tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 18, 2014 6:00am-8:01am EDT
>> it's been said that no one can lay claim to the policy over the past 50 years than the secretary henry kissinger. a vital presence in international and national politics since the 1950s and named one of the foreign-policy magazine top 100 global thinkers. doctor kissinger served as the secretary of state under president nixon and ford and was the national security adviser for six years. during that time the policy of détente with the soviet union orchestrated that relations with china and negotiated the paris peace accord which accomplished to withdraw of the forces from
vietnam through which he won the nobel peace prize in 1973 and parenthetically the gratitude of this young lieutenant in the united states army. thank you mistress. other honors include the presidential medal of freedom, the middle of liberty and the national book award for history for the first volume of his memoirs in the white house years. his new book world order is a comprehensive analysis of the challenges of building international order in the world of differing perspectives, violent conflict, urgent technology and ideological extremism. you learn about the westphalian peace and be led on a fascinating exploration of european balance of power from charlemagne to the present time. islam in the middle east, the
u.s. and iran, the multiplicity of asia and the continuing development of u.s. policy. they are often more important than the answers and secretary kissinger has some brilliant one such as what do we seek to prevent no matter how it happens and even if we have to do it alone what do we seek to achieve even if not supported by anyone what should we not engage in anything if urged by a multilateral group and i think most importantly what does the nature of the values that we seek to advance. you will be intrigued and challenged by this book. i can't finish without mentioning probably one of secretary kissinger's least known but as a transplanted native new yorker i think the
most wonderful honor. he was made at the first honorary the first honorary member of the harlem globetrotters. [laughter] doctor kissinger will be interviewed at this evening by jeff greenfield in the acclaimed acclaimed acclaimed apollo debate television commentator in his own right to lecture here last year about his book if kennedy lived. it's an honor and a privilege to have them with us and i'm sorry i wasn't able to arrange the playing of sweet georgia brown. please join me in welcoming henry kissinger and jeff greenfield. [applause]
when henry kissinger was named secretary of state, the press asked him what should we call you, professor kissinger, doctor kissinger, secretary kissinger he replied your excellency will do. this isn't my plan for tonight. this covers 400 years of diplomatic military history and four or five continents. we have a little less than an hour. when we finish dealing with the book we will talk about the tax policy. but what i want to do is take doctor kissinger what you have written and see its application today.
don't interfere. look at isis which crosses the national boundaries and if you look at the united states on them in serious. it's less than a country as a group of tribes whose central out of power is resentment and vengeance. can you look at the world today and actually say something like a world order is possible or is that an old concept that is simply not applicable today? >> first of all i agree with you that it is no world order today. and perhaps if i tell you what
induced me to write the book i was having dinner with a friend, professor at yale and i was discussing various ideas i had for writing a book most of which had to do with the personalities and he said you've written a lot of literacy. why don't you write about something that concerns you most what concerns me most at the moment is the absence. the different regions of the
world interacting with each other. the roman empire and the chinese empire existed without any significant knowledge and acted without any difference. so the reality of the present period is different societies with different histories are now integrate concept of the world order so i began for two reasons because that was the only system of world order that has ever
been devised and because of the dominance in europe and because the europeans were part of the problem around the world as a concept and in every part of the world whatever order existed as part of an entire. in the islamic world that doesn't exist. europe is the only society where the sovereignty of states and the balance of their actions with each other was believed to
produce international order so that's why it started with that and then attempted to apply to many circumstances. but this wasn't a book you could read to see what the order will be. it's to tell you this is what we are up against now. this is the challenge we have but it does not say that i know what the end result of all these conflicts and ambiguities some of which you describe will be. >> i'm getting the westphalian peace which is 1648 after a 30
year war. either way you like to be the district repeats itself. remember the fight over the paris peace accord table. 1648, the sensibility of the various diplomats headed up the number of doors so that everybody could enter by the same importance and i believe you describe they had to walk -- >> the same moment. >> somethings don't change but i think the more relevant part is is it folly to look at a 360-year-old set of conferences involving one small part of the globe and it somehow has applicability to what we need in the 21st century where you have an islamist power to believe that is destined to rule the world and you may not have a chinese empire did you have a china that is reaching across the globe from resources and you have an international banking system that knows no national
borders. in this age the question for me is that even a model for thinking about as relevant? >> the reason i started this system is a "third year war very similar to now what is going on in the middle east of every faction fighting every other and some of them using their religious convictions for the geopolitical purposes. and at the end of the period which may be a third maybe a third of the population of central europe with conventional weapons they got together on a
number of principles which was the basic unit of international relations should be the state. the state that countries shouldn't intervene in the domestic affairs of other states and that the borders of the international affairs began by attempting to have an impact on and that some kind of international law should be created and that diplomats should be called into acceptance
into the never happened before. and so the interesting thing is none of these people were overwhelming statesmen, but out of the suffering they still have a number of principles which then put several hundred years covered european relations and were brought by the europeans and by us throughout the world. now some of them still of great consequence mainly the basic unit of international relations should be the state and that if you conduct foreign policy on the purely ideological basis and try to undermine the state that
it could be created disappears. now, of course non- intervention , the set of principles of conduct, these were useful instruments. the dilemma of the present period is that several things are happening simultaneously. it is attacked in many parts of the world and the nonstate or as are appearing that have covered used to be associated with the state. and in the political organization of the world of the
economic organization of the world attempts to achieve which means it transcends. i am attempting to do in the book is to say here is where this idea of the order started. sooner or later we will come to the concept of order because without it there will be no principles to govern and there will be no restraint on the exercise of power. how we get there is the big challenge because for us in
america, we believe that our principles are the universal principles that everybody must accept. and i as an individual believed in the universal principles. but how do we relate to other societies, that is one of the great challenges we face. >> but as you point out in the book there are some forces that reject fundamentally the premise that you outlined. the one that viewpoint to which most alarm is particularly as the folks in charge practice that. if i read your book correctly, the people who've who really run around, the theocrat how many believe that it's the only legitimate ways to the idea of
saying if i read your book right you won't interfere here and we won't dare. at a basic level that is on islamic. doesn't that pose a rather difficult challenge? speck that is the internal debate that is now going on. and the point i'm making is at this moment there are three stories models in its own history. the experience of being a nationstate and pursuing normal or traditional nationstates which is more or less what they did.
