Speaker 1: This is Alec Baldwin and you're listening to. Here's the thing,
Speaker 1: My chance to talk with artists, policymakers and performers, to
Speaker 1: hear their stories. What inspires their creations, what decisions change
Speaker 1: their careers, what relationships influenced their work. My guest today
Speaker 1: is the Secretary of the U. S Army, Eric Fanning.
Speaker 1: He is the first openly gay leader of the armed forces.
Speaker 1: Fanning's job is like a real life game of risk.
Speaker 1: When Russia or North Korea flexes its muscles, Secretary Fanning
Speaker 1: make sure US troops are ready to move to conflict borders.
Speaker 1: He's the guy whose job it is to ensure that
Speaker 1: those same soldiers have the tank's body armor and weapons
Speaker 1: they need when they hit the ground in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Speaker 1: I describe it as being the CEO of a business unit.
Speaker 1: My job is to build the army, essentially recruit, train
Speaker 1: and equip uh and then turn it over to the
Speaker 1: war fighting generals who were poured up through the commander
Speaker 1: in chief the president. When were you appointed this position?
Speaker 1: In my home, I was appointed the position by President Obama.
Speaker 1: It was a very convoluted path. I've had nine titles
Speaker 1: in the in this administration, all in the Pentagon. Nine
Speaker 1: different positions that I moved through, including at one point
Speaker 1: acting Secretary of the Air Force. I was in the
Speaker 1: Navy Department as Deputy under secretary before Obama. In Obama
Speaker 1: Obama's elected in November of two thousand eight, and you
Speaker 1: come and you start working with at April and two
Speaker 1: thousand n the spring of two thousand you start, yes,
Speaker 1: I need that multiple multiple positions yet. And I worked
Speaker 1: in the Bill Clinton Pentagon as well. That's that's almost
Speaker 1: where I started. What was your relationship to the military
Speaker 1: before the Clinton and Obama appointments. I worked on the
Speaker 1: House arm Services Committee for Chairman Less Aspen, who became
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton's first Defense secretary. You're on Aspen staff, Aspen
Speaker 1: staff when you worked under Obama, What were the multiple
Speaker 1: deployments that he gave you. Well, I started as a
Speaker 1: special assistant to Secretary Gates, essentially working transition, went to
Speaker 1: Deputy under Secretary and Navy Under Secretary of the Air Force,
Speaker 1: Acting Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff to
Speaker 1: Secretary of Defense Carter. Then they moved me over to
Speaker 1: the Army as acting under Secretary, then acting Secretary, then
Speaker 1: I had to go back to Carter's office during the
Speaker 1: confirmation process, then was confirmed and appointed in May. And
Speaker 1: what what's been your motivating force? I mean, were you
Speaker 1: Did you come from a military family. I did come
Speaker 1: from a military family. Have two uncles that went to
Speaker 1: West Point where career Army. My father grew up his family,
Speaker 1: the Fanning families, right from from Cormall, New York, right
Speaker 1: outside of West Point, so it was a big part
Speaker 1: of the family. Have another uncle who was career Air Force.
Speaker 1: But with the prohibition on gays and lesbians serving, I
Speaker 1: wasn't allowed to serve. So going in the uniform side
Speaker 1: was not an option for me. We were not for
Speaker 1: that prohibition. Would you have gone? My my uncle's were
Speaker 1: lobbying hard for me to go to a military academy,
Speaker 1: um following their footsteps, but it just wasn't an option.
Speaker 1: Didn't really entertained it very much. Well, I wasn't. I
Speaker 1: wasn't out when I was in high school thinking about
Speaker 1: these things, but but it just wasn't an option for me.
Speaker 1: And so I I knew at a certain point in
Speaker 1: college that I wanted to come to Washington and work
Speaker 1: in government, and I wanted to start on the Hill
Speaker 1: and I got a great job in the airm Services Committee.
Speaker 1: How would you say your experience of being a gay
Speaker 1: man who wanted to serve in the military and concluded
Speaker 1: that that was not possible and you didn't even bother
Speaker 1: How did that influence your feelings about that in the military?
Speaker 1: I meaning when that changed? Was it just for you?
Speaker 1: I was in the Pentagon on the first day of
Speaker 1: the Clinton administration. Don't I Stonetell didn't exist. It was
Speaker 1: created that first year of the Clinton administration, and it
Speaker 1: was it was crea It was a difficult thing to
Speaker 1: be a part of. I was. I was a very
Speaker 1: I think twenty four years old and working in Aspen's
Speaker 1: front office, and so I was exposed to a lot
Speaker 1: of the conversations that were taking place, and I ended
Speaker 1: up leaving um government eventually Washington. I moved up to
Speaker 1: New York City because I didn't think there was a
Speaker 1: place for me in that world. Once I don't ask,
Speaker 1: don't don't don't tell. It didn't apply to civilians, but
Speaker 1: but it still reflects what was the culture at the time.
Speaker 1: You came to New York to do what I worked
Speaker 1: for CBS News for a while, actually did a number
Speaker 1: of things that work for CBS News for a while,
Speaker 1: but but I missed it. I uh, And then what happened, Well,
Speaker 1: I ended up going back to Washington and working for
Speaker 1: a think tank, and kind of coincidentally, in fun for me,
Speaker 1: one of my oldest friends in Washington, who I met
Speaker 1: on the Armed Services Committee, was at this think tank
Speaker 1: said come here, there's an opening. She's now the Secretary
Speaker 1: of the Air Force. UM so the two of us
Speaker 1: being service secretaries together as a fun time. But I
Speaker 1: found my way back out into the Obama administration. Don't Ask,
Speaker 1: Don't Tell still existed, and it was I was conflicted
Speaker 1: about going back to a building that had that discriminated
Speaker 1: And but did you feel that discrimination? Well, I didn't
Speaker 1: necessarily because I was on the civilian side, and I think, uh,
Speaker 1: there were there were lots of people trying to send
Speaker 1: signs that they thought it was a time for a change,
Speaker 1: and the president had campaigned very strongly and repealing don't Ask,
Speaker 1: don't Tell. It was it was difficult to get there,
Speaker 1: and it almost didn't happen. It happened. It was one
Speaker 1: of the very last things that he did before the
Speaker 1: first mid terms, and it was. It was an exciting
Speaker 1: thing to be a part of. You know, you interact
Speaker 1: with uniform military people all the time, and during your career,
Speaker 1: did you get a sense that some of them were
Speaker 1: less than warm towards you because you represented this the
Speaker 1: new military and you represented the inclusive military. I think
Speaker 1: always hasn't always been polite. Well, they're always going to
Speaker 1: be a polite to me, especially in the current job,
Speaker 1: since you know the uniform. I think first of all, culturally,
Speaker 1: things have changed so much since the start of the
Speaker 1: Clinton administration. And what I've learned over and over and
Speaker 1: over again is you can't make decisions. You live your
Speaker 1: life and fear of of the people who have negative
Speaker 1: views on that because they are um they're outnumbered by
Speaker 1: those who are supportive of the change. And each time
Speaker 1: that I got a new job and got some attention,
Speaker 1: and you know it was labeled the gay guy, more
Speaker 1: are more people would find ways to to show their
Speaker 1: support of me personally and the things we were working on.
