I think were ready to start. Thank you all for being here. Welcome to the council on foreign relations. Welcome to our guest, senator jack reed, Ranking Member of the Armed Services committee. From the great state of rhode island. Im jonathan karl, chief White House Correspondent for abc news. I will be presiding asking questions for first half hour and then take questions from all of you for second half hour. This is an on the record meeting. In fact i also want to welcome those cfr Members Around the nation, maybe around the world, participating in this meeting through the live stream. So thank you all for being here. Senator, reed, so much to talk about with you, but i want to start right with the perhaps the most pressing National Security issue, north korea. Just a bottom line question, as we hear, does the words we heard from the president and his team, about a military option. Is there realistically a military solution to the north korean crisis, short of an unthinkable war . If you start to our military leaders both secretary mattis and general dunford that they have the capacity to do that, but make it clear this is diplomatic effort at this point. That is the best approach at this point. Up fortunately the diplomatic effort i think is being horribled because of lack capacity hobbled. We dont have ambassador tore for south korea. Dont have confirmed assistant secretary for the region. We have other stories about state department, lack of personnel and focus. The other issue in terms of the diplomatic approach is, a lack of coherent message. Weve seen that from the beginning when the president tweeted about the south koreans paying for the thaad system, when in fact they had done a lot of political effort to get it into the country. We have seen it in terms of freetrade agreement. All of that is presented to, just incoherent messages in many respects. And then, in terms of coordination and cooperation, weve got to develop a several tracks, informal tracks, back channels, which i hope are there because in these types of crises, that they come in handy many times. In fact that might be the way to really sort of get sort of a dialogue going. Then we have to think also in terms of some formal mechanisms we used before. We would have a group of five, south korea, japan, russia, china, and United States formally sitting down and dealing with the issue of north korea. That might be the helpful. I think it would be. So i think this diplomatic effort is absolutely vitally important because even though military as they must, as they always must preparing for some type of kinetic operation this would be much preferable way to proceed and also, if it doesnt succeed, there is much more legitimacy for the use of force. Use signal very clearly that military options are narrowly on the table but being developed at the furthest from mattis and heard on meet the press and i want to get more on the question of the diplomatic reference but first try and understand the first question, is there really a military option . We hear that phrase. We heard it from barack obama and george w. Bush. There are is a military option but the first thing. What does that look like . I think its clear particularly from military leaders that option will be extraordinarily costly something we have not witnessed perhaps since i mean in cost of lives and economic at dignity and costs in terms of environmental degradation. This is one of the reasons is so existential it involves a country that has weapons of mass destruction and a country that the question we been able to deter their use for many years with chemical and biological weapons but are they deterrable and also the longer military options is not necessarily defensive operations etc. But deterrence that would be put in effect. Missile defense, shooting down one of their test. Significant improvements in overhead coverage so we would not only have a warning that we would have the ability to respond. It would require the cooperation and collaboration with many countries in terms of proliferation but one of the dangers with the north floridians is not only that they have these weapons but they will fill anything they can get out of the country so we have to be very effective in terms of proliferation and even now with their chemical and biological and we know they have Nuclear Weapons and the mediumrange missile it can carry it on. A former National Security official the Previous Administration who i know that you know and respect wellmade the point of me recently one of the challenges here is that north korea really for at least three successive administrations could take as a given that there really isnt a viable military solution so they dont hear that and this official and old friend of donald trump, something needs to be done to raise their confidence that the United States really does not have a military option here. I think again this goes to the issue of the diplomacy we are doing right now. One of the factors that mitigate against military operations is the question of what would china do . If we could make progress to determine and collaborate and cooperate more so we would understand that they would understand that would send a signal hopefully to the north floridians that our use of force would not be disbanded he could simply not afraid of the north floridians but the reaction of china. Thats why a cohesive coherent focused foreignpolicy may be using the group of five or informally using back channels etc. If necessary. Again i think part of the president s motivation to to make a statement as to try to inject that sounds off i will do