tv Defense and National Security Part 3 CSPAN February 13, 2018 7:16pm-8:01pm EST
depression, lbj and 64 and 65. fdr had republican support the first two years. >> watch afterwards on sunday night about tv. >> now former officials from the george w. bush and obama administrations discuss the current risks in the security sector. this conversation is part of the day long for hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. >> we are ready to get started with the third and final installment of today's event on accountability and i'm the deputy director of international
security program and i'm delighted to welcome to this panel colleagues and fellow travelers and ssa reform currently served on government have recently departed government service. starting know my father left us -- is a special staff member who he provides policy oversight and activities to include security operation. to his right is the vice president for policy research. he previously served in the bureau and other positions of the national security council.
to her right is mr. tony ross, senior associate with our program and then either deputy assistant of cooperation and currently spent 12 years as a congressional staffer. to my left is not, associate professor at john obscuring sites. was recently published a book with monitors in fragile states. i'm looking for and to having colleagues here with the questions of security sectors the man fought deeply about this issue from various posts.
i'd like to get all of them in a conversation started noticing clear signals from this administration in terms of defense priorities and competition and being cognizant of parties going forward. >> the short answer is to be determined. think kept a long tradition of pot partnerships and alliances let's less clear is how the department will balance out
allocation of resource between us shift and also making sure those investments in warfare tone atrophy. the challenges is the emphasis on prioritization of china and russia a decline in resource and so the question becomes, do they use the money to buy down risks? what regularly emphasize these capabilities in eastern europe and southeast asia? i guess is see how those come
across as anybody else and questions. >> the traditional answer from what i've seen tatum's question about if the investments will come in places like the middle east, a lot of resources to both and will make this hard choices. let's not just a question of where we focus the resources but how you spend that in the line with strategy. if for applying resources that we have studied presence or posture, doing that in a line of strategies great for applying those resources simply to
maintain relationships and that's not so good. i think the emphasis on preparing to confront competitors and adversaries presents an opportunity for more strategic thinking and there's a tendency when you're faced with counterterrorism objectives to focus on discrete -- without a lot of consideration for long-term territorial regional consequences. when are confronting the competitors there's no choice but to introduce strategic thinking about how they can be calibrated to achieve the
effects. there's no choice but to do it that way. so the enterprise needs. >> i just sat on a point that the time on the side of this community and analyzing the step back a little bit about what is the purpose spent 17 years since we entered the security systems and those a lot of learning that has gone on in the benefits of that learning people are beginning to ask questions the cow has it worked overtime so i think the time is enabling and
the bottom line, for every new investment is critical that i would add is a capacity goal or access goal. to be a huge challenge later down the road. the importance of new resources to have that friend doesn't have to be all three of those but thought sophomore wanted to select the channel is that everyone could be half-asleep we been doing something like security cooperation since 1945 to with militaries around the world. on the whole record isn't
terribly good and washington dedicate ourselves on the same page often very focused on his tangible mechanisms. metaphorical exercises not technical ones. >> the influence and access goals and they have to be acknowledged as such. the problem, when people crave just maybe it's an actually pan out but it's not the final defense i say capacity and influence and access its think
it could open it store from the state department from a traumatic perspective and the key challenge is going into analyze and be honest about what were doing. >> competitors are not playing by the same rules it raises the imperative for the united states as a place of value central to foreign policy to build resilience around mechanisms likely to hold true to those principles. as we look ahead what are the ways that you think we should be tightening mechanisms that might
be out there to manifest the proposition. >> one thing that will work together on the administration's we need to do a better job of being able to present investments in human rights training, not just the scoping measure many cases the kind of concerns or concerns with corruption or engage in on personnel and activity to make it more difficult to achieve their objectives. one thing we need to do
internally is to a better job identifying the opportunities to make changes that are also in the shared interests of the partners that were working with. there is still be cases where potential partners are engaged in human rights abuses or other activities that they do not want to move away from unwanted other strategies. i don't think we should view every partnership or aspect through that lens. >> it makes a good point, often times the decision point human rights is it condition and i think it's clear that it will be
a nonnegotiable component that what we have not done so far is made human rights and is institutional capacity building how many times have we seen where we focus on providing a task to a partner at the expense of more long-term, more difficult lines of building stronger institutions helping them litigate basic adherence to human rights 20 think i'm hoping that with certain requirements of certain authorities that hopefully emphasize and leverage
the department of defense that it should be the way you permit the programs not just how your planning those. >> sometimes it if you go overboard and conditioning human rights requirements. [inaudible] >> i think it can come up every day in the state department and it's a very valid argument and if you normalize the human rights and governance and how the u.s. is business is just one version. it makes it less of an awkward
diplomatic conversation ferment military professionals are have to carry the burden. military officers are carrying these conversations. it's just part of what we do. any changes we security cooperation. it's a fair question whether there be part of our strongest allies i have releasing a clear case more often there's a thread at the start partners have gotten really good about doing this so we get very scared by this i think there is still not
sufficient evidence they're very different and we look at where there are adversaries will turn to others. >> we now have a couple of case studies for the u.s. military has not necessarily operated in this way. i wanted the extent to which the examples have been used in case studies that it turns out it could be worse cases.
