tv Washington This Week CSPAN September 7, 2014 3:30am-5:28am EDT
questions, british prime minister david cameron condemned the murder of a journalist and told members that the u.k. would never give in to terrorism. on monday, he announced new the passportsize of citizens accused of terrorism. he answered questions on the scotland independence vote scheduled for september 18. prime minister's questions tonight on c-span. >> vice president joe biden gave the weekly address in place of president obama who return from the nato summit. he outlined the efforts in reviving the economy and for raising the minimum-wage. u.s. senate candidate dennis -- dan sullivan they've the republican address and talked about smaller federal government and energy policy. >> ladies and gentlemen, this is joe biden, i'm filling in for
president obama, while he addresses the nato summit in wales. when the president and i took office in january of 2009, this nation was in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the great depression. our economy had plummeted at a rate of 8% in a single quarter -- part of the fastest economic decline any time in the last half century. millions of families were falling underwater on their homes and threatened with foreclosure. the iconic american automobile industry was under siege. but yesterday's jobs report was another reminder of how far we've come. we've had 54 straight months of job creation. and that's the longest streak of uninterrupted job growth in the united states' history. we've gone from losing 9 million jobs during the financial crisis to creating 10 million jobs. we've reduced the unemployment rate from 10% in october of 2009
to 6.1% today. and for the first time since the 1990s, american manufacturing is steadily adding jobs -- over 700,000 since 2010. and surveys of both american and foreign business leaders confirm that america once again is viewed as the best place in the world to build and invest. that's all good news. but an awful lot of middle class americans are still not feeling the effects of this recovery. since the year 2000, gross domestic product -- our gdp has risen by 25%. and productivity in america is up by 30%. but middle class wages during that same time period have gone up by only fourteen cents. folks, it's long past time to cut the middle class back into the deal, so they can benefit from the economic growth they helped create.
folks, there used to be a bargain in this country supported by democrats and republicans, business and labor. the bargain was simple. if an employee contributed to the growth and profitability of the company, they got to share in the profits and the benefits as well. that's what built the middle class. it's time to restore the bargain, to deal the middle class back in. because, folks, when the middle class does well, everybody does well -- the wealthy get wealthier and the poor have a way up. you know, the middle class is not a number. it's a value set. it means being able to own your home -- raise your children in a a safe neighborhood -- send them to a good school where if they do well they can qualify to go to college and if they get accepted you'd be able to find a way to be able to send them to college. and in the meantime, if your parents need help, being able to take care of them, and hope to put aside enough money so that your children will not have to take care of you. that's the american dream. that's what this country was
built on. and that's what we're determined to restore. in order to do that, it's time to have a fair tax structure, one that values paychecks as much as unearned income and inherited wealth, to take some of the burden off of the middle class. it's time to close tax loopholes so we can reduce the deficit, and invest in rebuilding america our bridges, our ports, our highways, rails, providing good jobs. with corporate profits at near record highs, we should encourage corporations to invest more in research and development and the salaries of their employees. it's time for us to invest in educational opportunity to guarantee that we have the most highly skilled workforce in the world, for 6 out of every 10 jobs in the near term is going to require some education beyond high school. folks, it's long past due to increase the minimum wage that will lift millions of hardworking families out of
poverty and in the process produce a ripple effect that boosts wages for the middle class and spurs economic growth for the united states of america. economists acknowledge that if we do these and other things, wages will go up and we'll increase the gross domestic product of the united states. my fellow americans, we know how to do this. we've done it before. it's the way we used to do business and we can do it that way again. all the middle class in this country want is a chance. no guarantee, just a chance. americans want to work. and when given a fair shot, the american worker has never, ever, ever, let his country down. folks, it's never a good bet to bet against the american people. thanks for listening. may god bless you, and may god protect our troops. >> hello, this is dan sullivan from the great state of alaska. i'm a 20 year marine, currently serving as a lieutenant colonel and commanding officer of 6th
