You're watching...
Former Assistant Defense Secretary Torie Clarke on the impact on the military if defense spending cuts go too far.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- the president -- Mitt Romney is not selling all or how we paid for at all.
Just said he's throwing more money for example -- defends and even -- defense contractors.
If you believe that we can cut taxes.
By five trillion dollars.
And -- Two trillion dollars in additional spending.
That the military is not asking for seven trillion dollars just a -- -- -- over ten years that's.
More than our entire defense.
Like the president's re elected you'll see dramatic cuts to our military.
The secretary of defense has said these would be even devastating I will not cut our commitment to our military.
All right former assistant defence secretary Tori Clarke says that America cannot afford to take defense cuts at a time like this secretary good news.
Our -- to be with you the two trillion what the president said more than even defense contractors -- -- -- the events Stubbs and have asked for is that true.
I think it's really true the military is so they do not want increased spending.
What Mitt Romney has said several times as he thinks about 4% of GDP is of a probably a good number to be spending on defense.
I happen to good to agree and I think that be a really good thing to have and one of the future debates a long discussion debate about what is the appropriate role of the federal government.
In our national defense and how much should be spent on and I think that's a great idea.
What is very it very clear and the military and the secretary of defense has said very clearly they cannot tolerate is these devastating across the board cuts.
That will occur as a result of the fiscal cliff we're about to.
-- why that is that is already rock a -- guys because I know it's actually.
Money off -- ten years' worth of degrees you'll still have more going to events in ten years and you do.
Now.
So I know cut is as -- don't pejorative in Washington which is so -- slowing the growth -- -- -- so why is that so.
Not it's because it's the way in which they're doing that it's not sitting down a very thoughtfully saying.
Here our national security cultures we're going to do to protect the American people.
Here's what it takes to get that job done both in terms of human assets and technology.
And all of those things.
They can -- abdicated responsibility on that can't figure out how to have that conversation that debate.
So instead they say okay we're just gonna take -- a broad cut alike approach approach to take it off the top.
That's it terrible way to do it the very assets that you care about the most will be the ones that get lost -- that.
And -- how can you argue with your own secretary of defense and you joint chiefs -- -- those sorts of cuts.
Would be devastating.
That's been very clear and very consistent and I think that should come out in future debates.
In the next to date for the the presidential candidates both foreign policy will be front and -- -- -- Libya comes up our commitment to that region and how much we spend.
Global come up the administration's already talked about.
I think it's an an initial payment a 165 million to 300 million dollars.
Double go to the very government work with the president or -- -- whatever McCollum hates us is as that we.
We throw good money after bad and -- we're we're we're evil people -- paraphrasing but why why do we do that secretary why don't we just called today.
Or at least reassess that.
We should always be reassessing.
And again we don't have a just keep what point and -- -- -- if you might have this conversation six months ago I would've said.
You know the national security debates probably are going to be that interest in -- -- probably -- -- a find much a difference between.
Apartment on secretary we're covering him on Fox Business -- he'd never possessed I'm like that's.
I indices are coming from but -- away.
Obama what has largely adopted the the bush policies that he's so reviled -- so critique when and when he was running for president is largely adopted many of those policies.
But -- the last few months have changed dramatically.
We have -- tax on our embassies throughout the Middle East we have our leading diplomats killed.
And so far no explanations no reasons given for that.
We have Iran closer every day to nuclear capabilities really serious potentially dangerous things are happy.
New Zealand I got in excess funds are sort of up by that definition.
That that could be but his upcoming debate a more problematic one by the president on the -- on the when he got to find -- Absurd and absolutely could be and I think that's a total surprise -- -- but to get your question I did you know I've got my I was talk about my relatives in Pittsburgh and how they would think about these things.
And they asked me why are we spending this money in these countries like Libya and Egypt and they say these terrible things about they do these terrible things well it's not all the people in those countries.
And while sometimes you can question the amount of money -- -- -- what are we getting return.
I think sometimes we have to be there it's better to be there and be engaged and be on the playing field.
And to -- it entirely to those people who truly want to do harm to us secretary thank you very good -- thank you assert take care.
