tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 23, 2016 2:00am-4:01am EDT
american history tv on c-span, this weekend, saturday evening at 6:00 eastern on the civil war. historian edward bona kemp discovers his book myth of the lost cause, why the south fought the civil war and why the north won. he examined post war arguments seeking to justify the split from the union and their defeat. myths of the civil war, including the reason it started and how it ended. >> southerns felt compelled to explain why it was that this devastation had occurred and that for example 25% of southern white men between the ages of 20 and 45 were dead.
not just casualties, they were dead as a result of the civil war. >> and then sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind, the 1988 campaign of democratic candidate gary hart. we begin with a former colorado senator announcing his candidacy in denver and then facing questions about an alleged marital affair what w a woman. and then his plan to reduce from the white house. and the life of civil rights activi activist huerta. >> and they would beg the union to send anyone but her to negotiate contracts. however she was at the forefront of that effort for a reason and her name above -- which is interesting, because among in of the participants of the farm
worker's movement, when you interview them and hear about them, they talk about her. >> and at 8:00 on the presidency. >> he just kind of tensed up and said those doson of a -- those partners, did they ever invite me to play golf at their fancy country clubs or did any of them invite me to their clubs and he goes on and on. >> and his lip was quivering. that is one of the few times in all of the three and a half-plus years that i was so close to him that he was a well-contained, disciplined man, very disciplined and he knew how to keep it in and he erupted when he was talking to don. and he was just saying, not a god damn -- and he hated them for it. >> former nixon assistant butterfield and bob woodward reflect on the former president's personality and policies from watergate to vietnam. for the complete american
history tv weekend schedule go to c-span.org. up next, a discussion on the challenges and benefits of integrating women into the armed forces. a defense department official says there is to quota for the number of women in combat roles and women will be expected to meet the same physical standards as male counterparts. held by the council or foreign relations, this is about an hour. >> the future of the military. we're starting things promptly. 8:30 and a half. today we have with us juliette buyler, the principal director of force resiliency of the office of undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. gayle lemmon, from women in foreign policy at cfr and an author of the untold story of women soldiers on a special ops battlefield just out in paper back. and she said that three of the women from the book are in the
room, so we will be putting you on the spot later. and we also have agnes shave who are is a senior political scientist at the rand corporation and has done many studies on the issue at hand. so we start with the first question. last december secretary of defense ash carter opened all combat roles to women. could you give us an update on where does it stand. >> sure. >> policy into action. >> yes. good morning, everyone. thank you for having me. and as kimberly said, so the secretary announced in early december he was opening all remaining positions to women and during that announcement he directed that the service develop detailed implementation plans to come back to him by the first of january explaining exactly -- articulating exactly the details an how they would make this happen. we set up an implementation
group co-chaired by the deputy of defense and the join chief of staffs and we combed through and had several meetings with the vice chiefs and the leadership and looking at each of the services and cross briefed each other on the details of the plan looking to make sure there were no issues and everything was covered and they had addressed all of the secretary's concerns laid out in his december memo. then in 9 march, the secretary, he reviewed the plans personally himself and approved the plans on 9 march and said everyone go forth and open everything no later than april 1st, which we are past that date. positions are open and people are starting to assess and recruit and assign women and so that is where we stand today. >> got it. so i guess the shorter version of that question is when are we going to see a woman navy s.e.a.l.? >> well, so the short answer to that is probably at the absolute earlier the summer 2018.
so the s.e.a.l. pipeline is long and it doesn't start until this summer and the officers later in the year. so the selection process is long to even get into the pipeline and then given the length of the training it takes about two years. so if we have a woman in one of the first two classes, you still won't even see the first one until '18. >> and same for rangers? >> so the rangers -- as this group knows, the ranger course is significantly slower. so the army did recruit the first female enlisted infantry. she'll sign up and go to the course later in summer. and it depends. the academy, when they graduate, there are number of women at west point and the naval academy who have identified they are interested into going into the career track and they will get commissioned shortly and go to their course. each course is different based on the service and education.
>> taught at the army corps of engineer last year and if i didn't ask, i would be in trouble. so we were talking about beforehand that there is a certain fiction that women haven't already been in combat because in the past decade plus at war they have. and gayle, you said you just covered some remarks that -- where they -- the commander brought that out. >> yes. first of off, good morning. i'm really delighted to be here and to have all of you here at an early morning. so thank you. thanks to this incredible panel. and really for me, from a story-telling perspective, it is a huge privilege and a journey to bring a store i about which i was entirely ignorant to life. which was back in 2011, there were women on night time operations alongside army rangers and navy s.e.a.l.s and other special operations teams seeing the kind of combat experience by less than 5% of
the entire united states military. all while the combat ban was very much in place. and for me, the story was never simply a war story, it is a friendship story because so many times we forget what we haven't seen is the connection among women in the same way we've seen the connection among women in that kim has covered beautifully for years which is this bond of war. which we often associate only with men, actually has been experienced by women. and at the end of the day it is really about service and sacrifice and patriotism and serving a cause greater than yourself. and gender is secondary to it. and it is really now that our stories are catching up, that we're starting to see the reality of that. and i was at an event for ashley's war paper back launch last wednesday at the national infantry museum in columbus, georgia, right next to ft. benning and colonel five coat
who opened the army to women and talks about the accustomed ground combat rule. and i thought it was very powerful because the truth is the commanders in the field were working around these rules and at war, trying to figure out how to get the best people and the jobs they needed and working around systems, one of the soldiers who was here was in a job that was coded for men for years before the combat ban was lived. a female could not be in that role when you tried to put it in that system but her commander wanted the best person for the job. so i think really for me the best story telling takes us into the world that we didn't know that exists and ashley's war was a way to tell a story about the fact there was a exceptional group of soldiers that answered when the country asked, well before they were officially there. >> allowed to do it. >> correct. >> and of course, if you were an mp -- and escorting a convoy from one point a. to point b. in
iraq or afghanistan, you were frequently under fire and having to fire back. >> absolutely. and also, the mps have long been integrated, which is something -- military police, for folks not super familiar with this conversation, have long been men and women and women have been leading in that arena. and so i think that sometimes we talk about these issues as if we just discovered them yesterday night at 11:00 p.m. when the truth is that many of these conversations have been going on for years and women have been very much a part of america's post 9/11 wars. >> and you did some of the studies on this, including studies of certain organizations like the marine corp that didn't want this integration to happen. were on record saying we want to exclude certain jobs to women. so what was some of the draw backs that people brought up? >> well, so, rand did a large
suite of work on this. and we did work for many of the services, as well as some work for juliette on the standards piece. and we didn't look so much at draw-backs per se, but we were focused on implementation in much of our work. and as a result of that, we sort of focused on lessons learned. so this is not new. and we have had previous waves of integration of not just women, but other out groups such as gays and lesbians. and there are some similarities between those outgroups and those previous waves. so we tried to draw out some of the lessons learned. especially from previous occupations that were opened, such as engineers, aviation. and what we found is that we really didn't do a very good job at documenting that process, and
identifying those lessons learned. so we really emphasized to the services as they do this, they really need to focus on monitoring the implementation along the way so they could identify issues quickly and adjust course. and that they can learn from the process. so the process needs to be flexible enough for them to adjust along the way. we also looked at lessons from four militaries. and one of the major things, especially with the marine corps work, we tried to emphasize, initially they came back and said, we have this goal, if we're going to do this, we have this goal of very large numbers. and we emphasized to them that nowhere in the world are we seeing large numbers. we're talking -- >> nowhere in the world, that has done integration. >> that has done this -- >> that are seeing large number of womens in combat roles.
>> low single percentages. those are the type of numbers we're talking about. and in the special operations community, that is even smaller. and so we emphasize to them that, you know, if your trying to define success in this integration process, and you're defining that based on numbers, you're setting yourself up to fail because the likelihood is so small that you'll be able to recruit these large numbers. so -- and that is -- we dug into that a little bit more and there were two main reasons that the numbers wer so low in foreign militaries. this may not be the case here. it may be different. but in foreign militaries, it was because women weren't really interested in these positions. and secondly, they couldn't make the standards. so there were two-fold there. >> so that brings us back to you and the question of, as the
policy-maker, do you have a quota of women that you want to try to absorb into the combat roles? and how do you keep people from the -- i'm not sure i keep hearing over and over, i'm conscious of the fact that there are four women up here discussing this and so i have to play devil's advocate, i hear from male officers, you just know that there is going to be pressure on the bureaucracy to lower the standars, to make the numbers. >> and so we heard that also. the short answer to the question is no, there are no quotas and no goals. i want to come back to, i do want to make a point about the marine corps. what gets lost in this a lot is that there is this narrative that the marine corps was opposed to integration and i don't think that is true. as somebody who is a retired marine myself and who has lived this and watched the marine corps, the marine corps did a significant good-faith amount of work here and i think it is important to recognize that they
asked for exception, but a very discrete exception. so the marine corps recommended opening armor and artillery. the marine corps opened a vast number of positions and a degrees exception on infantry and along-range recognition. and that is important. and the concerns that the marine corps raises, the air force and navy, had very similar. so the marine corps was not that far off from everyone else, just the only one that chose to request an exception and that is an important point that gets lost. with regard to the standards, yes, we hear that all of the time. when you look at secretary carter's memo and he has the guiding principles, he talks about the need to make sure we have the right standars and that they are occupational specific and current and operationally relevant and that is the core and the standard of everything that we do. and once we -- that is why it was so important to review and validate the standards.
