 Good afternoon everybody. Welcome. We're delighted to have you here. My name is John Hamry. I'm the president of CSIS and I can't tell you how heartened I am to see so many people that want to be here this afternoon to talk about NATO. I'll be perfectly honest. I was afraid we weren't going to be able to attract such a strong interest in this topic because frankly America has been kind of asleep for the last several years on NATO and when we had this opportunity to partner with General Palmeiros we said we need to do something to start to reinvigorate an alliance that's still fundamental to America's interests. It isn't something that we talk about very much and it isn't something that that is a central focus of our security deliberations. It once was but we've America's ultimately we're pragmatic and we go wherever the problems are immediately yet we should be looking at the fundamentals of the resources that we have with us and this alliance is the most important fundamental resource we have. We're very fortunate that that we have political leaders. Let me just say at NATO as always people say you know it's the most successful military alliance in history ultimately it's a political alliance. It's a political alliance that has a direction and ultimately it's about the coherence of our political agenda this transatlantic political agenda that's the foundation of the success of this alliance and that means we have to link together both the foreign policy dimensions and the security dimensions of this alliance and I'm so very grateful that Senator McCain Senator Murphy we're willing to take time I'll tell you give you warning right now there are votes that are starting at 5.30 so we're going to press right into this but I do want to say how grateful I am to them for their leadership in the Senate their leadership for our country and their presence this afternoon to help us launch this series. I don't know which of the two of these brilliant women are going to start this but I'll turn it to you but just would you all with your applause please welcome and thank you. Thank you to everyone for coming today senators if you can turn your mics on if you're able to now. I'm Dr. Kathleen Hicks I run the international security program and I'm pleased to be here with my colleague Miss Heather Connolly runs the Europe program here at CSIS. We're going to spend about a half an hour or so speaking with the senators and then we're going to open it up for some questions and answers. Let me begin with a very open-ended question to both of you and maybe we'll start on the outside center McCain. NATO is approaching yet another summit. We are at a crossroads as we always say but at this time we certainly have one in terms of the Afghanistan mission. There are significant concerns about where NATO is going in terms of the funding. The US is rebalancing to the Pacific with all of these different factors at play. What are you seeing that gives you the greatest hope and the greatest concern with regards to the lot the alliance. Well I'm trying to think. Could I thank CSIS and John Hamrey who I've had admiration for and appreciation for for many years he had humble beginnings on the Senate staff and fortunately has forgotten that unpleasant experience and is going on to doing great things as CSIS has and I'm very happy to be here. I think probably the greatest hope is the fact that it remains a viable ever inclusive. I think we have reasonable candidates for growth of NATO. I think it remains a force for stability in the world and I think that despite our complaints that we have that are justified but annual about the amount of funding and I'm sure we may talk about that in the future. There's only two countries Poland and Norway that have increases in spending. It still remains one of the most remarkable and enduring phenomena of the 20th and now 21st century and people all over the world look to NATO as both a model and an inspiration and any other alliances I think will be based on on that model. My greatest concern we go back to spending. We also go back I think to reluctance on the part of NATO and which is a reflection of the countries that they represent from getting involved anywhere to do anything. I appreciate what happened in Libya and I think it was quite impressive that we were able to take out Mo Mar Gaddafi without committing troops on the ground but when I see what happens in Syria when I see ranging from Mali to a number of other countries throughout the Middle East and we see frankly our secretary general seems to be compelled every morning to get up to tell the world under no circumstances will NATO be involved in anything. I don't know where he got that disease then it does worry me about the viability of NATO and whether they will ever again intervene. Example I'm not saying that NATO should intervene in Syria. It was 8,000 people were ethnically cleansed in Sebranica and that moved the president of the United States and NATO to intervene there and I think in retrospect all of us and by the way it was a hell of a debate in the Senate in retrospect we're all glad we did it. Last few days 11,000 people have been documented to be tortured, murdered, starved to death and there hasn't even been a comment much less any concern on the part of our European friends and NATO partners. That's very disturbing to me. Well thank you to John and CSIS for having me as well it's really an honor to be here with Senator McCain and my new role as chair of the Europe Subcommittee on Foreign Relations. I'm learning a lot from John and others. I won't endeavor to recite again what I think Senator McCain has laid out is the successes here. This is the model for common defense. It's not a