tv Women in the Military Panel 2 CSPAN May 31, 2016 8:01am-9:43am EDT
. >> we appropriated more and more powers for himself sought to continue his power in the presidency at the expense of any potential change or empowerment that being a part of a legislature might otherwise have conferred on this generation of women who have played these, you know, for the first time public official roles. and so what it means to have that change truly taking effect and to be long lasting is really has to be driven from within and it doesn't always happen the way we want or hope that it will.
>> thank you. another question. well, i have one. my question is about the role of women, in particular, mothers in counter radicalization and deradicalization issues by way of context last june, conducted an alumni engagement event. we had over 40 alumni from the middle east, southern europe, africa and southeast asia. one of the topic ts in the conference was on radicalization in particular how that point of radicalization with foreign fighters leaving countries of those that were there to go to fight. and in discussions, it came out that in particular from muslim countries that the role of the mother more so than any other family member influenced either the radicalization or counter
radicalization of both young men and young women family members in your own research if you see something similar and if so are there ways that the united states are partner nations can leverage that role in a positive way. >> yes. absolutely, i see it. the mother school that's been developing, have shown some levels of success and those basically brought in community level leaders and brought in women and taught them how to recognize the science radicalization in their families and what to do if they notice it and what to do if they found it. they're still very small and it's only a couple of different areas they've had some success, the usip women preventing extremist violence program has done similar work. they've involved women as mothers interacting with local police forces or local security forces, as well, to recognize the signs of growing radicalization and extremism. i think the small successes are encouraging. i think we have yet to figure out to harness that.
it's going to variy by culture in huge ways. women in northern ireland will by and large will find access as easier, you know, gathering together and discussing and meeting and becoming easier there than in other countries we can all think of a dfew. it varies culture to culture, there's definite i an association there. we need to figure out how to capitalize on that. >> you can come to isa and read my paper. >> i built my paper look at the radicalization and the role that the mother plays there and like so i looked at my level familiar gender roles and finding there wasn't much there but something i have found that hasn't been addressed, i don't think very well in all of these antiradicalization programs.
especially when you see you have kids who live in the west. you see this really big in europe in britain and in france who are leading and are going, you know, going to dash and that's where i think a lot of this work is coming from. . and i don't have a really robust data set so trying to find -- one of the reasons i want to go and try to make it better. but that in communities where children saw their mothers targeted because of their -- their religious believes, so where there was a lot of essentially very antiislamic sentiment women. they tend to be much i'd fieble as muslims than men do. you saw a very high instance of radicalization of their children and that if it came almost this -- it became this e verse protective mechanism where
children grow up expecting like their mother to take care of them. it comes as natural bond that you grow up and you -- your mother is the first person to really care for you and take care of you. what happens when the culture in to which you're suppose to come to get a better life, you know, like they sold the idea as immigrants we're moving to the west because it's going to get better. now you see that culture particularly targeting your mother, you know, the person that is suppose to be your protector, your caretaker, you know, your -- your sort of world when that person and that identity becomes targeted, there becomes they need radicalization response. and this is, i think, a radicalization dynamic that hasn't really been looked at very much. but needs to be addressed, i think, on a larger scale when we talk about what is integration it really gender integration, are we talking about increased tolerance. there is a lot of evidence that
increased tolerance, cultural tolerance, but that are we really having the wrong response. you know, this goes back to this idea what breeds radicalization. is it really a response to being other -- so much that you don't feel like you have any other recourse to air your grievances, like the supply side. but i think this idea of the role of mothers, especially when mothers are threatened in -- it hits the very much supply side and demand side. you're creating an environment where children tend to feel helpless but they have this other option and i think some of these radicalized groups have done really well. i mean, they're great at recruiting. they're really good at reaching these children who feel very isolated and so looking at that role of how, i think, not just the role of mothers, you know, as these schools, it's how to
spot the signs of radicalization and prevent radicalization, but as larger as we think about as the west, what are we doing to assimilate familiar units and so that sort of facilitation can happen, so women have the power and the ability to spot and prevent radicalization as opposed to their targeting being the catalyst for it. >> you're talking about them recognizing communication from women about society and growing and integrated military that will -- that can understand the roles of women in those societies is better equipped to relate to those as well. but, also, you know, if we don't do a better job as a country and internationally harnessing the role of women in more traditional societies, terrorist groups are doing that and they
do it fairly well. they'll come into an area and poll the women and say this is your duty as a mother, to teach your son, to push your son in this direction. if we don't offer a different narrative or at least some version of that, then, you know, you've lost it. >> thank you. other questions from the audience. right here in front. >> thank you. i'm one of the external guest. i work as consultant to dod with the clearing. i want to pick up on the threat that you're putting out there relating to mothers being in the protectivism, how do you think the migration waves might impact that and the decades to come. is there any intervention points that we might be able to make in the near term that will prevent the trajectory going forward.
