tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 5, 2014 5:30pm-7:31pm EST
know. this virus has been human to human transmission. we do know that the virus is adapted. of those are scientific facts. we don't have the detailed observations that would allow us to associate any genetic change that may or may not have happened because we don't have occurred and virus information on themselves and we don't have the detailed epidemiological background to put the observations in the real world with the molecular analysis house we just don't know. >> we are going to move to the next question. ..
aggressive effort to make sure that the virus was available to the international scientific community for analysis. that went very well. i was at cdc then and spent a lot of time packinghouse strains of sars to share with others. so that worked very well. i do not know what the problems are in that, but i suspect it starts with the countries to have ownership of the material. but it is more complex than that, and i really do not have any answers.. >> okay. i will move to the next question. >> medical school. thank you all for your work and presentations. i wanted to also thank dr. daniel bausch for bringing us back to the reality of the fact that it is in west africa and the bulk of the diseases in west
africa have spend a good time back-and-forth in liberia. and i can tell you that about ten of our health team members died of ebola because of lack of personal protective equipment. not because they did not dominate or doffing or do anything with it. they did not have it. one of the concerns with what i have heard this morning is we have had a few cases in the united states, and at this point every hospital in the united states has bought personal protection equipment that they probably will never need, which has made the pipeline to west africa dry up. we are about to send several teams to work on ebola in liberia, and we are having trouble finding enough personal protective equipment to get there. so i want to add that to our discussion thought really need to think about where this equipment is needed and make sure that it
gets there. the second thing, all of this information is wonderful research, and i wonder how it will translate to places like dr. daniel bausch showed you and places i have spent time in where we can get bleach sometimes. if we can translate how we could safely dispose of waste, equipment, bodies on a much more simplified level. because it is unlikely that we will have a lot of incinerators to of incinerators or other place in the next five or six years popping up in places like liberia and i'm sure guinea and sierra leone. i would be interested to hear have you think we can rapidly, because it is urgent, transfer some of the information you have so eloquently presented in an immediate way to the countries that are suffering >> just a reminder that today's workshop, we really are focused on the situation in the u.s. in that think you raise an important point,
which is the impact of the prepared his efforts in the u.s. of the global supply chains for personal protective equipment and other things. i am wondering if there is any comment on that. i think we can delve into how should we be controlling the outbreak in africa because we really have not been compose to do that. >> well, first of all, thank you for all of your work in liberia. and i think the point that you are raising, to me, is the relationship between the u.s. and west africa in terms of the available supply chain of supplies. if you have every hospital in the united states prepared to take care of ebola patients, you are exactly right. the supply chain will dry up where you actually needed. that is one of the logistical issues that i think this workshop meets to discuss. how can we make sure that the ppe protection for a you as health care worker is proportion to, one, the
requirements, and we don't choke off this global supply chain to other countries who are really in great need, as you point out. that question is as important a research question as some of these other the logical issues we are discussing. >> i think i understand that we are trying to focus on the u.s., but it is definitely true that there is no way to not bring this back to west africa. that is our only choice, regardless of whether you are concerned primarily with american healthcare west african health. think you for making that point. and it is very difficult to find the sweet spot of preparation without panic and without people going overboard so now you're hearing every hospital in the united states has to have their own ebola treatment center, which is, of course, not realistic. they have to be prepared. so that is the struggle,
finding that place the preparation in the united states without over preparation that not only is diverting energies but resources from where they are most needed in west africa. lastly, i just want to say, i think we also need to be very careful that we do not get the solutions to be so high-tech that we price ourselves out of it and make it logistically difficult so we cannot implement them where they are most needed. if we look in west africa, our major problem is not environmental contamination. we do not have people who come and we say, we think they were infected from virus that has seeped into the groundwater and those sorts of things. i think we really do need to focus on that person to-to it person interaction. >> next question. >> i feel a little bit of a split personality. i am the director for
environmental health and safety and preventative support to the unit at emory university on biosafety. also i am the co-chair for the development of an international virus management standard, which will kick off in the next couple of weeks. virus management, development of the last ten years. in addition, i am the global director for a nonprofit who does work in africa and actually set up the nigeria -- worked with nigeria setting an up their response to the ebola team. so one of the concerns, first of all, as a virus management key, i will have to say seeing this panel up here is phenomenal, very exciting to see the efforts and the enthusiasm, looking at some of the science and technology going into it. in a former life i used to do pharmaceutical research,
so i have seen a lot of the research that was alluded to , i believe by dr. john howard, with regard to handling. there is one group not at the table, the usda. if we look at our containment facilities for large animal research, you do see a lot of the type of technology with personal protective equipment working around large animals in containment, and that is a piece of the puzzle and part of the team that needs to be proud to -- needs to be brought to the table as well. the africa issue, it is not just africa but a lot of the developing countries. if we have sent a tremendous amount of resources, billions of dollars. and it is global health security from the standpoint of containing whether from a buyer of terrorism standpoint, but what we have failed with our global health security agenda is international health and when we look at just issues we are dealing with comment
looking at, do we have the capacity to, you know, identify, contain, response to a potential outbreak, whether or not it is a terrorist attack on natural-born outbreak, and we really need to start looking at that. you know, i commend those who are on the front lines. as a safety professional, it is an honor to be able to provide help, support to you , and whether it is here in the united states are not one of the concerns i have in developing some of these technologies and everything that was voiced earlier is how we then related to developing countries. the other area, i would say come from a virus management standpoint is we need to do a better job of risk assessments. the guidelines that came out from cdc, health care facilities, what i am finding is a lot of times
they see those that -- as law. and, no, there are risk assessments. if we need to have guidelines, we need to be able to teach our staff and faculty and students as they are growing in their skills sets as to how you do risk assessment and equate that to the workplace and how all of a sudden when the ppe line you have depended upon dries up, what will you do next and have those contingency plans in place. and then there was also something that was interesting throughout our experiences with the non hierarchy -- and i do not remember which panelists indicated that it -- but that was a key component, the success of our unit. if a nurse said to a physician, stop, they have to stop. in the beginning of that was one of those things that was not necessarily, you know,
thought of very positively. but the success of our story was that anyone could stop the situation at any given time, anyone could question, and the decision is whether we scaled up or down in 18 -- ppe was a team effort. and so i commend this panel for what you are doing. and also, i ask, you know, how are you going to start rolling this out to not only health care facilities and better research? my concern is the impact on research facilities here in the united states as well as abroad. >> okay. so that was about six questions, but i will summarize to the panel one at a time. i think starting with the first point, whether there is something to be learned of the practices that have been developed in the laboratories of the large
general laboratories. i know, dr. peters, you have been involved in outbreaks involving some primates are large animals. some of you also have worked with animals, even though we do not have usda at the table. is there any comment on that particular issue? >> we know that horses and goats are resistant to ebola i think the expert on setting up diagnostics on the ground is tom. [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> very to. quite large. not the largest, but certainly very large. any other comment? if not, i thought also the issue about the use of risk assessment as opposed to protocol and if there may be more adaptive ways of doing
prepared this in developing responses and medical facilities has opposed to simply following guidelines. i think that that was the question. >> i will take the risk assessment question. certainly it is a fundamental activity in occupational safety and health to assess the risk, and oftentimes a lot of our clinical infectious disease colleagues are not quite as familiar. but it is a fundamental principle, and it does, i think, have an important role to play here if we are talking about equipment needs. you may be creating a situation if you are not assessing risk properly. i think your comment about health security, i wanted to punctuate that. as i said at the beginning, i think this workshop is about ebola, but the larger issues being talked about, and i certainly hope this is taken up, we are talking
about international health security. there are lots of hemorrhagic viruses. there are a lot of very serious issues out there with international edition of travel and business. another workshop with a different name. it will not be ebola but some other infectious disease. it is important we continue these discussions. >> just a little more detail , risk communication, risk analysis, identifying the hazard and the degree of the hazard, using humans as a surrogate combat what temperature, at what subjective ceiling of illness do we think people start shedding the virus? is it 99. four, 100. four, 101. four? those are fundamental questions we do not know the answers to. hazard assessment, risk analysis, at which point do we know what kind of the 210 to use?
