♪ THEME MUSIC ♪ >>GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES.

WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, CONGRESSMAN, OMB DIRECTOR, CIA DIRECTOR, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, TODAY WE ARE HONORED TO BE JOINED BY A TRUE STATESMAN SECRETARY LEON PANETTA.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING OUR US.

>>GOOD TO BE WITH YOU, DAVID.

>>YOU'VE HAD A LONG CAREER WORKING IN WASHINGTON, WORKING IN PUBLIC POLICY, BOTH IN THE DOMESTIC POLITICS SIDE AS WELL AS ON THE INTERNATIONAL SIDE, BUT I WANT TO START WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING TODAY.

YOU STARTED IN BETWEEN ONE OF YOUR DIFFERENT PUBLIC SERVICE STINTS.

YOU STARTED THE PANETTA INSTITUTE.

TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT THAT AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING TODAY?

>>YEAH, IT'S WHEN MY WIFE AND I CAME BACK FROM WASHINGTON AFTER I'D SERVED AS CHIEF OF STAFF TO BILL CLINTON IN HIS FIRST TERM.

AND WE CAME BACK TO MY HOME AREA OF MONTEREY.

AND WHAT I HAD DONE AS CONGRESSMAN IS TAKEN A FORMER MILITARY BASE CALLED FORT ORD, WHICH GOT SHUT DOWN DURING THE BRAC PROCESS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO CONVERT IT INTO A CAMPUS OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM.

IT'S NOW CALLED CSU MONTEREY BAY.

SO I WAS ABLE TO GO BACK TO THAT CAMPUS AND DID SOME TEACHING AND BECAME VERY CONCERNED THAT YOUNG PEOPLE DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN PUBLIC SERVICE THE WAY I HAD WHEN I WAS COMING OUT OF A COLLEGE.

AND SO MY WIFE AND I BEGAN THIS PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE WITH THE PRIMARY MISSION OF TRYING TO INSPIRE YOUNG PEOPLE TO LIVES OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

AND SO WE DEVELOPED A CURRICULUM TO PROMOTE THAT GOAL.

WE DO A LEADERSHIP PROGRAM FOR STUDENT BODY OFFICERS BECAUSE I FIGURE IF YOU'RE A STUDENT BODY OFFICER, YOU MUST BE INTERESTED IN PUBLIC SERVICE.

SO WE DO ALL OF THE STUDENT BODY OFFICERS.

IT'S A PROGRAM FOR THEM.

WE DO A LECTURE SERIES THAT WE DO NOT JUST FOR THE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO FOR STUDENTS IN THE AREA.

SO THEY ARE EXPOSED TO PEOPLE WHO ARE LEADERS AND COME FROM BOTH PARTIES AND SPEAK TO THE ISSUES IN A CIVIL WAY.

THIRDLY, WE HAVE AN INTERNSHIP PROGRAM IN WASHINGTON WHERE WE TRAIN STUDENTS TO GO BACK TO WASHINGTON.

WE DO A TWO-WEEK PROGRAM AT THE INSTITUTE TO TRAIN THEM.

THEN SEND THEM BACK TO CAPITOL HILL, TO THE CALIFORNIA DELEGATION, BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, AND WE PAY FOR EVERYTHING.

SO THERE ISN'T... EVERY STUDENT CAN HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY REGARDLESS OF THEIR STATUS.

AND THEN WE HAVE A FELLOWS PROGRAM FOR LAW STUDENTS.

I'M TRYING TO TEACH THE ART OF GOVERNING, WHICH IS A LOST ART THESE DAYS.

WHAT IT TAKES TO UNDERSTAND ONE ANOTHER AND TRY TO FIND CONSENSUS.

AND WE ALSO HAVE WHAT'S CALLED MONTEREY COUNTY REEDS PROGRAM WHERE WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS GOING INTO THE GRAMMAR SCHOOLS, TEACHING KIDS HOW TO READ.

SO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS.