>> so, i think that's the million dollars question. and i wish i were within anthropologyist to be able to trace that. i think there is -- there's a few factors, one is that, you know, we don't have, i think, a really good harness on how big the migration both the migration and the refugee problem are, because -- i think there are two very different issues that sometimes get sort of together when we're like oh, there's more middle easterners heading to europe or the u.s. i think we need to separate them out. like there's the group, the very intentionally saying we want to go work somewhere, you know, we want to go live in europe to have opportunities for xyz because whether it's themselves or families they feel it's a better, you know, hold american
dream there it is or western dream. you're going to come and better opportunities, better education and it's going to be a better life. that's one set. and then or the other side you have the -- the refugee and the asigh limb seekers who because of the per pech yule conflicts who have been going on have nowhere else to go. there's -- it's not that they necessarily want to leave syria or iraq. there's physically no place. they don't have a home any longer. it's been gone. so i think we need to look at those two separate issues and i think one is like with a migration side, it really just comes from, and this is a sort of different conversation about immigration than actually you accepting that immigration makes people stronger and you bring different skills and different trades and those are important. i think your question is more of this refugee and asigh limb
crisis. it's building to building to building to capacity where host countries aren't going to be able to handle it. and these people don't necessarily want to leave from home. they want to be back there. they have roots that they want to return to. i think what this -- the bigger question needs to be is what is the like the role of the international community in ensuring that you have a fruitful lasting negotiated settlement in places like syria or that you are able to put in programs to address the radicalization issues that are going on in iraq right now to ensure that it doesn't become worse. so how you get them, you know, how do you get islamic state to the table. how do you get in africa, how do you get bo ka to come to the table, i think that's the first question. that's going to -- if that can happen and this brings in, i
think, something else that mandy can probably speak to a little bit better, ensuring the role of these asigh limb seylum seekers negotiation process -- this was a -- i was able to see the transcripts of a meeting a bunch of syrian women who are now in turkey and these were all very -- they're university educated women they all had professional jobs in syria before they were forced to leave. they had no place to leave and no place to work any more, they were talking about why these negotiations have failed. one of them finally brought up, nobody will talk to us, nobody will include us. we were economists and bankers and university profes sores and problem -- we have skills, but they're so fussed on who is actually fighting that they're not reaching out to people who have, you know, as mandy mentioned, like this expertise.
so i think figuring that problem out is going to help prevent, you know, this from becoming, you're seeing the refugee population becoming a radicalization problem as well, now. really they have nowhere else to go. and it's the way, again, i think this goes to how good a lot of these groups are and actually their propaganda and their recruitment ability, we're saying we're offer you a solution, we'll offer you a place when we win. and that's something that they're doing that no other side is saying like, if you come, join us, we'll ensure that you have a socioeconomic role when this conflict is over. and unfortunately what the u.s. and other international they have been so focused they have neglected to engage who the key stake holders can be when the conflict is terminated.