coincidence that there's still a long line of nations seeking to join NATO because it still offers tremendous benefits. I don't I think the greatest overused word in Washington and diplomatic circles is pivot these days still when there is trouble anywhere around the world the first place the United States turns is to our NATO allies and they are the first to respond. I would add a couple additional concerns so those that have been raised by Senator McCain clearly funding is at the top of the list as is the willingness of European nations given tight budgets to step up to the plate and make the resources available but I'll add two new ones which is first the issue of integrating our counterterrorism work into the mission of NATO. Now we've seen obviously a major dust-up over the revelations regarding US surveillance techniques but it is frankly I think forced us to talk a little bit about what our true counterterrorism partnership is going to be and whether it's going to simply be on individual bilateral bases whether it's going to go through the EU or whether it can be a more central organizing premise of NATO going forward which also speaks to the second challenge which is as the EU stands up a greater ability to speak with a common voice on the issue of national security and defense I will tell you it is likely going to become even more problematic for the United States to figure out whether the proper venue for an individual conversation about the future of national security is better housed in NATO or better housed in the EU and so the ability of this triumvirate of the United States the EU and the NATO to figure out a new communication strategy moving forward I think is one of the challenges but frankly an opportunity as well because the EU is going to bring capabilities to unite Paul and Mill together that maybe right now aren't available to us when we're simply talking to NATO or through NATO. Could I just make a comment I admire Senator Murphy a lot and he and I shared a memorable experience not long ago when we went to Ukraine and were present at Maidan Square to watch a couple of 300,000 people demonstrating for a country that is free of Russian influence and can be part of the European community and I don't know what's going to happen there and things are very tenuous but it was a remarkable experience for us to be able to see that incredible outpouring of people in weather that's like it is today here and not withstanding the somewhat tortured history of the Ukraine with NATO and the EU the desire of the Ukrainian people to have a European facing future is a manifestation of the success of both the EU and of NATO so you want to talk about the success that NATO has delivered it is present on the streets of Kiev and throughout the Ukraine today I promise you was not about joining EU it was about being a European nation whether it be the music whether it be the culture whether it be the economy whether it be getting rid of corruption it's because they are making that desire manifested in a way that sacrificed already a rather large amount. Well you both segwayed beautifully into the next question which was going to be Ukraine Senator Murphy when you both were in Maidan in December and speaking to the protesters you said to the Ukrainian protesters you are making history if you are successful the United States will stand with you every step of the way how does the US tangibly support Ukraine during these difficult days I'd love your reflections on that and really what we've been witnessing over the last 28 48 hours and then the second part of my question to you both and Senator McCain you mentioned the growth of NATO enlargement secretary Clinton said in Chicago in 2012 that Chicago would be the last summit which is not an enlargement summit there is real concern that the summit in Wales will not address enlargement what what does NATO signal to Georgia to Ukraine to those countries that do want to come into NATO but yet NATO politically is exhausted and may not see where enlargement fits into the picture I'd welcome your reflections on both Ukraine and enlargement well I'll take the first stab on two big topics but you know I've had a fairly short diplomatic history but I've never seen anything like what I saw in the Maidan that afternoon we had the chance after speaking to about a half a million to a million people to then have a meeting with a small group of some of the young leaders of the movement and as senator McCain said it was really remarkable because as much as there is a giant portrait at least when we were there if you laid Timoshenko in the square this is largely a non-political gathering a group of largely young people but frankly representing a cross-section of Ukrainians who just want control of their government a feeling that their will is expressed in the halls of leadership that there's clean government that isn't just a means to enrich political leaders and their friends and cronies it was a remarkable place to be the question you asked is what does the US do here and listen I think we have to admit that there are limited tools that the United States has and there are some expectations that it gets the United States it's going to deliver the salvation for the Ukrainian people that may be too high a bar but there are definite things we can do we can speak with a clear voice and I think that we have done that in this situation perhaps better than we then we have in others our assistant secretary was on the ground in the Maidan as soon as it was probably possible to do so senator McCain and I were there to deliver a bipartisan message we passed a resolution in the Senate expressing our clear sentiments to stand with the Ukrainian people and