Allies have a disagreement they dont say were not going to help rescue your downed pilots. I think thats not an excuse for turkeys behavior in this instance but just an explanation. The broader point though, on allies and partnerships i think we have to wrestle with is were at a junction because of where we are in our own budget and because the International Order is fraying so bodily where we need our allies our treaty allies in asia and in europe but also our partners who are parts of special relationships who may not be formal allies but clearly are partnered with us in various efforts in the middle east, like israel, like the kingdom of saudi arabia, united arab emirates, et cetera. In most cases however, our allies are spending less and less and less on defense themselves. And so they have less and less capability for us to draw on and thats a sort of paradox. I think one its a little bit beyond the work of our panel, but i do think one of the things we need to think about more is actually being much more forthright with our allies about where we want them to spend their money on defense. And developing capabilities that will complement, supplement ours, replace areas where we may have less capability so theres a Better Division of labor between us and our allies. I think thats true in both europe and in east asia as we see defense spending declining in most of those countries. We need to do that so we dont have, you know them wasting money and not being able to be there when we need them. Senator odonnell. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here. When you look at syria and you look at isis, what would be your recommendation as to the next step for the coalition to take to move isis out of syria . Were making progress in iraq. Do you wait in syria till iraq is done . Or do you begin to take action right now to move them out, and does that action also include assad . This is again something that the panel, senator donnelley did not look at. I understand. But this is also about global strategy and National Security. I just want to make it clear that this is my personal opinion. And thats all im asking. It doesnt reflect the other members of the panel. We have your presence here. I want to take advantage of it. My own view is we should have been doing much more much earlier. Again, the president has said long ago assad must go. I agree with that. I dont think theres any way this problem can be resolved as long as assad is there. What do we do now moving forward . The problem in syria is were relying almost totally on air power. We have not very good intelligence because we have no presence on the ground. And we have to find some kind of surrogate as the fesh merga have been to some degree in iraq and unfortunately at some points shia militias in iraq. We have to find a surrogate on the ground in syria with whom we can work, and that i think goes to the issue of arming of the moderate Syrian Opposition oand getting them to a position where they can actually do something. We would have been much better off had we been doing this going back to 2011 rather than having to face this problem now. Bad news never gets better in my experience. Miss fluornoy. I would agree that i wish we would have begun arming of the moderate opposition when they were far stronger and in greater numbers a while back. But we are where we are and i think building up a credible surrogate force is key. I think the air campaign could be used in more of a robust manner to put more pressure on isil and in some areas on the jooem. The key is eventually you have to put pressure on the assad regime if you expect them to come to the table. If we were to do that and bring it to a culmination point right now, unfortunately the main benefactor in syria would be isil because theyre the Strongest Force on the ground. So weve got to focus on building up more alternatives to isil and more moderate surrogates before we get to that point. Let me ask you another question thats more about National SecurityStrategy Global strategy. And that is vladimir putin. What do you think his end game is . You can go one after the other. You know, what his where his plan ends here. I dont think that president putin is solely interested in the donbass in ukraine. I think he has a broader agenda. I think his agenda is first to destabilize ukraine to the point that he can impose regime change in kiev and dominate ukraine and prevent it from associating itself with the European Union in the direction of the west. I think he fundamentally rejects the postcold war Security Order in europe. And i think its taken a while for a lot of our friends in europe to recognize this and i think some of them are still in a bit of denial about it. They still seem to hope that theres some way to negotiate, you know, a limit with him on ukraine. But i think this is just the beginning. I think after ukraine hes going to be pursuing this in moldova. And i think were likely to see efforts to create problems and drive wedges between the United States and its allies and particularly it baltic allies. Would you agree that if nato doesnt live up to its obligations in latvia that would be the end of nato . Absolutely. Miss fluornoy . I dont disagree with anything ambassador adelman said. But my sense is that putin may not have a clear strategic end game. Hes a very tactical thinker. And hes sitting on top of a former great power that is unquestionably in decline. Demographically, economically, plagued by corruption, poor governance. But that doesnt make it any less dangerous. Because i think he will lash out along the way trying to reestablish his sphere of influence do you think he will take advantage wherever he sees a weakness . I do. And i think thats why its so important that we follow through on the reassurance initiatives for nato on our posture, bolstering our posture, underwriting article 5. And my own belief is we should be doing more to help the ukrainians defend themselves. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator sullivan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And again, i want to thank the panelists. I appreciate your Great Service to our country and the joint statement. Its very helpful when we get those kind of joint statements. You know, weve been discussing a lot of the challenges certainly that we have as a country in terms of National Security. We also have a lot of strengths. To me the ultimate strength that we have is men and women in uniform who continue to volunteer, raise their right hand, post9 11 so, they know what the risks are to serve our country. Ive had the great honor, i get to spend a lot of time with our troops. Im sure that was a great part of both of your jobs. And just in the last two weekends i was at the National Training center a couple weekends ago with thousands of Young Alaskan soldiers, training out there. And this past weekend i was with a Smaller Group of anglico marines reserveists. And this time with the troops for me raises a very interesting question id like the two of you to maybe comment on. What we hear from our civilian leaders a lot, president included, is we consistently hear were a warweary nation. Theres a subtle element to that i think that it kind of is used as an excuse in some ways that were not going to be taking any kind of action because were weary. But when you spend time with the troops, and theyve sacrificed a lot in the last 12 years, we all know that but one of the concerns that they raise, at least with me, and these are just anecdotal but im throwing it out there, is they want to deploy. They joined the military to serve their country. They dont want to be sitting around. So i want you to help us think through this conventional wisdom that somehow were a warweary nation, we cant take on global commitments, when the truth is that less than 1 of americans have actually been doing the fighting. And the ones that im associated with certainly seem to be ready not necessarily to fight but certainly be ready to deploy. How can we think through that . I think this issue that were weary has become conventional wisdom in such a way that nobody seems to challenge it. And when you talk to the people who are actually really at the pointy tip of the spear, god love them they seem to be ready to go. First of all, senator, its a great question. And i would agree is that our men and women in uniform are one of the greatest strengths we have as a nation. Theyre remark ableable. I think that when the American People, when its explained to the American People what the nature of a threat is why we have to meet it what it means for the nation, what are the risks of not going after it as the president did recently with regard to isil, i think the American People will rally and shed whatever wearyiness they have and support a cause when its well articulated and explained and the sacrifice or the risk seems commensurate with the importance of the interests. So i dont think we are generally war weary. I think, yes, weve spent had a lost blood and treasure that weve spent over the last 15 years. But i think when you know and that is something that weighs heavily on everyone as it should. But i think again when theres the interests are clear, the objectives are clear, the mission is clear and its well explained and people are mobilized i think they are very willing to follow that strong instinct you described with the troops of we have a mission and we need to get it done. So i think that is the challenge for everyone whos in a leadership public leadership position, to be making that case when its necessary. Ambassador . General marshall i think once said that he thought it was difficult if not impossible for the United States to fight a war for more than four years. I think what that reflects is americans tend to want to see they tend to want to see a decisive outcome to a conflict. And i think inconclusive wars and long difficult fights sometimes can be a bit exhausting to the public. Particularly if as my colleague suggested theyre not being explained properly to the American Public. I agree with everything you said, senator sullivan, about the incredible competitive advantage we have with our people. It was always incredibly inspiring to go to either iraq or afghanistan and see our young folks out there. Theyre truly incredible and doing incredible things. And i would frequently when i talk to folks particularly enlisted, and say do you think people out here the people back home know what youre doing out here . And the answer i used to get was no, they think all we do is step on ieds out here and they have no clue what were doing. I do think its important to explain exactly what the stakes are as my colleague you know just said. And i would also note one other thing. Americans are warweary until theyre not. If you look at the poll data about how the public felt after the videotapes of the beheadings this summer came out, it was a very different set of numbers than what youd seen previously because americans, you know, feel these things very deeply and see them as a sign of disrespect to the nation, which they dont appreciate. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator king. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just to put into perspective the numbers we were talking about at the beginning looking back on the history, if we had the gates budget of 2012, the Defense Budget this year would be somewhere around 612 billion 3. 4 of gdp. Instead at the sequester level were at 492, 2. 