AND OUR GOAL REALLY IS TO TRY TO PROVIDE A FUTURE GENERATION OF LEADERS FOR OUR DEMOCRACY, WHICH I THINK IS DESPERATELY NEEDED THESE DAYS.

>>WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU, ARE YOU...

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A MUCH NEEDED EFFORT RIGHT NOW.

WHERE ARE POLITICS IN THE US RIGHT NOW?

YOU WERE ELECTED IN '76 TO CONGRESS THE FIRST TIME IN WAKE OF NIXON AND WATERGATE.

YOU SERVED IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION WHERE YOU WENT THROUGH AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND I WAS ACTUALLY WORKING ON THE HILL AT THE TIME.

AND I REMEMBER EVERYONE THOUGHT THIS IS SO DIVISIVE.

AND NOW WE LOOK ON BACK THOSE AS ERA OF COOPERATION RELATIVELY.

WHERE ARE WE HEADED RIGHT NOW?

>>WELL, IT'S THE QUESTION OF OUR DAY.

RIGHT NOW WHERE ARE WE HEADED IN TERMS OF OUR DEMOCRACY?

I OFTEN TELL THE STUDENTS HERE AT THE PANETTA INSTITUTE THAT IN A DEMOCRACY, WE GOVERN EITHER BY LEADERSHIP OR BY CRISIS.

IF LEADERSHIP IS THERE AND WILLING TO TAKE THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH LEADERSHIP, THEN WE CAN AVOID CRISIS AND CERTAINLY CONTAIN IT.

BUT IF LEADERSHIP IS NOT THERE, THEN WE'LL GOVERN BY CRISIS.

AND I THINK TOO OFTEN, IN RECENT DAYS, WE'VE GOVERNED BY CRISIS.

>>I'VE SAID THAT IN MY 50 YEARS OF PUBLIC LIFE, I'VE SEEN WASHINGTON AT ITS BEST AND I'VE SEEN WASHINGTON AT ITS WORST.

I THINK THE GOOD NEWS IS, I'VE SEEN WASHINGTON WORK.

I WAS THERE.

I GUESS I CAME OUT OF THE ARMY IN THE 1960.

WE WENT TO WORK AS A LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO A REPUBLICAN SENATOR ACTUALLY FROM CALIFORNIA.

AND IN THOSE DAYS, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF MODERATE REPUBLICANS.

THERE WERE A LOT OF GUYS LIKE, YOUR AUDIENCE WON'T REMEMBER THIS, BUT PEOPLE LIKE JACOB JAVITS FROM NEW YORK, CLIFFORD CASE FROM NEW JERSEY, GEORGE AIKEN FROM VERMONT, HUGH SCOTT FROM PENNSYLVANIA, NUMBER OF OTHERS.

WORKING WITH PEOPLE LIKE HENRY JACKSON, MAGNUSON, DICK RUSSELL, AND SAM ERVIN, DEMOCRATS WHO WERE STATESMAN.

AND THEY WORKED...

THEY HAD THEIR POLITICAL DIFFERENCES.

BUT ON BIG ISSUES, THEY WORKED TOGETHER.

AND WE'RE ABLE TO PASS A LOT OF LANDMARK LEGISLATION, WHETHER IT WAS ON CIVIL RIGHTS OR EDUCATION OR THE ENVIRONMENT OR BUDGETS.

AND IT WAS THE SAME WHEN I WAS ELECTED TO CONGRESS, TIP O'NEILL WAS THE SPEAKER OF DEMOCRATS DEMOCRAT FROM MASSACHUSETTS, BUT HE HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH BOB MICHAEL, WHO WAS THE MINORITY LEADER FROM ILLINOIS.

AND AGAIN, THEY HAD THEIR POLITICAL DIFFERENCES.

THEY FOUGHT EACH OTHER IN ELECTIONS.

BUT WHEN IT CAME TO BIG ISSUES, THEY WORKED TOGETHER, WHETHER IT WAS A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT OR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.

I REMEMBER UNDER RONALD REAGAN, WE PASSED SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM, THE THIRD RAIL OF POLITICS.

WE PASSED SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.

