 Brooke, thanks so much and thanks to our viewers for joining for this very special live event, a live interview with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel during what can only be described as an extremely busy and challenging time for the Defense Department, for the administration, for the country. We appreciate the Defense Secretary taking the time with us. We also are doing this from a very special venue. We're here today in Newport, Rhode Island at the Naval War College. This is where America's president and future military leaders are trained. There are more than 500 of them joining the audience today and it's not just American. There are some 63 countries represented here and many of the countries that are right in the center of the stories that we are covering today, representatives from Estonia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, these are the decision makers that are going to be dealing with these crises just like the Defense Secretary in the coming months and years. Again, thank you, Secretary Hagel, for taking the time to speak with us. ISIS is at the top of the minds of many Americans and certainly the administration as well. President traveling to Estonia, you heard his comments earlier today. When he described in more definitive terms than we've heard so far, what the American mission is when it comes to ISIS and he used the terms degrade and destroy. That is the goal. Vice President Joe Biden took it a step forward, at least in rhetorical terms, in a short time afterwards, saying in his words, we will follow them to the gates of hell because hell is where they reside. Now soon after the President, moments in fact after he uttered the terms, the words degrade and destroy, he went on to say that the goal may be to make ISIS a more manageable threat, which seems to imply contain rather than destroy. And I want to ask you, which is it? Is the mission goal to contain or destroy and what mission have you and the Defense Department been tasked with? Well, first, Jim, let me thank you at CNN for an opportunity to bring this group together and focus on the really pretty exceptional leadership and commitment to our country that's represented here today, as well as our foreign partners. I also want to thank the Admiral for hosting us. My old friend and former Senator Colleague, Senator Jack Reid, is in the audience. He and Governor Link Chafee gave me a visa to come into the state for a few hours. I shall get out before sundown, as I said. But thank you for what you do, Senator Reid and Admiral and all of you. And I want to thank all of our men and women across the globe for their commitment to our country. I also understand that your father is in the audience, who is a Navy veteran. So to your father, thank you. To your question, well, I think the President's statement, which I did read and aware of both he and the Vice President's news conference, was pretty clear to degrade and destroy the capability of ISIL to come after U.S. interests all over the world and our allies. However way he addressed that later in the news conference, I wasn't aware of that. But our mission, as you've asked us, what that mission is based on what the Commander Chief has asked of us, is to provide him those options and those plans to accomplish the mission of destroy and degrade the capability of ISIS. We are doing that, as the President said, not just militarily, because that is but one component. The President has been very clear on that point. But it also requires a stable new inclusive government in Iraq, which we are hopeful will be in place next week. It is the people of Iraq, the people of the Middle East that will make their ultimate decisions and determine their future. We can support them. It's also bringing a group with us of like-minded countries that appreciate the threat that ISIL represents to all of us, and I think you know many of the countries, France, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Albania, others, to bring that coalition with us. That's another part of it. Authorizations, airstrikes, budget issues, the President has been very clear. He wants the Congress involved with him. We've been consulting with the Congress. So it's all of those components, but the mission is very clearly, and we're providing the President with those options to degrade and destroy ISIL's capability. That's the end gate. Degrade and destroy. Not contain. No, it's not contain. It's exactly what the President said. Degrade and destroy. Let's talk about the threat to the U.S. homeland in particular from ISIS, because there have been mixed signals from the administration as to how imminent and severe that threat is. Two weeks ago, you said ISIS is, quote, an imminent threat to every interest we have, and you went on to say it's unlike any threat we've ever seen. After your comments, the administration seemed to pull back somewhat. You had the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff describe it as a regional threat, something the President did later that same week, in fact, last Thursday, saying that ISIS poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and the people of the region. He did not say immediate threat to the U.S. homeland. This is key. We have many folks back home wondering what threat it poses to them and their families. Is it an imminent threat to the U.S. homeland or to the region? Well, first of all, I didn't say homeland. I said to U.S. interests. But you said an imminent threat to every interest we have. That's right. I didn't say homeland. I said to all of our interests, look at what just happened 24 hours ago. On the latest video of another citizen as to what ISIL did. It is a threat. ISIL is a threat to