic of korea, january 10 -- january february timeframe has always been designed to make sure that we quickly bring the new people up to speed and maintain a high level of readiness and i think that the exercises that we have put in place right now are focused not so much on using the exercise as a way to determine if we are ready, but rather a series of training events focused on making sure we are proficient in the mission essential task at the various levels of command on the peninsula. with regard to ship to ship that is one of the more important elements of the
u.s. military support for the broader diplomatic effort in the peninsula. we have been after that now for many months. clearly you know, the north koreans have found ways to work around our enforcement efforts and we are in fact in the process of a constant cycle of adaptation to make sure that we are staying in front of that adaptation and we do the best we can to enforce the united nations security council resolutions as they pertain to refined petroleum products. that's kind of where we are. barbara: i going to grant myself the last question, i wanted to ask you about north korea. what is your current assessment about north korea's intentions and, way ahead, on their missile launch satellite launch and warhead test programs? what is your assessment about what you think they are looking at doing?
gen. dunford: i won't make news in this regard. i don't have any unique insights to share with you about whether they will test in the future or promised thethwe all know whate president that they would not. let me talk about what that means to me. from february 2017 has a fault several things -- involved several things. diplomatic efforts to denuclearize the peninsula. preparing ourselves to respond in the event that this fails. those missions have remained the same. to your question about north korean intent, their intent has
nothing to do with how we execute these three elements of the mission. -- are you anything to believe kim jong-un, do you have to assume it is a potential that they could resume? my job asdescribe being the glass half empty guy when it comes to north korean capability. jong-un still has ballistic missile capability. he still has nuclear capability. all lowsee a potential yet been demonstrated, the ability to match a nuclear incumbent upon the u.s. to be prepared to defend all of our allies to that
from the departments of health and human services, justice, defense and commerce speak about their efforts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. that's here on c-span. sunday night on q&a to pull a surprise will meeting -- pulitzer prize winning author explains how political power works. , butu went up the stairs he had torn up the walls at the -- one bigas all big picture. he sat at the center of this big black leather chair. to look at the left of him out the window was the robert moses bridge. it was the tower of robert moses state park.
there is robert moses framed. i have to tell you it's intimidating. i will never forget he have this wonderful charm and smile. tough old guy. still at the height of his power and qubes is 78. -- he is 78. so you're the young fellow who thinks he's going to write a book about me. >> on c-span's q&a. congress is in recess this week. nancy pelosi has announced that next week the house will vote on an override of president trump's veto terminating his national emergency declaration on border security. that's on tuesday march 26 and we can see it live on c-span. senaten the week
lawmakers will take up a resolution a report on the green new deal. live coverage on c-span two. up next on c-span a discussion with historians, journalists and scholars on the history and future of birthright citizenship and immigration policy on reconstruction to today. from the tenement museum this is an hour and a half. >> good evening, everyone. welcome to the tenement museum. my name is laura lee in and manage that program here at the museum. i am excited to have you for our discussion on birthright citizenship. we are here with our partners, the scholars strategy network, which we will hear more about later. how many of you have been to the museum before, i am curious? wow, excellent. thank you for coming back and for being connected toin