anglico, united states marine corps reserve. i've served as alaska's attorney general and natural resources commissioner. and just a couple weeks ago, i was honored to be chosen as alaska's republican candidate for the u.s. senate. alaska is a beautiful state with incredible opportunities. we have oil, natural gas, hydropower, minerals, fisheries, timber, tourism -- and a young, energetic, highly-skilled workforce. unfortunately, i worry that my three teenage daughters won't be able to take full advantage of all that our state has to offer. why? because rather than being a partner in prosperity, the federal government has become an obstacle to progress. federal agencies won't allow alaskans to build crucial roads and bridges. the epa and washington, d.c. try to dictate how we manage our state-owned lands. the interior department locks up huge swaths of oil and gas resources, stifling our economic
potential and costing us high-paying jobs. this problem isn't specific to alaska. it's actually nationwide, and it's being quarterbacked by president barack obama and senate majority leader harry reid. the obama-reid agenda has locked up america's natural resources, burdened small businesses throughout the country with an avalanche of regulations and suffocated job growth through a complete disrespect for the rule of law. what our friends on the other side of the aisle don't understand is that none of this is helpful. we all lose when the federal government stifles responsible resource development -- it means fewer jobs, less revenue, higher energy costs and a diminished manufacturing ability to grow our economy. but the american dream is resilient. time and again, americans have proven themselves up to the challenge of creating new opportunities and handing off a better world to our children.
all we need is new leadership in washington to make it happen once again. a republican senate would approve keystone xl pipeline jobs, because canada is our neighbor and ally. we'll authorize more offshore development, because it's good for coastal states and the rest of the country. we'll seize the opportunity to expand our energy trade, because that will benefit our nation, and others who need energy -- like ukraine. and, when it comes to alaska, instead of watching federal agencies say "no way," "not here" or 'never going to happen,' we'll open up areas like the national petroleum reserve and the arctic coastal plain to responsible development and will do so, maintaining the highest standards to protect our environment. as we do, we'll create new jobs.
we'll reduce our debt. we'll improve our energy security and we'll drive the cost of energy down -- not up -- for families and businesses. another important way we can empower americans, especially here in alaska, is to reform our burdensome federal regulations in a way that makes sense for today's economy. right now we're stuck in the last century and the old system is needlessly stifling us. solving problems does not have to mean big government solutions dictated by d.c. bureaucrats. republicans like me believe that the key to getting our country back on track is less government intrusion into our lives and more freedom for you. if we empower americans to control their own destiny, we can reinvigorate our economy, build a brighter future for our kids and get our country back on track. i hope you'll join us. thanks for listening. may god bless alaska -- and may god bless america. >> u.s. military rules of engagement two and a impact on
soldiers in the battlefield. a held spending projections and remarks abide secretary of state john kerry. >> with congress returning monday, here is a message for one of the c-span competition winners -- , it makes up 75% of our body. take water away and humanity would perish within a week. water is the most vital substance to a human body but because of humans nearly 50% have lost lakes and estuaries are unsuitable. the u.s., we learned today water for granted. faucets, bob waters, and flush and flushttled water
toilets reinforce. step outside and the diminishing conditions tell a different story. water pollution kills marine life and destroyers ecosystem and disrupts a federal -- a fragile ecosystem. congress, you must provide federal funding. nation.blood of our it must stop here. >> join us wednesday for the theme of the documentary competition. on u.s. military rules of engagement and how they can hinder soldiers on the battlefield. a former navy seal commander along with a law professor who served as an army of attorney. from thealso hear
father of a navy seal who son was killed in action a during the afghanistan war. this event is hosted by the institute of world politics and it is one hour, 45 minutes. >> good afternoon and welcome to the institute. i am president of the institute and for those of you who are new to us, we are aging graduate school of national security affairs and we offer five different masters degrees program at 17 certificate programs. we have a faculty almost exclusively of scholar practitioners and we specialize in teaching all of the different parts of statecraft and instruments of national power including a military strategy, intelligence, counterintelligence, art of cultural, arts of diplomacy, strategic , economicions
