To you. Hi im Steve Clemons and i have a question is a Trump Administration turning the u. S. Military into a protection racket lets get to the bottom line. Burden sharing Many American president s have pushed this line but donald trump has added a new dimension arguing that allies of the United States have to pay more for quote protection he has been rated nato allies handed angle americal a handwritten bill for 2 trillion dollars on one occasion for money owed for germanys protection and moved on to saudi arabia and last week it was south koreas turn so what does it mean for the u. S. Military forces spread all over the globe and do americas allies smell a shakedown fortunately we have 3 people in the room who have all the answers to these questions admiral William Fallon who is headed who is headed both u. S. Central command and Pacific Command and served as a president ial envoy to japan lacey healy chief editor of stick and host of a podcast on military affairs called things that go boom and kevin baron executive director of defense one which covers u. S. Defense and National Security thank you all so much for joining us admiral fallon let me start with you burden sharing is not a new thing many president s have been talking about it and i remember president obama president clinton both president bush actually talking to our allies are numerous occasions and making the case that our allies needed to do more so whats different about this moment well steve i think go before we get into this it would be good to just keep in mind that this is a complex question and the. The arrangements that we have with Different Countries are almost all unique so nato the Nato Alliance been around since 1909 long standing tradition of security very very helpful to us in the cold war days and now its a different era but there are longstanding nato agreements and arrangements that touched each of course i knew i was very helpless after 9112. 00 it was article 5 in middle you know its so good you go to other places in the world and these are different theyre not the same and so the arrangement we have of korea is different than the one with nato and the arrangements in japan are different again with korea and you go around the world singapore with qatar or almost every place these are not the same deals and so to approach them as its one thing you pay or else is not in my opinion the right way to do this and you have to keep in mind that when these agreements are negotiated and you know she did a bunch of them done a number or been a part of those negotiations theyre best done in my experience offline out of the limelight because some of the issues become very sensitive and theyre unique to the individual countries involved well lets listen to President Trump for a moment as hes talked about what hes trying to do on this front we will insist on fair burden sharing with our allies i made it clear we are protecting many many wealthy wealthy wealthy countries we protect all of these wealthy countries which im very honored to do. But many of them are so wealthy they could easily pay the cost of this protection cabin the admiral just laid out that many of these are different that if youre like looking at korea thats a different deal than nato today where Central Command has a huge base and hes so if there are other some places where. Burden sharing becomes protection where essentially were loaning our our military muscle for pay running up you know running the pentagon at a profit if you will look yes if thats what you listen to the president s word when you ask but i dont think i go wait a minute let me as it were president words you know does it matter right as it depends on it and i look at this when you ask anyone in the military about why all of these agreements exists because the United States has an enduring interest that these things exist if you want a United States military thats able to react to a threat abroad or to act as a deterrent abroad and the United States needs partners and allies thats just basic one a one defense doctrine right so you need an agreement with you know to have basing you need an agreement to have access to ports and overflights with all these individual countries but i think were already way down the weeds from what kind of really the bigger question here which is donald trump has brought a new way of doing business a new way of doing Foreign Policy and hes done it by the will of the American People or at least the Electoral College and a new era and i think were arguing a lot about the means not the ends we like you said in your opener obama and every other president and every other defense secretary and joint chiefs chairman before them all have the same message to nato please you guys should pay a little more use of your debts a little more and democrats like carl levin were so i hear all that i want to i want to push you just for you the lazy joining you know correct all of us on this but i want to i want to ask you if you have set up the regime that our allies that we have Strategic Interests in partnering with in deploying u. S. Forces or that we have someone out there that says were not going to pay because paying for u. S. Military base. As installations is sometimes a controversial thing in these countries its not easy its not an easy deal and as the admiral said most of these are dealt with without the spotlight on them and theyre done in close rooms because it is domestically controversial. But what happens if a country doesnt pay. Out of the well find out if anyone doesnt pay you know you bet so they could try to call a bluff but look i think theres a point that theres a reason why the admiral was involved and didnt go stations like this and not the president of the United States this is not president ial business usually but donald trump has made it his business