because now we have a ability to stand behind a standard that we can explain and articulate and it is required to do the job. and recognition, right. the number of women that want to do the jobs are small and the number of women that could meet the standard beyond that is even smaller. so there is a full recognition that the numbers may be very, very small or not at all. and that is what the secretary said. so equal opportunity doesn't mean equal participation. we recognize there may be, again, very small or maybe none, so how do you guard against that, right? by having a solid standard that everyone -- >> are you publishing that standard so everyone knows what it is and could tell if it changes. >> oh, yeah. absolutely. so all of the services -- well let me back up. so all of the services have -- again, i don't want to -- the services have had standards. but we've never drilled down in the manner that we had this time over the past three and a half years. so each of the services again went through every single occupational standard and
clearly defined what the standard was for entry into the occupation, and then also what the standards are for not only an entry-level soldier but then a sergeant and then the standards for a sergeant first class or gunnery sergeant are different than the standards for a prc so they have laid out clearly minute manuals what the standards are for asession and the standards for recession. and so those are out there. and i would say they've institutionalized the process over the three and a half years because they learned a tremendous amount on how to do this right. versus the direct combat rule said you could close an occupation to women if a vast majority couldn't do it. and what does that mean? it is subjective. and so now it is a definable standard. does that make sense? >> it does. and the critics out there are going to say let's see it in operation. >> and it is fascinating, i covered the opening of ranger school of two women and in march and then again in florida in
swamp phase in august. and you know, i went to write one piece, which was just sort of a straight -- and i ended up writing a piece that had the word "standard" in it 79 times because it was the only word anyone wants to talk about, woman or man. the advisers for ranger school said we never want the standard lowered. make sure your piece reflects that. and the men i talked to, some of whom i'd known from reporting ashley's war, would say, i don't care but no standard could be lowered and there were questions around there. and that is why they brought reporters in a couple of different times showing there is not a different standard. and at the end of the day, any time humans are involved there is a subject of level and they worked har to show this is a transparent process and the standard is the thing that is most important. and the one bit of humor is that at 4:45 a.m. which i know you
know those mornings when i met at the leadership at the benning gate, this one very storied retired ranger said to me, what is amazing, i never heard people show this much love for the standard when i was active duty. and so i think it is interesting to hear his perspective that the standard has always been something that is shifting but now when everything else is shifting around it, it is even more important for that standard to be something that everyone understands and that has not changed for anyone. >> yes. >> well i do want -- to your point about standards. standards will shift. equipment and requirements will change. >> standars will change because of the equipment changes and therefore the ability needed to operate that equipment will change. >> exactly. but we have clearly defined what it takes to be successful on the battlefield and the standard is derived from that of what is required today and there will be pressure and people that will ask questions about why not enough. >> but you'll always have to be
able to drag a comrade who weighs 200-plus, plus their 80 pound pack and gun and wounded out of the line of fire. is that one of the standars that never stops. >> exactly. we use the example of tankers. the round weighs what it weighs an you have to take it out of the rack and must have the upper body strength to turn in the seat and load the round in the breach. it is a defined weight and height and distance and it doesn't matter and did -- and i use the term man, women, giraffe or bunny rabbit and it takes it to do that. >> and what about the studies that women have a higher incident of injuries after heavy weight-bearing occupations, so you might have a high dropout rate from these combat positions, where they might wash out after a year or two. will the military find a way to absorb them back into another
role? >> yeah, i think that they're working through that. but what we found from foreign militaries is that there are ways to mitigate. >> like what? >> against those injury rates. equipment is one of those. and i think -- just as they were drilling down to the standards, which i think really this issue of really nailing down the standards is one of the real benefits that came out of this whole process. both for men and women. because they thought through rationally what does somebody, regardless of their gender, need to do for that occupation. but they're now drilling down into what kind of equipment changes they can make. again, both for men and women. so for instance, caring your pack. you could adjust the waist belt for people who have shorter torsos, men or women. those kind of issues. i know their working through the armored plates and things like
that, again for people with shorter torsos. so i think -- >> so rather than making it gender specific, they are just thinking about integrating smaller people. >> right. exactly. >> but there are women-specific injuries that i've heard about like hip displacement from large marches because the hips are shaped differently in men than in women. >> right. again, foreign militaries have gone through this process, some of them have integrated -- >> like which ones. >> since you said you looked -- canada has been integrated for a long time. and we looked at 55 countries initially and narrowed down to our allies. but so, you can train women over longer distances and longer times. so you can sort of graduate their training so that they're not -- they're training over a longer period of time and conditioning their bodies over a longer period of time and that
allows them to strengthen -- >> so the bones have time -- i've heard something about this, that you slowly increase the weight that the bones are bearing so they get thick erin stead of stressing them early and causing them to fracture. >> exactly. and they build their core and their upper body, so -- >> but that is slightly changing training and standards? it. >> it is. it is. so there is a trade-off there. and they -- foreign militaries have kind of had them trained before they enlist or before they start some of these combat occupations. so you could do that training ahead of time. >> so that brings us back to the question that i heard brought up, for instance with sa.e.a.l. and buds, you have to add in a women's room, women's quarters, et cetera, there is an added cost associated with equality. there is an added cost associated with the extra training you are talking about
and the equipment changes. is that worth it to the taxpayer? >> so first, i think that there is a lot of discussion that there is added cost. but when we -- when all of the services looked at that, what we found was there really wasn't. most service members live in rooms right now, but they are not open squad base. so there was actually very little on the facility side of the house that had to be done. >> so they are not in a room full of a bunch of bunks like we've seen in the old movies. >> exactly. so the only -- for instance, at buds, at the s.e.a.l. training school in california, they just had to build one new restroom. so that was the extent of the facility modification and stuff to the barracks but the costs there were very minor. and the same thing for the marine corp and army and air force said they didn't need to do any facilities modernization and they were good where they were. on the training side of the house, though, i would say especially on the special operations side, they've had
preasession courses. so the courses have always been there. nobody is developing any new courses. so was there a cost to develop something? no. so the benefit is huge for both men and women. we learned better ways to prepare people to succeed at the school. again, so better ways to make sure we're strengthening bone density and bone mass and teaching them ways to do things so they don't injure themselves, use the core and the things that agnes said. so again all of the benefits go to both men and women. >> and so in the few minutes before i open it up to the members, i wanted to discuss some of the emotional questions that get brought up. now you're a former serving marine. >> yes. >> you mentioned, as we were chatting before this, that there was a little bit of trepidation when you took a commanding role at one point among some of the people working for you? >> yes.
so, i was privileged to get commissions after the first year which wh it was opened to women and i experienced firsthand what it was like to intergrate into an mls that was completely closed and i found the same thing. there was a lot of emotion. a lot of concern, a lot of people calling my marines to express consternation about the fact they were being now led by a woman and what the concern was. but i think my own personal experience theres there was a -- there was a lot of myths and confusion and once they understood that i did what they did, everything was fine. so we see that in the special operations community and we see that across the board. when we first started talking about this in 2010 we said a lot of the same concerns across the army and the misunderstandings of what a woman could or couldn't -- >> misunderstanding or misconceptions. >> misconceptions is better, of what they could or couldn't do. and once you get there and they
understand and see you and see you operate those things over time, they go away. >> so how about the other two sort of -- lightning rod questions. how men respond when a woman is under fire and what happens to spirit decor when you have guys in the mix and men flirting with women and things brought up after the first beer when you get a group of special operators together. >> right. i would just like to make a couple of points. the first one, as this came up in the interview with the general mcchrystal when we were working on it, women have been in delta for a long time. >> delta force. >> clandestine. >> and quietly. but he brought that up. and this is not a terribly new conversation. but the second thing that i think is really important is that oftentimes i don't think we give enough credit to men
alongside whom the women are serving. and so it was something i saw in two years of working on trying to talk and talk and talk to people who have been on the front lines in the special operations community, some rangers who have done 12, 13, 14 deployments in the post 9/11 wars with a country that barely knew people doing one. and you would talk to them. and what they would tell you was, i want somebody next to me who is competent and skilled and if you do your job you earn your seat. and i think the demands of combat, the life and death stakes of these wars erases so much of the discussion that goes on in nice rooms in cities where power goes on when you flip a switch and the roads are smooth and there is infrastructure that works, right. when you are in very tough parts of the world, when there is a real war going on, what these guys were focused on was can you do your job, will you slow me down, and do you make a
difference out there every single night and find what we need? one of the mps who is a military police who was in ashley's war that was a s.e.a.l. that wasn't terribly excited to get her when she first showed up, but one of the first nights out she found the item they were looking for in a baby's wet diaper in the quarters they would never have searched which meant they found the person and the thing and everybody got home safely without being out there any longer. and for the s.e.a.l.s, when they had regulations about whether they could fast rope, if you are going to be on mission with you, you need to know everything we do. and we decide if your ready. so i think what you see is people who have seen a lot of war, which is a huge percent of a 1%, are much less focused on these kind of discussions and much more focused on whether you can deliver on the battlefield. and don't think they get enough credit for that.
