tv Discussion on President Trumps 2018 State of the Union Address CSPAN January 31, 2018 5:33pm-6:39pm EST
>> good evening everybody. -- i amrest for its injured schwartz. our sheep or series -- i am andrew schwartz. our series, we thank them for our support. enabling us to make this possible. i would like to thank texas christian university and the -- i would like to introduce bob schieffer. [applause] >> thank you all very much. this is kind of a different take on things. is to what we going to do
-- going to talk about the state of the union. the president had his say last night. the pundits given their take on it. if this were a trial i was supposed this would be the point where we would call in the es.ert witness no better place to gather sis.rts than at cs irs -- c gives us a chance to show off our experts. terri, a former korea analyst at the cia, former korea director at the national security council, considered one of the world top experts on korea and she has a phd from the fletcher school.
dr. cap hicks is our senior vice president and the henry kissinger chair director of csi international security program. principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy and plans during the obama nation. academic prestigious and government posts and holds a phd from m.i.t.. heather connelly is a s.nior vice president at csi headed the team that authored the kremlin playbook. you want to read it. gives you a real rundown. she and her team analyzed what the russians are doing across europe and you will find similar things going on there. spots at thed state department. assistance to the newly invented
states. when the soviet union fell in, and down at the end joining me, one of the men on this panel. william -- william wright should -- william reich. he was president of the foreign national -- national foreign trade council. he served as a member of the u.s. china economic and security review commission and he spent 20 years on capitol hill. most of that time working with senator john heinz and later with senator rockefeller. .hat we heard last night this was the speech the new york
times described as remarkably devoid of new policies. that sounds a little harsh but when i went back and looked i discovered it was a full hour and to the speech before he proposed a plan that he wanted the congress to take up. this was the infrastructure plan. i thought what we would do just assert off, i would like each of how do you think it will be -- ourby our alleys allies around the world? mainly focus on the foreign policy side. i think our allies will be surprised by that too. bidsf them short on policy
feeling hopeful about north korea policy. >> the defense piece of this, there was none. there was actually a little more on defense than many other areas . which i'm sure heather will try to fill that void in a moment. i had more to work with. did put annt emphasis in the defense remarks on his desire to have congress very probably bipartisan supported viewpoint and one that everyone from inside the defense community, industry, allies, that was a positive message to hear. i think the downside is you went to focus on the nuclear aspect of how that may might spent and -- the need for nuclear
modernization, broadly bipartisan agreed viewpoint. to any sensee it of why we would be seeking this new funding. he really focused on terrorism, the rogue states of iran and you might think you were in 2004 listening to much it was removed from the current discussions around national security strategies. a lot of focus on the issues ofe states
detainee policy and terrorism. linked it to a large increase in defense spending. with a question if you don't follow these issues closely. if you do, you are left with a sense the president was speaking to the issues he thinks resonate with the public. terrorism is the issue that resonates most when they think about why they have military, they are not serve connecting the dots to have that military is used. they just know they don't like terrorism. he has repeated as a presidents i think it was really less an orchestration of strategy and more about how he wanted to appeal at a basic level to themes he is highlighted before
it very was positive pressure was very positive. he told a story through the eyes of the american people. i think sometimes we forgotten to tell a story of why it's important that we do the things we do. i thought that was very important. , andhat i did not like also did not talk about the world we're living in. the president made passing reference to our arrival. our great power competitors, what are we doing? how we engaging what we're doing
? the thing that was absent was allies. . theher that was zero .resident there were no signs given to them. in reverse order. what i did not like on a personal level was all the bragging. he spent the first half an hour taking credit for some things he was responsible and some things he had nothing to do with. you get tired of it. what surprised me, and this is the devoid policy, i bump up again with.
how a few proposals there were. fun.ly people would make it he seven different ideas in .hat was a longer speech he had five or six things. he did not really talk about the environment. he did not talk about education. a lot of things that just weren't there. he did not insult any of our trading partners. downflected -- i've gone
stairs with the pattern paper. reporter was coming out to talk it been such a major topic of his. for the entire year. affair ands an particular articulation of our views on trade. he did not go into detail or provide revelations about what >> -- fromto do huron and i want all of you to feel free to just jump in whenever you think is necessary. it don't wait for me to call on you.
i think we have to go back to you, sue. victor, who everybody around here thought was going to be the ambassador to south korea, we learned he is not. what is the deal? what was this about? let me just say victor is not only as a colleague, i've known him as a longtime. as an intelligence analyst i used to brief him. i used to see him when he was a policy maker at the national security council. have been more experience and qualified u.s. ambassadors to south korea. this is a shock to everybody particularly with our south korean allies. victor has expressed his views strongly.
