proposed regulation? guest: any americans can and should comment on proposed regulations. that's a really great way to get involved in the government. and we see comments come from a range of actors, definitely industry groups, as well as nonprofits, a lot of them will organize what we call mass comment campaigns where -- it used to be called postcard campaigns where you'd send in a postcard to the agency but now it's a form letter you type in online at regulations.gov and everyday americans, academics like us comment on regulations. and everyone can and should. i really believe that's a good way to get involved in the regulatory process. i can also mention that the biden administration has been taking steps to increase public engagement in the regulatory process through making opportunities for public engagement known through tools like the unified agenda and just being more cognizant of getting new stakeholders involved in the process. host: academics comments.

you said we comment. so what's the last regulation that you commented on? guest: i actually commented on a financial crimes enforcement network regulation about anti-money laundering in residential real estate. i just thought it sounded interesting and it was a good way to practice using the bipartisan tools of regulatory analysis to assess these regulations and provide some feedback to the agency that they might not have considered. host: does the agency generally pull back a proposed rule after comments and make changes based on what people say? or how often do they just say, thanks for the comments, and we're going to go ahead with our rule anyway? guest: agencies are required to consider all of the comments that they receive and incorporate them into the final rules so you'll see in the preamble of a regulation there's a long beginning of a regulation and it just talks about what the agency's trying to do and in final rules they'll explain the comments they received and what they did to react to the comments. host: so this is

regulations.gov. how does this work? we'll show viewers the website. it's literally regulations.gov. easy enough to find. if a viewer wants to comment or find out wha >> we'll leave this program to go live to discussion u.s. defense priorities. around the world. this hosted by the council on foreign relations. >> good evening, everybody. welcome. thank you for being here. i'm president of the council on foreign relations. it's really a great honor and privilege to be here for the robert b. mckuen endowed series on military strategy and

leadership with the u.s. service chiefs. we have in addition to this full room over 350 members on zoom. this series, mckuen series features prominent individuals from the military and intelligence community. founder and president of the capital started in 2008. the series continues every year. we're delighted that clare mckuen and other friends and family are joining us on zoom. thank you very much to the mckuen family. we're really honored tonight to have general randy george, chief of staff of the army. general eric smith, marine corps. general david albin. chief of staff of the u.s. air force. and admiral linda fagan.

i like to thank them for their support of the council's military fellowship program. every year, we've had five fellows from the different service branches plus our intelligence fellow here at the council for a year of study and professional development. let me ask our fellows who are on the front row here to stand. including dana, our intelligence -- [ applause ] the fellowship was established 50 years ago. we have 150 fellows go through the program. among them, about half have gone on to become generals or admirals including general george and general albin. we're pleased to have admiral

francati. thank you for being part of this family. let me start, perhaps, with general smith. the global situation, the global map is changing a great deal. we have return of great politics, you got in multidimensional challenge with china. you got changing relationships among countries, there's access between china, russia, iran, north korea. this is a time when fundamental elements of the strategy we've been operating under must be under a fair amount of stress. how have these changes affected ongoing strategy? how many wars do we need to be prepared to fight simultaneously? >> i would jokingly, not jokingly say one more. russia is an opportunistic aggressor. if war brokes out with china and

you can be sure russia will follow. they are both opportunistic feeders. they will look for scenes in our armor, the kinks in our armor. they will work to exploit those. one more than we think. >> how does that affect the planning? how do you plan for that? >> for us, the force design is designed against the competitor of china. they are pacing threat by the national defense strategy financial force design is aimed at deterring china. we still believe that will include all the lesser included defenses such as russia and the dprk. we believe that force design with modernized weapon system and ability to make sense what's happening is useful in any theater.

>> good segway to general albin. we see this tremendous build up their nuclear capability and demise nuclear arms control. what is the future of our nuclear strategy and do we have to have more weapons than both china and russia combined? >> thanks for having us here. i don't think we've all been together for a while. it's interesting, because we are definitely in some unchartered territory here. the air force doesn't necessarily have a nuclear strategy on to itself. we've got two of the three legs. counterparts have the other legs. we have the nc3. i think it's interesting. now that we have officially some of the shackles being taken off.

even though russia was violating them for a long time anyway, it means that we have to look at nuclear deterrents and strategic deterrents little bit differently. because, while we've been trying to go back-and-forth with russia and integrate china into some sort of strategic stability talks, their position all along has been we got to catch up to you guys first. they are in that rapid massive build up. fundamentally, we have to maintain the capability of a safe, effective reliable nuclear triad. between my navy partner and myself, that's costing good bit of coin. it's one of those things that's one of the most foundational things that we have to do. i think what can be interesting for the nation, for the national security apparatus, to get a grip on what it means to have strategic deterrents in a world where china starts to approach some sort of parity.

