Skip to main content

tv   Defense News with Vago Muradian  ABC  November 30, 2014 11:00am-11:31am EST

11:00 am
11:01 am
>> happy thanksgiving weekend. welcome to defense news. i'm vago muradian. what are the best policy options the united states as china continues to flex its military clout?c and political secretary defense chuck hagel's resignation. the initiative will help had united states retain its military superiority despite easilyations using available commercial technologies to counter u.s. capabilities. a multifaceted approach that will use intensive war gaming to identify future capabilities and technologies that u.s. forces will need to
11:02 am
off set gains by adversaries. led to ther development of lead-ahead capabilities like stealth, gps, precision weapons that american forces enjoy to this day. diiher key part of the strategy is institutional reform to make the pentagon more agile. here to talk about the dii and what new leadership at the department will mean, our two analysts, each of whom has a slightly differing view. fitzgerald is the director of the tecechnology and national security program at e center security.american bob is a former acting undersecretary of the navy who fellow at ther center for strategic and budgetaryssessments. interestingly, deputy secretary showork, who was on our last week, is the architect of the third offset strategy and csba in the past. both ben and bob have worked for
11:03 am
work. no pun intended. gentlemen, welcome to the show. hagel is leaving the pentagon. what's his departure, do you going to mean for this strategy? does this strategy outlast him? as what do you think, someone who did work for him in the department, his legacy is going to be at the department? his legacypart of will be his managing the department think a very tumultuous period and working through all of that. in a series of institutional reforms to try to make the departnt more ale. hopefully, one of his legacies innovation defense initiative going forward. make the thewill transition tohe new secretary. >> i think the key thing is we as theb work in place deputy secretary. a lot f to these ideas are -- a -- lot of these ideas are very clearly bob's works. a numbersly there are of potential candidates, and not knowing that, it makes it very to see how all of those
11:04 am
different views are going to play into this. you.let me start with what is it that we should be trying to offset? and why? is this defense innovation initiative the right way to start? we really need to offset are adversarial investments. sometimes rereferred to as anti-access capabilities that willundermined and continue to undermine our capabilities. it's very important to address that operational problem. there's a bunch of different ways to go about it. but i think this defense innovation initiative is one at the portland p portfolio. >> ben? bob'sery much agree with point about the importance of offsetting state-based threats to united states. it's interesting, in the dii, that the offset strategygys one component of that. i think that's the right
11:05 am
approach. if all we do is focus on one really --tor, where we're really potentially leaving ourselves open to a wide range other contingencies that we need to make investments in. >> each of you has a slightltly view, so i wanted to each of you to sort of walk through, if you were the one it, how would you do it somewhat differently than it's being done now? >> i think they're just establishing the process now advanced capabilities r&dl and the long-range planning. be,way my approach would what are the core operational problems we face? i think threats to our air bases and ports. another is the growing vulnerability of surface ships aircraft carriers. the third is modern integrated air defense systems and the
11:06 am
threat they pose. and lastly, the loss of sanctuary in space. the question is, okay, if those the core challenges, what do we do differently? and i argue that we really need to emphasize our core capability long-range air operations, unmanned operations general, under sea warfare and the network systems bringing us all together. with ehave, i think -- we have enduring capabilities in those to offset it. >> ben? >> to me, thisst all about is all about,this what is the pentagon's theory of change? the key difference between offset strategy and the cold war era is we have a very needs, a veryof different fiscal environment, technological environment. have a newwe need to strategic approach but also a toiness model that allows us thosedvantage of all of
11:07 am
macro trends. that's not to say at all that issues bob raises aren't critically important. i think we need to make all of those investments. question is, how do we do that and more at the same time? thatt me take it to question. one of th things is that during the cold war, the united states -- the union was isolated from the global technological community. fast-paced.are very chinese students are learning at the best universities around the world. sophisticated industry. sohe question becomes, look, if you're aiming this at china, china can move me quicickly authoritarian state and is actually stealing from you inin realtime, how can you leverage technological advantage? >> i guess i start off by saying it's not just technology. take something like undersea warfare, yes, it's a but it's also the training of the personnel on how maintenance ofe
11:08 am
those, the operational art o how you do that, that we have decades of experience doing. what makes it hard to duplicate. same thing with the aircraft. can invest andle sell. but we have decades of out how tofiguring plan, maintain, how to train pilots. to that's what is difficult counter. >> ben? >> so, again, i -- we seeeem toe lot this morning. >> which is okay. >> absolutely it is. is,nuestion for me addition to that, what are the other things we need to worry about? that, to the excellent that china is not in theor not the ussr, cold war analogy, the united states is not the united states. we no longer have the technological advantages that we had in that era model hasour business hadwhat o -- we have significant gagains in the 1970. that's not the case anymore.