this. There have been many comparisons to. The madman theory. Exact way. They dont like that term at the white house consequently. Diplomatic language is useful in these situations. Again i think we are in a situation where we just cant say no goes to our credibility if we are in the diplomatic offensive than the chinese are looking around and seeing feeble attempts at diplomacy thats two things. One they dont really care and they are going to do this and what does it do in terms of north korea . Do they primitively do something or discount everything you say . What are we seeing in terms of china part of the diplomatic effort is putting pressure on china and the president has said is working. They have taken steps on banking. Is china doing more . I think they are doing more but the question can they ever do enough . The presumption which many people had to send his chinese decided to step in they could tell them knock it off kim jong un but my sense is they have the same difficulty communicating with kim jong un that the rest of the world does that their influence is much less than it was several years ago, that they can in fact and they have taken steps but they are not quite willing to cripple the economy because they are afraid of the collapse and the huge flow of refugees into the country and the other factor is the internal policies of china. They have the congress coming up which they do every several years in president xi wants to get through that before he does anything else so thats tempering some other response. They supported us at the u. N. On some of these sanctions measures but they havent gone as far as we would like to go and i think we might see something more productive in the future and the other sense i have is xi himself personally has low regard for kim jong un so there is no relationship. Again i think china is the key and russia because they have influence, not as dramatic as china and this diplomatic effort has to be enhanced. Does the president deserves some credit for the fact that china is doing more now because again china is worried about what trumbull do. If trump wants to shortcircuit that i taking steps on their own. I think president xi, they established a conversational relationship and thats good. I think to china is reacting pressure not just from the United States but from the world. And also reacting to the reality that this regime gets close to an Intercontinental Nuclear weapon than the consequences could be dire to china so there is a whole new set of calculations that the north floridians have made on their missile warheads. If they north floridians threat do what they threaten to do which is nuclear test over the Pacific Ocean is that a red line . What are the implications of that . I think that would be extraordinarily disruptive and i think again this is where conversations not just in the United States and the administration but with china and russia etc. To get a sense of how they would react to it because that would be extraordinary and would have atmospheric consequences. Do you think they are serious about that threat . They say a lot of things. Its hard to judge. Its the hardest target they have. Kim jongun has a compartmentalized we are not sure even will be talked to people who we think are inside that we know what he is thinking and its very much as i say compartmentalize. If someone has insights on the Missile Program but no insight on anything else, i dont think we could dismiss it as just idle talk. We have to have contingent plans and talk to our allies about what their reaction would be. Again this might be something in the context of a group of five where they could collectively lay down not a grid line but a sense that this would be impermissible and its a nuanced argument with one of the problems with red lines is you party locked yourself into it. I want to move off of north korea but we could talk about it all day. One question i have is somebody who has tracked this problem so closely for so long what do you see as driving the reason recent success they have had in terms of their Ballistic Program in a nuclear prograham . Are they getting outside help and how is this most backward nation on the earth, how is it that they have made the incredible strides they have made over the last couple of years in both of these programs. I think the efforts recently at the u. N. And elsewhere and the administration to squeeze that has produced some ignition. From who . My sense is they have a network of Companies Many of them located in china that provide parts for them. They have a whole series of Front Companies that do raise money for them so they have hard currency is to use to buy things. Its a very elaborate and Sophisticated Network and some studies suggest there are about five thousand business entities in china and just recently one of them in was shut down but there are others who have been moving this material through for decades. The answer interesting thing about why they have been so successful is that kim jong un, i think the father was more riskaverse in terms of waiting until they had a 99. 