this country, to our interests. Obviously, Prime Minister Cameron of Great Britain made that pretty clear a couple of days ago. President of the United States has said they are a threat. The Attorney General of the United States has said it in similar language that the Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, so these are very real threats. If they weren't real threats, the President wouldn't be saying, giving us the mission, to go out and degrade and destroy the capabilities. No question. I'm not denying that officials have said it's a threat. The specific question is, is it a threat to the U.S. homeland at this stage or is that a distant potential threat? For now, ISIS has focused largely on gains in Iraq and Syria. Well, I think, Jim, part of that answer is, as we have acknowledged publicly, we are aware of over 100 U.S. citizens who have U.S. passports, who are fighting in the Middle East with ISIL forces. There may be more. We don't know. We can't take a chance, Jim, on saying, well, let's technically define this. Is it a real threat today or tomorrow, or is it going to be in six months? That's the way the threats don't work in little neat boxes and emanate on our time frame. And the President's point being to degrade and destroy their capabilities so that it doesn't get to your question. We know they're a threat. We know they're brutal. We know that they are, as I've said, as others have said, something that we've never seen before. They're better organized. They're better funded. They have more capability. They're better structured. There's a dangerous, dangerous ideology of a brutality, barbaric nature that we've not seen before. So my job as Secretary of Defense is not to second-guess what may be or what's going to be, but we've got to protect, do everything we can to protect our country, our interests, at the command of our Commander-in-Chief as to what he needs in order to do his job. So it sounds to me like you're operating. This, to some degree, is not knowable, that there's a potential threat. And I've had many intelligence briefings where intelligence officials have told me that is the concern. Americans or Europeans returning home with those passports possibly carrying out a tax while they may not have a credible threat where they know the date and the time of the target, that's a potential threat. But it sounds to me like you're operating as Defense Secretary that that threat could be immediate and therefore you're reacting so that you could prevent that from happening. That is part of our mission. And that's, again, not only my mission, my responsibility as Secretary of Defense, but as you know from our other cabinet members, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, all our intelligence agencies, all of us together working law enforcement on this. But their capabilities, we have missions that we can perform just as the President has instructed us to perform those missions, giving him the options that we have to take seriously. And I can't second guess what may come or may not come. This crowd is a dangerous group of people beyond just terrorists. They are an army, marrying this with an ideology and capacity to do things. They control half of Iraq today. They control half of Syria today. We better be taking them seriously. So if you are taking them seriously and I hear urgency in your voice, why isn't there an urgency in articulating and defining to the American people what the strategy is to react to the threat from ISIS, whether in the region or at home? Well I think the President has made that very clear. First as he has said, we need to concentrate on and we have been, Secretary Kerry's area of responsibility, but we all have this is doing everything we can to support the Iraqi people as they come together forming a new inclusive government. But as you know, Iraqi politics move very slowly and frankly the terror threat is and is likely to move more quickly than the Iraqi political process. Jim, let me finish answering the question. That's about one component and we're working that. What the President has talked about bringing a group of countries together, Secretary Kerry will be doing this right after the NATO conference. I'll be involved in this. We have been. So has our sent com commander, others. In bringing a group together, that together can help support forces in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East who respect freedom and dignity and the choices that people will make. Military is part of that. Planning is part of that. Working with the Congress is part of that. Resources are part of that. Asking the follow-up questions, if you do this, if you take this action, what will that lead to? Is this the right action to take? So there's a strategy to this, as the President said in his reference last week, putting the cart before the horse. You can't do that. We've got to bring a coalition together and do the other things that we are building, we are doing with a sense of urgency. You know, there's a little question in my mind that there's a sense of urgency. I think the President has been pretty clear about that. Is part of the strategy military strikes inside Syria? Well, that's an option and we are looking at all those options. Have you prepared those options for the President? The President has asked us for different options and we've prepared those. And Syria air strikes are among them. All of these things are options that the President wants to see and we've been working with the White House, not just starting with working with the White House, we've been working with the White House for weeks. The President talks to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ambassador Rice, the National