tv Ash Carter Inside the Five- Sided Box CSPAN August 6, 2019 10:16pm-11:21pm EDT
importance of maintaining military superiority on a global scale. then just afternoon, a discussion about congressional waterpower and whether the 2001 authorization for the use of military force can be applied to future conflicts. in the heritage foundation takes a look at japan, south korea trade relations and how they impact diplomacy at 130 eastern. >> all week we are featuring book tv programs as a preview of what is available every week and on c-span2. watch historians, policymakers, economists, journalist and scientist discuss their nonfiction books, you will see authors of bookstores, fairs and festivals and on our signature programs in depth and "after words". enjoy book tv this week and every weekend on c-span2.
book tvs look at political memoirs continues with former secretary of defense asked carter. he talks about the lessons he learned while working in the pentagon in his book inside the five-sided box. >> good afternoon everyone. i'm margaret brennan of cbs news thank you for coming here for this working lunch. and from foreign relations, of course you all know that is why you are here mr. ash carter defense secretary and we will have this conversation for about 30 minutes or so and open it up to questions from all of you. take notes and keep thinking of questions and will come to you in a bit. i do want to tell you that during the q&a portion eight are on and i'll remind you the time, this will be on the record.
good to see you. >> thank you margaret. congratulations on your book. i was saying when we were chatting, the last time i interviewed you we were on a vessel office tony when you are carrying out a bill to rebuild up to respond to russia. >> exactly. it was an amphibious and it was part of what i thought was sadly necessary after quarter century, we did not have a warplane to russia for quarter century. it's interesting to reflect on. enter the cold war when i started when i worked on conventional and nuclear, at the end of the soviet union did not do that anymore for about 25 years. then it became apparent to me whatever six years ago or so that we needed for pain. that's when we positioned forces in different ways in europe but the particular reason to go at the time, was because that was going to be the location for new
cybersecurity centers for nato. and why until then, two reasons, its epicenter of hybrid work for of the russians trying between peace and the green man in cyber attacks. >> this is right after ukraine? >> yes. for the estonians, they knew what the playbook was in russia. but the other thing is it is more advanced than the united states. because it left for technological era, remember one of the guys i worked with is studying government and says i would as a student behind stage and you had checkbooks. i never seen a checkbook. [laughter] so they went right from electronic funds transfers and
he never seen a checkbook before. there actually tiny country quite advanced. those of the two reasons they were the cybersecurity center and that is why i was there in that era. in a great bunch of marines on board. >> i want to get to all of those because he makes it nicely together some of the geopolitics and thinking to modernize the u.s. military. but let's talk about the war itself. you refer to it on inside the five-sided box of the pentagon. you see this is not a memoir it's a users manual. >> it's exactly right, executive guide. >> who do you want to be using? do you have a suggested reader? >> first of all i hope that renews and readers, general citizens appreciation for the
wonderful institution that depends and takes him inside. i like to read nonfiction and i like to read about a place i've never been or never will be that takes me there and tells me how it works and if you're curious across the river and want to know how troops are recorded or how 750 boeing dollars are spent war plans are drawn up or worse conducted, it is that. the washington audience will know at least part of the already from your own experience but probably not all of it. i just happen to be in every corner of the place in the course of 37 years. for a ceo, the largest organization in the world, for anybody who runs something may be interested in what it feels like to run the largest place in the world. i like to say the larger, if you take amazon, ups, mcdonald's,
target and ge combine more are then a soft, apple, google combine. real property if you put it together would be the state of pennsylvania. it is the largest enterprise on earth and getting your mind around the management which i did as a ceo and also the coo and with the weapons aspire. i think anybody has to run something when we all do even if it's herself, it's a management guide for another manager. i hope it's an inspiration, i really care, a lot of people come and say and think about public service but i don't like everything i see, evil screaming and so forth.
