tv Discussion on Women in the Military CSPAN February 29, 2016 11:38am-1:20pm EST
of applause. florida senator and republican presidential candidate marco rubio holds a campaign rally this afternoon in atlanta, georgia. that's live on c-span2 at 12:30 p.m. eastern. republican presidential candidate donald trump holds a campaign rally this evening in georgia. that's live on c-span3 at 6:00 p.m. every election cycle, we're reminded how important it is for citizens to be informed. >> to me, c-span is a home for political junkies and a way to track the government as it happened. >> i think it's a great way for us to stay informed. >> there are a lot of c-span fans on the hill. my colleagues, they're going to say, "i saw you on c-span!" >> there's so much more that c-span does to make sure that people outside the beltway know
what's going on inside it. the women's integration into the u.s. military workshop continues. the second panel focuses on gender integration and how it shapes the battlefield. this program lasts an hour 40 minutes. all right, welcome back. now, our second panel hopefully will have a little bit more practical application for many of the students, as its focus is on fighting irregular warfare with an integrated force. the focus here is on how gender
integration shapes the battlefield, with an ever-changing threat environment, the integration of women into all military occupations provides the potential for unique skill sets to be leveraged and must be considered in future strategic planning. fighting irregular warfare with an integrated force. we have three panelists for this panel. our first one immediately on stage right is dr. mandi moore -- excuse me, dr. mandi donahoe. she earned her doctorate at the joseph korble school of studies at the university of denver and specializes in international relations, comparative politics and peace studies in gender. mandi is an adjunct professor and internship coordinator to the bachelor of arts program of international studies at the joseph kobel school. she received a masters degree in international peace and conflict resolution from american university's school of international service, and she will speak on women as stakeholders, the value of participation. our next panelist back with us
again is ms. kyleanne hunter. unfortunately, she is replacing dr. howard clark, who is not able to be here. he kind of found out last minute, so we're graciously enough, ky volunteered to sort of jump on board, and she's going to replace him, also speaking about the same topic that he was planning on, the role of integrated military and combating domestic terrorist threats. and then finally -- oh, okay. sorry. and then our last panelist is lieutenant colonel jeannette haynie. she is in the marine corps forces reserve, a cobra pilot and combat veteran, a ph.d candidate at george washington university in domestic terrorism and inequality. with that, ladies, please begin. >> just push a button. excuse me. so, i'll be talking today about
women as stakeholders, the value of participation, particularly from the lens of post conflict and peacebuilding, or formal peace processes. so, i'd like to start introducing an organization from liberia, the women of liberia mass action for peace, which was a group of women both muslim and christian who were organized to end the violence in the second liberian civil war. a great documentary on them called "pray the devil back to hell," for those of you who have the time and access to track that down. they called for peace talks. in fact, they practically forced president charles taylor to sit down with rebel groups. and then led by lima gobowe, a delegation of these women sat in on -- or rather, staged a sit-in at the peace process in acura ghana, the process that would lead to the acra comprehensive
peace agreement signed august 18th, 2003. now, the women were not part of any formal delegation. they did not take formal -- or did not formally participate in the peace process. their role in that moment was to enforce the process itself. in fact, at one point, the women lined up around the building to keep the men from the rebel groups from climbing out of a window to escape participating in the process. so, we begin to see the role of women in formal processes, why their attention, why their participation is necessary. they're stakeholders. they have a vested interest in the cessation of violence, a vested interest in the resolution of conflict in their lives. but they don't sit at the peace table, at least not very often. another case study i'll get to is in northern ireland, where women did sit at the peace table, and i'll talk about why
that's sort of exceptional. the report of the secretary-general on women, peace and security states that "often women are excluded because they are not military leaders or political decisionmakers or because they did not participate in the conflict as combatants. women are assumed to lack the appropriate expertise to negotiate or they are left out only to discrimination and stereotypical thinking." katherine o'rourke writes a piece called "walking the halls of power: understanding women's participation in international peace and security," and she talks about five distinctive types of participation. the first is the role model argument in which women participate as role models. hey, look, we can do it, too. the second is the justice argument -- participation as representation, in which it is simply argued that it is fair and just that as 50% of the population, women have a role, have a right to participate in
these processes. the third is the larger dream argument -- participation as deliberation, in which it is argued that women's participation is process-oriented, that women contribute differently to the process of peace negotiations. fourth is the expertise argument -- participation as expertise, in which we need the expertise on issues that affect women's lives the way that the conflict has been gendered. roles or issues that don't generally get brought into peace processes otherwise. oh, i'm sorry, i skipped number four. the different agenda argument -- participation as inclusion. so, securing the women -- or excuse me, securing the participation of women as beneficiaries of the policies isn't that correct enacted in the agreements. o'rourke argues that these forms of participation fit on a
spectrum ranging from descriptive participation, that is, representation by women in which women are physically a part of the process, and on the other end, substantive representation or the representation of what we sort of broadly characterize as women's issues. women's interests, on the other hand. o'rourke argues that more and more we see the women peace and security agenda as focused on women's interests, so substantive participation, rather than on women's descriptive participation, in which women are actively participating in these roles. i'd like to introduce sort of my second case study, the northern ireland women's coalition. in 1996, elections were announced to the northern ireland peace forum. the formal peace talks that would end the three decades of violence in northern ireland known as the troubles. an existing network of civil
society actors and women's organizations put in a phone call and said will there be women at the table? the very trite answer that they got back was, sure, if they're elected. so, women engaged in the process of forming a political party, the northern ireland women's coalition. now, what was interesting about this particular peace process is that the voting for the parties that would be represented in the process occurred in sort of, at two different levels. so, members of political parties would run in their own districts the way we think of politics at home today, but there would also, in what they called a top-up process, a sort of comprehensive vote in which votes would be accumulated across northern ireland so that some of these smaller, minority parties would also be
represented. the process wasn't designed to include women, but it certainly benefited them. as the northern ireland women's coalition ran against some of these larger, well-established parties, and of the ten parties that were elected to sit at the peace talks, the northern ireland women's coalition -- i'll just call it the coalition for short -- came in ninth out of ten. so, they had two women, a protestant woman, perle sakar, and a catholic woman, monica mcwilliams, were elected to sit at the peace talks. now, they were a challenge to what they sort of laughingly referred to as ab-norm politics, the normal politics of northern ireland, which was very divisive and focused on the violence. in the process -- or during the peace process, rather, the chair would assign papers, homework, really, for the delegates, those who had been elected to sit. now, the members of the more
well-established parties didn't take this homework very seriously. the women did. they met with their constituents, they met with their party members, they hired legal experts, they sought out academics in the field. they took very seriously these writing assignments. so, as a result, the peace agreement that was signed in 1998 has a lot of the language from the coalition because they took this process seriously earlier on, in earlier stages, when the rest of the parties, otherwise, the men at the table, didn't. now, with the coalition, we can see all five of o'rourke's arguments for women's participation in different ways. first of all, the coalition as role models. women were proven capable of successfully organizing, managing a political party as well as getting elected to office. politics again was synonymous
with the violence. and so, even at the peace talks, elected members, official leaders of parties, really acted very violently, very aggressively. the body language was very aggressive. when the when men acted this way towards other men, it was not noteworthy. it was not on the news. but suddenly seeing this aggressive behavior against women, these two elected women and their constituents and the party became extremely newsworthy. these women not only showing themselves as role models of what women are capable but also became role models for what normal politics ought to look like. they became role models that showed in contrast really the childishness of the aggressive and abusive behavior that these men were carrying out. second argument the justice argument, the coalition was
representative of women as well as a number of other constituents who really just wanted a sus sags of the violence. so they weren't just being fair to representing women in this cause. they also served justice to other voices, alternative voices, who had not been party to the violence, who had not been party to the conflict and who otherwise just wanted an end to the troubles. the third argument against from o'rourke is the larger dream argument, which is participation as deliberation. women proved -- women of the coalition proved through their very process-oriented, very dlibtive political party style that there was an alternative to the violence of the conflict. that there was sort of this middle way in which a party could be representative, not just of one side or the other but of a form of politics in which communities were accessed, in which local voices were
mobilized. and in which advice was sought for improving the situation of the larger community. the fourth argument, the different agenda argument, in which participation is seen as a form of inclusion. one of the proudest moments for the coalition, according to its members, in the good friday agreement is what they called the civic forrum. it was a body that would sit parallel to the new government. it would be made up of women's organizations, civil society members, community actors. and it would serve as sort of a via media in terms of translating local community voices and needs towards policy in the new government, as well as serving as a sort of translator of new government
policies and laws from the new government back into the community. today 78% of the community in voluntary sector in northern ireland is women. they make up this majority voice in a field that was developed largely as a counter response to politics, which they saw as pure violence. so, including this civic voice was their method, their -- i was going to call it that baby which is accurate considering how many of them really ran on issues of motherhood and wanting peace for their children. but they considered the civic forrum this access point. so it was part of the a different agenda, a counter to the sort of pushing and pulling of power that was going on with the other parties.