>> all right. good. thank you. any questions any one? doesn't seem to be any. >> i think you've hit on something in your question that's really important. it gets back, first of all, i just want to ask did everyone read debra on women and leadership and the essential conflict there because we like, you know, we like our leaders to be forceful, strong and occasionally angry. we like our women to be gentle, self and not really too angry. we like our mothers. i mean, we all have mothers and we love our mothers, most of us. what i was going to say about -- and that leads to me what i was going to say about the middle
east, though. and i think anyone who has spent any amount of time here and i think ambassador will agree with me on this. who spent a lot of times in the houses and homes and that has been the advantage of being female, that we spent a lot of times in the homes with these families as well, knows that the question is not necessarily female power, it spheres of influence. in the home, they are tremendously powerful and they make all of the decisions and, in fact, often jokingly refer to the men, the donkey who do all the work and bring home the money. i think more importantly what we have to realize is that in these disrupted cultures and in libya, for example, where i most recently served, the only sphere where the government did not intrude was inside the home. that was the only sphere where there was order, where there was food, where there was comfort, but also where the shame factor or the family honor factor is so important and the down side of that, of course, is the women's
independence, you know, because women's honor is so important to the honor of the family that that leads to these other problems that you have. i think of all the countries probably the strongest most independent most out there make their choices, do whatever. nonetheless, the home still remains the center for everything, so now with refugee, you've created all kind of free electrons and that's really dangerous because these women come, they can't establish that same center of gravity for these families an kids and that's something we need to focus on a
>> the chart of path for our future. our own military likes to fill in the blanks vietnam or the last decade of war before we're even out of it and we haven't even grasped the -- so i think even understanding what we've done is important, but the way ahead is crucial unless somehow we're doing to merge into a very peaceful world where everyone is kind of halfway living together and the challenges of radicalization are gone. i'm afraid we're not going to live in that world and it will be great. you know, we minus well prepare for the world that we're in. in the world of sisa our goal is to take everybody out of their comfort zone and give them the tools, the ability to succeed meet the expectations we had even if you don't think you can
when we first come here, right, fell fellas. you've achieved more than you ever thought possible. i thought our comments today about expectations were huge and the power of diverse teams and diverse perspectives. it's important to step back whether it's a gender question or some other question, what are the diverse perspectives that were missing that could give us different approaches or more creative solutions to the problem. because frankly in some cases what we've been doing hasn't necessarily been achieved the resounding successes that we keep claiming that we have. this is an important way to think about it, whether, again, it's gender, religion, generation, ethnicity, sub cultural groups, tribes, you name it, how do we include those in a constructive way to move forward as we build the approaches that are going to endure forever. we talked about expectations matter, that's a key thing. how do leaders set the
expectations, how do they set their organizations up for success and then how do they recognize within their organizations the official standards, the informal standards, sometimes they're different, how do they then route those out as they go forward. in the discussion of standards, which we kind of got to a little bit but could go much deeper, from my experience, we always talked about the standards limiting. but we never looked at the aspects in the case of women where they may have been superior. for example, i remember a subject back in the day when i was lieutenant that came out and suggested that women had superior hand-eye coordination and dexterity and would make better tank gunners than men, oh, man, we didn't like that, because it kind of fit against that of course, then, as you do your force design, one option was we could have an automatic floater in the tank in which
case upper body strength wasn't that important. the other one was oh, no, we can't have an auto loader, that's too soviet union, the technology is great. instead, you know, you have this justification based on upper body strength rather than the key element in the tank, i would submit was the actual blt to put steel on target. did i need a better loader or better gunner. i probably wanted a better gunner. it was interesting how even there what we call standards, we sometimes had very selective approaches. think about that, step outside of your own bias, this is important way to think about some of these issues. the next organizational cultures were all part of them, whether it's a service culture or community culture or a branch culture and then leaders may try to change those organizations, but ultimately there can be -- there are spoilers at the sub board nant level, some day, i'll figure out why did the follow xs
that couldn't come to the panel at the last minute they were told they couldn't travel. this is another example they're supportive at the policy level, at the senior level, but below that, there is some missing element, how do you as leaders identify that, follow through to make sure that your campaign is going to succeed. and this is all your responsibility. now, i'm reminded in this regard in andrew jacob best, andy was the superintendent at west point remember him, ellen, came in out of retirement, was a retired four star, the command in europe and key man out of retirement three star general, imagine that, to take west point through trying times. one was the cheating scandal, a question of professionalization post a regular war fair, imagine that. and the second was the integration of women in all