11:09 am
how do we do all of the things that bob is rightly talking fashion a sustainable over time? >> one thing i emphasize is we toneed acquisition reform streamline the process so it doesn't take, 10, 15, 20 years areield new systems that obsolete.y >> and we're going to talk about that reform in just a moment. taken decades for the pentagon to evolve into the today.h it is everyone acknowledges it's time for reform. the question is, what will that like? look more in just a mom
11:10 am
>> we're back with ben fits .ben fititz gerald
11:11 am
don't we neeeed, not just an acquisitioneform exchange, but an entire overhaul of the way the pentagon fundamentally does business? it lks the way it looks because of decades of regular regulations and well-intentioned decisionsns. but we are where we are, very erous. >> that's exactly right. haveld argue that today we a misalignment between our strategic needs, the in, andgies we invest the business models we use to get there. one thing we can't do, i think are in strong agreement about this, is the offset strategy can't seek to address all of those things. disfuse.become too >> it's too ambitious of an effort? >> that's right. this is where i think the dii is very well constructed. we also look at war gaming concepts, long-range research and development programs, and a riety of other things. to run on be able
11:12 am
short innovation cycles, helpple initiatives that us get on to a more sustainable strategic footing. the chamtionone of wilchallengeswill be, once the e yeard out over the coming with this process, iit's likely that we're going to want to portfolios, even pretty significantly in terms of, for example, moving away short-range relatively stealthyhy aircraft to aircraft, manned or unmanned. there's going to be winners or losers. when there's losers in the ittagon, that makes difficult bureaucratically to move forward. >> let me ask you to folw up on that. a the kinds of shifts in defense investment are we going to need to see? one of these programs -- for example,he joint strike fighter -- it's an to beft that appears doing well in its testing phases. a very successful
11:13 am
carrier landing. but there are those who say, w we are going to be focused, we need longer rake, payroll, greater peistence. everybody wants a greater payroll. of the moree need to see in the budget? >> i think the big shifts would from short range, relatively nonstealthy air power stealthy air power. i think we'll see a shift to combatants to under sea. and then a shift to robotics in things like directed energy, electromagnetic guns. of things bob mentioned last time he was on the show. and those will be significant. it's a work in progress, though in and i think that we'll be tell the extent to which pentagon leadership is able to based onbuilding
11:14 am
shifts in the investments, sort of like bob was talking about. rhetoric thus far i think has been pitch-perfect. but whether we'll see whether are working forward or not is whether those investments change. >> what are the biggest change, and how might they be overcome as far as you guys are concerned? i see obstacles everywhere. >> i think there's more ways apart thancan fall it can succeed. >> that's not fun, actually. >> no. depressing. the first thing to me will be about focus. framinget the right device and t right level of focus? the other thing that's going to happen is the building is going quickly turn everything into an offset strategy, in the had way that we transformation, so things that have nothing to do with offset be labeled a sudden that way. so there's moving the building. then the ever had f present of -- the ever-presesent issue of working with congress
11:15 am
any of this. >> i totally agree. i think the hard part is that entrenched bureaucratic cultures that want specific programs. oneical aviation is example. but that's why i think this top-downeds to be directed to make it work. and that was the case in the past as well. it'sn the hill, i think going to be convincing members of congrgress with disistricts t adversely affectedd by cancellation or reduction in program x, that, hey, there's program y and b that can go to your district or state. not taking money we're just shifting the capabilities it's going toward. >> and a think a third critical part of this will be engagement in industry, both in defense industry and commercial industry. that's going to be about providing a clear demand signal incentives the right to get the kind of collaboration that the pentagon wants and think another i
11:16 am
challenge in terms of implementation is this the requires balancing risk over and basically saying we need to take some slight increase in near-term risk in better prefer for the medium and long term. but it's always easier to the near term.n think -- to the deputy secretary's credit, he wants to balance risk over time. that's one of the things he mentioned during his last interview. >> what are the top three things that the incoming defense secretary has got to focus on? some top priorities? >> obviously the situation in ,yria and iraq with isil islamic state. stabilization in afghanistan has toto be on the ont burner. i think seeing through this defense department and the offset strategy, working with the hill to get that strategy right in theext year and a half. >> ben? >> very different from that.