the other thing that the coalition pushed was integrated education. in an environment today still nearly 20 years after the violence had ended in which catholic kids go to catholic schools and protestant kids go to state-run but otherwise protestant schools. so pushing an integrated education system was also part of this idea of a different agenda, so women's participation including alternative issues. the final argument is the expertise argument. women in the coalition were able to engage with expertise rather than having it speak for them. they engaged with expertise in terms of seeking out legal expertise, academic advice and contributing to the peace agreement. they spoke on behalf of the expertise rather than as o'rourke sort of cautions us
that expertise on what women's issues are, what women's interests are has a tendency to speak for women. so the coalition, even sort of flips this form of participation in giving voice to the expertise but letting it speaking for it rather than letting it speak for them. so there are still agents in that expertise. and in this process of forming a party, of participating in the priest process, they became professional experts in their own right. formal peace processes bring together key stake holders in conflict, resolving tensions, trying to end violence. as the u.n. report describes stake holders are usually characterized by their capacity as decision makers or representatives if not participants in combat roles and in warring parties. as such, women are regularly left out of such processes. yet women are particular category of actors in conflicts because they experience and
participate in conflict differently. their participation in peace processes then if all five of these forms are present can be achieved and can desperately or -- excuse me, descriptively and substantively change peace processes for much more inclusive arrangements at their conclusion. so thank you. >> thank you, mandi and hello again. so what i am going to talk about here is to bring -- mandi very well described why you need women at the table and what it really does to ensure a more lasting peace. and i think that's a big part of it is that the goal is really to have a lasting peace. and to bring this back to the really counterinurgency and irregular warfare context f you look at either the data from the corelative war the data said or
the ucdp data set which are the two biggest -- if you're not data nerds in here, like collection of actually formally declared wars but also irregular military conflicts that are out there find that the overwhelming majority of irregular warfare which is defined as either a state fighting a non-state actor or multiple non-state actors fighting within a state are brought to an end by negotiated settlements. they're very rarely is a formal all-out military victory or a formal surrender that is achieved in these context. i think a lot of people in this room have experience with trying to figure out what the end game is and what the end state is. and we are learning more and more through the past 15 years that some sort of negotiation and some sort of whether you call it a cease fire or peace process or state building,
whatever sort of term you want to put on that, what you need is multiple parties with multiple stake holders to all sit down and talk to each other to actually get these things to finish. and if again you're looking for some good analysis on11j this, h of barbara walter and andrew kidd have very good analysis of the data that's already out there as to how to get different parties and disagreeing parties to actually come together. that's not as much what i'm going to focus on now but what integration really means for this process and what gender integration in the actual battle space of counterinurgency and irregular warfare means for getting the right people to come to the table and also ensuring that women are seen as viable stake holders. as mandi really pointed out in the northern ireland case where women were seen as legitimate,
they were there for legitimate reason rather as just a window dressing that we brought a woman to the table, you get a much more lasting peace. and so my argument here is really that bringing women into the counterinsurgency battle space matters for this process. as we briefly discussed in the q&a from the last panel, it got brought in to as what's the purpose of integrating women as opposed to doing what some of the other larger military powers as in china and russia are doing now. i think the first thing to really highlight with this is that we need to fight the wars in the battle space where the wars are being fought. if we look at what counterinsurgency and what irregular warfare looks like on the ground as you are fighting within and among populations. you're not having infinity troops lining up on other sides of trenches and shooting each other and whoever kills more people wins and you surrounder
any longer. you're fighting in people's towns. you're fighting in people's villages. you're fighting enemies that you're not exactly sure are enemies one day and your bread seller the next day. i mean, this is just the reality. even if you take it outside of iraq or afghanistan and look at conflicts that are currently going on in africa and in other parts of south asia, what you're not seeing large infinity on infinity battles anymore, what you're seeing are small-scale non-state actors raising violence either against the state or against another group and ultimately you need a way to get them to the table. the most important factor in counterinsurgency or if you're an insurgent group is populous buy-in and civilian buy-in. if you look at the data from what we have done in afghanistan with the cultural support teams
and ellen has probably much more antidotes of them just talking rather than the raw number data that i was able to collect, groups where women were involved side by side with men in the entire clear hold and build operation. they went in. they actually fought alongside men to get taliban out. they then re-enforced these villages and taught the women how to be stake holders in their village. how to both ensure their own personal physical security as well as their villages' economic security and then were very involved in the new leadership established in these communities. you have not seen a resurgence of taliban in those communities. similarly in a few case studies where you had norwegian peace talkers.
they brought women in and they taught women how to both fight physically and secure themselves economically. you did not see a resurgence of extremist violence. so, what you have here is a really three-pronged phenomenon. you have one where women are setting the example of being equals with men. where when you have western forces or stabilizing forces, even if it's from a neighboring country, you have men and women fighting alongside each other from day one, you have the precedent set and the example set that there are expectations that tends to bring women into the community, brings women into the discussion of what does security and what does stability mean for me when you leave and how do we ensure it when you leave? what this does is you legitimize women as stake holders. you legitimize women as stake holders in their own security.