does the old thinking still work where there was this -- whether evolving from destruction or capability, you have to consider yourself in a world post-exchange or perhaps the one who has been sitting it out now has an unfair advantage over the other two. understanding strategic deterrents in a tripolar world is fundamentally different. that's a national situation. but from the military side, we have to make sure that our capabilities are suited to the task. that's why quite a bit of our budget is going to that. >> do you see any role for arms control in the future? >> i would love for arms control to play a role. it's doing a lot of things that the air force and navy would like to be paying attention to with respect to recapitalization and meeting the threats around the globe. right now, the capabilities that we're developing are required

until we get a strategic stability. >> let's stay focused on china and indo-pacific for a moment. there's an a lot of architecture around the indo-pacific. the caucus, the quad, the trilateral relationship between korea, japan, united states. now between japan, united states and the philippines. you talked distributed fleet architecture. how are these alliances evolving in the indo-pacific to further allow us to extend security over the region? what does that mean for the navy? >> thank you. to echo dave, thank you very much for having us here today. you know, long time ago when we first pivoted to the pacific, the navy really began to focus in that area. it is our priority theater. i think the thing that really distinguishes us from any of our policy adversaries, we do have allies and partners all over the

world. nowhere than more important in the indo pacific. they are really excited about u.s. leadership there. they want to partner with us. i think all of our services are really investing heavily in developing interoperability with those partners. you're starting to see some of the european navys focusing on the indo-pacific. i was at a meeting all the carrier navies in france. we all talked about the importance of the aircraft carrier strike group and the navys of italy, france and the u.k. all plan to do indo-pacific deployment in the coming here. as we leverage our relationship that we already have and we continue to build new ones in the indo-pacific, we will continue develop the capabilities to deter china or

any other adversary in the indo-pacific around the world. >> don't we have a problem that china got shipbuilding capacity far outweighs ours? all of our capacity is done by one site in china alone. how confident are you that we can build the ships necessary to exercise that kind of influence in the region and the conflicts of china building out this very significant naval presence? >> i think it's important to look at this in two ways. every study since 2016 said we do need a allergy -- we do need a larger navy. ewe have a lot of navies that will partner with us to deter adversaries to deter malign behavior and really respond to aggression. i think the other thing is, it's not just about a number of shifts. this is about a war fighting ecosystem. we are going to be able to put

together the shippings, aircraft and submarines. we got space force. our coast guard partners operate in the indo-pacific. you think about it as a joint war fighting ecosystem. we are all experienced with working with each other. we're all experienced with working with allies and partners. i think that give us the winning edge every time. >> we're talking about ships. go to the coast guard. you served on only icebreaker in the arctic, polar star. >> the polar star is the nation's only heavy iceberg commissioned in 1976. much younger version of me served on that ship in the '80s. she is still getting it done for the nation primarily focused around the breakout in our

support in antarctica south pole station. we do have a second icebreaker. the healing, conducting science operations was up through the northwest passage this past summer. circumnavigated the north american continent and plans to do that again. the russians are definitely paying attention when we're operating those ships. the nation needs more ice breaking capacity. we're an arctic nation. this is our national sovereignty, our rights as it pertains to our economic zone off the coast of alaska. we've got a critical need to build the polar security cutter. there's been a number of changeouts, mississippi is the yard that will build that for us.

we're working to get to the level design maturity that's necessary to begin cutting steel. i'm confident we'll do that this year. budget requirements for ship of that size and complexity, there's still challenges in regards to budget and getting that ship fielded. i want to go to allies and partners. i was recently in norway for the arctic conclude forum. all the members of that forum are now nato members. see how quickly things have changed. geopolitically with regard to commitment from our allies and partners. those are important partnerships in the arctic. they are equally as critical in the indo-pacific. talked about navy work in the indo-pacific. let me give you a scene set on the coast guard. my budget, about $12.3 billion a year, 1.4% of the dod, the defense budget. if you look at the navy's in

nato, it's the third largest navy in nato. about 55,000 people, yet, we take those ships and everything from the national security to smaller patrol boats and go to nations. meet them where they are in that competitive phase short of conflict. exercising fisheries agreements, law enforcement agreements and again partnering and helping a nation create their own capacity to build their own sovereignty. this is our nation's competitive advantage. not only through the nations welcome us, we're partners of choice. the town was buzzing because there was a white ship. we took ship riders to help them and force their own fisheries. they had nothing in almost five years. ewe helped them get out. board some chinese shipping

vessels. we can have some significant impact whether in the arctic or indo-pacific. >> i want to go to nato. thanks to vladimir putin, nato is stronger than ever. we got two new members. 18 members are meeting their 2% commitment or higher. there's the rumblings within nato about european strategic autonomy. do you feel like europe can develop its own foreign defense identity and its own defense industrial? >> i will tell you, i think that all of us have to work towards improving that. you look at one of the things i've been over to europe, you start talking about magazine depth. nato has incredible weapon systems. we're seeing that play out with the u.s. weapon systems over there. if you don't have magazine

depth, bullets for all of those things, that's a problem. there's a clear recognition that there's things we need to do to make sure that we're improving our capability. that's one i think across nato. the other is the battlefield is changing very rapidly. it's changing more in the last couple of years than i've ever seen it. i think that we're also going to have to transform our formations. i know there's a big thing we're focused on inside the army. there's really no place you can hide anymore on the battlefield. mainly because of the stuff to talk about for a long time. with space assets, phones, the internet of things. i think that we're going to have to change that too. i think that we all need to be working towards that. i think everybody up here talked a lot about how important our