>> and agnes, you were studying the different militaries, we have to bring up the israeli example. they took women out of the combat units because the men fell apart when they saw the women injured. >> yeah. i mean, a lot of people put up the israeli example as kind of the poster child. but they have a lot of constraints on their women as well. so -- >> what -- >> in terms of rules of engagement and things like that. they couldn't be on the front lines and those kind of things. so you can't -- it is not a direct -- directly analogous to what we're talking about here in the u.s. but i mean, we definitely covered and studied this issue of cohesion. because that was a major concern across the services. because they were concerned that if cohesion deteriorated, that would impact mission effectiveness. and what we found is that
really, you know, during the previous waves of integration of women into these mos's, there was no degradation of cohesion. and the reason for that is that really it was this focus of task cohesion. people were concerned about whether you could do the job or not. regardless of whether or not the person to your right or left is a man or a woman. and so that task cohesion is really the center. people don't necessarily need to like each other to work together. but they really care about whether the person can do the job. and this gets back to the standards piece, i think. so this is why standards are so important. >> so the survey, the so com survey that you did when you asked what do you feel about women joining combat units and there was a highly negative response, was there a way to differentiate between who had served alongside women and who hadn't? >> yes.
we found that. and this is actually very similar to the work that we did when we were looking at the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. we looked at cohesion issues and we did a large survey then, which at that point it was they couldn't openly admit they were gay or lesbian but we were able to find a way to survey them. and we found when we talked to service members, those that had served along with women in it higher headquarters in particular, and in the case of don't ask, don't tell, those who had interacted with gays or lesbians were much more amenable to the fact that this would be okay. and so this is -- this is very typical of when you integrate these out-groups, if you've had contact with them, you tend to be more -- the survey data indicates that you tend to be more amenable to them.
>> okay. well, it is 9:00, so at this time, i would like to invite members to join our conversation with their questions. a reminder that this meeting is on the record. and also please speak into the microphones that are in front of you and state your name and affiliation. please limit yourself to one question and keep it concise to allow as many members as possible to speak. and while people think of their questions, i will ask one more. selective service. now that combat roles are open, is it time for every young woman to go into the post office and sign up for a potential draft. >> so what secretary carter said is the issue of selective service has to be part of a broader national discussion not just d.o.d., so we think it is time to have that conversation and we're prepared to do that but that is -- >> okay. well, saying let's have a conversation is not stating which way you think the
conversation should go. that is very careful. >> absolutely. and that -- the secretary has been very clear to say, this is outside of the purview of just the department of defense. and so -- and so we're not there yet. that is something we absolutely need to look at. but again, it is beyond just this very discrete issue. so we need to make sure we take everything into consideration before that decision is made. >> so, let's see, i wanted to ask members to tilt their placards up when they have a question. i haven't done one of -- ma'am. >> i don't know if the mikes are working -- >> can you lean into that mic. >> so i'm jen leonard with international crisis group. thank you so much for your comments. it is not an issue i've dug really deep into but tracking in headlines. we've talked a lot about standards. everyone meeting standars it would be great to hear from you whether anecdotally or
research-evidence driven about exceeding those standards and unique qualifications and whether and how in your research in terms of looking at allies, et cetera, there have been bits of evidence that have shared with you why women might excel at a particular category, set of issues, resilience, troubleshooting, et cetera. if there is not, where are we going to track that to? thank you. >> who would like to take a stab at that. >> i can. so a lot of people talk about concern don't lower standards but you're absolutely right so, we identified places across the board where perhaps the standard was too low and needed to be raised. we used often the airborne example, the pack weight had been 44 pounds and around since wrormd ii and that is not reflective of what you need to carry on today's battlefield and
that is a physical standard that needed to be raised in this particular case. and with regard to what you were saying on the cognitive resilience side of the house, in the special operations community there are -- they do task and assess people for decision-making skills and emotional stability, all of that type of stuff. but those are already a standard that have been if -- in place. but there are areas where women will excel and we'll see that hopefully come out as we move forward. i don't know if you want to add anything to that, agnes. >> the data on this is mixed and this is why we emphasize to the services that as they do this, they really need to monitor the progress and see where they are seeing those areas and -- you know, in deficiencies, they may be able to do things to help them. so, yeah, it's -- unfortunately, it is very mixed. so -- >> okay.
lara. >> okay. thank you. laura listwood. three years on dacko witz so some sense of this and 13 years of a reserve sergeant. >> and what is that. >> the defense advisory committee on women in services and it's been around since the korean war and looked at various elements. and we looked at women on submarines and some of the objection to blacks on submarines and you could take the language out of that and say why women shouldn't be, cohesion and too close and wives don't like it and et cetera, et cetera. my question is in addition to the issue of the value added of diversity which is getting more and more play in corporations and things like that and therefore tracking that, which i think could be incredibly interesting to see from a different perspective, do you
see that there is going to be any diminution increase around issues of sexual harassment and issues of that nature? >> because the -- these women are in units that are never had women before? >> yes. and so is it more of, oh, now we respect them and understand what value they have, et cetera, versus, well, we have these close quarters and we have these issues? >> sure. so i would say, do we expect an increase. i specicertainly hope not. but we need to look at, that is what each of the services, to the point we were talking about surveys before, that is all all of the surveys, you heard about the so com survey but all of the services did survey of one sort. why? because we need to identify where there are misconceptions and then we need to develop training or we need to make sure that we explain that where those
things are incorrect, so we don't have that. and as well, to identify any potential issues that need to be addressed. but we don't view this issue as -- sexual harassment, it is not tolerated in the department and not acceptable and this is no different than any other effort and we view it no differently. >> and gayle, could you point out your folks in the crowd. >> and there are two things i want to get out there that we were talking about before. and so the program that -- the cultural support team, which is a benign name for a ground breaking prospect a which t was created by the man who led the special operations command and i had a stash tac-span calls this part of the feminist agenda. i don't think he was known for his feminist agenda, but i think it was the forces gap in the field. and when i had the pleasure of talking to him in the process of reporting he was asking me about
the soldiers that -- the young women who are part of this team. and he was asking me what they were like and i was filling him in because he had retired just before the program had been in full swing. and he said, so they're just like the men. and i said, yeah. and he said, what i look for, in special operations is physically fit problem solvers. people want to scribe all special superhuman traits but that is at the core of what we're seeking. and to alara's point about african-americans and other integration, it is interesting talking to one of the rangers who did pre-mission training with the soldiers in ashley's war and he was very skeptical and they said, he he to go train -- he to go train girls. that was his official assignment at benning to go down to ft. bragg and to train the members of this team. and you know, really, the end of eight days, this guy, by no means would he care about any kind of equality or agenda. that is not his world.
he said, i looked around and i thought, these may one day be our own tuskegee airmen. these are people who will make history and no one knows they exist. and i think there are a lot of parallels and it is hard to see that in the moment. it is hard for us to chronicle it to see it in a much wider picture but in 50 years this moment will look very different than it does right now. >> and -- >> and i wanted to point out there are three of the soldiers here from ashley's war and if you could just stand up for a quick moment. >> my name is amy. i'm still active duty captain, serving in ft. bragg. >> microphone, please. >> hi, captain amy hour, serving at ft. bragg. >> captain rachel washington sh serving at ft. bragg. >> captain megan carl, in the massachusetts army reserve. >> and can i put you on the spot. have any of you encounters
sexual harassment when you were in these unique jobs when you first entered them? >> i think to gayle's point, we don't give enough credit to the men in this conversation. a lot of the time. i think that what we have to remember especially with the dprups that we worked -- the groups that we worked with, the special operations community, they are consume at professionals and from my personal experience, i never saw anything to that effect. and i really just, i think that that conversation is not -- is not addressed as much, that we need to give more credit to the men in these situations and they're there to do a mission and we were there to enable a mission and it's almost as simple as that. and a lot of this other conversation really doesn't matter when you're -- when you're in a high-stakes environment. that is my personal experience. i don't know if -- >> thank you very much.