and it is hard to counsel young people but i'm a believer in recruiting. there has to be another generation for all of us. who care about the country, care about the world and carry about our values in this whole project. what i tell them, it's only government we have. when i joined in the 1980s i did not love everything that was happening either. but you cannot get on the street and shop for another one. if you don't like it get in the game. >> what happens, given the scope of what you described when you have the level of turnover that we have seen over the past few months at the pentagon and you don't have someone who is confirmed by congress. what does that do to the executive? >> it is not good.
here's good news bad news, the good news the department of defense is relatively speaking a place with a very strong deep keel. you have 2.8 million professionals essentially in the military, and a place respond to good order and discipline. it will hold together, that is fine. but no organization, maybe even especially including the department of defense because consistency and order are so important can move forward without a leader. so it bothers me is that the place will fall apart, or will get in a position where we can't when wars anymore or anything like that, but not to keep moving you have to have a really
competitive streak we have to say the best in technology they will not move forward. that is where the problem comes. >> not having someone who has a sort of ability to say i'm senate confirmed, i'm here and i have a vision. >> fortunately cut in half, and the president who listens to me. and i did not have to deal with that and none of my predecessors and my observations, when i first worked for weinberger it was quite clear that president reagan talk to him and they did not mean he won all the agency bottles and stuff like that.
but he was always listen to and i knew it my boss, he's my bosses boss of bosses boss boss they listen to the department of defense and something, cheney, bill perry, on and on up to prisopresident obama. but i always got a shot. and he was very, very respectful listener. sometimes air tamely so when you listening to somebody else. [laughter] okay come on they had their turn. they said their piece. you don't have to -- [laughter] he was extremely polite to listening to people. and it's not clear that president trump listens or is going to listen to secretary of defense. that's a bigger problem than
just for the secretary of defense. a passage in the book where he took while the question of whether you take a job when you're offered a job, and i said the president of the united states the answers only one answer, yes. note that is false. the answer, you have to think about a bit. you have to say can i help this person succeed, that is what it's about. and had to be true to your values as well. those are the two things you have to do. but i would not know how to help this president because he does not seem to listen to secretary of defense. so that will be the other trick for somebody new, they make gift confirmed but somehow they have to establish a report with the president, otherwise all the
value of the defense department, it's a fantastic place and a lot to say about the world in a huge reservoir of expertise and knowledge. not to be able to bring that to bear on the president of the united states. that would be really frustrating to me. >> and you don't see the national security advisor running regular consultations or some of the process -- >> by looking in, i think is a process that is not connected to the president is what i think from reading -- but that's again from the outside can in. john bolton who are known to all the ministrations, that he certainly knows how the msc ran to invent the current system which is a great system, i would imagine he knew how to outdo
those. but he hasn't same problems, are you hitched to the man at the top or not and it doesn't seem to me he has either, he is closely hitched to the president, and that has to be frustrating. >> let's talk about geopolitics. we started with russia in your trendy position for all the time. where are we now in terms of russia as a strategic challenge to the united states. do you feel that you left the u.s. in a position where it could push back customer. >> is not likely to be a war is the thing you think about. but were is that they know if they start something with us they will lose. >> you said vladimir putin was not adequately deterred and continues to not be adequately deterred. in the city do we do enough
after the 2016 election, you have answers planes they know. and i said if you want evidence of that look vladimir putin, does this look like a man whose been chastised? the question answers itself. and he is someone that i've known since 1993, they used to take notes in the back between clinton and nielsen, he has been around a long time and he is a considerable geostrategic thinker. i cannot agree with everything he says but he does not make history better, he speaks extremely well and writes extremely well. he says exactly what he means and people say, what do you think putin is thinking exactly what is saying.
