tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN July 1, 2013 11:00pm-1:01am EDT
of fundamental importance that the onstitutional gives congress the express authority to protect through appropriate legislation. > before your timex pyres, i would like to make sure that i understand your position on this applied, versus facial issue. is it your position this would if it were nt case brought by, let's say, county in opposed to shelby county, alabama? >> no, not -- no. just try to articulate clearly what our position is. they brought a facial challenge. we recognize it's a facial challenge. we're defending it as facial challenge. facial point is that the challenge can't succeed because they're able to point out there other jurisdictions that ought not to be appropriately covered and that's tailoringse there's a mechanism in the statute, if the effort doesn't work,
they could have an as applied challenge. you.hank >> thank you mr. chief justice. >> mr. ogupali. justice, may it please the court. the extensive record of the of the preclearance position illustrates two the tial points about nature and continuing aspects of oting registrations in the areas. the first speaks to the question of whether section 2 is adequate standing alone. n alabama and many of the covered jurisdictions, section 2 victories often need section 5 benefits of the ruling. they have to be in tandem. >> that's true in every state, isn't it? >> justice scalia? don't think anybody is contesting it's more effective
if you use section 5. >> it's -- the issue is why in these states. >> fair enough. it's beyond the question of any place.in our brief shows that specifically in the covered jurisdictions, there's a demonstrated pattern, being used innd 5 tandem where in other urisdictions, most of the section 2 cases are one-off examples. take, for example, salma, 1990s, not in e the 1960s, in the 1990s had a objections and section 2 activity and observers, all that were else in, to continue give effect to the minority inclusion principle that section 5 was passed to vindicate in 1965. >> a section 2 case can in order with an bail-in, correct me if i'm you haveder section 3, a mini -- something that replicates under section 5. >> bailing is available if a finding of a
constitutional violation. t has been used in a number of circumstances. the united states brief has an to that. but it's quite clear that the paern in the covered such that the s repetitive nature of discrimination in those places, take for example the case in lula. after the court ruled that the plan after the 2000 round of redistricting for the mark of discrimination, in remedial legislation, the state of texas tried to shorten early voting the period for purposes of denying the latino community for the of the benefits of the ruling. benefitsn 2 cases, the of discrimination in inku78 benlts would not be there but discriminatory plan. congress in a house report, page 7 found that section 2 continues to be an inadequate remedy to express the problem of violations. another example that makes a
innt clearly is in the 1990s mississippi, a section 2 case to brought after 100 years break down the dual registration system that had discriminatory purpose. ensspi implement the national voter registration act, it tried to dual registration. it was section 5 -- section 5 enforcement action that was able it down. >> do you agree with the reverse engineering argument that the united states has made today? >> i would frame it slightly differently, chief justice roberts. that historying is bears some importance in the reauthorization. but that congress in none of the reauthorizations stopped with historical back ward look. cognizance of the experience but it looks to see what the experience was on the ground. 2006 was ess saw in that there was a high number of continuing objections after the reauthorization period and --
>> i g esz the question is hether or not those -- that disparity is sufficient to justify the deferential section 5.n if you take away the formula, if you think it ha totz be reverse simply just d not iffed on its own, then it seems o me you have a much harder test to justify the differential 5. tment under section >> northwest austin said it needs to be sufficiently related. there need to be two sources of evidence. > we also said congruent and proportional. >> indeed, indeed. i don't understand those things to be unrelated. they're part of the same test -- the same evaluated mechanism. he idea is is congress -- the first question is, is congress remedying something or is it right?ng a new that's what boerne is getting to. is congress doing an end around, way to expand the constitution? we know in this area congress as tried to implement the 15th
amendment and history tells us something about that. specifically to the question -- limited5th amendment is to intentional discrimination. and, of course, the preclearance requirement is not so limited, right? >> that's correct, but this cases have upheld that congress in proper exercise of he remedial powers can reach beyond the core of the with ional discrimination prophylactic effect when the problems exist. two things that speak to the issue about the disparity in coverage and continuing to cover jurisdictions, there are two major inputs. the first is the section five activity. five active ty -- activity shows there's a range. section 5 was passed to get the --t >> section 5 activity shows there's a problem of jurisdictions covered by section 5. but it says nothing about the resence or absence of similar problems in noncoverage
jurisdictions, is that right? >> absolutely, justice aleto. i come to the second category. it's the piece of voting rights national application, section two. what the evidence in this case shows before congress is that section 2 ration of successes in the covered jurisdictions is substantially more. justin kagan said it was four imes more adjusting for population data. the fact of the matter is there's another piece of this case that pay on the mccreary looks a it all f the section 2 cases and he shows that the katz study pointed to dramatically disparity. the >> all of the noncovered states are worse in that regard than states, is that is that correct? >> justice scalia -- >> every one is worse? fair question. and i was speaking to the aggregate. >> not just a fair one, it's the question. congress has selected these nine states. now, is there some good reason selecting these nine?
