ANNOUNCER: THE RISK OF WAR AMONG MAJOR NATIONS HAS NOT SEEMED THIS HIGH IN DECADES.

FROM WEST AFRICA ALL ACROSS THE BELT BUCKLE OF THE EARTH TO THE SOUTH CHINA SEA, CONFLICTS RAGE AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS LOOM.

ARMED STRUGGLE WITH CHINA, NORTH KOREA, RUSSIA, IRAN, AS WELL AS ISIS, AND OTHER NON-STATE GROUPS HAVE ALL SEEMED TO BECOME INCREASINGLY LIKELY.

SOME EVEN COMPARE OUR TIME TO THE YEARS JUST BEFORE THE OUTBREAK OF WORLD WAR I.

THE AMERICAN MILITARY IS THE LARGEST IN THE WORLD AND MANY WOULD SAY THE FINEST.

BUT IS IT THE RIGHT SIZE AND COMPOSITION?

IS IT EQUIPPED AND TRAINED IN THE RIGHT WAYS TO PROTECT AMERICAN LIVES, VALUES, AND INTERESTS IN THIS GLOBAL STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT?

THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE DORAN FAMILY FOUNDATION, AMETEK, AND BY... FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTROOMS AROUND THE WORLD, PEOPLE HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL NOT ONLY THE TRUTH BUT, RATHER, THE WHOLE TRUTH.

THE OATH REFLECTS THE WISDOM THAT FAILING TO TELL ALL OF A STORY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS LYING IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IN THE COURTROOM, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ALSO RELIES ON ADVOCATES ADVANCING FIRM, CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS AND DOING SO WITH DECORUM.

ALL OF THESE APPLY TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT JOHN STUART MILL CALLED "THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS."

THIS SERIES IS A PLACE IN WHICH THE COMPETING VOICES ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIME ARE CHALLENGED AND SET INTO MEANINGFUL CONTEXT SO THAT VIEWERS LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES THE WHOLE TRUTH.

OUR TOPIC TODAY IS AMERICAN MILITARY POWER.

TOO MUCH?

TOO LITTLE?

WHAT MISSIONS?

IT IS REPEATED OFTEN, INCLUDING BY PRESIDENT OBAMA IN HIS FINAL "STATE OF THE UNION" ADDRESS, THAT THE UNITED STATES SPENDS MORE ON DEFENSE THAN THE NEXT 8 LARGEST SPENDERS COMBINED.

BUT IT IS ALSO THE CASE THAT WE RANK ONLY 4th IN SPENDING PER CAPITA BASED ON GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT AND THAT WE SPEND A FAR SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF OUR WEALTH ON DEFENSE THAN MANY OTHER NATIONS AND FAR LESS THAN WE DID FOR MANY OF THE YEARS SINCE WORLD WAR II.

SO, WHICH IMPRESSION CREATED BY THESE DIVERGENT FACTS, THESE HALF-TRUTHS, IS CORRECT?

ARE WE THE DOMINANT MILITARY POWER IN THE WORLD, IF THAT IS, INDEED, WHAT WE WANT TO BE?

ARE OUR FORCES PROPERLY SIZED, EQUIPPED, AND TRAINED TO CONFRONT THE VERY MANY POTENTIAL THREATS AROUND THE WORLD, ASSUMING WE CAN AGREE ON A DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A THREAT IN THE 21st CENTURY?

PERHAPS THESE ARE ALL THE WRONG QUESTIONS, FRAMED BY THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX ABOUT WHICH MY GRANDFATHER FAMOUSLY WARNED OUR NATION TO BE WARY.

HERE TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES IS GENERAL WESLEY CLARK, FORMER SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER IN EUROPE, WHO LED THE NATO FORCES IN THE BALKAN CONFLICT UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON.

GENERAL CLARK IS ALSO A FORMER CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

DR. NORA BENSAHEL, A SCHOLAR AT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY.

JUSTIN JOHNSON, DEFENSE BUDGET ANALYST AT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, AND CHRISTOPHER PREBLE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR DEFENSE AND FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES AT THE CATO INSTITUTE.

I'D LIKE TO START THE-- WITH A QUESTION FOR EVERYONE ON THE PANEL.

UH, THOUGH WE DEBATE DEFENSE QUESTIONS CONSTANTLY, THERE HAS BEEN A TREND, AND THAT IS A DOWNSIZING GOING ON IN THE MILITARY.

AND I THINK THAT DISCUSSION OF THIS, UH, WOULD BEGIN-- AND I WOULD LIKE TO POSE THIS FOR EVERYONE ON THE PANEL.

UH...UH, GENERALLY, WHAT IS THE PROPER PURPOSE-- UH, WHAT IS THE PROPER OBJECTIVE OF, UH, THE AMERICAN MILITARY IN THE WORLD SCENE TODAY?