one of the things he wants to screw my country. and everything else we can talk about syria, terrorism, eastern europe, nato, whatever else, that's an arms control, these are important things and i know how to talk to people you don't get along with your agree to disagree re-can't and that's diplomatic life. that is okay but when one of the guys intentions is to -- here's the middle ground, that is what makes it difficult. but he is there, he is not going anywhere for a while and i think the russians and the chinese are the same. they respond to pressure from. >> when you hear from the chopper ministration that they are interested in exiting
certain agreements like the treaty which is about to happen or reconsidering things like new start on warheads and maybe the chinese into three party talks to come up with any weapons deal. knitting together those challenges, what do you think about that. is that just wishful thinking or is that because it'll never get done anyway. >> it'll never get done anyway. the second one is easier because there's no logic to the animal, they both complained that, player in that game so why would you get a room with two parties who are going to be very good at playing a democracy. at the same time were not going to get along, the idea that they're going to gang up on the american, i never actually believed in that. because they don't have any
other interest, russia's clinic this china's link this, and they are going to be at each other a little bit in the far east and they have almost nothing in common except that they both do not like us. that is not enough to make a condominium out of. respect to the first thing i think is more serious, we cannot afford to lose contact with the enemy as the phrase goes. but with russia, i think it's important to keep talking, it is frustrating and i'm worried there's not enough strategic trade because they can think the wackiest things if you don't stay in contact with them and those of you seen russians and they told you what their intelligence services have told them about what is going on, it's vile. so it's not safe to let that run amok. at the sense yes me about the
eye enough treaty and i'm sorry if this is an unpopular point of view because i know a lot of people don't want that to go away. but my view was a secretary of defense, i wanted more than they do. because i was a ways looking on the other side of the fence at short range missiles which we were not allowed to have which i think of lots of uses for. in europe, asia and remember the chinese are getting ready to par with us all the time and we don't have anything to far back because were in some deal with the russians. and that does not mean i'm preparing and allah. and i don't want to walk but you can't forget they did violate number one and number two, i know what to do if i'm given that right attitude and i assume
successors successor when know what to do as well so from that point of view, the military point of view it is not so bad. we can make good use of what we call conventional strike. >> you think that the design to do away with the agreements? because you're sitting up in a possible round of three-way talk? >> i guess i think so, i think it is something that sounds good and says wow list take the big three and get them on the room. the global will bite on the hook. i don't think there's anything really there. in the meantime you do away with something that did take 30, 40 years to build in general. things take so long to make in the real world, and it's so easy
to take them apart, i am a conservative by nature, i am always suspicious when something has been around for a while is getting dismantled. and that does not mean i'm not ready to charge into the future, i'm not a scientist, technologist, it was very big on the defense department but i did not take apart things readily. i'm happy to build new things but taken apart things is, unless you really, really have replacement, that is risky and things take so long to build, you can do a lot of destruction and no time in washington and i'm a builder, i like builders
in the lot of builders is he an audience, it takes a lot of patience and people who take stuff apart, i'm a little suspicious about that. along those lines if you look at what's happening on the potential unraveling of the international the poem on a agreement, when will the flashy yellow turn for you. what do you think is actually happening right now? >> on the nuclear front, i am less concerned perhaps that people might think for the following reasons. i'll come back to the and what it meant and what it did not mean. but what he did, as you all know it forced the readings that they maybe regret this now. and ruin the reactor they've
been putting their toe in the water. but they have a ways to go to get back to even where they were by thwere. that was under -- in a very determined circumstance where they were starting with what they have been which is not what they have now. >> there's more than a year rubino in the early years in the agreement that in putting their
toe in the water, they don't want to get the chinese, the russians and the europeans on their backs. what worries me, in the u.s. china think, with that and not that we are going to go with work with one another because our president said he does not want war and he said that consistently and repeatedly whatever anybody also said. and the radiance i don't think any position, you know the area better than i do see you know better on this to margaret, i don't think there no position, certainly not a position in military strength, and international or political strength to dig something like that. so is not intentional were either. that was baser risk in the assyrian situation is something unintentional. we are up against each other so
close, in the gulf, they need enough of an anchor, of something players up. i was in office when ten u.s. sailors were detained by their meanings for reasons i happen to be us going into the territorial water and navigating properly, to put it bluntly. >> this is in the middle. it was no better time, but over very visible negotiation, it's not like a time where the trading insults are not talking at all but imagine what we're doing in the defense department, peter cook remembers us very well. we are spooling up very fast. and sub defense is a big deal.