>> what we see in the evidence of the top eight states 2 h favorable section outcomes, seven were covered jurisdictions, the eighth was mechanism aser the justice kennedy points out can bring jurisdictions with special voting. in we point to the fact that is not a static statute. >> but the point is -- i think is this -- if you draw a red line around the states in, at least some of those states have a better record than some of the states that are out. o in 1965, well, we have history. we have 200 years or perhaps slavery. 80 years or so of legal segregation. we have 41 years of the statute. held, a statute has lot. so therefore, congress in 2005 back and says, don't
hange horses in the middle of the stream. we still have a ways to go. the question is, is it rational to do that? differ on could that. and one thing to say, is, of course, this is aimed at states. think the civil war was about? of course it was aimed at differentlye states than others. nd, at some point, that historical and practical sunset, sunset, renew what worked type of justification runs out. the question i think is has it run out now? now, you tell me run out? it what is the standard for when it runs out? never? hat's something you heard people warned about. does it never run out? or does it run out, but not yet. have a clear case where
at least it doesn't run out now? now, i'd like for you to address that. >> fair enough, justice breyer. shows what the evidence before congress is that it has not run out yet. the whole purpose of this act is that we make progress and congress recognize the progress we make. nd for example they took away the examiner provision with many which was designed to add dress problem.tration in terms of when we're there, i lit be some point in the future. by the end of the next reauthorization we won't be there. here's an overlooked provision that says 15 years, nine years from where i stand here today before you, congress should go see if it's and still necessary so we don't think this needs to be there in perpetuity. based on the record, in the 2011 case in which a federal judge in cited this chourt's opinion in northwest austin, legislators that sit today caught on tape referring african-american voters as
illiterates. case cited in r our brief, said, yes, the south progress.ed and made some things are stubbornly the same. the training effort to deny the of alabama's art history to this very day. >> have there been episodes, episodes of the kind you're talking about in states that are not cover? justice tely, chief robert. >> it doesn't seem to help you the the point that differential treatment between the covered and noncovered to be justified. >> it's fair to look at -- at some level you have to look piece-by-piece, state-by-state. but you have to look back and take a look at the great mosaic. this statute is in part about the march through history to our promises that constitution says for too long were unmet. congress has both taken the congress seriously. it's reasonable for congress to that we need ion to stay the course so that we
corner. the to be fair, this statute can't go on forever. six ur experience teaches amendments to the constitution would have to be passed to the right guards for to vote. there are many federal laws, uniformed voters, some protect voters who have not had the opportunity to register. but together, these protections right totant pause our vote is what the united states constitution is about. >> thank you, count. rein, five minutes? >> thank you, thank you mr. chief justice. to vote is a racial -- in section five? -- in the 15thon amendment protects the right of all to vote. >> i asked a different question. you think section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement? --well, congress >> you think there was no basis -- >> congress was reacting -- reacting in 1964 to
a problem of race discrimination which it thought was prevalent certain jurisdictions. so, to that extent, as the it was er said, yes, intended tprotect those who had been discriminated against. if i might say, i think that justice -- >> do you think that racial voting has on in ended? that there's none anywhere? the world is not perfect. no one -- we're not arguing perfectibility. saying there's no evidence that the jurisdictions called out by the formula are the in which are uniquely subject to that kind of problem. > show me some statistics that alabama hadn't. but there are others that are compelling that it has. make the judgment and not congress? the types and the forms of discrimination and the need to remedy them? may i answer that? number one -- we're not looking isolation. in we're looking at alabama
relative to other sovereign states and coming to justice kennedy's point, the question is is alabama, even in ice lags, and those other states, reached where they ought to be given a chance subject to to cases o, subject brought directly under the 15th amendment to exercise their sovereignty. other states have 240 successful section two and section five -- again, we -- we're not here to try alabama or massachusetts any other state. the question is the validity of the formula. that's what brings alabama in. if you look at alabama, it has a number of black legislators the black te to population of alabama. it hadn't had a section 5 long period.a come to justice breyer's point. wavelength.fferent isn't this a mere continuation, shouldn't the fact we had it it a little bit
satisfied somebody is and everything is cured. >> don't change horses. past new what's in the where it worked as long as the problem isn't solved. >> okay. problem to which the voting rights act was addressed is solved. you look at the registration and the voting. that problem is solved on an absolute as well as a relative basis. that's like saying if i detect there's a disease afoot 1965, and ilation in have a treatment, a radical treatment that they helped to comes at disease when it to 205, i see a new disease or i think the old disease is gone, applys a new one, why not the old treatment. >> studies the question, doesn't it? the problem has been solved. but who gets to make that decision really? you, the court, congress? >> it's certainly not me. >> that's a good -- ]laughter >> that's a good answer. i was hoping you would say that. >> but i think the question is examine it.
congress makes a record. it's up to the court to whether the problem indeed has been solved and whether the new problem -- a big new power that you're giving us that we decide power now to whether racial discrimination has been solved. did not think that's held within our bailiwick. >> i did not claim that power, kagan, what i said was based on the record in the congress, and in to power -- northwest austin, justifies --ther that record justifies >> there's a key difference. you refer to the problem as the roblem identified by the tool for picking out the states. which was literacy tests, etc. suspect the problem was the denial or abridgment by a state f the right to vote on the basis of race and color.
basis for st was the picking out the places where that problem existed. problem, ion is the it's not solved. f your version of the test, literacy tests, is the problem, you have a much stronger case. ow in your opinion do we decide, what was the problem that congress was add dressing in the act? you look at katzenbach and the use of the devices -- the devices are gone. resolveledem has been by the congress definitively. it can't be the basis of further legislation. what we're talking about congress looked and said, well, we did solve that problem as everyone agrees. it's effective. section 5 has done its work. eople registering to vote and senators see a large group of the population has politically themselvee not going to vote a
it. it will do them no good. so i think justice scalia and that evidence and everybody some for it would suggest of the efficacy of section 5. you have a different constituency from the you had in 1964. but coming to the point, then, if you think there is discrimination, you haveinthat . they didn't look at some of the of delusion and the have ecause they would found them all over the place in 1965. they were not responding to that. responding to an acute situation where people could not register and vote. here was intentional denial of the rights of the 15th amendment. >> thank you, counsel, the case submitted. >> tuesday night, all arguments holingsworth v. perry and u.s. versus windsor. wednesday, the challenge of affirmative action in texas universities. has sent that rt
best-selling author will take your e-mails, tweets, in on book tv on c-span 2. next "washington journal," dr. lauren lewis from cdc on climate change and the extreme heat around the country. and then a look at the effect rates could have on the housing market and how the federal reserve might ref respond. ylan mui of "the washington is our guest. and the tribune with the $1 center.data washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. tuesday, the federal reserve discusses the final rule-making discovering the nation's largest financial institutions. 9:30 a.m.ee it live at eastern on c-span 2.