we could study that in a formal way, and people who will have to act on is it 99.4, 100.4, 101.4 that are involved in thinking through their questions and guidance. they will not be comfortable with the answers. involving health care workers in the process strikes me as important. >> thank you. so the last one i will take off of that comment has to do with one of the presenters. i know that this has been a major concern at the institute of medicine for quite sometime in the provision of high quality health care delivery, the need to have changes and how members of health care teams around health care safety, patient safety, as well as personal safety. if there are further comments from the panel on that. >> the overlap of employee
and patients' safety has been in the air since the first joint conference of niosh, a arce, and that see 14th. and as we get to ebola where that source and recipient are the same, for many diseases it is not as much of an issue, but clearly this is the poster child for the overlap of patient and employee safety, and seeing the pictures in liberia of those beds and tents was humbling as we think about the luxury of how we deal with patient safety here. clearly a huge, huge issue. >> next question. >> thank you. i think if you pull everyone
in this room they would agree 15 to 20 weeks ago no one would believe we would be at a meeting like this talking about a situation like this. in some ways this lack of creative imagination, we will go back and wonder why we did not think about this possibility and it raises an important question about where we move forward. when you look at the history of ebola in the human species, there have been 24 documented transmission situations, 28 community community-wide outbreaks. the most number of generations with ebola is i year as a of a 5-7. in many ways this has harmed one-tenth of that species and yet we have made general observations. some of us have written about the fact that the virus has not changed. africa changed. was about urbanization and crowding. i think one of the things we are missing right now is asking ourselves that hard
question again like we could have weeks ago. is there any difference in this potential virus, whether it is an example of a high level. and we have such limited data it to no data, would that began to change some of the possible conclusions about past outbreaks? other infectious diseases where we know when we have higher levels with certain other infections, we can see this same principles, but the rate of transmission is different, the dynamics is different in that regard to and i guess it would be interesting for this meeting because clearly we are making assumptions about the previous outbreaks being a model for this outbreak. certainly it is, but the question is, could it have changed? lack of medical services. this is, for example, higher viral loads that would result in different levels of transmission and we have
seen in past outbreaks. i would ask the panel the implications of that. are we making a mistake by expecting this to be exactly like the past outbreaks with more people? >> anyone want that one? >> i can come in, i guess. certainly valid questions. my gut feeling is that the seeds of this are more related to the social and cultural factors and logistics' of west africa and people going back and forth and all of that, but i think we need to be open to a scientific inquiry. we have some of the beginning data. it just takes a long time degenerated. we have a sequence data, but that does not really tell us what we need to know. we need to put that into subculture, nonhuman primates to see if they have different manifestations, viral loads, and so those
studies -- i cannot corporation researchers, but those things are probably being done in various laboratories in the united states and elsewhere. it takes time to get those. and, of course, it takes time to generate all of that data. if you think about just getting the samples and the logistics' of import permits and getting somewhere where you can do those types of experiments, it is just a slower process than we would like to be, but it is a valid question that we need to -- >> i would not be surprised if we did not get an answer in the u.s. because in africa you are so pressure for time, so many people, so many different ways you can get ebola. you may find out whether there is aerosol transmission that has evolved. >> thank you.
>> to at the microphone, and i think we have just enough time for these last two questions. next question. >> director of communicable disease control and prevention for the los angeles department of public health and share of the infectious disease prevention control . again, dr. daniel bausch, the realities and needs on the ground in west africa, perhaps the domestic research area we could put priority to is ways we could more systematically improve the recruitment as well as mobilization of health care workers, both public health and clinical to help in west africa. thank you. >> agreed, and i am open to any ideas you have to try to increase the numbers. >> all right. last question. >> california department of public health. after the h1n1 pandemic, we
did a series of studies with colleagues from niosh and several other states and actually went into about 15 hospitals in california. nationwide we have about 60. we asked how front-line health care workers perceive the use of ppe. we did some absurd it -- observation of donning and doffing. we interviewed a series of staff in hospitals, and i think we learned a great deal about the implementation of ppe on the ground, and i would put a plug in for putting that as a topic for research in terms of ebola, not necessarily now. i think that would be hard to do next week when hospitals are in the midst of figuring out how to even purchase appropriate ppe, but sometime relatively soon while the memories are relatively fresh because we get a lot of questions at the state level about what exactly to buy it. and i wish -- i would really
like to know how people are using it and what the experience of the front line health care workers are. so the model of more participatory research to help our public health at the local, state, and federal levels really understand what we can learn six months or one year from now. >> thank you. >> i guess i will take this one. over the last two or three weeks who has had a guidelines committee on ppe that i have chaired, and the guidelines just came out the day before yesterday. you can find those. they are, i think, helpful. we did do some surveillance of health care workers coming back from west africa and what they liked and disliked in order to inform those guidelines. i think they are valuable, but they suffer from what we desperately need and why we are here. we need some evidence base.
it came down to one person saying we need this and another saying we need that. people can express what they like. but when we asked what was necessary, it was all opinion. >> we will take a last, last question. >> once more remark, and i don't know if everybody knows. because ebola is eight select agent experiments are regulated on the virus. and basically this regulation, response fast to some of the research questions addressed year. i think want to put it out there that if i want to start doing something new it will take me two years. >> could you identify yourself again? >> rocky mountain lapps. >> rocky mountain lapps. comment on that? it is probably true.
