tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg October 30, 2015 9:00pm-10:01pm EDT
be heavily redacted. he is a warrior that generations of special operators from all of our services will strive to emulate in every way. set ofconfronts a new challenges as part of the university of texas system. welcome. mr. craven: across 37 years, most of the missions we conducted our classified. they are the top secret level. you retain that classification for a minimum of 25 years. to light, as they come and we unredacted them, i think the working people will be pleased to see what has been done at large for them over the many decades. thatie: you have told me every night, special forces heading mission in afghanistan
-- had a special mission in afghanistan like that. mr. craven: in iraq or afghanistan, the profile was similar. the distances were longer. missionsexity of the we have done both in iraq and afghanistan, the real credit to the bin laden raid really goes, as i have said before come to the president and the national security team and the central intelligence agency and the nsa. those folks in the agencies that located the compound. the president made the very tough decision for us to do the mission. i'm proud of my guys. i think they did a marvelous job. the mission was something that -- and ofn trained course all these seals were hand-picked and had been on many
missions. i would not call it routine. nothing about it was routine. but, that was not the hardest part. the hardest part was the decision and the intel. charlie: they did not know if he was there. mr. craven: we did not. that was part of the buildup. we were trying to figure out whether or not-- it had not been confirmed. --r argument on both sides there were arguments on both sides about whether or not it was bin laden. chance.t as a 50% to roll the mission in 24 hours when the person called me -- the president called me. it was a friday. it was 50-50. heold the president that if is there, we will get him, and if not, we come home. charlie: is that what you do?
get a helicopter and go somewhere? mr. craven: if you look at the profile in afghanistan, because of the distances, most missions are seals or delta operators or rangers were army special forces going to a target location. it is either on the target or offset. we take care of business, get them back on the helicopter, and come back. the profile is not different, the distances are just further. and we know how dangerous it is because we saw the loss of a member of delta force in the rescue of some hostages held by isis. mr. craven: absolutely. every mission has its risks. the training missions we do are very realistic. whenever you are training is a special operator in the infantry
or the marine corps, the risk is always high. the pretense -- the potential for loss of life is always high. the risk rises exponentially that you can get into a gunfight, but we are well trained. bell was get a vote in the nature of the rescue. -- they always get a vote in the nature of the rescue. what needs to be told? mr. craven: not much. charlie: absolutely. mr. craven: you seen the article in the times, the magazine. charlie: beforthe four lawyers. mr. craven: in terms of the actual aspects of the mission, there is nothing to be told left. the way it is for trade in the books in the movies are close to ortrayed inp
the books and the movies are close to reality. we rated the compound, killed bin laden, but his remains in a transport, and buried them according to islamic tradition. that is where he lays today. that is the story. charlie: when people raise questions, what do you think? mr. craven: i am baffled. absolutely. some of the accusations are just bizarre. i don't even know where to take it. when they talk about the seals cutting a body parts and ,hrowing them off helicopters you ask yourself, who do they think the soldiers are? this is not the way we treat anybody. there's a moon landing conspiracy about the way we have
tportrayed this. there is nothing left to tell about the mission. they continue to rehash it. charlie: you're not happy the stories got out? mr. craven: i wasn't. but, frankly, in light of the kind of public interest and international interest, it was inevitable. charlie: it was a mission that was directed by the cia, yes? you carried out the mission. was there ever a moment you had any doubt? mr. craven: in terms of what? charlie: the success of the mission. when one helicopter was in trouble, did you say, "oh my god." mr. craven: it is prudent to have doubts. pland plan b, plan c,
d. i had a backup helicopter standing by. we had anticipated this possibility. we had anticipated it for a different reason. that it waserned possible that bin laden or his associates could come outside the third level and engage the helicopter. frankly, i had talked to the pilot and new even if the engagement occurred, the helicopter could make it into the animal pen, where it landed. i began to see it struggle. i understood what was going on. i had a visual. i was listening to radio communications. i was not overly concerned. it was a hard landing. i know the difference between a crash and a hard landing. we used the backup plan. charlie: were you surprised the
pakistanis did not react? mr. craven: i was a little surprised. we were in their backyard. we have the ability to understand what was going on in general, but i had about a 30 minute time frame on the ground. charlie: you said that if you had not accomplished the 30 minute mission in that amount of time to get back on the helicopter. we grab a lot of the important material on the second grabbed a lot of the important material on the second floor, and as they relate it back, i love the clock to continue. we were there for -- i allowed the clock to continue. we were there for 48 minutes. charlie: would you believe now about the pakistanis knew about his presence? mr. craven: it has been said
from the beginning that they had no knowledge of his presence. charlie: how could that be? he was that close to a military base? mr. craven: ask them. the national security service did not know? mr. craven: absolutely not. charlie: why do you believe that? mr. craven: we had the good intelligence. it did not lead us to believe they knew he was there. charlie: so they were surprised to find he had been there under their nose? mr. craven: they were. charlie: the discussion. this came up with joe biden. the discussion was about options. what options? it has been already raised a lot of open source material. we had options. i will leave it at that. there were other options.