the second model they have is that of an empire. iran was a great empire extending from the borders today and well into what we cover the middle east extending to the end of africa and you have correctly described which is the view of the present which is that of the islamic face and it should be the governing guide and therefore it is permanent and
the view i expressed here is that iran has to make a choice. it doesn't have to announce the choice but it has to make a perceptible choice which of these three models it follows. one other thing iran is the only one that is in the middle east nor its culture and that it maintains the culture and language so it's always a
distinct feeling of something special about iran so at the end of november we are going to be confronting the end of the culmination of the negotiations about the nuclear weapons. and they have to be judged by the settlement and about what the alternate purpose of the air indian government. >> here's an argument that i've heard. they seem to change they've seen the change in you mention in your book forgotten part of history the 1957 mount saint
goes to moscow and the fear of a nuclear war would lose several hundred million people and if we end up with the communist a communist world, so be it. i gather that it was unimpressed by this argument. 14 years later during the regime the question is when you hear them talk as they do is it useful to point to an example like the evolution of china. it's now at peace with each other that even in northern ireland 800 years of violence is in the east. should we take those examples and say all right. maybe they will evolve out of their current series theories and come to a more salient view of the world.
>> this section was only to describe what came to be boasted of things you cannot play exactly. you can apply the database and what message should there be in touch with each other and how do they communicate with each other and how do they try to achieve together? >> perhaps this evolution occurs but it is not possible that as an american leader you say
because everything revolves. why don't we just sit back and let it evolve and we will see what happens. with respect to some issues, in the case of china the transformation that started out to be built as a model of resolution for the rest of the world that hasn't continued until it was the conflict with the soviet union and caused the
soviet union to move 42 divisions to the chinese border. then he looked at it as a practical problem in the states. how do i protect my states against this and the united states was the only available partner. the perception of the traditional ways of thinking is shown from the first day in office they had concluded that the attempt must be made to bring china into the international system he wrote a
piece called asia after vietnam and there was a hand in the midst of the normal. >> china was in the middle of the cultural revolution, so it was very hard to know to get the dialogue started. but they wrote periodic reports about what they might do and they published the report and it is now available. they published a report in early july, 1971 while i was on my way to china which said it listed
all the arguments i just made of why china should look to the united states but they concluded with this could not have been while he was alive. so one has to wait until he's dead. today we know that it couldn't have happened and that he was alive. >> that's reassuring that it hasn't changed all that much. his jacket was understandable. at any rate then china and the united states had to deal with each other. and they are all available now. the conversations say on my trip
to china we were talking like to college professors of international relations. we didn't go through any of the technical issues that divided us because both of us decided independently that the this point the most important quality to be achieved was can we understand. if we go into this world of three countries, china, russia and the united states when they are cooperating with each other so we were building a kind of
international system and i would say that it was about three years. >> there are so many areas to cover but you raise one of the areas that the critical step is to understand what the other person was -- how it is a point that is made and against the impulses of the advisers he kept trying to put himself in his shoes. so the question that this raises it seems to me that some of the united states biggest miss of steps have come from precisely the fact we haven't understood the train or the people we were trying to act.
i'm not trying to be partisan because i can think of both but it seems the decision to go into iraq which from your point of view you did serve republican presidents but it's clear to me that you regard that kind of notion we would go into iraq and build a democracy in the middle east like a virtuous circle is really naïve if not worse. they did the honor of inviting me to discuss long-range international affairs.
i developed a love of personal affection for him and his concerns. there was some criticism in my personal view. now about the decision to go into iraq, from a security point of view after the united states had been attacked by terrorists in the middle east it was quite rational for the president of the united states to focus on a country that they generally
believe is building a nuclear evidence. it turned out to be wrong but it's also wrong to say that it had violated and have cease-fire agreement on many occasions certified by the united nations and which might be the base -- and it's also to remember that in the clinton administration in 1998, the senate voted in a nonbinding resolution 98-nothing but the damage would be removed
so this isn't an idea that bush introduced, and i supported that part of it. i disagree that after he'd been overthrown that we had the capacity to make a democracy during the military occupation that not only was islamic and therefore have a different approach to the notion of pluralism but also in which there was a profound diversion between the shia and the sunni part and between the kurds and
the sunnis and the shia so i think that is where. >> with respect it does seem to be -- me -- stomach and i explain why i think. >> it does seem to me that history has shown is yes there was a lot of rhetorical notion when the decision was made to seems that the history shows that people within the administration were determined to go to iraq and help shape the evidence and the notion that they were involved in 9/11 was never close to the inaccurate and to take your point throughout the book they were at best victims of delusion about what they could do. we are so pressed for time there are 25 other things i would like to talk to you about.