>> does anyone know, when i was working on -- when i was working on ashley's war, it is washington so you don't talk about what you are working on and i said it is a special operations story. that is so awesome. i love lone survivor and american sniper and you would say, oh, there are women in it. and it was like crickets. and inevitably the next question from men and women was, oh, is it about rape or ptsd. and that was really eye-opening for me, the first and second and third time i heard it and by the end i was prepared because there is absolutely urgent that the military of sexual assault is front and center, 100%. but when the valor story is missing it affects the rest of the conversation about service, period. whether it is male or female. >> but i thank laura for bringing it up, and that is one of the reasons that dacko witz was founded to represent women in the military at large. so it is a question that needs
to be asked and it is great to have it just knocked on the head, especially by something who served out there. >> my name is sinil dessi. i'm a retired marine, infantry officer. i love the book and read the whole book and was intrigued by it and i appreciate everything that i've heard. agree with pretty much everything. and just wanted to make two small points. my perspective. i married a army officer who could do more pullups and probably push-ups than most of the marines that i knew and i respected that and amongst a lot of other things. but the first point would be regarding the standards, and i never bought into the idea that that was some of the reasons that women shouldn't serve in combat roles. even when i was a young officer. so -- but one point that didn't
come up is, while there is a pass-fail standard, and you have to meet some bare minimum, the standard still exists on a scale. and the military in addition to the requirement for tactical execution on the battlefield, there is this inspiration that comes from the people who can achieve even more, right. and i think even the women in the book, you see that from them. they really admire people who are super fit and even more than -- than necessary. and there is an element of that that should be added to the conversation. and the senior -- you've spoken with some of the special ops leaders who are physical -- i mean well beyond -- and even as they get older, they don't hold themselves to the sliding standard that you allow for the aging. they hold themselves to the original, the highest standard. and that is admired and -- and valued and respected. and the one other small thing and you touched on it with your
last question about the draft and i have a daughter now, too. but i think beyond that, this subject and the experiences speak to the even broader question of what is happening, not only in our country but in society in large, in terms of how families are evolving, how work is evolving and there are several other current books that are hot in the cfr world, whether it is lean in or unfinished business. and then there is another one called "the end of may." so i think all of the dynamics are happening and they have to thought wholistically together if we're going to get to the right answer for everybody. >> and so one of the things i hear you saying is that physical fitness might be one of the ways to put all doubts to rest, if your more fit than everyone else. but going back to this question of participation in society and
are we uneven, it is the question that ash carter doesn't want to be the only one asking, but do we need women in the draft to follow through with this -- if your going to allow women to be in combat roles in the military, shouldn't they be part of the wider communities serving the wider community? i guess i'm stumbling around on this one because it is such a -- it is such a -- i could see my own parents would have freaked out about it. but then you look at some of the discussions brought up by people like general stanley mcchrystal that shouldn't we have a wider national service. so where does that stand, that discussion? >> well, right. that's the crux of the issue. we need to have a larger national discussion on public service, national service and where we need to go from there. i think from our perspective, we
have an all volunteer force and we're meeting the requirements that we have right now. whether we have a draft or don't have a draft or whether they expand selective service or don't expand selective service, special we think they need to be part of the discussion but it doesn't -- we are -- we have what we need and we have great people coming in and that was what secretary carter was focused on, on the all volunteer force. he didn't want to restrict to recruit to only half of the population. >> and isn't that in a sense ducking the question. if your going to make this a touch stone of your administration that you fought for this level of equality for first having gays in the military and then allowing women to go into combat roles, why not follow it through with -- and we believe, if we're backing these two principles, why not take a stand on having women in selective service? >> so, right.
i understand the question. i guess we're, again, where we are, is we're at the beginning of that discussion. and i think it is just -- to kind of take a position on it before we've actually even had the full-blown conversation is probably premature. >> one thing that is so interesting is we talk about equality and it is really about talent. it is about finding the right pool of the right people for the right jobs. and i think that is the national security discussion. that is the national security question. it is not about social programs. right. it is about security gaps and about having the best force. and i think the draft question is fascinating. because what the selective services abolished in '73 and brought it back in 80s when the russians invaded afghanistan, that was a long time ago now. and think about how much war has been fought since then. the whole conversation should be updated. should 18-year-old men and should 18-year-old women what, are the options. one parent told me, i would much
rather have my daughter defend my country than my son. and parents come up to you and tell you colorful things. but it goes to the fact it is an out-dated way of viewing a world that has fundamentally shifted because to your point about looking at things in silos, this is a much bigger conversation about a world that is on fire in many different places with the shape of a threat that has changed and i think an international architecture that hasn't changed with it and going to that a national infrastructure that hasn't really kept pace with the times. so how do you think a broader question about how do you defend and protect and serve. >> so you're saying that the policy was really changed because it's about getting access to talent for the mission at hand rather than an issue of overall fairness and equalizing the playing field. >> oh, absolutely. secretary carter was very clear about that. he was about an all-volunteer force. he said you never know where your next olympic athlete is
going to come so why would i voluntarily just cut my recruiting pool in half. it made no sense to him. >> in your study of other militaries, did you find were there other militaries that draw from the whole pool of the population in terms of a draft? >> yes, yes. and, you know, the reason for integrating these combat roles was different across the countries too. many of them were forced to. they had equal opportunity issues, lawsuits, things like that. so it was interesting because, you know, it was interesting to see those various reasons, and some of them thought that, you know, this was the right thing to do for equality reasons. we took a different route. and so, you know, their strategies have been different too. that kind of shaped the way that
they actually implemented this and some of them had quotas which we found actually didn't work. they never met them because their numbers were so small. and, you know, that sort of set back the process. >> so what were the numbers? like what can we expect? what was an average in terms of numbers of women in combat roles. >> in none of the countries that we looked at did we find anything above low single percents. >> 2% for 9%? >> like 5%, 6% was the highest so -- >> because at one point -- >> yeah, some of them are just very, very low. >> for instance, canada, which integrated their infantry 25 years ago and their numbers hover around the 1% range right now. so, again, but those -- so that was informative for us, back to your question about the
standards. we need to kind of continue the discussion about low numbers or no one is fine, right, because you have to meet the standard. and so, right, we have to continue to make sure that people understand that we are fully comfortable with having low numbers. >> so to play devil's advocate, it's interesting, gayle just talked about you want to open up all of the force to look for talent, but then it's only filling 1% or -- will probably only fill 1% of those roles. it's -- >> right. >> to play the devil's advocate, it's a lot of churn and a lot of expense to look at this to open everything up to get only 1% of those roles filled. >> well, you could say that or, again, we don't know who is out there. we have no idea what is going to look like. so you don't know what those young girls in high school are capable of and wanting to do moving forward. so we may see increased numbers. again, as we look at training
properly, better ways in fitness and building that body mass, looking at bmi and bone strengthening, you never know, we may have more numbers in the united states. >> i was at west point in the fall, and one of the things that was really fascinating there was, you know, you come in and you're supposed to give this talk. i said i have a question for you, how many of you want to go into infantry and, you know, hands shot up. and just to think that they are on the cusp of this change, right? there are young women at west point who would come up to you and say i always felt like there were two tiers, jobs everybody could do and jobs that, you know, women couldn't, and i have always wanted to be in infantry. there were a couple young women who enlisted and didn't know women couldn't be in the infantry. or rotc cadets who couldn't be in infantry when they came out. you see all kinds of what i would call inefficiencies in the system in some ways that are
being leveled out, but i have never heard anybody talk about huge numbers, but is there a talent pool out there? you do see it. >> well, hey, i went to wellesley. i'm trying to -- this is not a very skeptical audience. >> all of these questions come up, and i think it's really important to have discussions about them because otherwise people feel like, well, gosh, you know, they're just having a conversation divorced from reality, and the truth is you just want to have a reflection of what's already happening. >> if i could say quickly about the cost piece, we actually ran a very detailed cost analysis in our marine corps work and we looked at attrition rates for women and how many women you would need to bring in to keep the infantry at the same level and those kinds of issues, and we found that it's less than 1% of the overall personnel budget. so, again, this -- i think that there's this misconception that it will be very expensive, and
that mirrors what the other services have found too. >> so less than 1% of the overall personnel budget. what are we talking? you guys have big budgets. >> yeah. i can't -- it was very small. i mean -- sorry, i can't think -- >> tens of millions? >> i think it was -- i'm not sure. but it was -- overall in the scheme, it was very small. >> very small. sir? >> damon porter -- >> we can't hear you. damon porter with the association of global automakers. we know oftentimes that policy decisions are not made in a vacuum and clearly there's demonstrable evidence, as we've discussed today, why women should be in combative forces, but can we talk a little bit from the historical perspective. we've raised the issues of
physical standards. such as title 9 shaping the ability of shaping the physical decks tixterity of women to ser combat roles. and i guess how much can women shape the policy discussions outside of armed services such as equal pay. >> suddenly we have a whole bunch of questions with only six minutes left so i'm going to ask a couple of people a couple questions in a row. can we take your question? >> i'm sally adams and here on behalf of the women in military service for america memorial and we're the only memorial that honors all women across all services in the nation, and in 2014 a dod report came out and said that dod spends about $90 million on 87 military service museums and not one of those is dedicated to women, and i just wanted to know during this time of unprecedented progress in the
military if the time is ripe for support for this institution as well as other memorials and museums that honor women? >> okay. and one more? >> good morning. my name is christine. i'm and undergraduate student at georgetown university, but i just transitioned out of the marine corps. i was an arabic linguist and right now at the school i do a lot of research on understanding the muslim world and we talked a little bit about the unique advantages that women bring to the battlefields and especially as the decision has already been made for integration, i hope to switch the conversation to like, okay, it's decided now, so what are we uniquely going to bring to this arena. so my question is do you think women will provide a unique advantage and how can we capitalize on that specifically when we're talking about women encountering violent extremism which i know a lot of ngos and think tanks are focusing on.