volunteer force. and general good pastor by their count took his senior staff aside and in a session said, i expect you to welcome -- i'm paraphrasi paraphrasing, i don't know, i wasn't there. i expect you to ensure that women has an environment that welcomes them. if not i'll be happy to shake your hand as you leave and go out the door for the organization. from the top he said, not a flamboyant, but leadership climate, but a clear one on what the expectations were, the leaders to make this happen. now, having seen the other side, it didn't happen all the way down, you know, we've come a long way. there's some serious challenges, but the leaders set the tone, set the expectations, but also have to understand that the the leaders have to be fully support tiff, whatever your transformation is, this is a question of organizational change in leadership that i think this is a great example. the other one that flies in the
face of the question, you know, we're really in a system in the american military built on the notion of interchangeable parts. it emerges into world war i army, the tailor system, scientific management and how can we treat our soldiers, in large case, all of our service members interchangeably. you are all interchangeable parts, if you will, once you graduate from this war college experience, shame on us. in our ability today, why don't we treat you as talented individuals of significance, find the skills that each individual has, that will be a task for some of these as we get our program going, but, you know, think about how do we harness our talent beyond the interchangeable parts, that's kind of the industrial approach to war, can we have something beyond that as we go forward, but how do we see the individual significance of each of us and
each of our subordinates. so a couple of pieces about regular warfare, that's kind of my world, i grew up in the world of traditional war fair, the idea was that german town, all those people would be gone. so the battlefield was inherently clean. we would just destroy the enemy and we preserve our forces and everyone else, all those people that lived in west germany would be somewhere in the rear. >> whether it's in beautiful bosnia or cosovo or afghanistan. there's people that live in this world, the people that we want in our doctrine to ignore so we can focus on the enemy armed forces, when in fact, the world of irregular warfare is about the struggle for power and
legitimacy and influence mongrel vant populations. those populations may be the host country's population, it may be our own domestic population, how do we think about our own legitimacy and our inability in american history to prosecute long-term irregular war fair campaigns because ultimately we lose domestic legitimacy over time. the question about our tie to our citizen is an important aspect. the second is invest store jones' comment about spheres of influence, in american history, the argument, that won the day, why women needed education was that women were part of a separate sphere. and the sphere was the protection of family and education of the next generation. and so ultimately that moved forward where as much more radical views of american women's in corporation into this new fabric of american history in the constitution really didn't happen.
abgail adams ultimate is going to be the president of john adams but in march 1776 writes a letter to her husband, remember the ladies. and she's envisioning, i believe, something much more politically inclusive, but over time women do have a huge dimension in irregular war fair, whether it's in the recruitment or counter recruitment, whether it's in the domestic piece. whether it's a spies. whether it's combatants or whether it's part of the peace process. so, again, if we come from a traditional background we kind of leave some of that out and we lose those dimensions. so ultimately i would suggest that what we see as conventional warfare and a phased approached warfare where we have conflict phase and post conflict phase, our own experience in iraq in afghanistan should lead us to suggest that maybe that's kind
of a false choice. why is it that the level of violence was higher in the post conflict phase in both iraq and afghanistan, shouldn't that alone say that we need to rethink some of our understoodmental assumptions about what happens in what phase. some of it ask that it's suppose to happen simultaneously with the conflict phase. how do you do that if you haven't incorporated women into that. i don't know, would be another great thesis topic. again, think about the logic we have have been built up on a very conventional approach that may be out of tune with the contemporary skirt environment. what are the implications if your doctorate or approach is inconsistent with the reality you're in. the next piece i would add, we've changed our definition of jointness since it was passed in 1986. joint then was the working
together of the different branches of the u.s. military. our definition today of jointness, is not just u.s. military, but it's combined, multi national and it's interagency and it's our diplomats, intel folks, law enforcement professionals, national security professionals here. intergovernmental and includes nongovernmental organizations and private volunteer organizations. holy cow, if that's the joint team you're suppose to work with, this challenge of working with women on your team, imagine that the team we've defined is inherently international, multi ethnic, mixed genders, et cetera, et cetera, and so we have to break out of some of our constraint approaches. our allies, if you're going to work with americans or frankly many partners i think you're going to counter these teams for the future. whether you're completely
comfortable with this or not, welcome to the world where you're out of your comfort zone, right, right. think about joint from a huge perspective, but also the power that comes with those diverse perspectives, much like the classroom, there's power in these diverse perspectives just in understanding alone. i'm going to hit a couple of more and i promise i'll be done. a great example of the role of women in conflict, i think, is exemplified by one of the graduates, went back just in time for the kind of collapse in northern mali was the deputy -- >> the panel hosted by the institution will discuss and prospects for overting proliferation in the middle east. speakers include the units arab emirates ambassador to the u.s.