>> the administration is calling it a bloody nose. if there is a daily limited strike on north korea we are going to make our position clear to north koreans they are dealing with a different koreastration that north is not going to retaliate and that will lead them to get back to the negotiation table. a big assumption to make. victor laid out a case why he's strikes.ilitary he wrote an excellent opinion piece on washington post. aboutl green also talking this kind of containment strategy. that we don't have to respond militarily.
robust missile defense, i do -- hethis was a policy worked with the white house under the bush administration and i just know that at this stage, something came up. south koreans are shocked and dismayed. it's only been a lead -- been a year that south korea has dealt with no ambassador. thefact that it's not like doctor was meant to be an engager. style, he is not hawkish
enough for this administration. there are some concerns with south korea. alliance management and how to get south koreans more comfortable. panel, isask the there such a thing as preventative nuclear war? i thought we went through all of this a long time ago. >> i don't think i would describe it as preventative care war. it's probably not useful to talk to much in the theoretical because there is the possibility that you see a strike coming and you want to respond to prevent a crisis. >> what kind of a strike could you make on north korea? i do not want to be >> put in a position to argue for a strike in north korea. getchallenge, as you
through what those possibilities are, there are none that are risk-free. oryou want stricken airbase a site where you thought weapons of mass description might -- either a missile launch or a site that would be for the harder you thought there were weapons of mass destruction. let's say you want to distract the command and control installations of that might be all kinds of things but it might be a facility at which they have .etection systems the challenge is how do you think north koreans will respond. that is something you have to think about with any adversary. you tether into each adversary. difficult to play those scenarios out in ways.
if you think the north koreans are rational, why that would drive them to drop the pursuit of nuclear weapons which might seem highly rational in order to determine you and if you think they are irrational, you ramp up the chances of an escalation. as victor pointed out, i think sometimes we become desensitized to the idea that things happen over there and there are things here. one of the things he did well was to point out there are over 200,000 americans, 30,000 u.s. military but then lots of civilians that work median soul or the family, we have there all around the world. to head up and place. cracks just to point to victor. it piece. -- this would be a major
economic shockwave through lanes.nt trading it is the unintended consequences when you make contact with the enemy your plan goes completely awry. frankly, we don't have the support of allies for that action. think there's greater collective support on maintaining maximizing the pressure and having us provide that extended deterrence. we have to do patient and the and third with this option have a lotmuscular
to say about this. .s entirely wrong section it is difficult to do in north korea has experience with evading them. it illustrates the point you just made, heather. if you can get everyone else marching with you on something like that, which the obama administration did successfully everybodyf you give .oing the same thing arabic we've run up a string yet . -- aobably could do more
lot of the stuff they need comes in bipolar. -- we couldilling make more progress than we have so far. analyst for 10 years. one thing we do not know is how kim jong-un will react. cannot assume is going to retaliate or not. you just don't know. the result is something we don't have a handle on. what we think is too crazy or a national, he cannot be deterred or detained. if we think he is rational enough to not retaliate there something of a contradiction.