there are a lot of regulations that govern the ability to even initiate research in this area and is something to be aware of. >> life midterm election results and reaction all day today. among those waiting in, president obama who held a news conference a little earlier at the white house. here is some of what he had to say. >> obviously republicans deserve credit for running good campaigns. beyond that i will leave it to you and the professional pundits to dig through yesterday's results. what stands out to me, though, is the american people sent a message, one may have sent for several elections now. they expect the people that they elect to work as hard as they do expect us to focus on their renditions have thought out sixth. they want us to get the job
done. all of us in both parties have a responsibility to address that sentiment. still, as president, i have a unique responsibility to try and make this work. so to everyone who voted, i want you to know that i hear you. for the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, i hear you, to. >> we have also had post-election reaction from democratic leaders here read among others who had this statement about republican leader mitch mcconnell last night. i would like to congratulate senator mcconnell. the message from voters is clear, they want us to work together. i will look forward to working with senator mcconnell to get things done for the middle class. nancy pelosi had this to say house democrats will continue to fight for middle-class families who are the backbone of our democracy. there is important work to do to jump-start the middle class, and we hope we can do it with bipartisanship and
fairness. and the house speaker said, we are humbled by the responsibility the american people have placed with us, but this is not a time for celebration. it is time for the government to start cutting results and implementing solutions to the challenges facing our country, starting with our still-struggling economy. all of today's reaction on the midterm elections tonight on our companion network, c-span. or see it online anytime at c-span.org. also, engage with us on twitter or facebook. >> this weekend on the c-span networks, friday night at 8:00, more reaction to the midterm elections. on saturday night, a debate on the future of the internet. at sunday evening author and television host. friday night at 8:00 on
>> a discussion with chief naval operations jonathan greenert to discuss navy operations and the future of maritime strategy including the ongoing rebalance of the asia-pacific region. this is hosted by the brookings institution. it's about an hour. >> there are -- good morning everyone. i am mike o'hanlon. we are honored today to have admiral jonathan greenert the 30th chief of naval operations of the united states the navy's top leader and he will be speaking this morning for a few minutes about trends in the navy answer digit thinking. what he o'hanlon around the world including of course the rebalance of asian asian-pacific and other topics of interest and after that we will have an bit of a conversation appear before going to you. i just wanted to say a couple of words of appreciation and biography about admiral greenert pities a native of pennsylvania.
i believe a quarterback country as they say so maybe we should get you in for the fix on saving the redskins as well. in 1975 graduate of annapolis, a submariner by profession, has commanded marines as well as ballistic missile submarines commander of u.s. seventh fleet among various jobs was a major part of the planning and the so-called mh shop of the navy is well prior to his current position as the chief of naval operations. he has been in that position now for three years which makes them part of a remarkable class of joint chiefs who came into office in that year. admiral greenert is joined by general odierno and general dempsey among others as now three-year governor of the joint chiefs that i would like to begin the speculation on the process that he may consider another four-star job on
general's dempsey steps down next year. i would just like to say in the three years that he has been at the helm of the navy he has been associated with the a number of major initiatives including of course the rebalance to the asia-pacific and much of the thinking around air sea battle a topic that i am sure will also come up today. without further ado please join me in welcoming admiral greene greenert. [applause] >> thanks michael. thank you very much. thank you. you are very kind. in fact i was in pennsylvania yesterday and i visited a high school and was called moon township. it's enormous. a big school. had the intermediate school there and we were talking to the high school students about pretty much what we are going to talk about today and their interest in in-depth knowledge of world affairs totally stunned me. i was taken aback by it. i figured they would want to talk about local stuff for this
or that or the navy in this business. they were way out there and they said how do we get information beyond just the headlines? we would like to understand our world today. we talked a little bit about of course our world today is not going to be there world as we have seen that remarkable evolution and they have a partner on line in taiwan and partner high school. we got worldwide very quickly and we got a q&a session. they were remarkably involved. it is an amazing world as we get out there how connected we are. i would like to talk briefly about the maritime strategy and why we are redoing that. the asia-pacific rebalance as michael said our relations with in this case the chinese navy is an update on things we have had at the international c-4 symposium which was six weeks ago and we are continuing the evolution directed by the president and of course with our rebalance to the asia-pacific.
a maritime strategy i hope and expect by the end of this calendar year will be publishing this. we have a relatively new, not coast guard commandant of them are in court general dunford and i need to give them time to digest what we have put together and to make sure we are in sync because this is a sea services document navy marine corps and coast guard. the compelling reasons for the revision and it pretty much is a revision is obviously the security and fiscal changes since 2007 have been extraordinary. the indian ocean asia the anti-access area denial and the need for access energy, the challenge for energy and the need for energy. antiterrorism maritime disputes, all of these have dramatically a ball since 2007. we have a new strategy since then. they detent defense strategic guide. a qbr and homeland security
where the coast guard resides has had a homeland security review. all of these really compel us in dictate a change to our strategy. our principles will be the same day the value of presence to be aware of matters when it matters as a key service to help us fit into that in the value of maritime networks as a leverage in the strength to get out of maritime networks will come out of that. the functions of deterrence power projection sea control maritime security and the importance of access. but you know you put up one of the graphics here the slides. you wonder the evolving world compare this to 2007 and i ask you, there only a few phones out there. i remember that the same situation 2007. it's different. in 2007 the mortgage bubble way beyond that. we had a search going on in iraq
and the evolving war powers fight and challenges since then and cyber, electronic warfare electronic attacks the electromagnetic spectrum if you will weapons of mass distraction and of course in the case of syria chemical weapons that have evolved since then and counterterrorism. again our objective is by the end of your we will completed have this coverage. a little bit on the asia-pacific rebalance. some folks say is that thing really going to happen? are you still going to do that and i say yes. despite current events the long-range interests of your navy and really of your security posture the department of defense is in the asia-pacific. to review over 50% of the world's shipping tonnage passed through the state straits of malaga down there and the indonesian area of southeast asia. a third of the global crude oil
and half of the liquid natural gas moves to the south china sea. five of the top 15 trading partners are in the region asia-pacific. five of our seven treaties, security treaties are in the region. also to refresh we have been engaged over 70 years in the asia-pacific region and with presence, with a significant presence in that area. we will continue with this rebalance. that rebalance means to refresh for us to properly posture forward with forces destroyers to japan combat ships to singapore, a submarine to guam the triton which is our maritime surveillance to deploy that in guam and okinawa rpa a maritime control it aircraft. we are now and after deployment out there. that will continue to evolve.
most of you saw yesterday the landing of the f-35 joint strike fighter so bringing that in the falls we will forward-deployed at first to the western pacific. its capabilities, advanced capabilities in the pacific area for responsibility is our benchmark to maintain out but it's also understanding and that means you can call it intellectual capacity. you can call it increased engagement with allied partners and potential partners such as china and india. the rebalance is not single dimensional. it's not just about china but it is china's certainly one part of it and a very important part of it. china and our country are the world's largest economies so we are frankly intertwined. you know that. the number two trading partner to number three exporter partner and our number one import source is china.
the recent prosperity is in our collective best interest. our president recognized and told us we have got to get the relationship right and we are continuing on that track. in the navy it was about finding out and working out what are the differences and how do we increase cooperation? we acknowledge the growing influence and size of the chinese navy but we agree and we insist that we have a consistent application on the international laws and norms that we act responsibly with both locally and globally and that involves as many of u.s. from iraq and are you rules of behavior working group which working group which has been in progress meeting periodically about monthly now. these are folks made up of defense and administrative defense in china and naval officers and their naval officers working on rules of behavior in their working group.