Speaker 1: Describe exactly what is your job, what are you charged
Speaker 1: with doing? The service secretaries are CEOs of business units.
Speaker 1: The army budget when you include the war supplemental budgets
Speaker 1: is over a hundred forty billion dollars a year. There's
Speaker 1: about one point one million people in uniform, a quarter
Speaker 1: of a million civilians, all a part of this apparatus.
Speaker 1: And my job is to oversee the creation of of
Speaker 1: the army, to make sure we're recruiting the right people,
Speaker 1: make sure we're training them properly, keeping them ready, and
Speaker 1: then keeping them equipped, and then taking care of their welfare,
Speaker 1: morale and that. Do you rely on to tell you
Speaker 1: that they're properly equipped. It's an enormous organization. There are
Speaker 1: lots of people that helped me with those things, and
Speaker 1: my uniform uniform people lay on uniform people to tell
Speaker 1: you what's going on and what's not going on. Well,
Speaker 1: it's a mix I look for, you know, certainly the
Speaker 1: Chief of Staff of the Army, the senior General in
Speaker 1: the Army, whose office is our office is separate by
Speaker 1: a door um uh is the one I'm most closely
Speaker 1: listening to. But I've got career civilians, I've got contractors,
Speaker 1: I've got all sorts of people that can help me
Speaker 1: assess the health of the force. And the contractors are
Speaker 1: do they have offices all lined up around the pending
Speaker 1: on Is there like a little contractors village there. It's
Speaker 1: not a village, but they are. They have a presence there.
Speaker 1: There is an army of contractors helping. They are there
Speaker 1: in Virginia. But I asked that because you know, listen,
Speaker 1: there are so many you know, I think fair and
Speaker 1: some loaded questions that people always have for people in
Speaker 1: the military. Americans tend to feel that the United States
Speaker 1: military costs us too much money per uh the percentage
Speaker 1: of our gross national product. Do you have any opinion
Speaker 1: about that? Yeah, we do spend a lot of money
Speaker 1: on on the military. Uh. And I get asked all
Speaker 1: of the time, why do we spend as much as
Speaker 1: an x x number of countries combined. We're asked to
Speaker 1: do a lot more. We are adversaries. Only have to
Speaker 1: keep us from pet They don't have to jam us,
Speaker 1: They only have to block us. We have to penetrate.
Speaker 1: We have to do it everywhere in the world, and
Speaker 1: we have to do it decisively. No other country does that. Um.
Speaker 1: The Russians are a European adversary. The Chinese are, but
Speaker 1: they're not global powers. Um. We are. And if we're
Speaker 1: asked to do that, it's going to cost money. Do
Speaker 1: you think we can still afford to be a global
Speaker 1: power in the coming years. I think we can, but
Speaker 1: I think we need to think more creatively about it
Speaker 1: as present Obama has been trying to do. There are
Speaker 1: such as to what we can spend and and recognizing
Speaker 1: as he does, that national security is more than just
Speaker 1: the military. Uh, it's it's a whole combination of things
Speaker 1: across the entire federal budget budget. There has to be
Speaker 1: some balance there. But in regards to this military power
Speaker 1: secret of military power, the military does what's asked of it. Uh.
Speaker 1: They don't go and kill Kadafi unless the civilian leadership
Speaker 1: tells them to do that. Um. I you know the
Speaker 1: people being confused at the Secretary of the Army is
Speaker 1: a civilian, not a military leader. Uh, not a uniform
Speaker 1: military leader. The secretary offense is civilian. In the commander
Speaker 1: in chief of the entire United States is the president
Speaker 1: who's elected by the people, and so it's that civilian
Speaker 1: apparatus that tells the military what the strategic goals are
Speaker 1: and the military figures out how to the military the
Speaker 1: uniform military that's not the civilian side of it that
Speaker 1: you're talking about. I'm sure, there's a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: pushback from them about what they're telling you they need.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure there's a lot of lobbying going on
Speaker 1: from manufacturers and from providers about telling them what they need.
Speaker 1: And then their attitude is, let's air on the side
Speaker 1: of caution and build something that we may or may
Speaker 1: not need at a cost of hundreds of millions or
Speaker 1: billions of dollars for some system. Does that happen? Certainly?
Speaker 1: There are all sorts of forces lobbying on what we
Speaker 1: should spend and how much we should spend. The defense
Speaker 1: industrial complex, um, other lobbyists, the uniform military them, the
Speaker 1: civilian overseers, Congress, all sorts of different opinions on Congress.
Speaker 1: So it's it's a it's in an enormous elaborate process
Speaker 1: to put a budget together because there are so many voices.
Speaker 1: Have you ever do it? But have you ever been
Speaker 1: in a moment with a uniformed uh A senior you know,
Speaker 1: official general or whatever that were their ranks, and told them, no,
Speaker 1: you can't have that. Well, it doesn't quite work that way. Well,
Speaker 1: it's a very collaborative process. The budget process never ends.
Speaker 1: I mean, and you know, we're we're living in one
Speaker 1: budget year. We're um working with Congress to get approval
Speaker 1: for the next budget year. You know, we're in a
Speaker 1: budget year without a budget right now, which has been
Speaker 1: happening every year since this administration started, and we're planning
Speaker 1: the next budget cycle, getting ready to submit it. So
Speaker 1: you're this this is constant, ongoing process of building the budget.