Security Advisor, talks to all of us. The President talks to me, Dr. Lloyd Austin, the Commanding General of SENTCOM. So this isn't something that just popped up the last week or two. We've been working this for the last few weeks. To accomplish that mission, as you describe it, to great and destroy, can you, in your view, as Defense Secretary, accomplish that without military action inside Syria in light of the fact that ISIS controls territory on both sides of what is effectively a non-existent border? Well, as I said, it's a number of options and we plan for all those options. But one thing that I hope we can accomplish with the Congress is the Congress going forward and funding the President's request for $500 million in funds to help support the Syrian moderate opposition. This is part of the counterterrorism partnership fund that the President put forward. The Congress has not acted on that yet. I would hope the Congress would. But we look at all options. You have to look at all the options. There was a moment last week when the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, seemed to imply that the Pentagon had not yet completed the options to present to the President. Have you placed options on his desk already for military action inside Syria? Jim, options are constantly being defined and refined. This is a dynamic process. It isn't just start with five days ago the President asked for an option. We're constantly providing different options and contingency plans for different things. So the missions or whatever the Commander-in-Chief requests of a specific mission wants from us, then we tailor our responses and our options to whatever that mission is, as he had just clearly defined it today. So the President has on his desk an option for attack on Syria? He has options all the time that we're refining. In fact, yesterday we were just in touch again two or three times a day before she left with the President, with Ambassador Rice. Do you think it's a mistake for the President to have ruled out boots on the ground to contribute to this action? Because you talked to Generals, Former and President, who will say air power is limited in what it can accomplish. Well, the President has been very clear about we're not going to go back into Iraq the same way we came out of Iraq a few years ago. That means a combat action, so-called boots on the ground combat action for American troops. We're not going to do that. I support that decision. I think it's the right decision. Now, your bigger point about just air strikes. I know just air strikes alone won't fulfill, accomplish, what the mission is. This is why I go back to an earlier answer I gave on, this is a larger dimension of many pieces. One is a functioning, credible, trustworthy, inclusive Iraqi government that's being formed now, coalition partners building coalitions in that area. So everybody has a role, everybody can participate, and we're making good progress on that. It's what our military options. It's many of these different dynamics that flood into one. Air strikes is one. We've seen air strikes have worked pretty well so far in the limited missions that the President has given us to use air strikes, and they've been pretty effective. I wonder if I could turn now to one of the other major international crises that is on your plate now, and that's of course a situation in Ukraine. Does Russian military action to date inside Ukraine constitute an invasion? Well, there are Russians in Ukraine, Russian military, Russian military equipment in Ukraine. You can define it any way you want. We have been very clear on this. We've said it. NATO has said it. General Breedlove has said it. They've said incursion, though. US officials haven't gone as far as to say invasion, which Ukrainian officials, as you know, have. Well, I'll leave that to others who worry about how you express yourself or what words you do. That's not my role. This will be an issue that obviously will be very high on the agenda at NATO over the next two days. Do you, I mean, the reason I ask that question in part is because an invasion would seem to require certain responses that an incursion or a limited military intervention would not. But specifically, let's get to the policy. The administration policy to this point, gradually raising the cost on the Russian economy, has been designed, so say, administration officials, to de-escalate the crisis. Meanwhile, it is escalating. And even US officials and yourself included have described it that way. In light of that, is the US policy regarding Ukraine a failure to this point? Well, let's examine the facts here, Jim. The tension that has been rising and the escalation that's been occurring, that's been because of one individual. It's the president of Russia. It's not President Portenko, Ukraine. It's not NATO. It's not the United States. It's the Russian president who continues to take very dangerous escalatory actions. So that's number one. And I think in proper context, we should come at it. Second, let's look at the damage that's been done to the Russian economy. The ruble is at an all-time low against any currency. It continues to find itself isolated in the world. You saw the recent announcement by the French government to, in fact, stop the sale of the Mistral ship. Just today. Today. Advanced warships with a helicopter capability. And you can go on to chart through all the other consequences so far that have occurred that have had significant impacts on the Russian economy. I wouldn't say those are failures. I'd say those are pretty significant. Now, has it accomplished? The goal is to de-escalate that they have failed because Russia has kept on escalating military change. Do you want us not to