>> GOOD LORD. NBC’S CAROL LEE, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
MUCH. >> THANKS.
>> THANKS. >> WILLIE?
>> WILLIE? >>> NEW YORK FORMER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA,
ASH CARTER, THE AUTHOR OF THE
NEW BOOK "INSIDE THE FIVE SIDED
BOX," LESSONS FROM A LIFETIME OF
LEADERSHIP IN THE PENTAGON.
MR. SECRETARY, GOOD MORNING.
GOOD TO SEE YOU.
>> GOOD TO BE HERE.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. >> WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS APPROACH
TO NORTH KOREA.
>> YES.
>> YES. >> YESTERDAY, TALKING ABOUT A
BEAUTIFUL LETTER HE RECEIVED
FROM KIM JONG-UN.
WHAT DO YOU SUSPECT IS UP HERE?
WHY IS PRESIDENT TRUMP TREATING
THE DICTATOR, THE MURDEROUS
DICTATOR OF NORTH KOREA WITH
SUCH FLATTERY?
SUCH FLATTERY? >> WELL, THE ONLY POSSIBLE
EXPLANATION I CAN OFFER IS HE’S
HOPING THAT WE’LL GET PROGRESS
ON DENUCLEARIZATION OF THE
KOREAN PENINSULA.
KOREAN PENINSULA. REMEMBER, IT WAS SOMETHING THEY
PROMISED -- I’VE BEEN AROUND
THIS LONG -- PRESIDENT GEORGE
BUSH IN 1992.
THIS ISN’T A NEW PROMISE.
WHAT WE NEED IS A PLAN THAT GOES
BEHIND THE PROMISE.
WHAT WE HAVEN’T GOTTEN YET IS A
PLAN THAT IS ACTUALLY UNDER WAY
TO GET RID OF THEIR NUCLEAR
WEAPONS.
WEAPONS. SO THAT’S HIS -- OUR PRESIDENT’S
STYLE OF DLOEMIPLOMACY.
RIGHT NOW, EVERYBODY IS HAPPY
EXCEPT US.
EXCEPT US. THE NORTH KOREANS ARE HAPPY
BECAUSE WE’RE KIND OF OFF THEIR
BACK.
BACK. CHINA IS KIND OF HAPPY BECAUSE
THEY’RE NOT THREATENING WAR.
SOUTH KOREA, WHICH HAPPENS TO
HAVE AN ADMINISTRATION RIGHT NOW
WHICH IS SORT OF A PIECE TYPE OF
ADMINISTRATION, IT IS CONVENIENT
FOR THEM.
FOR THEM. WE DON’T HAVE DENUCLEARIZATION
YET.
YET. >> KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT
NORTH KOREA AND THIS REGIME,
DOES THIS WORK?
WE HAVEN’T SEEN EVIDENCE THAT
NORTH KOREA IS SLOWING DOWN ITS
APPROACH TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
>> I’VE BEEN PART OF PREVIOUS
EFFORTS.
EFFORTS. ’94, ’99.
’94, ’99. I’VE BEEN TO THIS MOVIE.
2006/2007 WHEN CONDOLEEZZA RICE
AND COLIN POWELL GAVE IT A TRY.
WE DIDN’T GIVE IT A TRY DURING
THE TIME I WAS SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE BECAUSE I DIDN’T SEE ANY
WAY TO MAKE IT WORK OUT, AND THE
PRESIDENT DIDN’T EITHER.
WE’VE TRIED IT IN THE PAST AND
MADE SOME LITTLE BIT OF
PROGRESS.
PROGRESS. SO I’M FOR TALKING TO THEM AND
PRESSING THEM ON THIS ISSUE AND
USING THE LEVERAGE WE HAVE AND
HAMMERING CHINA TO GET IN THE
GAME.
GAME. STICKING WITH JAPAN, WHICH IS A
GOOD ALLY AND FRIEND AND IS
THREATENED.
THREATENED. SO FAR, THE ACTION HASN’T
FOLLOWED THE -- WHAT IS REALLY
THE DRAMA OF THE TWO LEADERS
MEETING.
MEETING. REMEMBER, PRESIDENT BUSH 1 AND
ALL THE PRESIDENTS AFTER HIM
WOULD NOT MEET WITH THE LEADERS
IN NORTH KOREA UNLESS THEY HAD A
DEAL TO SIGN.
THEIR POSITION WAS, I’M NOT
GOING TO GIVE THEM THE GIFT OF A
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES UNTIL AND
UNLESS I HAVE A DEAL.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TAKEN, OF
COURSE, THE OPPOSITE APPROACH.
I GUESS THE UNDERLYING QUESTION
TO ALL OF THIS, MR. SECRETARY,
IS WHY WOULD NORTH KOREA GIVE UP
ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM?