the point is with a large purpose is of the united states in the construction and there are some things we are able to do and other things we cannot do. >> before i ask the last question i have to make an observation. george bush and george w. bush second inaugural address proclaimed that it will be to spread freedom and tierney everywhere in the world and i thought of you when i heard that because if you were watching at home you are proving something of a television set because it is so a misapprehension of how the world works.
so this is the sort of discussion we need to have. >> if you have a question, raise your hand and please we have to come to a common understanding of what the question is. i will be exceedingly undiplomatic like doctor kissinger in making sure that we have questions. so thanks to the people. i get to call. i'm sorry. let's start in the front row if your national security advisor what would you advise president obama to do sending troops to the middle east?
>> it's very hard. let me tackle the question in another way i've now lived so long that i have witnessed and in a way participated in the wars, some as an active participant in some as an observer that new the key players and if you look at the wars that the united states protected since 1945, we have achieved our stated objective in only one in the first gulf war.
it was sort of a draw and the other three we withdrew from that each of them started like this one with great enthusiasm and then at some point the only thing was how do you get out of it. withdrawal became the only strategy accepted as a general consensus. so what i would say to the president and security advisor and to you is tell me how it's going to end and let's get a plan. i think it was current when americans were murdered on
television for the purpose of intimidating the regions and the results i think it's right for us to respond but we also need a strategy of how it will end and what we are trying to achieve and i would tell him it should be the most important thing that he can do. >> yes? >> can you stand up, it will project better. >> back in the 60s, the u.s. supported the removal of some of
the latin american governments and establishment of non- democratic governments in the region and it will be by all means. when you look back today do you think that it was the right policy for the aqs to support the establishment of those non- democratic everyone's? >> i can't answer the question in the abstract until i know what government you're talking about and whether you consider the establishing of them as a correct description. >> chile, argentina, brazil.
>> that sort of debate is that when these ideas were first debated into the charges were first made partly as a result of the vietnam war the united states was conducting foreign policies and one need not consider what the policies might do. many books have been written and there is no possible way that we can come to a conclusion about
get involved trying to overthrow any government that doesn't follow american preferences and what are the consequences for the united states. >> x. not as if we hadn't done that in the past. >> we try tried to overthrow castro. it's not as though the united states that have whatever system you want it has to be tricky for the companies would seem to me that america was happy to try. >> that was before my time
>> it's easy to sit in judgment after the un. the people are generally out there because they think there's nothing more important that they can do accept an improved security and to the values of the country. this idea that the united states it creates a practical problem. let me give you an experience i know about. in 1973, there was the science of wanting to move out of the soviet into the relationship of
the united states come in from the point of view of stability in the middle east and peace in the region we strongly encouraged it. of course we knew that he was an autocratic ruler but i thought of him as a great man who contributed tremendously to the peace process in the region and i wish we hadn't said that with one who could feel and then he was succeeded by mubarak. in any one year the american
president and security advisor have a finite number of problems that it's possible to deal with when you don't know what the outcome will be and when the outcome may be not at all democratic. that doesn't say that every discussion was correct but to say simultaneously the united states wouldn't be involved everywhere and to say however they should overthrow the government i understand what you said. i am not saying that america has always acted consistently.
i have laid out with the principles should be but i'd seen enough of it to know that the operation in the security one has to make some allowance for the contingent circumstances this was after 30 years intelligence. we are down to the last question or sir. >> it is the principle of the western democracies and one can argue that fueled their rise and success and in the troubled regions of the world seems to be punishable by death in some cases. do you think this is a
fundamental problem that is a long-term barrier to the true global world order? >> first of all i agree with you it is a correct definition of american fundamental principles. in the islamic religion itself possible to separate the state because they are considered to be part of the same overriding philosophy in which they attempted to create a secular state towards the islamic
concept. it isn't so much the case in relations with china because they have no concept. they have no national concept but it's a different issue in china than with respect to the muslim world in the religion and the state emerged. >> i'm going to see if we can get somebody all the way back in the last row. yes. >> $500 for derek's last game by the way. >> i wanted to thank his excellency for all the wonderful
things that he's had to say over his career on the importance of statesmanship and statesmanship wasn't mentioned tonight. and i wonder where can we learn how to be better statesman unaware is statesmanship being talked anyplace in the country that you can sit on as fulfilling that role that was developed in your own writing over the years that reflected on this book. >> that's a very important question because statesmanship consists of helping to lead your
society from where it is to where it hasn't been switched me the combination of courage and character and above all since the trends of the period -- our society is extremely pragmatic and continuous problem-solving rather than the reflection of the historical revolution as its principal objective. there are two other obstacles
were two other problems we face. our process is getting so complicated and so expensive that leaders have to spend so much of their time on the process and raising money and answering questions on television shows that there isn't enough time to reflect about the direction of the future. if you look in the 19th century, they had a succession of prime minister in salisbury for almost a century all of whom whatever
differences they had about the actions and the reason they lived in an environment in which these values were sort of taken for granted. and therefore provided the basis for the creative thinking. i'm very worried and i said in the book about the impact of the way history is taught -- >> you know what occurred to me if you try to go to pakistan and china with today's technology,
september. and i hope if you haven't already that you will take a moment and pick up one of our events calendars and if you haven't already, please follow us on facebook, twitter and sign up for the e-mail newsletter. thank you for coming. i'm pleased to welcome you and especially to welcome the invisible soldiers. the book tells of the privatization of america's national security and exposes where the industry came from, how it operates, and where it is heading. the journalist who's been a staff writer at "the wall street journal" and has taught writing at northwestern and at columbia her previous books on wild ride of a ransom beyond the river and savage piece. please join me in welcoming her to kramer books. >> thank you sarah. it's great to be here.