Speaker 1: You have a sense of what your top line is,
Speaker 1: how much money you have, you know what strategic guidance
Speaker 1: you've been given, and it's just a matter of balancing risk.
Speaker 1: You could never spend enough money to buy risk down
Speaker 1: to zero, and so that's really what the process is.
Speaker 1: Where do you place your bets on risk um to
Speaker 1: make sure that you're ready for whatever you asked to
Speaker 1: do today. Well, I've always felt that, and this is
Speaker 1: a very oversimplified view. In under normal circumstances, let it go.
Speaker 1: Let alone in the presence of someone like yourself, with
Speaker 1: all the inside information you have. But I've always been
Speaker 1: of the belief of let's give every member of the
Speaker 1: military a thousand dollar a month raise. That's twelve thousand
Speaker 1: dollars times over a million people. So you're talking about
Speaker 1: roughly fifteen billion dollars, which is spitting the ocean to
Speaker 1: this government. And I've always been told that people in
Speaker 1: the military, who are the ones that make these decisions,
Speaker 1: and say, oh God, now, if we're gonna spend fifteen
Speaker 1: billion dollars, we don't want to give it to a
Speaker 1: bunch of soldiers who are going to buy charcoal, briquettes
Speaker 1: and diapers and beer with that. We need that to
Speaker 1: be spent on a weapon system that's going to move
Speaker 1: the dow. American knows they're gonna buy stuff, and we
Speaker 1: and we spend that money in a certain way to
Speaker 1: manipulate the United States economy. Do you believe that happens
Speaker 1: not in depending on We do think about our industry.
Speaker 1: But you know, some sometimes when when you're spending gets low,
Speaker 1: and and we've cut our procurement budget pretty substantially over
Speaker 1: a third in the of this administration, and salary is
Speaker 1: in the broad sense for just the uniform soldiers, not
Speaker 1: the civilians, is almost half of the army budget as
Speaker 1: it is. We don't think about the impact our spending
Speaker 1: has an economy. Now elected officials do. Uh, certainly the
Speaker 1: economy does. But we're thinking that our responsibility is not
Speaker 1: just to make sure soldiers are well compensated, but it
Speaker 1: is that they have the gear and the training they
Speaker 1: need to to come home after whatever we asked them
Speaker 1: to do so that they're as safe as possible in
Speaker 1: completing the mission. So how much does recruitment fall under
Speaker 1: your purview? Are you involved in recruitment? Recruitment? Yes, Rerument
Speaker 1: and how and how would you describe the recruitment process now? Well,
Speaker 1: it's it's US fighting forces are signing up heavily. Where
Speaker 1: what's there? What's their socioeconomic background? People who are going
Speaker 1: into the different branches. Is something that UM that I
Speaker 1: spent some time on and many others did as well,
Speaker 1: including Secretary car to the current Secretary Defense. Because we do.
Speaker 1: We're forty plus years into an all volunteer force. We
Speaker 1: have the most fashional lethal military we've ever had. It's
Speaker 1: a very successful UM all volunteer force, but it is
Speaker 1: creating a growing divide between those who serve and the
Speaker 1: rest of society, which seems to be one On social media,
Speaker 1: I see some tremendous antagonism by people who say, you know,
Speaker 1: if you don't support the troops, and people who feel
Speaker 1: very isolated in the military community because they feel that
Speaker 1: people don't understand their sacrifices. Well, I think that's true.
Speaker 1: I don't like the notion that if you aren't supporting
Speaker 1: certain wars or certain activities, are not supporting the troops,
Speaker 1: you can support the troops without agreeing with how they're
Speaker 1: being deployed. But I do believe it's true that the
Speaker 1: you know, less than one percent of the country is
Speaker 1: serving at any given time, and it's the majority of
Speaker 1: the country that and it is to your earlier question,
Speaker 1: it is geographic. You know, we recruit sort of through
Speaker 1: the far Midwest down and then across the south, and
Speaker 1: and there are large parts of the countries where we're
Speaker 1: not successful at recruiting. Well, what do you think can
Speaker 1: be done to change that? Or can anything be done
Speaker 1: to change that? I do think things can be done.
Speaker 1: We we um you know, recruiters will go where there's
Speaker 1: where they are is success at getting recruits, and so
Speaker 1: they come hand in certain parts of the country or
Speaker 1: or minimizing, not abandoning it. I wouldn't say that they're
Speaker 1: pulling back from those parts of the country. They're just
Speaker 1: focusing on where they know there's a culture and that
Speaker 1: we've been successful Kareem before and we need to make
Speaker 1: an effort to reach out to other communities and to
Speaker 1: go to other schools for RTC programs than than we're
Speaker 1: currently doing, to make sure we're going across the entire country.
Speaker 1: So a man or a woman is sitting down in
Speaker 1: front of a recruiting officer in the modern Army and
Speaker 1: they fill out some paperwork, they fill out some forms,
Speaker 1: and they literally sign up and join the army. And
Speaker 1: in the modern Army, for people who don't know what happens,
Speaker 1: then where do they go? Everyone goes to basic training
Speaker 1: UH and the Army is the basic training is the same,
Speaker 1: basically training everybody who enters the everybody who entered. How
Speaker 1: many how many training bases are there in the US
Speaker 1: right now? It's hard to say because we are doing
Speaker 1: training everywhere. Initial installation training UM for all the services
Speaker 1: is done differently. We have for the Army, Yeah, the
Speaker 1: Army Fort Jackson UH in South Carolina where we do
Speaker 1: most of our initial training. And how many people are
Speaker 1: coming through there a month, I don't know. The monthly
Speaker 1: figures we assess for the active component about sixty people
Speaker 1: a year, many of them make the cut and stay
Speaker 1: most of some of them do most of them, most
Speaker 1: of them stay. We need do a little bit better
Speaker 1: job of making sure that we can capt catch those
Speaker 1: people a little bit earlier. Um, because you don't want
Speaker 1: someone to go through twelve weeks of training and then leave.
Speaker 1: It's not very efficient for us. From there. Then, depending
Speaker 1: on what what branch they're going to go into or
Speaker 1: what they're going to do in the army, there's follow
Speaker 1: on training. You see what branch meaning they can sign
Speaker 1: up for the army and wind up being sent elsewhere.