the inspector general of iraq the improved and future operations. study of nstitutes of war this, is an hour and ten minutes. >> listen here, follow along. i would ask those who haven't done so, please turn off your the phones so that broadcast continues at peace. we' keen to welcome them streaming live this morning and in follow-up sessions. so please also join us at understandingmore.org to learn more about isw. bowen.r stewart stewart has served for nine iraq which gives him a wimpy perspective on u.s. and iraqnational engagement in
over such a varied period of history. days to surge days to days, to the current environment when we are watching some of the completions of that were begun long ago. but also in watching the effects of u.s. engagement and disengagement. very special position o look at these things because it's the watchdog that ensures dollars that are spent inside iraq are spent well and wisely. but he also has a wonderful in evaluating our changing ission and program in iraq. precisely because as a public watchdog, as someone who looks
add military projects from a perspective, we -- he has the opportunity to talk about very many different roblems, challenges, and lessons learned. he's opinion able to work on over the last five years. the author, a book we commend to you for reading and for learning. introduction, t help me welcome stuart bowman. >> thank you, thank you, kim. thanks to the institute and all of you for being here this morning. to be part of e the institute, an institute work because of the great
you continue to do in many fields. iraq.rticularly in i find your reporting on iraq to be the most comprehensive, the effective. and so i urge all of you all to website if you want to know what's going on in iraq.y something i've been focussed on 1/2 years what's going on day-by-day in iraq. reports, 290 inspections, nine lessons learned reports which learning is the last. and also hardless sons. which came outok in 2009, all accessible at our site, www.sigir.mil. we're almost done in our mission. aid and raq as an assistance program, but also an oversight mission. sigir will close its doors on
september 30 of this year. but not before we obtain about more convictions. 86.date, we've secured recovered $200 million. hope to get another $100 million for the taxpayers. taxpayers' watchdog. we're not quite finished with ensuring that the taxpayers' been properly accounted for. this morning, we want to talk about the lessons from iraq. underscored, there's a lot to learn from our ten-year experience, our ten-year rebuilding program, applicable to how the united states for tures itself stabilization and reconstruction operations. let me start with this point.nging and that is the united states is off, ignificantly better structurely, with regard to lanning for, executing, or
overseeing stabilization and reconstruction operations than years ago. structurally, the legislature that the branch branchs.arn from the we spelled them out in seven in learning from iraq. they're drawn from chapter wo of learning from iraq which encapsulates 44 interviews that i conducted. about what happened. really, i asked two questions -- leadership in iraq. rime minister malaki and malawi, and jof rooe and the across the board. general petraeus, austin, oderno, deputy secretary bern, panetta.y and on the hill, senator mccain, senator mccaskell, and a number house members as well.
two questions. the iraq money was spent, the rebuilding money. what lessons do you draw from that. and from their answers, they get lessons.en first, just what i said. that the united states must reform, restructure, improve the approach to planning the stabilization and reconstruction. proposes a solution to that, create the u.s. office and ontingency operations i'm happy to report this past stockman-welch bill hr 2606 was introduced to do that.ly so there is an opportunity for apply an opportunity to iraq.on learned from known for saying a lesson learn apply not a lesson
suicide a lesson lost. that lost if it comes into being. don't conduct significant rebuilding operations when the security situation is severe. is the case too often in iraq. or example, in fallujah, we proceeded with a substantial waste water treatment plant that security the situation wasn't completed until two years ago. to finish.ht years it took three times as much. of the number of people targeted initially. in abecause it was pursued very insecure environment. three, consult. said to hat the iraqis me over and over again that the not do.tates did brought n should have us more if you consulted with us
about what we really needed at outset than we would have investment,rom your your substantial investment. onsultation also was an issue that the u.s. interviewees raised with me. secretary of puty state said we tried to do it all and do it our own way. and in recognition that from the cpa did not -- the provisional authority, the governance of iraq for the first 14 months did not sufficiently with the really bout what they needed. fourth -- uniformity. lack of uniform systems in iraq. agencies, stove pipes carry out their missions using their own approaches, their
own oversight methods, their own i.t. systems. and as a result, you had stove data. if you have stove pipe data, you inconsistencies. that produced from the audit, we learned from the audit, the fact 30% of the projects completed in iraq were not accounted for, not properly recorded in any data base. couldn't really analyze the details of them without trying to find the wherever it may be agencies.particular that's something that the reform approach to stabilization reconstruction operations must the ss and it must address need for uniformity in contract and the stock manuel which ill proposes that kind of
reform. founders of engineers consistently told me they upport the current commander interestingly, great guy, very sharp. on, succeeding in leading the court is a strong proponent of this particular contracting reform. oversight. i think it says oversight works when it's on the ground, it's leaning, and it seeks to do more than just manage a list findings and the police blotter, so to speak, but takes learning, turns it around quickly so that operators the se it to improve mission. that was missing in the first year. occurred as a result. too much waste occurred throughout the program because upwards of 8issues billion wasted in our tax dollars. oversight, good planning
would certainly reduce the future operations. preserve what workings. in iraq, a number of success stories in iraq. it's not just bad news. our reporting focuses on the challenges. that's our mission. the use of money, find the crooks that violated the trust. included a number of reports and a number of anecdotes about learning from what worked. two i want to highlight are the ommander's response program when properly manageled made a difference for the good in iraq. in the commanders' arsena arsenal. executed in a plan hat was small targeted projects, under 100,000, they made a difference. a few audits n in
we identified, then they lost focus. they lost control. and they lost money. properly managed surf can be useful. the reconstruction team program similarly when well led made an in iraq.difference it embodies the incident grapgs. an ad hoc entity created out of the recognition the demands put settings. these but i hope we learn from the prt experience that the only place can learn is plan events, training in events, have fun in that's what usoco would do among many things. finally, plan. t's obviously a very generic and basic term. but i heard too often especially from the civilian side with what was going on in
