Angus King

We'd still be dealing with this.

It seems to me there's a real dilemma at the core of this discussion, and that is, How do we increase our deterrence in Europe with a NATO deterrent without at the same time feeding Putin's paranoia about aggression from the West?

Does the theory of deterrence work against a madman or a suicidal fanatic?

Deterrence has been a theory and a doctrine that has served this Nation well for 70 years.

Ultimately, it will have to happen, because you won't have a secure and working government unless they have control of a military, and, in this case, numerous militias across that country.

I think our mil-to-mil training, which I've seen in other parts of the world, is one of the best things that we do, in terms of not only the training, itself, but the inculcation of those values that you just mentioned.

Prevention should be a big part of the mission.

The best bulwark against terrorism is stability.

I think it is very important.

We will be unable to execute the Defense Strategic Guidance if we are sequestered again.

If we get sequestered again--because we had an $8 billion math problem to solve in a single year in 2015.

We are talking about major capital expenditures, and I do not know anybody that is talking about additional funds.

I do not know anybody that is talking about additional funds.

Are we developing a strategy and a doctrine for dealing with what is essentially a new kind of war?

We do not want to militarize the border, but to the extent we can coordinate better, utilize the resources that you will have, General, in your capabilities to work with our civilian authorities, that is I think a very high priority.

It would be a grave mistake in my view to not maintain a level of force in Afghanistan that is necessary to support the Afghan security forces.

We can't have our friends not getting along. And so, let's try to find ways to work together.

I think, hopefully, that will be a spur to these discussions.

I do see great potential in this.

One thing I want to communicate is that you keep in touch with us.

I would hope that our rules of engagement can be rather clear in order to avoid the possibility of hostilities inadvertently escalating.

I think it's very important to be as clear as we can with the North Koreans about what the rules of engagement are.

The particular issue of concern to me is the issue of ground troops. We're not going to defeat ISIL strictly from the air.

It's unbelievably important for you gentlemen to give your unvarnished, best advice up the chain of command.

Do you think we should reexamine those decisions? It just seems like we are reducing our force structure at a time of... unprecedented threats and danger to this country.