we have begun to use some fairly serious diplomatic tools like visa restrictions that may send an even clearer message to the regime I think all of that that unanimity of of sentiment coming from the highest ranks of the United States government has had an impact on the situation on the ground on the issue of enlargement I know that people are worried that some high expectations may not be met and when you go through the list of countries there's an individual reason why each country may not be where they wanted to be a year or two ago whether it be the name issue in Macedonia or the continued security concerns on the borders of Georgia but we should continue to keep our eye on the prize here because if you have a series of summits that don't add to the membership then it has a chilling effect on those who would want to be part of NATO and of course this is a much bigger issue than just uniting in a common defense this is about a signal that these nations enter the world when they join one of the most reputable esteemed political and military bodies that they are ready for economic prime time as well and so we want to be able to keep that light shining strong statement by our Secretary of State Victoria Newland did and continues to do an outstanding job it's hard for us Americans to understand how important it is to these people the backing and support of the United States of America its government and people we had a hearing on the Foreign Relations Committee on Ukraine I was in Davos that with several of the people who are in the resistance one of them a disaffected oligarch and he said you know the hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee came up at 4 a.m. and all of us watched it I said really so anyway but the point is it matters to them just as it mattered when Ronald Reagan said tear down this wall just that it mattered when President Reagan mentioned Nathan Transky's name and it reverberated throughout the gulag it matters to these people that that the United States of America Republican and Democrat executive and legislative branch speaks out in in their behalf one of the most moving things in my life and I've had a long life was when Chris and I were standing there and these hundreds of thousands of people began chanting thank you thank you thank you was very moving so we we cannot underestimate the importance of the moral suasion of the United States of America and and our allies what I would like to see is the EU be they've been kind of back and forth they have not been steadfast they've sort of backed off and then I would like to see a commitment from the EU to say look if a b and c happens you're in and the same way with the IMF I don't think frankly we've seen as much of a commitment from the EU as as we as we might there so I think that's very important in in NATO enlargement but I have a special feeling for Georgia I have a special affection I was there many years ago in Tbilisi when you couldn't walk down the street in Tbilisi without a security guard because there was so much lawlessness when shivered Nazi ran one of the most corrupt governments in in all of Europe and I watched this incredible revolution that took place and the amazing things that have happened including a free and fair election even if that election weren't exactly the result that I may have wanted but the fact is they've been pretty good so far so here we have a country that frankly is occupied by Russia at satia and Abkhazia south of satia and Abkhazia are occupied by Russia every once in a while the Russians move the fence another hundred meters or two it's pure it's clear that Putin views Georgia as he does Ukraine as he does Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania as part of the near abroad and I think one of the really signals that we could send is to move forward with Georgia membership in NATO and by the way my friends they have more troops in Afghanistan as a percentage of their population than any other country in in the Alliance and they've lost some of them so I think that we should appreciate already the contributions they have made to NATO before they even were on the path to membership. For the countries in Eastern Europe that are NATO members building on those last points from both of you they're obviously looking for the substantiation of that US signal of its commitment to the transatlantic Alliance and of course to NATO's signal overall of its commitment to the security of Eastern Europe so I'm wondering if you can each provide your thoughts in a period of you know fiscal challenge for the United States with other competing priorities to include often during times like this we call for US troops to come home as opposed to being deployed abroad I wonder what your thoughts are about what the US could do tangibly to signal to Europe our continuing commitment on the military side. Well let let me say that this is part of a scenario that's been going on since the early 20th century as far as the Republican party is concerned. The isolationist come home America fortress America versus the internationalists you could go back prior to World War one prior to World War two, Lindberg, America firsters after World War two, the Taft wing of the party, the Eisenhower wing of the party you could take it all the way up to today where we have the wing of our party which is dedicated to cutting foreign aid we were at a town hall meeting today and I said how many of you in this room think that 30% of our budget is foreign aid most of them would raise their hand think it's more and there is a with hard economic times there is obviously that tendency to wonder whether we are expending their tax dollars wisely that debate is going on in the