after his rational or irrational. >> one more question. one of the things that struck me in the speech last night when he said we will not make the same mistake of previous administrations, what was he talking about? he said compromises and >> concessions led to aggression by north korea. that is vowing not to make mistakes of that. i think he's laying out the negotiations or dialogue with north korea will lead -- is not really on the table. he said he's going to meet with -- he said concession and compromise did not work. it focused on maximum pressure without elaborating on that policy and a focus on to privity of the regime. i felt he was making a case to think he is making
the case for future > -- you brought up the part about trade. the administration has pulled out of the tpp. i don't know very much about trade. what is the strategic fallout of that? as we are talking about allies, being together. is the fact that we pulled out of that and we are the only people not out there anymore because is designed to stand at the open together and they have banded together. does that help us from a standpoint of national security. -- that one was
a root -- about the u.s. role in the pacific. a lot of access issues. a lot of games particularly for farmers and building a stronger rules-based trading system. it was about the u.s. presence in the pacific. the signal mostly to east and southeast asia. the united states was determined to stay there and be an effective counterweight for anyone who wanted to achieve longevity. the only way to read from cost -- i think pull a you can go anywhere in southeast -- the smaller countries on the periphery because they are
smaller, don't see themselves as having a lot of choice in the matter but to develop a closer relationship with china in economic terms but also in political terms. not only pulled off to send the signal that there's been no replacement strategy. there's been speculation last week he said maybe we will rejoin anti-bush trying to figure out what is that mean. if he says of multiple times maybe there's something there. the optimistic view is maybe he's listening to his national security advisers who must be telling him you have no leverage strategy and you torpedo the good one. you need to come up with something. of of course, he will not go back
to an obama thing. every administration tends to assume everything from the predecessor was bad. this one has done that to an extreme. so they had to come up with something else. maybe they are in the process of deciding maybe we should restructure and come back into it. but as he pointed out, the reaction of the other 11 has been, well, that is nice if you want to come back, but we're going ahead and on our terms, which are not quite the same as what we negotiated. they dropped some things. the things they dropped were in the intellectual property area, stuff that we want, that our companies want, that are not going to be there. weif we go back in, i think pare some of the security damage, but it will be a weaker agreement and not as economically beneficial for us. mr. schieffer: do you think we
can make better trade deals than what we were getting ready to get in the tpp? secretary ofthe commerce was telling the japanese, look, you are just not 37.5% tariffwith on imported beef. apparently he was unaware that tpp takes it down tonight percent tariff on imported beef tariffs that down to 9% on imported beef. he says he wants a better deal, but i wonder if we are going to get a better deal. at we were talking about thsy this morning. he never talks about the deficiencies, what we did not get. i do not think anybody really knows what he wants that would be better than what we have got.
the reality is that these things are negotiations. nobody gets the whole roast. if you're lucky, you get 60% of the loaf, and if you're really good, you get the other guys to think they did better than you did, whether they did or not, if you are a good negotiator. there is a superb negotiator and a great closer that i have had differences with, and i think he got just about everything he could get out of those guys. we can ask for more. if you look at the nafta negotiations, we're asking for more. i would be surprised if we get it. mr. schieffer: do you think there is any real possibility that he will pull out of nafta? i mean, i am from texas, so we have quite an interest in that. be the biggest
loser if we do pull out. they have so much at stake. i went to a meeting today with the business community about that, and there is kind of this feeling that we are over that hump, that there has been this parade of people going in to the white house saying don't pull out, economic disaster, political disaster. the short-term losers would be agriculture. they have got the most to lose, and it is the most immediate and all these red state people have said don't do it, big mistake. brusca, all the these places. the governor of michigan has been adamant about this, that what he wants to do is not going to begin for the auto industry. my sense is that, grudgingly, the president has kind of come to the conclusion that maybe they are right. risk.that at great
there could be a tweet tomorrow morning that says we're pulling out, but i think that we are over the hump, at least for a while. the round in montréal that ended on monday was civil. the other sides engaged. there is now talked about a negotiation over our demands. we're not going to get what we want, but at least it is going forward. i think we have kind of put that one on the site for a while. but he seems to think that the best way to get a deal is to, you know, pullout, and that will intimidate everybody. you know, maybe that is true in the real estate is missed, but these are countries that have their own armies. the have got their own rules that they have to adhere to. and they have got their of politics. mexico, and the opponent is doing very well in the polls.