and especially its it's great to be here because i am honored by the presence of another writer on the topic, david isenberg who is sitting in the front row and some familiar faces of people i've known for a long time to come to this event. the invisible soldier as sarah said as the story is the story of the privatization of defense and security. it is a narrative nonfiction book that is a trajectory to link to stories from the mercenary renaissance of the second half into the age of drones. it's basically the story of the rise of a new industry. the military and security companies. some refer to this as the
corporate evolution of the mercenary trade. but as i have been saying on the road, the word mercenary is loaded and i try from the very beginning to erase it from the discussion because it mercenaries it has to be defined as an individual. it conjures the rather unsavory image involved in the old world mercenaries and involved of mercenaries and involved in the postcolonial neocolonial conflict and it's not that it won't exist anymore, but to call these companies and this industry that i am telling you about that you will read about mercenaries is a little misleading because today's version is fundamentally different. completely different. and it is a critical factor of course that it is the modern corporate business form. these companies are organized
and incorporated into the registered businesses. and they trade and compete internationally. they recruit internationally. they run to the outside financial buildings. and the vast range of services in many of the markets worldwide. and so, one thing that i've learned while i've been on the road is that there are many misconceptions, and one of course is that these companies are just about u.s. contracts. they are just about iraq or about blackwater. some people know of them only through headlines about scandals. lines about scandals. there are many misconceptions we will get to, discussions on that later.
one thing you must realize is that this is an industry that is evolve thing right before our eyes and has been for the last 25 to 30 years. it got a big boost in the iraq war which some people call a first contractor's work beginning in march of 2003. some of these companies got their start then, some larger companies, reference manufacturers, companies that eisenhower would have referred to, is referred to in the military-industrial complex, and in 1961, some of those companies developing subsidiaries to accommodate the new markets and in deet in iraq we have a boost in the bonanza of u.s. contracts in the work of iraq, then we go
forward to now where we could be facing what some people are calling it the second contractor's work. as i said, what we are watching and what i want my readers to be as fascinated by as i am, as i have been the last several years is but evolution of this industry and the vast array of services that the company's offer. everything from logistic support which is something we all know about from halliburton and iraq, logistic support, airtran sport, intelligence analysis, militia training, weapons management, weapons maintenance, weapons training, police training. 8 vast array of services moving
into armed security. and every continent these companies have a presence and they recruit internationally, and they do serve as brokers periodically for mercenaries because some companies are focused on and on security and a offer a wide range of armed and unarmed services but wherever instability threatens development on the global front year, wherever military commitments exceed the capabilities of nations, whatever governments are viewed as incapable of supplying defense and security fast enough in times of sudden conflict,
that is where there are markets for these companies. more specifically in the united states, they assist in contingency operations and if we remain long after traditional troops withdrawal, they also are involved in counterterrorism strategy, diplomatic security, border patrol security, drone operations, and cybersecurity and intelligence analysis and there are other markets in other countries, other nations. with multinational companies, multinationals higher these companies for arms security, development in hospital environments. this has been happening for a long time. the shipping industry one of the
biggest markets is the maritime industry's maritime security which is a fascinating story and each one of these areas, one of the challenges of this book has been that each of these areas, written a 10 volume set and the story of the development of maritime security is really interesting because the shipping industry debated this for a long time but the -- "the invisible soldiers" is that narrative nonfiction book. what i am trying to do is show you throughout a story, through the trajectory of the rise of this industry exactly how all of this happened and also hopefully cac on the fascination and the interest that i have on to you
as the general reader because this is a relatively new industry and it passed through the portal of permanence. it is part of a role, the defense and security strategy and has a worldwide presence. in the book, what i'd do is i move use through that trajectory, introduce you to individuals, take you to london, you follow me around and take you to abundant as if you want to understand the origins -- i hope i'm not stepping on toes nationally or in this room, but it is fascinating in that way because many of the origins for many of the models, some excellent companies in this
arena began in london or it began in england. i also take you to geneva where i introduce you to some really fascinating individuals working since 2006 on something called the swiss initiative which is an international effort to monitor the arms sector of this industry. the name of that chapter is conquering chaos but that is a great adventure and you will see it as same way. but to think that since 2006 there have been groups meeting him geneva to work on a process, that will look more closely -- kind of exciting. i also take you to kansas, to
the command and general staff, and in the military wanted to get the military perspective on this, that is where i learned one of the most interesting aspects of the debate over the use of these companies which is the difference between the efficiency and effectiveness. i get into this now i will be here for the next two hours. maybe somebody in the audience will ask that question but then i'd take you to congress and several congressional hearings and some people in congress who have been trying for greater accountability and take you to new mexico, a place where there are security contractors being trained and i introduce you to