do anything as Putin continues to escalate? No, no question. I'm just asking if the policy has been successful so far and the evidence would seem to show that it hasn't. Well, our president's been very clear. This is not a short-term deal. If President Putin continues to escalate, as he has been, he continues to drive his country into a ditch. There will be long-term consequences for that. As already the consequences are starting to show up, we are dealing with this. We must, NATO partners, all the countries of Europe, in how we are handling this and how we are responding to it as we are supporting the Ukrainians. So it is not just a short-term issue here, but it's a longer-term issue. So I think the president, too, said very clearly last week, I mean, we're not going to a military engagement in a war with Russia over this. So then you look at the options that are responsible and how do you deal with this? And I think we're taking the responsible actions that we must that are pretty devastating to Russia. I just wonder if the Russian president is taking advantage of that understanding that because the U.S. will not take additional steps, and in fact, even the economic steps have been slow in coming. There are critics on both sides of the aisle that the Russian president is taking advantage of that by making a fait accompli, for instance, the annexation of Crimea and the possibility of further territory under Russian control in eastern Ukraine. Well, whatever Putin's calculations are, they are his calculations. We have never recognized the annexation of Crimea. That is something that's going to have to be dealt with as we work our way through this. But as we've said, I've said, the president said, all of our administration officials have said, we need to get the tensions lowered, the escalation stopped, and get into a position and we can't control that. We can help it, we can foster it, or NATO partners can, where this thing gets sorted out so the world doesn't go to war over this. But there are things that we can do when we are doing, they're pretty effective right now to deal with Russia. You gave a speech just a short time ago here in Newport talking about U.S. technological superiority and how countries, including Russia and China, are challenging that today. And in particular, how the U.S. needs financial resources, the Defense Department to continue to keep that superiority, that technological advantage. I wonder if you could describe how severe that threat is to Americans who might not be paying attention at home to the advantage, the advances rather, that countries such as Russia and China are taking. Well, I've said many times, I think all of our senior administration officials started with the president, the vice president, that this so-called sequestration, which is an unaccountable, irresponsible way to govern, well, in fact, it's not governing, it's deferring. It's terribly dangerous to the future capabilities of our national security enterprise. Can you give an example? Yes, I can. Just for folks back home. Well, just a quick review of the bidding here. About three years ago, there was a law passed by the Congress, signed by the president, to over a 10-year period, take down about $490 billion from the Pentagon over a 10-year period. That'd be a reduction across the board. Where has that hit you the most and made it your view? But that's only one thing. That isn't sequestration. Sequestration is about another $50 billion in addition to that. Now, to give you an example of what happened to us last year when we took the full brunt of almost $100 billion cut in one year, steep, abrupt, immediate cuts, shocks to the system, we had to stand down all of our training. Our Navy, our Air Force, our Marines, our Army couldn't train. We couldn't do maintenance. We couldn't go forward with contracts. Because, you know, when we go forward with contracts to keep a technological edge, which we've always had since World War II, that is years out. You start that now, but we won't see the benefit for that for 10, 12 years. Those things will stop as we reduce further our manpower, reduce further and cut into further every capability we have, it won't show up in a year or two. It will start showing up third and four years out. So when you look at the long range view of this, if we don't reverse sequestration, stop it. Then it is gonna have an impact on the future capabilities of our country to keep, if nothing else, the technological edge when Russia and China, for example, continue to put in significant amounts of money to keep, not only keep them in the game, but to jump us on capabilities. You know, they're not there yet. They won't be there for long. Catching up. But they're catching up. Would you call Russian military intervention in Ukraine the first or a first asymmetrical attack on U.S. and the West in the way they've carried this out? On forces out of uniform, for instance, use of separatists on the ground, et cetera? Well, I think it's this, Jim, at nothing else. It is representative of the world that we're now dealing with, the world that we're in, and I think the world we're gonna be in for a long time to come. That's why our special operations, our cyber, our technological edge, our counter insurgency experience, our training, sophistication, intelligence now comes together at a point where it's always been important, of course. But now this is going to be the tip of the spear as we go out. We're always gonna need a big capable navy and army and all the rest. But expeditionary work that the Marines were originally instituted for, they're going back to that. And we're seeing what, to your point about what's going on with the Russians in Ukraine, I think more of what