and it contributes to the international water and security. in other words be a leader and we talked about that. about six weeks ago with my party and his group and talk about what they had to navy. how do we continue the useful dialogue that we need to make sure we have governments on the high seas? both are present directed to strengthen military ties and building understanding understanding and as president obama said we should institutionalize and regularize our discussions taking place. the navy's well-suited to test the rear for coming pounding each other in an international domain the high seas. wing counter each others routinely out there in the global -- and in the best area we are often called together to cooperate in areas of shared challenges. humanitarian assistance disaster relief typhoon tsunamis volcanoes that ring of fire in the asia-pacific region counter
piracy all around the world. you are familiar with that and it wasn't all that long ago we had to search for that missing aircraft flight 370. a little update on our relationship. how are things coming together? we are working from the top down myself in admiral boucher newly but also from the bottom up as we set up our folks to get together and kind of at the midgrade and senior officer level. to start from the top i've met with the admiral five times in last year and we are working on counterpart visits in 2015. we will put our input, i will provide my input to the folks in the office of the secretary of defense and i will talk a little bit more on the jr. interactions in just a minute. the fact is with this rising navy with china we have in my view opportunity. the challenges to get rid of
needless unfounded unprofessional cases in this interaction that we ultimately inevitably are going to have it see. talking about unsafe operations. you are familiar with one and many of them at the end recently and are sensitive or cognizant operation. we have had no unsafe or on toward incident since august when we have this last intercept that we viewed as unsafe and we talk about that. admiral wu and i talked about this at length and where we might go ahead when we met back six weeks ago in newport. so there is a concern for both, for myself admiral wu and the heads of the navy that one may go to see as we meet at sea and we have delivered governance with proper protocols and really decrease the potential for miscalculation. history is full of cases of miscalculation causing nations to put men in a situation that they don't want to be in with
leaving them no recourse. we need to clear standards of behavior to make sure we have consistent professional operations in international waters and international airspace and again this was embraced by all the heads of navy in the international seapower symposium not long ago. we started down this road and i think a robust manner back in april of this year at the western pacific able symposium when we got together voluntarily 22 navies embracing the professional behavior and clear communications. we exercised the 25 maybe spare 42 ships and we worked on that at ram pack. a lot of different nations in a lot of different navies that this will be along to labor process needing constant attention. we are bringing new options in all the time. in some cases it's very different to have an engagement to be open and to be conversing
out there at sea. july counterpart is it that i had where i went to china at the invitation of admiral wu i visited the state oceanic administration. i would call that analogous to our department of homeland security where we, that is with their coast guard if you will is located and we talked about introducing the option or protocol to the coast guard. it was taken in a something that was viable. our coast guard is interested in it and we are making that connection now. we continue to expand. in newport we discussed expansion across the globe with all of the nations and it was pretty much embraced by all of the coast guard to navies around the world the something that has value maybe not a current precise format the concept of the code unknown protocol was embraced globally.
the conversation doesn't stop being mean to sustain dialogue and we had our seapower symposium as i mentioned over and over again six weeks ago. the symposia will continue. we have the next larger one in singapore next may and we will continue the discussion above cyber at sea and the impact there and of course how do we continue to expand to go beyond that? bilaterally admiral wu and i agree to continue on we have synchronized wherever you are in the initiatives that we started actually almost 15 months ago when he was here in the united states. they are to continue fleet training and the promotion of qs between the two of us. we both agree it's a good initiative. to increase port visits and offering to my boss next year's proposals later this month for next year. i will bring those proposals.
we agree to established service cheaper medications enemies do that. we agreed to increase academic exchanges those that are naval war college in our naval academy and those are in progress. admiral wu brought commanding officers up to newport with our commanding officer cors, talk to her teachers. admiral wu attended and synchronized that. they are coming over here to the united states to work with visas were some of his visas will come over and we will continue that exchange. we agreed to put together working group for human resources and he is moving to build a navy in the future and we are building our navy of the future to go over those challenges and lastly to work on preapproved exercises. my specific weak commanders working with his requisite counterpart to find out how do we put -- together so when we meet at sea and we have that
opportunity whether we are doing piracy operations down in the south china sea working in the east china sea, how can we do exercises, simple exercises that we can get preapproved? so it's about competence and understanding and continuing on that road. let me close now and we will move into your questions than answers and michael will have a conversation. we are committed to the asia-pacific. alliances are strong and we will honor treaties. engagement is increasing both bilaterally and multilaterally and it's really part of that. the relationships that i spoke to both with the people's republic of china, people's republic of china, they're navy and india which is becoming an increasing opportunity will not be at the expense of our allies. it's not zero-sum. international. international norms and standards will benefit the region and we need to continue on that way ahead. so thanks a lot and i look forward to your questions. [applause]
>> thank you admiral for those great remarks and for what you are doing operationally in planning the future navy and working with allies and the chinese. i wanted to begin with the chinese navy and ask you to give us a little bit of your assessment of an update as to their quality. i remember admiral willis when he was running pacific command of years ago made the statement that everything we thought the chinese might do they are doing even faster and better than we once thought and of course the flip side is everything you discuss in building engagement and our concern about the ricin potential capability. how do you assess their overall capacity and quality at this juncture? >> i put it into categories. one, the three-dimensional construction technology and all that. i think admiral willis has it right. i don't know they are continuing at the speed he mentioned before. i would call it a pace with what we might consider both weapon
development, architecture to enable architecture. i would say what we find in rimpac among themselves is not international so i think they have a pretty good learning curve to take on. we saw in rimpac. they started with rudimentary exercises, had some problems here and there, not expected -- unexpected for somebody entering into a multilateral engagement that they ramped up reasonably well. it's almost like an olympic grade on some exercise. how do we do in the gun shoot in this and that? some said they were average to high average and we said well okay i don't know what judges decided that but i would say they are coming along well especially their interest in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and to take on the responsible role that a
growing navy would take on. >> are you overly concerned about the pace of? the last thing you said seems fairly apple pie. they are helping with humanitarian operations and so forth but of course i know that our navy has sometimes come into close proximity and there have been some dangerous encounters there and they are not entirely comfortable with their presence in the western pacific. a twofold question come are you particularly worried about that and secondly do we need new rules of the road for how the navy's interact in some of the safety measures and measures that the u.s. and soviets had in the well served would be well served by introducing more those in the u.s. china relationship. >> let me answer your last part first. i think it would be of great interest in restarting dialogue. it is relatively routine right now. i can perhaps predictable. we have a means to discuss continuing our delivered
prophecies that these untoward incidents. you get on the line and say we should talk about this as opposed to reading it in the media or diplomatic channels as to what happened both quote your site to my site. two professional mariners saying especially if it's contrary to the things we agreed on. say what is the story on this? to me that's how you find out if you trust someone else how much confidence you have and are you willing to take more risks in them and how much authority do they have through the chain of command and how tight is it and is also the way you evaluate that other navy. this is not apple pie and if i gave you the impression that would be the wrong impression. it is encouraging that the same same time it warrants vigilance. this is an opportunity so who are they going to be? are they going to be large and technologically advanced? what are the intentions and how do we manage this growing into the that we are going to share
the south china sea and east china sea because we are going to be there and they'd knowledge that. >> that brings me back to the rebalance if i could ask a couple more questions about that. ui to my specific things you are doing with the combat ships going towards singapore and is suffering in guam and a number of specific changes and initiatives. i wanted to ask you also about the big umbrella change which is this notion that 60% of the navy is supposed to be focused on are based in the asia-pacific by 2020 and that's a change from the 50% we had for much of the cold war. how are we doing with that and that question is of course going to be the budget and sequestration. even as we are moving towards 50% of our navy and the pacific budget changes -- budget changes are pushing your fleet size down no greater than 50% of the obada will come to that next.
