Welcome to inside story. Im ray suarez. One of the most widely held opinions among the candidates in the large republican field vying for the republican nomination is simple, that president obama has presided over an era of decline in u. S. Military. Planes and ships, as simple numerical evidence, power and preeminence, at the recent debates i watched the candidates broadly agree and insisting insg theyre the once to less well equipped, is this kind of thing easy to allege but difficult to quantify, is the United States a giant in decline . As senator marco rubio would have it, on purpose because president obamas actual aim is to make the country weaker, take away its head and shoulders above the rest military status . Hey, its a campaign. The idea that youre the guy to fix things is not unusual, its the diagnose what i find unusual, of weakness of disarray. I would restore the military. The sequester needs to be reversed. I would have a strategy to destroy i. S. I. S. And i would immediately create a strategy of containment in iran and make it clear that were not going to allow for iran to do what its doing, moving towards a nuclear weapon. We need overwhelming air power, we need to arm the kurds our boots on the ground and if arms are necessary then we should deploy them. But it should not be politicians, it should be military expert judgment carrying out the judgment set out by the commander in chief. Around the world, americas judgment is in decline. Iran captures our soldiers and parades us around the world on video. Rudy de leon and mark cancion. Rudy de leon do our adversaries not fear us . Well, were in the middle of an election season and its entirely appropriate that military is part of the debate. But the difficulties brought in the face of the American Military are formidable. Our reconnaissance networks and again the exaiivelts of our pilots and other military personnel engaged the americans are the most form tabl military in the world, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs said that ver last week. 15 years of war, still living in a turbulent middle east, dealing with a russia that is a wild car card, a north korea that continues to agitate asia and the pacific with its Nuclear Program and then china which is pushing back into areas of the south china sea. So its a turbulent world but i think america is still leading and still the preeminent military of the world. Mark cancion, hold on a minute thats not true or that guy has a point. Well, you have to recognize that this is a primary season and of course the whet recognize rick rhetoric is often very exaggerated. There is a gap between the strategy that has evolved the last couple of years and the resourcing thats available for military, particularly as we look out into the future. As rudy notes, weve had changes. Russia has become aggressive, china, and i. S. I. S. Has had battlefield successes that we didnt expect. If we are going to continue to have a rebalancing to the pacific to reassure our allies there, and if we are going to reassure the Eastern European nations that we will defend them, thats going to take more spending and more military force than the Obama Administration had planned on. Or theres money for. I mean when you say that theres a gap, between what we want the military to do, what we expect it to be ready to do, and what its able to do right now, isnt that something where the responsibility, the burden, is widely spread . Absolutely. I think both parties bear responsibility for this. The republicans of course push the budget control act in 2011 that took a lot of money out of the defense. Yes, the president did sign it but it was driven by the republicans and kept in force by the republicans. On the other hand the president has tied defense spending with domestic spending. He is holding hostage with his defense spending, if he could get a deal to just increase defense he could have done that. Rudy de leon, you are insisting on the preeminence of the American Military. Mark came back with this idea that the mission right now exceeds the ability. Are both things true . Well, to a certain extent. The question, go to a lot of engagement both of us have worked in the pentagon, both of us are engaged in the National Security debate that goes on whether its an Election Year or not. Say the way the discussion is currently framed in washington, away from the campaign trail but still, in terms of looking at future military capabilities, one side says we are still the largest, most modern, Strongest Military in the world. And the other says, there arent enough forces and capabilities to deal with all of the threats in the world. Middle east, russia, south china sea, north korean peninsula. So both of those have merits. Its a question of where the United States should deploy and use its military resources, are we actively engaged in military operation he ors or are we deteg pad things from happening . As mark noted it would be great in our European Partners could be a little bit more generous in terms of resourcing their security. In ways that actually the rebalance of the pacific has been quiek successful at completely reengaging the primacy of the u. S. Security relationship in asia pacific, vietnam, the philippines, japan, very much engaged in the National Security framework in asia pacific since the Obama Initiative was announced in australia in 2011. But to your core question, were still the debate is still divided between those who say we are the Largest Military in the world versus these threats out there that American Leadership is critical an were going to have to generate the resources and capability to deal with all of those threats. When we hear candidates talking about the number of ships, the number of planes, the number of people in uniform, and use this as a metric for relatively res relative decline, werent those numbers going to