WE PASSED IMMIGRATION REFORM, SOMETHING THAT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THESE DAYS.

WE PASSED TAX REFORM ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS, SIMPLIFYING OUR TAX SYSTEM.

AND WE PASSED BUDGETS.

AND SO THERE WAS A WILLINGNESS TO WORK TOGETHER AND THAT'S WHAT OUR DEMOCRACY IS ALL ABOUT.

IS BOTH PARTIES WORKING TOGETHER TO SOLVE PROBLEMS.

IN THE RECENT PERIOD, WE'VE SEEN PROBABLY THE LAST 12, 15 YEARS, I'VE NEVER SEEN WASHINGTON AS BAD AS IT IS TODAY IN TERMS OF BEING DIVIDED, POLARIZED, UNABLE TO WORK TOGETHER.

THERE IS A DYSFUNCTION IN WASHINGTON WHEN BOTH PARTIES ARE SIMPLY UNABLE TO COME TOGETHER ON THE BIG ISSUES FACING OUR COUNTRY.

AND WHAT WE SAW HAPPEN ON JANUARY 6TH IS SOMETHING I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SEE IN MY LIFETIME, WHICH IS TO HAVE A MOB ATTACK THE UNITED STATES CAPITAL AND BRING OUR DEMOCRACY TO A HALT.

SO I THINK WE'RE IN A VERY FRAGILE PERIOD IN TERMS OF OUR DEMOCRACY RIGHT NOW.

AND IT IS REALLY GOING TO DEMAND A LOT STRONGER LEADERSHIP THAN WHAT WE HAVE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET PAST THIS.

>>SO THIS IS- >>I THINK WE WILL, BY THE WAY.

I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT THAT AMERICA CAN ALWAYS RISE TO THE OCCASION.

WE'VE DEALT WITH A LOT OF CRISES THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY.

BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I'M WORRIED THAT IF WE DON'T FIND THAT LEADERSHIP SOON, THAT OUR DEMOCRACY MAY NOT SURVIVE.

>>YOU TALKED ABOUT SOME LANDMARK PIECES OF LEGISLATION AND IMMIGRATION REFORM AND SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM UNDER REAGAN, FOR EXAMPLE.

THESE WERE OBVIOUSLY VERY DIFFICULT ISSUES, BUT IT SEEMS NOW WE'RE RUNNING INTO PROBLEMS ON ROUTINE ISSUES.

WE HAVE PERIODIC FIGHTS OVER THE DEBT LIMIT.

THAT'S ACTUALLY JUST PAYING OUR BILLS, KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON.

AND THAT'S A COMMENTARY.

BUT I WANT TO ASK YOU BECAUSE YOU'VE HAD THESE ROLES IN AS SECRETARY DEFENSE AND A CIA DIRECTOR, WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BY HAVING DEMOCRACY POTENTIALLY NOT FUNCTIONING?

>>WELL, I'VE SAID THAT...

I THINK IT WAS MIKE MULLEN, WHO WAS THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF WHO SAID THAT THE DEBT REALLY REPRESENTED A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT.

AND I HAPPENED TO AGREE WITH HIM THAT WE'RE NOW RUNNING $27 TRILLION, $28 TRILLION DEBT IN THIS COUNTRY.

>>AND BY THE WAY, ONE OF THE THINGS I WORKED ON WHEN I WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE AND OMB DIRECTOR WERE TWO AGREEMENTS, ONE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, ONE IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION THAT HAD SIGNIFICANT ALMOST $500 BILLION IN DEFICIT REDUCTION, $250 BILLION IN SPENDING SAVINGS ON ENTITLEMENTS AND $250 BILLION IN REVENUE INCREASES, TAXES.

AND BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO PASS THOSE TWO AGREEMENTS, WE BALANCED THE FEDERAL BUDGET.

AND WE ULTIMATELY NOT ONLY BALANCED IT, BUT HAD A SURPLUS.

NOW, THAT SEEMS LIKE ANCIENT HISTORY.

BUT IT TELLS US A LOT ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING TODAY.

