[indistinct conversation] announcer Senate Armed ServicesCommittee Ranking member jack reed of rhode island discussed for policy on friday. He spoke with abc news chief washington correspondent at the council of foreign relations. This is an hour. I think it is ready to start. Thank you all for being here. Welcome to the council on foreign relations. A warm welcome to our senator jack reed, Ranking Member of the Armed Services committee. He is from the great state of rhode island. I will be presiding and asking which is the next this is an on half hour. 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. This diplomatic effort is vitally important. Even though the military is preparing for some kind of confrontation, this is the a much more preferable way to proceed. If it does not succeed, theres much more legitimacy for the use of force. You say this is a diplomatic effort. That is not what it sounded like when the president was before the u. N. This comes to that issue of coherency of message. The north korean regime, since its inception, has talking about how it has to be a militarized society because the United States is determined to destroy them. Now they have to do is translate that message to the u. N. And put it on the screen. That dosay things signal very clearly that military options are not only on the table we approach this from madison and not just the president theis and not just president. Is there really a military option . We heard that phrase. We heard it from barack obama. We heard it from george w. Bush. There is a military option. I think it is clear from everyone, particularly the military, that option with the extraordinarily costly. Something we have not witnessed. Cost in terms of life, cause in terms of economic activity, cost in terms of environmental degradation. Country that already has weapons of mass destruction and a country that eterave been able to dte their use but are they the deterrable. One of theirown tests . Significant improvement and ever had coverage so we would not only have warning but the ability to respond. It would require cooperating collaborations with many countries and tears of in terms of proliferation. Sell anything they can get out of the country. We have to be very effective in terms of proliferation. We know they have Nuclear Weapons and mediumrange missiles that can likely carry them. As former National Security official in the previous administration, he made the point that one of the challenges is that north korea, at least for three successive take as ations could given there is not a viable military solution. They do not fear that. Those officials are no friend of donald trump. Something needs to be done to raise that confidence that the that erase that confidence the United States it not have a military option. One of the factors that mitigate against the military operation in question what could china do . If we could collaborate more said that we only sanders and so that we at least understand, that would send a signal that our use of force would not be abandoned. Cohesive,y a more coherent focus of for policy maybe informally using back back is necessary using channels is necessary. Comparisons to Richard Nixon they do not like that term at the white house. Sen. Reed i think sticking to diplomatic language is helpful in the situation. I think we are in a situation where we cannot just say it. If we are saying we are on a diplomatic incentives and the chinese are looking around seeing people attempts at things. Cy, that is two what does that do in terms of north korean action . They say they are not doing diplomacy what are we seeing in terms of china. Part of that diplomatic effort is to get china to put more pressure on north korea. The president says that is working. Is china doing more . Sen. Reed i think they are doing more of the question is can they do enough . The presumption is as soon as the chinese decided to tell them to knock it off, it would work. But my sense is they have the same diff all the best the same my sense isn they have the same difficulty communicating with kim jongun as the rest of the world they are not quite really. Rest of the world. They are not willing to cripple the economy. There are a huge amount of refugees that we come to the country. China, they have a big congress coming, which they do several years which they do every several years. They have made some improvements. They have supported us at the u. N. On some of these sanctions measures but they have not gone as far as we would like to go. We might see something more productive in the future. The other since i have is xi himself personally has very low regard for conjunction four kim jongun in. China is going to be key. Russia, because they have certain influence, not as dramatic as china and his diplomatic effort has to be enhanced. The president deserves more credit for the fact that china is doing more. China is worried about what trump will what thatant to shortcircuit by taking some steps on their own. , theyeed president xi established a relationship. ,hina is reacting to pressure not just from the United States but from the world. They are also reacting to the reality that as this regime gets closer to intercontinental Nuclear Weapons, the conflict is could be dire to china. Theres a whole new set of calculation given the progress the north korean have made on their missiles and working. If the