Speaker 1: Well no, no no, no, they sign up for the army,
Speaker 1: I mean branch like infantry, armor or two branch of
Speaker 1: the army. And after they do that, uh, you evaluate
Speaker 1: their expertise and what you know. Some people have more
Speaker 1: advanced skills than others and they go into different operations. Correct.
Speaker 1: We do the one thing it's it's uh pretty unique
Speaker 1: to the Army that when you sign up a recruiting station,
Speaker 1: we're going to determine what you're gonna do. I mean,
Speaker 1: we have we know what openings we have, we know
Speaker 1: what needs we have in the army. We're gonna line
Speaker 1: you up to that. So when soldiers are going through
Speaker 1: basic training, they know and all likelihood what they're going
Speaker 1: to be doing when they when they get out of
Speaker 1: basic training. So the ones who go into basic training,
Speaker 1: is is it explained to them when they sign on,
Speaker 1: because I've always been intrigued by this, is explained to
Speaker 1: them when they sign on that everyone would be eligible
Speaker 1: to be in combat and fight. Or are they told
Speaker 1: when they sign on you don't necessarily have to go
Speaker 1: into combat if you want to. If you tell us
Speaker 1: you don't want to go and get shot at and
Speaker 1: maybe die somewhere, we can put you here. Are they
Speaker 1: given that option or no, Well, if if you wear
Speaker 1: the uniform, you could be deployed. But certain choices beyond
Speaker 1: basic training are going to increase or decrease the likelihood
Speaker 1: that you are actually going to deploy or are going
Speaker 1: to go into combat. And some people choose things that
Speaker 1: will keep them away from that. Others volunteer to go
Speaker 1: into combat. So the right Okay, So now we're down
Speaker 1: to the men and women who go to combat or
Speaker 1: want to go over there to these extraordinarily surreal environments
Speaker 1: in the Middle East and Afghanistan and Iraq and so forth,
Speaker 1: that we that we only see depicted in movies or
Speaker 1: we see it in some footage that's embedded footage. You're
Speaker 1: gonna have you and how would you describe the people
Speaker 1: that want to go into combat today? Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: most of them, it is incredible bravery and it is
Speaker 1: an incredible sacrifice and commitment. Every day I do this
Speaker 1: and I've been doing it now for twenty five years.
Speaker 1: Um Uh, this line of work. I'm more amazed at
Speaker 1: what we ask our soldiers to do and what they
Speaker 1: do and the impact it has on their families, on
Speaker 1: the entire rest of their lives. And so it is
Speaker 1: a pretty remarkable thing that people sign up to do.
Speaker 1: Um At some point, I would imagine the military sits
Speaker 1: down and they have you know when in the medical profession,
Speaker 1: I learned this one. I did some research to play
Speaker 1: a doctor in a film. We sat down and talked
Speaker 1: about the eminem that they you after the operation, when
Speaker 1: the patient or the procedure, when the person dies, the
Speaker 1: mortality and morbidity conference, and they talk about why the
Speaker 1: person died and what they learned from that person dying.
Speaker 1: And I'm wondering, what is the eminem equivalent for the
Speaker 1: military in terms of not just a war itself, not
Speaker 1: just to region itself, but even specific battles you fight
Speaker 1: and your and and decisions are made to send people here,
Speaker 1: and many many people die, of course, many of them
Speaker 1: innocent civilians, women and children in that area. And I'm wondering,
Speaker 1: what's that function like for you or anybody under your wing?
Speaker 1: How do we minimize that? I think we have And
Speaker 1: if you just look at this the last fifteen years
Speaker 1: of this war compared to what happened in Vietnam. As
Speaker 1: a country, we won't tolerate those types of losses anymore.
Speaker 1: And it factors into the calculus of the decision makers
Speaker 1: when they're deciding what to do, how to deploy, how
Speaker 1: to utilize the force that they've got. Any time something
Speaker 1: goes wrong, there is an assessment of it. Um. Any
Speaker 1: time civilians are killed, any time a soldier is killed,
Speaker 1: we are constantly assessing, um, what happened, what we could
Speaker 1: turn from it internally well oftentimes externally to the press
Speaker 1: is very involved, was exactly? There were conclusions, and then
Speaker 1: we make adjustments going forward. War is a terrible thing, right,
Speaker 1: There's just no question about it. For our soldiers, for
Speaker 1: civilians where we're fighting but we have done enormous things
Speaker 1: I think to to minimize especially civilian deaths. That factors
Speaker 1: into any time there's any risk to civilians. And and
Speaker 1: remember we're not fighting just in deserts. Were fighting in
Speaker 1: urban environments as well, and the adversaries I saw others
Speaker 1: are very crafty about being able to hide and blend
Speaker 1: in any time there's a risk, it goes very high.
Speaker 1: The chain of command. Decisions that were made in the
Speaker 1: field in previous wars are made in Washington now based
Speaker 1: on that calculus of risk, and that in and of
Speaker 1: itself creates risk for our forces not being able to
Speaker 1: maybe react as quickly as I want to, but all
Speaker 1: in an effort to make sure that we're minimizing the
Speaker 1: risk in the field for civilians as much as possible.
Speaker 1: What do you think would happen? I mean, if we
Speaker 1: were able to to secure because I'm very cynical, not
Speaker 1: about the military, because like I, I agree with you
Speaker 1: and I've walked this tough line where you know, supporting troops,
Speaker 1: respecting My dad was a marine. He was a drill
Speaker 1: instructor on Parris Island. Uh, you know, I have a
Speaker 1: lot of respect and at the same time, I'm very
Speaker 1: worried about the civilian oversight in the civilian control of
Speaker 1: that in terms of it being applied properly. I think
Speaker 1: properly in my terms. And so, you know, we have
Speaker 1: a new president and I'm wondering, do do people that
Speaker 1: work under you, who are career military and uniform military,
Speaker 1: did you get a sense that could you could you
Speaker 1: hear the cheers down the hallway when this guy one
Speaker 1: will have a new president? We have president elector god,
Speaker 1: I can have a couple more months of him. I
Speaker 1: would just say this, the military is incredibly professional. First
Speaker 1: of all, it's it's an it's large and just in
Speaker 1: the Armies, I said in the Act of the Garden
Speaker 1: Reserve components, Um, we have over a million people in uniform,
Speaker 1: and so you have the gamut of opinions there. But
Speaker 1: they are dedicaid professional and they the oath they take
Speaker 1: and they take it seriously as to the Constitution. But
Speaker 1: we've always like to believe that they do have their
Speaker 1: political preferences in terms of somebody I think it's going
Speaker 1: to spend more money on the military. I don't see that.