taking americans, iranians taking americans, the blood is getting up really fast. importantly, john kerry could ultimately on his cell phone and get adult leadership and get this thing settled down real quickly before we could get out each other. that kind of thing which is possible everyday, we took this into a rain and territorial waters. but there's no counterweight now. who isn't going to come from, how will they get resolved and that's an ugly baby one day. because everybody remembers the remaining hostage drama so that's what bothers me, more
than intentional war or the nuclear think. i worry about more with the united states and around that there's a spark in the grass is so dry. >> i want to ask you, china and north korea as well. when you lost the ministration did you feel i was unfinished business customer. >> it was frustrated with the north koreans but i been dealing with them since early '90s. so on the grandfather, father progressively getting worse. [laughter] >> that had been attempted diplomatic outreach. >> yes but the progress in 1994 there were some in 1998 there were some, 2006 after they exploded the first bomb, and cohen powell give it a try and i have to say i thought it was a
part of this in the past particularly in the first two also the third one. the obama administration did not try basically, i think president obama put words in his mouth but my inference was he did not think it would go anywhere. and what he did which is grateful for was back me up in my immediate criticism. so we did deterrence and defense and deterrence means having forces and are okay forces that are so obviously capable of destroying the nor north korean regime that they cannot possibly imagine that they won't lose a war if one starts. and defense is our missile defenses, and those are controversial.
and i was undersecretary, the weapons i was doing this will defenses in alaska and california and people were saying you can amber the russians or they don't work and work are you doing this and ethic the stance of the time was somebody in the north koreans are going to get there someday of the path they are on and i don't want to be defenseless when that happens. and so he did, so we are not defenses. i object to talking to them no, i cannot tell you i exactly get what is going on. all the presidents that i observed deal with north korea starting with bush one, refused to meet with the north korean leader unless until an agreement resolves because they knew to meet, an american leader to meet and north korean leader was a gift to north koreans. they crave that.
and if you're negotiation with someone you do not give anything for free. >> the ministration would argue all the past attempts have failed. so why not -- >> nuts not a technical point you don't give something away for free. to me it is not negotiating to give away something for free. it's okay if you want to have a meeting, with the north koreans everything is a transaction. so it's in general like that. so dealing with them you say you do this all do that and if that works out then i'll do this and you do that. that's how everything has to progress but i would not give them a meeting. i would not advise the president to give them a meeting. i might advise them to trade a meeting. >> ultimately where this ends up north koreans not giving up -- >> it would be a heavy lift and
that's not the path we seem to be on. we say we are but we don't see tracks being laid down. if that is possible, you gotta do something different from what we are doing, i'm not sure it's possible in the war they treat treated, the harder it would be to dislodge them. 2006, it's 2019 now. 13 years ago they exploded their first bomb. that is a lot of cement around the ankles for these guys and on top of that they are getting meetings and people are talking about lesser things like family meetings and returning remains and so forth which are important but a far cry from the nuclear raising or even test and so forth which are useful but that
is not the nuclear raising. and you know, and other people in this room no that is not a pledge either. they promised that to george bush one in 1992. so we did not get a new promise. they can -- they never lived up to the promise. >> i want to go to questions and the audience. before we do that, you hear a lot about questions regarding chinese telecom firms particularly huawei and access that they should have to this market in exchange also merck and businesses conducting business with those firms. should american companies be allowed to do business with huawei? >> sometimes not. >> given that you can make the argument that they are complicit in the surveillance. >> that is exactly the reason, i
wendon't want to sound harsh but there it worked out since 1990s. in the economist and i came to that conclusion about the year 2000, i dealt with them for a quarter-century many have as well. in the 1990s it was possible to help china would become a big france. and you cannot believe that by 2000 and you cannot believe it now. i don't think, that does not mean will have world war iii or cold war, but you have to ask yourself what does that mean that china is what china is, and particularly in the economic and technological era i don't think the economists have given us a playbook for that. and so you see, for example, the tariff negotiation if you like, that is a start, that's a