it is not as simple as he thinks it is spirit mr. schieffer: -- as he think it is. mr. schieffer: i want to broaden that out, the fact that we now have no one confirmed, still, after a year to be the butssador to south korea, that is more and more the case. has this begun to affect our policy yet? going to let heather answer because i have done a panel with her i-4 and she is outstanding on this. -- i have done a panel with her before and she is outstanding on this. >> when you have a missing state department, what happens? pull outtions on our of tpp, and really in the state of the union address, we have no positive agenda anywhere. we have a negative agenda -- we will pull out spirit we will have a military strike. but we have no positive -- what
are we doing? a positive agenda that diplomatic strategy when you have a fully engaged foreign policy and a state department that is vibrant and engaged with ambassadors a place, and we're using all of the tools, diplomatic. tools -- diplomatic tools. we are convincing countries to follow our lead. without that infrastructure, we cannot do that. after year one of the administration, we still do not have that functioning state department and networking infrastructure to support a vibrant u.s. foreign and security policy. it is missing, and countries are moving without it. on tpp, no one is waiting on us. the 11 have moved forward. european union and japan have signed an agreement. everyone is moving forward. so if we want to come back, that train has moved out.
wey are already engaged, and will then have to comply with their requirements. that is what happens when you do not engage, when you are not the leader saying, come on, this is how this is going to work, and you can only do that when you interactive,ted, and joined together interagency. we have a very broken interagency. we have one holistic being led by the department of defense -- policy being led by the department of defense and others in the national security council. the process is not highly unusual. interagency processes, that is the world wrestling federation. you get in there and really jump around. at the end of the day, you have a focused policy, the president signs off on it, and everyone implements it. in our process, we not quite sure where the policy is. many times, the president contradicts it repeatedly during the day.
it just has everyone not able to move forward. for me, the missing element has been a vibrant diplomatic strategy for all of these global problems. ambassador in an a huge, massive area. we need our diplomats, our best and brightest, to handle these. --e post there are many one mr. schieffer: there are many offices in washington that are not filled. too, yes, you have the absences, but it is even worse than that. you have not just the but mine nnd since it -- the benig absence, but there is the hostility toward the diplomatic corps. you have people leaving and people sensing they are not
wanted. you have people who believe they are being sort of starved out, if you will, that there is not actually a desire to avoid the yurok receipt, the deep state, whatever, for service officers. that is a generational challenge that we will not easily recover from. it will take a commitment from whoever the next team is, however they are built, they will have to make it a priority if they want to build that back. watch the military a lot, the u.s. department of defense, i think there are a lot of good things going on today that the dod is doing, but it is an instrument. it is not the end state of policy, and they know that. and there they are out there alone. how is he supporting the military to have them out there alone, executing an afghan policy which seems to have no
purpose? the president recently said we were trying to negotiate with the taliban, but then there was confusion about that. and then counter isis, which he gave credit for last night. korea,, theto north end state for north korea,. i think -- i think all of us think that is a political settlement. instrument is important as to how you think of the tools that get you to the end state, but it is not an end state. that is why the bloody nose approached is not lead anywhere if it is connected from some kind of diplomatic or integrated strategy. this comes back to the trade , where if the president were pursuing bilateral approaches, which i could atld fail, we least test that theory, but they are not happening. nothing is actually happening. stating theoing is
best state of affairs, and as heather pointed out, people do not wait around. i tell my teachers that the world -- i tell my teenagers that the world does not would run for us, and that is what is happening now. the tpp 11 are moving on. they are moving on with security initiatives and other areas. ands just one year in, the world was thought collapsing around us, don't get me wrong. the question is, how fast is that ball roll, and what is the momentum? we're losing the momentum. i keep up with it as best i can, but the white house itself is as disorganized as the bureaucracy is, and perhaps that is where it all starts. this recent book, "fire and fury some code that just came out -- i am not endorsing the methods, but i will tell you this, he
captured the chaos that is in the white house right now. i mean, there is just no question about it. because i covered all the major beats in washington, people say, well, what is your favorite eat? i bet it is the white house, right? , say, you get some great blood but the problem is they all work for the same guy. you get up on capitol hill, mild time favorite beat, and they are all independent contractors there. that is a you get news. i said that for years, but i am going to have to change that. it is no longer accurate. there are many factions -- there are as many factions today in the white house as there are in capitol hill, and they are all leaking on each other, and they all have their own agendas. he removed one faction when they out, but you still
have four or five. the boys over here represent their agendas, and they do not particularly like your brother-in-law, and there is your sister over here, and that is another faction over there. you have reince priebus and sean spicer, that was yet another faction. so all of this is going on. i mean, i have been in washington for 48 years now, and i can truly say i have never seen a white house that operates the way that this one does. sometimes they get some things done, and sometimes they do not. but a lot of the time it is not just arguments over policy, it is simply unfamiliarity with the process of how the government works. i think they are all still feeling their way on that front.