partnerships are and we're exercising a whole bunch with our partners that are over there. i do think that the u.s. is a key contributor to that and being a part of that over there. i think there's a clear recognition that there's areas that we need to improve. >> do you have a sense that the u.s. wasn't making that kind of contribution, the europeans will be able to step up on their own? >> i think there's a lot of countries over there that are stepping up and doing that have recognized that and give several examples. you look at what poland has purchased with high mars and tanks. a lot of countries i was just over in u.k., it's the same thing. i think, again, there's a recognition what we need to do. i think the challenge and some of this challenge as well, can we make the changes as quick as

we need to? can we get out in front of -- when i go over there, i tell everybody the real problem, i think the real problem for us is not necessarily product innovation but it's process innovation. you can't talk about being able to have -- we often talk about 20, 30 or beyond. a lot of that is because of our process. i think that we need to move much quicker. >> i want to come back to that. seems like one of the challenges that many of you all face is we're being attacked by relatively cheap weapons, drones, manned, certain missiles. it's much more expensive to shoot them down than to build new ones and fire them. it's kind of asymmetric warfare. how do you think about that in the context what's going on in ukraine and elsewhere?

how do we keep up with that? >> i think there's two parts to that. one is, what we're doing with counter uas, we're senting everything that we have whether it's r&d, we're sending it out to the middle east. i'm a believer if you put users with developers and testers all together, that's not how we normally to things. you can spend a lot quicker. we've sent other, for example, director of energy, or high power microwave. all the kinetic and non-kinetic. that's a process innovation. i think we have to little bit different in our process. i think by doing that, what you're talking about, we often refer to as cost curve. we have to get after the cost curve. we can't have $10,000 emissions, that might be an expensive one.

shooting it down with 150,000, one million dollar missiles. we got to get on the right side of that. that's back to what i said earlier. i think we're going to have to move at a different pace to get after that. >> general smith, as look at ukraine, let's go down there, what constitutes victory in ukraine over the next year? military victory? what would you hope to see with this new package that congress finally approved plus the european support. what do you think the end game is there militarily? >> the end game for mr. putin is the consumption of ukraine. which is a nonstarter. the end game for us is and reestablished of the international border with ukraine and russia. so, our will has been ironclad. our commitment has been ironclad. we have to get restabilized

russia ukraine. we can't have russia consuming the ukraine. that's a nonstarter. i think by continuing to support ukraine, continuing to support them with munitions and information. we hope that mr. putin will think again about how much he wants to invest in retaking ukraine. i hope he'll decide correctly for his own sake. >> are you surprise -- it turned out to look like a world war i battle? >> i wouldn't say i'm surprised. i'm not pleased that it is. if big russia fights a little russia, then the end is inevitable. that's why we have to produce the technology and provide the technology to ukraine to out

whit russia. i think we're doing that. i think we proven successful thus far in doing that. >> fifth year anniversary of space force. everyone quite intrigued. we've just launched, we're in the process of launching a task force on space and setting rules of the road. what would you say the major accomplishments of space force so far? >> in a word, it's that i'm sitting here amongst these teammates. [ laughter ] elevating space to a service level is a huge step forward. let me add that you guys are hearing tank session. you should be proud of that. i'm telling you, these are exactly the discussions that go on in the tank, forced design, prioritization, posture around the globe, friction point

created where you don't have enough resources. those are are the discussions that play out amongst the service chiefs across-the-board. every friday. first, be proud of that. second i will wrap it together. i feel like the elevation of the space force to a service has given us an opportunity to think about, first, a continuation under contested circumstances of the capabilities that we've provided to the joint force for years. decades even. this is a warning, position navigation and timing. satellite communications. those are enablers that we really can't take out of the joint force. the joint force has been built. the entire force design has been built around those capabilities. the reason you have a space force is because there are competitors who realize those advantages and want to take them away and investing heavily in counter satellite, counter space

capabilities designed specifically to deny the u.s. that advantage. but probably even more concerning is especially in the western pacific, the prc, has built a long-range kill chain that is a space enabled targeting system. it is robust. it is accurate. it is deadly. the space force knows that if we can't somehow, disrupt, deny, degrade that, all of our forces are going to struggle in all of the domains to meet our military objectives. i think what you're hearing is a commitment to partnership. we no that's the only way to succeed. we know that each individually forces, our capabilities are inadequate to global tasks. we can't work together operationally, if we can't work together we're in a world of hurt. that's what we're committed to that includes commercial partners, that includes our allies and international partners. it's all a part of the formula that's going to make us

successful. >> let me go back to something you raised about procurement and being agile. the pentagon gets often criticizes for having these long procurement lead cycles and focusing on hardware and systems and technology, particularly in the private sector. we dug back here from defense unit. what can the services do to more quickly adopt emerging technology and deploy it at scale? or bureaucratic and congressional obstacle so great that despite these good efforts, nothing will get done. you're all welcome to comment on this. >> i'm sure we'll all have a comment on this one. the ppve just came out. it was a long study on it. there's a long study on that. if you look at what's happening, there's several examples around