THERE'S ALMOST AN UNWILLINGNESS ON BOTH THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN SIDE TO CONFRONT THESE ISSUES LIKE DEALING WITH THE BUDGET.

THAT'S A RESPONSIBILITY.

THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE GET ELECTED TO DO.

NOT TO GO BACK TO WASHINGTON AND POUND THEIR SHOE ON THE TABLE.

THEY GET ELECTED TO GO BACK TO CONGRESS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS FACING OUR COUNTRY.

AND WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING LIKE PASSING A BUDGET OR PASSING THE DEBT LIMIT IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR ECONOMY GOING, OR PASSING APPROPRIATIONS BILLS IN ORDER TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT, THOSE ARE PRETTY BASIC THINGS.

AND NOW THEY BECOME EXTREMELY PARTISAN.

>>AND I SEE THAT IN TERMS OF NATIONAL SECURITY AS WELL.

I THINK THE DYSFUNCTION IN OUR DEMOCRACY IS A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT.

WHY?

BECAUSE FRANKLY, IF OUR DEMOCRACY ISN'T STRONG, IF WE AREN'T SOLVING PROBLEMS, COUNTRIES WILL NOT ONLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR CREDIBILITY ISSUE.

THEY'LL BE CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OUR DEMOCRACY CAN SURVIVE.

HOW CAN WE BE A WORLD LEADER?

HOW CAN WE DEAL WITH OUR ALLIES?

HOW CAN WE DEAL WITH THE DANGER POINTS IN THE WORLD IF WE ARE NOT A CREDIBLE FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY?

SO THE INABILITY TO HAVE BOTH PARTIES WORKING TOGETHER TO GOVERN OUR COUNTRY REPRESENTS A REAL NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT.

>>I WANTED TO ASK YOU, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS.

YOU WERE CRITICAL OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S PULLOUT FROM AFGHANISTAN.

TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT WHY YOU WERE CRITICAL OF THAT.

AND WHAT IS THE MESSAGE THAT THAT CHAOTIC PULLOUT FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, WHAT MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND TO OUR ALLIES AND OUR ADVERSARIES OVERSEAS?

>>WELL, I WORRY ABOUT THE MESSAGE THAT THAT SENDS BECAUSE IF THE UNITED STATES CANNOT EXECUTE A DECISION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, LOOK, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE DECISION AND THERE ARE DIFFERENCES THERE.

BUT LET'S ASSUME THAT WE MADE THE DECISION, WE WERE GOING TO TRANSITION OUT OF AFGHANISTAN, THEN IT IS CRITICAL TO HAVE A PRESIDENT'S DECISION EXECUTED EFFECTIVELY, COMPETENTLY, AND TO NOT HAVE HAD A PLAN TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THE POTENTIAL CONTINGENCIES THAT WOULD OCCUR HERE.

>>WE SAW WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE TALIBAN MOVING QUICKLY.

WE SAW WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT SURRENDERING AREA AFTER AREA.

WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS A REAL POTENTIAL THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN A LOT FASTER.

SO WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED TO HAVE DEALT WITH THAT IN ORDER TO PROTECT AMERICANS, IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR AFGHAN ALLIES, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IN A WAY TO PROTECT THE AFGHAN PEOPLE AS WELL.

>>THE INABILITY OR THE FAILURE TO DEVELOP AN EFFECTIVE PLAN AND HAVE THE RESULTING CHAOS TAKE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE WERE JUMPING ON PLANES AND THE KIND OF THING THAT WE NEVER THOUGHT WE WOULD SEE AGAIN AFTER VIETNAM, IT SENT A MESSAGE TO THE WORLD WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE UNITED STATES CAN EFFECTIVELY EXECUTE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

AND THAT HURTS OUR CREDIBILITY.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE FAILURE TO CONSULT WITH OUR ALLIES, CONSULT, PARTICULARLY WITH OUR NATO ALLIES WHO HAVE FOUGHT ALONGSIDE OF US FOR 20 YEARS IN AFGHANISTAN, TO NOT CONSULT WITH THEM AND WORK WITH THEM.

