“We need to realize that this is not just police action, but that we are engaged in a war against ISIS,” Panetta said during a speech at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “Today is his opportunity to re-emphasize the coalition and make clear we are going to work together to accomplish this … and he should keep all options on the table in the event of confronting an enemy.”

The meeting of defense chiefs from around the globe at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, just outside the nation’s capital, was chaired by Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Obama attended for part of the session.

Panetta expressed frustration with the current leadership in Washington, including Obama, but applauded the commitment and “high morale” of U.S. troops.

The former secretary of defense and CIA director emphasized his commitment to “opening up the opportunity to serve this country regardless of where people are coming from.”

In January 2013, during his tenure as defense secretary, Panetta announced the end of the combat exclusion rule for female service members, which opened up more than 14,000 assignments in ground combat units to women.

“If they meet the physical requirements, we owe them a chance” to serve in ground combat units, he said of women in uniform. “This country is great because we have both men and women who serve it, and we have to make sure we maintain that.”

In his just-published book, “Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace,” Panetta wrote that “the worst national security threat we face is the inability of the president and both parties to deal with issues confronting the country.”

When asked why he would write a politically damaging book about a sitting president whom he once served, Panetta responded that he felt “no one” was governing the country in the way it should be.

“I wanted to shake up this town and country to help realize that we can do better,” he said.

Panetta conceded that Obama is confronting a difficult Congress that hinders his ability to get things done. “But the questions is, does he get back in the ring and fight, or does he stand back and give up?”

He said he had urged Obama to “continue to push these guys if you want them to do something,” referring to politicians whom he thought were concerned only with protecting themselves.

Congress has showed “phenomenal generosity” with overseas health aid, Gates said during a conversation hosted by Politico.

“Thanks for the kind compliment about Congress,” former Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut said from the audience. “You might be the only person who thinks that.”

The U.S. Agency for International Development has pledged more than $175 million to combating Ebola as of mid-September, which will be used to send more than 120 disease control specialists to West Africa and supply USAID with protection kits and trained health workers.

But aid workers who are already on the ground say the dramatic surge of assistance has come too late.

“Right now, as I speak, people are sitting at the gates of our centers, literally begging for their lives,” said Liberian Doctors Without Borders physician’s assistant Jackson Niamah in a recent address to the UN Security Council. “They rightly feel alone, neglected, denied –left to die a horrible, undignified death.”

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has committed $50 million, its largest single donation to a humanitarian cause yet. Aside from treating those already infected with Ebola, the foundation has identified flexible emergency funding as a critical area of need.

“The tragedy here is not only the Ebola deaths but also civil unrest,” Gates said. “What happens when people are panicking about an epidemic is that the entire health system shuts down. So more people will die of malaria, pneumonia, diarrhea and not having hospital services for delivery.”

Health experts agree with Gates’ assessment that the focus must go beyond Ebola to the health care infrastructure in the affected nations.

“You can see that Ebola has overwhelmed health care systems that were already straining to meet other needs,” said Dr. Shannon Galvin, director of clinical programs and training for the Center for Global Health at Northwestern University.

“Though donors often donate money based on their perceived needs, it’s important to offer as much flexibility as possible to our partners in other countries so that they can use the funds as they best see fit.”

Despite continued relief efforts, the Ebola epidemic is picking up speed in West Africa. According to the World Health Organization, the death toll has risen to at least 3,091 out of 6,574 probable, suspected and confirmed cases.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned last week that any further delays would be devastating. Without a more proactive and sustained international response, they predict that 1.4 million people could be infected by January.

Though acknowledging that the epidemic will not subside anytime soon, Gates cautiously predicted that health infrastructure to play a pivotal role in combating the epidemic will be locked down in the “next 30 days”. He said such infrastructure would not only prevent deaths but ensure that “kids can grow up in a healthy way.”

Gates also emphasized throughout the conversation that his foundation was but one contributor to the fight against Ebola.

“These issues are central to us, but the key actors are the U.S. and the investments that this country has made in a bipartisan way, and has literally stood by for decades.

Speaking at a Brookings Institution panel on eliminating hunger by 2030, Robert Zeigler said that immediate changes in rice production practices are necessary to offset volatile climates, limited water supply and diminishing agricultural land.