senior fellow robert iron horn and richard nephew. the report that you have before you entitled the iran nuclear deal to proliferation in the middle east, question mark. from the long service as part of the administration, particularly in the negotiations with the iranians, bob and richard know this issue inside and out and they have crafted a detailed and thoughtful examination of the deal and its implications for nonproliferation policies across the broader middle east. i urge you all to read the report. you should have received a copy on your way in or out and study the recommendations because i think we're all going to be looking at this issue for quite a bit of time in the future. it's been nearly a year since the deal itself was signed and we've had now almost six months of full implementation of its most important provisions. and yet the joint comprehensive plan of action and the obama administration's diplomacy toward iran and the broader
region has continued to provoke intense debate here in washington and intense diplomatic challenges and allies across the middle east. for that reason we're especially please today have with us today two discussions who will take on various aspects of the report. derrick, senior counselor at the fund who comes to the jer mand martial fund at distinguished career in the administration, at the pentagon and white house and at the state department. and his excellence use ambassador of emirates to washington that brings one of the most thoughtful and well informed on the region and has been a notable commentary on all of the aspects of the nuclear deal. you have their bios before you. we'll start with presentations by the authors of the report itself and we'll engage in a discussion from the podium, we'll bring it finally to the audience and give you all a chance to contribute and ask questions to everyone on the panel. with that, let me turn it over
to bob, thank you. >> suzanne, thank you very much and welcome to all of you. during the congressional debate on the joint comprehensive plan of action, the iran nuclear deal last summer, a key issue in that debate was whether the deal would increase or decrease prospects for proliferation in the middle east. supporters of the deal argued that by removing the risks of the nuclear armed iran, the deal would reduce incentives for countries in the region to acquire nuclear weapons. opponents, however, claim that the deal would increase those
incentives because it would legitimize iran's enrichment program, it would allow iran to ramp up its material production capabilities when key restrictions expire after ten and 15 years and it would boost iran's economy, sanctions relief would boost iran's economy and give iran the resources to devote to a nuclear weapons program. richard nephew and i strongly believe that the jcpoa will reduce prospects for proliferation in the middle east, but uncertainties about the future of the jcpoa and uncertainties about the future of the region are going to persist for quite some time. and these uncertainties could
motivate regional countries to keep their nuclear weapons options open. and the country said the region may be asking themselves a number of questions over the next several years. will the jcpoa be sustainable over time, will it unravel over questions of compliance? will it withstand challenges from opponents, both in washington. will it survive leadership transitions in kbrieunited statd iran. will iran ramp up the capacities when key restrictions expire. will it then break out of jcpoa
and obtain a strong military presence and be seen by partners as a reliable guarantor of their security. with the support of the mccar thur foundation, the plow shares fund and carnegie corporation, richard and i studied how these and other questions might effect nuclear decision making in key countries of the middle east, in particular, we evaluated the likelihood, the key states will pursue nuclear weapons for at least enrichment or reprocessing programs that could give them a latent nuclear weapons capability. we examined official statements, media accounts, and the writings of american and regional experts. we visited the region twice and
conducted an extensive series of interviews with senior officials and nongovernmental experts to encourage candor. these interviews were carried out on a not for attribution basis. we focused on four key countries, saudi arabia, the united arab emirates, egypt and turkey. of the four, saudi arabia is the most highly motivated to pursue nuclear weapons. if turkey sees iran as an implaqueble pho that is intent on destabilizing its neighbors, achieving regional agymny and up ending the kingdom's internal political order. at the same time, the saudiis have lost much confident in the united states commitment to security to its regional
partners. as part of the result, the saudii leadership has taken a role in leader conflicts especially in waging its aggressive campaign in yemen. but despite these reservations about the united states, the saudis no that they have no real choice but to rely heavily on washington for their security and they know that they would place that vital relationship in jeopardy if they were to pursue nuclear weapons. the saudis clearly have the financial resources to pursue the records. to acquire the human and physical infrastructure to pursue indigenous nuclear program will take many years. richard and i have tried to get to the bottom of the widespread belief that pakistan has agreed to help saudi arabia acquire
nuclear weapons, but the truth about this alleged saudi pakistanny understanding is hard to pin down. if such a saudi understanding was ever reached, it was probably very long ago at the very most senior levels of both countries and it was probably very vague with no operational detail about how it would be implemented or the circumstances in which it would be implemented. and in today's circumstances, it's very unlikely that pakistan would agree to become iran's -- i'm sorry, to become saudi arabia's nuclear accomplice. we next looked at the united arab emirates. like saw dee arabia.
we believe they pose a severe threat. and like the saudi they have lost considerable confidence in the reliability of the united states. but also like the saudi's, they ear reluctant to -- they're reluctant to put their security ties to jeopardy. also, they're heavily invested in a very ambitious nuclear energy program with the construction of four nuclear power reactors and they know that this program would be dead in the water if they opted for nuclear weapons. indeed, in support of its strong national commitment to the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, the uae has formerly renounced the acquisition of enrichment or reprocessing capabilities. after they permitted