JUSTIN... WELL, I THINK YOU HAVE TO START WITH KIND OF A BIG-PICTURE VIEW.

ASK THE QUESTION OF WHAT WE WANT THE MILITARY TO DO.

WHAT ARE THE VITAL INTERESTS WE EXPECT THE MILITARY TO PROTECT?

UH, AND I THINK THERE'S-- THERE'S ALWAYS DEBATE ABOUT WHAT THOSE, UH, VITAL INTERESTS ARE, BUT I THINK YOU CAN START BY SAYING, NOW, YOU KNOW, PROTECT AMERICA.

PROTECT THE HOMELAND AND ITS PEOPLE.

PREVENT CONFLICT, IDEALLY, I THINK IN EUROPE, THE MIDDLE EAST, AND ASIA, AND DEFEND THE GLOBAL COMMONS.

AND IF--IF YOU START WITH THOSE, THEN YOU CAN KIND OF, FROM THE BOTTOM UP, BUILD UP TO AT LEAST SOME ROUGH SEMBLANCE OF WHAT A MILITARY FORCE SHOULD LOOK LIKE.

EISENHOWER: HMM.

GENERAL?

HMM.

CLARK: WELL, THE MILITARY IS--I--I AGREE WITH WHAT JEFF'S SAYING, BUT I THINK BEYOND THAT, THE MILITARY'S WHAT GIVES HEFT AND THROW WEIGHT TO YOUR FOREIGN POLICY.

SO, UH, IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY AMERICAN DIPLOMACY CAN WORK.

IT'S BECAUSE THE AMERICAN MILITARY'S RESPECTED, IT'S POWERFUL, AND ITS COMMITMENT IS UNCERTAIN.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO PROVOKE AN AMERICAN MILITARY RESPONSE.

I REMEMBER BEING IN AFRICA AND TALKING TO ONE OF THE HEADS OF STATE IN 2011.

AND HE WAS TELLING ME, HE SAYS, YOU KNOW, "YOU AMERICANS HAVE BEEN TOO HARD ON KHADDAFI.

HE'S BEEN A GOOD MAN."

AND, UH, WHEN HE SAID THAT, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF FEAR AND TREMBLING IN HIS VOICE BECAUSE HE WASN'T SURE THAT WE WEREN'T GONNA TURN ON HIM NEXT.

[EISENHOWER CHUCKLING] AND SO IT'S THAT EDGE OF RESPECT-- EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

THAT EMPOWERS U.S.

DIPLOMACY, PROVIDED MILITARY FORCE IS USED WISELY.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

RIGHT.

NORA.

BENSAHEL: YEAH, THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE U.S. MILITARY IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IN THE WORLD COMES FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF WHAT THE U.S. ROLE IS IN THE WORLD.

EISENHOWER: MM-HMM.

AND I THINK WHAT JUSTIN IDENTIFIED ARE SOME OF THE CORE THEMES OF U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS AS THEY'VE BEEN DEFINED, REALLY, SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II, AND SOME OF THEM LONG BEFORE THAT, SUCH AS PROTECTING THE HOMELAND.

BUT FREEDOM OF THE COMMONS, PREVENTING CONFLICT, AND DETERRING, AND, IF NECESSARY, RESPONDING TO CONFLICT ARE NOW AND WILL ALWAYS REMAIN THE CORNERSTONES OF WHAT THE U.S. MILITARY IS FOR.

EISENHOWER: MM-HMM.

CHRIS.

HMM.

PREBLE: I THINK THAT THE EASY ANSWER IS, UH, HAS NOT BEEN THE ANSWER WE'VE USED OVER THE LAST 60 OR 70 YEARS SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II.

THE EASY ANSWER IS DEFENDING THE UNITED STATES, THE HOMELAND, AND OUR PROSPERITY, OUR WAY OF LIFE.

TURNS OUT, THAT'S FAIRLY EASY.

IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A VERY, VERY LARGE MILITARY TO DO THAT 'CAUSE WE'RE BLESSED BY WIDE OCEANS TO THE EAST AND WEST AND FRIENDLY NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, SO WE USE OUR MILITARY IN A MUCH MORE EXPANSIVE WAY.

WE USE IT TO, AS JUSTIN SAYS, TO DEFEND LOTS OF OTHER COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE BE INCLINED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER WORLD WAR II, THIS MADE A LOT OF SENSE BECAUSE OF COURSE WE HAD A VAST ECONOMY.

ABOUT 50% OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY WAS THE UNITED STATES, BUT NOW WE'RE APPROACHING 20% OF GLOBAL GDP AND YET WE'RE STILL TRYING TO DEFEND THE ENTIRE WORLD.

SO I THINK IT IS A TIME, UH, IF THERE EVER WAS A TIME, WE NEED TO HAVE A-- A NEW DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF U.S. MILITARY POLICY.

WHAT IS THE PROSPECT, LOOKING 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, OF RENEWED GREAT POWER CONFLICT?