i'm wondering if the dod specifically has looked at how we can integrate women specifically to capitalize on women's unique skills in that arena. >> so we have three questions and three minutes left. starting with that one. unique skills that women can provide. are there specific things you're recruiting them for within combat roles that help in those areas? >> i think that goes to one of the earlier questions. so women and men, there are differences, and so perhaps there are things that women can bring to the discussion and i think it gets to ashley -- there are unique skill sets where the special operations community realizes they need help. it was a recognition of what was already going on in the fights in iraq and afghanistan. so to answer your question, yes, but, again, that's part of that entire discussion. that was the reason behind all of this. we wanted to be able to use the skills of the women that were out there. >> and that title 9 question. >> title 9 i think is
fascinating. one thing if i noticed a couple things that were across the board on the soldiers who were part of ashley's war and the rangers were taking the direct action side, were taking the most fit. and as one ranger said, if nobody else liked you, we did. they were looking for people who were ready to go out and be fit and fierce and be able to keep up on those kinds of special operations missions and almost all of them were track athletes. almost all of them had been raised by fathers who had always treated them the same as their brothers or if they had no other siblings who were brothers, they were held to the highest of standards. and athleticism in sports was very much a theme across the board and they can talk to you about that more afterward, but you really did see that across the board in terms of always having been fit, always having trained to a very high standard, and amy, who is here, actually played high school football all
four years. she's going to be mortified when i tell you that and didn't want to after the first couple years but little girls would come up to her at games and say they wanted to be like her and that was sort of hard to quit after that. so, you know, i do think title 9 very much played a role in the physical athleticism and the opportunities. >> you had something to add. >> i wanted to add one quick point. i think something that was fascinating for me is about you asked how are these women going to effect -- a lot of the senior men involved in this conversation, they have daughters, and a lot of their thinking on this issue was formed by those daughters and what they wanted to see. you know, their daughters were phenomenal and why shouldn't my daughter be able to do this. and many of those daughters are serving in uniform as young captains and lieutenants right now. they may not be on the cusp, but they are out there and they are absolutely the ones that continue to inform this discussion. i think that's fascinating about all of the dads. >> and last quick point, the
women institutions or museums memorializing women in the military. >> right. we thank you for what you do. i can't exactly but budgets are tight and we certainly support the work you do. it's fantastic. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the panelists for answering some tough questions and showing the public out there that the tough questions have been asked before enacting this policy, and thank you all for attending this session on women in the armed forces, the future of the military. that concludes this cfr session. [ applause ]
c-span's road to the white house coverage continues saturday with vermont senator bernie sanders. he'll be holding a campaign rally with supporters in wilmington, delaware, with that state set to hold its presidential primary next tuesday. you will be able to watch that event live saturday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. american history tv on c-span3.
this weekend saturday evening at 6:00 eastern on the civil war, historian edward bonekamper discusses his book "the myth of the lost cause." he examines post-war arguments by former confederates. among the disputes, myths of the civil war. >> southerners felt compelled to explain why it was that this devastation had occurred and this, for example, 25% of southern white men between the ages of 20 and 45 were dead, not just cash sulualtiecasualties, as a result of the civil war. >> and then sunday morning at 10:00 on "road to the white house rewind", the 1988 campaign of gary hart. we begin with the former colorado senator announcing his candidacy in denver. and then a new hampshire news conference where he faced
questions about the an affair with donna rice. and finally his announcement to withdraw from the race. sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifacts, curator cureagal. >> growers would beg the union to send anyone out, anyone but her to negotiate the contracts. however, she was at the forefront of that effort for a reason. and her name above, which is interesting because among many of the participants of the farm workers movement when you interview them, you hear about them, they always talk about her. >> at 8:00 on the presidency. >> he just kind of tensed up and said, those son of a bitches, those partners of mine, did any of them ever invite me to play golf at their fancy country clubs. did any of them invite me to their clubs. and it just goes on and on.
>> lhis lip was quivering. that's one of the few times in all of those 3 1/2-plus years that i was so close to him that he was a very well contained, disciplined man. very disciplined, and he knew how to keep this in. but he erupted then when he was talking to don, and he was just saying not a god damn time. and he hated them for it. >> former nixon deputy assistant observation butterfield and "washington post" reporter bob woodward reflect on the former president's personality and policies from watergate to vietnam. for the complete weekend schedule, go to cspan.org. saturday night at 10:00 eastern, we'll take a look at some of the speeches by president obama during his two terms at the white house correspondents dinner, one of washington's premiere events. this year will mark his final attendance at the dinner. >> turns out jeb bush identified himself as hispanic back in
2009. but you know what? look, i understand. it's an innocent mistake. reminds me of when i identified myself as american back in 1961. >> join us saturday night at 10:00 eastern and tune in for our live coverage of this year's white house correspondents' dinner on saturday april 30th beginning at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. a former commander of u.s. central command, general james mattis, says iran is the most enduring threat to stability and peace in the middle east. he also discussed the war in syria and says the situation there must be resolved with a political solution and backed up with military support. held at the center for strategic and international studies, this is about an hour. >> let me just say this is the second in a series that we've been hosting on trying to
understand the knew gnew power geometry in the gulf. the nuclear agreement has changed the landscape and we're trying to understand what that means. we had the ambassador here for the first session. i'm delighted that jim mattis is here in the second session. on our third session we will have lisa anderson who is currently the dean of columbia public affairs. i hope you will all join us for that as well. you know, you're all here because you know jim mattis, so for me to take time to introduce jim mattis would be wasting your time and keeping you from hearing him. probably one of the most markabmar remarkable officers i have ever had the privilege of working with. he was the executive secretary at the time when i was the comptroller and people don't know, but the executive secretary, that's the lymphatic system.
you know, it parallels the circulatory system in the pentagon. it's hugely underappreciated and really is that dwglue that hold us together so us civilians don't look as dumb as we are when we have to get together. and jim was the architect and the master of keeping the executive secretary working both for secretary perry and for secretary cohen, and we got to meet at that stage and then we've had many opportunities since then. just delighted and honored that he's here. he's on his way to the gulf, and so he gave us the privilege of stopping off just for a little bit of time to talk with us to try to understand what is going on. i must say, it feels very jittery to me to have kind of a certain -- we've got this new kind of parallelism between iran and syria -- iran and saudi arabia. long-standing allies that are all of a sudden being put side
by side with countries that have been opponents for quite a while. this is a very curious time and i think we're going to need to listen carefully to a man as wise as jim mattis to understand how should we be speak being this. so could i ask you with your warm applause say thank you to jim mattis for him coming to be with us today. [ applause ] >> thanks very much. thank you, dr. hamre, and to be here today with you ladies and gentlemen with two deputies, former deputy secretaries of defense in the room obviously could be a little bit intimidating except marines were taught to be intimidated by nothing, so tally ho, we'll go through this. thank you. rebecca is in charge as you all just noticed. but we're talking about the middle east at an inflection point, and i would just point
out right now that among the many challenges the middle east faces i think iran is actually foremost, and yet at the same time it appears here in washington that we've forgotten how to keep certain issues foremost. you remember a few months ago you couldn't pick up the newspaper without iran in big letters above the fold, and today it's like it just disappeared off the headlines. and you have to wonder how that happens. and i think that it's important, i come from hoover on the west coast. here we have csic, two think tanks that are quite capable of keeping focused on issues and coming up with good policy recommendatio recommendations. we only pray the rest of us outside this town that someone good is listening here to the good recommendation that is come out of here. i am routinely copying down things that csis puts out and finding a lot of value in my own thinking, shifting my own thinking. csis doesn't just make
assertions. it also includes discussions where you actually come out with something that is perhaps a little better each time you go through a cycle. i want to speak to the challenge of iran, and i'm going to put right up front what i hope to convince you of here today if you need to be convinced of it. the iranian regime in my mind is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the middle east. for all of isis and aqi's -- al qaeda's mention everywhere right now, they're an immediate threat, they're serious, certainly assad's syria and what it's spewing out is a very serious threat. the palestine/israel issue continues to bubble, but nothing i believe is as serious in the long term enduring ramifications in terms of stability and prosperity and some hope for a better future for the young people out there than iran.
just a quick recall, let's go back to 1979 and the khomeini revolution comes in and installs an islamist regime and the slogan death to america is basically their call sign as we would put it in the military. the takeover of our embassy. they hold the diplomats hostage for over a years and somewhere it's argued by different folks with varying levels of i would say knowledge that somewhere between '79 and '83 iran declares war on the united states for all intents and purposes. it becomes very obvious in 1983 when they blow up the embassy in bay rue. they attack the french paratrooper barracks and the marine peacekeeper barracks killing hundreds and it continues on. in 1984 during president reagan's administration, secretary of state george schultz declares iran a state sponsor of terrorism, and it's interesting without going through all the data that
supports that since that in 2012 the current administration state department notes that lebanese hezbollah and iran have achieved a level -- a tempo of operations not seen since the 1990s. that's the current administration's state department assessment of iran's support of terrorism first established in our government in 1984 as a matter of fact. you fast forward now, last july, 2015, in vienna china, france, germany, the russian federation, the united kingdom, and the united states rolled out the jcpoa or the joint comprehensive plan of action otherwise known as the iran agreement. and what i want to just talk about for a few minutes here is the purpose of that agreement. i want to characterize iranian behavior since it went into effect and talk just a little bit about why we entered into it and about the way ahead.