11:17 am
i think focusing on the near with all of the geostrategic uncertainty we're today, making the right investments for the futu, working with congress and industry to develop a footing to generate advanceitary technical advantage over the long term. risk to notmore doing things than to doing thgs right now. >> and i think getting the and compelling is what's going to make it stand multiple administrations. that's what has to happen. >> thanks so very much for joining us. china uses its rising military. it's a trend washington would to reverse. i talk policy options with the mike.d rear admiraral i talk policy options with the mike.d rear admiraral you're watching def i knew it could rough in there, but how rough? there was no way to know for sure. hey guys.... daddy, it's pink! but hey. a new house it's a blank canvas.
11:18 am
and we got a great one thanks to a really low mortgage rate from navy federal credit union. pink so she's a princess. you got a problem with that? oorah oorah open to the armed forces and their families for over 80 years. navy federal credit union. and their families
11:19 am
>> president obama recently traveled tosia where he met premiere ping, to discuss how to improve relations. china is increasingly aggressive in the region, using its to woo someout nations and bully others into making territorial concessions. u.s. allies wried. their driving washington to step up its presence in the rion inkro increase cooperation with asia pacific partners. a newcome the author of paper, the south china sea. optionshim for the best washington has to engage the slow down china. >> basically the u.s. policy of the obama administration, which we suld say has its ante see
11:20 am
s, going back to the end of the cold war, is characterized as a rebalce strategy. the rebalance,he president, in just last week, made a point of higighlighting t the economic aspects. is comprehensive. the serity piece of the rerebalance, much has beenade fact of u.s. forces in australia, more ships to mall ships, albeit, but the bigger part of the balance strategy is what thehe u.s. has come to call air-sea battle, which i think a better be assured access. but anyway, it's an attempt to china's aialt
11:21 am
anti-access, however you want to characterize that, cannot keep the u.s. out of the fact a pacific if in crisis should happen and we need reinforce from the west coast of the united states or hawaii. and so what we have is a competition of capabilities, going on right now between deny accessmpt to and the u.s. attempt to assure access. competinge these strategic concepts goioing on in the security domain. and it's really important that u.s. continue to stay the course in terms of planning that's going on and what have you, not only to actually field a capability that will allow us to creditably say that we can assure access, but it's really we also do so so that our allies are reassured, they don't feel that we're a paper tiger. >> so from your standpoint, it's only a signal to the
11:22 am
region but a global signal that the united states is not gng bsted out of important places when guys are investing policies?cess >> absolutely. the real reality is china can't keep the united states out of asia. we can go where we want, when we want, stay for as long as we during peace time, which is happily m most of the time. >> right. it would and so actually take a war to run the united states out of asia. just because out china building a capability and what have you. what we have to be concerned that our allies and friends in the regegion become nenervous when they start lookig capabilities, although they probably -- will b be unproven? we don't knowhether it's going to work or not. >> right. creditably make the case that if they tried to do it through force, they would s succeed. >> isn't china -- isn't almost ery decision that china has making further isolati
11:23 am
itself and actually complicating asia?ation in >> yes and no. on the one hand, it is making countries small around nervous about china. and as a result, they're all rehing out to the united states in one way or another, because they recognize that the united states is th only country in the world that china.ditably balalance and so in that regard, people theseee, they're driving countries s into the arms of the americans. i believe that the chinese don't care. they don't care is they can read a map, because all of these countries are always going to live in the shshadow of china. they're always going to be in the neighborhooood. economies are increasingly interlinked. and they know the chinese are economico play hardball. so kind of the story you hear countriestheast asian is w we're scared to death of te chinese, but if we cross them, up our going to screw