iraq, the phrase, we don't like the plan. in a stabilization reconstruction operations a non sequitur. prerequisite.he it's going on to success in these operations and it means the operation begins. plan dol said those who better than those who don't. with they really stick that plan. his point being planning is the key to opening the door to success in challenging that we faced in iraq. we did have a plan at the outset, hard lessons gets into in detail. and the plan was liberate and leave. have puban talabani, you plan a, but not a plan b. when we switched to plan b which we didn'tand rebuilt,
have a system in place sufficient to sustain the of what became $60 billion. the first plan is $2 billion and september. by ten years ago right now in iraq, we were up to 20 billion. times the amount in the blink of an eye, in building the ad hoc, we should not be urprised that too much waste occurred. it is what it is. but it doesn't need in the stand history.int in it needs to stand in the pointed lesson from which we should draw from which i'm pleased to know that the hill has begun to in hr-2606, that would stablish the u.s. officer contingency operation should it pass. and it would provide the kinds of solutions, the kind of that i've suggested ensure at are key to
success in future stabilization and reconstruction programs. planning, uniformity, drawing together the significant body of that are out there be focused in future operations. syria seems to be silting on our doorstep stra strategically this matever and the spillover effects are crisis, conditions in iraq at this moment. week in inted out last the article that iraq is effectively still at war. the war in iraq is not really in the sense that the shiah ilitia that caused so much carnage in 2005, 2006, 2007, and sunni aqui and of iraq and hook the various elements, the radical stirring back re
up and causing, you know, murder country asacross the we speak. june.led in iraq in following upon the two bloodiest in five years. this last quarter is the bloodiest quarter since the 2008?e of and why? partly because of the failure to recognize on the part of the -- in iraq that reconciliation is the essential moving forward. second, what's going on in syria. the spillover effects are substantial. the reason i laid that out is while boots on the ground are something that no one wants. may be that we have to have a capacity on the ground in syria post-assad should that come about. how that's going to be organized question.n a bill out of the senate recently approved $250 million interior, but we
don't know who would spend it. that is just an indicator for the need for the kind of reform from iraq, learn that we propose in learning from thankfully is recognized in this most recent piece of legislation. -- that's what we've learned at sigir for 9 1/2 years. honored, again, to be here with you, kim, and with the institute and thanks to all of and happy to entertain any questions you might have. >> we have some wonderful -- wonderful people here with the expertise and a variety of areas and i look to having them have their questions, introduce themselves and the organization they're with. i'd like to start with taking my moderator's prerogative.
to ask what are the impacts that these kinds of mills takes and the s have on achieving whatever country we're operating in. in this case, iraq? foremost, not and having a coherent structure, a planned system effective oversight and a capacity to your stabilization and reconstruction operation can last ten years. in iraq.at happened it's what happened in afghanistan. and as i described it, rather ten-year rebuilding program, it would be ten one-year rebuilding programs in countries, i think. and the question that i -- the rhetorical question that that evokes is who's in charge here? is a question
mark. indeed, the -- the commission of wartime contracting asked that state, defense, and aid. they a hearing and couldn't answer it. and the same issue has aritzen heard anistan as i've from -- from the special inspector general for afghan reconstruction. consequences, though, to your question, kim, we a part that we report last summer on the human toll reconstruction. concretely we could identify at 719 lives lost while -- rebuilding cting activities. so the costs in waste, i've identified at least $8 billion cost in blood. 719 at least is too high. staying importantly, en years in carrying out a contingency operation at some
point stops being a contingency. proeper planning, effective that. ght will reduce >> wonderful. let me turn to the audience. f you would please introduce yourselves to the c-span audience and your organization affiliation? first question? >> it's remarkable to have an ititory of someone whose job s to study how they prosecute people that deliberately misspent them or absconded with them talk as passionately as you do about accomplishing the mission. and that's always been one of he things that's a hallmark of the effort that i think has not been necessarily replicated in other similar efforts. and i think it's -- as we learn lessons from iraq, that should them.e of
is more of the auditor than just of auditor. we understand this is a part of rying to accomplish our objectives and the person accounting for the funds should be thinking about how to account a way that supports the mission. and you always have done that remarkable. but i would like to pose to you for what many will be a undamental question about this whole issue which is why do we need to do this when we're never going to do it again? and isn't liberate and leave to we can't expect to the model is libya. if we can't do anything in syria to avoid, desperate at most, it would be liberate and leave. you e circumstance, aren't preparing for something that it cy has already decided
will never do? from the policy either, yes. offer something to your point, if we don't, yes, we shouldn't engage in these we can't because afford with a $17 trillion debt to stay anywhere for an extended carry out these operations. we -- from the -- from the blood the cost in lives, also, the same point. a s our responsibility as country to take on the lessons of iraq, apply them to our improve a structure so that we don't occupy, rebuild, year after year after year. outcomethe unacceptable in iraq that i think there's 100% agreement about in the united states. usoco is not to decision will be, but to provide the president with options, with choices. we don't have an army. don't create a significant
and powerful military because we war, we must be prepared to protect under the president's leadership. and by training and equipping the substantial force, the president has those options, a variety. do we have them on the front? no, we don't. of the challenge in syria is what choices are at hand for have a ake if you don't capacity other than bad ones? nd that's why i agree, i'm all for no more iraqs and afghanistans. that's not a policy, that's a hope. policy choices. by reforming the approach to the planning execution of oversight of reconstruction operations so that we're not limited to one choice. >> great to see you. >> good to see you. is saudi ausman. good to see you again, stewart, thank you for your service, and job, very, very well done.
>> thank you for your service in iraq. >> thank you. of a ne is a little bit tough question. who do you think did better with far as ojects as spending, executing, transparency and oversight? civilian ry or the side? well, there's enough fault to go around. let me start with that. a ond, let me say there's number of facts that we were able to derive in iraq that we underscore ing to earlier. over 80% of the contracts were military contracts. problem.the nspd-36 cy according to was given to the state department. but 80% of the contracts are -- dichotomy that's unworkable. i saw it. of hypocrisycronym struggling across the departmental lines in iraq over years led to
inefficiencies. chief of missions says we'd like you to do "x," the head of the contracting office says we're that's a bad moment. that kind of bad moment occurred the too often because of lack of synchronicity among the departments in carrying out the mission. to your question -- as we oint out learning from iraq, about $25 billion of the $60 billion was spent in building forces.urity an army of 300,000, police force 700,000, a million men in uniform. they are, today, better better trained than iraq has ever had. security force better equipped, better trained than had. has ever there's waste and challenges throughout. 2006,ing, remember that in 2007 where you had to clean out of military interior because shiah militia infiltration.
in the end, it's an effective force. mixed blessing at another level as well. special operations force forces may be the best and the commander in chief's name is prime minister nouri al malki. that's a command and control line that is not the juncture raq at this and is presenting some circumstances today. a i actually want to take report done g the by marissa sullivan, the regime that chain of t some ofthrough ipos and the alternative chains of demand that developed within the iraqi forces.y politicaley present a problem right now to the iraqi
people, as well as a security problem. bringing that up. >> exactly right. please. >> my question would be from the sector perspective, when you talk to them, obviously a very frustrating mission. you talked to them, what were the two or three the thingings they complained about most with the easiest effects from the government's site. charge.nowing who's in that's the weakness. and as a result, constantly moving target with regards to the reconstruction program. having nine one-year reconstruction programs meant be prepared to reorient annually. and having was the case 15 to 20
contractors over the life of the to try to nt you had figure out what was going on, continuously. deal with a security situation wherein it burden ofar where the providing security lay, private ecurity contractors or the governments, obviously a mix of both. it was developed on the fly in iraq in a way unprecedented by our history. in 2008, there were 171,000 and 172,000e ground contractors. and substantial percentage of were security contractors. from learned, you know, it what happens if you don't for how in advance these systems should be integrated. iraq, iraq was about coordination. and coordination worked when synchronized well.
and, for example, general he ryan and ambassador well at a chronized critical moment with excellent strategy.dvice on the and we survived. though, hronization, that approach, that strategy, is a hope. serendipity, not a system. not a structure. >> you brought this up a little mentioned n you rather than one ten-year reconstruction, we had ten one-year reconstruction. i work spoke to my friends and up due to high turnover of contractors, you have people going in for one generating institutional knowledge, and moving on to a new project. advantages f the
probably for you having been of e over the longer term the -- of the conflict. but i'm wondering if there's lessons learned that deals with preserving institutional knowledge course of uring the an operation to prevent this one-year en reconstruction problem? >> that's what the u.s. would do. department of he defense has a significant lessons learned capacity at ft. leavenworth, there's an entire school devoted to it. in the peacekeeping civilian operations institute in engages in ilarly stuff. within -- these are operations that are unique and they've been going on steadily 0, somalia, haiti, panama, the balkans, iraq, afghanistan.
they are the venue in which the national security interests will future in d in the this century. and if you do accept that hey're sidmill, some don't, by the way, on the civilian side, and you do accept that they will happen again. and you do accept they didn't go so well in iraq and afghanistan, accept that we ought to learn our lessons and improve our structure. the only way to preserve them. you know, these are -- these are useful tones on what happened. they're just that if they don't approach. >> on that, i'd actually like to follow-up question, which has to be y there some give and take between having a flexible strategy and a long-term strategy. for stabilization and reconstruction. so how would you recommend flexibility and
resiliency in how we approach reconstruction 10, ut getting to that one-year plan situation? >> great question, kim. we are stuck in a place of significant lack of resilience right now. it's what fred was saying about the choices we have in front of regard to our current structure. very e choices are limited. and resilience means options, right? means capacity to respond as churchill said, to do able to ning and to be response what comes next. your -- plan a will be the first victim. and that's understandable in the operation. astal albany said we need to do plan b, what we switched to. if there's y happen a structure in place prepared to and e or c, d,
whatever that plan may evolve into. that requires uniform contracting, personnel procedures, funding. oversight. doctrine, training. and that all occurs before the begins.n if you try to do all of that, begins, they wrote regs and personnel they didn't succeed as much as liked because ve of the improvisational nature of it. area of tion in the ational security is a bad planning system. and yusoco couldn't resolve it. >> steven? the best part of a decade watching iraq go 33 trip s? >> 34. >> 34 triples. you use the future of
iraq. -- do you see it going >> my metaphor is a financial one. short iraq in the short term, iraq in the long term. is unlike being afghanistan, their bank is in the ground. hey have the resources to succeed. attiturk as itheir described it, someone shows up vision, the need for reconciliation thate it's ane element need for the democracy to succeed in the ethnic and sectarian mixes that's governing he country right now that there's a way out as and that asses iraqi nationalism, then iraq should be the leading country in the middle east. hopeful that that person will -- will arise on the scene the next ten years
does, then i expect to pay off.t >>. question ] >> as i said, i want's a hope. we'll have to wait as you have to with hope. i wanted to take a moment to recognize steven for most recent report, "iraq's uneasing crisis." he's also the author or one of weekly ors of our iraq under that could be found outstanding word.org thank you answering the hopeful questions. i'm actually -- i'm sorry, fred, go ahead. guessing from the --
given the answer to that, hat -- [ inaudible question ] i'll throw one out there and you throw k and i'll try to one out there that i'd like for you to answer. in better position if we somehow managed to maintain u.s. forces in iraq and to oversee the effort the one i expect an answer is, we talk about contractors a lot. usa went long almosta model of relying entirely on contractors for executing things. and the downsizing of our driven d military has the military ever more in the direction of relying on contractors for a variety of things. what extent do you think that contractorization of our foreign security policy is a problem? just managedody is with adequate oversight as you recommended?