the world -- what's happening, for example, in ukraine is that things are changing between three weeks and three months and five months. they are adapting that quick. some of this is how we build things to make sure that we are -- we have modular architecture. we can update very quickly. we also need to have the ability, i think, to have flexible funding so that we can actually buy at that same model. it's a lot of small companies out there doing things. one of the things that we've been talking a lot about and to our hearings, we would have the ability through for uas for counter uas and for ew. we will have portfolios. we would have the flexibility buy what is the best that's out of the market and move quickly from let's say research and

development to actually buying systems. that's also very important to us because we had for six or seven months, we had a continuing resolution. we couldn't do new starts. we couldn't buy anything else. that was the time when we were going through some -- in the most -- in the middle east, with counter uas. there's probably other examples that we do. i think that would help us get us started. >> admiral and then general? >> just to piggy back on that, it's to make sure we're reaching out in the innovation base and helping them understand what our problems are and how they can help solve them. we stood up unmanned task force out in the middle east. we're able to bring a lot of different commercial companies out and test them out in that environment, working

side-by-side with our operators. then building a national network, that could bring in everything that they were seeing and you had one common operational picture that the unman can do that kind of little bit boring work. we were able to take that spirit and put it in into a disruptive capabilities office that we stood up last fall. which is going after these niche capabilities that we can deliver to the hands of the war fighter in the next two years by taking that kind of development approach and get them contracted and get them out to the war fighter. it's really a path maker for other types of procurement like that in the future. a little bit boring work and he could send -- we were able to

take that spirit and put it into a disruptive capability's office that we stood up last fall, which is really again going after the capabilities we can deliver into the hands of the war fighter in the next two years by taking that development approach and getting them contracted and out to the war fighter. so we are excited about that, it's a path maker we think for other types of procurement like that in the future. >> we talk about the infamous valley of death, you have these great ideas and then stuck in the valley of death to get them across. but sometimes you really need someone on the others out of the valley yelling for it, because right now it's like, i've got a good idea, but if no one is asking for it on the other site, then perhaps it is not relevant. perhaps we are not talking about what we need or the problem we want to solve.

precision as much as we can get, describing the challenge, not in describing the project. >> three down, one to go. i will let go what my counterpart said about unpredictable funding. you cannot go half a year without a confirmed budget and then spend it all in the second half of the year. that creates waste, it creates inefficiencies, and it's not a way to run a railroad. again, i'm sure i will hear about this comment. but you can't be a superpower when you can't follow your own rules.

>> let's stitch some of that together. like dave was saying, you come up with an idea and say i think this would be valuable. but if you can't see a pass to scaling it, let's say you think there is a way to do that i'm have to test it, you have to put a payload in orbit in my case, you have to convince the people that are giving money that this is worthy of their time, energy, and resources. now you are two years away, and now the technology has changed, the requirements and security environment have changed. you go back and say maybe we can just modify these requirements. then it starts to erode the advocacy for your resources, and you're in the valley of death. so there is a piece of this that is processed, internal, it's

planning, it's the right kind of advocacy. but in the end, it's just really hard to bring these good ideas to the field and we have to work at it over and over again. >> without timely budget, they need to invest in just thinking about some of the -- any to make capital investments and then they have to hire a workforce and they need to know they can continue those investments. when you have uncertainty in that aspect of the industry it just takes longer, cost more money and there is significant inefficiency there. i would say, and i mention workforce in the context of industrial base workforce and talent and access to talent is one of the major challenges, not just the military, every

employer out there, we are all in this race for talent. money matters because you need to hire that talent and invest in it, but creating an exciting young people to service and to serve in any one of these uniforms or serve in our industrial base are in our government is really a challenge that is here with us now as a nation and probably merits more direct thinking and encouragement because it is honorable to serve and support the nation, but it has been a challenge. covid definitely impacted some of it, but young people have feelings about work, and it doesn't include work always. [laughter] >> there has been a lot written about recruitment challenges. if i'm not wrong, i think the

marines are the only ones who actually hit their goals this year. >> spacex did too. >> i stand corrected. what is the secret, do you have any advice to your colleagues here? >> i would not offer advice to my compiled range. the way we make our recruiting is -- i would not offer advice to my compadres. we are not selling anything. we are challenging you to become a united states marine. you can meet that challenge, you earned the title. if you can't, you go home. that's it. we didn't promise you a rose garden. for an opportunity to become a united states arena and earn that title, we invest heavily in our recruiting environment. we were cool -- reward our

recruiters and we hold them accountable. my own son is a recruiter. he knows if he doesn't make his mission, he's not getting thanksgiving dinner. [laughter] >> people talk about how the armed services are a family business. about a third of those in the armed services were a child of somebody in the armed service or a close family member. how do we expand the pool? you got issues of obesity and physical fitness. you've got people who may not want to work for work. >> one of the things we got started here about a year and a half ago was a prep course down at fort jackson. it is great. there are people that want to serve. they need to lose a little weight or something like that and they come, and we have had about 18,000 that have gone

through there. for us we are recruiting 60,000 people a year, so significantly higher, but we have found two things, one, we have to get the message out to everybody. i enlisted right out of high school. i had somebody talk to me about it, just how important service is, to make sure we are advertising, and we can do better with that because we are very closed since 9/11 and there's a lot of people that don't know. we are working to get the word out and the prep courses helping us bring people to our standard. we have helped people meet our standard and i think that is where we are going to need to go in the future. >> i would just offer also, to randy's point, how are we getting out to every zip code in america?