people within the industry, people in the military, in congress, people in the industry who have been involved in it from the earliest stages including journalists who have been following it, what i tried to do and hopefully i have succeeded is to pull to get a the strands of this very large story and show you the components of the evolution of the industry. and to put a human face on those components. i also take you to the story of a u.s. special forces operative who was shot by a u.s. private military contractor in baghdad. and so that story, so there are
-- i introduce you to several companies that i think are quite interesting in their success. and seeing earlier on the road, i learned misconceptions, i learned there was a great interest in this topic. they want to go beyond blackwater, beyond the headlines and they want to know what this industry is about and to what degree are we reliant, what part of our defense and security is part of this, done by these companies and often times there is an image, pulling together
three to five minutes. right don't have any sensationalizing done this. one of my quests in this book, a compelling story, part of the history and world history is a result, and the privatization trend and evolution of privatization and move privatization into various arenas and for you to see that by following this industry and understanding it better you can see a shift in the conduct of war, a shift in our defense strategies for military missions into stability and security operations. you can see the greater use of contractors, for example in africa. recently the u.s. authorization
act, defense authorization act had a report attached to it, about the need for greater monitoring of cybercontractors in our unified command in africa. it is something that will continue evolving and growing. it shows the shift in the conduct of war. it also shows by some accounts the beginning of the fading of the nation's state. these international companies. it shows the operation of borderless business environments. in the book, it is a non-partisan book and it is a fair, hopefully a fair analysis because i get on the inside of the military, the inside of the industry and also i introduce
some contractors and so part of love misconception is that they are all bad. when you read the book you will see there are several congressional hearings and one of them was in 2011, a hearing that was focused on the exploitation of contractors. some of the problems with health care, food, lodging, in certain situations because what you have in this country, in all nations when there is subcontract that is given out there are layers of subcontract so when the subcontractors were addressed largely by the congressional hearing which is fascinating, one of the big questions on the
road which was something i was asking all throughout my research and writing which has been a big concern and should be a big concern to all of us. a couple radio shows call in shows people would say why should we care? that is a really big question, why should we care. if somebody else is doing our defense and security, providing it, some of these companies have been fair, some of them are excellent. the excellent companies don't want the bad companies. they don't want headlines about bad behavior. they have been working on an international code of conduct because this is a bonafide industry. why should we care? in this question, why is the answer. why would we be asking that question if there wasn't a level of in difference?
why should we care? i could be up here for another hour to tell you why you should care but i won't force you to care but you need to care for several reasons and i try to summarize this. you put an offer in front of a microphone for 20 minutes and it is the major risk. it is of to the author to figure out how to convince the most important details and to me i should talk about several questions on the road but this is the one i care about the most because of the fact that it does show in difference. the reason we need to care is partly because we need as citizens of a democracy to know the impact of war. if we don't, we need to ask for
more transparency. we need to ask for more monitoring and accountability and in the book you see the efforts towards that end internationally, but we need to have more transparency. we need to know what the role of private contractors going forward in contingency operations will be, because we need to know in the defense and security of our nation or our neighborhood. where do these people come from. to train them? what companies are they working for so that we can learn more details about this industry that as the wartime contracting commission after three years of study in their report in august of 2011 declared that we are
overreliance on private contractors including the vast stretch of private contractors in contingency operations but with a large focus on this industry. we can't just look the other way. we can't just say you do our defense and security. several passionate people in the military, very passionate on this topic, you have to feel something to win a war. you have to feel connected. the citizens of a democracy must feel connected to the defense of their nation. they need to know who is doing it. we are told the casualties of the iraq war are a perfect example. we were not told the contractor casualties and between spring of 2009, and the spring of 2011, summer of 2011 the contractor
casualties in iraq exceeded traditional military. we need to know that. we need to know it because of many statistics. we need to know it because that is the only way as citizens we can understand the full impact of war. we have to know that in order to work with our policymakers and congressmen and women to make smart decisions about the security and policies of our country. there is also one detail about the number of m i as, there were eight by may of 2011 and seven of those eight were private contractors. some of them were not from the united states because they would
have been subcontractors or you head to look at the breakdown of different countries that we hire private security out of. seven of eight, one was traditional military. and that is another detail. bit in the flow of the book what i am hoping is the you will become interested as i am in all levels of this industry, financial level, expansion, history, origin, the need for more monitoring, the many markets and services and some of the issues like i said of the contractors themselves. some of these statistics as i said are impossible to the days you can't really embrace the