AGAIN, SENT A MESSAGE TO OUR ALLIES THAT PERHAPS THEY CAN'T TRUST THE UNITED STATES WHEN IT COMES TO SHARING THE CRITICAL INFORMATION THAT ALLIES SHOULD BE SHARING.

SO YEAH, IT'S A BAD MESSAGE.

AND IT'S NOT THAT WE CAN'T REPAIR IT, IT'S NOT THAT WE CAN'T MOVE BEYOND IT, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO REPRESENT A STRONG POWER IN THE WORLD.

IF WE'RE GOING TO BE A WORLD LEADER, WE'VE GOT NOT ONLY TO HAVE A STRONG DEFENSE THAT CAN DO THE JOB.

WE HAVE TO HAVE STRONG DIPLOMACY, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT COMPETENTLY THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE.

AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT WAS A BAD MOMENT.

IT WAS A MISTAKE.

WE CAN REPAIR THE DAMAGE.

I'M CONFIDENT WE CAN.

BUT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A PERIOD RECENTLY WHERE, PARTICULARLY AFTER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THE CREDIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES IN TERMS OF OUR ALLIES, IN TERMS OF OUR TRUSTWORTHINESS, IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO LEAD IN THE WORLD, ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN QUESTIONED.

AND I'M AFRAID WHAT HAPPENED IN AFGHANISTAN CONTINUED TO RAISE CREDIBILITY ISSUES ABOUT THE UNITED STATES.

>>SECRETARY, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS TOO BROAD IN GENERAL, BUT THERE HAS BEEN CRITICISM THAT THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A FOREIGN POLICY PLAN OR A DIFFERENT STRATEGY.

THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT A CHINA THREAT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND PEOPLE ARE CRITICAL OF CHINA, BUT THEY HAVE THE BELT AND ROAD INITIATIVE, IT'S A PLAN.

PEOPLE KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING.

DO OUR ALLIES AND DOES THE WORLD KNOW WHERE THE UNITED STATES IS GOING?

AND DO WE KNOW WHERE WE WANT TO GO ACTUALLY?

>>DAVID, I THINK FOR TOO LONG, BOTH OUR FOREIGN POLICY, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY POLICY HAS BEEN BASED LARGELY ON CRISIS MANAGEMENT.

IT'S A HIT AND MISS APPROACH.

I REMEMBER DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION THAT IN THAT FIRST TERM WHEN I WAS CHIEF OF STAFF, THERE WAS AN EFFORT BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY THAT BASICALLY DEFINED WHAT ARE THE THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS?

HOW WOULD WE RESPOND?

AND HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THE WORLD?

THAT'S IMPORTANT.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE WORLD TO KNOW WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM.

>>BUT SINCE THAT TIME, IT'S BEEN BASICALLY THE ATTITUDE THAT WHY SHOULD WE GET BOGGED DOWN BY ANY KIND OF STRATEGY OR PLAN?

LET'S JUST BE BASICALLY DEAL WITH THE WORLD AS IT COMES TO US.

AND SO IT'S BEEN LARGELY CRISIS MANAGEMENT.

WE GET HIT BY 9/11.

WE RESPOND TO THE CRISIS.

WE GET HIT BY AL-QAEDA, BY TERRORISTS, WE GET HIT BY RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

WE GET HIT BY CHINESE AGGRESSION IN ITS OWN WAY.

AND THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO RESPOND TO IT.

BUT THERE ISN'T A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH HERE THAT RECOGNIZES WHAT THE UNITED STATES STAND FOR.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE HAVE GOING FOR US AS A WORLD LEADER IS OUR DEMOCRATIC VALUES.

THAT'S OUR REAL POWER IN THE WORLD, IS WHO WE ARE.

THE RIGHTS THAT WE RESPECT, THE FREEDOMS WE HAVE, AND WHAT WE STAND FOR IN TERMS OF THE RULE OF LAW AND RESPECT FOR ONE ANOTHER.