>> great questions -- tonight the first one by quoting my secretary ith panetta. according to the secretary, the nability to negotiate a basis for continuing u.s. military 2011 nce in the post framework agreement left the united states without important leverage in iraq. to weekend the capacity push for greater change within the government of iraq. outsourcing issue, that's a huge question. it started in 1989. with log cap. that was the -- that was the watershed, frank lip, for and urcing and moving fuel food to the private sector. and under kbr, we're in log cap pow and three different it, over 30 hold billion, 30 -- 30 to 40 billion in iraq.it but i think that the challenge new, and was not
resolved, is a security issue. aspectsou outsource the of the security management in a reconstruction operation? when historically, that's always a government's nondellble dutied. and the commission of wartime tried to get to this and identified it as a problem unable to articulate a solution for it. the congress is addressing it as well. less and less so since the down and are winding going away. the problem hadn't gone away. nd i think that there needs to be a center of gravity for grappling with it when it's not in your face. usoco would do -- plan with the epartment and to work with the the about structuring
solution. afghanistan.nd and but -- but a system that doesn't have concrete lines. and those lines need to be defined. >> if i can follow up on that uestion of security contracting, have you in your calculations ctually been able to establish the costs of security and ontracting, outsourcing security in iraq by the cost of forces to u.s. conduct that same security or similar security operations in >> the comparative study was beyond our reach, but we did .dentify cost of 25%
,t went to paying for security and that is right that contract or security. it is impossible to discreetly develop data on the government side, on the military side, because it is baked into the overall cost, but it is huge. i was recently with the or working in countries like iraq. i wonder if there are any eggs we have not yet talked about that you could expand on further with suggestions.
>> yes i'm a there is. 20 yearse formed about ago by rick who is now leading the bureau for stabilization the state at department. a great guy and a great person to lead that. things.omplish great modestly sized program such as fighting gang violence in the liu sure of elections in kenya or judicial , but this is not that kind of mission. they are a sensible he assigned to planning this kind of operation -- alston sibley --
ostensibly assigned to planning this kind of operation. it was a revolutionary development at the pentagon in 2005, but how is that being realized? not very affect totally. in treasury, also created the last 25 years, did a good job in iraq. stabilization.y then you have a justice in ance,e of reviving assist i also established in the last 25 years. this is pretty much a new structure in response
andilization challenges, it has been a piecemeal development without integration. and i would say now is the te to take account of that history, to recognize it has those successes but it does not have the capacity, and it needs that center of gravity. i could not agree with you but do you see that happening? the integration needs to happen. what is the next big challenge? >> the structural question, will
i do not know., i think it is a good idea, and good ideas can develop their own momentum. time will tell. >> thanks for your service. re>> are their information gaps that resulted in waste, and is there enough for intelligence support? >> yes and yes. the government has a responsibility with regard to project management to implement
a quality assurance program, which is affect of lee ensuring -- effectively ensuring a contractor. that requires a person go out and investigate the issue. if you do not have the capacity to do that you do not have quality control, and you have waste. , andis an information gap it happened all the time in a rack. -- in iraq. there were too many situations where they were the first american you would see. that is a weakness that allows too much waste to occur. to have been able to resolve it and have some
that would have provided information that would allow me to pursue cases. i understand they were never able to fully connect those dots. we have had 80 cases. we will have 105. , fromi could follow up the perspective of dan, where i had the pleasure of serving, there is a special inspector or .eneral one thing we saw 42011 and 2012 -- we thought in late 2011 and
i remember we asked for 41 contract, and they could not find 33. they had three people working. it was a massive is connect at the front from which we were playing catch-up. task force 2010 was part of the catch-up in the afghan theater, but it circles back to my key point. doing planning? who is responsible for oversight? it is right now nobody, and that can only be resolved through reform. that is commission by general
dempsey, the chief. there must be a goldwater nichols type reform with regard to operations. this is ae diagnosis. cure. >> leaves. -- please. i did spend a couple months iraq.e late spring in a roc it seems like over time there was a problem with getting government groups to work on this. theyo deal with the fact put a gun to the head of ?oreign service officers
and said of 10 years you deal with one year 10 times. how do you propose to get government staffers to do their job? it would root why are those whose nine up to recognize they are deployable, and you are right. personnel a number of hiccups early on, and it happened too often. the other was the penalty. some did not want to go because they felt it would be penalized. this system it reform would solve oath of those issues.
-- both of those issues. the reality is our situation is not the mexican play and prove from years ago -- not significantly improved some years ago. >> i want to get back to a point you mentioned earlier, important complications. or's foralk about fact successful consultations but , andfrom the iraqi side what were the challenges you saw, and what were things we could do better?
>> general petraeus costs interview addresses that. begind before you reconstruction, you need to be sure those landing or it -- properlyfor it are versed in economy, social structure, infrastructure of the country before showing up, whether it is a historical background or consist training, and with that capacity in hand, you can engage in consultation because you have a. -- a context. just saying, we want to provide , while well- intentioned, may not provide a good fit because of capacity
recommend various effort of the u.s. to rebuild do not improperly empower political during or as a result of that consultation process? that requires heavy engagement so you have as many sources and input in the and proper input to ensure you have a then of the -- a senseandscape sothe political landscape, they will produce the best decision you can make.
not always perfect, but it will be better than otherwise. i was there from the beginning, and we went in as liberators and became recognized as the occupiers. un.requested it from the you i we were in charge of their money and spent it. how did we do with their money? on thatve done 29 audit subject. our last one issued in january ,ound that controls were week accountability was poor with 24ard to 11.7 alien of the
11.7and of which we had -- billion of the 24 billion of which we had control. the army continued to control several billion to find the contract. there were specific examples of fraud that we uncovered. , -- fraud frog theme in thethat resulted theft of tens of billions. corruption has been a cancer. i call it the second insurgent the in a rack. insurgency in iraq. you remember the minister and .is deputies stole $1.2 billio ,
samir is in america. he was in the police station, and he is owing to go to jail. why? he is an american citizen. a are after him. >> i cannot talk about the case, but they are after him. >> are there any other questions? fred, last question. think it is important as we have this conversation about details of the program to realize why this is so am wharton.
