Confirmation hearings for the general james madison, who was nominated to succeed him, started in the senate today. I am pleased it to have secretary ash carter back at this table. Welcome. Sec. Carter thanks. Good to be here. Charlie we have done these conversations in office and out of office. I appreciate you coming by. From the time you have been secretary of defense, tell me what you set out to do and what you believe you have accomplished . What was your highest agenda . Sec. Carter well, in the here and now, it was to put us on a path with respect to the principal dangers that we face today, which are first and foremost, isil and put together the Campaign Plan that you now see unfolding towards the destruction of isil. Charlie and we will discuss that. Secretary carter second, a strategic approach to russia and possible russian aggression, iran, north korea, china. Those are our principle here and now problems and put together a strategic approach and get us on the path. The other thing is that if you are secretary of defense, your other jobs are to make sure that your successor and your successors successor had what i had, which is the finest fighting force the world has ever known. I have inherited that from decades behind us, and i need to pass that on. That is in people. It is in technology. And it is making sure that we are competitive and ahead of everyone else. Those are the two things i have tried to accomplish over the last two years from and youre youre right, a 35yearold in the department of defense. Charlie people look at the world today, 2017, and they use this term. There is a new world order. How has the structure changed . People look at it and say there are three huge powers. Russia, because of the Nuclear Weapons it has, certainly china because it is growing, and there is the United States. Is the world order changing . Who plays what role . Sec. Carter well, we, that is this United States, is by far in a way that is by far and away in far and away in terms of comprehensive military power, is the strongest. You mentioned two other important ones russia and china. There are others. India. Japan. Europe as a bloc. In addition to our military strength, the thing that sets the United States aside is, and i hear this all the time when i travel around the world. Foreign leaders say to me we really like working with your people. It is not just that they are awesomely capable. It is what they stand for as well. People our values and what we stand for and the way we conduct ourselves, those things. That is why the United States has not only Strongest Military in the world, but we have all the friends and allies. And most of our major antagonist have few or none. Charlie when you look at the world today and the nature of warfare, is there a dramatic increase in the possibility of cyber warfare, and the ability to defend against it . Sec. Carter sure. There is certainly a dramatically increased role of cyber in warfare. Im hesitant to say cyber warfare because it suggests you have a cyber attack response. I think an attack is an attack. And we do not it is not our doctrine and it is not our practice, to limit a response in response to an attack in the United States to the way we were attacked. If it comes in cyber, we may do cyber. We also may do something else. It is also true our military works on networks. It is one of the things that makes us the best. Our planes, our ships, our tanks, our people are all networked together. If i dont defend that that is job one for me, making sure that our wartime network is secure. I talked about next generation. The kids who come in our kids who have been on iphones their whole lives. They are not going to understand a style of operating or leadership that does not involve technology. So, simply to connect with the next generation, we have to stay ahead in information. We have a lot of Different Things we do. Yes, it is part of warfare, but i always caution people to say warfare is not cyber warfare. It is warfare. Cyber is a dimension. Charlie in the National Security area, what is the legacy of barack obama . Sec. Carter well, he has a number of them. I would say in so far as we are concerned, i have been grateful for his support and approval and his encouragement. As i put together with the chairman and joint chiefs of staff, general joe dunford, and presented to him over the last 14 or 15 months, stepbystep an accelerating campaign against isil, president obama has approved every step we have asked for and sometimes that is difficult in that environment. Charlie he did not want to be any less aggressive than you wanted to be . Sec. Carter well, i think, he told me early on, that he wanted to get rid of isil. And i took them at his word, and he kept his word. Charlie he gave you everything you needed in terms of sec. Carter boots on the ground, that expression. Aircraft, money requests from congress, authorities. Charlie everything you have requested, he has given to you . Sec. Carter he has granted every request that we have made. I am very grateful for that. We have continuously seen opportunities. You know, when you do a raid, you capture a guy. You learn something. That leads to another raid, another airstrike. Every time we reached another step, or be trained some more iraqi forces, for example, for what is now, what will be the taking of mosul. Right now, we are planning for that. We devised that 15 months ago. Charlie you and i talked about that. Sec. Carter we did. We needed to train the iraqi forces. We needed to position them there, and then support them for the destruction of unsold of isil in northern iraq. Every step, general dunford and i were saying to ourselves and talking to our commander, how can we make that go faster . How can we hasten that process . Every time we said we could do more, and i said we will do more every time we see an opportunity to do more. Every time we have asked for more, he has given it to us. I have been grateful for that, and that has allowed us to, both in iraq and syria, carry out the plan. I am encouraged. We are on the plan. It is necessary to destroy isil in