over time since i've been in, a lot of reductions have occurred. a lot of folks don't have contact with the military anymore. it's sort of all our responsibility, how do we get out and talk to folks that don't know anything about us? often times we talk within our own sphere, it's not going to reach someone in north dakota. so what is the process we can help get our folks out there to tell their story? we can do it on social media or in person, but it's reaching the people who influence them, their parents, their coaches, their church leaders. how do we go and talk to them about the value of service to increase capacity? it an all hands on deck effort to talk about the value of service, the call to national service. when you want to work in the

defense industry our work in the military, we need you, we need all of you. so sign up. >> one thing he didn't say, maybe because he is humble, the other thing the marine corps does better than others is they value recruiting. per capita, the number of reserve officers who have been recruiters in the marine corps is far and away the best. show your value and that continues at perpetuation and that is part of the value of it. in the air force, last year we did not make our goal. this year we will. it is a crisis, we don't see it as a crisis. it did cause us to do some introspection on some of the policies we had that were not necessarily elevating standards, they were just policy we had because we sort of could.

we took a closer look and internally figured out some of the things that we could be doing, but what we are all getting is a longer-term thing. it's not just about letting people know there are incentives here and there. my own theory is worth every penny you pay for it. i do believe right now there is untapped potential, it's about getting out there and communicating with the young americans. i think right now, let's face it, we are in places where there are domestic issues. you can talk about that as long as the night is here. but at some point there are still americans who are raising their right hand, and you have to ask yourself why. my theory is that they since some of it, that hope there is something better out there. when they raise the right hand, i think that is what they are looking for. we need to make sure that when we were recruit them, we do it

in a way that says, how would you like to be on a winning team? if you think you can make this team, then give it a shot and we will support you then. is not so much that we're going to bring you in and coddle you, but we are going to give you something that is purpose filled, something where you can find that there is something just beyond you. that goes from generation to generation. we need to tap into that. if we don't give them that, then we will have lost them for life. if you're looking for something else, a little bit different value proposition, and you come into the service and saul codling rather than helping you build strong relationships and horizontal accountability and that sort of stuff. if we don't do that, they will think maybe this is all there is. so there is a great opportunity, is just getting out there and having the value proposition

beyond just this is the pay and the benefits. >> around climate change, let me start with our admirals. are you worried about rising sea levels? what is the risk posed to our bases, and for those who are landlubbers or space dwellers, how do you think about the impact of climate change in terms of creating conflict in migration and political instability in certain parts of the world? >> i think climate change is here now. the maritime services, you got to put people on ships and those ships are right there at the edge of sea and land which puts you on the bases where you are impacted by sea level rise. as we build and repair stations and units that have impact from hurricanes, we are doing it in a way that is climate informed so

they can sustain those kinds of winds and waters. the reality is that there's changing patterns now and i will talk to the article a little bit. the c temperature rise which we look at different oceans with different levels, but the fish no that they like a certain temperature of water, and they don't really care where our boundaries are in the established order, and will follow the cooler temperatures. if any of you have watched the deadliest catch, you see that fleet of alaskan boats based out of dutch harbor alaska, and they are operating much further north now. the fish have moved north. the crab collapse in alaska a couple of years ago, they disappeared, and they think

their food source basically died off and the crab as a result died off. you also see people, cruise ships and other activities again in the arctic where the shoulder season starts earlier and goes later in the year. it allows for expiration a lot of use. so those changing patterns will create both challenge and opportunity with regard to ensuring that we continue to protect the safety of life at sea and you've got the right environmental protections in place. that is very much with us now, and i've mentioned illegal fishing, that challenges some of that behavior, truly a global challenge as the fish follow the water wherever they want for those temperatures. >> certainly all of our, the

majority of our bases are coastal, and we need to make sure we are preparing, investing, and we have a prioritized work plan to get at the biggest challenges first, but making sure we continue to invest in our infrastructure which is not necessarily always our first priority, but we've got to be able to generate that force every day. the other part, we're certainly seeing a lot of natural disasters. they ebb and flow but we train to be ready to respond to those. we are always operating forward, whether it's a volcanic eruption last year or earthquakes in turkey or another tsunami. these are things that our forces are out there already ready to respond should they be called. we've got to get there in the first 48-72 hours to be able to render that immediate assistance. >> let me open it up, just a