there were kinetic options. the problem was evidence. if bin laden had not been killed in a bombing raid -- had been killed in a bombing raid, had he prove that?u i know as the president deliberated, there were women and children on the target. that would have been a tough call. we had the reduction. charlie: he had confidence in you. mr. craven: confidence. it was not just me. military components of the raid that were in afghanistan and elsewhere. he had great confidence in the cia. charlie: assess where the options are in syria for the united states in the battle against isis and other groups and the fact that the russians
are there and some development in terms of assad getting stronger. mr. craven: it matters significant lead. i have told the person to take an aggressive action. carter says we could not be better served -- when it comes -- carter, we could not be better served. carter,it comes to ash we could not be better served. now, we have to be a will to devise a strategy to go after isis that is more than just drone strikes and airstrikes. that is clearly a component of how to deal with isis. recognizing that the isis in
iraq will make us have to partner with iraqi soldiers and that we have to have boots on the ground and that we need true partners with them as we root out isis... charlie: will we be on the front lines with them? mr. craven: i defer to the secretary and the president and joe dunford. absolutely, we need to be on the front lines. this is a serious, national security issue. to deal with it, we need to put young women and men at risk again. boots on the ground. we do that as far forward as we need to in partnership with the iraqis and the coalition. i believe we need to do that. charlie: isis is that kind of threat? mr. craven: is that kind of threat.
charlie: define it. mr. craven: we're looking at the influence they have on the levant. the region at large. it is not just syria. as they move into iraq, you begin to pressurize lebanon. you pressurize jordan. , itll that pressure builds is a second and third order effect that if you do not deal with it in syria and iraq, the pressure on lebanon and jordan could cause the entire area to tumble. it is not just the fact that it is a safe haven. it is the impact that isis will have on the region. you are already seeing how it is creeping into the area of turkey and libya. charlie: it seems to me that you are saying, taking advantage of
your experience in iraq and afghanistan, that we need to use military force in our command to stop isis. mr. craven: we do. charlie: it is that series of a threat? mr. craven: it is. when i look at the parts we've had to deal with, i see -- the threats we have had to deal with , we are in a perilous situation. i don't think it is a nexus stencil threat -- and exit threat.ential momentum,gins to gain it creates problems not just for the middle east, but you see the surge of immigrants into europe. this is a problem for the europeans, and thesa
destabilizing problem. if we do not do something about the situation right now, it is a russians,s the all of that. if you do not tackle that problem, the way you will have is with american military might. and our partners. the u.s. must take the lead. it is not necessarily our fight. i have heard that argument a hundred times before. it may not seem to be our fight, but i guarantee you that it is. it affects our national interests abroad. barack obama told us he would get us out of iraq and
afghanistan. mr. craven: situations change. charlie: we have seen the rise of isis. they are engaged in taking and holding territory in building a caliphate. mr. craven: what you are seeing we didis is barbarism not even see in iraq with al qaeda. they are the worst. when you look at al bakr al leader now former in isis, they are barbarians. you cannot deal with them as if they are a state actor or as if they have any legitimate aspects to the ideology. charlie: there are several states in the region close to being failed states if they get close to that possibility. you talk about -- hostility. you talk about hostility being
on another level. mr. craven: yes. the effect isis can have if we allow this to go unchecked can create so much torn oil in the middle east -- turmoil in the middle east that it will have a cascading effect. eventually, that will come home .o roost it is always easy to second-guess any president when you ask why we didn't do it two or three years ago. circumstances change. , inbuiltll you craven's opinion, we need to do it now. -- in bill th
mr. mcraven: i have not seen the latest intelligence. when i can tell you is we need to put the troops and their that can get the job done. that canoops in there get the job done. invest what you need to invest to solve the problem now. charlie: do you have some sense of what that takes? are we talking about 200,000? mr. mcraven: i be misleading if