we'll probably be dealing with in the future. Asymmetric, not land armies and tanks and so on contending for territory. I think that's right, but we have to be ready for everything. We can't disarm in certain areas and then arm up in certain other areas. We don't have that luxury. The United States is the only nation on earth that helps other countries in the sense that we have a large portfolio. We're in over 150 countries and we're more engaged in the world today than ever before, whether it's the Asia Pacific rebalance and this narrative that somehow has gotten some credibility on there that we're pulling back is just not true. Let me ask you about the issues, the stories that have just captivated Americans these last week in the most horrible way. And that's of course the beheading of Jim Foley, journalist and Stephen Sotloff, which we just had confirmation yesterday and today. How, is that a watershed event, do you believe? Not just in terms of public perception of the threat from ISIS, but in terms of how the US responds to this threat. It's probably a watershed event for a lot of reasons. One is the sophistication of ISIS in their communicative abilities, capacities. They're as sophisticated as anybody out there in how they frame and how they use modern technology. That's partly what I was referring to when I said, we've never seen anything quite like that, that's just one part of it. When you're beheading people with the barbarism, the brutality, that is their practice and then all the rest and that's not unique in the sense of how they treat other people. And you know, and we have intelligence reports of some of the things, the atrocities they commit as they go through these villages. This is just beyond anything quite like we have seen. And when you say watershed, well I don't know about watershed, but it is a look into where parts of the world may be going unless the United States, along with our partners and our coalitions, stop it. This is the point the president was making, you gotta destroy it because if we don't destroy it, it will get worse and it will get wider and deeper. I wonder about your personal reaction to seeing those videos and those young American victims. I sensed in Vice President Biden's voice today an emotional, a perfectly understandable, emotional and angry response. We will chase them to the gates of hell. You're a veteran yourself. You fought an award to protect Americans and you are now commanding many soldiers who were doing exactly that. How did you personally react when you saw those videos? Jim, I think regardless of your background and your experience, just as a human being with having some sense of decency and respect for human life and other people, it makes you sick to your stomach. But it again reminds us of the kind of brutality and the barbarism that is afoot in some of these areas of the world. And it is our responsibility, the President, the Vice President, mine, all of us to do everything we can to stop this now because it won't just recede into the gray recesses of history until we stop it. And I think we have to think about that. The emotionalism of course overtakes us all but we've gotta be clear headed on this too. We've gotta be responsible. We can't overstate things. We can't understate things. We've gotta be honest with the people of our country. We've gotta be honest with these young men and women who serve our country. We've gotta be honest with the world, what we're dealing with here. Let me ask you finally, and I wanna give the chance for the audience to ask questions of you as well. Does the President have the congressional authority he needs currently to carry out further strikes in Syria or does he need to seek congressional approval before taking that step? Like I said, Jim, the White House, all of us have been reaching out and conferring with the Congress. We are looking at the different authorities that would come with the different options as to what would be required if any additional legal authorities would be required. The President's been very clear that anything he does, he wants the Congress to be part of that. He wants the legal authority. And he's been straight forward about that with all of us. So we're looking at all those options and what may be required depending on what options the President wants to go with. Can you vow to the American people today that ISIS will not be just degraded or contained, but destroyed? Well, vows are something beyond my mortal capacity. But I can tell you this, Jim. I know this about this President, this Vice President. I know this about everyone in his administration. I know this about myself. We will do everything possible that we can do to destroy their capacity to inflict harm on our people and Western values and our interests. Everything you can do, everything the government can do. Secretary Hagel, thank you very much for your time. We covered a lot of ground here and I appreciate this knowing what great challenges you and the people you command and serve have on your plate. So thank you very much. The CNN and our audience appreciates it. Brooke, you heard the Secretary's strong words on ISIL and on Ukraine echoing some of what we heard from the President earlier today and the Vice President, I think as Americans in these coming days and weeks, we can expect this to stay very much at the top of the administration's priorities and I think it's something that you and I, Brooke, are gonna be covering very closely. So I'm gonna turn it back to you now. Thanks very much for giving us the time. Thank you. Thanks, Jim. I took more time than I promised and that's why Admiral Kirby came up here behind the camera to slap me around a little bit. That's dessert. These guys always do. We always do that. But I will make a confession. There was a television moment there because about two minutes in, my earpiece came out of the back of my head so I was flying blind for that. I had no one talking to me. I had to rely on my producer here who was sending me a hand signal so we went old school for a little bit. So I'm gonna blame technology. It's your turn, please. Certainly wanna hear your questions. I'm just the mediator here so it's your turn to quiz him. Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary. Lieutenant Colonel Cameron Pringle, U.S. Air Force. Sir, I wondered if you could give us an update on the withdrawal from Afghanistan from your perspective and in particular if the administration is reviewing the timeline for that operation given the current situation in Iraq. Well, thank you for your service and thanks for the question. Everyone here knows that Afghanistan is struggling through this transition of power to new governments and we, the United States and our ISAF NATO partners are doing everything we can to facilitate that peaceful transition but in the end it's up to the presidential candidates to come together and the people of Afghanistan to make all of this work. We are still on track to follow through with the president's decisions as we transition out of a combat role and bring our forces down that retrograde is on track. Certainly at NATO over the next two days this will be a very specific agenda item because first we all had hoped that by the NATO summit we would have a new Afghan president inaugurated. We would have a status of forces agreement for the ISAF NATO partners. We would have a bilateral security agreement signed with us. That's not happened. So it complicates the situation but we're on track with our NATO partners and what we're doing and with the new commander, General J.C. Campbell. I spoke with him a couple of days ago. We'll see but we can help, we can facilitate, we can support, we can do everything we're doing but in the end the Afghan people have to resolve this difference in those two candidates and I know President Karzai is helping do that as well. Hi Secretary Hagel, this is Commander Goad, US Navy. I just came from the NAVSENT command where I was the lead Syria planner and one of the things that my team came up with when we were looking at the ISIL problem was that there seemed to be a strategic disconnect between how we treated ISIL when they related to Syria and how we treat ISIL as they relate to Iraq. When we're talking about Iraq, we want to fight ISIL and when we are talking about Syria, we don't necessarily wanna help them but we want to leave them alone to do their business. How do we solve the strategic disconnect between those two viewpoints and prioritize Iraq over Syria in that regard? Well that's a good question. I don't think there's any policy disconnect. Let's remember that our status in Iraq, our situation in Iraq is totally different from our status in our situation in Syria. First of all, we have no presence in Syria. We do have a significant presence in Iraq. They have been an ally and a partner. As you know, we've continued to assist them in weapons and since we had our role transitioned out a few years ago, the president was very clear on what our interests are and protecting those interests in Iraq. First of all, it's our people. That was his first priority. You protect Americans, protect the embassy, the consulates, our strategic areas for us, the Bagdad International Airport. Second, to assist because they have been partners and allies, Peshmerga Iraqi Security Forces, which we have been helping them, assisting, helping our allies as well. And then also doing everything we can to assist them with specific areas that could truly threaten the government of Iraq and the people of Iraq, Mosul Dam being a good example. So the three priorities the president put on and requirements put on us, on what he gave us license to do, Central Command, were predicated on those three principles. Syria is a whole different ballgame. Syria is not a matter of where ISIL is and you have El Nusra there, you have Al Qaeda there, you have many varieties of terrorist groups in Syria. That's a different situation for us. It isn't a matter of just let ISIL be ISIL in Syria, but we also have legal authorities, which Jim talked about that we have to comply with. We have legal authorities in Iraq to help the Iraqis and to take those military strikes. We would work through different authorities we would require, as Jim asked, if we would take some of the same, the president exercised some of the same options on kinetic strikes in Syria. Authority to do that, international law, domestic law and so on. So if I've not confused you totally, I mean they are really, make no mistake, there's no question ISIL is as bad in Syria as it is in Iraq or wherever else it will be or could be. That is not at the issue. There's not as bad in Syria as they are in Iraq. But I think it's important that we define, as the president said, our interests and then what can we do within the boundaries of our authorities to do it. And then we're looking at the other options. Secretary Hagel, Lieutenant Colonel Shane Lohman, Air Force Reserves, I'm a citizen soldier, I'm a part timer and over the last 20 or so years, the reserve components of our services have played a significant role in the combat capability of armed forces. Where do you see the future of the reserve components in this and these crisis and future crisis over the next 10 to 20 years? Well, thank you. You know, and everyone in this room knows and particularly the National Garden Reserve Component members here, that over the last 13 years, our defense