IT DOESN’T HAVE MUCH ELSE ON THE
WORLD.
WORLD. IT HAS NO LEVERAGE IN ANY OTHER
AREA, PARTICULARLY ECONOMIC
LEVERAGE.
LEVERAGE. WHY WOULD THEY GIVE UP THEIR
WEAPONS?
WEAPONS? >> WELL, BACK IN THE EARLIER
TIMES WHEN WE WERE TALKING TO
THEM, THEY DIDN’T HAVE THEM YET.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. >> NOW, THEY’VE HAD THE TASTE.
IN 2006, WHEN THE, AS I SAID,
THE BUSH 2 ADMINISTRATION WAS
TALKING TO HIM, IS WHEN THEY
EXPLODED THEIR FIRST BOMB.
THAT’S KIND OF WHEN THEY CROSSED
THE THRESHOLD.
THE THRESHOLD. NOW, IT IS GOING TO BE HARD TO
GET AWAY.
GET AWAY. WE HAD SOME SUCCESS.
REMEMBER UKRAINE, BELARUS,
KAZAKHSTAN?
KAZAKHSTAN? THOSE ARE THREE COUNTRIES THAT
DID GIVE UP NUCLEAR WEAPONS WHEN
I RAN IT.
I RAN IT. IT IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT IS TOUGH.
IT’LL TAKE A HUGE AMOUNT OF
PRESSURE, CARROTS AND STICKS
MUCH LARGER THAN WE’VE OFFERED
BEFORE TO GET THEM TO MAKE A
MOVE THAT BIG.
>> WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF OUR
RELATIONSHIP TODAY WITH CHINA,
GIVEN THE FACT WE WITHDREW FROM
TPP.
TPP. THE CHINESE APPARENTLY THINK
THEY OWN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA,
THE SOUTH PACIFIC, AND WE HAVE A
TARIFF WAR ONGOING, SEEMINGLY
ESCALATING WITH EACH PASSING
DAY.
DAY. WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THAT
SITUATION?
SITUATION? >> IT -- WE HAVE -- IT IS NOT A
COLD WAR, BUT IT IS A SUSTAINED
COMPETITION WITH WHAT IS, AFTER
ALL, A COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP.
LAST TIME WE HAD A SUSTAINED
COMPETITION WITH A COMMUNIST
DICTATORSHIP WAS THE SOVIET
UNION, BUT WE DIDN’T TRADE WITH
THEM.
THEM. WE NEED A WHOLE NEW PLAY JB BOOK
THIS.
THIS. THE HUAWEI THING, WHETHER
STUDENTS SHOULD -- CHINESE
STUDENTS SHOULD GO BACK TO CHINA
OR NOT, THE TRADE TALKS, WE NEED
A NEW PLAYBOOK, OF WHICH TARIFFS
IS ONE PART.
I THINK ONLY ONE PART.
I’VE WATCHED THE CHINESE NOW.
I’VE BEEN DEALING WITH THEM AND
THEIR MILITARY LEADERS SINCE THE
1990s.
1990s. IT’S NOW XI JINPING.
OVER THAT TIME, MIKE, THE
TENDENCY OF CHINESE TO BE SORT
OF OVER WEANING, LOOKING TO
DOMINATE ASIA, HAS TAKEN OVER
THEIR EARLIER VIEW, WHICH IS,
HEY, THIS SYSTEM, SPASHLINTERNAT
SYSTEM WORKS WELL FOR US.
WE GET TO BE WHO WE ARE, RUN OUR
COUNTRY OUR WAY, AND TRADE WITH
EVERYBODY AND DEVELOP OUR
COUNTRY.
COUNTRY. WE ALL HOPE THIS VIEW WOULD
PREVAIL, BUT IT DIDN’T.
>> WHY DIDN’T IT?
>> MAYBE IT WAS FADED THAT WAY.
I COULD ALWAYS TELL WHEN I WAS
TALKING TO CHINESE MILITARY THAT
THEY WERE THINKING THIS WAY, BUT
THEY WEREN’T ALLOWED TO SAY
THINGS THAT WAY.
IT ALWAYS EXISTED, AND IT GREW.
I DO BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO
PROTECT OURSELVES.
PROTECT OURSELVES. BY THAT, I MEAN, WHEN OUR -- THE
CHINESE CAN BRING TO BEAR ON AN
AMERICAN COMPANY OR AN AMERICAN
ALLY THAT COMBINATION OF
MILITARY, ECONOMIC, AND
POLITICAL POWER THAT ONLY A
COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP CAN
BRING.
BRING. THAT CREATES AN UNLEVEL FIELD.