i told you i understood what numbers needed. charlie: a lot more than what is on the ground now. mr. mcraven: a lot more. aviationa strong component, a strong logistics component. we need to reinvestigate -- reinvest in the security of iraq. charlie: has this gone from bad to worse? mr. mcraven: it has clearly gone from bad to worse. i'm not speaking bluntly. we are in a situation we can handle. but, we need to move quickly. i talked to secretary carter about making the decision to do that. it would be easier to go back and say, why did we do this a few years ago -- didn't we do this a few years ago? provide theower to
strikes you need, whether they fromnmanned or the strikes aircraft carriers or from airplanes. charlie: you fought alongside iraqis and afghans. why has it been difficult to build an effective fighting force? mr. mcraven: look. it is different. in iraq, when you look at what we have tried to do, we tried to put them together to create these multiethnic italians and brigades,--- batallions and brigades. we did that well in some areas. the politics undermined it over time in irawq. you have to stay with them. there's an expectation that you
train them for a couple of years and then you can take the training wheels off and they'll be fine. we knew early on the iraqis were not going to be just fine, that you need to partner with them when they engage in heart combat. are very capable. we have done a great job. i applaud the president for continuing to keep american troops partnered with the afghans. charlie: would you like to see more? mr. mcraven: i would. charlie: 10,000, 15,000? mr. mcraven: yesterday's a few years ago were anywhere between 10000 and 20,000 -- the estimates a few years ago were anywhere between 10000 and 15,000. we need to stay engaged. the effort we put into it may go the way of iraq.
the administration recognizes that. charlie: you have heard this before. war.nnot fight their mr. mcraven: i understand. but we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that their war is part of our war. if we allow the taliban back into afghanistan-- charlie: but they are back. mr. mcraven: they are. but if you can keep the pressure on them, they don't have an opportunity to use it as a safe haven. you continue to apply pressure. will bet mean the war over in two years or three years or five years? no. this is a generational fight. the problem is are the american
people committed to a generational fight? i think they need to be. threathe taliban, the out there, this is a generational fight. we have the finest armed forces in the world. probably the finest we have ever seen. they are all volunteer force. they are some of the finest young men and women you will ever meet. they signed up in the days when we were at war. they know what we are getting into. people talk about millennials. they are just centuries -- of century's are this greatest generation. they know they have a mission to do. we need to let them do that mission. they can do it. it is not going to be resolved in a year or two years. this is a generational fight.
if we do not recognize that and try to fight it on the margins, we may never get there. charlie: that is exactly what we have been doing. fighting on the margins. it is recognition, it seems to me, that we thought we could get away with this limited commitment. we realized that was not working and we would need a larger commitment. but that was not working. there has been a rethinking of strategy every six months. thatarter had to say recognizing that that is what they have been trying to do in syria, let's rethink that. mr. mcraven: that's the nature of warfare. sometimes the strategy has to adjust to the problem center -- site. charlie: do you think there is the national will the part of the people who will pay the
bills for their sons and daughters to do this? mr. mcraven: i think this is where the president and the national leadership needs to make the case for the mac and people. at the end of the day, it is -- for the american people. at the end of the day, it is up to the american people. they have to decide whether this fight is worth their tax money and their sons and daughters. they have to make that decision. charlie: you can make that case? mr. mcraven: absolutely. i think it is the responsibility of the national leadership to make that case. why do we need to go into syria? why do we need to partner with the iraqis? why do we need to put pressure in yemen? why do we need to have this prolonged fight? why do we need 15,000 or 20,000 troops in afghanistan for the long run? mr. mcraven: we need to explain to the american people why that is necessary.