and at one another and another dimension of this i think is in a generational change there are populations of American Voters and populations in these countries that were dealing with that dont remember the last 50 years or dont know maybe appreciate the reason why american troops are stationed there to begin with and so the controversies in places like okinawa korea where you know local populations may have had these maybe changing over time and the more that donald trump frames this as a protection racket as as you know were were were going to protect your countries and im honored to do it rather than it is in americas security interest that we protected these not just these countries but american interests in these countries and our economic interests and our social introduce name right i was amused at one point in our history that and that all fell in may have been involved this im not sure but in the early 1990 s. In the 1st gulf war the japanese did not participate then the assistant secretary of state Richard Solomon made a big deal that the japanese didnt participate in sort of in blood and force on the line so the japanese wrote a check they wrote a 13000000000. 00 check you know 30000000000. 00 went further than that time and we actually made a profit the United States made a profit off of that war and it was the 1st time i ever thought about running the pentagon at a profit but how does this you i mean youre a specialist you kind of talk about American Military commitments today does it make sense that price. Trump is putting pressure on our eyes to contribute more after all the United States is less of the size of the economy that it once was it is still maintaining a Global Infrastructure of security shouldnt these nations pay a lot more yeah i cant say that i agree with running the pentagon at a profit i dont think thats exactly what we want to be doing theres absolutely i agree with kevin that there is it is in the u. S. Interest for us to have these bases overseas its basic 101 we have to have allies but what trump is doing i think is actually turning this on its head and hes going down a road that many president s many lawmakers have gone down before saying yes we are allies need to share more of this burden and he is he understands that this is a super political situation and he understands that people inside the u. S. Are not going to be excited about closing any bases whether those are overseas or domestic he understands that some people some of our allies dont actually want our bases there and so if he turns this on its head and he says well this is a protection racket like ill do it if you really want me to then it allows its dangerous because it puts it puts the onus on our allies to say sure we dont want well here does exactly what present. Master card to give you a different promotion but admiral fallon just to talk about which is to drag this out in the limelight it becomes controversial every realist listen to President Trump talk about his latest conquest. But south korea is costing us 5000000000. 00 a year they pay they were paying about 500000000000. 00. 5000000000. 00 worth of protection. And we have to do better so theyve agreed to pay 500000000. 00 more. Over the years itll start going up admiral fallon you know the Pacific Region very well the real numbers are that korea paid about 950000000. 00 in change last year but what is what is the issue that were really trying to drive at here should we be asking the koreans to amp up what theyre doing at the level of 5000000000. 00 a year what does that do to the integrity insolvency of that alliance so without getting into the details of the numbers what i believe were seeing here frankly is the behavior of the president from his past life in which its pretty well documented that his his m. O. Is to go in and hit him in the in the nose with a big number or big threat or a big something and intimidate them and theyll back off but my experience this is not the way you do International Diplomacy and particularly because it is south korea right on the on the border of north korea which is threatening the region with Nuclear Missiles and weapons and warheads threatening japan so the one that gets the bloody nose is our ally so korea is a very interesting situation again gets back to this point about each of these arrangements with Different Countries around the world and the u. S. Are unique so in korea the history here goes back to going to recite since the korean war in 1950 but as a result of that war the u. N. Was asked to go to the defense of korea after the armistice and its worth noting that in korea there is no end to the korean war it has not been adjudicated as not been settled theres just an armistice thats been in effect since 1953 pretty interesting. So the war could start again at any time the point is now were there and we have a very. Different arrangement in korea than in other places the u. S. Forces they are en route and there are not that many particularly compared to the past in the mid twentys probably 20000 Something Like that of most of those are support people for the bases and the quarters but in korea the command relationship is different than in most places so you have whats known as the combined forces command in which u. S. And korean leaders are totally integrated on the staff so its not like in most places where the u. S. Will go in with a with a staff of officers maybe usually will be the commander and others will bring their staffs this is completely integrated but the bottom so theyre very close together and its really if this is going to be effective if the defense of the Korean Peninsula was necessary in the future it has to work so the idea that you go in and just bludgeon them and say we want 5 times as much money to do this wait a minute what are we doing here other koreans to