UH, SINCE THE LAST GREAT SEA CHANGE IN AMERICAN DEFENSE THINKING, UH, '9--'92, WE HAVE BEEN IN A POST-COLD WAR WORLD, UH, IN WHICH GREAT POWER CONFLICT HAS REALLY BEEN BENEATH THE SURFACE.

NOW WE'RE SENDING CARRIER GROUPS INTO THE SOUTH CHINA SEA TO PREVENT ISLAND CONSTRUCTION.

UH, THERE--THERE MAY BE ISSUES FORMING BETWEEN THE UNITED ST-- WHO ARE THE GREAT POWERS, AND WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS GENUINELY FOR--FOR SOME KIND OF GREAT POWER CONFLICT AND WHAT FORM WOULD IT TAKE?

BENSAHEL: I THINK THE CHANCES OF A CONFLICT AMONG THE GREAT POWERS HAS BEEN GOING UP IN RECENT YEARS AND WILL CERTAINLY BE A FEATURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY LANDSCAPE AND WHAT THE MILITARY HAS TO PREPARE FOR AS A POSSIBLE OUTCOME FOR THE NEXT DECADE AND WELL BEYOND THAT AS WELL.

FROM A U.S. PERSPECTIVE, THE TWO BIG--THE TWO BIG STATES OF CONCERN ARE OBVIOUSLY RUSSIA AND CHINA.

RUSSIA, AFTER THE ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA AND WHAT IT'S DOING IN EASTERN UKRAINE.

A LOT OF FEAR THAT RUSSIAN APPETITES WILL NOT STOP THERE AND MAYBE POSE SOME THREATS AGAINST THE BALTIC STATES, WHICH ARE MEMBERS OF NATO, IN WHICH CASE THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ONE FORM OR OTHER.

AND, AS YOU MENTIONED, CHINA IS PURSUING SOME VERY AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA.

NONE OF THIS MEANS THAT WAR IS INEVITABLE, BUT THE INTERESTS ARE ABSOLUTELY CONFLICTING NOW.

UM, THE TENSIONS ARE INCREASING.

AND THAT MEANS THAT THERE IS A ROLE FOR THE MILITARY IN PREPARING TO DEAL WITH A POSSIBLE CONFLICT THAT RESULTS FROM THAT.

EISENHOWER: CHRIS, WHAT DO YOU SAY?

PREBLE: I THINK WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE DEFINE "GREAT POWERS."

UM, RUSSIA'S ECONOMY IS ROUGHLY THAT OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL'S COMBINED AND SINKING FAST.

THEY ARE IN A DEMOGRAPHIC DEATH SPIRAL.

UH, THEY CANNOT CONVINCE YOUNG PEOPLE TO STAY.

THEY CANNOT CONVINCE CHILD--YOU KNOW, PEOPLE OF CHILDBEARING AGE TO HAVE KIDS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND THIS IS NOT A GREAT POWER, WITH ONE KEY EXCEPTION.

THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

OK?

WELL, THEY WERE A THIRD-WORLD COUNTRY WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS DURING THE COLD WAR, TOO.

WE LEARNED THAT AFTER THE FACT.

WE THOUGHT THEY WERE-- THEY WERE VERY STRONG.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

IT WAS A POTEMKIN VILLAGE.

SO, I THINK WE DO NEED TO DRAW DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND CHINA.

CHINA'S RISING.

CHINA ACTUALLY HAS A PATHWAY TO PROSPERITY THAT'S NOT BASED ON RESOURCE EXTRACTION, WHICH IS HIGHLY VOLATILE, AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE CASE OF THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY, WHICH IS VERY FRAGILE.

I VOWED THAT IF I WAS IN THE PRESENCE OF GENERAL CLARK, I WOULD ASK THIS QUESTION.

AND I CAN'T RESIST THIS.

WE HAVE 11 ACTIVE ARMY DIVISIONS NOW.

WOULD YOU COMPARE THE COMBAT POWER OF THOSE 11 DIVISIONS WITH, SAY, THE 90 THAT WE MOBILIZED IN WORLD WAR II?

HOW POWERFUL IS THE AMERICAN DIVISION TODAY?

OH, THEY'RE GREAT DIVISIONS.

I MEAN, THE BIGGEST THING-- THE--IT'S NOT ONLY THE STRUCTURE AND THE HARDWARE, BUT IT'S ALSO THE TRAINING.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

IT'S THE QUALITY OF THE TRAINING AND THE TROOPS THAT ARE IN THERE.

UH, WE'VE GOT A TREMENDOUS GROUND POWER POTENTIAL.

HOWEVER, UH, YOU GOTTA STAY ABREAST.

AND, UH, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE UNITED STATES IS, WE GO IN SURGES.