how are we doing at approaching a 60% colon what does it really mean? is that 50% of the fleet operating in the western pacific or more generally throughout the asia-pacific region including the indian ocean? >> the number 60% represents the percentage of our navy in the west. the idea is it's easier to location we deploy where you believe your focus of attention should be. we are on track for that. as we build ships we look towards the west thing keeping that process going. it's not just numbers it's also the numbers with the most capability. the two destroyers to japan as part of that. the little combat ships to singapore, they are not a part of that and that they are not homeported there. the sailors don't go there. they will operate at a forward
station and will rotate through the bishops themselves are literally kind of like where your family and home isn't in that case it would be san diego. still west but not as far west. so my point would be we certainly have a target number. we need 306, our number of ships to accomplish the defensive strategic guidance but doing the best that we can with the ships that we have, to put it another way michael we could have a lot of ships so if they are your home base of united states and we are not operating forward and we are not -- and if we respond from anyplace in the united states and a hotspot around the world so that's helpful clarifying the answer in the 60% but i want to ask you about fleet size. it's in the vicinity of 285
ships. you are aiming to 306 as you just mentioned but of course that is based on your hopes up where the budget will go and what is reflected in the frustration's long-term budget plan but we also knew -- no two things to complicate your life. i'm sure there are two -- more things but one is the return of sequestration and next year's budget. sequestration levels which is lower than the administration wants or has planned on lower than you planned on and yet at the moment it would be the lava lamp. we have returned to those levels unless congress is able to act in the meantime. if we do wind up as sequestration level of defense spending and we stay there can you give us a rough sense of what that does to your plan and how big the navy would become and what is a rough approximate benchmark? the other obligating factors a lot of times technology like f-35 aircraft winds up costing
more than we hoped so you could have additional pressure reducing your numbers of purchases of ships and airplanes because of that. can you give us a sense? you are hoping for 306 but how could you fall short if you don't get the budget unique? >> we are everything to 89 is the number today. i don't want to quibble so much on it but there's a point being made, we are growing and we are growing because we have a stable shipbuilding plant now for five, six or seven years i would say. that is produced ships and ship projects, shipbuilding projects coming in on time and under budget because we have a competitive situation and the multiyear procurement situations of the value of data started to show itself and will continue to grow. in the current budget that we have today, i will start with that. the fiscal year 15 if you extrapolate that out we would
have 380 ships by 2020. if you brought in 2025 it will grow to 317 so that's a decent scenario. if we went to the budget control act and there are two parts of this. if you go to the budget control act in a how do i say this predictable manner so you know what your budget is and you make those plans and then you can go about it where you get a sequester where there is no decision every year. you get to the beginning of that year and then you get sequestered. you have this algorithm the kicks in. that is a bad situation for two reasons. >> do have a plan and you suddenly have all of your programs reduced by 10%. so you scramble for months to reprogram money against important monies where they need to be like replacements. you lose months of work, months of hiring perhaps trying to get engineers so it's very
disruptive and that adds up if you do that year after year. that is worse than just a long-term budget control act. and it doesn't help with your people who are the most important aspect of it. but to your point i worry about the shipbuilding industrial base. i worry about that scenario which would cause us to have to reduce our shipbuilding. this would take years to manifest itself in numbers depending on how many ships we have to retire to make the budget requirement but more importantly if we lose the builder here and there, and they only have five, then we lose that competitive competition that i mentioned earlier which gives you much more effective shipbuilding base and it gives you the situation where if you need to reconstitute your ship account if you will you could put money in. you lose your midgrade vendors,
people that build specialized valves and circuits and other specialized items especially in the nuclear arena. that would be a very tough recovery. >> by the way quick follow-up for yout -- or general observer here those five shipyards can you discuss where they are right now? >> electric boat in connecticut and in the newport news area you have huntington and you have angles in gulfport mississippi and you have nasco on the west coast in the san diego arena. those are the big ones. their other shipbuilders but those are the big ones that provide our capital ships to the little combat shipbuilders are in the northwest and wisconsin area and down the gulf and mobile alabama. >> i have two more questions one on missile defense and one on air sea battle.
on missile defense of course this is an important priority for not only your service but all services and you have the standard missile as well as aegis radar that would provide information and guidance. of course we also know that china in particular is modernizing its missiles very fast and from a military technology point of view tough for defenders mislaid should deal with a potential threat from missiles whether icbm nuclear threat or a tactical threat which is probably of greater concern in the seventh for example. how do you feel about the overall trend in missile defense technology and to put it to a point do we really need a breakthrough of directed energy weapon defense or are people going to be able to change the balance in a potentially strong position. >> my view is there are two areas that we are doing some
very good exploratory work and demonstrations than they are energy. i think that's a longer-range effective weapon system. alice we speak here we have directed energy weapons. there is right there. out on the ship in the arabian gulf in a few days we will demonstrate this. you can see the results appear behind. that's a directed energy weapon and you can see the results and a the drum that is flaming coming down. the key is how do you increase the energy and what kind of power sources require that? i think we are on a path to do that. how do they perform? and people say -- let's take a look at this lisa put it out in the most difficult or austere
environment. i can't think of -- but i think that's an important weapon system. the second piece is we have been sort of obsessed with shooting down a ballistic or cruise missile with another missile. that's a pricey view and by the way that cost you about a dollar so once you are on target and you listed at 10 to 15 seconds it's about a dollar. i'm missiles it's about a million dollars they can see the payback once the payback once you get that thing started thing started. the other side of it is to deceive it and jam it and try to shoot it down. that is what i call electro-magnetic warfare. i expand your ability to detect both low energy if you will seekers and then the broad spectrum that we have.
we want that spectrum to be agile and we need to expand that and we are working on that hard. >> my by next questions about air sea battle which is an innovative idea that came out of the think tank world at the sba to large extent but also the navy and air force in particul particular. on your watch there is no concept, an official concept on a pentagon web site that people can read about. jim steinberg wrote a book in which we talked about this concept. we had some concern. we saw a lot of military logic behind it but i want to express what some of the stronger critics have said and ask you to respond and explain to the audience at this juncture in late 2014. it has now been around long enough as an idea that different people are taking it in a different direction. not so much in the military but outside of some people have argued what air sea battle
really should mean his long-range or we don't have as many assets forward-deployed in the asia-pacific region and we have more along kauai and the cardinal united states. get ready for pick a war which assets are not technically vulnerable and also if you wind up in a war specifically you have china, some interpretations of air sea battle would say we have to preempt their launchers fairly early in some of their missile launchers and submarine guards for example. obviously there is some logic to those ideas as you get deeply into award. you have to really think about going to the limit to when that some people have said the proposal for an early preemption could be dangerous in a crisis. i just wanted to give you a chance to explain the terms that you seem most appropriate. what does the air sea battle me today in terms of your modernization strategy and warfighting strategy? >> let me back out of the war
plan for china that you describe if you don't mind. it is a concept of thinking about how to get assured access to wear access to where it is you need to go and this can involve, and it really did involve humanitarian assistance. how are you going to get into a particular site? how do you get access when you have things that are going so much against you? we saw very much in the operation we had radiation issues and we had contamination. how we going to go in a measure that so we can get in and deliver it and the logic that is behind working together to do that? this can involve operations across the spectrum. a lot of people feel using genetically that approach community get access and how are you deliver this kinetic weapon?