9 chance that it would work with propaganda purposes. He has made it central to his regime, his personality and his survival. With all of that and again back in the 1960s the chinese were able in those rudimentary economy and they decided to put together an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with some help of course from overseas but with a lot of indigenous effort. You are a west point grad and the president has rendered himself with generals many that you know quite well and have known for a long time. General mattis, general mcmaster and general kelly so wide like a little sense of your reactions with those generals. For instance to pivot from north korea when they present makes comments like fire and fury and talking about wiping north korea off the map do you pick up the phone and say what did you mean . Who do you call . Well, its interesting because i have a great deal of confidence in the gentlemen you mentioned. My presumption is they have regarding weighed in at sometimes decisively to do things, to prevent things that could be very consequential. You know, stuff. And again if you listen to their statements they are very strong but control and they send a think the right signal which is dont presume that we are not ready to do what we have to do. We are ready and again i dont have the same kind of Vantage Point that others might have on the white house and the interactions but i hope there is a very healthy dialogue. One of the concerns i have is that general mattis and general kelly are all reacting to tweets in not talking about the best way to frame this message and thats something of a more disciplined approach that they could weigh in. That would be helpful to the administration and the president have you seen it change in the National Security council with the departure of flan obviously the effort to replace him and finally landing on the master and bannon exiled from the council now from the white house. Have you noticed a change . E. There is much more subject Matter Experts who are not as politically engaged and they are providing much more substandard advice to the president but ultimately its the president s decision. Thats the system. We have secretary mattis who was one of the most thoughtful and experienced gentlemen you could ever have and john kelly i admire but ultimately its the president s decision and they have to understand that. They have to give the president options and he has to know the consequences. Exactly and that requires two people. You have to listen and you have to study, you have to focus and the question by many people is whether there is a listening focus and constant attention to detail. Bannon just talk about the operationalizing the National Security council. Do you understand what that was about . My sense was the operators like the state department. I was first. If you dont fill up with credible and competent individual positions you have a capacity apparatus. The Security Council is more ideological and professional and its no longer giving you that kind of option and advice. Its giving you polling numbers so i think that is a change hopefully in the last few weeks, i should say now with general mattis and general kelly. Its your decision mr. President but we are going to give you the options that are available, our preference in our device and thats the way should work. How long have you known general kelly . I have known general kelly for about 20 years. Since 06. I think he was the Congressional Liaison and i met him when he was commanding marines and anbar province. What do you make of his challenge now . I think his challenge is basically, one of the things having served with four president s temperament and personal style is critical to how any president operates and he has to understand that antius to ensure that he gets the best information indicates the bad news as well as the good news. The chief of staff and National Security adviser, you are not giving the president the flip side, you arent doing your job. General kelly challenges it every day in the context of the president s personality. He has to give them that information. Have you spoken to him . I have not. I spoke with him when he was head of Homeland Security on several occasions and i have great admiration for him personally. So another hot spot, i ran. The president strongly hinted it seems at the u. N. That he was going to get out of the i ran Nuclear Agreement although he didnt say that. What do you think emet . The worst deal in the history of mankind. I think he has already made his decision but from what we heard is general dunford before the committee, general dunfords committee based on intelligence reports that they are still in compliance and he also indicated that our unilateral work would not be received very well to our partners on the deal and it could lead to counterreaction by the iranians and they have forces in i ran and forces in syria and also it sends a signal to the north floridians that they might not keep it and i think its suspicious to begin with. If there is further complications in the middle east poll forces away from there to respond. Are you talking about a military option . That becomes the primary objective and the way we usually do things Everything Else is an economy of force. If you havent Economy Force in active area with the iranians getting more and more belligerent you are looking at a difficult situation. You were an advocate of the deal very early on. What is your since when you look at it now and you look at the danger of the Iranian Regime now beyond the terms of the Nuclear Agreement. Has it worked out the way you had hoped . Its very limited expectations. The critical one is that would freeze the Nuclear Program and that appears to have happened. I think you have to ask yourself given their attitude, given their attempts and a regional hegemony and given the fact that they be rushing towards a Nuclear Weapon i think we are better off with the agreement. They have missile technology. If they were within months by some reports of being able to at least have a nuclear test, if that happens i would