strategy, and a so on a. and how each of these are integrated into the overall symphony of our foreign policy and grand strategy. we have a regular lecture series are where we address multiplicity of subjects related to world affairs and we are honored today to have several speakers put together an great onted by two wonderful friends of the institute. cheryl has been a longtime supporter of our -- and those who serve our country in uniform of our wounded warriors and various and staunch advocate of a strong national security policy. ken, who is going to be the
maestro of our afternoon here, career a very long principally in a law and investment banking. but he has a very wide ranging some ofs stemming for his earlier days in education where he got a master degrees in middle eastern languages and literature. of the law school at the university of california at berkeley and he has served as an attorney with a great firm in los angeles. and was a founding and senior zinsky.of cohen and as part of his civic activities various having to do with the military and national security,
ken has served as an adjunct jag lawyer, volunteering with the u.s. army in california. been a long concerned with issues of the conditions under which our fighting men and women have to try to achieve has beenectives and he focusing lately on the whole question of rules of engagement. i am going to turn it over to yourith gratitude for extraordinary citizenship. citizenship and concern about armed forces and ensuringand for maximum wisdom in our defense and national security policies. ken will introduce several of our other contributors.
ken cohen. [applause] >> thank you, john. many thanks to you and to katie and the others at the institute for hosting today's program on rules of engagement. cheryl and i are very proud to be associated and supporters of the institute for a number of years. we of witnessed his dramatic academic a leading institution promoting the values of western so you -- civilization's democracy and we thank you. a couple of housekeeping issues. haveions and comments, we a fairly significant amount of time set up at the end of the program rather than each person speaks.
-- one thing i would like to note is this is being sound -- espn --i said by [applause] [laughter] but it is cpap -- a c-span. comments and opinions of all of the speakers are there on and not to those of the institute. wife, cheryl, is fond of reminding me multiple occasions, that i am the least knowledgeable and experienced person on this panel today. and i think the only advantage i can see and that is i expect to our secretary of state feels almost occasions. [laughter] today's program focuses on the
rules of engagement and tactical directives promulgated by state assessment jim -- successes and generals in afghanistan appointed by the commander in chief of the coalition forces there. while a number of our invited guests are familiar with the rules of engagement and tactical direction, the nonclassified published expressions of rules of engagement. for others, today's program will be an introduction into a new and important concept. i want to provide a little background primarily for those people. many years and much hard statesn 2005, the united established standing rules of engagement for its fighting forces. the rules of engagement are the primary tools for regulating the use of force in combat.
while incorporating traditional rules of combat of civilized as the geneva conventions and typically referred to as the rules of war, the rules of engagement incorporate not only issues such as political objectives and mission limitations that restrict military force used for a number of reasons. some of these reasons might be in that the rules of engagement may be designed to accommodate forobjectives and allies foreign military action. inever, incorporated standing rules and for centuries the right of war, war to defend themselves. section six of the standing rules of engagement declares that commanders also retain the right and obligation to exercise
self-defense in response to a hostile act demonstrated hostility. it is this right, the bedrock right of self-defense, which has been effectively eliminated in afghanistan. warriors to fight with both hands tied behind their backs. questionw people would the statement our commander-in-chief is a muslim sympathizer. it is not bit difficult for him to locate overly mobile general officers who would put forth thrills of engagement that under concept ofcredited trying to win the hearts and minds of afghans by demonstrating islamic sensitivity. overly restrict the way the u.s. fights in afghanistan. these are obama administration
rules of engagements have not only resulted in skyrocketing casualties for u.s. troops, but have resulted in significant increases in civilian casualties as well. and emboldened the enemy, qualifies without any of these restrictions that we impose on our forces and other civilized countries. that enemy is far able better to kill and maim without significant fear of reprisal because of the overly restrictive limitations and rules of engagement mandate. a few brief quotes from tactical directives would make this a parent. .his is general mcchrystal "i recognize the disciplined deployment all force to our troops and we must work to mitigate wherever possible. in theve use of force