AND WE NEED TO MAKE CLEAR AS A DEMOCRACY, PARTICULARLY AT A TIME WHEN AUTOCRACIES ARE ON THE INCREASE.

WE NEED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE UNITED STATES AS A DEMOCRACY IS GOING TO STAY TRUE TO OUR VALUES, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONFRONT THESE DANGER POINTS IN THE WORLD.

THIS IS A DANGEROUS WORLD.

WE LIVE IN.

JUST LOOK AT THE THREATS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHETHER IT'S CHINA, WHETHER IT'S RUSSIA, WHETHER IT'S NORTH KOREA, WHETHER IT'S IRAN, WHETHER IT'S TERRORISM, WHETHER IT'S THE CYBER THREATS THAT ARE NOW STRIKING AT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, WE'RE DEALING WITH A LOT OF THREATS.

THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T HAVE A STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH IT.

AND FRANKLY, I THINK THE STRATEGY OUGHT TO BE TO BUILD ALLIANCES.

NATO ALLIANCE REPRESENTS THE CULMINATION OF WHAT ALLIANCES OUGHT TO OPERATE AS, AND THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL IN DEFEATING THE SOVIET UNION.

WE NEED TO BUILD OTHER ALLIANCES IN ASIA, IN THE MIDDLE EAST, IN AFRICA, IN SOUTH AND LATIN AMERICA.

IN ORDER TO CONFRONT THESE DAY DANGER POINTS, THE AMERICA HAS TO BE A LEADER, A WORLD LEADER.

BUT TO BE A WORLD LEADER, THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT IS IT WE STAND FOR?

WHAT IS IT WE WILL PROTECT?

WHERE WILL WE DRAW THE LINE IN TERMS OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST?

AND THAT WE HAVE THE DEFENSE SYSTEM AND THE DIPLOMATIC SYSTEM TO BASICALLY IMPLEMENT THAT STRATEGY.

THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED IN TODAY'S WORLD.

>>SO LET ME ASK YOU, WE'RE DIAGNOSING SOME OF THE PROBLEMS AND SHORTCOMINGS AND DANGERS, BUT YOU'VE BEEN KNOWN AS AN OPTIMISTIC PERSON.

AND YOU'VE BEEN FIVE DECADES, YOU'VE BEEN SOLUTION-ORIENTED, NOT JUST LOOKING AT PROBLEMS, BUT ACTUALLY SOLVING THEM, INCLUDING YOU MENTIONED WORKING IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ON THE BUDGET, WHICH WAS NEVER WOULD WE BE IN THE BLACK, BUT YOU GOT IT THERE.

SO WHAT ARE SOME OF THE REASONS FOR OPTIMISM NOW?

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS WE NEED.

WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT IT CAN HAPPEN?

>>LOOK, I BELIEVE IN THE STRENGTH OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP AND WHY?

BECAUSE PROBABLY THE FUNDAMENTAL STRENGTH OF THIS COUNTRY DOESN'T LIE IN WASHINGTON.

IT LIES IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AND I'VE SEEN THAT AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, I SAW IT IN THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVED THIS COUNTRY IN UNIFORM, AND ARE WILLING TO PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY.

THEY'RE WILLING TO FIGHT AND TO DIE IF NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR ELECTED LEADERS TO REALIZE THAT WHEN THEY'RE ELECTED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO COUNTRY FIRST.

THEY SWEAR AN ALLEGIANCE TO CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, FIRST AND FOREMOST.

AND THAT THEY HAVE THE DUTY TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THESE CRISES.

NOW, LOOK, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF CRISES IN OUR TIME.

WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A CIVIL WAR THAT TORE THIS COUNTRY APART.

WE'VE FOUND THE RIGHT LEADERSHIP.

WE'VE BEEN THROUGH RECESSIONS AND DEPRESSIONS AND WORLD WARS.

AND SOMEHOW WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE RIGHT LEADERSHIP.

AND I THINK WE WILL TODAY.

BUT THAT LEADERSHIP COMES WHEN THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH LEADERSHIP.