I THINK COMPANIES EXPECT OUR
GOVERNMENT NOT TO BE NECESSARILY
CONFRONTATIONAL BUT TO BE
PROTECTIVE OF THEM.
SO I THINK THE THINGS WE’RE
DOING, TO PUSH BACK ON THE
CHINESE, ARE NECESSARY.
I THINK THAT’S TRUE MILITARILY,
ALSO, BUT WE’RE DOING MUCH MORE
IN THE MILITARY AREA.
WE STARTED THAT SOMETIME AGO,
DEPLOYING MORE FORCES THERE.
>> YEAH.
>> YEAH. >> SO FORTH.
SOUTH CHINA SEA, WE NEED TO PUSH
BACK ALSO.
BACK ALSO. >> JOE?
>> JOE? >> YEAH, MR. SECRETARY, I WANT
TO TALK ABOUT YOUR BOOK, "INSIDE
THE FIVE-SIDED BOX."
YOU CALL IT -- YOUR PUBLISHER
CALLS IT, IN PART, A USER’S
GUIDE TO THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL
COMPLEX.
COMPLEX. OF COURSE, THAT PHRASE COMING
FROM DWIGHT EISENHOWER’S WARNING
IN HIS FAREWELL SPEECH TO
AMERICA IN JANUARY OF 1961.
YOU SEE OFTEN CONGRESS AND THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
SUPPORTING WEAPONS SYSTEMS THAT
THE PENTAGON DOESN’T EVEN ASK
FOR, THAT THE PENTAGON DOESN’T
EVEN WANT, BUT THE MILITARY
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX DOES WANT.
I SERVED ON AN ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE WHERE THERE IS VOTES,
THEN ANOTHER VOTE WOULD COME,
OH, WAIT A SECOND, THEY’RE
VOTING FOR -- WAIT, ARE THEY ON
THE SIDE OF LOCKHEED MARTIN?
IT WAS HARD TO FOLLOW IT ALL.
YOU KNEW THERE WAS A TON OF
MONEY THERE.
MONEY THERE. HOW DO WE BREAK THE GRIP OF THE
MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND
MAKE IT SO IT IS ABOUT RUNNING
THE LEANEST MILITARY
ORGANIZATION THAT WE CAN RUN
WITHOUT, BASICALLY, THROWING
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT EVERY
DEFENSE CONTRACTOR THAT WRITES
$5,000 CHECKS FOR MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS?
CONGRESS? >> WELL, YOU’RE RIGHT.
THE BOOK ISN’T A MEMOIR.
IT IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF GOOD.B
IT IS A GUIDE TO THE PENTAGON,
INCLUDING HOW TO BUY WEAPONS.
I HAD THAT JOB, IN ADDITION TO
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEFENSE
SECRETARY.
SECRETARY. I’VE WORKED THERE IN EVERY LAYER
OVER TIME.
OVER TIME. LOOK, WE DON’T BUILD ANYTHING IN
THE PENTAGON.
THE PENTAGON. WE DON’T DO THICKNGS THE SOVIET
WAY.
WAY. WE BUY ALL OUR WEAPONS FROM
PRIVATE INDUSTRY.
PRIVATE INDUSTRY. THAT MEANS WHEN I WAS THE
ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE, I HAD TO
MAKE BUSINESS DEALS WITH THE
DEFENSE INDUSTRY.
DEFENSE INDUSTRY. I WAS SITTING ON THE TAXPAYER
AND THE WAR FIGHTER’S SIDE OF
THE TABLE.
THE TABLE. THEY WERE SITTING ON THEIR
SHAREHOLDERS AND EMPLOYEES’ SIDE
OF THE TABLE.
I UNDERSTOOD THAT.
IT IS NOT -- IT IS JUST
BUSINESS.
BUSINESS. BUT YOU NEED TO STICK UP FOR THE
TAXPAYER AND THE WAR FIGHTER.
YOU NEED TO BE A SKILLED
NEGOTIATOR WITH THEM.
I NEED THEM TO BE HEALTHY.
I NEED THEM TO DO OKAY ON WALL
STREET AND SO FORTH BECAUSE I
NEED A HEALTHY DEFENSE INDUSTRY.
BY THE WAY, I NEED THE TECH
INDUSTRY TO PARTICIPATE MORE IN
DEFENSE.
DEFENSE. ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE THE
BEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD IS WE
HAVE THE BEST TECHNOLOGY IN THE
WORLD.
WORLD. WE CAN’T GET THAT ANYMORE, JUST
BY WORKING IN THE -- WITH OUR
OWN PROGRAMS.
OWN PROGRAMS. WE HAVE TO REACH OUT TO THE TECH
SECTOR.