Speaker 1: I see the polls that people come out, I see
Speaker 1: what people are thinking. I do think, Um, if you're
Speaker 1: in uniform and you're at risk of going into harm's way, UH,
Speaker 1: more is better. You want more equipment, you want more
Speaker 1: modern equipment, and you want more training. Uh and you
Speaker 1: probably want more battle buddies on either side of you
Speaker 1: to make sure that you're not deploying constantly. But I
Speaker 1: think also, especially if you get more senior in, your
Speaker 1: focus is more strategic. You want to make sure you
Speaker 1: have civilian leadership that is steady and is thoughtful about
Speaker 1: what they're going to do. That there's this myth out
Speaker 1: there that the military is the first to want to
Speaker 1: jump in and go fight, and it's really the opposite
Speaker 1: in many cases, because nobody knows better than the military
Speaker 1: what fighting, what war, what combat is really like, and
Speaker 1: it should be your choice of last resort. Coming up,
Speaker 1: Eric Fanning talks about how an over tapped US military
Speaker 1: responds to increased tensions around the world. This is Alec
Speaker 1: Baldwin and you're listening to here's the thing. As Secretary
Speaker 1: of the Army, Eric Fanning's reach touches all aspects of
Speaker 1: that branch. He's the CEO, as he likes to say,
Speaker 1: the guy in charge when it comes to weapons and equipment, veterans,
Speaker 1: and finances. He works with decorated generals and policy experts,
Speaker 1: but Fanning says he feels most at home with the
Speaker 1: enlisted soldiers, the boots on the ground folks, the very
Speaker 1: men and women who are facing new stresses today. Under
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, there's been a decrease in troops, something
Speaker 1: Fanning says, concerns plenty in the military. It's stressing to
Speaker 1: many of them because we're still being asked to do
Speaker 1: a lot of things all over the world. But the
Speaker 1: worst thing for us would be to increase the size
Speaker 1: of the force without the money that goes with it
Speaker 1: for equipping and training. If we had more money right now,
Speaker 1: I would be spending it on um, on procurement because
Speaker 1: and installations and investments that are in the future that
Speaker 1: we've mortgaged to make sure we're ready for today. If
Speaker 1: we had, however, many troops, I've heard President elect Trump
Speaker 1: talk about active component. We need to make sure we
Speaker 1: have the rest of the money for the infrastructure to
Speaker 1: support those troops. Do We just recently moved three hund
Speaker 1: thousand trips to the Russian border, not three thousand, but yeah,
Speaker 1: we are moving more equipment. The final numbers aren't set
Speaker 1: yet UM, because we've pulled down substantially since the end
Speaker 1: of the Cold War what we have in Europe, and
Speaker 1: so for deterrence, Russian deterrence, we are putting more there.
Speaker 1: Those troops going there send a signal that you don't
Speaker 1: want them to what. We want the Russians to know
Speaker 1: that we're we are watching, and we are present, and
Speaker 1: we are ready if they try and meddle. And you
Speaker 1: think about how the borders where our troops are today
Speaker 1: versus where they were in the Cold War. They're much
Speaker 1: closer to the Russian border now than they were before
Speaker 1: because all those former Soviet republics have wanted to join
Speaker 1: NATO and have wanted to make friends with the West.
Speaker 1: And so you've got the small Baltic countries up there, Latvia, Lithuania,
Speaker 1: Estonia who fear the Russians might make a move on them.
Speaker 1: There's a few fear that the Russians might make a
Speaker 1: move on them. And the Russians are very creative at
Speaker 1: asymmetrical warfare and and and doing things that are just
Speaker 1: short of triggering any of our NATO commitments. Information operations, UM,
Speaker 1: Intelligence gathering all sorts of things in the Baltics right now,
Speaker 1: and so they're nervous. Our allies on the border, other
Speaker 1: parts of the border nervous, and our presence there helps
Speaker 1: reassure our allies and also change the calculus, hopefully for
Speaker 1: the Russians. When you say that the United States UH
Speaker 1: is challenged in so many you know, the army is
Speaker 1: challenged in so many areas. The task is it out
Speaker 1: in so many regions of the world, beyond the Middle East,
Speaker 1: beyond Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. Whenever you decide to focus on,
Speaker 1: what would you say is the most challenging part for
Speaker 1: the army, Well, it's this Russian border. No. I think
Speaker 1: most people have have in the last few years said
Speaker 1: Russia is the biggest United States But increasingly we're concerned
Speaker 1: about North Korea UH and their their nuclear program and
Speaker 1: their interconnal not in no ballistic missile program um. They
Speaker 1: keep testing and showing that they're making improvements that that
Speaker 1: has us worried about the risk they can impose on
Speaker 1: the United States. So I I worry about There are
Speaker 1: Army soldiers in over a hundred and fifty countries today, UH,
Speaker 1: and so we're We're all over the place. And when
Speaker 1: I talk about the risk to the army, I mean
Speaker 1: we're running it hard. Whether you agree with how much
Speaker 1: we spend or don't spend, we are running our military
Speaker 1: pretty hard all over the world right now. But but
Speaker 1: another interesting thing for me is not I mean again,
Speaker 1: I'm I understand that sometimes there is a need for
Speaker 1: you know, I only have cliche is handy to me
Speaker 1: by the way, you know, boots on the ground and
Speaker 1: so forth. And but there's another part of me that
Speaker 1: has and this is a completely stupid from ignorant statement,
Speaker 1: which is I think to myself, God, if I was
Speaker 1: the president, I get on a plane and I'd fly
Speaker 1: and I go visit our six or eight greatest allies
Speaker 1: who have the dog. It's going to cost some money,
Speaker 1: and I would set up you know, I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: say mission impossible, but I'd set up some elite hit
Speaker 1: team to go out and just take out the leaders
Speaker 1: and then the top level of brass of some of
Speaker 1: these organizations worldwide. Whether we got to go to Berlin
Speaker 1: or or the Philippines, doesn't matter. When the world where
Speaker 1: in North Korea, get into North Korea, which we can do,
Speaker 1: I feel like we wait for for things to foment
Speaker 1: to where it becomes war, whether it's heavy naval, heavy
Speaker 1: air force, heavy ground troops, droning, what have you, rather
Speaker 1: than going in there more surgically. Does the government does?