SO WHEN WE WERE IN VIETNAM, THE SOVIET ARMED FORCES WENT THROUGH A MODERNIZATION CYCLE.

WE CAME OUT OF VIETNAM, LOOKED AROUND GERMANY, AND SUDDENLY, THEY HAD NEW TANKS AND THEY HAD ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLES, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING COMPARABLE.

WE CAUGHT UP WITH THEM.

WARFARE CONSTANTLY CHANGES AND EVOLVES, AND YOU HAVE TO KEEP UP.

SO, I AGREE WITH WHAT CHRISTOPHER'S SAYING ABOUT RUSSIA NOT BEING A GREAT POWER IN THE SENSE OF CHINA.

BUT IN TERMS OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, THEY'VE TAKEN ANOTHER STEP FORWARD, AND, UH, WE NEED TO INVEST AND KEEP OUR ARMED FORCES ABREAST.

EISENHOWER: WE ARE SPENDING... 700 BILLION?

WHAT--WHAT IS THE SIZE OF OUR DEFENSE BUDGET TODAY?

ABOUT 600.

EISENHOWER: 600.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THAT 10--IMAGINE 10 YEARS FROM NOW.

ARE WE GONNA LOOK BACK ON THAT $600 BILLION FIGURE AS, UH, A PERIOD OF AUSTERITY, I BELIEVE, AS YOU PUT IT...

UH, OR IS THIS GOING TO BE, UH, UH, CONSTANT?

IN OTHER WORDS, IS OUR POSTURE ABOUT RIGHT?

WOULD YOU CALL IT ADEQUATE TODAY, OR DO YOU--OR DO YOU FORESEE A GREAT SPIKE EITHER UP OR DOWN?

WELL, I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, UH, CHRIS WAS RIGHT EARLIER IN HIS INFLATION- ADJUSTED NUMBERS, WHERE WE'RE HIGHER THAN WE WERE IN THE COLD WAR.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY MEASURE, I THINK.

YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT A PERCENTAGE OF GDP OR PERCENTAGE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

BOTH OF THOSE WERE WELL BELOW HISTORICAL AVERAGES.

I THINK WHAT THAT POINTS TO IS THAT, UH, DOLLARS-- THERE--THERE'S AN INFLATION, RIGHT, THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT.

UH, BUT CAPABILITIES HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED.

SO YOU LOOK AT THE FORD F150, FOR EXAMPLE.

FROM 1986 TO TODAY, IT'S GROWN IN INFLATION- ADJUSTED DOLLARS BY ABOUT 50%.

SO, IT'S SAME FORD F150?

WELL, IT'S NOT THE SAME FORD F150.

IT'S BETTER.

IT'S GOT BACKUP CAMERAS.

IT'S GOT, YOU KNOW, GPS, ALL KINDS OF THINGS BUILT IN.

THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING WITH THE MILITARY.

WE'RE BUYING A BETTER MILITARY TODAY.

UH, SO, WHAT THAT MEANS IS, IT DOES COST MORE.

IT DOES COST MORE THAN JUST INFLATION TO KEEP IT UP.

BENSAHEL: HERE--HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE DEFENSE BUDGET.

WE'RE BUYING A LOT LESS CAPABILITY.

EVEN THOUGH THE CAPABILITY THAT WE'RE BUYING IS BETTER, WE'RE STILL BUYING A LOT LESS OF IT THAN WE USED TO BE ABLE TO DO WITH THESE SAME NUMBER OF DOLLARS.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

AND THERE ARE A LOT-- IN OTHER WORDS, JUST IN SHEER NUMBERS.

BENSAHEL: RIGHT.

WE'RE GETTING LESS CAPABILITY OUT OF THAT THAN WE USED TO BE ABLE TO.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT REASONS FOR THIS.

FRANKLY, THE BIGGEST ONE IS, UH, THE PROBLEM OF HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT COSTS ESCALATING WITHIN THE MILITARY.

IT'S THE EXACT SAME PARALLEL AS THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE DEBATE FOR CIVILIAN SOCIETY.

SO, THAT'S WHY THE DEFENSE BUDGET ALMOST CERTAINLY NEEDS TO GO UP IN THE LONG-TERM TO KEEP THE TYPES OF CAPABILITIES WE EXPECT AND THAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO DEFEND THE COUNTRY AND IN ORDER TO KEEP THE SOLDIER, SAILOR, AIRMAN, AND MARINE IN THE FRONT LINES AS TRAINED AND AS EQUIPPED AS POSSIBLE.

MMM.

AS OUR MILITARY GROWS MORE AND MORE MILITARILY--OR TECHNOLOGICALLY SOPHISTICATED-- RIGHT.

OUR PLATFORMS BECOME FEWER AND FEWER AND FEWER.

RIGHT.

WE HAVE FEWER COMBAT AIRCRAFT TODAY THAN PRODUCED IN MAYBE 2 WEEKS DURING WORLD WAR II.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?