trigger a reaction in the region which could be very difficult. If you want to apply to north korea in a different situation like 25 years ago talking about significant forces tremendous artillery pieces and rockets along the dmz thats a problem. Surreal problem when they have biological missiles that can land and can land in and stays. And iran at least for the next decade they wont have that. One of the problems with this deal as it does expire. It does expire. Then there are no limits on what they can do. There is not in the expectation is within this integral of tenor of 15 years and we have spun through a few years to things in my view. One is that it may be a guarantee of changes within the regime that would be more accommodating to continue the agreement. There would be option and issues with the major powers to try to extend it and also if after 15 years of the agreement they suddenly broke out i think wed be in a stronger position with their allies to counteract that breakout. And if the administration does what they could do next which is october 15 to client to certify that they have applied in agreement what would happen . It the ball gets tossed to you. What happens is theres an expedited procedure. The majority and minority leader , it would be done in that timeframe, a relatively short timeframe and a majority vote. And i think that with the difficult. Not for me. I would think the agreement would stand. Because we impose the sanctions they take a limits off . Are sanctions dont matter much. The europeans will come in and we will be on the outside and we will he seen throughout the world as they are sticking with the deal which is denuclearized singh iran we are the outliers. Also the message that general mattis gave in his confirmation. He didnt like the deal. He thought it had shortcomings than it does have shortcomings they didnt cover of missiles but he said a great nation doesnt break their word. It appears we are breaking her word. Before we get to questions a topic of great concern to you is the question of readiness. We have had a situation where we have lost more personnel and training accidents than we have in combat. How concerned are you about the readiness of our forces . Im very concerned and i must commend chairman came because no one has been more forceful and eloquent and relentless on this issue than the chairman who has done a remarkable job in my view. We have had accidents with her as he an aba accidents. We have had demolitions accidents at fort bragg and other places. What happened is the tempo has been so great of operations in some cases one to two so the air force i am told needs one deployment and four deployments at home base to be active and effective. We need to fix that and thats going to require resources and its going to require an increase in her end strength in some respects. We are going to have to do a lot and its necessary. Again we are watching these young men and women go out and they need the support and training that is so necessary. The other issue and again it reminds me of when i was a lieutenant captain in the army and general dunford alluded to this is in the 70s transitioning from counterinsurgency warfare into full spectrum battle and we are discovering the full spectrum includes cyber and other things that our adversaries have been able to do quite well at. Not only rest and recuperation from deployment in afghanistan and iraq but also trying to change our warfare activities in terms of a classic land battle. You have all these questions. At this time i want to invite her members to join the conversation. A reminder this is and has been on the record and if you could please wait for the microphone before asking questions and keep it to one question. You are right by the microphone. We will start right here. Thank you. Senator what world do you see the u. S. Military in syria and iraq once the Islamic State has been ejected . I think the role is very limited. I was in syria in june. In iraq i think Prime Minister of body would like to have an American Military president. I think it would be very affect his and Training Operations and the professionalism of the Iraqi Security forces and also to our military in some respects plays a role in it so to make sure sunni kurdish shia elements, there is at least fair treatment thats something that the Prime Minister wants and we want and the question though is with the political turmoil and the kurdish referendum and the optimization forces and the iranian support and shia, can you hold them together. Therell be an election next year and my sense coming back this issue of u. S. Presence will be part of the election campaign. It might not be the most critical issue but i think we should maintain a presence there and if we do it will be beneficial not only to iraq but to our regional interests. In syria is to get more complicated. We tailor the overt mission of defeating isis and what is happening is we have been very successful with our forces originally predominantly kurdish now a balance between syrian arabs and syrian kurds. Raqqa is fairly quickly going to come under control and the battle was shifting now to the euphrates and thats where we are hitting a difficult issue because russian iranian and local forces are coming close to our forces and our troops and we have to figure out what our policy is to resisting the assad regime or not, deconflicting. We are doing that on a casebycase basis and i dont think again the administration has declared a policy. The existing policy was we want assad to leave and whats happened over the last few months we recognize that this