be getting smaller all the time . Its headed down to notionally, 450,000, now after every war the army gets smaller so thats not surprising. On the other hand, on 9 11 the army was at 482,000 and even at that level it was stressed because of demands made on it for bosnia, kosovo, all the other global commitments the United States had made. We are talking about taking the army down stanley from what it was on 9 11. The world doesnt look a whole lot more peaceful than it was on 9 11. So yes, it is true that the force has come down. But thats to be expected. But the level looks lower than the current strategy really requires. The numbers game is interesting. Because i guess, and, you know, id plead that from the beginning that im not a military analyst or a military expert. But what we expect troops to do has some bearing on how many there have to be, right . Absolutely. But as i said because we didnt invade bosnia or fight there. We were involved. And thats very differently from occupying a country as weve done with several countries. Thats true. But you still had to send troops over there. And they had to be ready to fight. They were separated from their families, they had a rotation. The demands on the army were pretty substantial on 9 11. And we are now looking to make the army a lot smaller, they are going to be now in at least one shooting war. I want to hear from you when we come back on just that question. Big enough, and big enough to do what. A giant in decline. Stay with us. Its inside story. Mdma helps with the therapeutic connection. Exclusive access to the. Our fears are dancing between us. Techknows team of experts show you how the miracles of science. This is what innovation looks like. Can affect and surprise us. I feel like were making an impact. Awesome. Techknow, where Technology Meets humanity. Only on al jazeera america. Youre watching inside story. Im ray suarez. Were trying to get a better handle on american abilities when it comes to defense. National security, the projection of power, the fulfillment of explicit and implicit national responsibilities. Rudy de leon and mark cancion are still with me. When we hear because of russian aggression in eastern europe, the United States must be more present. What does that take . Were not going to retake the crimea. We are not going to help expel russia from the donbas. How many people do we have to show if were channeling the george h. W. Bush that we care . We communicate that we support our allies in the region. Very early after the russian move into the crimea we had National Guard units from the United States that wept and engaged in military training and military exercises with poland, which is now the Eastern Front of nato, a critical partner and a country that has really stepped up to be active in its own security. So in some cases its showing up, its engaging in exercises, it is working with our allies and i think particularly in terms of the russian activities, and their own sort of reckless aggression, it is staying in touch with our nato allies. Our allies to the east, poland in particular, have really stepped up to meeting these responsibilities. Some of our traditional allies that mark was referencing that are only spending 1 of their resources on defense and personnel, are taking for granted that the United States will always lead. And we will. Because were not going to step back. I think the challenge is to be able to have enough forces and match the forces and those resources with what the threats are that are critical for the American People to see their armed forces deploy and serve overseas. So in a very real sense Vladimir Putin makes the american taxpayers spend money. I think thats true. So the question is do we have to be fully ready when he does that or respond with contingent forces . Say okay, you did that thing. So now well put reserves into action, well mobilize, things that normally sit in tampa or Central Texas or michigan. How come we have to do the most expensive thing instead of the least expensive thing if what were doing is saying, were still here and we still matter . I think were doing the medium expensive thing. The issue is the Baltic States. The Baltic States are part of nato. The United States has treaty obligations to defend them. Whether it was wise to extend those treaty obligations so far east, thats 15 years in the past. And nobody ever leaves nato . And nobody ever leave necessitating. The obligation to defend them, russia is right there and these countries are very vulnerable. Particularly lath via aand estonia. We are going to build up cs they will train with the baltics and theyll go home and well put equipment into warehouses so that if we ever had to get there we could fly the people in, the equipment would already be there. That makes aa statement to the russians about u. S. Commitment. Because the problem is if the russians could get to riga in three days which is what the estimates are, csis did a study on this, so did rand, and they essentially kick us out of the baltics, fighting our way back in is much, much more costly. Its much better to defend forward. In conversations that go on around this is there somebody in the room that is saying, come on they are not only in nato, they ar have europeans in their pocket. The idea that russia is in riga is off the charts, not going to happen. Its as unlikely the russians being in the crimea. Isnt it different than russians being in the eu . Isnt that right rudy de leon . Historically, the american presence has been to deter conflict, by prepositioning our forces in nato and in europe really from the time of 1948 through end of the cold war. But were still there in europe in significant numbers. During the cold war we had 700,000 troops in europe, now its closer to 200,000. But also, i think one of the big initiatives that congress has directed and that secretary ash