you legitimize women has stax holders in their economic running and as political stake holders. so that's really number one. the second thing that happens with women as integrated forces is you end up with -- jason yile, process fer -- pure vooib military violent tactics have an inverse strategy. that going into an area that you were trying to win the hearts and minds is the overall doctor of coin is. if you go in and just start killing people and you go in with the goal of we're going to take over x terrain and now hold it and conquer it and essentially have that more imperialistic view of military
from back in world war ii days, you end with strategic defeats. you may get tactical victories, you may take a hill, village, building, however you want to say it that way, but you intend to inflamd a population against you and your principles preponderance. the goal is to get the population to not support the insurgency in black and white terms. most people here are familiar with counterinsurgency doctrine. to do that, you need a more holistic approach to you're even fighting tactics. it need it as both sue and ellen brought up, you need the complex decision making that goes beyond just let's destroy this building because it may be used as an enemy stronghold to what are the long-term consequences? and what are the long-term
effects of this military action? and it has been seen in the units that had either lioness programs attached to this nem iraq or cst's attached in afghanistan, you got this long-term tactical or this long-term thinking was brought in on the tactical level so the tactics of how do we ensure both our own security, the security of the village was married up with the long-term strategic goals of we need to win the hearts and minds to very simplify it of this village. again, you see women as a constraining force for the use of excessive force and excessive violence. additionally on the side of the force and take it out of the iraq and afghanistan context, if you look at the data on excessive use of sexual violence and elizabeth wood and ragnald put together a phenomenal data set that goes back to preworld
war ii of all instances of rape during war, whether it was by soldiers -- again, there's documentation issues and we don't have to get into issues of actual data reliability because i'm sure there tends to be more than that is actually reported, but at least reported whether it was soldiers using rape as a weapon during interrogation, when you conquer villages and against captured soldiers, you see the presence of women in units, whether they were in peace keeping units, whether there were women in rebel groups in this way that the use of sexual violence as a tool diminishes quite a bit. and the use of sexual violence during war is definitely outside the scope of this panel, but very briefly it creates a lot of
cultural barriers to reintegration and post conflict settling. i'm happy to discuss more of that in the q&a if you want. the bottom line, women serve as a mitigating factor which creates one less stumbling back to both reintegration to post combat settlement and to reestablishing legitimate and lasting peace. and then to end on a note that kind of directly dove tails off this, there's a lot of popular stories. to play off this whole story of emotion that comes up that is also very prevalent in this where you'll hear reports coming out of colombia now with women in the fark or in turkey or iraq or u.s. soldiers, how the females are the most brutal. you would never want to be captured by a woman because she is going to torture you far worse than any male would or you -- you don't want to be
killed by a woman because it's -- you're going to go to hell. again this really brings up a lot of these cultural constructs around what men and women should do. if you strip again and pull back again some of my own research and own data bringing into this that in the fark and the pkk at least where i've done some of this that women and men actually do the exact same thing. they have a very, very strict koe harnt this is how you interrogate a subject and there's no evidence that women deviate from that script. however, the perception is that if a woman is doing something like this, it must be far worse. it's more -- it brings out it's more insulting to me as a man what that a woman could do this to me and opens a larger cultural conversation about whether it's a pro or a con. i don't have an answer to, but i
definitely want to throw that out there that again it plays to this emotion and this rhetoric that you see used on both sides that women must be so much worse because they are some sort of deviant in this role. but again to pull back to the counterinsurgency side why we see women being so important is that they are essential facilitators for bringing women as prominent stake holders into lasting peace. i'll turn it over to janetette. >> good morning. you have to bare with me for a minute here. as a marine officer, i felt a lot more comfortable hearing about and thinking about the info being shared on the first panel, but this is my research area. i've taken it into a slightly different direction than what was talked about on the first panel. we heard about skill set and how diverse groups are more equipped to handle complex challenges and these are all true and these are all good things, but i'm taking
it into a little different direction. so, little bit of background, i'm a cobra pilot. so i grew up being the only woman in my squadron and constantly hearing, i've never flown with a woman before. it was this separation like i was expected to be different. so in grad school when i first started a long time ago i decided as a joke to look at the impacts of gender inequality or different levels of female leadership at different state security questions and to my surprise i found that there's obviously evidence out there that it exists, that women do have a different effect in leadership and gender inequality has different state security issues and i'm sure some of you are nodding your head. it was surprising to me who was a cobra pilot, i'm just like the guys. kind of took some of this emotion or the -- not emotional but more as a marine what i felt
like touchy feely stuff out of the equation. i was wrong back then and i'm learning more every time. what i've been looking at for a number of years is the impact of gender inequality not necessarily on face value, on its face but the impact of gender inequality on domestic terrorism as an enabling condition. and terrorism obviously is very relevant right now and has been for the last 15 years, more so than it was earlier. and we still don't fully understand the factors that cause it, what brings it about, what enables it to continue. we look at it from a supply side generally. sometimes a demand side. a lot of our programings and policies that are set to counterterrorism are set up from the supply side angle. i'll talk a little bit about that. but what i like to do at the end is bring it back full circle and talk about why an integrated military is uniquely suited to
addre address. . . . they've done some great stuff. it caused me to become less skeptical and more open to what i found later through work of a classmate in the nafl academy, his non-profit. he made it his life work to go combat terrorism through education and combatting poverty and three specific regions in africa. they started including women as counterterrorism agents of a form to counter radicalization and terrorism but they're doing it on a very low grade level. i learned about usip program and state that talk about using women to counterviolence
extremism and they're seeing some success. i wanted to learn more. i found out academically there's very little support one way or the other of gender inequality on counterterrorism threats. there's some out there. you can see where the lines get drawn. but it's far from clear. so i started looking at it and interestingly enough i found that so far -- and i'm still going through the research in my dissertation. this is what my dissertation is on. my results are showing a strong significant support for the idea that women in the political sphere, the greater the impact or the greater of allowance to have an impact in political sphere, the lower the rate of domestic terrorism in that country. which is surprising. i didn't expect to see that result early on and makes me excite kpooited to take it down the next road kmrks is the
second half of this. i mentioned how a lot of our programs rely on supply dynamics. they want to get at the source. what creates terrorists. how do we get women involved to stop would be terrorists from being radicalized. and i think in some ways we're looking at that all wrong because the supply side will always exist. we will always as women and men in in woman, see people take the grievances down the last of violence. i don't know if we can ever stop tearists from being born. we can create conditions that keep them from developing. i don't know if any of you are familiar with mark us theler from the late 1990s, he did fascinating work on the role of feminist norms and values or the acceptance among both men and
women and the impacts of those on conflict. and on the use of violence conflict or the preference for violence conflict. he specifically looked at the arab/israeli conflict and found a number of the states in the middle east and north africa both men and women who had more feminist attitudes or thought women should have equal rights were less supportive of the use of violence and less support i have of the military force and were more interested in finding al tern tiff means to conflict resolution. i found that fascinating. it in some ways reflected my experience as a marine and i hope inhe future it will reflect my research into domestic terrorism. the role of norms and outcomes in society that is more open to equal opportunity for men and women under the inclusion of women at every level with the peace process and throughout the securities sphere, that society has more options at its disposal for conflict resolution.