SECTOR. THAT WAS ANOTHER BIG THING THAT
I DID.
I DID. BUT WE HAVE GOOD ACQUISITION
EXECUTIVES.
EXECUTIVES. I HAD TOUGH NEGOTIATIONS WITH
INDUSTRY, BUT I HAD CORDIAL
RELATIONS WITH THEM.
THEY DIDN’T PUSH ME AROUND.
I WAS THE CUSTOMER.
YOU MENTIONED CONGRESS.
CONGRESS GETS INVOLVED EVERY
ONCE AND A WHILE.
I’LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, JOE.
THE TANKER COMPETITION.
THERE WAS HUGE CONGRESSIONAL
INTEREST IN THAT.
NEVERTHELESS, I WAS THE
ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE AT THE
TIME, AND WE RAN A FAIR
COMPETITION THAT ONE PARTY WON
AND THE OTHER PARTY DIDN’T EVEN
TRY TO PROTEST BECAUSE WE HAD IT
CLEAN.
CLEAN. SO YOU CAN DO IT RIGHT.
PEOPLE SEE WASTE.
WASTE IS INEXCUSABLE,
PARTICULARLY WHEN WE’RE ASKING
FOR AS MUCH MONEY AS WE ARE, TO
PROTECT THE COUNTRY.
BUT IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THAT
WAY.
WAY. GOOD MANAGEMENT CAN DEAL WITH
THE SO-CALLED MILITARY
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. SERVE THE TAXPAYER AND THE WAR
FIGHTER.
FIGHTER. I FELT THAT THAT WAS POSSIBLE,
AND WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO
KNOW HOW TO DO THAT IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THE BOOK SAYS
IS, DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.
HERE’S SOME TRICKS FOR HOW TO
MANAGE THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL
COMPLEX FOR THE TAXPAYER AND THE
WAR FIGHTER.
WAR FIGHTER. >> SUSAN PAGE IS WITH US AND HAS
A QUESTION.
A QUESTION. SUSAN?
SUSAN? >> ASH CARTER, GIVEN YOUR LONG
EXPERIENCE AT THE PENTAGON, IS
THERE AB IMN IMPACT ON THE WAY
THINGS WORK AT THE PENTAGON WHEN
THERE IS NO PERMANENT, CONFIRMED
SECRETARY LEADING IT?
IN PARTICULAR, DRAWING ON THE
NBC STORY THAT CAROL LEE TALKED
ABOUT A FEW MINUTES AGO, WHEN
THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSES MAYBE
SOME COLD FEET ABOUT GOING
FORWARD WITH THE NOMINEE HE HAS
ANNOUNCED TO LEAD THE PENTAGON,
DOES THAT HAVE AN IMPACT ON HOW
THINGS WORK THERE?
>> WELL, IT DOES.
YOU’RE IN A WEAKER POSITION IF
YOU’RE NOT CONFIRMED.
I DON’T KNOW PAT SHANAHAN WELL.
HE IS THE FIRST SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE DESIGNATE.
DEFENSE DESIGNATE. I WORKED IN THE REAGAN
ADMINISTRATION FIRST, SO I’VE
KNOWN THEM ALL.
IT DOES PROBABLY WEAKEN HIM A
LITTLE BIT IN WASHINGTON.
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
HOWEVER, IS A VERY ORDERLY
PLACE.
PLACE. IT THRIVES ON ORDER AND CLARITY.
SO I THINK PEOPLE LOOKING UPWARD
AT HIM IN THE DEPARTMENT WILL
REGARD HIM AS THEIR SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, AS LONG AS HE’S THE
ACTING SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
I THINK INTERNALLY, THINGS ARE
PROBABLY GOING TO BE OKAY.
IN THE LARGER WASHINGTON WORLD,
DOESN’T HELP PAT, IF PAT IS
GOING TO BE THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, TO GO THROUGH THIS
PERIOD.
PERIOD. I DON’T HAVE ANY INSIGHT.
I’M NOT SURE ANYBODY DOES, INTO
WHETHER HE’LL ULTIMATELY GET THE
JOB OR NOT.
AS I SAID, I DON’T KNOW HIM WELL
PERSONALLY.
PERSONALLY. JIM MATTIS WAS AN OLD FRIEND OF
MINE.
MINE. WE’D KNOWN EACH OTHER 25 YEARS.
USED TO SLEEP ON THE FLOOR OF
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE’S PLANE
IN 1993 WHEN HE FLEW AROUND THE
WORLD.
WORLD. I KNEW JIM SINCE HE WAS A MAJOR.
>> WOW.
>> WOW. THE BOOK IS "INSIDE THE
FIVE-SIDED BOX," LESSONS FROM A
LIFETIME OF LEADERSHIP IN THE