PREBLE: WELL, I THINK THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS ALWAYS RELIED MORE ON TECHNOLOGY THAN MASS, BECAUSE OUR STRENGTH WAS NOT NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.

THIS GOES BACK TO, ACTUALLY, EARLY AMERICAN HISTORY.

SO, WE'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO SUBSTITUTE TECHNOLOGY FOR--FOR MASS, AND I THINK THAT TREND WILL CONTINUE.

UM, I DO THINK THAT, TO JUSTIN'S POINT, WHILE IT'S TRUE THAT THE FORD F150 HAS MORE CAPABILITIES AND IS MORE EXPENSIVE, MY COMPUTER ALSO HAS MORE CAPABILITIES AND COSTS 1/4 OF WHAT MY FIRST COMPUTER COST.

JOHNSON: YES.

SO, TECHNOLOGY USUALLY CONTRIBUTES TO GREATER CAPABILITIES AT LOWER COST.

THERE'S SOMETHING CLEARLY VERY DIFFERENT HAPPENING IN THE MILITARY, RIGHT?

BECAUSE THE INCENTIVES ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

THE PRESSURE TO MAINTAIN COST-- TO KEEP COSTS LOW IS VERY, VERY DIFFERENT.

AND I ALSO WANT TO ECHO, NORA'S POINT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

IF WE CAN'T COME TO GRIPS WITH RISING PERSONNEL COSTS IN THE MILITARY, UH, THE GAME IS OVER.

OK?

WE WILL NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, EVEN IF WE WERE TO DOUBLE OUR MILITARY SPENDING OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS, WE WILL NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO INVEST, EVEN IF WE'RE INVESTING WISELY, IN NEW TECHNOLOGY.

THE TIME FOR THAT DISCUSSION, JUST LIKE THE TIME IN THE BROADER--THE BROADER SOCIETY ABOUT HOW WE'RE GONNA CARE FOR--FOR PENSIONERS AND RETIREES WE HAVE TO HAVE EXACTLY THAT SAME CON--CONVERSATION WITH RESPECT TO-- TO THE MILITARY TODAY.

CLARK: WELL, YOU GOTTA TAKE CARE OF THE TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES IN THIS BUSINESS.

I MEAN, AS IMPORTANT AS MODERNIZATION IS, IF YOU LOSE THE WILLINGNESS OF PEOPLE TO SERVE AND COMMIT THEIR LIVES TO THE COUNTRY, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE, NO MATTER WHAT THE QUALITY OF THE EQUIPMENT IS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BENEFITS AND BRINGING PEOPLE-- WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT AN ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE.

YOU WERE, I BELIEVE, IN THE PENTAGON.

OR YOU--YOU WERE PRESENT AT THE CREATION OF THE ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE.

CLARK: THAT'S RIGHT.

UM, LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD, UH, AS A QUESTION OF DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR OUR MILITARY, AS A QUESTION OF THE INTANGIBLES THAT MILITARY POLICY SERVES, WHAT ARE YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THE ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE?

THE PROSPECT--LET'S SAY, WE ARE UP AGAINST A CHINESE THREAT OR SOME KIND OF REGIONAL THREAT WHERE WE WOULD NEED-- WILL WE EVER NEED A CONSCRIPT ARMY?

I THINK YOU CAN'T ELIMINATE THAT COMPLETELY AS A POSSIBILITY.

SO I BELIEVE WE NEED TO MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM OF SELECTIVE SERVICE THAT WE HAVE NOW-- EISENHOWER: THAT'S WHY WE REGISTER.

WHY WE REGISTER AND WHY I THINK-- PREBLE: MEN, SO FAR.

THAT'S GOING TO EXPAND-- I WAS GONNA SAY, THAT'S ALMOST CERTAINLY LIKELY TO EXPAND TO WOMEN RELATIVELY SOON.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY, ANY MILITARY ANALYST OR ANYBODY IN THE MILITARY FAVORS TURNING TO THE DRAFT EXCEPT IN CASE OF EXTREME NATIONAL EMERGENCY.

I THINK THE ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE IS ONE OF THE GREAT STRENGTHS OF THE U.S. MILITARY, UM, AND ONE OF THE SOURCES OF OUR POWER BECAUSE IT GIVES US A VERY PROFESSIONAL FORCE.

IT DOES LEAD, HOWEVER, TO A DISJUNCTURE IN A LOT OF WAYS BETWEEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ITS MILITARY AS THE ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE GETS MORE AND MORE ISOLATED, AND I THINK THAT'S A VERY BAD EFFECT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED WITHOUT HAVING TO RESORT TO A DRAFT TO DO IT.

WELL, WHICH RAISES, ACTUALLY, ANOTHER RATHER INTERESTING QUESTION, WHICH I THINK SOME OF YOUR WRITINGS HAVE KIND OF RAISED, CHRIS.