the purpose of the agreement i think is pretty well understood, although at times i felt i could have made a better argument for it than the current administration was making. it goes back to 2002 when the u.s. administration determined that iran's nuclear weapons program, not nuclear program, for all their denial and deceit, it's a nuclear weapons program, they decided back in the bush administration that that program took precedence when they recognized that chances were increasing that iran could actually develop a nuclear weapon. the strategic goal then is quite simp simple, it's how to make the world safer by preventing, delaying that program. and starting in 2010 to jump forward again, secretary of state clinton orchestrated broad international economic pressure on iran and the goal was, to put it very bluntly, to force iran to come to the negotiating table and to come under an internationally supervised
nonmilitary nuclear program. in 2013 president rouhani was elected, supposedly a moderate i read in some circles. i'm hard pressed to use that word because i think it lacks definition when you talk about people approved to run for office by the supreme leader in iran. basically his government though, rouhani's government, negotiated the sginterim nuclear agreement and the jcpoa is the result. formal implementation began in january of this year. they removed the enriched uranium, sent it out of country. we know that, but at the same time the united nations rescinded seven prior united nations security council resolutions that imposed economic sanctions. supposedly their removal was subject to immediate reimposition in the event of, and i quote, significant nonperformance by iran, unquote. so the relief was given on those
unscrs based on a pause in one program, but the money they were given could go into a number of other programs. and now we find why in the region from tell aviv to abu dhabi we have a disagreement on the view. iran has five military thets. one is the latent threats of the luke lar weapons program. another is the counter mare at thistime program. we're going to put mines in the water. we have coastal defense cruise missiles. we'll board ships and impound them, that sort of thing. the next is the ballistic missile threat which they have been very obvious about what they're doing at this time in improving their ballistic missile capability. there's the cyber threat. today i would tell you i would
liken it to children juggling lightbulbs with night tro glycerin. there's qmsp and only the military could come up with it. qods force, jerusalem force. in other words mois, the surrogates and proxies, you know them as lebanese hezbollah and others. further, our country's view of iran was summed up in state department's 2012 report that i just mentioned to you earlier that they've actually increased the tempo of operations. when we relieved them of the economic sanctions in a number of areas, that money was not only going to stop going to the nuclear weapons program, they made very clear they would continue their foreign policy. is the american administration's argument was an iranian nuke was such a dangerous game-changer we had to subordinate everything
else to delay on the nuclear program. they have not changed the way they go about business on their side. the israeli tourists who were murdered in bulgaria here some years ago, the attempt to kill the ambassador less than two miles from where we're sitting on a saturday night in georgetown and they would have pulled it off but for one fundamental mistake. they made one mistake and so they messed it up. so basically how do we delay it? it came down to two options. there was the military option, probably could have delayed it for a year or two before we would have to take more military action. or there was the diplomatic option where they were aiming to delay it much longer. we're talking about a decade or more. without the pause and despite iran's denial and deception, it was clear that iran could get a weapon. this is what our intelligence agencies believed, and that would jeopardize our security interests. it would risk the global economic blackmail if they were
to interrupt the oil lines of communication there in the gulf, and it would endanger the survival of allies, both israeli and arab partners. so our objective was that we had to stop this. the previous uncrs rescinded also were stated in there that they couldn't test ballistic missiles in the past, okay? under the new wording in a late concession in the negotiation for the iran agreement, what we said was they could not test ballistic missiles developed expressly -- designed expressly to carry nuclear weapons. quite simple they could say they're not designed to carry nuclear weapons so we can now test them, so we were caught on that one. those ballistic missile tests that occurred some time ago were characteristic of iran's response to the agreement. iran has shut down its plutonium reactor. i think they poured cement in
the core. they sent out its enriched uranium, 25,000 pounds, but it remains the single most belligerent actor in the middle east, and as the commander in centcom with countries like syria, lebanon, iraq, pakistan, afghanistan, yemen, every morning i woke up and the first three questions i had were had to do with iran and iran and iran. their consistent behavior since 1979 through today shows no sign of changing, and, in fact, i think the state department has characterized it well when they said they have actually picked up their tempo of operations. the ballistic missile test being one. they have also conducted cyber attacks on the united states resulting in seven u.s. indictments. they have doubled down on support to assad's murderous regime, and they are very much aware, they are keenly aware that if assad falls, that's the biggest strategic setback in 30
years for the mullahs in tehran. they have increased the flow of arms, ladies and gentlemen, into saudi arabia, explosives into bahrain, and arms into yemen. in fact, in the last three months, february, march, and april, the french navy, the straustralian navy, the u.s. na have all seized arm shipments. when you see the vessels on sea, smuggling is going on, the idea we're catching all the arms shipment is a flight of fantasy. we're not catching them all and there's nobody in the navies that would say so. the republican guard commander is openly boasted of tehran's control over four capitals, beirut, damascus, baghdad, and sanaa, and i think it was an oops on sanaa because then saudi arabia and the united arab
emirates led the gcc forces in there and clearly that has not gone according to plan. hopefully the u.n. brokered negotiations in kuwait will put an end to that but also will ensure iran is kept out of there and the chokepoint coming into the red sea. bahrain and jordan have been specifically targeted, publicly targeted by the qods force commander, sole manny, who is calling for the annexation of bahrain and bahrain to many in iran is not just the island, it's also the eastern province of saudi arabia. the republican guard general proposes erasing israel off the map. sounds familiar. it is because it's what they've been saying for a good many decades. and the supreme leader summed it up very well when he said those who say the future lies in negotiation not in missiles are either ignorant or traitors. that is the supreme leader.
i think we should take him at his word, that's what he believes. and when president obama trying to keep this effort alive, when president obama characterized iran regime's responses to the jcpoa as respecting the letter but violating the spirit of the agreement, the chief of staff of the iranian armed forces contemptuously said we studied the details of the nuclear agreement, quote, and we don't have any information about its spirit. that's about as an abrupt a slap in the face to any effort on our side to try to be fair brokers on this as you could come up with and i would say -- i can go on, by the way. i don't want to bore you here, but that ends i think for now any moderate iranian response. so where is the u.s. right now? the u.s. is in a strategy-free mode. washington is confused, i believe, and not invested in strategy. we are shiftings our focus from one region or subregion to
another. remember the pivot to the pacific that left our friends in the middle east and europe very concerned. that kind of word is seldom used in strategy. it might make good operational thinking, but i don't think it's a good idea on a strategic level for a country with worldwide responsibilities. you remember we were very concerned about crimea. we're not concerned about it anymore. now it's the eastern basin in eastern ukraine. we have been attacking isis in iraq a little bit, then we shifted to syria, then we're gradual escalation right now. the sprat lly islands. we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time and it appears we're going with a hit and miss approach that has us constantly shooting behind the duck. so the jcpoa, coming back to the arms agreement, that's all it was. it was designed to increase stability and decrease
proliferation to improve our global standing in the process. but the outcome is an increase in a regional arms race. saudi arabia just recently passed russia as the third largest spender on military weapons in the world. our secretary of defense was sent out, some called it the secretary of reassurance, right after the agreement was signed to the israeli and arab capitals in order to make certain they knew we were willing to sell them more weapons because we recognize the increase danger as the money that had been released by the unscrs and the lack of economic sanctions, that money was now going to go in maybe not to one program, at least not for a year or two. the nuclear one. but there was nothing to indicate that the money was not going to continue to flow to the other threats. the impression in the region was that the u.s. was withdrawing. the best case ---ist just is w
the region a couple weeks ago. i head back tomorrow. the best case in the mind of many of the people in the region is that the u.s. is simply indifferent to the challenge of dealing with iran if you live next door to it. the worst case is in some people's minds that we have made actually common cause with iran, russia, and assad, and that you have to keep beating down, but in a region that's rife with conspiracy, it is something that has to be addressed and it's best addressed right up front. that's not our intent. isis right now, by the way, i consider isis nothing more than an excuse for iran to continue its mischief. iran is not an enemy of isis. they have a lot to gain from the turmoil in the region that isis creates and i would just point out one question for you to look into, what is the one country in the middle east that has not been attacked by isis? one. and it's iran. now, there's -- that is more
than just happenstance i'm sure. i think, too, that with the u.s. congress, there was a sense in the u.s. in what the u.s. was doing where the congress was pretty much absent for all of their saying they didn't like the agreement and taking steps to demonstrate that, they have done nothing to strengthen any stand-by economic sanctions that should iran cheat that we could put in place. they have not touched that. maybe because they don't believe europe would be with us that that should not prevent the congress from passing a spirit of the congress saying here's where we stand. they have not increased the intelligence budget to collect on iran, something which i think is necessary for us to do. and we have not seen any authorization for the use of military force against isis which would, again, demonstrate american stability and focus on the region. if they don't like the one that the president sent them, there's nothing wrong with that, they
can pass an aumf that they believe in their heart is the right sort of thing to do and show the unity of the congress. in fact, they appear to be more willing to sit outside and criticize the president than to put themselves on the line and say, here's where we stand. the bottom line on the american situation, though, i think is quite clear that the next president is going to inherit a mess. that's probably the most diplomatic word you can use for it. so you got to ask why would the u.s. take such a gamble with this agreement? number one, the president could be proven right. the mullahs may want it both ways and they mae find it doesn't work that way. what do i mean by both ways? if you look at the control north korea has over their people, they would like to be north korea. looking at the economic vitality the south has, that could help keep the mullahs in power. they want it that way. there's a built-in contradiction of opening your country to the
world and at the same time trying to keep close control and so they may lose that and over the midterm to longer term then you could see iran moving more into the actions of a responsible nation and not just a revolutionary cause as is written into their constitution. but as revealed in the recent interview of jeff goldberg president obama is a very different sort of president seeing the actions in a different light and certainly some people in the administration have a remarkable act to absolve themselves of responsibility for anything. i would just say that for a sitting u.s. president to see our allies as free loaders is nuts. and you know what? what's happening, i was telling dr. hamre upstairs, i was working out one morning, i was on my machine and i saw this goldberg article come across. i hit my print button, got back and was working out and i was going through my e-mails and i started reading just real -- kind of scan you do before you do something with a highlighter