-- so important. if we realize we do not want to go to war again, we start asking questions about what other options we have in the national arena. this is one of them. you are talking about holding an alternative. i think it is very important that not get lost in the are alson, but you talking about something that would coordinate i committees of -- of thedepartment state department, and you gave a shout out for the program, which i was happy to hear because the experience has a very valuable, but we also found the program was at odds with the traditional international development the cost opus and priorities.
-- international development priorities. there seem to be a lap between anditional development stability operations that i want to ask you about the culture clash. even if we could cobble something together, would a philosophy negate the value that would mitigate it? he usedre clash is what when i interviewed him. he said it is a bureaucratic issue. of the need to reform. if we do not do any in, the .roblem will recur
there is very little act to the across lines within the them. system. fromtake policy guidance national security. that is whose job it is to mediate in all spheres. , andirect are also reports it is unique in executive ranch systems, ands -- these challenges are unique. unless it is identified as a unless challenge, and
there are open discussions about how to resolve it, you will be culture clash again. you whether you have closing comments? first, thank you. it is great to be with you. . really delving into the issue. i have spent part of the mission, and i think it has and it me to contribute, has been a privilege to do that. , andd was a fighter pilot i come from a military background myself. serving in a rack was a privilege. -- in iraq was a privilege. to share the lessons was an honor.
thank you. >> thank you for your president, -- presence, for your long service throughout your career but particularly through the last nine and a half years. i think there are few who have andsame tenure of service ght who have the same insid and the engagement operation that has consumed so ,uch of our effort, our funding and many, many, many lives. i have a really good insight into some of the ongoing
project. dictates,atever the whatever is demonstrated, it's s we ought togest have the capacity to engage in stabilization, whether we believe we will have a large intervention or not. we have heard about u.s. forces owing to jordan to help with the fromover of the crisis syria. , becausees a red flag
it means even if we have the desire not to engage in conflict, we must engage in --bilization, the ability, of thety, and some societies that are really prone to conflict. thank you for the insight you have given us. please checknce, out it predecessor, and i invite you to visit the website to learn more about the conflict in in syria, andlict ongoing operations in them. -- in afghanistan.
mental health coverage. the event is live at 12 p.m. eastern here on the span. a discussion of .ontraception rules we will be live with a conference of catholic bishops. >> making the transition from journalism to books is .xhilarating and frightening rex why did you make that choice. wa>> i have long wanted to workn the ability toof ask for it fully. author maryselling
roach will take your calls, e- mails, and these look common -- facebook comment - comments. >> we continue our discussion of first ladies. they talk about first ladies from martha washington to michelle obama. posted at the new york historical society, it is an hour. [applause] >> look at all of you. i was going to say how good looking. put my glasses on. i am impressed. thank you all for coming.
it is the historical society. there is no better show in new york thomas and i really believe that. our topic is women in the white house. we will talk about their and i hope our speakers will tell us they were enormous the influential. .hat is my hope i already know they are. someone said, there would be no cost to duchenne as it was written if we had not had george washington, and there would read no george washington without martha. explain what you mean. without him it is hard to
imagine but can't to duchenne -- to imagine the cost to tuition looking anything like constitution looking anything like it does. it is pretty terse because it is washington will fill in the gaps with his performance. in many ways martha is key. many things but not everything. .he gives him social status she is the wealthiest widow in virginia. wealth, prominent, social status.
she gives them a lot of comfort, the ability. -- stability. he always has her to rely on. he is a way for eight years. he goes back very briefly. she will spend time with him. many things. and all.n this she does not give him a son, and air to the throne. that is why you can trust him, because he has no one to give the president the two.
-- the presidency to. he says that. here is what george washington draft. says in a first he says, it is a little too personal. divide robert and does not seem fit that my name should be perpetuated by the endearing and sometimes seducing channel of offspring. no child, no family, no earth he can federation -- no earthly consideration could persuade me to accept this appointment. trust me because i have nothing to get him this. george ii.on to make
>> i need to interrupt. are you suggesting without torture washington we might without george washington we might have ended up a monarchy? >> i am sick jesting -- suggesting they were worried about this. only one has a son, adam. thomas jefferson has no sons we know of. madison, munro. palace of the presidents who did not have sons. -- tell us of the presidents who did not have a son. mexico's back to rutherford -- >> it goes back you rutherford
the hayes. here is what it says. these are quotes. adams will work to install his thisas the lords of country. jefferson with daughters only can be trusted. adams has sons who might succeed their father. jefferson has no son. this is the surface of political discourse. >> this has to be the only time when having no son got them somewhere. it is not that martha did not give him a son. four children in five years with her first husband, so
we know who the problem was. this is so interesting. are you suggesting the american people deliberately voted for people who did not have sons because we were so afraid? >> yes, it is in political discourse. is even in the artwork. take a look at this famous painting called the washington family. andhows george and martha their stepgrandchildren. is a kind of sadness. behold the man who has no one is quite looking at each other. there is a coldness. there is an emptiness in the middle. he holed a man with no son. in the middle there is a rising
sun, but it is not a son. this is the take-home lesson for the people. no heir to the throne. you were telling me when the founders wrote in the they had thises in mind. >> if you want to look at the constitution during the ford years, ford could have then for had soughthington reelection. he could have been a version of mubarak. goingnot whether he is to step down but whether his son is going to succeed him or not.
think about india. 8.ur years becomes a less inclinedbeen to leave if his son had been there saying, they there. somee early presidents, had daughters, some had sons. he once with never left voluntarily. son whot one with a voluntarily walks away is rutherford b hayes. waters andnts with childless presidents are more likely to give up power than those with sons. >> that is funny.