Speaker 1: Does your department talk about that ever, about well things
Speaker 1: being more surgical, Yes, And there's there are a number
Speaker 1: of surgicals. I mean the size of the exactly. That
Speaker 1: is an important part of of our military capability and
Speaker 1: clandestine operations flandestine operations, UM, surgical operations as you mentioned, Uh,
Speaker 1: drones used in the right way, but that's only one part.
Speaker 1: Um that doesn't deter near pure adversaries. That doesn't help
Speaker 1: you hold land. I mean, boots on the ground aren't
Speaker 1: necessarily more efficient. But you know, we can take out
Speaker 1: the leaders of ICEL, and there's another wave right behind them.
Speaker 1: I mean they just sending new leaders in to replace
Speaker 1: the w How do we go and kill the people
Speaker 1: that are the gardeners that are producing all the bulbs
Speaker 1: there that are sprouting. Well, that's plenty of these analogies.
Speaker 1: For these gardening analogies. They're not flowers though. It's a
Speaker 1: combination of all these things you need. Um, you know, militarily,
Speaker 1: we could sort of wipe out Isle and Iraq and Syria.
Speaker 1: But what would happen after our troops roll through. What happens?
Speaker 1: You know, new new insurgents take their place right behind it.
Speaker 1: We need those, We need some sort of stability politically
Speaker 1: over there, and then those countries need to have the
Speaker 1: military and the police and so forth, the whole the
Speaker 1: land that's been If you could wind the clock back,
Speaker 1: if you could wind the clock back to even uh
Speaker 1: just before nine eleven, or even right after nine eleven,
Speaker 1: and in hindsight, which is terrible, if you had it
Speaker 1: to do over again, what would you have liked to
Speaker 1: have the United States military do right on the heels
Speaker 1: of nine eleven? What what do you think they should
Speaker 1: have done? Well, let me come back in hindsight. Let
Speaker 1: make Covey out that by saying that I my hindsight.
Speaker 1: What I do remember I was working at a think
Speaker 1: tank at the time when nine eleven took place. I
Speaker 1: do remember thinking, we're not debating this. I didn't have
Speaker 1: an opinion because I didn't I didn't feel all the
Speaker 1: facts were out there in the debate wasn't taking place,
Speaker 1: And I blame my party just as much as the
Speaker 1: Republican Party for for not insisting that that debate take
Speaker 1: place on whether we should do this and what the
Speaker 1: strategy be. I didn't support it. I'm not on record
Speaker 1: either way because I was just a think tank staffer
Speaker 1: at the time, but I thought it was taking our
Speaker 1: eye off the ball of Afghanistan, where I thought we
Speaker 1: really needed to focus. But my biggest crisis back is
Speaker 1: we didn't have We didn't have the debate I think
Speaker 1: you need to have. And that's when when we talk
Speaker 1: about the growing divide between the military, which is incredibly
Speaker 1: professional and just does what it's asked to do. Um,
Speaker 1: the whole country has got to be involved in sending
Speaker 1: a military, it's military to war, has got to have
Speaker 1: skin in the game, and that's not how we really
Speaker 1: think that other countries have to have more skin in
Speaker 1: the game. My my comment as a civilian, but one
Speaker 1: who was nonetheless very very devoted to this country finding
Speaker 1: solutions and finding ways to protect ourselves. With nine eleven happened,
Speaker 1: I thought to myself, let's build a military base and
Speaker 1: make everybody pay for it. The Brits, the French, everybody,
Speaker 1: the Australia, every everybody who's in a NATO. We're going
Speaker 1: to hand them a bill and build a military base
Speaker 1: the size of Rhode Island in the middle of Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: And because Afghanistan was the sweet spot, we just park
Speaker 1: everything there and under US coordination. We have this diverse
Speaker 1: military forces so that everybody knows it's not the US,
Speaker 1: is not US, it's we many many nations are here
Speaker 1: representing themselves. It's almost like a military version of Well,
Speaker 1: I mean that's what NATO was, I guess of the
Speaker 1: United Nations were. We're sending a signal to these people
Speaker 1: in this region of the world. All of us are
Speaker 1: here because we all share this fear of what you're
Speaker 1: gonna do. Well. First of all, we have a number
Speaker 1: of allies, um, that are ponying up. Um. You mentioned
Speaker 1: special forces, Australian spirits, French. Um. There are a number
Speaker 1: of countries out there that have incredibly capable special forces
Speaker 1: that work with US. Uh. It is true, um that
Speaker 1: only I think four NATO countries right now are living
Speaker 1: up to the commitment of how much of their GTP
Speaker 1: they're supposed to spot. Well. One is Greece, and that's
Speaker 1: just because the denominator changed since their economy is having
Speaker 1: so many so much trouble. Um. Poland has stepped up,
Speaker 1: Britain is doing it um, but the vast majority or not.
Speaker 1: I think part of the problem is we don't necessarily
Speaker 1: internationally in the international community invest in those um those
Speaker 1: institutions in other societies that help in the transition to
Speaker 1: whatever the future is. And building a huge a military
Speaker 1: basis out of Rhode Island that would create all sorts
Speaker 1: of other problems for us because that just makes us
Speaker 1: look like an occupying force, and so you want to
Speaker 1: keep your presence down because that's what we'll create that.
Speaker 1: You said, what do we do about the gardeners that
Speaker 1: are planning the bol I think that's a big part.