there may be an uncommitted way to do that. they did involve cyber, the surface and air space. there's a whole host in the idea of you have got to think across the spectrum of the domain. like i said it could be a kinetic effect or a nonkinetic. what will work work best to get us the accessing it is that? number three if you are under the seat is it only an undersea effect via it it a weapon or whatever it is or can you deliver across the domain? >> and her sleeves solution to something on the land better or is the air solution to an undersea problem the better way? we need people to think across domains kinetic and nonkinetic across the spectrum of challenges that we have. step one is to get our officers and those coming up to embrace this anti-stanback instead of
waiting until operation save what have we got and how do we do the best? that is joint operations but as we plan our campaign, how are you think in a manner that i described with all those features and then how do you build your program accordingly? it's the best solution is from an aircraft delivered by in their first program than what am i doing with that? we are better served to invest in that and similarly i should have that on my aircraft because it affects my aircraft. so it's still this interdependence element of that. so if you want to fast-forward and say i want to talk about how you are going to take the time i would say started beginning there. where would we have opposed that? what asymmetric approach may we have there? nonkinetic or nonkinetic what's the best way to do that and then
work our way forward. that is the logic we need to build. our most recent discussions with the air force and all of the services because we span across all the services. we have the service chief meeting quarterly that reports on how we are doing. are we doing a duplicate of the effort in this regard and is there cap and if there is a gap who is best served to take on the cap? >> i'm going to take questions from the audience. we have about 20 minutes. we will start with harlan in the second row here. please identify yourself and wait for the microphone. right here. >> thank you. admiral good to see you especially with what you're doing for china. like to go on the aperture of the joint chiefs and balancing the long-term and short-term.
clearly what the white house calls the strategic pivot that yesterday for example general philip breedlove said that we want to reduce forces in europe and ukraine ukraine? take a look at what's happening in syria, iran and iraq afghanistan-pakistan. there's a tremendous argument that we'll be engaged there. what advice would you give in terms of how you balance the short-term issues which actually could be quite long-term against the larger especially as we find ourselves more engaged in the middle east region? >> i think for us to use the term often come operate forward and use the forces we have as effectively as possible. if i look at europe folks a way to map what are you doing about your? we are putting more destroyers in. we are building ships today which have great persistence and we could move them there if you
well and it's about capacity, it's about deck space if you well and bring in the aircraft that you need that resonates with the mobile landing platfo platform. it is taking what we have and making sure that we are making the best use of this for the problems of today. as i said in my opening remarks the focus is still within the department of defense and within the national command authority to the asia-pacific but obviously we have today's problems today to deal with. i think we have opportunities. this is now two and a half months old. we are building three of these. you can see the deck space over there and these are the kinds of things we can use in and around your north africa front the somalia they gamman and put these in and around the world and leave the big issues to continue along the delivery path
with the high-end warfare piece. there are messages to be sent to the support of nato and for us we are distributing that. people wonder about the operations. we provide carrier with air wing said right now talking with general lloyd austin he's fine with that. we have a lot of capacity on the ships we have today. our ships have a lot of capability and we will continue to train and to expand that capability so we can deliver that. i will close with them certainly happy with where we are going and that the focus remains properly in the asia-pacific. >> animal nice to see you again. i'm at the naval postgraduate school. the world has changed. what do you think are the changes that need to take place
in the training and education and learning of our sailors and officers? it's not about hitting the target. you used to important words, one misunderstanding in the other was relationship. how does that get into our educational program? >> well we mentioned earlier bringing people from the chinese navy over to interface with our folks to see who is this example and who is this department head today who in seven years wouldn't be commanding officer of the frigate and a story in the chinese navy accordingly. who are their pilots and making sure they understand who the other one is. find out can they trust each other on an international screening or agenda and that regarding how different are they? they are not 10 feet tall. they have many of the same concerns. that is helpful. it's not kumbaya.
it is understanding how do they think, what is important of them so that's one. continue those international programs at our war college and put more of them and are naval academy. i spoke earlier. you mentioned cyber. we have to get a baseline. are naval academy rotc and we have cyber warriors but we are putting smartphones and the use of them back into our basic training. you say i didn't know you took it away. e we actually do. we bring them and and i have got their phones in their tablets. we take that all away. that's like giving them a chisel and a hammer and saying okay. we start than we say actually we
need to get those back and send an e-mail to your mother or texture mother whatever the case may be. by the way this is how you need to use this. these are the basics of password protection and understanding virus detection. don't charge this thing up on a computer on your ship. that's not a good idea. we don't want to share viruses. you got to get that down. all the elements of what you are doing is the combat system. it exchanges information with the understanding of information dominance. he or she who has the information upper hand definitely has the upper hand and likely it will lead to victory in some ways. so there's a cybereducation and needs to take place. lastly bill moran and i are chief of naval personnel we are working diligently saying okay today we bring a kid into the navy and in two years we have
them about ready to go. two years. you can get a masters degree and two years in any program most likely. certainly most college degree if you're starting there there. we are not even close to that so what is that we can do to faster in that regard? after those two years it's about six more years before we send them to a major upgrade in education. that's too long. their equipment is rapidly changing over and over. so how do we keep up with that in a manner that is sensible and reasonably -- well we have to evolve this. we are trying to build this airplane that is flying to put it another way. those are the things we need to change for sure. >> thank you. let's go over here to the side.
>> i just came from virginia were a lot of the allies -- and it goes a lot of the themes you mentioned but some of the challenges you have mentioned in the past. we have a danish admiral commanding u.s. ships working on the crisis response humanitarian side as opposed to the kinetic side. also they have their antenna on the side of the lpd to communicate with the allies but it looks like they are stealing cable because they are strung up there and meanwhile the dutch flagship of this task force has no commercial damage control standards in so-called low threat environment. somebody gets their hands on a cruise missile these days they can do very bad things.
with that as an example how do we deal with these problems of interoperability technically in terms of what they are able to survive in terms of threats? >> while if i had that answer is as clearly as i would like to have it we could just say we have the answers. we are in a bit of discovery and you've outlined a few of the things. what kind of equipment and capability to our allies have? we need to understand that and you don't get into those details and find those issues until you bring them together. that is 11. two we are -- as the marines come back to see we welcome them back and they have the capability as they move ahead on ground operations and expeditionary operations over the years in iraq and afghanistan. we didn't stay it synchronizes we should have.
the discovery just describe putting in an 10 on here that makes us compatible even with that round forces and we will get that capability understand it put into the programming system and we will build that. we will install that is the payload for command-and-control and also for coordination among ourselves. what do we need for the allies as we build? let's say we use your internet example. the antenna is attracting processes if you will and capabilities in the planning capability. that degrades the navy and marine corps. how do we use that with allies and is it compatible and can we make it compatible and can we step it up with different modes. one would be internal in one day allied in that regard. with regard to how do we i guess i would say baseline all those elements we have to figure that
out right now. what kinds of ships who we put into it joint ship scenario? i quickly threw up -- that ship is built to commercial standards in many of its elements. we wouldn't that put that in one of the first chips for forcible entry. that ship i showed us a $600 million shipped. there is a scaling that we need to consider. anyway i will summarize by saying that's why we do bold alligator and those are the lessons learned. putting into our programming and budgeting the future and our concepts of operation. >> one quick follow-up as we talk about china and her allies. i want to ask her any update on how the russian navy is behaving and to what extent are you continuing to see them be provocative in this very difficult 2014 year we have had with them? >> they are very busy in the
undersea domain could i will leave it as that. out at seeing many of the ships, surface ships i recognize a something that i learned through my commanding days and that was quite a while ago. they are building new frigates and they are building new destroyers. they are pretty active up in the air. they're a long-range flights and reconnaissance. probably more active than they have been in a decade. so they have operating money clearly. they are out in about. they are operating professionally as always. they have probed up in the alaska area. we responded and they acted professionally and all regards. so far so good in that regard but i would call them more busy, more operations and their focus is on the undersea.