AND THAT IS THIS, UH, YOU KNOW, I--I LOOKED AT THE ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE MISSION STATEMENTS.

LOOKED FOR TODAY.

THE ARMY-- ARMY REFERS TO "LAND DOMINANCE."

UH, THE AIR FORCE MISSION STATEMENT REFERS TO "SOVEREIGN OPTIONS."

I THINK YOU'VE QUESTIONED WHETHER, UH...

WHETHER THE...DOMINATION AND SO FORTH UH, IS SOMETHING THAT GENUINELY SERVES AMERICAN INTERESTS LONG-RANGE, WHETHER--WHETHER A LOWER PROFILE-- I THINK THAT ONE--ONE POSSIBILITY IT RAISES IS THAT PERHAPS A LOWER PROFILE IS SOMETHING THAT AMERICANS CAN'T ACCEPT.

PREBLE: RIGHT.

UH, THAT LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD OVER THE NEXT 8 TO 10 YEARS, THAT WE MIGHT ACTUALLY FIND IT IN OUR ADVANTAGE TO ASSUME A LOWER PROFILE.

HOW DO PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT THAT?

BENSAHEL: I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TALKING ABOUT YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO DOMINATE IN TERMS OF CERTAIN MILITARY CAPABILITIES, WHICH WE DO WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO-- EISENHOWER: I SEE.

TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.

WE DON'T WANT A WAR TO BE A FAIR FIGHT ONCE WE GET IN ONE.

UM, BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND HOW YOU CHOOSE TO INTERACT WITH THE WORLD, HOW YOU CHOOSE TO USE THAT MILITARY POWER.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE-- I THINK THERE ARE PROBABLY DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THIS PANEL ABOUT HOW AND WHEN TO USE MILITARY FORCE.

BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY DISAGREES THAT SHOULD THE DECISION BE MADE, WE WANT TO HAVE THE STRONGEST AND MOST CAPABLE MILITARY POSSIBLE.

PREBLE: I WOULD--I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, AND I THINK THAT-- THAT MY--MY MAIN CONCERN WITH WHAT I SEE AS AMERICAN MILITARY DOMINANCE IS NOT OUR ABILITY TO FIGHT AND WIN IN WARS THAT WE ACTUALLY NEED TO FIGHT.

IT IS THE TEMPTATION TO USE THAT MILITARY IN WARS THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN.

OUR ENDS ARE BEING DRIVEN BY OUR MEANS.

I AGREE WITH NORA COMPLETELY.

WHEN THOSE MOMENTS COME, WHEN WAR IS THE LAST OPTION, WE ABSOLUTELY WANT TO BE ABLE TO WIN DECISIVELY, AND I THINK THE U.S. MILITARY CAN DO THAT.

BUT THE REASONS WHY IT HAS NOT WON DECISIVELY IN WARS LIKE IRAQ IS BECAUSE THE INTERESTS AT STAKE DO NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL THAT WE ARE WILLING TO DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING IN ORDER TO WIN, AND THAT TELLS YOU A LOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

CLARK: BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE MILITARY, YOU ALSO HAVE TO SEE IT AS NORA SAID.

IT'S--IT'S ABOUT IF YOU GO TO FIGHT, YOU DON'T WANT A FAIR FIGHT.

BUT STRATEGY!

WHERE IS THAT DISCUSSION REALLY HELD?

IT'S IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

PREBLE: YEAH.

THE STRATEGY IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT DOES WITH THE FORCE.

AND HIS ADVISORS SHAPE THAT.

AND OF COURSE, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, THE JOINT CHIEFS, THEY HAVE A SAY IN THIS, BUT THIS IS THE PRESIDENT'S CALL.

AND THE MILITARY'S ONLY ONE COMPONENT OF THIS, BUT WE DO NEED THE STRONGEST MILITARY THAT WE CAN AFFORD, AND MAYBE THEN--PLUS, A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT.

EISENHOWER: WELL, JUSTIN, FROM A POLITICAL, CONGRESSIONAL POINT OF VIEW, WILL SMALL EVER BE BEAUTIFUL?

IN OTHER WORDS, IS IT-- HOW--HOW DOES IT LOOK FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE?

WELL, I THINK, UH, WE'VE SEEN CONGRESS CHANGE, AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO BACK TO 2011, WHEN--WE'LL THROW OUT THIS-- THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT, SEQUESTRATION, THESE VERY INSIDE WASHINGTON ACRONYMS.

UM, THE...AT THAT POINT, IN THE SUMMER OF 2011, THE ECONOMY AND JOBS WERE THE NUMBER-ONE CONCERN POLITICALLY FOR THE COUNTRY.

UH, YOU KNOW, SEAL TEAM 6 HAD JUST SENT OSAMA BIN LADEN TO MEET HIS MAKER.