Republican Party right now and it will play out in the campaign for the nomination of our party and so we'll have to see but I would also like to see more presidential leadership as to our America's role in the world and I would like to see more of us who are in the Republican Party who are internationalists maybe do a better job of explaining that we may want to leave the Middle East but the Middle East is not going to leave us and and that what happens today in in Damascus matters what happens today in Mali matters what happens today in across the broad Middle East as we see the rise of Al Qaeda and radical Islam who are dedicated to our extinction and when they and if and when they retain the capability to do so they will attack Europe and the United States so I guess what I guess what I'm saying is that we need to fight this battle and have this debate openly honestly and respectfully and we've got and I'm confident we can win again John and I found all sorts of common ground recently but it'll come to no surprise to him that I came to Congress as someone who ran on the premise of withdrawing from Iraq and one thing I think to be careful of is not to confuse those of us who have come to Congress in the last half a decade on the premise of reduced roles in places like Iraq and Afghanistan with isolationism in fact NATO is the exact kind of multilateral partnership that many of us want us to reinvest in and I think it probably bears repeating that over and over again because when you hear that the debate in Congress is just about you know how fast we get out of Afghanistan or whether or not we commit any kind of military resources to Syria it masks the fact that there actually is more support here for the transatlantic military relationship than you may otherwise believe one could I go for one more time to add to his point I forgot to say that Americans are disillusioned because of Iraq and they are don't see the old line Vietnam the light at the end of the tunnel in Afghanistan and that is contributed enormously to this withdrawal America I'm sorry to interrupt but the point is well made no but that's and that's right and listen they they also you know they also understand more than many people may give them credit for that the reason to tray of the alliance is not there any longer and so they sort of wonder why do we contribute as much as we do when we have a very different threat and so that that those are those are challenges but opportunities because despite all of the fear about the new sort of isolationist in the Congress I think there are plenty of people who still want to engage in this relationship I would just add one caution to something that is often offered as the first panacea to what may ill the relationship and that's the trade agreement trade agreement is incredibly important I support it and I speak as someone who hasn't voted for a lot of trade agreements in my time and I think this one is both economically justifiable but a geopolitical game changer but that can't answer the questions going forward about the future of our political military relationship we have big questions that you're going to seek to answer over the course of the next 24 hours on the future of NATO in the future of interoperability and of smart defense and I hope that we get a trade agreement but that can't be our only answer because that is not a substitute for the very important military partnership that still has to occur and it can certainly answer some of the concerns that Europeans have over whether we're still serious about the transatlantic relationship but it can't be the beginning in the end I think we're turning out sort of south center mccain you brought us towards Libya Mali on Friday morning we had French Minister le devan here and he gave a really I think a realignment of French strategy towards the Sahel is a NATO southern strategy some have been writing Steve Larrabee from Rand and others that it's time for NATO to more purposefully turn south that's where the new dangers are and you foresee a NATO role potentially even in the Middle East new partners with cutter UAE we're seeing a new growth area in the south and I welcome your comments on that well first of all I I think what the French have done in Mali is remarkable you have to go to Mali to appreciate my military friends that the terrain and the heat and the air it's really the toughest very tough place to fight in and the French have done extremely well militarily and they're going to stay they're going to keep I had conversation with the French Defense Minister they're going to stay so I I appreciate very much what the French are doing there and they have largely succeeded so far although it's a long way from over we're going to have to look at at Africa and we're going to have to look at what's happening all across although some good news may be in Tunisia that it could be some very good news as their progress but Egypt is very depressing and so I would like to see much more of NATO involvement than just simply French particularly in the area of training and equipping if there's anything a lot of these African nations need its expertise on border patrol patrol and they also need training and help in the technicalities of counterterrorism the matter which country look at and I just throw in in the second battle of Fallujah we lost 96 Marines and soldiers 600 wounded and now we see our vehicles driving around Fallujah with a black flag of Al Qaeda I know a lot of these people who fought there and I know some who lost family members it's pretty hard for me to look them in the eye and tell them that their son's death was not in vain and it's a total failure of American policy when we withdrew completely