that is what i have seen. >> thank you. >> let's take two questions in the fourth row. we will have time for one wrap-up round. >> admiral james clinton. how are you doing with temple operations? >> i was just wondering how important is taiwan's place in rebalancing and also i know taiwan is expecting to get technical support. what is its status currently? thank you. >> i think we have a benson on deployment. her deployment will be close to nine months. that's not sustainable. we have right now the makin
island visit fitness ready group and those are the two, i guess i will call them fallouts from the sequestration issue and i will tell you what i mean in just a minute. deployment is well over eight months. when sequestration hit us, we because of the sudden loss of operating money and maintenance money we stopped work on some of the projects in the shipyards. shipbuilding slowed down dramatically. the bush had just come back and she had a fairly long deployme deployment. when you stopped work like you did then those who were on deployment stood watch and the mechanic that squared away and got the money going in again and the shipyards up again a hiring freeze lifted, overtime restored we are trying to catch these guys up and get them through the
shipyards and out of deployment. they are out there on watch. they finally come home and now it's their turn to go on deployment. theirs is longer while we bring these guys back to get them back in. this has taken about two years and that's the kind of impact that you have that as the second and third order effects. effects affects the big ships the nuclear carriers. those are the public shipyards. those are the federal employees be higher. when you don't have a predictable budget when you do negotiations for the amp fits with the private shipyards they are not going to if you will spool up to be ready in time. you don't have to work orders done. so we have another year and we have been out there for eight half months of this longer deployment. when you get into the submarine deployments, six and half
months. my target is seven months. i think that is sustainable by all indications with their maintenance in their training, what we can provide what you think is reasonable and sensible give us that presence and the ability to react as necessary. we need a stable budget. we need a current budget that we have requested and we need time to bring the shipyard capacity up to where it needed to be before. how long this stuff takes in order to effect. with regard to taiwan we have responsibilities with the treaty with them. we will honor those responsibilities. we have our process worked out with our department of state as to how we interact and both for human capital if you will, intellectually if you will and exercise, we can provide for assistance. we are living up to that and
continuing with that and expect to do so. so clearly deliberately laid out. not really a whole lot of leeway one way or the other in this regard so unless there's something specific that's about the best i can tell you right now. >> can you clarify on that point what is the guiding document? talking about in relations act, is a specific? >> we will take two more. john evans in the fifth row and then overhear him aside. we will take them together. >> good morning admiral. john evans the army part of brookings. and what to ask you to put your joint chiefs have fun -- joint chiefs have on with an army below 490 maybe and 90 maybe 450 in the active force. i know your predecessor was vocal about what his thoughts were on a smaller strategic plan for sadiqa talk to us a little
bit about that. >> melissa i work with international armaments cooperation. you talk about cooperation with china and i was hoping you could talk a little bit about cooperation and capabilities of our allies and trading partners in asia-pacific. >> i shared general odierno's concern with regard to the sizing of the army. we are supporting element of that in the joint force. what i mean by that is okay if we are going to resize any of the service is really the centerpiece of a land force, the army, then what is the construct behind that and what are we going to create will be the limitations of our operations out there and what is their tendency to do that? in the past we have said we are
going to do this, that or the other thing. the size of stability operations because a clear indicator as we move anything from army, armor out two kilos out we are the fill-in behind all of that and we are seeing some of that right now with operations in afghanistan. i think we need to do this in a careful deliberate manner. we did our own rightsizing of our personnel. it was 1%. we laid off 3%, sorry 1%. 2000 folks. the effect on morale and the trust factor was huge. what we can expect collectively of any of our ground forces in any of our services besides the force we have to make sure we maintain that trusting covenants we have with them.
i think it's important and in this one issue we need to understand. the size, the readiness, the psyche and the morale of the ground forces to join issue we all have concerned with as we watch this. we need to be very careful. >> i think the asia-pacific allies interaction i think in the near term the concept of collective self-defense and what i'm watching with japan where that can take us if it goes according to the plan set out by the japanese government they can share with us in missile defense. it's defensive in nature. they have all of the sensors, weapons and command and control that we have. next would be locations like the straits of hormuz. very defensive and collective in that regard. it requires a little bit more
coordination operating with their carrier strike assuming one of those missions of defense for the carrier strike such as anti-air defense and all of the rules of engagement and caveats associated. i would be one area. korea, we will see where we want to go in that guard. seeing what north korea's comfortable with regarding coordinate operations especially right now it is very tentative and how much they would want to proceed in that regard. ..
>> in the was sabatini is the american people sent a message that they had set for several elections now. they expect the people that they elect to work as hard as they do they expect us to focus on their ambitions and not ours they want us to get the job done. all of us in both parties had responsibility to address that. still as president i have a unique responsibility to try to make this town works. to everyone who voted, i hear you by the two-thirds of voters who chose not to purchase a pay yesterday, i hear you to.
>> the format today will be a conversation as explained to me. >> thank you very much and thanks for coming. it is an honor to be here with you. an understanding the world i would say is critically important which means cruel and unforgiving analysis the way the world is is really important and important departure to of any hope to fashion the world the way we wanted to be. thank you for coming you are one of israel's foremost
figures and national security figures. i also want to apologize willfully misrepresenting though is here today. for the next 30 minutes the gentleman to my left is the outgoing director of israel's mossad. [laughter] and i am the prime minister of israel. [laughter] we will have a conversation between the current prime minister and the director of mossad that will roughly last until 1:30 p.m. then we will go to your questions. the first mr. director figgie for your service you
have provided israel you have provided terrific advice i want to offer you an opportunity to speak forthrightly and directly. about the challenges that are facing israel security. with those challenges that might be worried about based on your experience with your honesty and clarity in presenting these recommendations for with those recommendations free from politics or personal relationship with meet. mr. director? >> a little technical
difficulties? [laughter] >> first of all, prime minister it is an honor to serve you. and thank you for expressing yourself so frankly but our set up is in such a way i have always expressed myself frankly and i have always remained in this firm. but i like to think really is have the frank discussion. you asked me to talk about three issues. but we always like to divide everything into three issues but it will be more less three out of three because in terms of what should keep
you awake at night or what you should think about waking up that a cold sweat at 3:00 in the morning is the urgent and the important. but in my thinking it is very helpful to speculate - - separate the urgent from the important. for that immediate security needs first of all, i would say the iranian threat and we spoke of this just recently with the united nations so not only the nuclear issue what will happen by november 24th and how will israel be able to live with that? and not only our neighbors as well.