we mentioned populous buy-in, enabling conditions of a society that to foster or to help prevent terrorism, well, chief among those in my mind and in a lot of research i'm finding is that an acceptance of violence plays a bhig role in that. so we can affect the way cultures accept traditionally feminist norms and values such as less aggression, more peaceful conflict resolution even though we all know as female marines we're not all very nurturing and we're not all universally pacific in our nature. in fact, part of me is laughing right now. but those things become more accepted culturally on a wider scale as the idea that women are worthy of respect and are worthy of inclux at the highest levels
and bring something to the table as that becomes more accepted. to tithe it into how an integrated military can better address a domestic terrorism threat. i have a story from something that happened last summer. i have a 5-year-old son and two older daughters and we were at a picnic. i heard a friend of mine who has the son the same age. his son ran up and was crying about something and he turned to his son and said stop crying like a little girl. cut it out right now. and it took me a minute and i didn't say anything right then and i thought that moment over and over again a million times in my head. but as his son and my son age, which one will be more open to different outcomes and to different methods of conflict resolution. it's a very simplified version of that story but that's an idea of how a cultural change within the military can also impact our
ability to deal with other cultures and relate to them in a coin or peace-keeping environment, those factors become down right critical to success. an integrated military with women included at all levels and that afford's respect to women at all levels will be a lot more accepting or traditionally feminine characteristics whether all or not all women have those characteristics and will accept different options and outcomes anymore. that's in a nutshell and i look forward to your questions. >> all right, thank you. as we open up the question and answer period again, just remind everyone that we're still on broadcast television, so when you wait for the microphone from one of the interns, state your first name and your affiliation. so questions from the audience, please. do you see one over here? oh, i'm sorry.
dr. cat fisher. hello. thank you, i'm dr. kathy fisher. i work at fort bragg. thank you for your comments and presentations there. they're very helpful. i have one that came from the first panel but also came up in terms of what a lot of you spoke to. my interests and kind of question and concern is this round between masculinity and femininity and how it plays within the military and outside of it. i'm wondering in terms of the peace process, negotiation or military combat units how we don't inadvertently consumed notions of gender in the name of equality. you hear those both in terms of how questions are phrased, how explanations are made natural that just is. so if -- how we can kind of deal with that and again i think it's not exclusive to the military
realm by any means but perhaps more pronounced in a specific way. if you could speak to that i would appreciate it. thank you. >> i can. i know jeanette can as well because we both spent a lot of time thinking and writing about this. this is one of the reasons that both of us got into the course of research we did is because in both of our personal lives where we were both the only women in our unit like the first squadron to do the job that we did as cobra pilots we very much had this idea of don't look at me as a woman. i'm just another pilot. treat me just like another pilot and that's the same. that's the way it is. but then on the flip side we get out and we get really emerged in this research and we find more and more evidence that, well, a lot of these things that are culturally associated with women whether it's nurturing or mother hood or thinking about security issues that are more than just
physical state killing security or what are really important for lasting peace and lasting security. how do we really shape this tension where it is? i think the biggest thing that integrating women does is that it opens it up for individual worth and individuals to be looked at for what they bring to the table, rather than necessarily assuming a lot of these -- whether you want to call them essentialized or culturally constructed notions of masculinity and femininity and where it is very true that each of us brings very unique perspectives to whatever our profession happens to be based on how we're socialized and whether that's we're socialized as a woman or basd on our religion or based on our race. so we all kind of i think carry
a lot of cultural socialization. sue and ellen both spoke very well to how that actually makes forces stronger and how you need to think more diverse because of it. but one of the things that integrating women does here and whatever form that takes and i think whatever an individual -- however that individual chooses to wrestle with her own masculinity and femininity issues. we both can speak to that on a personal level, but what it does is it opens the door for individual worth and individual expectations and then also individual exceptionally. ed one of the thing -- working with female rebel groups in latin america is that the presence of women in these fight
roles then empower own fighting. it's a very women fighting is a very overt break to what those gender roles are. if you look at the most sort of black and white essentialization of men and women is that men are the protectors and women need to be protected. so when women take on that role of being the protector and do it very overtly it's a very visual, very obvious break in that norm. and what it then does is frequently just open the door for women who felt constrained by other norms to say, no, i can be a politician. i don't have to accept this. i can take responsibility for my own physical security, for my own economic security, for my own stake in what happens to my family. so however that plays out, i
think that's where this integration has its biggest effect in the long-term roles of these counterinjure sen environments. >> i got the gist of the question but i have a hard time hearing sometimes so i think i got most of what you said. if i'm missing something, let me know. it's mostly this ear. so i do want to add one thing. i think it's not just whether or not women specifically have the qualifications or the characteristics that make them uniquely women at the aggregate sense. ky and i try to make yourself just the cobra pilot, not the woman. so there's such a wide variety among people, but i think the more important thing that comes from integration within the u.s. military and internationally at every level is that you're just bringing more choices to the table.
as worthy of respect, as worthy of consideration, you're opening up that box to more options. and as the u.s. military because of our ubiquitousness and how much attention is put on us in many parts of the world and our presence, we have the unique opportunity by integrating to make cultural statements as well to other countries that suffer. and that's huge. that's something that we've seen in small bits in iraq and afghanistan and i think has some fantastic potential. does that answer the question? >> yeah, thank you. >> if i can also -- we've done a really good job, i think, of explaining the value of moving away from that essentialism. it's obvious in the way you framed your question, i think. but we've also seen really fascinating cases of the essentialized roles women are expected to play being extremely
empowering on their own, right? we've seen women as mothers be very politically active, participating in conflict in ways that we don't expect that are not traditional but they're doing that by mobilizing that essential identity, that sort of prescribed role. and so i think one of the things that i sort of wrestle with in my own work is also not diminishing what those essential roles can do for us even as we're trying to move away from them and even as we're trying to accept their -- let me say this a different way. recognizing the potential for value without being limited. maybe is a better way of what i'm trying to get at. there's really interesting ways in which the essentialism has worked for women.
the role the coalition played in northern ireland of the case i was giving earlier, a number of women who participated were participating very vocally and overtly as mothers and as women acting within their traditional roles in their community, but the legacy it left behind, what's really fascinating is that all of these traditionally very male-dominated political parties recognize that there was a women's vote, that there was the capacity there and so they began bringing women into their own party leadership and getting them elected into roles following that. so even this sort of empowerment that came from working within those essentialized roles initially enabled a sort of break from them more broadly in the generation of political leadership that followed. so i think they're also alternative views to how we
frame that tension, i think. >> can i add one thing to that, too? reminded me of something else as well. if you're envisioning let's say the u.s. military in northern ireland helping to broker -- any kind of peace agreement but let's talk about how we view -- like if you send infinity unit over there to do peace keeping work over there and they don't have respect for women's roles and women's values and what women might bring to the table and you have an organization like northern ireland's women coalition and women acting as mothers as activists as well, the amount of respect that will be accorded to those women and the amount of attention they will receive will be very different depending on the norms accepted and the levels of respect accepted within the unit that's over there. that's part of how an integrated military can play such a huge role in this. >> thank you.