Speaker 1: I mean, who wants another who wants other countries there
Speaker 1: now by different name, Well, we've we've brought down our
Speaker 1: troop levels there and we're trying to have the majority
Speaker 1: of them focused on training, advising and assisting, helping build
Speaker 1: the army and the police so that those countries have
Speaker 1: some organic capability to false your stability in their country
Speaker 1: so that it's not us and we we are trying
Speaker 1: to minimize our footprint and our visibility there in many ways,
Speaker 1: because just like the President thinks Guantanamo is recruiting tool,
Speaker 1: us having boots on the ground in those places can
Speaker 1: do have the same effect as well. What are you
Speaker 1: gonna do when you're gone? I don't know. My plan was, um,
Speaker 1: you know, to to years. Well, I I would like
Speaker 1: to find someplace really warm and go for a while
Speaker 1: and think this is I love this job. It's a
Speaker 1: great job. Um. And you know, we have soldiers in
Speaker 1: harm's way today and so any place in government where
Speaker 1: a smooth transition and and someone having the stick every
Speaker 1: single second is important, it's in the Department of Defense.
Speaker 1: And so I will do this job and focus on
Speaker 1: it with all that I can until someone else is
Speaker 1: in the seas. Uh. Well, I I don't know. I
Speaker 1: love whing We're not married, but you're together. How long
Speaker 1: we've been, Well, we've know on each other ten years.
Speaker 1: But what about overseas? Is I mean you've probably traveled
Speaker 1: all over the world. Yeah, I I I've been to
Speaker 1: over eighty countries now and and uh, I'd like I've
Speaker 1: always wanted to live out of the country. I've always
Speaker 1: wanted to live someplace else, and now might be the time. Um,
Speaker 1: I'd like teach a little. I'd like to, really would
Speaker 1: just like to take a break you think would be
Speaker 1: the best application of the knowledge you have in the
Speaker 1: experience you have other than consulting and getting a job
Speaker 1: in the for profit world. Nobody there's nothing wrong with that,
Speaker 1: just gonna pay the bills. But um, I'd like to teach.
Speaker 1: I've it's always been interested in mind. When I first
Speaker 1: came to Washington, my plan was to stay a couple
Speaker 1: of years, get a PhD, and go the academic route.
Speaker 1: And I just early on in my career kind of
Speaker 1: had things evolved rapidly and got on a different track,
Speaker 1: and I enjoy that part of it. One of the
Speaker 1: things I like doing in my job is is spending
Speaker 1: time with Rozie Cadets or West Point Cadets that are
Speaker 1: just at that point in their lives and their careers
Speaker 1: and are thinking about things differently. And so that's one
Speaker 1: thing I'm thinking about. But but I'm only half joking
Speaker 1: when I say I'm going to find a nice speech
Speaker 1: and just relax for a little while, because these are
Speaker 1: these are tough jobs. They're kind of NonStop. Maybe I
Speaker 1: book I'm the only political appointing who served in all
Speaker 1: three military Department's, Navy or forcing. My plan was just
Speaker 1: was to try and uh, stay in for eight years,
Speaker 1: get a couple of different opportunities, pace myself so I
Speaker 1: could do that, but be tired at the end. So
Speaker 1: I knew I'd done everything I could and I've succeeded
Speaker 1: at that. So it'll you know, this election didn't go
Speaker 1: the way I had hoped, and I had hoped to
Speaker 1: stay in the job all bit longer to get more done. Um,
Speaker 1: but it'll all work out, and uh and and I
Speaker 1: take try to take advantage of those breaks, because you
Speaker 1: can't just walk into your bord of directors your boss
Speaker 1: one day and say can I see in three months?
Speaker 1: And so I'm in no hurry to figure out what's next.
Speaker 1: What will you miss about the job? The people. I
Speaker 1: have an amazing team around me. And one of the
Speaker 1: things I love the best I've I've worked in the
Speaker 1: Pentagon more years between the two administrations, and then most
Speaker 1: people probably think is healthy. But and I like that.
Speaker 1: I like Washington, but I love getting out into the
Speaker 1: field and interacting the soldiers. Um. Every time travel, they
Speaker 1: want to you know, you get on a plane, you
Speaker 1: go along distance and they want to stick in a
Speaker 1: dark room with the PowerPoint presentation, and that the rule is,
Speaker 1: I won't do anything that I could do in my office,
Speaker 1: and so I just try and get out into the
Speaker 1: field as far as I can and watch soldiers doing
Speaker 1: what they're doing and if they'll let me do it
Speaker 1: with them. From beyond a partisan discussion about US military policy,
Speaker 1: and some people fear that Americans are going a broken
Speaker 1: bottle in one hand and a chair and the other
Speaker 1: and they're picking fights with everybody, and out of a
Speaker 1: deep respect for the military. This is not about questioning
Speaker 1: their their preparedness or questioning the judgment of their deployments
Speaker 1: and so forth in their and their conflicts. But people
Speaker 1: are afraid that eventually we're gonna get to a point
Speaker 1: where the Russians and or the Chinese make trouble for us,
Speaker 1: We're not going to have the strength left to fight them.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's steps that can be taken in
Speaker 1: the coming administration that can help strengthen our position to
Speaker 1: be prepared to fight the Russians in the Baltic or
Speaker 1: something like that. Do we need Do we need to
Speaker 1: get trimmer and fitter to do that? We are ready now? Um,
Speaker 1: we we have an incredibly capable and lethal military. So
Speaker 1: that's so that's why it's so expensive. We are ready
Speaker 1: and and we we we want an unfair fight wherever
Speaker 1: we fight, um, whether it's a near peer advacy, whether
Speaker 1: it's terrorism, whether it's space, whatever, cyber, wherever it is,
Speaker 1: we want an unfair fight. But you hit it squarely
Speaker 1: on the head that, um, we are asking the military
Speaker 1: to do a lot right now, and so we're ready,
Speaker 1: but tired. I mean, we're not doing these wars last
Speaker 1: fifteen years have taken us away from the type of
Speaker 1: training we want to do to be as ready as possible.
Speaker 1: And we're trying to refocus on a little bit. And
Speaker 1: whether that's a more money for training, whether that's asking
Speaker 1: the military to do less than it's doing around the
Speaker 1: world right now, whether that's increasing the size of the military.
Speaker 1: There are a number of different ways that you can
Speaker 1: get at that. But um, but no adversary should think
Speaker 1: that they can take us on even as we're stretched
Speaker 1: around the world. Uh, not realize it's a bad mistake. Right.
Speaker 1: The many people obviously believe that much of the military
Speaker 1: activity on behalf of the United States in the Middle
Speaker 1: East is about oil and wanted to secure sources of oil.