11:24 am
economy. so china has enougheverage to esessentially not worry too much about the fact that vietnam is getting closer to the united states.s. now, on the other hand, they are also sweetenening the pie with incentives, this maritime silk road, in which $40 billion o infrastructure improvements along the coast of the pacific oceans.anan it's the smiley face of the with thrort t to deal neighbors.s. >> soconomically, what should e united states be doing? trans-pacific partnership being an important piece of it? >> absolutel the tpp is certainly good for the econonomies of both countri. strategic.also it's very important, bause the iplace, itt is put ll economically integrate the united states in a way that the totalll offset pendence -- or i shouldn't say dependentargegely economies of southeast asia on
11:25 am
china. th will ve oth economi options. united states have to change its investment patterns? i mean, there is a constant view in washington, an incorre one, that we spend too mh money on chineseaid and the can't seem to spend enough on foreign aid, because ththey recogniz that the smiley face then important part of military face? >> i mean -- to be perfectly i'm not sure we can match the amount of money that around.omises to throw whether that actually comes through or not, the $40 bilillin that, what billion have you, i don't think we're in a position economically or politically either to d do thatr get it through the congress. the people of the united states, horriblyhink, are interested in underwriting a aid billomic foreign the way they may have been the c cold war. i think that would be a tough
11:26 am
political sell. >> sir, thanks very much r s.ining >> it t was my flefer. pleasure. talk abouteasure to issues that are important to the country. in afghanistan is winding down. politics and the prescription for long-tm success. my notebook, coming up.
11:27 am
>> as washington and its war-weary allies wind down their mission in afghanistan, the white house has decided that troops remaining in the country will carry out combat necessary. that's good strategy. under the original plan, 10,000 only support afgha sources. was criticized
11:28 am
for completely disengaging iraq. later, that halwed out force crumbled d under attack by militts. the administration wants to avoid the same mistake in afghanistan. forces have a long way to go before they can stand on their own. ominous signs.dy the taliban is quickly gaining grounds. while the administration for changingit course, it should have arrived at that conclusion sooner and theted more troops to mission. there is more to mitary success t than training troops d police. also need good and seamlessly integrated intelligence, air power and maintenance. that integration is still years away. it's time for pragmatic not politically driven deadlines. the sacrifice demands nothing lessss than long-term success. thanks for watching. muradian. visit us at for including aove,
11:29 am
special report on training and simulationahead of the trade show. the digital show daily coverage itself. and starting next week, navy will bring us a weekly financial minute that answers questions about money, banking, loans and retirement. a financial question, please e-mail me. we'll also love to hear your thoughts on this show and suggestions for future coverage. i'll be back next week at the same time. great week.have a
11:30 am
[music] >> do you feel connected to god? do you have an awareness of what he wants you to do in your life? a rich connection to him will energize you for the day ahead, it will add meaning to your work, and help you understandd why sometimes you have to wait on certain things. so, let's discover how to improve our connection to god as we learn the benefits of his perfect timing. >> next on "in touch," part e of "waiting on god's timing." [music] ♪ i am the lord i'm the ♪ almighty god ♪ i am the one for whom ♪ nothing is too hard ♪ i am the ultimate sacrifice


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on