perhaps that is too harsh a thing, but that is kind of the way it is. about europe a little bit. we did not -- he did not talk about it very much at all. i think the fact that there was so little set -- all of you have said you were surprised to do not talk about our allies. that is so much a part of america, really. how is europe taking all of this right now? you're one, ank lot of european leaders have come to the oval office and that or theysident trump have met at various summits and gatherings in europe. i think they have a sense of, you know, a successful meeting for theg sure you go in economic relationship, business procurements involving the u.s.,
making sure they explain their close relationship and what is important to them. the norwegian prime minister got a little bit more than she bargained for after their meeting. it was a successful meeting, but that is the challenge. the meeting may be successful, but then it gets used in andersations and tweets sort of goes in a very different direction. i think there is just great caution. coming,not know what is so they tend to sort of take a lower key approach to it. i think the exception is french president emmanuel macron, who will be coming here for the trump administration's first state visit at the end of april. of all the european leaders, he has a relationship with the president and can disagree with the president. he can share with him his concerns, whether it is on the
iran nuclear agreement or the aris climate agreement or variety of issues, but they continue to have a conversation. he may have broken the code. british prime minister theresa may has had a much more difficult time with the president, although the united kingdom certainly needs a strong bilateral relationship with the u.s. to navigate brexit. on the one hand, they are trying to stay low. everyone is focusing on the upcoming nato summit in july. the last time the president spoke to is nato colleagues, i think they are still recovering emotionally from that experience. but i think we are, you know, steady as she goes. this weeke story of was not in the state of the union address but before and now after, on the russia investigation. european allies have been pulled into this in the british,
australians. goesare watching how this and what the likely consequences are, like we all are. very concerned. we had a russian military jet that came with an five feet of a u.s. ship over the black sea. we are so near a military accident here. it is extremely dangerous over the black sea. and we had the administration's decision not to relate implement sanctions legislation robustly. so away we go, but this russia story will continue. anticipatedsaid he that the russians will continue to interfere in midterm elections. expressed confidence that we will have a free and fair election, but when you have the
cia director say the russia is willing to shape our election, where is the country going to protect on that? mr. schieffer: that was my next question. really, the russia investigation , that was really the elephant in the room. do you think the country is in danger now? >> sure. mr. schieffer: because of what heather is talking about -- people are not quite sure where we are. , i definitely think the country is in danger from those who look for our weaknesses and seek to exploit them, and those can be state and nonstate actors. i would put russia in the category. the question is how, and how resilient are we to those challenges? i certainly think attacks from any state or nonstate actor that tries to cut of the pillars of our constitutional democracy should be at the center of our concern.
because it is really our strength as a democracy and living out what is bold in our constitution, that since the strongest signal to our full and part -- our foreign policy, demonstrating the value of the it keeps an and authoritarian system as being less attractive to other players. anything we have added to that, including economic and military powers, are very important. at the base of it, we have to have those pillars of democracy. i a very concerned. russia is not the only country that concerns me,m but it is a country that concerns me. to the extent that it has become so politicized that we cannot think of it in an objective threat way, which i think a lot of guilty parties are involved in that, that -- i respect the cia director for coming out and
saying this is a challenge to our democracy, which regardless of who it neighbors and an electoral cycle or whether it is going into judiciary or other political democracy, free press, it will eventually turn on others. .he goal is to create chaos at the maximum, to support what will help them at any given time. yeah, i am greatly worried, ue, wheneffer: s north korea question. deal limbic's are coming up. what do you think the impact of that will be? -- the olympics are coming up. think itot necessarily will be to progress on the nuclear and missile front. i want to temper that anticipation. from the north korean perspective, there is zero political or financial cost of sending this delegation of athletes.