another question? >> good morning. my question has to deal with the best way to implement integration of women in a traditional society. so should it be the holistic approach where we focus on education and have women teach their children so when they grow up, 10, 20 years down the road it's more of a generational approach where they'll be more liberal and open or more should it be transformative occupation approach where we take over a country and now we say you need to have this certain amount of women inside your government? which way do you think would be the best way to do it? >> so what i've seen evidence wise it -- so it sort of depends -- this is a question where it's very good to have a
lot of dialogue because it comes down to measuring outcomes. and the evidence would point to the first case being the best way to do it, to education and socialization so that you learn and it becomes more organic. as norms become more accepted, as more liberal norms with regards to gender roles and tolerance roles become accepted, you create a society which women are viewed more as equals. however the way that metrics are typically measured is that we say things like, well, okay this becomes a success when we have 30% of parliament being women. and so there's a few problems to that. one is that it's a very artificial measure. you set an arbitrary number when this happens then we have enough. the second is that you don't
necessarily get -- i hate using this word but it's a lack of a better word the right women in the job. if you were just to go out and say i need 30 women to do this and you pick 30 women at random, there's really no guarantee that you're getting women with the skill set, the desire, the experienced to perform the job well. what also then frequently ends up happening is you get a lot of coopation by political party elites. this was a big problem you actually saw in kuwait with the introduction of a quo ta system. we want to open this experience to women. we bought into this literature that having women matters. but whatyou did is then you had the political parties saying you, you, you, you and you are going to represent us and you just represent us and they're not representing their own experiences or any sort of kind
of bottom up organic desires. they're just perpetuating the status quo that had been ruling because you become puppets. so the evidence points to really this -- i think the case of rwanda is one that speaks to this very well as to the really power of organic change. and that you had a situation in rwanda where because of the horrific genocide, all that was really left was women. you -- numbers wise you didn't have a lot of men left to be political activists to even run the military in the post genocide. so you had women having to take on those roams and they had to figure it out because there was really no -- there wasn't this sort of structure put in that, oh, we need this amount of women in here. but as a result, you see their children the generation that are coming up now and becoming the leaders that they learned from observation, they learned from what sort of education the --
these women felt were important to impart that it becomes organic. we have individuals who have seen what women had to do and seen what sort of security concerns need to be in play and fully internalize that. and that's what's become a more security and stabilizing force. the other thing it does is that having pure gender quotas, this whole notion of respect and the norms that are brought in within a unit. there are as many males who can speak for the benefits of respecting women's rights and respecting aon themy and individually as women can and that's largely in part to socialization and that the really the gender comes down to being able to respect individual
and putting more options on the table. but unfortunately when ever we go and do anything as a military in particular, you need results. and you need to come back with these sort of metrics that you hit wickets a, b and c and now we measure them and this is perpetually going to be a problem when you have to have actionable goal. you have to say we did one two and three and this is good enough and it's stable now because there are x percent of the women are in the parliament. we had x amount of women in this negotiation. we hit the u.n. resolution obligations. we hit what we set out as our counterinsurgency obligations but it doesn't ensure anything is going to happen the next time. either there's elections or the next generation is aclmbsáñ being taught to internalize any
sort of integration and expanse of opportunities. >> i was going to say, we can see all pretty well obviously with the u.s. military with millennial generation coming in and taking over some of the more lower level to mid level leadership positions and their attitudes towards don't ask, don't tell and their attitudes towards gender are by and large different from the senior leadership views. it's been interesting to see. but it's an example of how organic change is good but at the same time you need a little push to remind those in charge that there is a push -- that there is something else going on out there that they might not see. >> i would also say that social change has to come from within. we have goals and we have measures and policies to promote the kind of change that we want, but we don't always respond the way people want us to.
the change we're hoping for are not always the change we get unless we've talked about this language of buy-in a lot. and the case of rwanda is a really interesting one because the change that was forced upon the existing population in rwanda by virtue of the genocide was not a positive one. it was not something that the survivors certainly would have chosen or would have sought but as a result we do have this really amazing exemplar of number of seats for women in the legislature. but that didn't necessarily correlate with a -- or reflect a change in the existing social u execations, right? what we're seeing is, yes, rwanda has this fantastic number of women in the legislature and yet at the same time rwanda has a president that has consistently sought and taken
and reappropriated more powers for himself at the expense of any potential change or empowerment that being a part of a legislature might otherwise conferred on this generation of women who played these fshtd first time very public, very official roles. and so what it means to have that change truly taking effect and to be long lasting is really -- has to be driven from within and it doesn't always happen the way we want or hope that it will. >> thank you. another question? well, i have one. so my question is about the role of women in particular mothers in counterradicalization and deradicalization issues. by way of context last june
2015, we had over 40 alumni from the middle east, southern europe, africa and southeast asia and one of the topics in the conference was on radicalization in particular how that point of radicalization with foreign fighters leaving countries of those that were there to go fight with the islamic state or daesh. the role of the mother more so than any other family influenced either the radicalization or the counterradicalization of both young men and young women family members. so in your own research, have you seen something similar? if so, are there ways that the united states and our parter in nations can leverage that role in positive ways? >> yes. absolutely i've seen it. the mother schools that save has been developing have shown some levels of success and those
basically brought in community-level leaders and brought in women and taught them how to notice and what to do if they notice and found it. it's still very small. but they've had some success. the women preventing extremist violence program has done similar work. they've involved women with mothers interacting with local security forces to recognize the signs of growing radicalization and extremism. i think the small successes are encouraging. i think wif yet to figure out how to harness that on the wide aggregate scale. that's where i'm looking with my research. women in northern ireland will by and large probably be find accesses easier or gathering together and discussing and meeting and becoming activists is easier there than in other countries. and we can all think of a few.
so it varies culture to culture fwlu is an association there, we just need to figure out how to capitalize on that. >> so you can come to i.s.a. and read my paper. so i did a little work for this paper looking at the radicalization of immigrant communities and really the role that the mother plays there and like so i looked like micro level familial gender roles and found there wasn't much there. but something i found that hasn't been addressed i don't think very well in all of these anti-radicalization programs especially wen you see kids who live in the west, you see this big in britain and france who are leaving and going to daesh, that's where a lot of this work is really coming from. what i found and it's right now still rough core lair data and i
don't have a really robust data set. one of the reasons i want to go to i.s.a. is to try to make it better is that in communities where children saw their mothers targeted because of their cultural and because of that religious beliefs, so where there was a lot of very anti-islamic sentiment especially towards women because women are much more identifiable as muslims than men do in western cultures, you saw a very high instance of radicalization of their children and that it became almost this reverse protective mechanism where children grow up expecting like their mother to take care of them and becomes this natural bond you grow up and your mother is the first person to really care for you, really take care of you. well, what happens when the culture into which you're supposed to come to get a better life, you know, like they were sold this idea as immigrants that we're moving to the west
because it's supposed to be better. and now you see that cultural particularly targeting your mother, the person that is supposed to be your protector, your caretaker, your sort of world when that person and that identity becomes targeted, there becomes this knee jerk radicalization response. and this is i think a radicalization dynamic that hasn't really been looked at very much, but needs to be addressed i think on a larger scale when we talk about what is integration. is it really just gender integration or are we talking about increased tolerance. there is a lot of evidence that increased gender tolerance will lead to cultural tolerance and religious tolerance. what breeds radicalization? is radicalization really a response to being othered so much that you don't feel lieng you have any other recourse to air your grievances. the supply side. but i think this idea the role
of mothers and especially when mothers are threatened it hits at the very much supply side and demand side. you're creating an environment where children tend to feel helpless but they have this other option. and i think some of these radicalized groups have done really well at marketing themselves. they're great at recruiting. they are really good at reaching these children who feel very isolated. so looking at that role of how i think not just the role of mothers as these schools as jeanette is saying, how to prevent radicalization and spot it. but as the west, what are we doing to assimilate familial units so that facilitation can happen so women have the power and the ability to spot and prevent radicalization as opposed to their targeting being
the catalyst for it. >> i thought of something else, too. this keeps happening. and on the same note you're talking about u.s. military coming in and recognizing the signs or recognizing communication from women in different societies about the growing signs of radicalization and military that can understand the roles of women in those societies is better equipped to relate to that as well. but also if we don't do a better job as a country and internationally of harnessing the role of women in more traditional societies, terrorists groups are doing that and they do it fairly well. they'll come into an area and pull all the women and say this is your duty as a mother to teach your son in this direction, send your son in this direction. if we don't offer a different narrative or at least some version of that out there, then we've lost part of the battle. >> thank you. other questions from the
audience? right here in front. >> thank you. i'm jen taylor. i work as a consultant to d.o.d. with a clearing. i just wanted to pick up on the thread that you were putting out there related to mothers being in the protectivism and how do you think the migration waives we're seeing throughout europe now might impact in the decades to come and are there any intervention points to prevent the near term to prevent the trajectory going forward? >> so, i think that's the million dollar question and i wish i was an anthropologist now to trace that. so i think there's a there's a few factors. one is that we don't have i think a really good harness on
how big the migration, both the migration and the refugee problem are. because i think they are two very different issues that sometimes get put together when we're just like, oh, there's middle easterners heading to the europe or heading to the u.s. before. and we need to separate them out. there's the migratory group that very intentionally is saying we want to go work somewhere -- we want to go live in europe to have better opportunities for x, y or z because whether it's -- themselves or their families, they feel that there's a better -- the whole sort of american dream narrative or western dream narrative that you're going to come and have better opportunities and better education and it's going to be a better life. so that's one set. then on the other side you have the refugee and the asylum seekers who because of the perpetual conflicts that have been going on really honestly is nowhere else to go.