North Koreans threaten and do what they threatened to do, a Nuclear Tests over the pacific ocean, and that a redline . Sen. Reed that would be extraordinarily disruptive and i conversation where , not just in the United States and the administration, but with china and russia, to get a sense of how they would react. That would be extraordinary. Just, i dont think do you think they are serious about that threat . Sen. Reed it is hard to judge. Every intelligent proxy says this is the hardest they have. Very, weun in has a are not sure when we talk to people inside what he is thinking. There could be somebody who is having some insights on the Missile Program and no insight on anything else. I dont think it would be good method. I think it would be dismissive. You can talk to our allies about what their reaction would be. This might be something in the context of a group of five where they could collectively lay down sort of a sense this would be impermissible. It is a starting walked yourself into it. I want to move off of north korea. One question i have as someone who has tracked this problem so closely for so long, what do you see as driving the reason success they have had a had insuccess they have their ballistic and Nuclear Program. Are they getting outside help . They had made the incredible strides they have made the past couple of years . They have been getting outside help. , think the efforts recently the efforts of the administrations squeeze that have provided administration effort to squeeze that have provided some opportunity. They have a network of companies, many located in china, that provide parts for ofm, they had a whole series Front Companies that the raise money for them. They have hard currencies to use. They smuggle things in and out. It is a very elaborate and sadistic aided network. Sophisticated and sophisticated network. There are networks that have been moving material through four decades. The interesting thing why it is basic vessel is the interesting thing about why it is so successful is kim jongun has risked failure. Missiles thatd have failed. They have tried different things. He has made it central to his regime, his personality, and his survival. These, 1960s, the chinese decided to put together Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles with help from overseas but with a lot of indigenous effort. You are a west point graduate, the president likes to surround himself with the general, many do you know quite well and have known for a long time. Ttis, general kelly, i would like a sense of your interactions with this general . Generals. Ose when the president makes comments like fire and fury and wiping north korea off the map, he picked up the phone and asked what he means do you pick up the phone and ask what you mean . What he means . I have a great deal of confidence in the gentleman mentioned. They have already weighed in to beevent things that could very consequential. Like what . Sen. Reed again, if you listen s, they areatement very strong but controlled. They send the right signal. That is the do not present we notready that do not do presume we are not ready, we are ready. I hope there is a very healthy dialogue before the president says. One of the concerns i have is the generals all reacting to tweets, not talking about what is the best way to frame this message. Have you seen a change in the National Security council . , theeparture of glenn effort to replace them, finally landing on mcmaster. Council,iled from the from the white house, have you noticed a change . Sen. Reed there are a lot more subject Matter Experts who are not as politically engaged. They are providing a much more ultimately it is the president s decision. Who is secretary mattis one of the most thoughtful and experience did, you will ever haveexperienced gentlemen you will ever have. They understand they can weigh in. They have to give the president options. Two reed that requires people. Study,e to listen, focus and i think the question is whether there is a listening a and a concentration constant attention to detail. Used to talk about the National Security council. Operationalizing the state department. They succeeded. Sen. Reed if you do not fill up with credible and confidence individuals, you have a capacity gap. Same with the National Security council. If the National Security council is more ideological than technically proficient, it is no longer giving you those options ended by it is no longer giving you those options and advice. That should change with general mcmasters and general kelly. We are going to give you the options that are all available, our life and you decide our advice and he decide. How long have you known general kelly . Sen. Reed i have no general kelly for about 20 years. I met him when he was commanding ines in a more prominent in anwar province. He is a great marine. What do you make of his challenge now . His challenge is, one of the things about having served four and hents is temperament have to understand that. He have to ensure that he gets the best information and he gets the backing as well as the good as wellit is sad news as the good news. At the National Security adviser, if youre not getting news,esident the bad youre not doing your job. Any spoken to him since he became chief of staff . Sen. Reed i spoke with him when of homeland security. I great as narration for him. Great great i have admiration for him. The president hinted at the u. N. That he was going to get out of the you ron Nuclear Agreement iran Nuclear Agreement. What do you think he meant . I think he has been he has already made his decision. S opinion based upon intelligence reports if they are still in compliance with the deal. He also indicated that our unilateral work would not be well received by the world community. Reaction by the iranians and they have forces in syria and it sends a thatl to the North Koreans if we make a deal with you folks, you may not keep it. Is further complications in the middle middle talk about a a military option, if were taking the military option in korea, that becomes the primary objective and how we do things. You were an advocate of this deal early on . What is your sense when you look at it now and you look at the behavior of the Iranian Regime beyond the terms of the Nuclear Agreement, has it all worked out the way you have hoped . Sen. Reed very limited expectations. The critical one is we want to freeze the Nuclear Program and that appears to have happened. You have to ask yourself, given the attitude and the attempt at and given the fact they would be rushing toward a nuclear weapon, we are better off with the agreement. They have missile technology. Ofthey were within months being able to have a nuclear test, that would trigger a reaction that would be very difficult. If you want to apply it to north korea, this would be a much different situation if it were 25 years ago when we were talking about significant forces, a tremendous number of raqqa. Ery forces in ira it is a problem when they have biological missiles. In iran forthis the next decade they will not have this if they stick to the agreement. Part of this deal is it expires and there are no limits on what it can do. Sen. Reed the expectations is within this interval of 10 or 15 years. Things. Not guaranteed changes within the regime. Particularly if it is a and International Agreement with china and russia to try to extend this and if after 15 years they certainly broke out, we would be in a much stronger position with our allies to counterattack that breakout. Administration, despite dunfords comments, if they declined to certify they complied with the agreement, that does not mean we are out . The ball gets tossed to you. Sen. Reed there is an expedited procedure. The majority and minority leader can call of a vote. It would be done in a timeframe. A very short timeframe. Voteuld be a very majority to reimpose the sanctions. That would be a difficult of for me. Me. s difficult vote for we impose the sanctions and a tasty limited off. The european we impose the sanctions and it takes the limits off. Sen. Reed there will be perception throughout the world that they are sticking with the deal which is to teenager alive which is to the nuclear rise denuke iran. The general thought it had he said a great nation does not break their word. This would appear we are breaking their word. Before we get to questions, one thing of great concern is the question of readiness. We had a situation where we lost more personnel in combat and we personnel in Training Missions family having combat. How concerned are you about the readiness of our forces . Sen. Reed i am very concerned. I have to mention senator mccain. No one has been more eloquent than the readiness position on the readiness position than the chairman. We have had aviation accidents. We have had demolition accidents. Temposoened is the great of operations. Oneair force needs ofloyment and four periods training and redeployment at the home base to be effective. That is going to require resources. It is going to require increased in our strength. We are going to have to do a lot. It is necessary. Again, we are watching the young men and women go out and do a superb job. They need the type of support and training that is so necessary. , it sort ofsue reminds me when i was lieutenant captain in the army. General dunford will allude to this. In the 70s, we were transitioning from counterinsurgency warfare into full spectrum battles and we were discovering this full spectrum includes cyber and other things that our adversaries have been able to do quite well at. The rest and recuperation of deployments from afghanistan and iraq, but also trying to change our warfare effectiveness in terms of trying to get back to the classic battle. Thatve all these questions is a great blow to readiness. I want to let our members join the conversation. This is and has been on the record. If you could please wait for the microphone for asking the questions. Start right here. Thank you. Senator, what role do you see for 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 and i rock and iraq. Iraq, we would like to have American Military presence. It would be very helpful with the Training Operations and the professionalism of the Iraqi Military forces. They need to make sure sunni and getish and shiite elements fair treatment. That is something the Prime Minister wants. We want. The question is with the political turmoil, with the canh referendum and the he pull things together . There will be an election next year. My sense of coming back is this issue of u. S. Presence will be part of the election campaign. I think we should maintain a presence there. If we do, it will be beneficial not only to iraq, but regional interest. In syria, it is a bit