and all. at first i thought there is my administrative incompetence that was demonstrate so clearly to secretary perry and secretary cohen long ago. i how got something trump said struck inside president obama said and it wasn't trump. it was the president saying that our allies were free riders and that sort of thing. and i would just tell you that i'm going to be surprised if prime minister cameron would ever speak to our president again, but i would also say i'm going to be surprised if president obama is proven right in his trying to make this effort work with a regime that's holding hostage the iranian people, and i think that somehow people -- we all live on hope. we're all men and women, we all hope for something better tomorrow, better for our children, but i think that thinking or hoping that iran is on the cusp of becoming a modern, responsible nation is simply a bridge too far and if
nothing else we need to have an insurance policy here. but why would we sign up snt another reason would be maybe it's the best we could get? i was in a meeting late one night in -- with one of our partners in the gulf, and when it was done he asked for the staff to leave and he and i sitting alone, and he said to me, ladies and gentlemen, he said it must be a very long table. i'm looking at him wondering what he's talking about here. he said, well, general, i keep hearing that the military option is on the table. this is a couple years before the agreement. and he said it must be a very long table because i am squinting and i couldn't see it on the table so i got my binoculars out, so it must be a very long table because i cannot see the military option. he was joshing me, and i knew him well enough from many, many years in the region that we could be that open with one another. but the bottom line is i think from washington to brussels, from london to tehran, from abu
dhabi to tel aviv, the idea that the u.s. would go into one more fight in the middle east at this point in time was maybe not in the cards. maybe if we just were in that kind of a situation, maybe this agreement was the best we could come up with. a third possible reason is maybe the folks in the american administration think that the moderates can win. i think you have to be careful on that. it goes back to whether or not the economic self interest can grow strong enough, but remember at the same time the security forces are going to be getting stronger as well with the infusion of money. and they have proven themselves quite capable, the coercive forces, of keeping the people in line using beatings, impris imprisonme imprisonment, rape, and other things that we have witnessed them using here in the recent past, and i think too that the time it would take for the economic policies to take root and to turn over kind of a new
mood in tehran amongst the leaders may take quite some time. so, again, why do we need an insurance policy to get through this period? i think that the imperfect yet intrusive u.n. iaea inspection regime, it's not perfect, but it is intrusive, and i have read the agreement twice. 156 pages long, 159, something like that. 30-some pages are just names of people who are pulled off the sanction list, not all that intimidating actually, but if you read through that, it is very clearly drawn up the expectation that iran will cheat. i mean, when you read this, that's the sense you get from the other nations that forced those issues. so if nothing else, we'll have better targeting data should it come to a fight at some point in the future. but i think that in terms of
strengthening america's global standing among european and middle eastern nations alike, the sense is that america has become somewhat irrelevant in the middle east and we certainly have the least influence in 40 years. so on a way ahead, we're just going to have to recognize that we have an imperfect armed control agreement. second, that what we achieved was a nuclear pause, not a nuclear halt. we're going to have to plan for the worst. the old military adage, hope for the best but plan for the worst comes to bear. and in light of the other four threats i mentioned and a 12-year delay of the nuclear program, each is going to have to be addressed in action and in planning. in other words, if we're going to have to do something about missile defense, we're going to have to do something about signer monitoring that cost aramco tens of millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars. we're going to have to do something about their maritime efforts and the u.s. 5th fleet is critical to that.
and we're certainly going to have to counter the terrorist activities. we do have some time i think to get our act together. i think iran has a lot to gain for the next 18 months to 2 years of playing it by the rules and not taking too many chances if any significant chances as they try to get the economic benefits. at one point i thought secretary of treasury lew was pretty firm that there would be no access to the american financial institutions, and now i hear that's not as firm perhaps, and so i don't know where that stands. obviously that would have a big impact on slowing iran's benefiting economically if we were to hold the line on that. there is nothing, by the way, i have re-read it, there's nothing in the agreement that forces us to do that. that again is the spirit of the agreement. well, if they're unwilling to live up to the spirit of the agreement and go by the letter, i think we should take some counsel from that and be slow to give something for nothing based
on an alleged spirit that we cannot see operant from tehran. i think too, we're going to have to be very careful about red lines in the middle east. if we give one in the future, we're going to have to make good on it. so let's be careful what we're going to do and ensure that we keep israel and its overmatched situation, that in the region we work with our partners in the gcc whether it be on ballistic missile defense integration which secretary clinton tried very hard to get initiated some years ago. certainly to work on the other efforts and the navy should be maintained at a very robust strength in that region because navies can be very stabilizing in what they're doing and they carry fewer of the penalties of having ground forces stationed out there which is challenging in itself. we're going to have to work better with our allies too. we can't have the leaders of our
partners out there picking up newspapers and reading about what it is we've been doing diplomatically in private talks with their adversaries and actually our adversaries as well. we would never do that if it was in europe. i don't think we would do that with japan or south korea when dealing with north korea and yet our partners in the middle east too often have had to pick up the newspaper to find out we've just done something else that put them in their mind in a more difficult situation. i think one point i want to make though is there's no going back. absent a real violation, i mean, a clear and present violation that was enough to stimulate the europeans to action as well, i don't think that we can take advantage of some new president's, republican or democrat, and say we're not going to live up to our word on
this agreement. i believe we would be alone if we did, and unilateral economic sanctions from us would not have anywhere near the impact of an allied approach to this. i think too we're going to have to hold at risk the nuclear program in the future. in other words, make plans now of what we do if, in fact, they restart it, and, again, go back to congress and say we need an oversight committee. it should have people from the intelligence committee, the foreign affairs committee, and the armed service committee together and it should be something that maintains oversight of this agreement and keeps the issue high and under the oversight of the legislative branch to make is certain that the executive branch is, in fact, maintaining the priority it deservings, and i think too we have to broaden and deepen our links to the anti-iran spy agencies in the region with all of our friends and make sure we're all working together to keep an eye on what its up to. cyber monitoring center i think
could catch iran red-handed because, again, they're not that good at it, and we can catch them when they try to mess around in the cyber arena. we've caught them before. i think too radio farsi has to be dusted off and we need to go back at it. the iranian people need to know up front every day we have no argument with you. our concern is with the mullahs, this revolutionary cause that does not have your best interests in place. if you go back to radio free europe and the cold war, it was very, very effective, and it's as if we don't know how to take our own side in a fight on radio, tv, twitter, facebook, and others right now. i think in our future talks with iran they should be like our talks with the ussr before gorbachev. in other words, keep our allies fully informed, recognize iran as not a nation state, rather a revolution cause devoted to mayhem, and also make certain
that we don't end up with real high expectations from any talks with iran. just keep it a little modest there. it's going to be -- the middle east, the future is going to be ghastly. it is not going to be pleasant for any of us, and we're going to have to return to a strategic view such as we had years ago because we know that vacuums left in the middle east seem to be filled by either terrorists or by iran or their surrogates or by russia. recognize that the violent terrorists, two different brands. the sunni is the al qaeda, okay. that's one that's clear and present. we've hit them from the fatah and afghanistan, pakistan to where the french are treating them roughly in mali. a lot of effort focused on them but so far to date the iranian branch have basically been left untouched by our counterterrorism effort. so in the future just recognize
that in order to restore deterrence, we're going to have to show capability, capacity, and resolve. recognize this is an international arms control agreement and not a very good one although there are some advantages, recognize the advantages as well. but it's not a friendship treaty, and some people have tried to make it into a friendship treaty say it's worthless. as a friendship treaty it would be worthless but it's an arms control agreement that fell short of a lot of hopes but it's not completely without some merit. we have allies out there. we have allies who want to rally to our side. y i don't forget sitting with the king of jordan one day. we were working on his syrian refugee problem and i have seen refugees all around the world from the southeast asia to africa to the dalmatian coast. i have never seen -- i have been up in the refugee camps. i have never seen refugees as traumatized as those coming out of syria.
i was told by our ambassador to work with the king on what we could do to help in those camps to reduce the chance of cholera and that sort of stuff. we were talking just the two of us, we got done and i asked him what's it like to be a king. i have never been a king. kind of interested in it and don't draw anything from that, by the way, and he said, well, you know, working on this, working on that and he said, by the way, i hear the french and british had to pull out of afghanistan. i said, yes, your imagine industry, i said domestic political concerns, they couldn't sustain the campaign. he said rest assured, general, there, a jordanian soldier in afghanistan until the last american soldier comes home. ladies and gentlemen, you cannot buy allies like that. you cannot buy them. and if we're going to want allies to stand by us in our time of trouble, then we're going to have to stand by them when they face trouble as well. and when iran says jordan, you're next, we should take them
at their word. don't patronize iran and say they don't really mean that. yes, in fact, they do mean what they say. my next stop, by the way, that trip was the country that we in central command call little sparta because they stand by us through thick and thin, deser shield, somalia, dalmatian coast, bosnia, they have always been there. the united arab emirates. i was talking to the crown prince and he said i understand the french and british are pulling out. what are you going to do? i said i'm going to have to go back to the americans and ask for people to backfill. we're deep in the fight right now. and he said, well, he said, to reduce your demand on the american forces, i'll send six more fighters in. i'll send another reinforced special forces company of 150 special forces, well trained, fully kited out ready to go fight under your command. again, ladies and gentlemen, you can't find allies like that if you don't stand by them in their difficulties.