spend a lot of money at their behest to move us out of young signing the major facility and into its own priest humphries that actually is to our advantage because its a lot further back from the d. M. Z. Than the previous place was and in military terms outside the range of current north korean artillery significant difference so we have these facilities in korea right theyre designed to be integrated with the koreans in case of an emergency and i think its its very important that we keep these arrangements as long as we have an interest in northeast asia which we certainly do so kevin i heard everything admiral said but again going back to the words of the president that you said we should questionably listen to on occasion. As as i had shared with you earlier we watched President Trump at camp humphries during his 1st trip to korea it was about 3 am in washington d. C. Time i remember it very well gave a speech about how. Important us korea relationship was about the american presence in asia and then when he finished his speech in the teleprompter was off he said he could have built that base far cheaper than it was built for and faster and that this space was not for American Security anyway it was only for koreas and so with that one line and did what i think was the purpose of the trip was to demonstrate to the koreans that americas security was also for your security and im interested in whether or not we should be listening to that president of the United States or should we be listening to the command structure the pentagon that has been saying and arguing. As best it can differently i think you better listen to both i you know i think absolutely you need to listen to commanders in the pentagon and around the world who give their you know advice and theyre the ones on the front line saying this is what we believe is needed to remember to execute the policies that theyre given by the president by the white house and you know sometimes you know theyre lobbying in their own way for the kinds of forces and equipment and agreements that they need but you better listen to the president too because again he reflects a large percentage of the population whether you agree with it or not whether you think they understand the world or theyre naive and they dont understand the world a lot of people think even in the in the russian relations circles are starting to say you know what they have a legitimate grievance theres a theres a lot of people that think yeah most countries around the world could chip in a little bit more its whats unique is this president in his bowl in a china shop kind of way comes in and like you said bloody the nose of an ally publicly in their own country to sit just to say you know he has a little upper hand politically to make himself look tough like the deal maker that he is thats the new york you know real estate mogul language that he knows that hes bringing to something as sensitive and complex as international right but when you ask American People or voters in the population theyre not in the weeds into all of these you know agreements like that we know all they hear is look hes fighting for us hes doing hes doing what we asked him to do i think theres a fundamental assumption. Inherent in words like that and that is that these deals are one way that somehow. We are benefiting homes countries. And in fact most of these arrangements or very definitely 2 way deals in which we get something out of this as well as the other country and if you look at these all together and take the view that theyre all the same its all the us the great to us and were here to take your things and save you thats absolutely the wrong you know if you yeah what is the unrecognized dependency of the United States has on this Global Infrastructure of bases that is not really being talked about much yet i mean were certainly dependent to this point though about about certainly our 2 way the 2 way importance of this its very important for the u. S. To have these bases but that also i want to point out i very much agree with that but i we cant whole say it make the whole sell assumption that all of these agreements and all of the all of these agreements and all of these bases are necessary and i think that certainly i mean you mention in her like it we have u. S. Nuclear weapons stationed 100 miles from the border of syria and there are some of these arrangements that could use revisiting and you know that i think i think often the conversation is boiled down into a well the president doesnt understand how nato work c. Doesnt he doesnt understand that there are not you know just giving us money to do this thing and i dont think thats necessarily true i just dont think he care let me let me bring up a tweet from congresswoman omar reads our Defense Budget continues to fund and list wars that damage our reputation in the world and do not make us any safer in the u. S. We need to reduce our military budget which totals more than the next 7 countries combined this next 7 countries combined is the part of this it interests me is that if you were basically trying to change the economics of how the United States basically makes the economic equation for defending the world and defending its interests when you begin to find a bit of an increase the price tag of the smaller countries is still apply. Small deal i wonder what it may toto the level of threat thats coming from the middle east and north africa from isis and al qaeda or afghanistan from the taliban or anywhere else in asia what difference would it make of those 7 countries sort of paying more would it you know. To me that sounds like a nice optics question but it doesnt get to the heart of does america think it is it is to its interests and its enduring security to have deployed troops at these bases and have these agreements of countries go