but the hegemonic threat. and here we looked at has a lot across the border we even let dash iran and yemen that the issue that i would commend to you and my successor to pay growing attention to. that terrorists islamists threat whether have moss renewing the war from gaza or hezbollah may be busy and -- busy and syria and iraq but also isil threat because
it threatens to reach very close to us. to jordan's borders into lebanon and here and there as my colleagues confirm confirm, there is some manifestations with the arab citizens of israel. and third, i would cite in terms of urgency to maintain the growing strategic cooperation that has emerged in the last few years with egypt and jordan. to a lesser extent as you mentioned it in your un speech and we've major they did not object to that we
heard no objections but this is a key element perhaps the only way of life that diverges from our standpoint with the arabs praying and the rise of militant islam throughout the middle east. these relationships have to be nurtured. that means lobbying on behalf of president in washington and listening to king abdullah and what his needs are and to accommodate those even on the palestinian issues whereby a treaty he has a certain degree of jurisdiction. these relations have to be nurtured and i am particularly concerned with surprise inside jordan with the. isis threat not to say c.c. does not have his hands and
jails full but he seems to be much more in control the also the threat of his supporters of isis on the tour dates and border and others on the jordanian and syrian borders so looking around our borders these are the most urgent security issues on the agenda. >> let me ask if you questions what your sources have to tell us? what are your own personal views as to a comprehensive agreement extension, the breakdown, what do you think might be the most likely outcome? >> this is very much a political issue that involves the relationship with president obama of.
i am not sure how much i can and late in new my own overall since we're not looking at a crisis not present us with the insurmountable sensational crisis that requires you to sit down to make immediate decisions for you may like it you may not he probably will not. but there will be acontinuationt supply would downplay the significance of the deadline based on what we know now. then you have to factor like u.s. iran relations in the context for what happens and other friends like syria and lebanon.
with that potential for confrontation is has beloved. but this will not require any dramatic decision. response yes but not a decision. >> recently we were given permission for israelis for the first time to begin drilling for oil. on the golan. create a free reverence's how things are likely to play out. we are treating hundreds of syrian civilians and even in combat ince -- combatants so does this suggest the margin for continued occupation with the administrative and jurisdiction will continue? >> absolutely.
unlike the situation since 1967 no one today can grab us by the collar to say this guy who is an authority wants to talk about the golan within the peace agreement. we don't know what will happen in. ted years from now we could be at the negotiating table. but with the current realities of the middle east and why i recommended drilling for the first time since 67 this is not on the horizon. the more time goes by the more likely it is that whatever emerges across the border in syria will not put the goal bonn had the top of the agenda or near the top will look at mayhem for many years to come and as you
know, in the intelligence community we set up new structures to identify who was across the border and whether we can work with them or not. hands here, permit me as a parting gesture to commend your approach the chaos across our borders and the parties involved because we have managed to stage any fault -- uninvolved to prevent a situation that one party says use of force the other party. you don't hear this anymore but they enders' janvier not involved so we continue to do the minimum that we look for people to talk to a cross the border to keep a
quiet border and avoid the situation we even have to think about possibly sending troops across the border to create a buffer zone with ugly and nasty people and with the jordanians here i would say is one area i have to size one area we have been able to work well with the americans as well. >> one final question. to what degree have the mistakes of our american friends with egypt and saudi arabia egypt pushing human rights as an issue of with the saudis so their determination to reach an agreement with the iranians? generated closer relations
explicitly with egypt implicitly of saudi arabia and the gulf? >> with egypt to a fairly high degree space hides the fact we lobby on behalf of the sec administration in washington they suggest it is mistaken to focus on human rights violations in egypt for their more issues on the agenda the alternatives are not worse for egypt and america but also the interest as well. and right now you look at egypt with whom we are cooperating very closely regarding cause of their busy on the living front so
this is an area we can talk we don't have an embassy in cairo they don't want us to have an embassy in cairo. israeli journalist despite tough our efforts cannot get a visa to visit it is a strange relationship why we need the culture cultivated to expand and the american english is one way that with the saudis u.s. involvement to a lesser extent we have no border or direct military cooperation we have common interests regarding iran but not the palestinian issue. broadly speaking. when we work with egypt rework with the country that has a long established diplomatic service with the
lot of steps and my impression of the minor dealings with the saudis is they don't have that it is not quite as easy as pemex a wonder my prime ministership relations or are they the best they have ever been? >> at the security level. if you go back to israeli agricultural deserts' and the cultural center, and no. i don't know if we will never get back there and with all due respect it is circumstances and broader development. that we have played it right. >> moderator: moving to the important issues. >> we already touched on
one. this is a concern we share with the unit's that is what to do about american mistakes in the region? what to do with the united states that is seeking to do detach militarily from a security level in a number of geographic spier's -- speaker -- bustier that lends to the fight based on what? to be headings a president who acknowledges he does not have the strategy. attitude the area you don't have a strategy either. >> i was waiting for that.
[laughter] but the peace process that never had a chance and in the eyes of some actually contributed to said deterioration of the situation leading to the war with gaza. of course, now it is the return to the middle east it is an open in question today if it is short-term exception or a general reversal but it is extremely difficult as i'm sure you know, to make sense of all of this. for neighbors as well. we saw this in their recent war where secretary of state carry his mission to end the war this was to sit down
with turkey and the tar -- scudder and from a geostrategic standpoint that could conceivably bring about the outcome that we could accept we saw this with the mismanagement of the peace process. is one long term area concerned we a people who share our concern number one. second and here i get back to our conflict with our islamist non state neighbor you cannot call home loss of nine state neighbor is the semi state neighbor that we share with many americans
and others how to fight if not whin at least prevail in the asymmetric war with the nine state neighbors that do not play by the rules and we saw a perfect example of that the matter how much damage we inflicted there is always somebody in the hub moss leadership that said no in order to achieve goals that they never achieved in because they never achieve them we have to assume this cease-fire is temporary. when it will end i don't know but when it does we're back where we started here i need to focus specifically on the asymmetric problem of the country and i am sorry to say you don't have a viable strategy to do deal in general with the
palestinians were your goals are the two-state solution and we're all painfully aware this summer when all you talked about quiet in return for quiet not a viable strategy somehow to count the calories were you correctly refers to this. to show them how bad they are economically and this would change this is an economic conflict and not political. so get out to turn into the international community so it is not an easy issue i
recognize that this is something we have to deal with in a more rational way. we have to recognize that what you have is not a strategy their serious partners did your coalition and also in jerusalem as well i am not suggesting your predecessors had a better strategy unnecessarily but this is something we have to come to grips with. i think those are the important issues i would
point to broadly speaking. >> a appreciate your speaking your leave you wish to tremendous success in your future endeavors because i plan to be around i may plan to continue to consult with you. >> have not going into politics. [laughter] >> moderator: assume for the sake of argument that on the three or four core issues that are meaningful to the palestinians territory, jerusalem and refugees i was prepared to go further anymore that i expressed myself tarot john kerry. aviation had both here
together given the nature of the palestinian national movement the dishes between hamas deal think if i were prepared to move to agreement and i with concede the best partner they ever had remake the kinds of decisions with these core issues to satisfy mining requirements? >> we have to be defied the issue. because as you well know basically says he went to the far reaching offer has not been interested in
negotiating with you and now he goes to the un to give recognition there. it is my sense what he is signaling he cannot reach the end of conflict agreement with you because not because you cannot agree on borders if you're prepared to be flexible not because you cannot agree on this as a willing partner on security issues i am sure because the understands how much in the crazy middle east how dependent she is on israel as a strong neighbor. that he cannot agree on the refugee issue and on that hot i