you take a look at the number of troops we left in south korea. to maintain the dmz. we have been there a long time. it has been a great strategy. it has kept north korea contained for a long time. the same thing is true in europe. you look over time and we are in the pretty thousands are 30 thousands in europe right now. 20,000's or 30,000's in europe right now. things will get to a state of normalcy. not right away. do we need to commit to afghanistan? i think we do. we need to commit the long-haul? i think we do. afghanistan has the potential to go the way of iraq. charlie: do you believe there's a perception developing that we are leaving a vacuum and people want to move into that vacuum
like russia? mr. mcraven: it's not a perception. it is a reality. the russians have moved in to dominate what is happening in syria. of course, they are being aggressive in iraq. they're forming partnerships. the russians are in to fill the void. that may or may not be a bad thing. this is high-level strategy but at the end of the day are they filling a vacuum? certainly they are. charlie: is that a perception of american weakness or inaction? mr. mcraven: it could be a little bit of both. who is a bully on the international front. i think he has an expectation he can move pretty freely without the international community pushing back on his actions. as long as the international community doesn't take action to
stop putin he will move or he wants to move. i'm not in the bird on russia but i'm an expert on bullies. i've been fighting bullies my whole life. i know a few allow bullies to keep bullying you then they will continue that practice. you have got to stop them in their tracks. you have to stand up to them. if you don't they will keep pushing. charlie: and putin is a bully. is it possible there could be some kind of partnership in syria with russia? mr. mcraven: i think there can be a partnership but it is going to have to be a true partnership. if it is not then at the end of the day who continues to move chess pieces around the board the way he sees fit. the only way you get a true partnership with the russians is strength. you have to show a willingness, you have to be strong.
if you are strong in the face of strength now you can have a strong partnership. if you come in from a weaker position, my guess is he will be happy to have you join his coalition and you will move in the direction you must move. it is going to have to be from a position of strength. charlie: those who argue now we would be better if saddam hussein was still in power in terms of they were prepared to fight terrorism. mr. mcraven: i think that is -- charlie: you know of the violence of their nature and you know of how much punishment they were prepared to inflict on their own populations to maintain control.
mr. mcraven: it's easy to look at dictators and say they kept the country together. when you look at how they kept the country together, and the hundreds of thousands that saddam murdered, the kurds, his own people. we're not better off with saddam hussein. i don't think we were better off with qaddafi. what we realized early on in iraq is you are not going to create this jeffersonian democracy. there are still democratic processes that can be in place so the power rest in the hands of the people. if you get elected officials they need to understand at the end of the day they are responsible to the people. do they need to be strong and make sure that you have an inclusive government, absolutely. of ifwe be a -- better
saddam or qaddafi were there? absolutely not. charlie: why did you leave the military? mr. mcraven: it was my time. three years at the special operations command. you have to move aside so that the next group of leaders can,. we have a great leader at the u.s., now. if you stay too long at a fax -- then it effects the military in particular, there is a domino effect. it was time. i was pleased with the career i had. i was fortunate. when i joined the navy seals in 1977, back when you were lucky if you made lieutenant commander. my only aspiration was to be a seal platoon commander. we didn't have any admirals at the time. you never thought about being an admiral. all you cared about was having an opportunity to do your job as an operator. and then, as the military began
to recognize the value of special operations in the mid-80's, you began to see this recognition and trajectory of special operations that took off. there were a number of us fortunate enough to ride that wave and i was one of those guys. charlie: do they now represent what in terms of america's fighting force? mr. mcraven: i think they represent -- the great thing about special ops is they come from all forces. army, navy, marine corps, and great civilians. i had some folks come to me and say now is the opportunity to make special operations the fifth service. there has always been this discussion about could special operations be the fifth service. we are not going to do that on my watch. the strength is the unique
coulters you get from the army, navy, air force, and marine corps. when you bring them together and have this joint nests, we are raised joint, the strength of special operations. it is the fun part of special operations. a navy guy gets to understand how army berets were predicted understand how marine commandos work. it is fabulous. it is a great environment. special operations represents the strength of all the services. but we can't do what the big services do. the idea that special operations are the end-all be-all and solve all the problems is not the case.
we cannot stop people from -- [inaudible] u.s. special operations has a nice niche we operate in. charlie: how do you define the niche? mr. mcraven: between unconventional warfare, to man, train, and equip a guerrilla force, and our ability to conduct direct action. we have to operate in this human domain, training our allies, understanding how populations and people work. we do both of those exceedingly well. most of what special operations do is training foreign counterparts. that is some of the most rewarding work we do. we look at the areas we have operated for 70 years in asia and latin america, over in parts of africa, you see the good footprints, fingerprints of special operations everywhere. that is rewarding part. charlie: if someone did said this is black ops stuff would you say proudly yes? mr. mcraven: it has a negative
connotation. 75% of what we do is not really classified. it is training our allies. that is the rewarding and one of the most important things we do. the black ops peace of it is that they are classified missions but it implies that you are a little off the grid. nothing we do -- that is as far from the truth as it comes. we probably have more oversight that any of their unit because most operations outside of the theater of war are approved by the president of the united states. you mentioned before we started taping about the lawyers that were part of the decision to get bin laden. we have lawyers and every unit within special operations to make sure we are following the law of armed conflict and rules of engagement. it is about the discipline and the integrity of the unit. what makes us good is the fact that we are not cavalier.