reminder this meeting is on the record, i probably should have told you that before. [laughter] my bad. >> i teach at georgetown university, and i teach a course on the geopolitics of technology . in that context, i'm seeing more and more about program over match. there's a fair amount of money coming into it, but certainly not a lot of money. i'm curious as to the future of that program, but also its reliance on satellites and military exchange, the first think that will go are probably the satellites which would enable that program. some curious as to your perspective on that, how you see

the future that going forward. >> each one of our services are working on different processes for munication and resilient communications. the navy has project over match were were looking at designing communication architectures that can be independent of satellites, that can use organic sensing to do that and basically create a pathway that a message can go to any one of the different networks, depending on which one is most available at the time. that is that resiliency that we really need to see. again, working with all the services because we know we need to be able to talk to each other to put that together. project over match has deployed a couple of different capabilities and we look forward to continuing that in the future. >> we are investing heavily to create more resilient architecture.

you see what starling was able to do in a contested environment over ukraine. we are taking those lessons to heart. we've also developed a proliferated consolation, we are in the process of putting it in orbit over the next few years. recognizing the dependencies, recognizing how critical it is, we are investing heavily to make sure we are resilient enough to fend that off. >> great public servant, former under secretary of state. >> thank you very much for a terrific presentation. i'm interested in the national defense strategy, i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit on what it is and what we can project in terms of how it's going to evolve.

the latest is the chinese are building not only bases, but building friendly forts, shall we say. [indiscernible] how much of a threat do you see that as with the way we structure the navy? >> it's interesting, because i've been a part of or helping staffing defense strategies for a long time. when this came out, it's interesting because you always found somebody is going to pooh-pooh it, and this is the part that bugged me the most.

integrated deterrents failed because russia invaded ukraine. to me, that represents not a fully informed understanding of what deterrence is on a strategic scale. if you think you're going to deter all bad actors from all bad acts, it's faulty. it's not only integrated across the joint force or between the joint force and the inner agency, which is where i was first most focusing on to make sure all doing the same thing and we are simpatico and collectively going at this across a government. the one thing that was maybe underappreciated was the level of risk taking having to do with sharing that we would perhaps not of done before. imagine what that would have done how we not been up to show up with the nato nations ahead of time. in the area of russia and ukraine, there are some level to show that integrated deterrence can work.

i think that has been underappreciated. but the name itself may have been new, but the concept is not . militaries do not deter on their own. entire nations deter other actors from doing things. it was just drawing attention to the fact that it's going to happen also with the allies and partners. it accentuates the need for deterrence to be with like-minded nations. the second part of the question had to do with chinese expansion in ports across the globe. >> china has had an aggressive approach through their melton road initiative to get tentacles all over the world, to have investment commercial ports.

using all the instruments of national power, a lot of times the nations become heavily indebted to china, it's not what they bargained for and i think what we can do with our state department colleagues, department of commerce, the military engagements, continue to advise folks on this is what it really looks like. many of them are finding it was not the best investment. all of the dual use installations all around the world, we need to just continue to be eyes wide open about those investments and art making and not be afraid to talk to our partners and allies about them. >> it's a loan shark deal, i hate to say that in a flippant way that it came across, but it is a loan shark deal, i'll loan

you $50 million and then you owe me $250 million, so i'll let you pay me with access for 100 years. this goes to the primacy of the u.s. budget and much of this needs to go to the state department because if we are not there, china won't be there. so i would advocate for a larger state department budget. >> thank you all for your service. one to talk a little bit more about what is going on in the middle east. i'd love to have your views about how israel is fighting the war in gaza, where he is thinking it is using appropriate measures. i like your views on how successful the u.s. has been at preventing an expansion of the war through the charring attacks by members of the access of resistance, dealing with the houthi s and so on. and finally if you could talk about the pros and cons of a

closer relationship, military relationship with saudi arabia. thank you very much. >> who wants to start? >> i will start. without getting ahead of the administration, when israel was attacked, israel responded. did they respond appropriately? that's a question for history, but when you are attacked, you respond. and they were attacked. we can second-guess an armchair quarterback all we want, that they were attacked, and it was their version of 9/11. if you look at our response to 9/11, it was fairly robust. israel's response was fairly robust. >> i will tackled the settle -- the second one, keeping the middle east from actually boiling over, that has been a

success of good treatment of allies and partners in the region. each nation has its own decision to make, but the trust of being a reliable partner that we've built throughout the region, i believe, and i can speak on the air force side, i was really proud of the asset commander, she spent a lot of time reassuring and making sure -- a lot of that went into what turned out to be a quite successful response to the salvo that i ran tried to -- had that succeeded, that might have definitely blown the top off, but it didn't. there's so much that went on behind the scenes. the orchestration of the actual event was remarkable. >> feel free to tell us more about that. [laughter]

>> there were some intricacies of those things that happen across the joint force, but i will tell you it was mostly do the work, the coordination at was done ahead of time. that is something the history books may or may not record. this is a dog that didn't necessarily mark, at least in the middle of april. we should be very, very proud. >> we had an aircraft carrier in the eastern mediterranean, our view in the middle east is more toward the gulf of oman. we had another carrier deploying from nor folk right about the same time. we were able to provide that deterrent power there in the middle east to deter any additional line activities in the north, and the military

provided those options and made them available. if you look in the red sea through operation prosperity guardian, really standing firm for the international order which is what you see being threatened now. we need to stand up and you see those nations doing that through prosperity guardian under u.s. leadership. you also see that e.u. stood up another commerce escort mission in the red sea. our job is to find those options and has been really important to have that international connection and support for these operations to keep that international order firm. >> would anybody like to comment on saudi arabia?