is going to be a fragmented country we just want to make sure that the violence goes down and assad will be there but we have an area of kurdish control. We have an area that the russians and the United States share along the jordanian border and then theres also concern in israel of the intrusion of the iranians and their influence in hezbollah. The policy there is muted in terms of there is no, we are not finished but prices or absolutely we are going to begin to put more pressure on the regime. One of the issues too that has to be adjudicated and decided by the white house is the syrians in the north and the turks are very concerned about comment do we support their efforts to maintain a not official but unofficial autonomous region and how do we relate to them and how do we relate to turkey . There are still a lot of questions. There is no clear policy that i can see that the administration has announced about what we are going to do in syria. If you want to the findwhat of the most difficult problems its syria. A very difficult problem but i think we do have to come it would help us to have a clear policy. Again to tell our military leaders your efforts here are going to be extensive and less expensive so you can begin to show force in other areas. Steve from George WashingtonUniversity Law school. You mentioned legitimacy of the use of force so i wanted to ask you about that. The easy case might be the term that you used korean missiles landing in the United States. Thats the easy thing but how about the harder case . What if there are korean missiles flown over guam or flown over hawaii or north korean missiles landing in japan. Is it legitimate or the United States, the president under domestic law to use force and would it be legitimate under International Law in those scenarios for the United States . Well i will concede i am not a political scholar. I have a law degree. I think an attack against and the question is do you characterize a missile with a warhead on an attack, thats a legal question but if thats so i think the president would claim he has the right of selfdefense. One of the interesting things might dont have an answer but one of the interesting things about the korean situation is we are in a ceasefire. There is no act of congress to authorize the operations in korea but the reality is we were fighting the koreans until my t50 three. And it technical sense in a legal sense you could find an opinion about almost anything but that is a unique situation with respect to korea. What is a violation of the ceasefire versus an act of war or offensive act from another country . My sense would the practically the president would be confronted with something where there are hours or days to decide on action. That in the practical sense keeps us up to date. To president bushs credit we were able to talk about it and i voted against it but it was debated and the authorization, there was no question of the legal authority. The situation in korea you almost have a reaction to something that happened immediately and hes got to decide. Then of course i think most president s rely upon the war power act. I am taking this action and i get a vote of Congress Even though i dont have to and you have six months to tell me how. I think you raise a point about legal authorities and International Law particularly in this korean situation than the ceasefire. Yes, back here. Im courtney here with the council. Afghanistan set the vortex is very challenging u. S. Foreignpolicy issues with iran and with russia and also affecting china. President trump didnt mention any of these three countries in his announcement of the south asia regional strategy and august and you have commented on the need to boost diplomatic engagement and regional engagement following that speech. Now that we are coming up on 16 years of military engagement at ganis than how do you think the administration should think about engaging the region beyond reinforcing afghanistan particularly when it relates to stabilizing afghanistan and rebuilding the regional cancer cancer. One of the key regional acts is the pentagon and one of the president s comments was a strong calling out and again without they are either active or implicit corporation with the Haqqani Network and others and all of the taliban elements within pakistan the government in kabul will be much more effective in being able to control the country. Ive have been waiting for many specific follow us at followups. What does this mean and there has been some suggestion in the past that sanctions the place upon individuals who are cooperated with the car near the taliban and we are waiting for that. He announced he was going to get tough with pakistan but thats very sensitive area because their stability is not as robust as it might be. They have Nuclear Weapons and we dont want them to fall into the wrong hands and the other major regional act is india but one of the first things i discovered and i announced 16 or 17 times and went with senator mccain in january 2002 to afghanistan. I was amazed because when you speak to the afghanis the particularly the pakistanis in india theres a paranoia of their. Its hard to understand but it is there. Any time we invite the indians into afghanistan that has a muscle reflex by the pakistanis. We are trying to get the indians to be more active now in terms of the military but in terms of Capacity Building etc. That again pushes hard against the pakistanis cooperation. So i think what we have done with the increased forces particularly with the we have been giving an opportunity to exert control over areas