it's not that they necessarily want to leave syria or want to leave iraq, there's just physically no a7yplace. they don't have a home any longer. it's been gone. so i think we need to look at those two separate issues. and i think one is with the migration side it really just comes from this is sort of different conversation about immigration and actually accepting that immigration makes people stronger and may bring different skills and different trades and those are important. but on what i think your question is more at, this refugee and asylum crisis. it's building and building and building to the capacity where host countries aren't going to be able to handle it. so what i think -- and whether those -- these people don't necessarily want to leave their home. they want to be back there. they have roots that they want to return to, so i think what this -- the bigger question needs to be is what is the role
of the international community in ensuring that you have a fruitful, lasting negotiated settlement in places like syria or that you are able to put in programs to address the radicalization issues that are going on in iraq right now, to ensure that it doesn't become worse and so that -- how do you get them, you know -- how do you get the islamic state to the table? how do you get in africa, how do you get boko haram to come to the table. if that can happen and this brings in, i think, something else that mandi can speak to better, but ensuring the role of these asylum seekers in that negotiation process, this was a -- i was able to see the transcripts of a meeting with a bunch of syrian women who are now in turkey and these were all
very -- they were university-educated women. they all had professional jobs in syria before they were forced to leave because they just didn't -- they had no place to live or no place to work anymore. and they were talking about why these negotiation have failed and one of them finally brought up, she was like, nobody will talk to us. nobody will include us. like we were economists and bankers and university professors and parliamentary yans. we have skills but they're so focussed on who is actually fighting that they're not reaching out to people who have, as mandi mentioned, this expertise in this set. and so i think figuring that problem out is going to help prevent this from becoming -- because you're seeing the refugee population becoming a radicalization problem as well now because really they have nowhere else to go. and it's the way and again i think this goes to how good a lot of these radical groups are at actually their propaganda and
their recruitment ability is they're saying well, we'll offer you a solution, we'll offer you a place when we win. and that's something that they're doing that no other side is doing. no other side is saying, well, if you come join us, we'll joi that you have a socioeconomic role when this conflict is over, and unfortunately, what the u.s. and other international militaries have been doing is they've been so focused on having the right side militarily win that they've neglected to really engage with who the key stakeholders should be when the conflict has terminated. >> all right. good. thank you. questions, anyone? all right. [ inaudible ] >> right up here in front. please. doesn't seem to be any. >> ambassador jones, deborah
jones, i've spent 33 years in the middle east and i think you hit something in your question that's really important and it gets back -- first of all, too, before i start on this. i just want to ask, did anyone read deborah tanner's "washington post" editorial on women in leadership and the essential conflict there because we like our leaders to be forceful, strong and occasionally angry. we like our women to be gentle, self-deprecating and not really too angry. we like our mothers. i mean, we all have mothers and we love our mothers, most of us. and that leads me into what i was going to say about the middle east, though, and anyone who spent any amount of time here and i think ambassador holt would agree with this and who spent a lot of time in the houses and the homes and that has been the advantage of being a female officer in the foreign services that we spent a lot of time in the homes with these families, as well, knows that the question is not necessarily female power, it's spheres of influence. in the home, they are
tremendously powerful and they make all of the decisions and in fact, often jokingly refer to the men with the donkeys who work and bring home all of the money and the women make all the decisions. in these disrupted cultures and in libya, for example, where i most recently served, the only sphere where the government did not intrude was inside the home. that was the only sphere where there was order, where there was food, where there was comfort and also where the shame factor or the family honor factor is so important and the down side of that, of course, is the women's independence, you know, because women's honor is so important to the honor of the family that this leads to the other problems that we have. across the middle east we have differences and we can talk later about kuwait because i was the ambassador of kuwait, as well. kuwaiti women are the most independent and most out there and make their choices and whatever, but nonetheless, in
all these societies, the home still remains the center of gravity for everything. so now with the refugee flows, you've created all kinds of free electrons and that's really dangerous because these women come and they can't establish that same center of gravity for these families and for these kids and that is something i think we really need to focus on a lot and not just teaching them how to. they know when their kids are misbehaving, a lot of times and we need to get them creator centers again within their cultural norms that help them to keep an eye on and keep tabs on all these free electrons because i agree with you about the young women, as well. they're next generation. they don't know how to cook like their mothers do. if you ask them, they're still going home. they were still going home and now they're disrupted and we're not plugging into that, as well and it's really a tough, tough situation, but it is an important one. i'm glad it came up and i'm glad you raised that question. thank you. >> i'm going to say one more thing on that, as well. the other thing about the
refugee crisis that we're not really talking about that would be interesting to hear about is how much of an impact, if any, external cultures are having on the refugees as they go. that would be a fascinating topic and that could teach us a lot about how we could use the military and use different country's militaries to face some of the problems we have in the world today and we're not talking about that, and we're not hearing about it and the level of influence will vary greatly, depending on the towns, regions that we're talking about and that's something that i wish we had discussed more. >> any other panelists? any other comment? >> all right. well, i don't think we have any other questions. let's join in a round of applause for our panelists. [ applause ] >> so dr. bale will close us out with our remarks and if i could have the panelists from the early morning session make their
way up because we have a parting gift for you after your remarks. parting gift. a token of our appreciation. >> you can come slowly because i have to make a few comments first. just to recap, first of all, i want to thank all of the panelists and all of the participants who came. i found it incredibly enlightening and some of you may not realize what you learned in this and you'll find out later when you're in some tough jobs, you'll say wow, i really needed that insight. i think it is essential that we all assess the experiences we've had particularly the last 15 or 20 years, understand those, but also chart a path to the future. and intellectually our own military likes to forget the lessons of fill in the blank, vietnam or the last decade of war before we're even out of it and we haven't even grasped the way ahead.