>> nick question. let me get to someone in the back if i can. the microphone is coming to you. >> i'm going to follow up on the question on integrated deterrence. the white house liked it so much , they made it a centerpiece. my question is, at the national level is there a kind of rigorous plans and planning processes to implement integrated deterrence in the way that you understand planning and plans in the defense department? essentially is there an interagency j5. >> the answer is actually no,

but it is an inspiration. the idea that one would have very integrated planning, but even in the joint context, we all have enough income, we have a good starting point, but when you look at all the different stakeholders across the government, it just becomes that much more complex. if we actually could do that, we would be so far ahead. it's just a matter of a clash of cultures and backgrounds and stakeholders in context that don't, the problem from the same direction, makes it so challenging. >> if i could offer one example, it's important to think about the information in the lead up to russia's invasion of ukraine. honestly, i think there was very good interagency cooperation, also a former j5, how do we leverage the different

instruments of national power? how do we use information sharing and declassification to tell our allies and partners what is going on so we can have a unified, synchronized response. if you look back to the response of not only our nation but nations around the world, there was a very integrated response when russia invaded ukraine. i think it is important to remember that there might not be by name and interagency j5, but the effect was achieved. >> the national security council tried to play a role in putting the mechanisms together so that we make sure we are at least considering all the various factors, even inside the department of defense, it takes years before plan is approved. the ideal pulling in multiple agencies to come up with a consolidated and synchronize plan, issue by issue, the security council is trying to

take that into account. >> we will take the next question from our virtual audience. >> good evening, i'm a retired army officer residing in colorado. three factors that undergird my question. the first was the comments by general smith at the beginning that we need to be ready for one more conflict than we think. there is a capacity component in addition to a capability component. the second factor is the recruitment discussion that you all had earlier. even though some of the services will be making their mission, all can probably agree that we don't have an ideal recruiting environment for any of the services. the third factor is the advancement of the quality -- equality of opportunity for women in the services. this having been demonstrated by two of the women on the stage being women. from your perspective, not

political perspective, readiness -- should american women be asked to serve for selective service? and if not, is selective service really a dead letter? [laughter] >> all right, that's not where i thought you were going, but who would like to take that one? >> i will take the first swing at this. first, to take a circuitous route to come back to it, we have women serving in every branch inside the army and every combat branch and everything it's. 51% of the population, so for us, we are actively trying to get more women into our

formation, and also like you are seeing appear, make sure they're coming up the ranks and we are putting them in a position to do this. it's just about capability to do the job. that's what we are focused on. i know that's what we are focused on inside the army, making sure we are out there recruiting and pulling it in and going to the right events and telling them how they can advance in our military. i think as far as we do need to think if we have had to mobilize in the past and it is a significant amount of people, you may have to mobilize if that would have to happen. it is something we should at least consider, and that's definitely a political conversation but we will take as many into our formation that meet our standards and are ready to do the job that we have for them. >> as a witness to history, we

joined, there was a lot of things we couldn't do. thanks to the change in law policy and culture, there really isn't anything that people can't do in any of our services, so the opportunities are really endless. it's great to be part of that history and watching that go on, but it's a natural evolution. it takes 38 years to grow a service team, 37 for some of you. that's how long it took for us to get up there. it is a long time, but a lot of great experiences. i'm really excited about, if you can see it you can be it. it's pretty exciting for our military. >> we've been doing a lot of work around transforming the -- their rules in place that of just been there forever, and we had the luxury of having those rules in place, there is plenty

of recruiting, but some of them serve as a barrier for people who see themselves joining and see themselves staying. we are working at unpacking some of the rigidity in the system. if you see yourself serving, whoever and wherever you are, and you meet the standard, we should make it easy for you to join, easy to start, and easy to stay. we also need to make it easier for you to come back-and-forth between the services and indent out -- in and out of industry. you take cyber as an emerging field, the innovation, we've got the technical means. so a nice revolving door of people where it's easy to serve for a couple of years, and you can grow your ponytail back and

go back out to industry. helping young people basically eliminate barriers, just nothing but opportunity for those that see themselves serving. >> i'm a security advisor for the department of the navy. since that last question came, i can't help but ask, two things. it's one thing to get women into the military, both optionally are requiring them to, but what is being done to retain them in the navy? i'm sorry, i keep saying navy, but the military. what is being done to create an environment in which they actually want to stay and see a

place for themselves? and we talked a lot about, there is in every zip code, about providing options. i'm wondering if you see women as being able to offer some unique perspectives that might not already be in the military because it is been so male dominated. so if you see the inclusion of women more, as more like a robust understanding. >> i will take a swing at the first part of it. for example, the marine corps, i instituted a policy, we have a significant number of dual service active duty. i can't tell you why, but we do. it takes me to separate them. it takes me that has to come to

the meetings, because we were sending, a female marine was a pilot and she was going to flight school, the male marine was an intelligence officer. after their initial schooling, which i don't control, than they are both going to camp lejeune or camp dallas, so that has helped in our retention. we were separating them and then wondering why they were getting out. we couldn't figure it out. the usmca sometimes stands for uncle sam's misguided children. we were confused on that and it takes me to separate, so that's one of the things we have done. our female retention numbers are going up, not just as a result of that, but that is part of it.