22 athletes and 230 cheerleaders. there carefully picked and vetted. they will be the most beautiful north korean women you have ever seen. they are like the spice girls. it is a win-win for north korea. why not? it is completely funded by the south korean government and is a chance for an image makeover to show they are a normal country and look at the beautiful women. and you get to maybe create a andure between the u.s. south korea. that is good. if there is an insurance policy , fromn future provocation a north korean perspective, this is great. glad there is a thaw in those relations are now.
until it is over on march 18, i think we're ok until then. but what will happen at the end of march and early april when they resume joint military exercises, which secretary mattis said we going to do? north koreans will demand to south korea. they do not do things for free, so they will make some demands on continuing the dialogue and engagement. i am concerned. but i am pause now, concerned for the beginning of april, that we are going to go back to where we were. mr. schieffer: will trump go? >> the president is leaving the u.s. delegation. mr. schieffer: well, who has a question from the audience. we have several. there is one way over there.
.ow about right here >> steve winters, independent consultant. i had the chance to see victor dozens oft csis times, and he is full of strength and stability and rationality. this is the first i have heard about this shocking event. however, do any of the panel thisthe feeling that isosite, shall we say, trend to be found in many places in d.c. today and otherwise? for example, there was a panel recently, and the moderator asked the panelists, a it time to give puytin
bloody nose? we have the usual suspects that issued the report on iran, how we have get very forceful against iran. it seems to me it is not just the white house or limited circles, the tendency is apparent. does anybody else getting this feeling? >> i will jump out and say i think much of this can be traced back to the events surrounding the syrian redline and the dismay about how that all unfolded. much of itt dismay, probably, is focused on the view that the obama administration failed to enforce the redline it created. some of it is around allies and the view that the french and the in particular,s left the u.s. out there in the domesticuse their own policies were problematic.
some instructed toward the congress because there was a happy debate -- a hefty debate in congress, particularly among republicans but to include democrats, the need for an authorization for the military force. so you have everything that could possibly demonstrate a lack of preparedness, willingness, capability to deter future chemical weapons, if played out in the case. the question is, what lessons the community take away? maybe more to the point you are raising, what lessons were taken tasked with senior positions in the u.s. government? i think it is fair to say that syriaeople feel that the example is one of failed deterrence. there were a lot of mistakes made. and that there has to be a better alignment between our rhetoric and the reality of what we are willing to do.
deterrence is about willing capability. we have to have a will and capability. i think the north korea and korean-- the north crisis has intersected with that reality washington is sitting in. my strong view is we have a tendency as a public, including washington, to swing on use of force issues. toswing very far to wanting use them, whether it is nigerian schoolgirls, whatever the case is at the moment, maybe a post iraq, if you will, we're not doing that again. problem is we swing a lot. in a dominant crist to such as we have, i do think we become very erratic on these issues. it is very fair to say these issues come up repeatedly, whether you call it a bloody
nose or hownd security community to deal with as to when a deterrent message is appropriate and when it is fire and fury and when it is too weak. doing it better is better than doing it poorly. >> a consequence of a nation at war for 17 years, every problem looks like a nail, and we have a military hammer that can fix it. it is easy. they are efficient, the best in the world. we have absolutely atrophied all tools.er we do not even think about it first. the military strike, the bloody nose, is always first. it should be the last thing. back to the state of the union speech, the fact that the president did not talk about how we have 300,000 u.s. forces around the world that are on the front lines, but we are making
sure that they will not have to be used if we have strong policies. we have more generals and and roles serving as ambassadors. the militarization, if you will, begins to lend us to everything is going to be a bloody nose strategy. we have to swing back to the allen's of strong the promising -- that to the balance of strong diplomacy. we have to take care of it, but that is the last option, not the first. mr. schieffer: right here. yesterday, there was a report that the russian intelligence chief met with u.s. intelligence. we had the soviet, the russian ministerr and foreign and the white house by themselves. the spy flying incident.