no one works with the u.s. military because of -- the iran ace will be does, the russians will promise and deliver. their broader strategic ways to work with the u.s. military. at the end of the day i don't think it'll be we pushed you to treat your people right. >> one of the things coming out of this is policy and trade-off thinking about accountability and also to remain competitive in the space, based on your policy experience what is that right balance between striking good oversight accountability
mechanism in the sweet spot that allows for innovation and adaptation. >> i think of congress they're comfortable with the increased -- and those sorts of things, with the understanding for there to be greater transparency and accountability, to kinda give congress a way how to allocate resources beyond that i think there hasn't been sufficient focus her debate on developing
can create a brand-new incapable security force in our country that i shared security interest is over, and deliver. so find ways to align in a realistic way. we all know it takes a long time from proposal to capability, not sure of the right answers so there's a lot of support folks at the department. and i think they provided broad guidance and theory if we had to re-create this organization and take on it organically and 17 years what would it look like?
how do we go from identification to this capability there's more work to be done. >> i think you're spot on. if i could change one thing to be helping the executive branch. why are we working with this military, who is doing it on the ground and under what circumstances are they willing to become a co- combatant in that conflict we have example after example, if we send someone's been to motor multiple times with the south vietnamese military we shouldn't be surprised when we lose some americans in an ugly conflict. if there's someone who ends up trying to convince the head of the military we also should not be surprised when these things don't actually work.
comes down to the mission and under what circumstance does that change to becoming a co- combatant. and how do we make sure we don't dilute ourselves? there's a great line of president reagan's tyree to start firing on the syrian military and he says this falls under the heading of self-defense. clearly that's not accurate and i think you can see a comment being made under other circumstances. >> he is spot on. they may be the happiest person in the world they talked about how the experience it has first
them to think a longer time for us. just multiple cycles the fianna one year planning cycle as we have been you don't have the ability to build and institutional considerations you know really how the one-year plan a live so that one your strategy. into the program and outcomes itself. more than anything else to bigger picture understanding of what you're trying to achieve and what the necessary inputs not just with one unit but how they're going in to a different has been a downfall.
i think it's important on the congressional staff and their wisdom was the department the flexibility spend the money but the expectations stated but with the authorities that should have institutional components to it. it should be held accountable through setting higher bar for transparency i think it's all important. one thing that we could do better often than not in
attendance to some of the things were talking about it's often because there's not the information available to make smart decisions. so looking at who is a cropped active. that needs to change for us to get significantly better. we don't track our success across the engagement i think there is so much that we need to do that can make a big difference. >> to go back to what it worked, there's a conditionality and i
think it binds us to them. i argued that the senior leadership estate dod has decided condition towards influence and affluence in an apartment way. i said to the obama administration and had to do with the bilateral relationship. across that it was consistent and unifying. u.s. chief diplomat in the room side understood how was offered as a rule and when could we fit
this into his or her strategy it works. so there's a great amount of credit for coming in and using the conditionality that congress put in will admit that these measures that help them clean up their act. in fiscal year 16 and 17 the department of state went through 800 to 900,000 names abetted. i may typically work on training i know for skeptics that the just set aside one professional requirement. so people think it's the true test it's under vetting because
our 890,000 names one to 2% were held as negative and rejected. so to make sure everybody understands what it is in the case when it was used effectively in the communicative by the diplomat but the reasons why the assistance would not go through, we did have cases where the local partner change the practices and their cases in the past few years where there is credibility issues. to me it was about when they came and security assistance can be used in the conditionally effective way.
that's how i worry about the migration of the authority. i don't know how it will affect to take the route security and to move bilaterally -- i know the access and influence goal of changing the policy and practices so i worry about that. >> in the report we do address and thank you for making that distinction. at this point if you look at the audience you can ask our expert panel any questions and i will bundle those in the interest of time. >> thank you for great presentation. what if you control down, the
role in both creating an investment and how various programs fit an actual strategy. >> good afternoon. were discussing about the assistance but very little fax an emphasis so do you actually know how much the assessment in the past decade on this how much is governments linked to the points you made and secondly if you have time to address the work done by the un which seems to be very compatible.