alienated population would produce far greater risks." and in the use of air to ground fire against residential compounds is only arise under very limited and prescribed circumstances. petronius, prior to the use of fires, the command are proving the strike must determine that no civilians are present. eryeral john allen "ev civilian casualty is a detriment to our interest and the afghan government. even if the insurgents are responsible." quote presume every afghan is a civilian on lots -- unless a parent. you will hear more and today's program about how the rules of engagement promote in action or
hesitation on the battlefields with the devastating consequences. member who a service does not follow the rules of engagement which is in order can be and is frequently court-martialed. a term in leavenworth could be the result. end in to follow could reprimand. our worries and the number of increase. casualties there is no wonder these rules of engagement became known as the suicide rules. no surprise that as a result of these rules of engagement many of our nation's most honorable and best warriors have decided
to end their military service. as one brave warrior stated, i did not sign up to be sacrifice, i signed up to fight. i would like to ask my wife to introduce our special guest, karen and billy. cheryl? [applause] >> the opinions expressed today are those of our guests but is really wonderful of you to host us and talk about such an important subject. guests and special those are the warriors. and him.eg, frank, thank you. some of you have been to afghanistan recently have come back and have gone again.
as some of you have seen friends by the rules of engagement that you have had to work and fight under. why? why is a big question. a question that mr. this -- mr. mrs. von asked when their son and 29 other americans were shot down. 90 days after osama bin laden was killed. sound was an in filtration of our government and take a look. -- what they found was an infiltration of our government, take a look.
>> thank, y'all. sorry. today.ing us here proud blue star family -- who had a son, a brother, a who lovednd a father, this country, cool new and it knows -- who knew and knows the enemy he was engaging against. was able and is able to see good and evil. 2011, that blue star turned to gold. in the days and weeks and the months that followed, karen and
i began to discover and uncover many, many disturbing things that we wish we'd never had to tell you the truth. tonighton had died that 47 special chopper , inn by the night stalkers a sky full of fire and bullets, i would not be standing here today, but that is not what happened. october, we were brought into a debriefing and we were told two things. one was that tonight, that night of the assault, the most for beer assault force in the world was flying in an antiquated
1980's.ted because we do not have enough special operation choppers to fly our warriors on. congressmen,y politicians and even high-ranking military officials will take today if you give them the opportunity that one aircraft is just as effective and i will tell you they are liars. website, to boeing's they will tell you plan what the ch-47 was made for. my son or have kept the 29th others off of that. because of the type of men they were, this government, this administration, this government equipment andbest
rules of engagement that can possibly be given to our warriors to defeat a savage enemy. night not of that happened. there were on the antiquated helicopters and we learned when the chopper was shot down, 30 americans dead on the ground. the team overhead did not take out the men who fired. although one of the chopper's and to the ac-130 gunships in the gun camehere from and and not take them out. the ac was denied to take them out. the ah did not even ask. in testimony, the air weapons team, when they were asked about the chopper that night, they did not request it because they had
given up basically. it is a one in a million chance that we can almost never get assault fire cleared. we know the men on the ground that night. pre-assault fire but there was none. we do not know why. we also know -- tell me how many minutes. were sevenw there afghans aboard the chopper that night that nobody will tell, they were not in the same men listed on the manifest. no one will tell who those afghans were. we know according to an operator, who was at our house with an admirable, they were changed out at the last minute by some commander. there may have been nothing nefarious there but we do not
know. what i do know is that in 2009, our ambassador to afghanistan made a public statement that we know that the afghan national army has a full trade with -- is infiltrated with taliban. mainding to the taliban's because of theng afghan national forces and our defense and many of our senior listen, i do not like to say these things folk but it is the truth. it is not easy for karen and i because we love our military. but many of our senior military leaders have compromised our warriors. we fight alongside a group called operational group made of the national police and afghan
national security. they have the eyes and ears on every special operation that takes place. it is not my opinion the straight and the military. they have the very equipment to watch the operations take place that our tactical operating nato forces do and they have the radios and see and hear everything take place and the authority to squash every special operations mission. our specialnt operation forces to the islamic republic. afghanistan.lic of this is criminal. memo signed by the general and the title is it the ization of forces.