it seems like we're not really -- if this had happened in the obama administration, even in the bush administration, there would be complaints of, holy hell, what are we doing giving into the russians? can you comment? --it is not entirely clear there have been conflicting reports whether the individuals were sanctioned or not sanctioned and that they were meeting on a counterterrorism agenda. if you will remember, when president trump met with president putin and concorde, they established sort of a counterterrorism working group, a cyber security working group. i am sure some of those things have manifested. ofember, there was a bombing the metro in st. petersburg, russia, and we do cooperate. there are times when we focus on
the arctic here at csis, and there are times when the head of the ffb is the best interlocutor for our coast guard to talk about how to ensure we have safety and security in the arctic, but there are exceptions. -- i do need to blight not mean to blanket that, but this heightened, politicized -- for me, it is extraordinary what we're watching with this memo and release. it is extraordinary. sometimes it is exhausting to be this outraged. but what is unfolding before our eyes is the complete polarization of this issue. i am not even sure we have the ability to be rational and say that this may have made sense to help protect americans in this doversation, but because we not understand and there are a lot of leaks and things like that, it is unclear. it seems to be focused on counterterrorism, which may be
perfectly legitimate, but we do not know. mr. schieffer: we need to hear from this one right here. thanks. my name is rachel. i am a writer and involved in climate activism. one of the major missing pieces and last night's state of the union was the mention of climate change. asking theentleman question is carrying "the washington post" that highlighted pentagon reports on climate events and how that impacts our department of defense activities and the safety and security of american people. would you please comment on that? thank you. >> well, yes, i think it was quite noticeable that climate just was not mentioned. it is also not in the national security strategy.
it would be hard to argue it was overlooked because they were trying to be terps. it was clearly left out on purpose. there is a conscious choice by this administration not to address climate and national security issues. pentagon, for 15 to 20 years, the department of defense has been consistent about the threat, it believes that climate can pose. we tend to think of climate as thrccelerant current -- eat. climate change can lead to drought which can lead to war, leading to food issues, which can relate to war, dislocation, ,igration patterns, disasters major oil-producing areas, say nigeria, where you think you might have a military mission.
so we have long seen it as a challenge from that sense. and more to the point you were raising with regard to the safety and security of its own service members because they are , the u.s. operating navy and u.s. coast guard, along coastlines and in areas prone to requiring mitigation. states like florida that have a significant naval presence, the norfolk area, etc. this is a real issue for dod. you can argue about climate one way or another, but you have to operate your base. to have to provide safety citizens and protect the water and electric, etc. dod, i think this is a case where they're going to continue -- they cannot call things climate-related. they will not put up a request to congress or money from this administration with a big climate line, but there are
things you have to do in normal operations and maintenance to protect yourself. i think you will see some of that go forward. i saw today a disturbing report on a huge detriment in funding on clean energy, which relates to this. i think this is an area where there is a conversation to be had on capitol hill about how the president's budget is treated once it reaches them. mr. schieffer: ok, we have one more question. all right, right there. lieutenant colonel dan slaughter, u.s. marine corps. given the restrictive trade policies, the weakening of the dollar, regulations on banking and finance, how do you see this impacting the economy a year or two from now? >> a year or two from now? we are all going to adjust our portfolios. [laughter] >> i gave one to my wife, to
probably followed my advice. we will see if it works out. the actions he is taking now, i think, particularly the tax bill, will lead to, i think, further increase in deficit. not admit this, but they seem to be trying to talk down the dollar with some success, which will contract some of the tax bill's affects. i am not ang-term, economic forecaster, but i was looking at one today and people were projecting a pretty good 2018, not the level the president has said we are going slow growthwe are a economy, and that is what we're going to see. 2.5%, something
like that. the actual increase in inflationary pressure, which would mean a gradual increase in interest, rising bond yields, .nterest rates i think no recession in sig a gradual sand leaking out of the bag possibly after that. the wildcard is there are some things he can do, and we have alluded to some of them like the korean strike and, from my point of view, a nafta withdrawal or a series of sharp restrictions ath china, that would have serious adverse effect on the market in the short term. i mean, a big dip that within sort of royal the economy -- roil the economy and create a lot of uncertainty going forward.
now,ng out two years from i would not dare to take that went on. tcu,chieffer: on behalf of csis, and the panel, thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
at 9:30 am eastern. >> our look at last night's state of the union continues in a minute. sandersenator bernie leads a group of climate activists and calling on the trump administration to adopt tougher policies on climate change and the fossil fuel industry tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. susan collins, house majority whip steny hoyer, and intelligence committee ranking member adam schiff discuss president trump's speech at an event hosted by axios in washington, d.c. [applause] morning. happy morning after. thanks for coming out to the axios state of the union post game. i appreciate bank of america for making this possible.