groping towards the playbook. but i don't think anybody complete tariffs as a whole of the people. is not the entirety of the pre-book. >> a blast loo blacklisting huai something you support customer. >> yes. there's very shades in support of that. and you cannot do everything like their handsets against their installed 5g equipment. while what is the big thing. i'm in favor -- we have to stick up for herself. china is a communistic dictatorship and i'm not out to change them. but when they come to the business scene, they bring a combination of political military economic tools that our societies don't possess. and we need to protect her companies and protector friends and allies against what is inherently an uneven playing
field and so, i think our companies reasonably expected government to do that for them. and not to say that we have two playbooks, we will cold war playbook which is export controls, and communistic dictatorship that would trade with. that does not work. or free trade, big france. neither of those is right. we need a playbook for the situation. and you see that being acted out. with huawei in the question of whether students are paid for by the u.s. government or chinese english to chinese, these are real questions. and i have some frustration with the international economic
thinking, i'm not in a communist and i'd be better all about myself but my disappointment is very real in the area. >> i want to open it up from questions from the audience. and just remind you you are on the record so we do have microphones on the side of the room if you want to reach her hand. please see your name and your affiliation and one question please. >> john holton, the 5g issue, should the united states as a matter of priority the develop 6g, and this technology, if it's a backbone of the next industrial revolution?
>> in general the answer to that question is yes we should be looking to lead progress. 5g has become a big god. and i was around when it was first invented and we walked around the nuclear community control era, this huge thing, there was a tiny incapability compared to the think that fits in your pocket. and we would carry them around like this. so to say it's a hard thing to put together, 5g is not magic, it's smaller, a little bit takes care of the latency business, increases the bandwidth, it's not like the end of the world and you have to do a lot of installation of the stuff because it has to be much closer together and if there's going to be apples with buildings and walls -- 5g is not like hugely
wonderful and i don't even know what 60 -- what people mean by 6g. somsome point yet to get on a borderline really close to transceiver if you're gonna get super wide bee bandwidth. this is not sophisticated, i don't think it to be transformative. but it's a step up better but requires a hell of a lot leasing antennas based buildings and that kind of thing. and on the whole i'd rather have all that and the infrastructure bought from american company or company i trust more than huawei. but your general question about leapfrogging it's me too another point if i may, i have been
talking about things like huawei and a defensive play like china, we need an offense. you cannot just play defense. you have to have an offense which means we have to be better and i think this is the underlying question, if you're worried about chinese and a.i., let's beat them and a.i. then rather than hobble them and a.i. so there's no sputnik thing, no substitute for being better. in getting there faster and so forth. we should not take sight of all that, and take her eyes off that and at the same time trying to not be unfairly beaten with a communistic dictatorship has tools that we do not. >> i will come back to you. can we try this side of the room. >> cynthia?
>> this is my question not theirs. [laughter] given what you said about putin and russia and you also said that it's a sobering fact that the problem of nuclear armageddon is less pressing and less using strength to in that where they tried to push us out and nato out of her allies or partners. so my question is about the responses that you favor and would they be top missiles? in missile-defense and interior? would you push for conventional and with our european allies? would you prefer a low yield nuclear option and finally on the missile-defense, we told the
russia's improvement for your that we want to missile-defense not against russia but against and around threat or something like around which we now change her mind and said too bad it's your problem. >> first of all, before we get to all the little gizmos and so forth, at the end of your question, most of it, most of my answer to what we do about russia, as few factors and we have to be careful. one is, it's a big country. i would like to be defending them. pardon my answer, vladimir putin you may think you're the worst here, but pal, and gold bull. so you show up and tally and all show up somewhere else.