so i think even understanding what we've done is important, but the way ahead is crucial unless somehow we're going to emerge into a very peaceful world where everyone is happily living together and the challenges of the regular warfare and radicalization are gone. i'm afraid we're want going to live in that world. it would be great, but we might as well bprepare for the world that we're in. in the world of sisa our goal is to take everyone out of the comfort zone and give them the tools and the ability to succeed and meet the expectations we have even if you don't think you can when you first come here, right, fellas? international fellas? right? you've achieved more than you ever thought possible and i think our comments about expectations are huge and the power of diverse teams and diverse perspectives. it's important to step back whether it's a gender question or some other question. what are the diverse perspectives that were missing that could give us different
approaches or more creative solutions to the problem because, frankly, in some cases what we've been doing hasn't necessarily achieved the resounding successes that we keep claiming we've had. so this is an important way to think about it whether again it's gender, religion, generation, ethnicity, sub cultural groups, tribes, you name it. how do we include those in a constructive way to move forward as we build the approaches that are going to endure forever? we talked about expectations matter. that's a key thing. how do leaders set the expectations and how do they set the organizations up for success and how do they recognize within their organizations the official standards and the informal standards. sometimes they're different. how do they then root those out as they go forward? in the discussion of standards which we kind of got to a little bit, but could go much deeper,
from my experience we always talked about the sanders limiting, but we never looked at the aspects in the case of women where they may have been superior. for example, i remember a subject back in the day when i was lieutenant that they came out and suggested that women had superior hand-eye coordination and dexterity and would make better tank gunners than men. oh, man. we didn't like that because it kind of fit against that. well, of course, then as you do your force design, one option was we could have an automatic loader in the tank in which case upper body strength wasn't that important. the other one was oh, no. we can't have an auto loader, that's too soviet union. the technology is great, but instead you had this justification based on upper body strength rather than the key element in the tank i would submit is the actual ability to put steel on target.
so do i get a better loader or better gunner? >> it was interesting how even there what we call standards. we sometimes have very selective approaches and think about that, step outside of your own bias. this is an important way to think about some of these issues. the next -- organizational cultures. we are all part of them and whether it's a service culture or a community culture or a branch culture and then leaders may try to change those organizations, but ultimately there can be spoilers at the subordinate level and some day i'll figure out why do the folks that could come out to the panel that at the last minute they were told they couldn't travel. is this another example that, yes, they're supportive at the policy level and the senior level, but below that there's some missing element and how do you as leaders identify that follow through to make sure that your campaign will succeed, and this is all your responsibility.
i'm reminded of this regard in andrew jay. he was superintendent of west point. sue remembered him and ellen came in out of retirement and was a retired four-star general and was supreme allied commander and came out of retire am as a three-star general, to take them through trying times and one was a cheating scandal and a question of professionalization hosts a regular warfare, imagine that, and the second was the integration of women in an all-volunteer force. general goodpastor, by their account, took his senior staff aside and in a session said i expect you to welcome, and i'm paraphrasing because i wasn't there. i expect you to ensure that the women have an environment that welcomes them. if not, i'll be happy to shake your hand as you leave and go out the door and leave the
organization. so from the top, he set not a flamboyant leadership climate, but a clear one on what the expectations were of the leaders to make this happen. having seen the other side, it didn't happen all of the way down. we've come a long way. there's some serious challenges, but the leaders set the tone and set the expectations and also have to understand that the subordinate leaders have to be fully supportive. whatever your transformation is. this is a question of organizational change in leadership that i think this is just a great example. the other one flies in the face of the question. we're really in a system with the american military built on the notion of interchangeable parts and it emerges in the world war i army and how can we treat our soldiers and in large case all of our service members
interchangeably, you know? you are all interchangeable parts, if you will, once you graduate from this war college experience. well, shame on us. in our ability today why don't we treat you as talented individuals of significance, find the skills that each individual has and that will be a task for someone's dissertation when we get the ph.d program going and think about how do we harness our talent beyond the interchangeable parts and that's the industrial approach to war. can we have something beyond that as we go forward, but how do we see the individual significance of each of us and each of our subordinates? so a couple of pieces about irregular warfare because that's kind of my world. i grew up in the world of traditional warfare and the idea was the german town and all those people would be gone and so the battlefield was inherently clean. we just destroy the enemy and we preserve our forces and everyone else and all those people that
live in west germany would be somewhere in the rear. my experience over time, however is that's not the battlefield that really exists, whether it was in iraq during the first gulf war or whether it was in beautiful bosnia or kosovo or macedonia or iraq again or afghanistan, that there's people that live in this world. the people that we want in our doctrine to kind of ignore so we can focus on our enemy armed forces, when in fact, the world of irregular warfare by our regular doctrine is about this struggle for power and legitimacy and influence among relevant populations. those populations may be that the host country's population, and it may be our own domestic population. how do we think about our own legitimacy and our inablity in american history to prosecute long-term irregular warfare campaigns because ultimately we lose domestic legitimacy over
time and our tie to the citizenry is really an important aspect. the second is ambassador jones' comment about spheres of influence. in american history, the argument that won the day why women needed education was that women were part of a separate sphere and the sphere was the protection of the family and the education of the next generation and so ultimately that moved forward whereas much more radical views of the corporation into this new fabric of american history and the constitution really didn't happen. abigail adams ultimately will be the wife of adams and in march 1776 writes a letter to her husband, remember the ladies and she's envisioning, i believe, something much more politically inclusi inclusive, but over time women do have a huge dimension in
regular warfare whether it is in the recruitment or kind of recruitment whether it's in the domestic piece and whether it's the spies and whether it's combatants or part of the peace process. so again, if we come from a traditional background, we'll leave some of that out and we lose those dimensions. so ultimately, i would suggest that what we see as conventional warfare and a phased approach to warfare where we have the conflict phase and the post-conflict phase and iraq and afghanistan should lead us toing is suggest that that's a false choice. why is it that the level was higher in the post-conflict phase in both iraq and afghanistan. shouldn't that alone need to rethink that we need to rethink the fundamental assumptions about what happens in what phase? the other one is the post-conflict activities are supposed to happen simultaneously with the conflict phase.
how do you do that, if you haven't incorporated women into that? i don't know, another great thesis topic. again, think about the logic we have has been built up on a very conventional approach that may be out of tune with the contemporary security environment and what are the implications then if your doctrinal approach is inconsistent with the reality that you're in. the next piece i would just add, we've changed our definition of jointness since goldwater and nicholas was passed and implemented in 1986. joint then was the working together of the different branches of the u.s. military. our definition today of jointness is not just u.s. military, but it's combined multinational and it's inter-agency and hence our diplomats and intel folks, law enforcement professionals and national security professionals here and intergovernmental and
it includes non-governmental organizations and private volunteer organizations. holy cow, if that's the joint team you're supposed to work with, this challenge of working with women on your team, imagine that the team we've defined is inherently international, multi-ethnic, mixed genders, et cetera, et cetera, and so we have to break out of some of our constrained approaches. for our ally, if you're going to work with americans or frankly, many partners, i think you'll counter these teams for the future. whether you're completely comfortable with us or not, welcome to the world where you're out of your comfort zone. all right? so think about joint from a huge perspective, but also the power that comes with those diverse perspectives, much like the classroom, there's power in these diverse perspectives on just in understanding alone. i'll have a couple more and i promise i'll be done.