UH, YOU KNOW, WE WEREN'T WORRIED ABOUT RUSSIA OR PARTICULARLY CHINA AT THAT POINT.

AND--AND SO WE SET UP CONGRESS, SET UP THIS STRUCTURE TO TRY AND REIGN IN DEFICIT SPENDING.

UH, BUT WITH THAT, THE MILITARY BORE 50% OF THOSE CUTS.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

CLARK: DAVID, I WANT TO JUST SAY-- YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT POLITICS AND WHAT IT DOES, THIS COUNTRY HAS TO START GETTING MORE ROBUST ECONOMIC GROWTH.

WE CAN'T BE SATISFIED WITH 1.5% AND 2% PER YEAR, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.

IF YOU GROW AT 3% OR 4% A YEAR-- EISENHOWER: SO WE CAN HAVE A COLD WAR-- THERE'S PLENTY OF MONEY IN THE DEFENSE BUDGET OF THESE THINGS.

IT'S ALSO THE STRENGTH OF OUR-- WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THIS NATION, IT'S NOT THE STRENGTH OF OUR MILITARY.

IT'S THE STRENGTH OF OUR ECONOMY.

CLARK: ABSOLUTELY.

IT'S OUR ABILITY TO MOBILIZE POWER WHEN NEEDED.

RIGHT.

NOW, WE'VE ALWAYS MAINTAINED A LARGE MILITARY, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE END OF--THE END OF WORLD WAR II.

WE'VE MAINTAINED A LARGE MILITARY, BUT OUR REAL CUSHION, OUR REAL MARGIN OF SUCCESS IS OUR ECONOMY.

BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT, UH, ESSENTIALLY RADICAL CHANGES OVER THE NEXT 7 TO 10 YEARS, AT LEAST, THAT'S NOT ON THE HORIZON.

CYBERSPACE--THERE'S A-- THERE'S AN INTIMATION OF THIS, BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN ATOMIC REVOLUTION OR A STEALTH REVOLUTION OR ANYTHING IN-- PREBLE: WELL, WE DON'T KNOW.

BENSAHEL: WE DON'T KNOW.

CLARK: NO, WE'RE NOT.

IN FACT, YOU'RE JUST SEEING THE GLIMMERS OF NEW TECHNOLOGY OUT THERE.

YOU'RE SEEING A SWARM TECHNOLOGY WITH UAVs.

YOU'RE SEEING RUSSIA TALK ABOUT A 5th- AND MAYBE EVEN A 6th-GENERATION FIGHTER.

SO, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE, BUT WE KNOW THAT DIRECTED ENERGY AND ELECTROMAGNETIC GUNS AND MUCH DIFFERENT MISSILE TECHNOLOGY, HYPERSONIC MISSILES, NONBALLISTIC TRAJECTORIES, UM... WE DON'T KNOW.

WE'RE ON THE EDGE OF SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT HERE.

BENSAHEL: WE ARE REALLY AT A STRATEGIC INFLECTION POINT OF WHICH THERE HAVE BEEN VERY FEW IN-- IN MODERN HISTORY.

SO, THE END OF WORLD WAR II WAS ONE.

THE END OF THE COLD WAR, THE 9-11 ATTACKS, CERTAINLY.

AND I THINK WE'RE IN A TIME NOW WHICH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT DATE PEOPLE WILL LOOK BACK AND PUT IT ON, BUT WHERE WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT LOOKS LIKE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF THREATS OUT THERE.

THERE ARE THE GREAT POWER ONES WE TALKED ABOUT.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

THERE ARE THE THREATS OF TERROR GROUPS.

UM, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, OTHER--OTHER TYPES OF CHALLENGES FROM NON-STATE ACTORS AND SOME STATE REGIONAL POWERS.

UM, AT THE SAME TIME, NOT ONLY IS TECHNOLOGY CHANGING IN UNPREDICTED WAYS, BUT THE SPEED OF CHANGE IS SOMETHING WE'VE NEVER REALLY CONTENDED WITH BEFORE.

AND SO, THAT'S WHY IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY HOW MUCH IS THE RIGHT AMOUNT TO SPEND ON THE DEFENSE BUDGET.

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE FACING, BUT WE KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO FACE.

CLARK: YOU KNOW, YOUR GRANDFATHER, UH, RELIED ON MASSIVE RETALIATION IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE LEVEL OF FORCE STRUCTURING IN THE ARMY.

SO MUCH THAT--THAT THE GENERALS REVOLTED AGAINST HIM.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

AND, UH--AND NOBODY LIKED THESE NUKES.

BUT, YOU KNOW, UM, WE STOPPED WORKING ON THE NEUTRON BOMB IN THE 1980s BECAUSE THE EUROPEANS DIDN'T WANT IT.

IT GOT A TERRIBLE REPUTATION, YOU KNOW.

PROTECTS BUILDINGS, KILLS PEOPLE.