“If we’re going to address issues of poverty, rice is going to have to be a part of that equation,” Zeigler said, citing a direct overlap between maps highlighting countries with high levels poverty and greater rice consumption.

Rice remains a food staple for more than half of the world’s population everyday and more than 75 percent of the poor, especially across Asia, Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, according to the International Rice Research Institute.

The IRRI proposed ending global hunger by connecting farmers with efficient agricultural practices through online learning, using satellite mapping to education policymakers about rice production and utilizing transgenics – modifying a plan or animal genetically — to breed stronger, more nutritional crops.

Zeigler addressed the controversy surrounding genetically modified organisms, urging a critical evaluation of scientific evidence in the face of “woefully inaccurate” information.

“I am so sick and tired of hearing that one side says the world is a sphere and the other says it’s flat. The science of GMOs is irrefutable in terms of safely, and that message should unequivocally communicated,” he said.

Zeigler added that transgenic advancements can be used to breed rice crops with increased submergence tolerance and nutrients, a crucial step towards not only providing more calories for people to live on, but also for ensuring their optimal health.

“Whether it’s ethical or not, I’m very reluctant to get into that area, he said. “I’ve been to enough countries, cultures and religions to figure out that is a personal choice.”

Most of the media buzz hovers around why Hagel is leaving rather than who is succeeding him. Hagel has said he will remain at the Pentagon until the White House selects a successor, who must be confirmed by a GOP-controlled Senate next year.

According to The New York Times, administration officials said Obama decided to remove Hagel because he “often struggled to articulate a clear viewpoint and was widely viewed as a passive defense secretary.” Politico quoted a senior defense official who said the departure was “a mutual decision” prompted by no single disagreement. The Wall Street Journal said Hagel had “clashed privately” with White House national security officials over administration strategies in Ukraine and Syria and complained about the slow pace of decision-making.

A former combat veteran and Nebraska senator who shared Obama’s anti-Iraq war rhetoric, Hagel came into office confronted with the challenges of withdrawing from Afghanistan and shrinking the Pentagon’s budget.

Soon after, he was at the head of preventing a coup against Egypt’s first-ever democratically elected president, stabilizing Iraq and Syria, and devising a strategy against the Islamic State’s uprising– none of which were successful.

Experts like Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, assert that Hagel was not the core of the Obama administration’s foreign policy problem, and that blaming him is “quite unfair.”

“You could argue that other people might have other innovative, effective solutions, but he did not cause the problem nor is he the problem,” he said. “The primary reason is with President Obama’s unwillingness to get engaged in Iraq or Syria. He’s become a lightening rod for a policy that goes much deeper than him, for which other people have greater responsibilities.”

Others like Phillip Lohaus, research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said Hagel’s resignation was designed to send a message to the public.

“The foreign policy with regards to ISIS has not been working, and somebody in the administration needed to signal that they are changing directions,” Lohaus said. “The president is thinking about this, and there is no better way than to oust a high-level cabinet member.”

But Hagel was in a no-win situation with unattainable policy objectives, according to senior research fellow Dakota Wood at The Heritage Foundation.

“You can’t say that the secretary of defense is responsible for carrying out a policy that cannot be achieved, when the objective is to destroy ISIS without providing a framework for which that can be done — because it can’t be done by airstrikes alone and taking a ground component off the table,” Wood said.

Experts across the board said Obama’s national security policy that was tightly controlled by a small group of aides, including National Security Advisor Susan Rice, left Hagel on the edges of the decision-making process

“Two former secretaries of defense and finally Secretary Hagel are making the same charge that micromanagement and the dysfunctional nature of a tightly controlling, insular circle prevents them from having any meaningful and effective advising,” Wood said, referring to former Defense Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta’s open criticisms of the Obama administration’s management.

“It’s in the increasing desire of the White House to control and manage every aspect of military affairs,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Panetta at a defense forum earlier this month.

But former State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley wondered what the point of his resignation was if Hagel were really more of an outsider.

“While all White Houses make changes after a political defeat, it’s not clear what problem SecDef Hagel’s departure is intended to solve,” he wrote on Twitter.

Hagel had becpme increasingly public in his divergence from the administration’s policy, which The New York Times said he also expressed in a sharp memo to Rice regarding his “concern about the overall Syria strategy.”

Speculation on Hagel’s replacement has focused on Michele Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense, and Ashton B. Carter, a former deputy secretary of defense, are top candidates to replace Hagel.