a great example of the role of women in conflict i think is exemplified by one of our malian grad ats a graduates and she went back before the happens cla collapse mali and the southern sahara region and an interesting perspective as the forces came in to one of the towns of course, the women, the girls and the kids hunker down because they're expecting this is another armed group and we'll probably be violated, raped, et cetera and et cetera and instead they realize and there's a woman with a force that has just liberated our town. we can now come out and revitalize the economy. we can, you know, all of the things that instead of waiting for days to see what's going to happen, suddenly the town re-emerges as a thriving entity because they saw her as
understanding that, but also the force will be mitigated in how it acted to the civilian population with her presence there. so i think it's a powerful example from our own alumni of where we've seen the examples today on how individual women, part of the team can bring different perspectives and it can change how the population responds to them and can we create an enduring solution. for you folks, working counter radicalization and reintegration pieces, recall, if you will the post-2004 saudi approach that family his to be part of the reintegration strategy, to be effective if you didn't bring in families and tribes, traditional structures. so in some cases today we're talking about non-traditional roles and others are talking about very traditional roles and your art as a strategist is trying to figure out which worked best and how they
integrate and how they come together to produce a successful outcome in your strategy. i also had to thank ambassador jones this notion of the center of gravity. what is the center of gravity in irregular warfare, and is it the enemy's armed forces as we love to target or political structures, family structures, oh, my gosh and what are the implications of that if your force doesn't have the ability to understand where the center of gravity is, let alone interact with it. so this, sorry to bring in all your different topics here, but think about the implications of this topic for our world of irregular warfare and whether it's a radicalization, the kind of radicalization effectiveness of teams in combat, post-conflict, development, you name it, and the last piece, irregular warfare is inherently political at its heart much like
the american revolution we saw. we should be conscious, i believe, that these wars are accompanied by profound, political, economic or social changes. maybe all of those and those are going to affect the course of the conflict, but also the solutions afterward. if you're not at tune to those. if you're not savvy to how those are happening then you've missed a huge dimension of what's going on and in many ways we want to go back to the way it was before the conflict, but instead the conflict itself is changing the societies and the people, the views there. we have to be at tuned to that and this corporation of gender perspectives helps you understand that so much better. so the last piece i would just mention, just as part of african-american history month, we've got to go back to the roots and we started that way and we're looking at political opportunity structures and we're
looking at social movements and we're looking at the transition into violence and political violence and ultimately irregular warfare and something else at yorktown, right? but if you think back, there is a huge question in the war. how do i get appropriate, sufficient manpower to fight this greatest army on earth. british army, right? we hear this from the other side, right? so one of the choices they have in early 1777 is to begin to form integrated units and then ultimately large number of former slaves were in the ranks and particularly in colonies like rhode island whereby some french observers later more than one-third of the units are former slaves. ultimately, what's my point and one as combatants see it and it becomes the definition of all men are created equal start to
change in many people's minds based on that experience. the second piece it creates, a free black population in the northern states that will be different than the southern states and it will play out ultimately in the questions of abolition and civil war in the united states. so, a long term social change brought about by integration of folks in the armed forces and then, you know, i hate to say it, but from the army's perspectives, it turned away from those lessons before the war and there are sometimes a cultural backlash, if you will, against this where they decided we don't need any more integrated units and that experiment would have to wait, then, for the 20th century to actually move forward to the next level. so don't assume just because there is integration, here's my point, don't assume just because there's integration in some levels that it will remain and that the institutional pressures, the traditions, the cultures won't actually suppress
those and then fail to learn some of the incredible pieces there. so your task is to keep an open mind, be creative and also remember that individuals matter and find the best ways to harness those. so that's my huge theme. i want to thank two groups, though. first, i want to thank the folks in our college that made this possible, that kind of keep pushing the edge as part of our dna, if you will. how do we push the envelope and take people out of their intellectual comfort zone and force them to create these cree aft, integrated strategies on how to make the world better. no pressure, right? but for our team, ambassador greta holtz, thanks for your leadership on this. dr. abbas, dr. erica morat, commander chili taylor, and lieutenant colonel john francis and major ben tagger, and the neat thing about that is look,
that was an inter-agency and joint service team right there who helped put this together and then miss kate keen, miss hanna otler and of course, miss jamie hague. of course, jamie puts her name last, but she's the animus behind us and please join me for a round of applause for the folks that helped put this together. [ applause ] >> and the last one, i want to thank our panelists today. i think they exemplified what we're trying to do here through scholarship. through policy analysis and in some cases, as they admitted, some of their ideas have changed through the process of their research and their scholarship. and so many of you may have a similar experience this year. that's great because it will bring you to even a deeper level of understanding, but thanks for
the commitment and thanks for what you've done for this group and whether you realize it or not, we'll have alumni years from now that will look back and this event has opened up different perspectives in ways that they didn't appreciate at this time. so for each of you -- look at this. it's right here. we've got a pretty amazing book. you may already have it. if you do, we can come upstairs and we'll cash it out for a different one. i would offer, too, for our panelists or any of our guests if you come upstairs afterward i'll give you a quick tour of the school and see what else we do and you can say wow, pretty neat and this is the front lines of peace and security. it was co-sponsored by the department of state, the department of defense at the time that the national action plan came out. it's really pretty amazing document and with the foreword by the secretary of state and secretary of defense. so i just want to say thank you. [ applause ]
>> let's give our panelists another round of applause. [ applause ] >> and i want to thank dr. bateman for moderating this and pulling this together intellectually to bring that. i would hope that this starts a conversation for many of you. if we can facilitate it, i'm happy to and i think you'll see some great stuff. so last, let me just close where i began. at sisa we're trying to be cutting edge. we're looking at the strategies
and policies of irregular warfare, counter terrorism and the demands of the contemporary security environment. our world now is about diverse perspectives. we have alumni now from 92 countries, and i find that at each opportunity that i engage with them the beneficiary and the task now is how do we move that to make our world better. so thank you much for coming today and with that, let's go. have a good day. [ applause ] texas senator and republican presidential candidate ted cruz is at a rally in san antonio and he is formed by greg abbott and former governor rick perry and that's live on c-span3 at 3:00 p.m. eastern. ♪ ♪
>> the house committee on oversight investigations held a hearing on the nation's preparedness for biological threats. the hearing comes following the recease of 33 recommendations from the blue ribbon study panel on biodefense. during the hearing members of the panel and other experts stressed the importance of developing a comprehensive strategy to improve the nation's biodefense. one of the key recommendations from the panel called for a centralized leadership position within the vice president's office. good morning, we will begin this hearing and we want to make sure we move quickly through this. before i start i want to acknowledge that our good friend and ranking member of the