so they may not be perfect. if we're waiting for perfect allies, we're going to be awfully alone in this world and from what i have seen in our own country, we're not perfect ourselves. let's figure a way to work together. let at the stop there and open time for questions here. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very much for that presentation. i'm jon alterman, the senior vice president in global security and the director of the middle east program. i have a few questions before we go to the audience which is already champing at the bit. one question, you talked about iran's asymmetric threats in the region, its activities supporting terrorism, supporting hostile states. was it a mistake to make a nuclear agreement and seem to take the focus off the other activities in the region because
as you know, many of our gulf allies say the nuclear issue isn't our issue. as a former foreign minister in the gulf told me, if somebody already has a gun pointed at your head, it doesn't matter if they have a cannon pointed at your back. was the whole approach to put so much effort on the nuclear program and nonproliferation a mistake for u.s. interests in the middle east? >> the short answer is, no, it was not a mistake. in this town we seem to have forgotten the tremendous effort that went into nuclear nonproliferation in decades past, and to our -- i'm sure it's going to be to our regret and especially to our children's regret we did not maintain that focus. so i think in the case of iran it was not a mistake to engage on the nuclear issue even if we were to give it primacy. that i think is debatable, but even there i wouldn't say it's a mistake. the mistake would be to
implement it in such a way that we appear to take our eye off the other ball. that's the mistake. and that's a choice. and that's a choice we did not have to make, and so there's a way to balance this in terms of creating more stability in the region. unfortunately, we probably have not executed in that manner yet. i mean, it's still subject to choice every day by our government. >> about eight years ago a presidential candidate named hillary clinton suggested extending a nuclear umbrella to gcc allies against iran. do you think that's something we should consider and if so under what circumstances should we pursue it? >> you know, it's interesting, i work with a gentleman by the name of george schultz out at hoover, and he calls -- he walks in every morning that we're out there and he calls us younger officers in and only at hoover would i be one of the younger officers. and he talks about what it was like coming home from world war ii as a marine in the pacific
and that generation looking around and 50, 60, 70 million dead, economic privation around the world and the greatest generation is called that for a reason. they say we're part of this world whether we like it or not, no more going back pulling ballot on the league of nations. they create the united nations so we can talk. they create bretton woods so we don't have conditions that will drive us in depression and war again. three years after that terrible war against the nazis and the pacific mwar, the marshall plan is passed and we are helping our former foes recover. i mean, could you do that today? i don't know. but most importantly the united states makes what the australian ambassador to washington told me one time here a couple years ago the single most self sacrificial act in the history of the word
and i'm trying to think what is that? you have to look at it through a non-american's eyes. he said you could have turned your back on europe after two world wars and said we're going with the middle east and asia. we're going with south america. we're done with you guys. instead, the american presidents truman, eisenhower, democrat and republican, and the congress working together in a nonpartisan way, say we're going to commit 100 million dead americans in a nuclear war to keep western europe safe. today could we do that again over the middle east? i don't know that we have the political unity in our own country to stand up for something like that in the same way. so i'll leave the answer to the questions to the audience. >> along those lines, the number one oil producer in the world now is the united states. >> oil producer. >> there are a number of people
who say that allows us to change the way we look at the world, the way we look at the middle east. do you think there's anything about the way the u.s. looks to the world, the way the u.s. thinks about global security, is there anything that's changed because our oil production has into a global super barrel. >> i would give three imperatives to stay engaged in the middle east. the first one is oil. we may not be tied to mid east oil so much. but believe me, from washington to new york, from san francisco to miami, our economy is tied to the world. and if the world's economy was to see the oil coming out of the gulf disrupted, 40% of the globally traded oil of this globally traded commodity, we would get a terrible impact, not only on the world economy, but it would immediately impact here at home. so there is an economic reason to stay engaged out there. there is also a diplomatic reason. that is if we want these nations with us on so many other issues,
we can't ignore them when they've got serious issues. a third would be security. are we really so long from 9/11 that we have forgotten what it was like to look over at the pentagon with smoke pouring out of it and i would suggest we're not that far removed from it. no nation on its own can provide security in this world. no nation in a globalized world ever, but certainly not today, can do this on its own. so if we are going to have them stand by us and we're going to try to stop maniacs from attacking us again, like on 9/11, then we better be working with the folks in the region, and look out for our own interests, go beyond the moral of the strategic again. >> one last question before i go to the audience. get your questions ready. as you know, everybody is in washington is talking about budget constraints. is there anything we're doing in the middle east now, in the security field that you think we can afford not to do any more?
you've talked a lot about plussing up, building relationships, is there anything we can stop doing that we're doing now? >> you know, worth more than ten battle ships or five armored divisions is the sense of american political resolve. and i think the more resolution we show, the more unity we show with our allies, certainly we have to do some ourselves. even a farm boy or farm girl knows if you want to pump water out of a water pump, you have to put some priming water in to get an air lock to bring it up. the idea we tell others, you do the fighting, we'll be above, we'll give you intelligence, fly overhead with restrictive rules of engagement and you do all the dirty work, probably isn't going to work. i think we could probably get more from our allies, instead of grudgingly or belately doing things that need to be done, but
being more forthcoming on it, and holding constant high level discussions, remember, any coalition against the kind of enemy we're up against takes two pieces. a political piece and a military. the political is dominant. the military piece is subordinate, and hopefully acting in accordance with that political agreement. and right now, i think lacking that kind of political co her rens at the top, we're having to do some things that we probably wouldn't have to do if we could show more firmness and more conviction in what we're doing. all the troops on the ground, they're just a front for what stands behind them. and without a unified congress, a unified american position with our allies, that is a much weaker front than it would be with that sort of support. >> so there is a syria, a way to apply that to our strategy in syria right now? >> yes. i think get the political coalition put together up front and make clear where we stand on it. >> okay. >> that doesn't mean 100,000 troops for ten years or doing
nothing. strategy and go forward. >> thank you. yeah, sir? >> thank you very much. and thank you, general, for your remarks. i'm john gizy from news max and news max television. i guess i'll point to the elephant in the room. general, you have been mentioned so often, very much like your fellow scholar soldier, james gavin, to run for president either as a republican or as an independent. have you given any thought to it and how serious are the rumors about it? >> no, i haven't given in thought to it. >> how serious are the rumors? >> i think people like you know that better than i do. >> sir? in the blue shirt. >> thank you very much, general.
it is the second time i'm listening to you. i am dr. desay. there is a lot of criticism inside usa as well as there is criticism about this nuclear deal, even inside iraq. inside iran. and could you tell us, what was the compulsion that they had to come up with a deal with so many loopholes and if the deal collapses, what happens next? >> if the deal collapses, what happens next? >> i think if the deal were to collapse today, it would depend on whether or not the economic sanctions would be reinstituted in a compelling manner. the amount of effort that the
state department put into those many years ago was extraordinary. we're now at a point where people are clamoring to get into the iranian market. if you were unable to reimpose the economic sanctions, then i think you would be basically on a road to perdition. the lines of effort inside tehran are so arab states around it, it would lead to a collision, and how you would define the collision, whether it would be open war or a much higher level of terrorism, whether it would be economic blockades, i mean, as you know, saudi arabia has recently said that no ship that has made a port of call in its last three ports in iran can carry any saudi oil. so there are a number of things going on right now that might give us a hint of what would be
coming, but i think we would be an unchartered territory at that point, with probably only bad things to happen. >> all the way in the back, next to the light stand. >> mohammed with television. will you please tell us something about the military relation with egypt and do you recommend the bright star exercise? >> what was the last one. >> would you recommend the resumption of the bright star exercise? >> yeah. you know, egypt is a very, very interesting case. one-third of the arab people live there. it has been an ally. it broke with the soviet union. it has been an ally since. it has fought alongside us in desert storm. it has maintained the security, the suez canal, a vital water way. you put it altogether, and easy israel has gone through very
tough times. they did have a democratically elected president, morrissey. >> egypt. >> excuse me. egypt had a democratically president morsy. he was out by a public a impeachment, and then president alsissy came in. obviously, we're concerned about any political system has to have a counterweight and whether or not will is a sufficient allowance for legitimate political dissent. with that said, right now, the only way to support egypt's maturation as a country with civil society, to support the president, we should have bright star reinstituted, perhaps not with tank battles, but with counterterrorism training, that sort of thing. but i think when a president comes out to two years in a row
at alazar university, calling for a revolution in rhetoric in order to reduce the number of negatives about the muslim religion, i think it's time for us to support him and take our own side in this. i am a strong believer that egypt is a critical nation in terms of the future for stability in the middle east. >> thank you. >> right here on the aisle. >> general mattis, i want to ask you a question, sir. given what you mentioned about iran and influence four capitals, and given our engagement in iraq, how do you see us walking the rope between supporting the iraqi government with the significant iranian
influence over the fight against isis, sir? >> that's a tough, a very tough situation. when i was once complaining about my job, as i did routinely, in the last -- as a matter of fact, i once was asked by the vice-president jokingly, do you know why you got the job, jim. no, because we couldn't find anybody else dumb enough to take it. i was complaining about it one time and a former prime minister in europe said if you can't ride two horses in the circus, then get out of the mid east circus. one of my last visits to iraq, i heard the same message from a number of people in the government and it was help us avoid the suffocating embrace of iran. so i think there is a way to work with iraq, where we do not decide to just cast iraq off,