I MEAN, WHY WOULD YOU WANT A WEAPON THAT'S THAT, LIKE, IMMORAL?

BUT, UH, ACCORDING TO THE UNCLASSIFIED SOURCES THAT I--THAT I HEAR, I MEAN, RUSSIA DIDN'T STOP.

EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

SO, THEY'VE APPARENTLY DEVELOPED A NEW GENERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS WHICH IS MORE BATTLEFIELD USEFUL.

DOESN'T CREATE TREE BLOWDOWN.

DOESN'T DIG BIG HOLES.

JUST KILLS PEOPLE.

AND, UM, THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST UPSETTING ELEMENTS OF THIS STRATEGIC INFLECTION POINT THAT NORA'S TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE IF WE LOSE DETERRENTS IN EUROPE-- EISENHOWER: RIGHT.

OR WORLDWIDE-- RIGHT.

BECAUSE OF A NEW GENERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, WE'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE A SEAMLESS FLOW FROM THE BAYONET AT THE FRONT LINE ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH THE U.S. STRATEGIC NUCLEAR-- RIGHT.

WE--WE FOUGHT A HUGE BATTLE IN NATO, BEGUN UNDER GENERAL AL HAIG, UH, AND UNDER PRESIDENT CARTER TO MODERNIZE NATO'S NUCLEAR FORCE.

AND, UH, THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO DO POLITICALLY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S ANOTHER ELEMENT OF THIS STRATEGIC INFLECTION POINT THAT'S COMING.

EISENHOWER: INFLECTION POINT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY.

THIS IS A PHENOMENAL DISCUSSION.

INFLECTION POINT.

I LIKE THAT.

FOR PERHAPS 100 YEARS, AND CERTAINLY SINCE WORLD WAR II, THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN THE WORLD'S MOST FORMIDABLE MILITARY POWER.

WE HAVE SPENT UNTOLD AMOUNTS OF TREASURE AND MANY LIVES IN THE PURSUIT OF GLOBAL MILITARY ENGAGEMENT.

WHILE WE REMAIN THE WORLD'S LARGEST DEFENSE SPENDER, OUR PREEMINENCE IN HARD POWER IS CLEARLY BEING CHALLENGED TODAY, BOTH BY THE RISE OF SPENDING AND TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES IN COUNTRIES FROM CHINA TO RUSSIA TO IRAN AND ALSO BY OUR RELATIVE CHANGE OF HEART, REFLECTED BY DRAMATICALLY LESS SPENDING ON THE PENTAGON AS A PERCENTAGE OF OUR WEALTH TODAY, AS COMPARED TO MOST OF THE POST-WORLD WAR II PERIOD AND POLICY DECISIONS TO SHRINK THE SIZE OF OUR FORCES.

THEN OF COURSE, THERE'S ALSO THE GROWING THREAT OF LOW-INTENSITY, ASYMMETRICAL, BUT QUITE DANGEROUS ARMED CONFLICT WITH THE NON-STATE ACTORS WHO WISH US ILL, THE TERRORIST GROUPS FROM ISIS AND AL-QAEDA TO OTHERS ACROSS MUCH OF THE GLOBE.

SO, WE ARE CLEARLY AT AN INFLECTION POINT AS A NATION IN THE NEED FOR DECISION-MAKING ABOUT THE ROLE OF MILITARY POWER IN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WORLD AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE.

SOME ARGUE FOR DOWNSIZING AND DISENGAGEMENT AND BELIEVE THAT THOSE POLICIES OFFER THE BEST OUTCOMES IN TERMS OF AMERICA'S OVERALL SECURITY AND WELL-BEING.

OTHERS ARGUE FOR REARMAMENT AND INCREASED MILITARY ACTIVISM IN THE WORLD, BELIEVING THAT IS THE PATH REQUIRED FOR AMERICAN SECURITY, PROSPERITY, AND THE SUCCESS OF AMERICAN VALUES.

CLEARLY, THE WHOLE TRUTH OF THIS QUESTION INCLUDES THE REALITY THAT AMERICAN MILITARY POWER HAS BEEN A SHIELD BEHIND WHICH TREMENDOUS HUMAN PROGRESS HAS OCCURRED IN THE YEARS SINCE WORLD WAR II, BUT THAT POWER CANNOT BE THE ANSWER TO MANY QUESTIONS.

SO WE MUST CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION AND COME TO CONSENSUS AROUND THE MISSIONS WE WISH OUR ARMED FORCES TO UNDERTAKE AND THE COSTS THAT THE NATION MUST SHOULDER TO SUPPORT THOSE MISSIONS AND TO ASSURE SUCCESS OVERSEAS AND OUR SAFETY AT HOME.

I'M DAVID EISENHOWER, AND THANK YOU FOR WATCHING "THE WHOLE TRUTH."

ANNOUNCER: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE DORAN FAMILY FOUNDATION, AMETEK, AND BY... AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.