>> thank you. to come back to the point you just raised about why were doing what were doing one of the recommendations recommendation of the section where assign a share. who would you all come down on. >> monitoring evaluation there's number purposes there one of the more important part of record in a dod it's not very much but
assessment monitoring spot planning and identifying the objectives that a program is intending to take on an integrated various authorities and activities to a common objective. that hasn't really been the case with a lot of dod planning. lisa comes to the pentagon in congress for approval. therapy be very smart people that have objectives over time in a spot objective format laid out in their heads but it is a reach the people responsible. whether in that it does not give you basis for coming back and looking whether the program achieved what they said they're going to cause you don't have a good record. i think the planning pieces
really important. focus on multiyear holistic approaches and hopefully that is starting to have an impact. my answer part to the critique about by security cooperation and assistance has failed azeris stop inadequate attention to institutional components and long-term strategic thinking. more probably security assistance when it comes to capacity building is on talbot difference in some ways foreign assistance which has benefited over the past 20 or 30 years from vibrant discussion and best practices that have reshaped how
the community takes it on. dod was that may be awake or present for those discussions. so now they're starting to integrate the lessons learned. i hope it will change and when he went the next book ten years from now need to reassessment you can report some progress for that very reason. i've had some conversations about this i don't think you can tell me that what happened there was happened under 12 authorities. dod often has a number of different authorities that range from security cooperation to join training and exercises to
the authority that occupy the space often those authorities are used in conjunction when you don't always know what activity is being done under what authority. we have to figure it out and how to be clear before the partner nation and the american taxpayer of lower spending on what activities. i don't know what the exact answer is but the general discussion needs to be had. >> i cannot agree more some quick thoughts, i think you're spot on the best case scenarios not only to get on the best page
with yourself but also at the partner would be fantastic. but those two key elements are critical. think tommy is highlighted how we don't see that a lot. if you haven't played on the security system website it's fantastic. crs does a great job for anyone who has ever been country desk officers, the easiest way for us to figure out what is going on was to go to the crs. they have a view that i don't know others have. >> i think it's important and there's been new emphasis but developed and then oversees implementation of the program.
first is the people doing in what we've seen over the years is by virtue of dod organically taking the mission on by necessity to say that were at the end of this game the way the department develops and treats professionals is something that needs work. i think you have to find a way to develop a more capable and competent workforce. i'm not saying that those not doing it today are not competent patriotic but the way this to works is a short-term voluntary educational program on how the process works.
a lot of it is based on how you develop a program. what's missing is an enduring career check for they can work through that and learn whether that's episodic education or events are sending out those majors and combatant commands in the critically about what were doing i think it's a way that we can invest and start looking at our capability. again they haven't been forced to think about it this way. now the life of the program i were doing, a shortcoming in the way there for today is their
military officers to into and through your tours. often time a program might come in very lightly the have somebody who or fallen after the josé what are we doing and why and there wasn't the continuity of the program oversight management. yes i have a really develops mature framework policy and guidance that you have a revolutionary in learning they can say based on my experience here there i have a baseline framework to build off of.
>> i think there should be special incentive for those on the ground. it's hard to encourage them but then at the front end into the human rights training. you never get to see these real dividends by now that professional incentive is to train that guy that i met point about the unit think it gets back to how to we find security assistance of what's happening in washington with migration of authority the point is that it's
a new trend in the u.s. government has so many the reason is of concern to some including people at the state department and civilians it's them going to the very same governments and i would say many of the countries not from fragile states the police and dod are not matching our industries. so that really matters in the un for example to learn from what we know about these as they are deployed as valuable information
like when the deployed out you can see where the glitches are for human rights and also the human capacities. so connecting the dots to say that there part of the bureaucratic connect the dots sounds horribly boring but it is critical. for me that's a really important part to make sure someone knows all of the information to piece it together to the linking information. that currently does not exist. >> i want to thank all for your insights on the panel today. i think -- out a thank you for
looking at these opportunities and challenges and thank you to you all for your questions. [applause] c-span's "washington journal" with news and policy issues that impact too. coming up on wednesday morning, rob woodall discusses the trump administration's budget and infrastructure plans then john garamendi away in a president trumps budget.
cap admin will discuss the u.s. goal of using the olympics to highlight issues with north korea. watch "washington journal", live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on wednesday morning. join the discussion. >> tonight on c-span2, senate debate on immigration reform. mick mulvaney testifies on capitol hill about the president's $4.4 billion budget proposal. later a small business summit included michael bloomberg, richard branson and marco rubio. first an update. >> the senate barely out of first gear on immigration today. the senior staff writers joining us of what has kept the debate from moving forward on tuesday?