with the taliban but we still dont have a clear policy about what steps it will take in pakistan to get them to disengage from haqqani. I think longterm there are many more thought ill students but longterm its difficult when they have a safe haven and pakistan has been a safe haven for them for 16 years. A partial response to a very good question. Senator thanks for your service to rhode island and youve been the voice of reason in the senate for so many years. The question that hasnt come up is the question of the allegations of russias interference in the election and a variety of their moving in cyber. Im curious to what youre rowland sent us to get to that issue and water per person on this or that problem . I think evidence is overwhelming that they deliberately colluded. Colluded isnt the correct term. They deliberately interfered in the election. It was very clear. They deliberately interfered in the election. They went ahead and threw elaborate systems of social media and both operating on twitter, that was clear by the Intelligence Committee in january in effect chairman mccain held the first hearing in which that came forward. That strategy is not unique. The United States, they didnt seem to be as active in the german elections and i dont know why but we cant accept that. Thats under basic democratic concepts and we cant accept that. Terms of oakley are doing on the committee the Intelligence Committee and dice it exofficio which is the term for being the last question. They are pursuing this but its very difficult to cause we dont have the same kind of access as a Law Enforcement official and we are looking at a policy perspective as well as individual culpability. So we are making progress and i must say senator warner is doing a very good job but its slow and tedious and i dont think its going to reach a public conclusion for a while yet. Course we realize director mueller is doing a totally separate investigation. Do you think the investigation wont be wrapped up by the end of the year . I think it will go into next year because there is a huge amount of material to look at and frankly every day new aspects of the intrusions or interference become evident. Just yesterday twitter officials and senator warner publicly was disappointed in the response of information that they gave. Thats just one aspect that we have seen the stories of already which is a russian undead entity where they are able to put together these documentaries which were not particularly accurate and not particularly flattering to senator clinton and dave viewership in the United States but once you put it on the web and start hitting your box and people start watching what, that was done many times. That culpability in the news, you have seen no evidence that there is any collusion. I have not seen any evidence and that frankly from the perspective of the Congressional Committee we are looking at what the russians did, how they did it what steps we have to take to keep it from happening again. It is a new legislative investigation. Those are many times outside of our purview. In the back. Thanks. Im a member with pbs newshour. I want to go back to north korea for a second here. Do we underestimate north korea and the kim regime . There isolated and they are not backwards. The economy has actually increased. There are fewer defectors than i used to be. Does that lead us to think that their Nuclear Program is more indigenous than external imports and part of that, some intelligence officials seem to begin to see North Koreans as slaves and they are actually using that word and it seems like people are setting themselves up for an argument for some sort of war deliberations over have you heard that word being used then do we underestimate what is happening in north korea. There was a presumption certainly and theres some theres a collapse in the regime, huge starvation not independent upon their sponsors the chinese to survive. What we seen over the last several years that you have pointed out is that their economy is growing. And i saw someone i was recently in pyongyang and the cars, you know its kind of like an artificial cities. They limit entry. Its not the reality of north korea. I think the issue of indigenous productivity at think what happened is their program started years ago by literally getting things through Illicit Trade and now they have developed expertise and they have had scientists working on these problems. It put a high priority on training people and for two decades now we are beginning to see the result. They can do things that are and one issue that we are not aware of which has come up about who is manufacturing their rocket fuel . Are they doing it or is it being brought in . Thats the example of the question we need to to ask a few years ago. The question again all of these issues have their double sides. Does that mean and we have heard this from some chinese that if kim jongil as people to eat grass they would because grass is of their usual diet but if kim jongun does it and with rising expectations will they doing it . Thats one of the issues we dont quite know. Some of the support for sanctions is if you can target a sanction and start affecting the leaks and people who have influence because i dont think he cares too much about the average north korean who is out farming that small piece of land someplace. That might have influence put it where he gets uncomfortable and has to make concessions. Its much more complicated country that it seems 10 years ago or so in the face of a devastating droughts and Everything Else. A satellite photo at might shut south