8 of gdp which is just about the lowest level of gdp since world war ii. Its also this is the lowest level of federal spending, lowest percentage of federal spending for defense since world war ii. 4 , which is a kind of postworld war ii average. Would be 700 billion almost 100 billion more. We are definitely at a very low point in terms of funding of defense. At a time of escalating challenge on multiple fronts. I just putting in a percentage of gdp is a sort of good way to look at it because it really puts it in historical perspective. A question for both of you. Ambassador you mentioned about arming the ukrainians. That seems to be a developing consensus here in washington that thats something we ought to do. And i understand that. I understand the precedent of the sudetenland and if there had been force in 1939 we might have avoided the catastrophe of world war 237 on the other hand i also understand the precedent of the guns of august and stumbling into a catastrophic world war. And were playing chess with a russian here. If you play chess with a russian, youd better think two and three moves ahead. And my concern is a, russia has a historic paranoia about encroachment from the west. And b, putin probably wouldnt mind a manageable little war in ukraine right now to take the peoples minds off the domestic problems. Margaret thatchers Approval Rating the day before the falklands war was 23 . Two weeks later it was 70 . I suspect putin may not know those numbers but he knows the phenomenon. Persuade me that the escalation by arming the ukrainians would not lead to a matching escalation and in fact an increase. We dont live in a static world. We cant assume that we arm the ukrainians, putin says oh this is tough im going home. Hes not responsive to bodies in bags or tightening sanctions. Give me your thoughts. Well, a couple of things. And i know my colleague will want to speak to this because she, with some other colleagues has just been a signatory to a really good paper on this subject, the brookings institution, Atlantic Council and the Chicago Council on world affairs, i guess, or Foreign Affairs has put out. I think your question is a good one, senator king, and it has to be answered, i would say at multiple levels. First, it is true that it is in some sense president putin has what we used to call in the cold war escalation dominance in ukraine. Hes the stakes are higher for him. The region is closer. He has more force. Hes got more chips. Exactly. Having said that hes also signatory, his country is signatory to a number of agreements that make it clear that countries have a right to belong to whatever alliance or multilateral organizations like the eu that they would like to associate with. You seriously care putin cares about agreements he signs . No, but we should. We should care about it. The point is he doesnt have a legitimate way to protest that we are helping a legitimate government defend itself against his aggression. I think we have to think about it in terms of the moral obligation to do that. When people want to defend themselves, we have an obligation i think to try and help them if we can. I think secondly we need to raise the costs for him of what hes doing. And he perhaps is a little more sensitive to some of these things than you were suggesting. The body bags coming home, the protesting russian mothers. The capital flight. The amount of money thats been expended defending the ruble. These are real costs. And theyre costs that are hitting his base of support, which is the oligarchs. Theyre suffering from this. So he has to respond to this in some way. But i think its also important to remember that while there are potentially costs to action there are very serious costs to inaction here. There are risks either way. And the cost to inaction could be i suggest the catastrophic miscalculation. We need to make him understand that if we are willing to provide this kind of assistance to a country with whom we have no treaty legal obligation that he ought to think twice then about doing something with a nato member state like latvia as mr. Donnelley asked me about earlier with whom we do have a legal treaty obligation. Its the importance of underscoring our commitment to defend our nato allies in europe that really is at stake here i think. And if we dont do this the risk that he will miscalculate in a place like latvia or estonia i think will go up dramatically. And i think that is something in terms of regret that we will feel very seriously later on. My father used to say there lies the body of jonathan gray, who died defending his right of way. But in any case i would just add that i think one of the things weve learned since the collapse of the ceasefire is that putin is going to continue to escalate because he wants to keep destabilizing ukraine and eventually cause the regime to change. Hes on an escalatory path anyway. The question is whether we can provide ukraine, ukrainians with the weapons they need to impose a level of cost on the separatists and their russian backers that might make him think twice. And particularly battery radars that can locate where the artillery and rocket fires coming from. Thats whats responsible for 70 of the casualties in ukraine. And antitank systems that could stop armored or heavy Armored Vehicles from taking further territory. So i think hes dish think hes demonstrated, hes on an escalatory path. The question is whether theres anything that we can do to help ukraine impose costs to make him stop and actually come to the negotiation seriously. I think its worth seeing what happens on wednesday in minsk and seeing if by some miracle an agreement is forged. But barring that i think its very important that we help the ukrainians defend themselves and enforce greater costs on the separatists and the russians for their aggression. Thank you. Very helpful. Senator ayotte. I want to thank both of you for being here. And secretary flournoy i wanted to ask you about afghanistan. I know that last june you were quoted in the New York Times about the administrations timeline for withdrawal from afghanistan. And one of the things you said was if it was a timeline with a strong statement that said hey, this is our plan but no plan survives contact with reality. And of course were going to adjust based on conditions on the ground then no problem in reference to their withdrawal plan. Are the afghans on the path we planned for . Are they not . Is the insurgency as we expected or is it worse . All the things have to be factored in. Have what im hearing out of the white house is this is hell or high water this is what were going to do. Im hoping you have a different sense of this now and i wanted to get your thoughts on afghanistan because many of us i think who have had the opportunity to visit afghanistan and then this weekend we h