another part of my answer, we have to play this hybrid game better. and call it -- little green men or the goosing around with cyber and pretending it's not an attack to meet an attack is an attack. my answer -- you asked about enough missiles, yeah, as i said we gave them and we thought we had a deal once upon a time. inertia is part of that. i think it's a little more useful in respect to china if i may say so. we think it's a big debate going on now. the only thing i will say about that is a couple things, first
is very small, and the second is, nobody can want to use or yield then they have to, but will publish people most is the idea that this makes more usable and doable, i don't find that possible, i don't think grown-up responsible people who think about nuclear weapons or god forbid whatever using eckler weapons would be a major, a few kilotons. i really doubt that would swing it. so a lot of these things are exotic and people looking for solo for bullets and ideally the nuclear weapons will take care of the russians. i think it's more conference of the. there are other ingredients to
the work type approach -- again i don't want a war with russia, i'm only saying that it makes them convinced in detail that they will lose, by the way missile-defense, forget that with respect, they have too much stuff. we can hold our owned loan with the north koreans for number of years but the russians have too much stuff and again, they come at you again and again, to play the missile-defense and have to have these conversations. senator wernick here and he's been having these for 30 or 40 years. and if i knew how to defend myself from you i would. but i don't. we haven't known how to do that for any of these other things and is not that we have not tried, we have to much stuff. >> thank you.
continuing on the theme of alliances. has a transaction nature of this ministration so far caused any damage that can't be pulled back to future democrat republican organization. you had ambassador bolton who is prenatal . . . this is a multiplier for us, and people who reflect our values and interest enough that they might fight alongside of us, and having somebody fight a one-sidealongsideof you is betta to do it by yourself. you can't do that
transactionally. it's like a family or something. they are transactions within a marriage but there has to be an underlining relationship as well, particularly among democracies. and you have to ask after you've called into question an alliance how easy it is to get it back into solid ground. i think what is going to make that tricky where we have done that is these are democracies so you are not dealing just with the leader and the thing about the democracy once you kick people off or they felt disrespected, and though leader could ever lead them in their direction, even if it is the right direction because they can't get away with it. if you are dealing with vladimir
putin, but if you are trying to deal with atrios on a whatever, she can't zigzag like that because she has an opinion of her own to pay attention to, so it is a relationship with another people if it is a democracy, and that inevitably is something you can't buy you love and down, people want to feel connected. i believe in the values thing of the enlightenment. the nytimes and in our values are about what they call the dignity of man and at least in theory we can be american and so forth, but universal. it's about human rights, and
that's kind of player i a wherea person, and china ideology it's fine if you are chinese, but since i'm not, it's not usually attractive, so you look at the globe and say where are the people that share our values more than just interesting history. that matters to me it's worth having a relationship with people that share your values and in international life even if it is an ordinary human life. >> but he wouldn't go so far as to say joe biden who worried out loud the other day about nato not surviving another term of the presidency? >> i didn't hear him say that. the i don't believe that if he did say that only because i think is a relationship in the
system. people have a sense and know that we and the united kingdom are friends and are going to be friends for a long time. we were helping and there was no reason for that in the defense we did it because we were friends with great britain, which by the way we used to be an enemy of between world war i and world war ii in the sense of the newspapers. we became big pals and world war ii. we help them out when they were in a real spot. that is a perfectly valid thing to do. these countries are going to look at the globe just like the look of the globe and say where are some people we can get along
with, and there are not a whole lot of them and the europeans are one of them and the canadians are not the only ones somwith the japanese, australia, there are lots of people. they are friends for a reason. board member of the arms control association. you said you can think of able to view this. since the treaty had no limits on the air launched into the launch of, could you elaborate a little bit on the use on the use need for having a land-based systems and a lot of countries that would welcome. i don't want to elaborate too much, but you are right.