>> although it's not specific to women, last year personal management act allows inside the space force for us to manage both part-time and full-time positions inside the single component. no one else has this authority. we think it's going to give us a level of career flexibility, where for whatever reason life gets in the way and they decide they can't commit to a full-time status, they can shift into part-time for some period and as soon as i come back on active duty or -- we think this will be a game changer for any number of considerations but it's one of the things we hear from women sometimes that there's a period in their life where they feel like they need to be part-time for a while, but then they want to come back in. we want to make that as easy as possible. >> any of the retention

initiatives were doing, career flexibility, when you talk with younger folks, i have a high school senior, they are very much looking for some career flexibility, or maybe they want to be stationed in one place so they don't have to move as much. it's not just about women. it's about recruiting and retaining one sailor at a time and really understanding what is it they need to achieve what i want to do in the military and in their own personal life and how did they integrate those two? if we can do that and still build those war fighters we need , let's do that. every initiative we take is going to be better for everyone, men and women. >> lessons learned from the russia-ukraine war, first, how

does it affect how we think about land maneuver, ukraine has opened up the line of communication, all this without much of a navy of its own. finally, in the air, how can ukraine get better control? how can they get better air sovereignty control over their own airspace? >> i will start on the landside. first, what we always talk about , until we change something we're doing, how we train and fight and how we are organized and then how we are equipped. i could no doubt -- i could go down every one of the war fighting functions, for example on the network, you can be seen almost anywhere nowadays, visually and with your electromagnetic signature.

you will have to have very small c2 notes and they will have to move around very quickly. we are seeing the effects of long-range fires, especially land-based fires because they can hide in the clutter of what is going on. again, visually and what is out there where you a s is another one. i could go down every one of the war fighting functions and talk about how it is changing. we are adjusting and calling it transformation and and actually changing how they are going to be organized. where do we need drones, do we need extra operators. it is telling us a lot. we do fight differently and i

think it was mentioned up here, with were going to approach some of these things much different than what the ukrainians or anybody else has done, but we are paying really close attention to what we are seeing around the world. >> i think in the black sea, ukrainians have been incredibly successful and really pushing back the russian fleet and destroying a good portion of that. ukrainians i think have been really a great example of innovating on the battlefield and being incredibly persistent and just trying again and again and again, and then being successful about that. the lesson we can all take away from that is how do we innovate now? how do we know what those asymmetric capabilities will be and start getting them into the hands of the war fighters? that is my big take away from

ukraine. >> the other piece is the human dimension. ukrainians want to beat ukrainians more than the russians want them to be russians. that is my assessment. one is fighting for survival and one is fighting for expansion. the survivalist is going to win every time. every time. if human wills are matched, war is a contest of human will. right now the ukrainians are holding their own. >> two sides of the same coin, you mentioned sovereign air, neither side has been able to have much of continued momentum, largely because they haven't been able to control from the air and be able to support a combined ops operation.

it's not just about having air superiority for air superiority's sake. overstating the case just to make a point, the traditional idea of how we have done it is freedom from attack, the airspace's hours for a long period of time. that is becoming cost prohibitive just about anywhere, but it's also not necessary. if you have the ability to gain air superiority and synchronize it to enable a combined arms fight, then it is still effective. right now, neither side is able to do that because they're not able to leverage that, because electronic warfare is alive and well in that country. to do that requires a consistent and capacity and coordination

with the other domains to be able to take full advantage on the battlefield. superiority still matters and we need to understand we will probably not be able to do it the way we use to, nor is it necessary. >> its great honor for us to be able to host all the chiefs every year, and i'm so grateful to you. please join me in thanking them for coming here. [applause]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tonight, independent pridtial canda robert kennedy junior holding a campaign rally in austin, texas. watch live at 8:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org.

>> congress rerntuesday for legislative business and boats. the house is back at no eastern. later in the week, lawmakers will vote on legislation to reauthorize the faa proamfor five years. current programsreet to expire friday at midnight. winners will also consider retiring event ticket sells to disclose total ticket prices, including fees. the soonest back at 3:00 p.m. eastern. send will vote on execute and judicial nominations for u.s. district and cir courts. watch veoverage of the house on c-spa t senate on c-span2 , and you can watch all of our coressional coverage with our free video app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> next, look at current health threats and lessons learned from the covid-19 pandemic.