we rehearse and we rehearse and we rehearse and that is what makes you good. you have to have imagination. if you don't partner that with rigid discipline and rehearsals on top of rehearsals you are going to be able to pull off the imaginative idea that you can be cavalier and a cowboy, that is not the way it works. ♪
charlie: speaking of bin laden, what was the expectation that you would take him out of there alive? mr. mcraven: when the issue came up, as we do with every mission, we take a look at the law of armed combat. our concern in the raids, you saw a lot of the al qaeda and taliban, they would sleep in suicide vests. we have had a number of cases where soldiers went into a building to get a high-value target and they blew themselves up. entire houses fell down as a result. that was not unusual in iraq or afghanistan. the potential he was wearing a suicide vest was medium to high. charlie: did he think anybody knew where he was? mr. mcraven: absolutely not.
but we didn't know that. you asked the question about it we know whether or not the pakistanis knew that bin laden was there, were they going to tip bin laden off? we didn't know that. intelligence has shown that was not the case for going into the compound we were not certain, or whether or not the compound was rigged with explosives. the premise was unless bin laden has his hands in the air and you can determine he doesn't have a suicide vest on, you need to shoot him. charlie: and that determination -- there is controversy of who fired the fatal shot. mr. mcraven: the issue with bin laden is you can imagine you are just landed in this compound, guys are wearing night vision goggles. it is dark. they have had to engage in individuals on their way up the
stairwell and blow some doors down because they were barricaded. the adrenaline is pumping. the night vision goggles have constrained or field of view and bin laden peaks around the corner. the first guy up there takes a few shots and moves into the room where bin laden is and there are women and children. he has to make a split second decision, do i engage bin laden or not? i can't tell you. i wasn't in the room. my guess is, if again bin laden was not in a position where he was completely hands up and not a threat, that decision was the right decision. charlie: that was the likely thing. mr. mcraven: again, unless bin laden was in a position where he came out and said i surrender. make no mistake. this was not a kill bin laden mission.
charlie: he didn't have a chance to surrender. mr. mcraven: the action was moving so fast, you don't want to give a guy an opportunity in the middle of a complex and fast-moving mission to stop and say hands up and then he cranks himself off. you don't have the -- the operator doesn't have that time. are my hands in the air, in my not going to take action? he was still a threat. charlie: you are a leader. you were the leader of the people who went there. is or anything in your warrior heart that wanted to be there that night? mr. mcraven: i certainly wish i was 30 years younger at the time. you bet. charlie: the operation of a lifetime.
mr. mcraven: i'm not sure i looked at it that way. a lot of people have asked me what was i thinking at the time? i looked at it as another mission. i had an opportunity when i talked to the troops on friday, i talked to them before the mission. i actually relate to do the movie hoosiers. at some point in time gene hackman is taking the small-town boys to the big city and they have never played on the court bigger than a gem. he says measure the distance of the court. it's the same distance. same height of the basket. the court is the same. i relayed that to the guys. the court is the same. this is a mission you have done hundreds of times before. just go do your job and we will be fine. they did that and did it magnificently. charlie: in terms of your career, the idea of war means what to you? mr. mcraven: i think it means a lot of different things.
i came in at a time when we had relative peace. i came in 1977. i participated in a number of wars. bosnia, kosovo. there was nothing quite like the actions that occurred from 9/11 on. as i watched my peer group, the folks i grew up with and how we do find warriors, first and foremost it was a sense that you were willing to be in the fight, regardless of what the fight was. you were prepared to sacrifice your life for your fellow seal and your country. that i think is the essence of being a warrior. when i first joined the seal team, at first it was an adventure, the challenge. to show you can get to training. then it was an adventure.