korea all lit up in pyongyang. That looks different now . Not much different but i think it was much more indicative of what was going on. They might not have lots and lots of lights in the country but they have started private farming. Im told if you go into villages there will be farmers markets and the people are better fed through theres a sense that its a little bit better than it was in fact an there was no food, there was nothing. Again the more complicated target than we had 10 years ago or more. Right here. Hi senator reed. Senator r. 12 ask you about the d. R. E. A. M. Act is it relates to military concessions. Its a time when a lot of people dont want to serve and services are having trouble work hurting. A lot of sons and daughters of immigrants want to serve and pay this country back their service. The program committed certain and begins to be citizens if they served in the military now the president seems to be reneging on that commitment and a number of cases and the trey has a component that allows young people to serve in the military and that is at risk. Could you please address those issues, what you are encouraged in the department of defense to do . We are encouraging the department of defense to reevaluate their decision with respect to the mandate program. They contracted with individuals and they stopped the contract. One of the issues they had if i recall in order to fill their recruiting requirements it was more expeditious to take american citizens because they didnt have to go through the steps that these young people did. Your point is well taken. They want to serve in it that they are delighted to serve and we should try to encourage that im not discourage it. The d. R. E. A. M. Act is another example of something that you have her marketable wealth of talent here in the country which if we exclude we are going to diminish our economy and also diminish our military capability people have already served with distinction so we would like to move this legislative chambers act. Senator durbin has been aggressive aggressive i think senator graham is also a ball. In fact the president s position has been in some respects not discouraging us from moving legislatively which is a positive sign. You see it everywhere. I was in rhode island and they were telling me the owners about how they are willing to give this young man College Education if he agrees to work for them but he they say he might be a dreamer. These are people who want good workers. The encouraging thing is that again in the conversation with senator schumer and Speaker Pelosi the present seems to be saying or at least i hope thats the case. General. Its rare to find foreignpolicy consensus oversees but this administration the last administration turkey bag had iran all agreed that now is not the time. They thought something should be delayed yet the minority leader presumably speaking for the caucus came out two days ago and said not only would he support the referendum but a phoc at this time. Can you explain apposition . Its not my position. I dont think senator schumer is going to. My having been there in june and i came back and we alerted everyone to the fact that it has a very destabilizing effect. You know as well as i know that this is so complicated. One reason its compensated is because Kurdish Forces around kirkuk their hold in that area which was previously in to the control of government their Oil Resources are there. What is the outline of this kurdish independent country . Thats the issue and its causing considerable difficulties to the Prime Minister who has enough difficulty. Our state department tried in our military leadership tried. One sense i have is why they have the referendum is political turmoil in africa kurdistan. The parliament is nonoperative. I think frankly, the only thing they could agree upon is they wanted to be independent. For the leadership this is a way to galvanize and also give them some leverage in that negotiation. I also and i will doublecheck this i believe within the iraqi constitution regions have the right to apply for independence and as a result they are saying the Political Leadership is following the constitution. We have no public approval. Again i dont think its the appropriate response in terms of the kurdish referendum. Our military forces and our diplomatic forces have to work to ensure cooperation and peshmerga the Iraqi Security forces continues because the fight is not over and we are assisting and aiding the government of iraq in terms of maintaining thats my view. We have time for one more quick question. Hi senator i am margot from cna. At 2017 National Authorization act included significant changes. Its been a year, not quite. Are you satisfied with the progress thats been made on those changes of our own what do you think still needs to be done . Just like west point. No sir, yes sir. We are looking very closely at acquisition reform because we think thats where significant savings can be deployed to aid we are looking at a lot of other areas in some of the areas from moving Health Care Consolidation we expected when we pass it wasnt going to be something done overnight. My sense is we are making progress and the other factor and i will finish with this its been the sole rollout of civilian nominees. We tried our best to get them confirmed and employees. We are still waiting for the secretary of the army to come before the committee. That is hampered some of the. All right thank you fellow members senator reed. [applause] [inaudible conversations] welcome everyone to George Washington university. We have an awesome group