Speaker 1: But of course if we don't need the oil, if
Speaker 1: we look to the Middle East and say our oil
Speaker 1: needs here are so grossly diminished, now do we just
Speaker 1: get up and walk away now because we don't need
Speaker 1: to secure that area? Well, I think the calculus has
Speaker 1: changed over time and it's not about oil in the
Speaker 1: way that was in the past. Um, we do have
Speaker 1: friends over there, We do have allies and partnerships over
Speaker 1: there that I think, um, and I think those commitments
Speaker 1: are important. But yeah, if we picked up and left, um,
Speaker 1: we we have we we have a a strong insurgent
Speaker 1: terrorist presence there that has made clear that they have
Speaker 1: capabilities to strike globally and have a desire to do that.
Speaker 1: And I'd rather be having that fight over there than
Speaker 1: inside our borders. Are on our borders. So two last questions,
Speaker 1: what do you think about the UH? I don't I
Speaker 1: don't want to say a sacrifice, although that certainly is
Speaker 1: a handy word that comes to mind. But what do
Speaker 1: you think about the path that the gay community has
Speaker 1: taken in the military. Are you extremely proud of that?
Speaker 1: About how they negotiated these words over the last several years. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm very proud of that. I again having you know,
Speaker 1: started this before Donuts don't Tell has even created, been
Speaker 1: there when donust don't Tell was created, been there when
Speaker 1: donus don'tell is repealed, which is a remarkable moment. Society
Speaker 1: has just changed so fast, and the military are they
Speaker 1: are they adapting to that as well. Yeah, it almost
Speaker 1: seems like it happened forever ago now because we've moved
Speaker 1: on to a lot of other things. But the military
Speaker 1: can maybe move in some ways slowly, but once a
Speaker 1: decision is made, they execute, they salute, they move on,
Speaker 1: and they do it very professionally. That the repeal of
Speaker 1: donnus Don't Tell and the allowing of open service of
Speaker 1: gays and lesbians was remarkably professional and smooth. It was.
Speaker 1: It made me proud of a number of things. Maybe
Speaker 1: proud that we did it, may be proud that the
Speaker 1: president made it priority and got it done. And it
Speaker 1: made me proud of the military when they did. And
Speaker 1: then you know, we've done that, desegregated long before most
Speaker 1: of the rest of the country did. We pay women
Speaker 1: right now equal wages of for for what they do,
Speaker 1: for what men are paid. We've opened up service to
Speaker 1: transgender soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors as well. And and when
Speaker 1: you take all these things, opening up all combat positions
Speaker 1: to women, it's about getting rid of the qualifiers and
Speaker 1: just saying here's a here's an actual legitimate requirement and
Speaker 1: standard that need to be met to do this type
Speaker 1: of job. If you can meet that, regardless of who
Speaker 1: you are and you want to do it, we we
Speaker 1: want you to have that opportunity. Those in uniform who
Speaker 1: are gained lesbian, who are allowed to serve open and
Speaker 1: some of them, there are still many serving in silence.
Speaker 1: They put higher standards on themselves because they knew they
Speaker 1: were representing and they are incredibly professional, uh, and they
Speaker 1: didn't want to feed into any of those stereotypes. And
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say inside out of the Pentagon. I'd say
Speaker 1: inside outside the Beltway, because the further you get away
Speaker 1: from Washington was why I like to go in the
Speaker 1: fields and spend time with young soldiers. And you ask
Speaker 1: senior officials and they think, well, I don't, We've never
Speaker 1: done that way. That change may cost some problems. You
Speaker 1: ask sort of mid grade officials and they say, we'll
Speaker 1: figure out how to make it work, and then you
Speaker 1: go ask junior officers or young enlisted and they're like,
Speaker 1: they look at you like you're crazy. We're already doing that.
Speaker 1: You're just catching up with us. Society is changing at
Speaker 1: a clip, and we're recruiting from that society. And so
Speaker 1: it's time and time and time again when we make
Speaker 1: what they call social changes, and people call them experiments.
Speaker 1: And I don't think that inclusivity and and opportunity or experiments.
Speaker 1: I think they're shared American values time and time when
Speaker 1: we've done that, desegregation women the military don't ask, don't tell,
Speaker 1: the same arguments are used and they're disproven very quickly. UM,
Speaker 1: it's been, in my view, remarkably smooth about opening service.
Speaker 1: Who are we to deny an American the right to
Speaker 1: serve if they want to step up and make that
Speaker 1: commitment on our behalf? You recruit people, I mean part
Speaker 1: of your responsibility in that UM when SHIELD is recruiting people.
Speaker 1: What's your relationship with the v A and with the
Speaker 1: Veterans Administration? What do you think is if you could
Speaker 1: pick one thing you'd like to see done to help
Speaker 1: veterans more in this country, what do you think needs
Speaker 1: to happen. I think we need to do more. People
Speaker 1: sign up, they make commitment to the United States, We
Speaker 1: in turn make a commitment to them, and we have
Speaker 1: to stay laser focused on that. And we have a
Speaker 1: close relationship with the VA because you are a soldier
Speaker 1: one day and then you're you know, under the v
Speaker 1: A the next day, and we want to make that
Speaker 1: handoff as smooth as possible. And the thing that I
Speaker 1: would if I were staying this job longer focus on
Speaker 1: is making sure I don't think we have a handle
Speaker 1: on behavioral health issues post traumatic stress. We are asking
Speaker 1: people to do unbelievable things that goes against the biology
Speaker 1: how we're wired and this idea. We've done a lot
Speaker 1: to make sure we we have help available for when
Speaker 1: people come back, but they still have to seek it out.
Speaker 1: I think the whole paradigm has to change, where we say,
Speaker 1: of course you're gonna need help when you get back.
Speaker 1: We asked you to do something crazy on behalf of
Speaker 1: your country. We need to have that help available and
Speaker 1: make sure we've diagnosed it properly so that anybody who
Speaker 1: has been injured in any way through service gets the
Speaker 1: care that they deserve, whether it's a visible wound or
Speaker 1: invisible wound, and make sure we understand that when we're
Speaker 1: handing them off to the v A. Eric Fanning will
Speaker 1: complete his appointment with the Army in January. This is
Speaker 1: Alec Baldwin and you're listening to here's the thing.