iraq and syria. Because that is necessary to destroy both the fact and the idea that there could be an Islamic State based upon this ideology. It is necessary. It is not sufficient because we have to operate against them in cash against them against them elsewhere in the world. Where nests of isil arise. Our top priority is external operators. That is people who were plotting attacks on western countries. That we are killing those people as they are nesting up. Charlie that is ratcheting up and they lose territory in iraq and syria. Because that is the only means they have . Sec. Carter they are constantly trying to do more in that area. As they lose their territory, it is going to be harder for them to plan and coordinate complicated attacks, so that is good. And the narrative that fuels the that fuels the inspired attacker as opposed to the organized attacker organized attackers will have less of a base and a free territory to operate from. That is a good thing. But when the Islamic State is so obviously destroyed, it means that those who, you know, the person on the internet who has never been to iraq and syria but gets inspired to carry out a violent act, the expectation is that that inspiration will also go down. That will make us safer as well. So, they will relocate from mosul and raqqa. Those that we dont kill there. But we will kill the as many as we can. We will pursue them with iraqi and Syrian Forces elsewhere in the country. That will take some time. Charlie i want to talk about that. As the taking of mosul been a more difficult and challenging than taking of basel then a more difficult challenge they end has the taking of mosul been a more difficult challeng than the military strategists thought it would be . Sec. Carter no. It has gone the way we thought. We thought it would be difficult. Charlie they were dug in. Sec. Carter we were ready for anything, simply because as we go from place to place, taking stepbystep, the isil defenses, and over in syria, each of the battles in those cities had a somewhat different dynamic. Sometimes they fought harder and sometimes they did not fight as hard. We knew they would fight hard for mosul. We knew that mosuls defenses were a set of concentric shells. You saw us in early weeks punch through the first shell and you get to the next. They are now through that. They are on the innercity now. The tigris river. They are on the eastern side of the city, the igris river and then there is sort of a citadel. They are in between that second line and the citadel on the eastern side of the city. Then they will go to the tigris river, the left bank of the tigris river, and then cross over. And now the offensive. That has always been our plan. It is going for you much according to plan. Charlie when do you think mosul will sec. Carter i never this is a war. In war, you dont predict. Charlie plans change. At the point of first contact. Sec. Carter the plan is clear and our plans have not changed. We are pretty much on schedule we thought ryan our plan, but i rather overdeliver. That is what our commanders have consistently done. Let me put it this way. Im confident of the result. No doubt. Charlie it is going to take place in 2017 . Sec. Carter i believe so. Yes. Absolutely. Charlie and how about raqqa . Sec. Carter same thing. I do. That is in the plan. That is every reason to have that expectation. Again, i always want to say it is war, and the reality and the dynamics of war intervene. But we have the momentum. We have the plan. We have the forces. We are assembling the forces. And i am confident that it will occur. Charlie you think you will capture or kill albaghdadi . Sec. Carter eventually. We will. Eventually. Charlie do we know where he is . Do you think he is in raqqa . Sec. Carter let me put it to you this way if i knew exactly where he was, first of all, i would not tell you, and second of all, he would not have long. He moves around. I am just confident. I dont want to say any more than that. But i would not want to be a senior isil leader. Many of them have died already. The more we do, the more we learn about where they are. So, his days are numbered, and that is true of the rest of the leadership. Charlie baghdadis days are numbered . Sec. Carter absolutely. Charlie have the russians given you any help at all . Sec. Carter no. And thats a real source of disappointment only in the sense that they said they would do otherwise. Charlie they said they would come in part to take on isil . Sec. Carter they said they were going to do two things. One is to help end the syrian civil war, which is one of the sources of this whole thing, by nudging aside bashir alassad. Keeping the structure of the Syrian Government in some sense, intact. So the place doesnt completely disintegrate. But allowing it to be governed with a moderate opposition as well, and beginning to put back a country and a more decent life than that poor, tragicallystricken population has had the last few years. They did not do that. They doubled down on the civil war. Charlie they doubled down on their support of assad . Sec. Carter correct. And you see what the consequences are. Charlie what are the consequences of their doubling down in the support of assad in syria . Sec. Carter well, the continued slaughter of people and a continued drive towards extremism among those who oppose assad. That is not what they said they would do. They did something different. The other thing they said is they would fight isil and that is not what they are doing. They are mostly fighting the moderate opposition. So, it is very hard to associate ourselves, and certainly, we have not cooperated in that because it is not aligned with our interests. We do have a military to military channel to make sure we dont create incidents with one another. That is very professional. It works very well. But in a larger sense, because they have not done what they said they would do, we have not been able to associate ourselves with what they are doing. Charlie it has been argued by diplomats in the state department that they needed more leverage on the ground in order to have some diplomatic