AS YOU MAY KNOW WHEN I WAS CIA DIRECTOR, WE HAD THE MISSION TO GO AFTER BIN LADEN.

AND WE HAD INTELLIGENCE ON WHERE THE COMPOUND WAS.

WE HAD INTELLIGENCE THAT WE THOUGHT BIN LADEN'S FAMILY WAS THERE.

IT WASN'T 100%.

WE NEVER WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY BIN LADEN HIMSELF.

BUT WE THOUGHT WE HAD PRETTY GOOD INTELLIGENCE.

AND WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO IT IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, THERE WAS SOME WHO SAID, "THIS IS JUST TOO RISKY."

AND I REMEMBER WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED ME, I SAID, "YOU KNOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I HAD AN OLD FORMULA I USED WHEN I WAS IN CONGRESS, WHICH IS, WHEN I HAD A TOUGH DECISION, I PRETENDED I WAS ASKING A COMMON CITIZEN IN MY DISTRICT IF YOU KNEW WHAT I KNEW, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?"

AND I SAID, "IF I TOLD THE AVERAGE CITIZEN IN MY DISTRICT THAT WE HAD THE BEST INFORMATION ON THE LOCATION OF BIN LADEN SINCE TORA BORA, THAT CITIZEN WOULD SAY WE HAVE TO GO.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TELLING YOU, MR.

PRESIDENT."

AND I ALSO HAD TREMENDOUS CONFIDENCE OBVIOUSLY IN THE SEALS AND THEIR ABILITY TO DO IT.

THE PRESIDENT MADE A DIFFICULT DECISION.

>>AND THAT OUTCOME WAS NOT ASSURED, OF COURSE.

AND YOU RISKED A MAJOR CONFRONTATION WITH PAKISTAN.

>>THAT'S RIGHT.

WE WERE DOING IT WITHOUT INFORMING PAKISTAN BECAUSE WE THOUGHT WE COULDN'T TRUST THEM WITH THAT INFORMATION.

SO WE WERE GOING 140 MILES INTO PAKISTAN AT NIGHT, TWO HELICOPTERS WITH TWO SEAL TEAMS THAT WOULD REPEL DOWN ONTO THIS COMPOUND.

AND WHO KNOWS, WE MIGHT BE IN WAR WITH PAKISTAN.

AT THAT POINT, BIN LADEN MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THERE.

>>BUT LEADERSHIP DECIDED THAT IT WAS WORTH THE RISK.

AND THAT'S TRUE FOR LEADERSHIP THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

THERE ARE RISKS.

THERE WERE RISKS WITH THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.

THERE WERE RISKS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HOW WE WERE GOING TO ENTER WORLD WAR I OR WORLD WAR II, BUT WE TOOK THOSE RISKS.

AND I THINK TODAY, MY FEAR IS THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE AFRAID OF TAKING THOSE RISKS.

THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO ANGER THEIR PARTICULAR POLITICAL BASE.

THAT PARTY COMES AHEAD OF COUNTRY.

AND THAT AS A RESULT, THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK.

SO NOW, LOOK, WHEN I WAS IN CONGRESS, TIP O'NEIL AS SPEAKER HAD TO TAKE RISKS.

HE LOOKED AT DEMOCRATS AND SAID, "WE HAVE TO DO THIS FOR THE SAKE OF THE COUNTRY."

AND BOB MICHAEL DID THE SAME THING TO REPUBLICANS.

THEY WERE WILLING TO TAKE RISKS.

WE GOT TO GET BACK TO THAT BECAUSE FRANKLY OUR DEMOCRACY WILL NOT FUNCTION UNLESS WE HAVE STRONG LEADERS WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE RISKS.

>>SECRETARY PANETTA, WHAT WAS THE MOST DIFFICULT DECISION YOU HAD TO MAKE?

YOU HAD ALL THESE DIFFERENT HIGH PROFILE JOBS, AND WE'RE RUNNING A LITTLE SHORTER TIME.

SO WE JUST HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES LEFT.