>> i told you about four years and itconstitution, becomes eight and not for ever because of the precedent set right george washington. let me tell you about something else. a president has to be 35 years old. ?hat is that about i think it is anti-dynasty. can gete of person elected accept the famous son of a famous father. william pitt the younger was 21 when he entered our limit -- .ntered parliament he got it on his name, whereas 35 you got to have your own
track record. men haverd men -- born a chance to rise. 20 five you have to be in the house of representatives. it turns out people who get there from an extremely young age turned out to be very politically connect did. -- connected. there are no birth certificate. he would later become governor of louisiana. replaces andy jackson. he is the nephew of another congressman. . his name isc william claiborne, and we have
robertsmartha claiborne from louisiana. >> it is a great story. it was not his uncle who got him in. he works as a clerk in the continental congress, and he became good friends with the he wanted toand run for office, and he said, you are in virginia. forget it. makeu really want to something of yourself, go to tennessee. he leaves to go to the senate. there is nobody else in tennessee. the judge of its own members.
that would have been interesting. then what happens, his one vote had as much clout as all of virginia and massachusetts because it went to the house of representatives. he stuck with jefferson. themonth later he was made .overnor of mississippi he said, quick, get on to new so you can hold onto this purchase. he has then in washington ever my mother was the most recent member of congress.
officers wives. a would cook for the soldiers. george could be in this greed. -- indiscreet. when he danceday for three hours straight, so it was good martha was on hand. washington's genius was keeping the army together. he begged her to come to camp .very year she had a great sense of humor. a tomcat hamilton.
they later said, i would have had a better chance against mr. madison alone. he is challenged in his own party by the governor of new .ork clinton does quite well. and latern handily, they said, mrs. madison saved the administration for her husband. but for her, clinton would have won. this.ill ask maybe we should valid this as a
she did not hide it, but she was such a people person. everyone loved her. she said that is because mrs. madison loves everybody. i have read her mail. this is not true. she made everybody feel that way. she apparently was a genius people could not hate her the way they do a lot of other women. you do not even have to be a meddling first lady. likeis an almost madea view of first ladies. powered no one a lack did them to have. you could make the case -- no electedlected -- no one
her to have, although she helped , andand she has his ear she cannot be fired, and it makes people nervous. it is that sense that has not changed. >> talk about that. this sense of unelected power, i have always sensed there is something mysterious. talked about how the public voted with the idea of a monarchy in mind. i think there is a body politic that does not like the unelected wife going out and letting she has power. if they are due more about it, demure about it, ok, but
if they actually grabbed it. >> we want to bring the other running mate into the question. they really start to merge with the president having to running mates. . the 19tht to that amendment is going to change this. just as you have three presidents with very similar personas, george washington, havehower, grant, you different ways of laying the vice presidency. -- playing vice presidency. not seen as intervening in politics. the party system has not emerged yet. >> she did lobby for
veterans benefits. >> maybe martha is more like laura bush, who is out there but is not seen as politically act does or partisan, trying to pick issues that are mom and apple likend not partisan health care. >> other thing that happens is we impose our own ideas on people. with laura bush we thought, she is a librarian from texas and she is a sweet lady. she is the only first lady lady in history to go to the press room, grabbed the microphone herself, and she used it to call for the overthrow of the army's .egime
it was hardly sweet and retiring. she wrote several op ed sonnet, convened by you in conference unop eds on it, conveneda conference, and spent time on issues that were hard core people did not see her that way. >> what is your sense on eisenhower and washington as a similar persona? >> i have hardly any sense of eisenhower at all. >> i love this story. her mother lived in the white house, and her mother lived on .he second floor >> like mrs. obama's mother. >> this was a little different.
.er mother would get up the general did not sleep in that room, and she would phone her mother down the hall, and they would each be served a breakfast tray in bed, and they .ould talk on the telephone >> not in the press room. there are different ways of negotiating. >> also keep in mind this is when theer the war whole american ethic was pushing women out of the positions they had been in, trying to push them out of the public eye.
>> it seems like whatever was going on in the background, inen's rights were popular the country, yet when rosalynn carter tried to take power, the public did not like it at all. >> betty ford. >> the republicans were beside themselves. >> he said, i just knew i would be in so much trouble. he was fighting his party. they were saying, it is not popular with republicans. >> one sees this after the 19th amendment. dwight eisenhower has a certain similarity.
because wars create all sorts of social change anxiety women.n men -- is karl rove. she is a political advisor and and hillary.anor abigail can be out a little more because women are voting. now there is a balanced ticket strategy. you have franklin and eleanor, and he appeals to the moderates, and he says, i cannot control her. silently he is saying, you go,
to forecause this is the price of one. she is appealing to voters. you have jerry in the middle. andy ford energizes them bill and hillary. >> i think that is basically true. before that you had individual when men -- women. one wasln's circle , andted with the campaign she was recognized as someone in
she is the first post women suffer its first lady cabinet, s perkins. this is the 19th amendment thing. we are not yet talking about the other possible president clinton, although we might be in a few years. we will have to talk a little bit about the gubernatorial level post-19th amendment. you get women succeeding their husbands, nellie ross in wyoming, ferguson. right after the amendment, talking about boggs in the house of representatives and lots of others good it is very , these pairings that are made possible. some even father daughter combinatio