if you go out and let's say that asia-pacific and you want to be able to get some where quickly land to land, there's some attractive circumstances. not transformative otherwise we may have gotten out of the treaty earlier. >> here on this side of the room what sort of pill do you take to maintain the shape that you are in? [laughter]
[inaudible] my modest military career started there in the end of world war ii, and is that the same? they were so proud that they could respond within three hours and be ready to. that is and what worries me, it's the cybersecurity war. how do we know when we are in one of those things, what shape is it in and how well prepared are we down there, and what is his role if any? >> i will tell you to be what it looks like is a attack on ash carter.
i get this question all the time. i don't care if it is cyber or not. if you attack my people, you attack my country. it is destructive and threatening to my people. there it is in a difficult territory attack but it's not like an all-out military attack that it is an attack. aggression. what am i going to do to punish ant pushback. so the first thing is an attack is an attack. i wouldn't necessarily respond to a cyber attack with a flavor response when people through airplanes into the buildings we didn't throw airplanes into their building. if you do something to me and my people, i'm going to do whatever i damn well want and it seems
efficacious but it might be the united states marine corps and while it may not be a cyber response, there does need to be proportionality and discrimination that are important. but you don't do site of a cyber. you need to be able to call something for what it is and not get befuddled by the fact. >> did you recognize the attack at this time? >> by a guy that lives in a glass house throwing domestic political stones speed with
>> remember we weren't part of that in the normal course of things. quite appropriately. i can tell you everything that was going on or that we knew everything going on simply because i was the secretary of defense and it wouldn't be normal if one of those people were here they could probably tell you more and if i may say so there is a good site that which is president obama was always very careful in the years is the associate defense they've
always been careful to keep the defense department out of politics. so it was considered we shouldn't invite those guys for the conversation about what we are going to do about the election because that is a political conversation in the middle of a campaign how you deal with that could be seen the outcome it solved if you are a person in a position of responsibility, you have to ask yourself is appropriate for me to do something and i'm sure that there are conversations like that going on. we wouldn't really be invited to that end that is okay with me. but in the intelligence briefings, it didn't surprise me at all and i didn't require a whole lot of convincing them it was irrefutable by the time
talking and i don't see how you could think that they were not doing it deliberately. >> here in the aisle of a gentle man midway through in the blue shirt. >> i'm a journalist with al jazeera. following on the comment about keeping the defendant debate couldid itcould have been out oi wonder if you can share your thoughts on president trump's fourth of july salute what were your takeaways? >> i prefer to call it a fourth of july celebration not belonging to anybody. the vet is what the troops should be doing.
every holiday has its purpose. we have veterans day, memorial day, which is particularly important to us and the department of defense. those are the days we particularly honor our institution. there are inauguration day is a come a fourth of july where we are honoring the principles so different holidays have different purposes. the day are not trained for that. they are not authorized for that. we have tens of thousands of people in our customs and border patrol. we have the forces that do that,
that are trained to do that but our guys are not trained to do that and they are trained for the war. they are not trained to do that and they are also not authorized to do in other words they don't have the law enforcement abilities. if it needs to be bigger let's make it bigger but others are not trained to do that are authorized to do that. >> the gentleman with the glasses back there in the middle. >> thanks for this opportunity. from the news agency, there was an article last week signed by scholars disagreeing with the current administration's policy. what's the point of this article
the question is is china an enemy as a competitor, geostrategic opponent and boils the thing down so i don't want to be an enemy of china. i know who would win the war with china. no one in their right mind could possibly and want to have a war with china. i think to the expression of the scholars respectfully it had some good points and in general
i don't buy the american creation story of the u.s. china competition. there is one version of that which is actually by a very good friend of mine and a wonderful colleague wrote an interesting book about brent allison but the formulation was the war was caused by the rise of power and the fear that caused a. i don't think that quite works in this case i don't see the fear as contributing. by the way don't forget the case they did go to war and you know who one, the u.s. side.
are other pieces in the dilemma there will be other things. but to the extent it is reflected in this country we need to have a more intentional political economic policy with respect to china, i think that is necessary and inevitable and long overdue. but we can't just decide this is the playbook like you can do at china. i want to thank all the members for coming today and secretary carter for your time and