from Iraq and anybody tells you that we wanted to leave a force behind is not telling you the truth because Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman and I were over there when Maliki agreed to have a residual force remained behind Iraq is now an abject failure and it's spilling over into Syria and it's become a haven for Al Qaeda and it is an abject failure of American foreign policy and I'm not sure that I can look the parents of those 4,000 brave Americans who gave their lives in the eye and telling that was worth it because we in the words of General Petraeus we won the war and we lost the peace I think one of the things that John said earlier was that if we ignore regional conflicts ignore increasingly ungovernable territories we and the Europeans do that at our peril and Africa is probably the best and closest example for the Europeans and which I'm saying about training is is perhaps the most important thing it's the smallest investment with the biggest return because it is one thing to make a small-scale temporary investments and trying to quell local disturbances quite another to commit yourself to a much larger scale endeavor I think Africa though is going to be the place where NATO and the EU are going to have to figure out who leads and the future of their interoperability because you know reports coming out that we may be seeing a potential larger EU force in the CAR moving forward which you know could pay dividends but it will confuse a little bit of the question of leadership as to whether NATO or the EU is going to be playing the leading role in Europe's face and the transatlantic face in in Africa I want to conclude our portion before we go out to the audience with a question about the State of the Union address which is of course tomorrow night I'm wondering from each of you maybe beginning with Senator Murphy what you would most want to hear in that State of the Union with regard to the NATO Alliance or even specifically to the NATO mission well I think it's important to note as we think about the signals that we can send that are maybe more than just symbolic the president is going to be in Europe and he's going to be in Brussels and that I think will be important and we hope that there are some announcements that can come out of that so I would hope that he would reference that trip and give a little bit of context to it in his State of the Union speech you know I'm someone who came out very early on in my time in the House of Representatives to say that we should expedite our troop withdrawal from Afghanistan but I do see the merit in continuing to allow for both a training mission and a counterterrorism mission the suggestion that that has to be a minimum of 10,000 troops as we've heard in the last couple days that is going to be a hard sell to a lot of Americans who I don't think believed withdrawal meant 10,000 troops being left behind but I think a lot of us who want to entertain that conversation about whether we can sell to our constituents that there is a reason to have in the medium term some continued mission there I will say though that you know people my constituents are just tired they're tired and I think that's why you saw this just absolute outpouring over Syria to me I always describe it as you know the supermarket moment when somebody is your constituents are so angry about something that they shout out what they believe across the supermarket to you because they're that passionate it's only happened twice healthcare and Syria in the time that I've been in Congress but it does speak to the fact that if we are going to have some sizable force on the ground in Afghanistan the president either tomorrow night or in some follow-on speech or public relations effort is going to have to give a really good reason to the American public as to why that's absolutely necessary I agree very much with what Chris had to say I would like to hear the president emphasize trade agreements both in both sides of the world I think it's very important I think it's kind of sad that we have really not made much progress and I think this is one of those issues where the president speaking forcefully may be able to overcome some of the pro-keel interests of some of both Republican and Democrat base but I'd also like to hear the president talk about his vision for America's role in the world I'd like to hear him talk about that we don't intend to send Americans in a harm's way we know that the American people are weary and we know they've sacrificed and but there are still great dangers in the world there are great threats to everything we stand for and believe in and these threats are going to have to be made met collectively or unfortunately sometimes singly and it doesn't mean as I say bombing or sending troops said on the ground because Americans as Chris said are not ready to do that but there's so many ways that we can be involved and engaged and we should exercise every one of those options if all of North Africa goes and it won't but if the slaughter drags on in Syria and the Syria Iraq area becomes a as it is now a base for al Qaeda if if Egypt becomes is and I predict right now it will become a base it will become insurgency you can't alienate 30% of the population the way that they have and not expect more and more bombs to go off as went off the other day that we we can exercise a lot of moral suasion and a lot of leadership and frankly when we do it and as NATO or in conjunction with our European friends it has all the more impact we still stand for all those things that America is all about and finally our interests are our values and our values are our interests and when we portray that simple slogan we eventually pay a very heavy price for it and I would like to hear the president talk about not only the obligation but the privilege of being still the most important nation in the world and let me add one thing he's and he will cover this but he of course has to talk about the issue of counterterrorism surveillance and he has a message clearly that he's going to first and foremost deliver to the American people about a new path forward but I hope that he spends at least a few moments a sentence or two delivering a message to our European partners as well clearly there was a portion of his speech dedicated to that some of us would have liked to have seen it go a little bit further but if we don't get this relationship right if we don't figure out the future of counterterrorism surveillance activities between the United States and our European allies then all of our other defense cooperation is rendered virtually meaningless and what is important here is that if he delivers that message then we deserve to expect some honest responses and I don't think we have gotten that in every case there's as we know in this room a lot more cooperation happening than our European partners and leaders would let on and if we're willing to come to the table and say that we're willing to give European citizens new rights that we're willing to look at political espionage in a fundamentally different way than we need our partners to also admit that strong counterterrorism properly monitored surveillance programs are just as much in the Europeans interest and their constituents interests their citizens interest as it is in our citizens interest as well but we will never listen in on Angela Merkel's phone ever again ever again absolutely well senators I hope Kat and I were a good warm-up act because the tough questions are about to come now we're ready to turn to our audience we have about 15 minutes for questions and I'd ask we have microphones I'd ask that you wait for that microphone to come identify yourself please no comments let's go straight to questions so we can get some good answers but before we begin I'd like to turn to deputy supreme allied commander transformation general polyramus who's going to say just a few words and if we just could bring the microphone up and turn to the general thank you I'm very happy to be the supreme like a man transformation but my deputy is much taller than me way much stronger thank you thank you so much mr. senators for two two reasons at least first and foremost for your wonderful support for people in harm ways in many places in in this world they fully appreciate strong your strong political will and commitments we are very proud in like a man transformation to be present the visible presence in of NATO here in the US and we we strive really to not only to keep but to develop the transatlantic bond as we call it and the forum that we organize with colonize with CSIS tomorrow called transatlantic forum is there to do that and to I would say propose a new perspectives on the on the strength of authentic bond to be in line with the future summit the second point is really how much we appreciate how you launched this transatlantic forum with a great contribution and with a very candid approach to NATO and I would say security problems at all we could argue about the role of NATO which cannot do everything and nothing but since 65 years I would suggest that NATO has been very successful and our narrative is not as good as NATO was during the 16 years 65 years this is the first point secondly NATO is about consensus and it would be my question would you say that today NATO is a part of consensus in your Congress the NATO is a point of attention of consensus well I mean I don't have I don't have the necessary perspective here but I think the worry is not that it's an issue of contention the worry is that it is a issue that is vanishing from conversation and so we need to there frankly just needs to be some elementary education that is done of new members of Congress as to the importance of this relationship I don't I think our people is there some anxiety over the fact that the United States is now contributing you know somewhere in the range of 75% of overall costs absolutely is there some anxiety over some of the issues that have occurred within the alliance over counterterrorism operations yes but I think that for for members of Congress who have come here in recent years that there just needs to be some basic instruction as to the importance of this alliance yeah again the only concern I think is with sequestration and continued reductions across the board remember that defense bears a disproportionate share because when they did sequestration they exempted a lot of other branches of government that it's going to put a strain on our ability to bear as much of the burden as we do financially I think the Libyan experience was instructive in many ways it showed that there was a lot of good capabilities that NATO had but it also showed that NATO was lacking in a whole lot of areas including numbers of weapons including refueling capabilities including reconnaissance capabilities including a lot of areas that were revealed as as being sorely lacking even in a relatively short conflict as was Libya and we ought to take a lesson from that so there's good I would agree with I think there's good will towards NATO but we do need to maybe take our some of our newer colleagues traveling that haven't had much experience because there's nothing like being there to really focus the mind and so we look forward to coming to Brussels and and visiting with a lot of our allies I I sort of explained it this way if you've been in Congress in the last 10 years but let's take just the you know be most of Congress has only been there for the last six years this has been a time of enormous economic strain and so your constituents force you to spend the vast majority of your brain thinking about domestic subjects it's been a time of two wars committing tens of thousands of American soldiers and so the portion of your brain that you can reserve for foreign affairs is spent on Afghanistan and Iraq and oh by the way you have to spend a little bit of time right thinking about the Middle East as well so you have to know that issue just hasn't left a lot of room amidst the time of great domestic economic turmoil to think about the transatlantic relationship so here's our opportunity the opportunity is that the economy is getting better slowly both wars are over or winding down a trade agreement now is forcing people to think about the importance of the relationship as it has to do with our economic security moving forward and so as much as we can regret the fact that there hasn't been a lot of focus here this is a moment at which the the oxygen that each member of Congress has is now available in a little bit larger way for this conversation thank you okay let's take three questions we will have one there please microphone is coming your way and we'll just we'll bundle them so we'll take the first one and we'll move around Mehto Kaloski Senators thank you very much for all of your leadership on foreign policy in the Congress in a recent op-ed for the Hill I argued the role of Congress in the name dispute between Macedonian Greece both of you are attending the Munich security conference and Ambassador Ishingar as encouraged both Greek and Macedonian Prime Ministers to meet to discuss their differences to resolve them in order to get Macedonian to NATO and EU what do you suggest and can you make some encouragements to both sides to finally resolve their differences wonderful and we have a question right here please thank you thank you Senators I think you make a great part partisan panel and I appreciate your time with us today my name is Eric Tamerlany I worked for the Friends Committee on National Legislation I prepared this question earlier so pardon my reading off a piece of paper but earlier this month former Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz stated that without financial buy-in from NATO money for the F-35 nuclear integration with the B-61 tactical nuclear bomb should probably realign to other priorities in the recent omnibus it actually cut funds for an F-35 nuclear capability and it seems the US is moving away from an F-35 nuclear role so considering that European fighter jets capable of deploying the B-61 right now will be retired and the F-35 might not be able to carry the B-61 our NATO partners won't be able to deliver that bomb in the future and carry out their nuclear mission so I'm wondering should our NATO allies as General Schwartz talked about financially contribute to modernizing the B-61 or should the US eventually remove the B-61 from Europe I think we had one question over there hi my name is Oliver Graham I'm the correspondent for the Austrian newspaper Die Presse a quick question to both gentlemen could you give your verdict of the first five years of that new European position of a high representative for foreign and security matters of madam Ashton and what you expect for her successor what you hope in filling out that position because it wasn't particularly I think glorious in the eyes of many people thank you so we had name recognition issue F-35 nuclear capability and your thoughts on the EU high representative for foreign affairs that's a diverse yeah I take a step first yeah and I'll and you know I'll claim a lack of information on at least the middle of these topics except to say that I think on the general issue of the future of expense allocation we just are gonna have to ask our European partners to do more we've fixed part of the most damaging elements of sequestration so that the Department of Defense is at least going to be able to manage these cuts but there's no doubt that if we want to commit ourselves to some of the projects that have been planned we can't see 40% reductions in European defense budgets as we have seen we can't allow for this essentially ethic within the European populace to believe that counterterrorism is just something that the United States worries about so this has got to change but not you know Kathy Ashton has a couple big notches on her belt so far the agreement in the Balkans is something she invested an enormous amount of time in it is not the is not the the end solution there it's the beginning of a solution for those two countries and I know there's been some angst as to whether the parameters of the agreement have actually played out as expected and of course her great long work on trying to keep an open line of communication with Iran is hopefully going to get us to a place in which we have a diplomatic solution and to your question on Macedonia you talk about how you get to a point in which you have an enlargement summit that's the quickest way you get to an enlargement summit because it's likely that that's the only thing standing in the way or the only important thing standing in the way of Macedonia joining NATO or at least getting on a pathway to joining and so I take your your comment seriously and you know we'll examine this weekend's summit and other venues for a way that we can try to get the two sides to talk a little bit more vociferously together you want to try center McCain any comments on it well first of all I do not share my friend's opinion of Catherine Ashton on the case of Macedonia and Greece it's just incomprehensible to many of us even when we are brief time after time and being there this how important a name is to our Greek friends and so we continue to hope that this will be resolved but to have the name Macedonia be of such offense to our friends in Greece is something that I I failed to comprehend I admit maybe I'm not that bright as far as the F-35 is concerned it's been one of the great scandals of recent acquisition history cost-over-run after cost-over-run after cost-over-run first trillion-dollar weapon system in history it's finally getting operational but it still is experiencing great difficulties if there's ever an argument for a comprehensive review of acquisition of defense acquisition if there is an ever an argument that states that this is completely unacceptable to the American taxpayer and makes it difficult for me and people like me who are strong advocates of defense spending when you waste tens of billions of dollars on a weapon system that still is not proven so we have to have and God knows we've tried Carl Levin and I passed a bill a few years ago that was going to reform acquisition in the Pentagon and now we have the Gerald R. Ford Gerald R. Ford is now two billion dollars over cost of original cost how do I go back to Arizona and tell them that what could they do with two billion dollars and so it's I don't know whether what we're going to do as addressing your specific issue but I do know this that we may not have enough F-35s to do it because we still haven't proven their systems and that is is a source of embarrassment for me who is a strong defense advocate. I think we have time for one more question and I'll have the hand right here thank you. This has been a great event thank you all. I'm Mitzi Wertheim with the Naval Postgraduate School and this question is for Senator McCain. What structural changes would we have to make in our civil service system to work for peace overseas? The Defense Department can win the war but they can't build the peace because they need additional skills. How would you suggest we alter the kind of personnel that would be available for that? I think that that's an excellent question. As far as our State Department is concerned I've been very impressed with the men and women who I meet young men and women who come into into the State Department and serve around the world. I think Chris would agree countries that I visit with rare exception I'm very impressed particularly with the with the young men and women who are serving in the State Department. I won't say that about every ambassador who was a large contributor to the campaign but that is not a that is a bipartisan disease that these things happen. I think we have to make it more attractive in that I meet a lot of young people who work in the Pentagon and they feel frustrated because they don't see a result of the hard work they put in. I think we may have to look at a better reward system rather than longevity in many of these areas particularly in the Defense Department in my view and finally I'd like to be able to get tapped into some of these very brilliant incredible geniuses that reside out in California and maybe attract some of them. I think we've if we'd have done that in the case of Obamacare we might not have had the difficulties that we had in the in the rollout and I have talked to some of them who have who have said the same thing so maybe some of this work we need to perhaps contract out but with what has happened with security and forces in Afghanistan and Iraq contracting out has gotten a bad name but I think contracting out to do other tasks might be something we should explore. I know the question was from Senator McCain but I'll use it as an opportunity just to register one of my pet peeves which is I think we have seen a large-scale outsourcing of diplomacy to the Department of Defense and to our covert agencies and I know that it is difficult to try to integrate the State Department into dangerous places like Iraq and Afghanistan at a time when regions are very unstable but I think it's difficult to try to build up that kind of diplomatic capacity within the DoD in a short period of time and I would argue that we have handed over far too much military and diplomatic authority to our covert agencies making it very difficult for those of us who sit on important committees like foreign relations but not on intelligence to actually figure out what we are doing in places like Pakistan and Syria and so if we want to have a conversation about putting the power back into diplomacy I think we have to admit that we have seen a large-scale shift in diplomatic activity away from the agency that knows how to do it best. Could I just say I agree and a good example of that of our stove piping is that we when we hear from Mr. Snowden you know the revelations that come in we're always surprised we're never briefed on Mr. Snowden's revelations and although that may be confined to the Intelligence Committee it hampers our work on the Foreign Relations Committee and on the Armed Services Committee so I think we ought to that's one of the problems and I am not a fan of a lot of the contracting that went out as far as security is concerned. Well this has been an incredible event for many reasons that very wide-ranging but I think also notable for everyone here in the room and those watching from beyond the room is how incredibly wonderful it is to see this bipartisan spirit. We at CSIS pride ourselves on our bipartisanship and we often feel very lonely. Could I just point out if I looked like Senator Murphy I'd be president. Please everyone join me in thanking Senator Murphy and Senator McCain for their event today. One statement from me how should the president tomorrow in his speech address