entire industry and say what the revenue numbers are or how big it is, so there are individuals and groups working on that at the moment also, but at any rate i wanted to read you a couple quote it's from a very bright people i interviewed and then we will move on to questions. i would like to read from some of the book but i had an editor who said never fall in love with your own writing. on the road, i never -- i shouldn't be reading all the details, all the paragraphs in my book. i should be reading from some of the sources said he never said don't fall in love with the quotes of your sources. so there are several here, one
of them is from -- actually -- let's do a quote at the very beginning from david eisenberg sitting right here. he said this before a congressional hearing and it sort of livens up to give you a sense of the reliances, and the dependent on private contractors, think back to the alien seas, a film about the indescribable alien creature that has entered the bodies of humans. humans look normal on the outside but inside the alien has wrapped itself around every organ and has become so entwined
that it cannot be excised. the human would die without it. the military and security companies are so intertwined the government would collapse without them. the co-chairman of the wartime contract in commission just in the spring of 2014, he made the comment the one thing that is a given we can't go to war without contract and can't go to peace -- to war without contractors or go to peace without contractors. in a former british army officer who has been active within the industry, the director of a company exceptionally bright and generous individual, very deeply involved in the industry for a long time. one of his quotes was a private
military and security companies will evolve into a multinational and multi -- excuse me -- functional terms. get used to relying on them. and future generations won't know the difference. traditional military will become smaller and smaller and the industry will continue to grow. one from a general at the command and general staff college who has been very knowledgeable on the topic that has been reading about it, conforming himself involved in some of the action in iraq says the nation state with its
ability to act militarily due to political realities becoming increasingly vulnerable to easy solutions that avoid the complexity of government. that is the reality and nothing shows that more than the growth of private military and security businesses. gradually systems of international security that have been in place for a long time as a beginning to fall apart and more anarchy worldwide, the more these companies offered themselves as the solution and i think a really good quote to follow that up with is follows that one, a less known quote, the councils and government must guard against the acquisition of unwanted influence whether salt or unsolved by the military-industrial complex. that is the famous comment by
eisenhower in his farewell address in january of 1961. if i had more time will go into more details about the eisenhower library. very fascinating to see their response to the evolution of what he says. one of the comments that you never really read about was the part of his morning in 1961, crazies there will continue to be and meeting them whether foreign or domestic there is a recurring temptation here to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. so i think that -- how many more minutes do i have?
okay. i think that -- these colorful people in this book, and her colorful comments. i will put aside my humility and read a couple paragraphs. i will be viewed the first two paragraphs and then beat beginning of a chapter is that is about -- i was thinking doug brooks would come tonight, introducing you to the shade -- trade association for private and military security companies in the united states. so first, doug bob brooks, as soon as i read you the beginning. this is the prologue to. the book starts with a prologue to introduce the general reader to the topic through a story,
transformation to the beginning evolution of the industry. corporate evolution and mercenary trade into reaction, and part 3 is expansion so you get a sense of all of the markets and the services provided by these companies. this action includes congress, the military comment and geneva. this is the beginning. what the boy would remember most were the shoes. they were not his shoes and they didn't fit but he was forced to wear them for five hours as he crossed the desert in the middle of the night. at first glance they seem like ordinary leather shoes that they read different because the heels were at the front. shoes with becker heels and soles were the invention of human smugglers who helps people like the boy and his parents to escape from iraq into kuwait.
the idea was if footprints were detected, the path of the journey would appear to be reversed. although the boy wanted to go home that night what stopped him was his best to its understanding that if he did in his backward footprints would define a trail leading to the kuwait border and expose his family's flight. he left iraq in 95. his mother wakened him to tell him he would be going on at desert adventure. for the first time in a year, he thought the anxiety of a sudden change coursing through him like a force in jackson. first time had been 11 months before when in the middle of the night he heard a rapid pounding on the roof, in his half asleep state he had a dream like image that it was his brother. the family had fled to syria months before to avoid fighting
saddam hussein in the iraqi war but he knew it was not that, he began to hear the loud cracking sound followed by his mother's green, soldiers in the security force smash through the front door of the family's home and as his mother watched they dragged away his father who was suspected of be training saddam hussein and was wanted for information. the second shot came in days and months that followed his father's disappearance when his teacher, a boil follower of said bomb turned against him. each morning began with a brutal ritual of thrashing his hands with a stick in pursuit of facts about his father or brother. this was information that could lead to the teacher's promotion but the boy insisted he knew nothing and that was the truth. of the new was he hated saddam hussein. he kept to himself.