enterprise has relied on, had to rely on, the reserve National Guard components of our integrated services. The future for reserves National Guard is going to be as important or more important than what we've seen in the past. I think that's right. I think that's smart. I think that gives us value added across the system. All the reasons I suspect you agree. And there are more reasons why the reserve National Guard component will continue to be an integral fabric of our enterprise. Now, we'll work through tactical issues. I mean, there are differences on training schedules and readiness schedules, and you know all those. But we will have to rely on reserve National Guard components well into the future. Second, third point I'd make would be the experience that you in the reserves and National Guard gained over the last 13 years as being a part of that day-to-day operating dynamic of two long ground wars. And everything it took to support those wars. We don't want to lose that experience. I don't mean by that, let's go get into another war. What I'm saying is that experience that you all gained is hugely valuable. And we don't want that edge to be lost. So in training, in schools, in universities, this setting will continue to keep integrating the National Guard and reserves into the system. As I said, there will be differences in how we do that on platforms. I mean, for example, the Army aviation brigades are shifting and the regular armies made some recommendations which I accepted. I thought they were smart for everybody. It would trade out different platforms for National Guard platforms. Now, I know everybody doesn't agree with all that. That's okay. We'll work it out. So those kind of things we'll be working through. But the overall responsibility and integration into the enterprise, that is there. It is there to stay. Good afternoon, sir. I'm Lieutenant Commander Jack Curtis of the United States Navy. We, much like Mr. Ashuta, rely very heavily on our technology to do our jobs well. Are you convinced, and if so, why, that we can compete against a near-peer enemy if our earpieces are taken away from us? I'm sorry. I didn't hear your last... Am I convinced what you were talking so fast? I don't know. Yes, sir. I was relaying how we, much like Mr. Ashuta, rely very heavily on our earpieces, our technology to do our jobs well. Are you convinced, and if so, why, that we can compete and reign victorious against a near-peer enemy if we lose our earpieces? Oh, very clever. I wish I would have thought of that, then. I did have him at my mercy. You know, I mean, I saw the earplug fall out, but I'm just too fair-minded to do that. But that's a very good question, and I like the way you put it. I think there are probably three components of an answer to your question. One is people. You all know in this room, like any institution, the most important asset that any asset can be or any country or organization institution has is its people. If they are not quality people to start with, if they're not trained, capable, ready, committed, then you got a flaky outfit, quite frankly. The military cannot be flaky. That's one outfit that can't be flaky. So you start with people. So I want to answer your question. If we can continue to keep the kind of people that we have now and we have had, that's first. Second, speech I gave a couple of hours ago that Jim referred to, the technological edge. Innovation, that is a critical component of this. This institution has played a very historic role in that over many, many years. This area of the country has and continues, especially with the Navy. That technological edge has to stay there. We've got to continue to advance that. And third, I would say, and answer your question, are partnerships. You know that much of our strategy has been over the last couple of years. And certainly, since I've been here for a year and a half secretary of defense, is to help capacity building of our partners. The world is too complicated. What Jim said about asymmetric challenges. The world's too big, too vast. The fusion of economic power now is historic, unprecedented, for one nation, as great and powerful as we are. We can't do all this stuff alone, we can't do it. We need partners, we need capable partners. We need partners that are integrated to some sense into what we're doing. NATO is a good example of that, but you've got one NATO. But even within NATO, there are differences. But what we're doing in Asia Pacific as we build new partnerships and relationships and all the new things that we've been doing, the Navy's been a huge part of that. As we're doing with GCC countries in the Middle East, we've got to have competent, capable partners to also help answer your question. So when our earpiece falls out, we can still win. And still deal with any challenge that comes along. And we have to be in a position with this enterprise, build us into the high ground so that whatever that challenge is, and nobody, I don't think here, you're all smart, but I don't think anybody here is so smart they can predict what the world's gonna look like in five years or 10 years. And I use cyber as an example. I mean, 10 years ago, cyber, what's the problem? No, there were varying degrees of yeah, that's gonna be a threat. But anybody really doesn't understand the threat of cyber today. You're not tracking. So we've got to be prepared and build an institution as much as we can, as best we can, to prepare for tomorrow's challenges, even there'll be a no. Good afternoon, Secretary Lieutenant Commander Geyer, US Navy. My question is we've talked a lot about military ethics here in our first trimester of the War College. And when you watch the national news, you see a lot of retired