BUT IF YOU CAN THINK OF TWO OR THREE DECISIONS THAT WERE REALLY DIFFICULT FOR YOU, WHAT WERE THEY IN RETROSPECT?

>>WELL, I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT JOBS AND A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CHALLENGES.

BUT AT ONE POINT YOU DIDN'T MENTION IT.

I WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING EQUAL RIGHTS LEGISLATION, PARTICULARLY IN THE SOUTH WHERE THE DUAL SCHOOL SYSTEM WAS A REALITY AT THAT TIME.

AND I HAD WORKED ON CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND FELT RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING IT.

>>BUT AT THE TIME, THE ADMINISTRATION, THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION MADE A DEAL TO BACK OFF OF STRONG CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT.

AND I WAS GETTING PRESSURE NOT TO ENFORCE THE LAW.

BUT I MADE THE DECISION I WAS GOING TO CONTINUE TO ENFORCE THE LAW BECAUSE I THOUGHT I HAD SWORN AN OATH TO DO THAT.

WELL, EVENTUALLY IT COST ME MY JOB.

BUT I'VE NEVER REGRETTED THAT DECISION, BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU, IT WAS A TOUGH DECISION TO MAKE TO ENFORCE THE LAW.

WHEN I WAS CIA DIRECTOR AND WE HAD TO MAKE A DECISION, HOW ARE WE GOING TO FIND BIN LADEN?

THE TOUGHEST THING I HAD TO DO WAS TO TELL OUR PEOPLE THAT IT WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM JUST TO TELL ME WE HAD NO INFORMATION.

I TOLD THEM BASICALLY, "I DON'T GIVE A DAMN.

YOU HAVE TO COME BACK IN HERE EVERY TIME YOU BRIEF ME AND COME UP WITH FIVE NEW IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO FIND BIN LADEN."

AND TO THEIR CREDIT, THEY DID THAT.

AND I THOUGHT WE REALLY MADE THE RIGHT DECISION TO BE ABLE TO GO TO DO WHAT WE HAD TO DO.

AND AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ONE OF THE THINGS I BELIEVE IN IS THAT EVERYBODY OUGHT TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY.

EVERYBODY OUGHT TO HAVE A CHANCE TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY.

AND WE HAVE A STRONG MILITARY BECAUSE WE ALLOW MEN AND WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF EVERY RACE AND CREED AND COLOR, GENDER TO BE ABLE TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY.

WHEN I WAS THERE, WOMEN WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BE IN COMBAT POSITIONS.

SO I MADE THE DECISION THAT WOMEN OUGHT TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY AND SAT DOWN WITH THE MILITARY.

AND TO THEIR CREDIT, THEY WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH ME AND WE'VE OPENED UP THOSE OPPORTUNITIES.

AND TODAY, AS WE SPEAK, THERE ARE WOMEN WHO ARE SEALS AND SPECIAL FORCES AND SERVING IN COMBAT POSITIONS.

I THINK THAT MAKES US A BETTER COUNTRY.

SO YEAH, I'VE HAD A LOT OF TOUGH DECISIONS THAT I'VE HAD THROUGHOUT MY CAREER, BUT I'M REALLY PROUD OF THE FACT THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN DO IN PUBLIC SERVICE IS TO TRY TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF OTHERS.

AND THERE ISN'T MUCH...

IT'S NOT MONEY.

IT'S NOT POWER.

IT'S ABOUT IMPROVING THE LIVES OF OTHERS.

AND I THINK I CAN SAY THAT IN THE TIME THAT I'VE SERVED IN PUBLIC SERVICE.

>>SECRETARY LEON PANETTA, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.

WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

AND WE COULD KEEP TALKING TO YOU FOR FOREVER, BUT MAYBE WE'LL DO THAT ANOTHER SHOW ANOTHER DAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>>GOOD TO BE WITH YOU, DAVID.

>>AND THANK YOU.

WE'LL SEE YOU AGAIN NEXT WEEK ON ANOTHER EPISODE OF GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES.