We have been in normal sample to be throughout my time on the Armed Services committee. They know pretty much everything is good at some of his nose of the things we can ask questions and learn and its a very, very complicated world. It is noble and unsettling the first time about how long ive been for group of people that we actually the budget deal. Normally that is what dominates all my thoughts. The only caveat i will throw out is have that money for two years. Eventually you do get a debt and deficit that are so high that you put in a very, very bad place. And that is going to happen. I cant say when exactly but when that happens all aspects of government and the military will not be excluded black to figure out how do we live with a lot less money than we thought we were going to have. I think that is one of the most important conversations that we should be having, that the pentagon and the government level is how can we make the most of this to your gift that we been given, and not think that it is simply something that is going to keep happening. Its economically impossible for you to keep happening and distinctly possible for it to go the other way in a massively. We we were together playset. But as for Security Cooperation goes, it something i worked on for a long time. It started when it was the chair of the terrorism subcommittee and we had jurisdiction over socom psycho to travel the world and basically see everywhere that special Operations Command box, not everywhere, but a lot of the places. Admiral also produces it whenever i met with him he would start of every meeting by saying today we woke up in 87 countries or 75 or whatever it was but it was a good blueprint for where our military presence was throughout the world. Understanding where socom was. Whats the purpose of Security Systems . What are we trying to accomplish . Putting aside for the moment the really intense conflict zones which are get you in the second, what were trying to accomplish, actually socom is a great euphemism for. They refer to as preparation of the environment. I always like that. Basically what they meant is we want to make friends in different parts of the world whether its south america or africa, the middle east, south asia so if things go horribly wrong we are better prepared to deal with it, on the one hand. On the other hand, were hoping those relationships and what we do will stop things from going horribly wrong. Because thats part of our mission not just in the military but in the state department and the entire foreign policy. And that is to maintain stability in as many places as we can. Thats the tiniest little bit complicated right now. All of you are very knowledgeable. You can look around the globe and certainly of afghanistan as homologous that are problems that youve a dozen other countries as well better in some state of instability combined with having the presence of terrorist organizations threaten the west. We are trying to figure out how can we work in those countries and countries around them to bring a more secure environment. The key to all of this this isa whole of government approach. What we had and what we tempted to reform with the 2017 ndaa reforms on Security Assistance was as a result of iraq and afghanistan, a result of all the stuff resting on his very suddenly and in an emergency situation we sort of made it up as we went along. We knew we had to spread a lot of money around in different places to try to keep the peace, try to keep the stability thats really what this is that you are trying to make friends and figure out if youre working in the philippines, what do they need so they will cooperate with you. I always harken back to a story, a retired socom officer told about when he was in libya in the early 80s and he said the single best thing that he had was a dentist. Everybody in libya wanted a dentist as long as he provided that it is they would tell them everything he needed to know and they would help them. A bit of an overstatement but in essence thats what were trying to do. If you are in one of conflict zones like afghanistan and somalia, obligated by the factor operating in an insecure and five, what really complicates that in terms of Security Assistance is you pass out this money, and Security Assistance is not just about training people how defend themselves. Training other countries. The programs spread across a wide range of things. You had dod dollars going to build schools and drill wells and provide healthcare, do whole bunch of Different Things. That all under that umbrella of, i guess youd call it if you from new jersey Walking Around money, what you need to sort of keep the peace in the neighborhood, and it got very, very confusing in terms of who was controlling what. We attempted in 2017 to consolidate all of this money, at least at the dod under one person, under the under secretary policy. So that we can keep ordination of that money within dod. But for all this to work it has to be a lot more than dod. Because depending on the country you may need Different Things. Certainly you always going to need security to do anything but you also need the rule of law. So the Justice Department could potentially be very involved in figuring out how can you put in place a basic system of law that people can rely on. Healthcare, is enormous important as i mentioned. Special Operations Command runs with the call med caps where the bush opens it will be all day with a bunch of doctors to help you out. Youve got that. Agriculture. I dont know anything about agriculture. I grew up in the suburbs that it is a very, very important and a lot of parts of the world. So how do you bring all of that together and have whole of Government Cooperative approach . I think getting dod money coordinator is important. Whats going to be even more important is getting some of that money out of dod and into the hands of the people who build schools and drill wells and provide healthcare and set up the rule of law, and to set it up so that there is a cooperative experience within the country. I did a trip to africa in 2009 i think it was, in which we visited a lot of Different Countries to try to get an idea. So how are we doing . We went to morocco and rwanda, congo, egypt, and really it very from country to country how will our government worked. A lot of it depended upon the ambassador. Because if this model is working correctly, the ambassador is in charge of the country and that was something we also went to yemen on that trip, i was stuck about my trip to africa and say with a human and peoples a yemen is that in africa. Yet, but we just jumped across the sea and we jumped back. But in human thought was a conflict at the time. The ambassador had a very large military presence there, and he wanted to be in charge of it. Because its his country and he wasnt. So he did really know how to operate with the other people in their because you had these bifurcated command structures theoretically in charge of the whole. If this is working properly the ambassador works with whether the military leader is, socom is frequently a huge part of this, and then all of the other agencies are underneath it and they all have an idea and a plan for what theyre going to provide. In kenya or libya or somalia or whatever. And structured, organized, spending money wisely. Right that it is a cross purposes. The 2017 reform is a start but we need to get to the whole of government approach in order to properly do this. At the end of the day what were talking about is counterinsurgency in the good sense. Counterinsurgency has got a bad name because it becomes synonymous with nationbuilding. Thats not what it is supposed to be. We can all agree at this point out what happened in iraq and afghanistan that showing up in any country in the world particularly one that is completely different from america and saying all right, were here, we will rebuild your entire country and show you how to run it, not a good idea. Counterinsurgency in the lower form is simply small little bits of help to help a country maintain stability. It works best to the Millennium Challenge Corporation that works with governments to say okay, well give you four dated the what is your plan works what are you trying to accomplish in education and health care and elsewhere . Thats got to start from the state department and work through the defense department, in my opinion. Ill close with this and will take your questions. Thats one of the biggest conflicts out there. Dod has the money at the end of the day when the state department and all these other people are battling to influence over a given country, if the department of defense happens to be there in any sort of force, they are the ones with the huge pot of money. Its 55 of the discretionary budget. The other 45 is spread out over everybody else. Theres a tendency to have dod do whole lot of Different Things that they shouldnt be doing. One example was given to me when i was in kenya at dinner, there was this great argument between a young woman with the state department and the two navy seals who were traveling with me about state department versus military running the country and how security is where it all started, the military wasnt doing it but how are you going to do that. But the state department woman had a good story about how this branch of the military from the u. S. Had gone up and started drilling wells in this town at the northern kenya where the used wells. So without talking to the state department they just went up and did it. And pretty soon people were either trying to resist the u. S. Or just paranoid, started spreading rumors that the wells were poisoned pics and nobody would use them because you cant trust the u. S. Military because the u. S. Military is here to crush you and take over your country. Thats why you need a more cooperative effort. Thats what you need diplomats involved, engaged. While were talking a massive increases in the Defense Budget and cutting the state department, were kind of making it more difficult to do this comprehensive approach. This comprehensive approach is vastly preferable than dropping 150,000 u. S. Troops into a country and trying to pacify it. If we can do it for a small amount of cooperation from other countries and other agencies we definitely get more bang for our buck but also more successful in what we are attempting to do. That fight will play out. General mattis said it best when he was trying to defend the state department picky set if youre going to cut the state department you better give me 54 divisions because im going to give them. Regrettably while he said that, its kind of exactly what is happening. The pentagon is getting a lot more money. The state department is not. A lot of these other places in government are not either. So basically as you talk about Security Cooperation, dont forget the whole of government approach. Yes, we need to train troops in trouble spots of the world so that they can keep the peace and the security, but security is about a lot more than the military. So i will look forward to your questions. Again, i think csis are hosting this event. Thanks. Thank you very much representative smith. I know your back is bothering circuit to stand and walk thats totally fine. I dont have to do that. Actually its not my back but thats another story. Oki. Apologies for that in. So lets start when you ended up, which is this idea of whole of government and comprehensive approach. Challenging to say the least right now as you said the state department is going through at best described as a restructuring, but heavy pruning or siege force approach on them. What do you think it sort of the next stage or era of congressional viewpoint with regard to where we go on this comprehensive approach . Do you know if we will get to a point where dod is well resourced and takes a lot of these missions thats because of money is there, what then becomes the next age of where we can go to make sure that we had the kind of security that looks more like the whole of government that you hope for . Im not known from optimism. I think thats unfair by the way. Im not being pessimistic. It is what it is. I certainly try to assess the situation where its at but it will start with something positive thats going on and that is on working with congressman ted yoho along with senator coons and to do a fairly conference of the form of development aid. That puts more power in the hands of usaid and actually improves that particular leg of the stool, if you believe the Defense Development diplomacy approach to foreign policy. Its quite promising. Its ironic because this is something that was central to my approach prior to 2008, and he worked with susan rice and gayle smith on the campaign at the time, this was a big focus of ours that were going to reform the way we do foreign aid. Foreign aid is spread out over like 40 different agencies and its in little boxes and pots of money that you cant, its very, very difficult of it. Raj shah, not the one in the white house, the raj shah who was use the id guy for a while, is as bright as human being as of ever encountered, and today does a marvelous job at usaid and so did gail after but we never did the report we never did reform because the state department wouldnt let go of it. The state department wanted to control it. I voice out that was a mistake. We should have i think a separate department of development sort like to do in great britain. But its a turf thing and state department, under the Obama Administration eight years we did nothing congressionally. Raj did what he could within the confines of the law but now we have the possibility of reforming that and that would be a big step towards getting us to a better place on a whole of government approach it usaid had more power and authority. There always has been it seems that washington this debate over whether truth struck reform as possible and whether one should think big to make some of these bigger structural changes or one sort of absent a major crisis, what is forced back if you will into working with what you have. Do you fall summer on the spectrum . It sounds like its a few there is a chance for a fundamental structural change that can help us on Security Assistance. I think there is a chance. Its always worth working on as legislators. Thats what we do, legislate. So i would never say we should walk away from it. I think the challenges to getting there are daunting because of the current structure and also because of the money problem that i alluded to in my opening remarks, eventually bite us. Everybody is short of money. We are living way crazy beyond our means and so then you tend to get sort of locked into patterns and you dont have the freedom to innovate as you should. But i think theres the possibility we could get to a better whole of government approach. Speaking of spending, we hear a lot in washington about how difficult it is in many of us experience it to try to explain anything like Security Cooperation or preventative defense of whatever the comprehensive approach, whater the term is, two people are just thinking about why they want their tax dollars going and the value trying to explain the value of that when folks are looking at whether they want their taxes raised or the want benefits decreased or whatever the issue may be. They dont want either one of those things by the way. What is the compelling case, if any, that you have found works if you will in terms of talking about your travels, your experiences in this sector and the value that they can provide to americans . Is there a a way to sell this successfully . There is. Theres a rather sizable problem with it which i obligated after explain how we do it. I have been giving this the sph for a long time, and constituents tend to be very straightforward into focus, whats this this do it for me . I spending money on this, how is it helping . If were spending money all across the world how is it helping . There are sort of four ways it helps. Free practical and one that is a more, i dont know, idealistic argument. But to begin with the United States of america is still the largest economy in the world by a comfortable margin. Its funny everyone keeps talking china is catching us, freaking out about china. We had this conversation is Armed Service committee that very soon they will be passive. I looked up the number and time rounding a little bit, but year we had 19 trillion in gdp. They had 11. I dont know, if you have 19 to, pretty comfortable lead. We are still responsible for about 20 of Global Consumption which means we have more invested in global stability than anybody. So number one is economics, if you want to continue to grow we need access to markets. Would you rather have access to a market like, i dont know, can you or somalia . Theres got to be something there. We have interest in maintaining the severely stability will coo grow the economy so that we can sell stuff to them. Bottom line. So theres the economic argument. Then theres the healthcare argument. Basically the disease spreads like that. Good article by the way about how the fact that the cdc and health and Human Services were not really being run by anybody at the moment is a a problem, maybe part of the reason we had more people die from the flu this year than we had any point in recent memory. If you have instability in these other countries, then pick your favorite disease, the bird flu is going to cause one year and there was swine flu, and now its the swine flu. This is going to spread, ebola of course. Making sure that countries have stable Healthcare Systems protects us as well. Then theres the fact that instability leads to terrorist groups who would very much like to kill all of us. You can stop that instability is less likely that somebody is going to attempt to kill you either here or whether traveling abroad. So those are three very practical arguments why the u. S. Is invested in global stability. This is what were talking about is a pathway to global stability. In the last argument, depends on the audience whether or not i try this one out, is that america ought to stand for something