According to Lohaus, the next selection for Hagel’s position will indicate the Obama administration’s foreign policy stance in moving forward. For example, as opposed to a “defense intellectual type”, the appointment of a former general would “send a message that Obama wants to take a hard line against ISIS.”

“He wanted to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but the reality on the ground is what it is,” Lohaus said. “If you look at his team, who all hold a similar opinion and don’t view America’s role as getting involved in additional combat operation, it will take a rare person who has a lot of respect within the White House to tell him, if that’s what it takes.”

Wood added that it would be challenging to find an “Obama loyalist” who is also qualified to lead a much more aggressive foreign policy agenda.

“Even all of these strong candidates are going to reconsider two, three, four times whether they are going to take that job,” he said. “If they feel the pattern is going to continue in which their advice is unheard, why would they want to take that job?”

Center for a New American Security CEO Michelle Flournoy addresses journalists at the Medill National Security Journalism Initiative Conference, emphasizing the importance of careful, in-depth reporting.

WASHINGTON – Americans need a deep understanding of the generational battles going on in Islam today as the jihadist group Islamic State seeks to establish itself more deeply in Syria and Iraq, and journalists need to help provide that understanding, according to Center for a New American Security CEO Michelle Flournoy.

Addressing the Medill National Security Journalism Initiative Conference in early October, the former defense undersecretary for policy emphasized the need for reporters to carefully understand and convey the historical precedence of any conflict or event.

“These are generational battles (in Islam) that will be playing out for quite some time. We need to understand ideologies and get beyond superficial manifestations because manifestations may change but the causes will stay the same, which is why it’s important to understand them,” she said.

Army Col. Steve Warren, director of Defense Press Operations, offered similar advice to journalists in terms of understanding Defense Department operations. He said that it is crucial for reporters to explain the complexities of military operations. To get the information needed to do that job, they must build trust and relationships with their sources at the Pentagon.

“If you put in the effort to meet me in person and I have a face to a name, I am much more likely to respond when you contact me again,” he said. “Our job here is really to help you.”

But reporters said it’s hard to reach press officials in the Pentagon, to which Warren responded that persistence is the most effective strategy.

Andrew Becker, border and national security reporter for the Center for Investigative Journalism, agreed that patience is key to earning a source’s trust, especially when veering into sensitive information in national security matters.

“You can’t just jump in and download a person’s brain,” he said in a telephone interview. “It takes time and patience to put people at ease. It’s about treating them with respect. You’re interrupting someone’s day and asking them to give you their time, so the least you can do is to be respectful and understand that it’s not always in their best interest to talk to you.”

Though journalists should try to get all interviews on the record, Becker said that sometimes it is important to give sources “time to warm up to you and get to know you” in an off-the-record interview.

Warren and Becker noted that sometimes both the Pentagon and the press withheld information from the public to preserve national security interests. Becker said that is exactly why a positive press and government relationship can only be maintained if both parties understand their common responsibility to serve the public.

“There has to be a mutual understanding that if you’re a government official or a member of the press, you are answering to the public as an elected official and because of your right to report on behalf of the people,” Becker said.

“The nature of the relationship can be adversarial, but taking the time to engage with someone on a human level and getting face to face can definitely help lower those barriers, if not break them.”

The three essentials of reporting from Tom Bowman, NPR’s Pentagon correspondent:

1. First, know your subject. Get as much detail as possible from trusted sources, both human and documents.
2. Finely hone your questions. Don’t ask a military officer a diplomatic question, or a diplomat a military question. Ask simple, direct and thoughtful questions they can’t brush aside.
3. And sources, sources, sources. That’s what reporting is all about.

A word of advice from Anne Gearan, The Washington Post’s political correspondent:

“Reporters working in Washington face a constant challenge to break out of the circle of bland official comment and to break into what I call the circle of truth. Not circle of trust, because the relationship between reporters and government sources will not and should not always equal trust. It should equal respect and a clear understanding of the other’s responsibilities. My main advice for reporters dealing with the federal government is to do your homework, know your beat and develop a reputation for consistent and nuanced coverage. Always politely,  insistently, ask for better than the laundered official quote that most press shops will try to give you. Ask for an interview, ask to speak to someone else, and of course, find those people inside the government who really know something and are brave enough to talk to reporters.”