leverage diplomatic effort, and they simply did not have it. They put together that in terms of criticism of our military presence on the ground. It is said that secretary kerry wanted to do more cooperation with the russians in terms of airstrikes. What can you say . Sec. Carter well, these are two Different Things. Charlie right. Sec. Carter there are those, and you read it out in the press, who would have had the United States join the civil war in syria. We have not gone to war with the Syrian Regime as a military. Charlie why not . Why not . Sec. Carter because that is an undertaking, and this is a decision the president made consistently. That would be not to try to settle the civil war, but to try to overthrow the government of syria. That is a very big project, as we have discovered. Charlie and a risk that the United States was not going to take . Sec. Carter it is not a matter of risk. It is a matter of where our interests lie. Our interests are first and foremost in destroying isil. And that we have managed to do. Charlie that runs against the argument that as long as a sod as long as assad is there, he is a recruiting tool for isil. Sec. Carter well, that does not mean that we dont have to protect ourselves from isil, charlie, even though the civil war is raging in syria. It does mean that syria is going to be a continuing source of tumult in the region. The syrian civil war, but the solution that we have favored, and i think the right one, is a solution in which there is a political transition from the assad regime to a government that is more inclusive. Not a military conquest or let alone an occupation by the western countries of syria. That is the right approach to syria. That is the one we have taken. The right approach to isil is destruction. Military destruction. And we have taken that. Charlie you have just said this year, we will destroy isil. This year. No alternative that you thought was possible . Sec. Carter what we are doing against isil, absolutely not. We had to do everything we possibly could. We have added every ingredient we possibly could, every accelerant, as our phrase, to the campaign to destroy isil. That is about protecting our people, charlie. That is, at the end of the day, that is the most important responsibility of the department of defense, is to protect our people. And that necessitated the focus we have had on isil, and we are on the path to meeting our objective there. And that has been job one for me, and and job one for us. Charlie i have a question and i have asked it more than once. When you look at what happened to aleppo and the destruction of syria from that civil war, it is such a tragedy. When you look at it, is there any sense on your part that may be else we could do that we did not do . Or we did not do it in time . Sec. Carter i am this is a tragic situation that the United States did not have other ways to prevent in the ways that i think were attempted. I think the right approach is a political transition. We tried to foster that. That is what you saw secretary kerry trying to work with the russians. But they did not do that. They did not go along with that. That was the right approach to take. Neither the russians nor assad. I did not expect assad to do that, but the russians said they that, but the russians said they would try to promote that. That was a reasonable thing for them to do, therefore it was a reasonable thing for us to attempt to work with them on, but that is not what they did, charlie. And but in so far as the protection of our own people from terrorists in iraq and syria is concerned, which is my responsibility, we have done what i recommended and what i thought was necessary, and what i think is going to succeed in destroying isil. Charlie what is it do you think drives Vladimir Putin . What does he want . Sec. Carter i dont know. But here is what i observe. By the way, i have worked with the russians, charlie, as you probably know, for 30 years, including some eras very cooperatively. I was the person who ran the program to control all the Nuclear Weapons when the wall came down and the cold war ended. I negotiated with the russians to get them into kosovo, the opposite outcome from syria, to try to settle the kosovo civil war in the balkans in the 1990s. So, i have some experience with that. At that time, of course, our interests were not identical with russia, or with any country. What we should be doing always is look where our interests can be aligned with another power, work with them cooperatively. For the First Quarter century after the end of the cold war, there were many areas where that was possible. Those areas, particularly under putin, have narrowed. Charlie why is that . Sec. Carter progressively. I am not the person to ask that. But one way in which they have and, by the way, there still are some areas where we work productively with them. For example, nonproliferation involving iran. Charlie the Iranian Nuclear deal . Sec. Carter yes, exactly. One of the things that russia seems to do under putin is define an objective of thwarting, or frustrating the United States, and international community, are trying to, as an objective in itself. Charlie, it is very hard to build a strategic bridge to that motivation. Otherwise, it is part of military diplomacy to build bridges to common interests where you can and stand strong where you cant. In the russia relationship, we are both strong and balanced, but we have had to emphasize the strength part, both unilaterally and within nato in recent years. We have now a deterrent strategy for russian aggression in europe. For about a quarter century, we did not have to do that. Now, we do. We are putting money behind that. We putting forces behind that. We are putting operational plans behind that. Charlie and that includes the Baltic States . Sec. Carter it definitely includes the baltic and nato states. Charlie do you believe the russians have intent to do something about the Baltic States other than make those states feel like they are under their influence . Sec. Carter well, we need to be ready for anything that could happen. C