it was the first stirring of hatred he had ever felt yet strong enough to shape the rest of his life. that is the very beginning. we will go to -- the chapter called now the debate. in washington, but the hope, those four people participate in the public discourse, and cost-effectiveness. and subcontractors to monitoring, oversight and transparency. it begins with the head of the
trade association, so it begins damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, was the rallying cry of admiral david farragut at the battle of mobile bay during the civil war and in february of 2012 was a message flashing across the computer at the headquarters of the international stability operations association on i street in washington. from the office window on the eighth floor he had a clear view of farragut square. as you like to tell his visitors farragut was the first rear admiral, a vice admiral and admiral in the u.s. navy especially revered for conquering pilots in the west indies. brooks may have known as much about farragut as he did about the i s o a which he not only headed but found. brooks was a driven,
enthusiastic booster. and the capabilities of private military security companies to the outside world but not too much. he described differently public face of a multimillion-dollar business and it was a successful realm as his hero across the park had been in his. so i could keep reading, but i don't want to be -- in case the editor is listening i don't want to look like i ever did. we should probably turn the session over to you, to
on it. what they're trying to do this spring is steady the use of private contractors in bosnia and there is the case study, and those discussion groups about the necessity, how to work with private contractors so that was the beginning of my research and i was fascinated by the fact that folks broke through all stereotypes. this has been happening for years. the u.s. army contract in command began in the fall of 2008. in that spring there is an effort on the part of all those majors who were there working on advanced degrees or taking their year of studies and the concern was how to work with them and to
avoid miscommunication, and let -- you have to read the chapter. it was a -- a very serious -- in bosnia and iraq. what could have been -- how can we expect better accountability? one of the reasons the international code of conduct is the group in geneva trying to to establish international monitoring. one of the points they make is similar to what was going on in those groups in 2009 which is no government will completely regulate these companies. it is probably never going to
happen. suggestions were what if we have a regulatory commission? what if we had a cabinet post since there are so many pvate contractors in so many agencies. what will that look like. there were discussions about that. what does it do, what does it mean in a democracy to have these companies and how do you use them for the benefit of the nation and have enough accountability to prevent misuse, empowering the industry getting too colorful in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in italy, but at any rate there were many discussions that embrace his story and the
monographs that had come -- the think tank of the army. as i mentioned earlier there was a discussion of the efficiency and effectiveness because their concern was these are on call companies. that is how they market themselves to say we are the fedex of defense and security and so it is on call. avoiding a lot of the messy process that is involved in pulling together the troops. and so their concern was the most successful defense strategy in history, they studied some of those too, the most successful ones were not the most efficient ones. sometimes to be effected is a long process so they had great
concern about the on call attraction of the company's. that is one of the appeals. does that answer your question? >> i congratulate you on the book. on the senate race, what that means for the future, what you see in terms -- what sectors -- you talk about drones for example, and what initiatives he will be pursuing in the country or around the world. >> i would like to repeat exactly what he said at the beginning because it was a
compliment about pulling things together, all together in the book. quite a challenge. his question is what do i see as the future for the industry, many markets and lot of money, the simple answer. as i said, the way i described it in the book, i got to switchback here. not an ad for glasses, but basically the general quote but i gave you earlier, as conflicts
develop worldwide, of course this is the use of these companies and there is great expertise in these companies and if you go on the recruitment websites or really big companies, the ra of services offer is so immense and the future of the industry in this country certainly, water patrol, the immigration situation, contracts, up weather organizations are contract things them for homeland security or border control division, not the drone industry, that part of the book that you will find rather interesting, i did, in terms of all the studies. a conduit for you. i have been interviewing people
for years on this. i read many studies about the operation drones and the number of people it takes. it is a very labor-intensive operation. is not the image you have, another misconception on the road, five or six people focusing on something and pushing buttons. hundreds of people -- there is a growing involvement in privatisation of the -- price of the drones industry, the drone operations which going back to the military was something that one of the people i interviewed was concerned, it was someone in the marines who said he was concerned about personalized warfare and when paired with private contractors and drones,
the average citizen is too laird for conflict. i think that area was maritime security. you have to look at this in a fair way. and the sensationalizing. you have to realize success, at that is one of them. because the shipping industry debate at this and the piracy and terror at sea are all the issues has diminished. and in 2015, the importance of
monitoring private contractors. we have to analyze what happened in iraq and afghanistan. lots of things regarding the u.n.. a study just came out. the problem with this book is it is ever changing and evolving. the study came out a couple months ago showing that the un increased its budget by 30% since 2009 in private security. if you interview someone at the un, the reason is obvious. it is becoming so dangerous. we have to have armed security. when you read the book you can see how the parallels of the
increased conflict and hostile environments have brought home an expansion of markets for these companies. you can also see that like any industry, there are certain companies that get the most work. and a very big company including the third incarnation of blackwater. and following this topic, it changes -- it will be very interesting to see what happens in the weeks ahead and the role the private contractors will play, think about how scholars have called the iraq war the first contractors war. i mentioned that earlier and are we looking at the second
contractors war and if so what do we need to do to prepare for that, what do we need to ask about our government as we go in terms of transparency, accountability, and oversight. wouldn't it be fascinating to be told to include the company's and the contracts, there are so many contracts in so many companies but to be told something about the role of these companies in the larger picture, it seems that would widen the scope of our participation in our nation's defense and security. another question out there. [inaudible question]
[inaudible question] >> the question was about the u.n. and we talked about that a little bit. there is more on that in the book. the second question about regulation within this country. >> it doesn't really address -- >> they have been addressing the issue, the un is very interesting situation because it is a group within the u.n. that has been addressing this situation and fabulous people going to geneva to these meetings regarding -- so the