carter is very much implementing is as we look at our ground forces, our army, were looking at the active duty component but also were making sure that the National Guard units that were so critical in supporting the active duty in iraq and in afghanistan, are capable and ready to be deployed as a Strategic Operational reserve. This is very important that the army is using all of the tools in its bench. The core security concept i think for the americans is always to deper conflict, to deter conflict to prevent it from occurring. Not to where we are looking across the line. Our forces today, that is one of our priorities. At the same time, we are dealing with a russia that is economically now dealing with 30 a barrel per oil that doesnt have a lot of financial resources. So as we did during the cold war, america can always play the long, long game. The combination of economic capabilities, plus our superb soldiers, marines am air men, coast guard, navy, air force, to play the long game. But we always want to make sure that our forces are ready, that we have the capabilities to move and deter conflict and we dont move in a time of crisis. Stay with us, its the inside story. Welcome back to inside story. Im ray suarez. A giant in decline . Were asking our guests about the steady diagnosis from the Republican Campaign field that the answer to the question, how much money should we spend on the military, is simply more . Rudy de leon and mark cancion are still with me. Mark sometimes there is a circularring argument thats used in this conversation, that america has 100 base around the world. They say what do we need 100 bases around the world for . The answer is because we have responsibilities in those areas, and we are there, and we are there because we have responsibilities in those areas. Why dont the filipino filipinos worry about the south china sea, the senegalese worry about west africa, should the americans be everywhere all the time . Im not sure we are everywhere all the time. Theres no question, filipinos carey filipinoscare about the south c. They dont have the means to go up against the chinese which is a rising military power. The United States gets a lot of benefits out of being globally deployed. And ensuring that the International System based on rules is followed. I understand that. But do we, since we have a tradition of civilian oversight, ever really have a thorough conversation about the costs of those responsibilities and weigh them against the benefits of those responsibilities that youve just been talking about . Well, i think we do. I mean if you look at the primaries that are going on, sanders clearly would pull back on those responsibilities. And rand paul similarly would have done so. For very Different Reasons but they would have ended up in the same place. So those have been debated. The problem is thats not where most of the American People are. It probably tells you something that rand paul is out of the race and Bernie Sanders in some cases is leading the democratic debate. We need to have a debate about security and about the economy, particularly here in washington. For the last eight years while our men and women in uniform have been working very hard overseas and they never let us down, washington hasnt been able to produce a budget. The core of our military strength our economic strength. And budget weve been dealing with sequestration, with continuing resolutions, sort of crises over the debt. We really need to get our economic house in order because the strongest component of our National Security historically from the end of world war ii to today has been the strength of our national economy. The sequester has meant that military spending has grown more slowly than it probably would have otherwise. Why isnt that a good thing for everybody the services to learn how to economize . It isnt doing budget reductions smartly. Better is to figure out what your top line is going to be and then figure out as it might help you close some of those 100 bases, to figure out what is the best way to deal with the resources that you have. To divide between personnel, between modernization, between military operations. But weve been in this unusual terperiod of continuing budget appropriations where the regular order is not in effect, and so it does not allow you or force you to make tradeoffs. You want to make sure your soldiers are trained, equipped, ready to go. At the same time, if you have got 100 bases and you only need 70 you want to be able to make that calculation. There is a mandarinite, if you will, to talk about whats going on how the money gets spent, how we rationalize this situation. The people have a different concept, if theres a gap a word you used at the beginning of the program many mark cancion, that would be a good place to close, where people could come along with defense officials and understand what were going to spend for it. Maybe im jeffersonian about this, but the people said they would want the worst to end and elected officials to do that. I think theyre getting a little bit nervous whats happening around the world and are inclined to put more money back into defense. It is true there is a conversation that occurs among the washington mandarins but i think its enough of that getting into the populace that theyre able to choose wisely. Could we do with a better debate over defense . What we need to do is talk about americas role in the world. Both parties talk about leadership. The challenge is how do we do that . Through our diplomats, through our uniform military personnel . Through the media, where we have these debates regularly . We really do need to look at what do we want that role to be, and then decide how were willing to match resources to that role. I want to thank my guests, rudy de leon is senior fellow and mark cancion advisor. With the republican primary in South Carolina