then it became a profession. when i was the commanding officer of seal team three, it was in fact a profession. i had to act in a professional manner constantly. 9/11 happened in it became a calling. you see the warriors that go from the challenge to the adventure to the profession to the calling. the real warriors and 9/11 to whom it was a calling, to support the united states of america, to support their comrades in arms, and you see the warrior spirit come out in the young men and women when they recognize how important it is. charlie: was leaving hard? mr. mcraven: it wasn't that hard. charlie: you have passion in your commitment to the values. mr. mcraven: what made it great
for me was i was moving to another job as the chancellor of the university of texas system. i tell folks, i look back in my military career and it wasn't about the bin laden raid, saddam hussein, captain phillips, all the missions that garnered the attention. it was about being around young men and women in the military, having an opportunity to change their lives for the better. that is what leadership is about and being in the military is about. the other things circle around that. when i realized we teach 200,000 students across the university of texas system, 7 million patient visits a year at our health units.
i am honored enough to be part of that. you see what higher education can do. there is nothing that changes your life more than higher education. charlie: how do you want to change higher education? mr. mcraven: the more you can make available to the men and women of texas and the world, the better off we are going to be. education changes everything. you can look at the statistics. lifetime earnings is exponentially higher than if you don't get a degree. even an associates degree will make the only your earning power better for quality of life better. the reality of the matter is you become better people when you spend time around a diverse university environment and engage faculty members and other
students, and have a chance to talk to great clinicians that are trying to change the world. these are experience you can get in four years, five years, six years in of university that would sometimes take you a lifetime. i tell folks i went to the university of texas and i was a journalism major. you got a chance to take a lot of elective is because they wanted you to know a lot of things. i took courses -- on philosophy, and sufi mysticism. what i learned in the classroom wasn't near as important as what i learned in the environment of the campus. in dealing with the faculty, having girlfriends, living with roommates that didn't always get along. these are the things you can learn in the comfort of a campus environment but then will make you a much better human and citizen when you get out of higher education. you move into the real world. charlie: you made a famous commencement speech that got attention.
what were you trying to say, what did you say that summed up your attitude about life? mr. mcraven: there were a number of things i wanted to bring out. there was obviously the issue of sometimes life is difficult but if you start your day with a task completed, the make your bed, everyone who has been in basic training, the first thing they teach you is get your uniform stray and learn how to make a bed. you make the bed. now you have done something. you have accomplished something. it is small. if you do it right and take pride in that you can build on that throughout the course of the day. the point of the commencement speech was the things that i learned in the six months of seal training. life lessons that have served me well throughout my career in the military and beyond.
you have to stand up to bullies and recognize life is not going to be fair. a lot of people want things to be fair. life is not fair. get over it. some cannot get over it. they do not understand why life treats them a certain way. you are never going to continue to progress. in our training, there were drills where you looked perfect. your uniform was starched. your shoes looked gray and yet you still had to jump in the surf zone, rollaround in the sand. there were some guys they didn't understand. i looked great. but they miss the point of it. the point was, some days you are going to look great and life isn't going to treat you well. if you dwell too much you're not going to get up the next day and look just as good. probably the most important one was you just cannot quit. we talked about the brass bell. you bring that bell three times and you were out. you just decided you had to quit.
there had to be an audible signal that you were quitting. you could hear it. that you were giving up. it was a signal to the other trainees that somebody had given up. they were offering -- the bell was always there whether it was in your mind or physically there. you can quit. go ahead and quit. you are not going to be a seal but it is ok. the bell is there. the point is there are a lot of easy ways out in life. sometimes you have to bring the bell. but if you want to accomplish something you just don't give up.
charlie: were there a lot of people there who went on to be successful? mr. mcraven: of course there was folks, and there was self reflection. they are not bad people who don't become seals. some weren't physically ready for it or mentally ready to suffer through the pain and agony of training. it didn't make them bad people and i'm sure they went on to be successful. they reflected back on the fact that they gave up and now there is a second chance. don't give up again. charlie: is that the most important test for you in your life, passing seal training? mr. mcraven: at that point, absolutely. just like every life, as you go forward you get challenged again and again. i was fired from a seal team when i was 26 years old. i have the best job on the team, a team leader for where i was in my career. it did not get any better. and then i was fired. you look back and say what did i do wrong? where could i have done things better? but that was the point in time
♪ francine: welcome to leaders with lacqua. pearson is an international publishing company with its biggest businesses in education and books. earlier this year, pearson sold two of its most well known brands. in an exclusive interview, i speak with the group's ceo, john fallon, about the impact of selling those established brands. john fallon, thank you for speaking to bloomberg. we