u.n. is involved in recognizing their need for private security and at the same time recognizing the need for greater monitoring the u.n. working group. on mercenaries. there is recognition on international level, certainly recognition within the un. when i found out since 2006 there had been people working on this concept of international regulation. the international red cross, the swiss government, as humanitarian lawyers, even rights involved in it. like we said before, you don't want headlines about bad
behavior within the industry to completely ruin the concept of what we do if you are doing a good job that it and you don't want -- there are big problems. there are reasons there is an international group that has been working since 2006 on better monitoring. since i am in washington, i don't think this will take away from the sales of my books that there is the page turner, 240 page report that came out of congress, the wartime commission report, it embraces all private contractors in iraq and afghanistan from 2003-2011 but it is fascinating the detail about the reasons for better
monitoring and you see that in the book. the incidents you may not have heard about. and everyone who is knowledgeable about this and working on it including representatives of the u.s. the possibility for human-rights issues, fraud waste and all the bad behavior that you see in headlines. they are also aware of the fact that this is an industry that has passed through the portal of permanence so that means it must be closely monitored and it must be respected for its power and use. another quote from the former
british army officer was brilliant, he said this is a story, the evolution of the industry, a story straight out of science fiction. the iraqi conflict watered it big time. now we have a new crop that will spread globally. many years from now it may have to be stopped but for now it must be used and must be closely monitored. anyone taking a close look will tell you that. and so that is part of the inspiration for the book, to deliver a fair analysis that shows all sides and the reality at this point in the early 21st century what we are looking at. and be fascinated by it. it is part of military history, business history and we are watching it. i will do one more quote if i
can find it but very quickly from someone who used to be known as or has a reputation for being a mercenary, let me see if i can find it here. this says a lot about this was somebody who runs a very successful company, who worked in africa, victorious in england. all names are in here. i interviewed him for several hours a couple blocks from here a couple years ago, and a couple of his quotes are very revealing about the interesting aspect of the industry and the fact that
it is viewed by many who have been following it for years as something permanent so we need to wake up to it and improve the monitoring. two paragraphs. alternatively charming and confident and defensive, witty and somber, he spoke for a long while about the evolution of the sector as he called the industry, quote, the american companies came later, the british were earlier, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, part of our past, we have been around doing this for a long while. he sold the trajectory of analogous to the history of the american railroad industry, quote, at first they were accused of everything but they
worry essential as the world was changing and they in turn changed the world. the global frontier is like america's -- the global frontier is like america's while west so the analogy makes sense. and another analogy for his industry, start wild and become part of the establishment and experimental music mainstream like rap. it took 20 years and what is all the fuss about? so i called the chapter one is all the fuss about? the point is there have been people for years, the last several years working on and also people within the industry working on a system of guidelines and regulations. so partly out of perhaps the cynicism individual nations are not going to regulate them and also the fact that they have
become global wild cards. there are a couple examples of that recently, and one just very recently in the spring of 2014 when we sold billions of dollars, apache attack helicopters to iraq, there needed to be more people in the spring, late winter, early spring of this year. and to train workers and train the military how to use those weapons, wanted -- and to do that. we didn't hire them. the iraqi government did. there are several instances, it may have gotten its biggest boost from us in the war in iraq
with the bonanza of u.s. contracts, and they don't belong to us. it is an industry and they are looking for markets and wants to make money so that -- that is the fact that you need to get across. my cause is more transparency and deeper understanding of it and recognition is part of the system. >> the industry, typically destructive. you have done a wonderful job. difficulty in answering the question why should we care, the
reason you have that problem is we have that there. i think what the characterization -- essentially -- you know that the kind of thing, fundamental problems, i believe that the regular -- [inaudible conversations] >> we didn't go into the chapter where i get into the advocates for change and the war on one.
this is my sixth book and it is the hardest by have ever attempted of any front-page story any book because like i said, i want to be fair. my instinct as a journalist is -- we are supposed to find out why things aren't working, why people get hurt, why there is fraud, why there is waste, why there is human abuse in the pages of this book you walked away with the sense of collateral damage of this industry thus far, and that is why it is important, and the potential for the same to happen again if we use them again going into the second contractor's war. there has got to be an urgency
about this and the first step in the urgency is to recognize that they exist. and for the general public to recognize that, to get through to everyone to want to read this and to realized what this industry is capable of and why there have to be close monitors. it is true that any attempt especially if it involves the industry in those meetings in geneva and the documents referred to, which is the first stage of this initiative, yes, i refer to that as a chess move in the book and when an industry gets involved in regulation you have to look at the history of regulation and other industries like the banking industry there are some parallels.
one of the biggest steps and i certainly learned that on the road is many people have no association with the industry except the word blackwater and various scandals having to do with it so it seems to me the first step in seeing that the government pay closer attention, there is more transparency, that people have to be aware of it. they have to know the facts so they can ask their congress men and women what are you doing about this? who is defending us whether it is in our local communities or internationally? who is defending this? what companies do they work for? how much is subcontracted to you gone up or peru and how well are they trained? just to have the facts to ask the question. that you are right. that is always the case.
i would say, david eisenberg who has been following this, says we are at an important crossroads at this point in terms of monitoring and transparency. we have a chance to going forward into new contingency operations. this is a moment in time that future historians might look back and say they should have learned a lesson in iraq and the turning point was 2014-15. >> we have to end it now. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you for coming. >> i think we can all be grateful we have the facts so come up and support your independent bookstore so thank