military weighing in on the current situations in the world. I wanted to see if you had a, what your perspective was on military and whether or not we should remain apolitical in our retirement time as well as when we're in service. Will. Do you wanna handle that? Oh, sure. Yeah, yeah. Sorry. I thought about this because I'm occasionally the subject of that commentary, but first, when an individual retires in the military, after a long and dedicated, selfless career, I think it should be up to the individual to use his or her own judgment on what they wanna do afterward, what their own sense of propriety is. And I think this is my own personal opinion about it. I know there are various opinions, and matter of fact, I've had some recent conversations with some current senior military leaders about what they think. There are varying degrees of this, but I think it's really up to the individual. I would not wanna see us as a military get into a situation where we are making people sign something that they can't speak their mind or what they think as a citizen of the United States of America after they defended the rights of people to express themselves for their careers. And I do think it's a personal decision. And I know that's not a very good answer, but I think that's the smarter way to do it. I have an abundance of faith in the American people, and if nothing else, I've always believed, and the older I get, the more convinced I'm right on this, wrong on a lot of things, but right on this. You can always rely on the common sense and judgment of the American people. Now, we all react to things quickly, but in the end, we stabilize, we self-correct, we can think things through, and I'll always put my faith in that. And I think when former military leaders get up on television or give speeches, whatever they wanna do, it's their right to do it. I think their audience factors that in sometimes, whether you agree with the individual or don't agree with them. But again, I think it comes back down to it's the individual's call on that, and I have to assume that people who give of themselves so completely in their families for careers are capable of figuring that out and wouldn't do anything, I don't think, to put themselves in front of what's right for our country. Mr. Secretary, I think we have time for one more question. I'm told as much as I wanna take it, I know Admiral Kirby would bound across the stage and tackle me, so I think I should leave it for the audience. I don't wanna see that. Good afternoon, sir. My name is Lieutenant Colonel Amigawa. I'm from Croatia, but a member of this team here for this year at least, and future, of course. My question refers to the, against out of the scope of the Homeland Security here. It goes to the Libya. It's been three years since the NATO Alliance and the coalition stopped operations under umbrella of United Nations to protect the civilians in Libya. Since then, and especially nowadays, that situation there is a little bit in the shadow of the current situation in Middle Asia and in Ukraine. The government of Libya just pronounced that they fall apart, and the parliament vote three weeks ago, if I'm not wrong, they called for the international support of the security forces in Libya. So can you give us your overview of that situation and what international community, I'm not referring to the U.S. specifically here, may or should do at this time to this crisis, sir. Thank you. Well, thank you, and we're glad you're here. And we thank your country for your friendship as well. Everyone here knows Libya is a very difficult problem, starting for the Libyan people. I think we, the nations of the world who care about Libya, NATO, countries of the region, all have some responsibility to help the Libyan people. But again, we're limited in how much we can do. To impose on the outside our framework of governance or decision-making is not right. The Libyan people and the different interests have to find some common ground enough to start being able to work through these differences. We can help facilitate that, and I think we have some responsibility to do that. We can assist with that. We can help build coalitions to do that. But you know it's very, very difficult and heartbreaking what's going on in that country with the kind of resources Libya has, with the kind of potential Libya has to see the devastation that's going on there. So another big problem, and when you look around the Middle East, there's not a lot of happy news or stability in that entire region. And I think going back to a point that Jim made and questioned, and I'll end this way, that whatever decisions President Obama make or other leaders make, certainly I think I can reflect on President Obama on this point, has to be made, not with just short-term interests, but long-term thinking. I mean how is this going to affect the long-term outcome and consequences? Now I recognize, President Obama does, that inaction has consequences, as well as actions have consequences. But you don't want to make it worse. Different actions we can take could make it worse. So we've got to be smart, as smart as we can be, dealing with the short-term, but also thinking through the long-term. It's how we want to help build something for the future as we work through these more immediate decisions to help the Libyan people. But I would apply that to every country in the Middle East. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, Admiral Howe, and thanks to all of you for welcoming me, certainly giving us the time and welcoming a few million CNN viewers, we hope. Thank you. Today, really appreciate it. Jim, thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks. Thanks, Admiral. Thank you.