these men have been but trade by many others senior military leaders and certainly by the administration. , i never thought i would have to learn anything about rules of engagement. for what i've learned is not pleasant. please forgive me if i say something wrong. by rules handed down by the andander-in-chief enforced listen, most of these people will never, ever see the battlefield and most of these people were never going to the these would see the blood train of their buddies' body's or have a bullet whiz by their head.
most of these rules are written over white lead and dinner cloths and washington, d.c. of by people who do not know what is going on. it has to stop. the problem is our defense cannot speak up. let me give you two instances. last night it illegal to our operatives in afghanistan are confused. they do not know what their mission is. hesitation should never take place in the battlefield. a 29-year-old marine was on fox news and said at the rules of engagement have to be modified before we going to war again. son when he came home from deployment, we would talk. sometimes i would hear him say things. family and ind in christ. i want to say, is there something that could have been done?
those words never left the tip of my tongue because i love my son too much to ever put any hesitation in his mind if he were in front of the enemy. , the peopleyou this and washington, d.c., senior military leaders are doing it every day. ac-130 was tonight at multiple times to engage the enemy. even though there was 0%. ourme tell you this folks, warriors are fighting a vicious, savage enemy. i will to you today, the greatest killing filled for our war fighters has been opened up it mustngton, d.c. and be stopped. it must be stopped. is up to us, the
american citizens. it is not just about [indiscernible] said, manywhat ken are getting doubt. many's are season operators that have been there for years because they are not allowed to fight. we must stand and defend our defenders. thank you folks. [applause] >> thank you so much for being here this afternoon. the willingness to put it together and all of the leaders after the institute. try to be very brief. you saw the numbers in the short film about people killed since we implemented the strategy in 2009 better known as the winning hearts and minds campaign. what i will like to share is even more staggering number. that is the wounded in action. in the first 7.5 years in
38ghanistan, we had 26 soldiers come home wounded. we are talking about traumatic brain injuries, amputations. with had a major habitation because their major warfare is ied's. over the next three years after the strategy was implemented, 15,044 soldiers came home wounded. increase000% per year in wounded and action and nobody is talking about it. you have heard a you are going ofhear more about the part rules of engagement and billy and i could talk to you for five days about what was learned. senior military leadership and current administration.
i want to make us human. the most important thing i can do is to make you understand that every one of those numbers we just recited has a circle of family and loved ones. a circle that is forever forever change. i want to make a personal. i want to tell you a little bit about our son. aaron, he wouldn't tell anybody who will listen that he would one day be a navy seal. he gave his life to christ at an early age. there was a lot of good ends. ir father -- his father and know where he is right now. it drove with this force in him to do what is right for america and the world. aaron had this presence about him always pointing out what was wrong and how to fix it. how can we fix it? how can we make this world better?
he always thought he goes serving this nation. i want to make a brief because his story is big enough to fill a book. was i said by the time he eight he wouldn't tell anybody he was going to be a navy seal. in his senior year, he obliterates the a.c.l. but he had it replaced and rehabbed it was back on track. he was going back into the seal track. before the end of the year, he obliterates the knee again. he thought he would have a replaced and get back out. he was going to achieve his dream. unfortunately when the surgeon came out of the surgical suite, he told us there was nothing we could do for his knee. there was too much damage and there is nothing left. was going toron
spend the rest of his life's somewhat incapacitated and could never do they without a brace. when heour surprise came home a few months later after 9/11 and told us i joined the civil challenge program. his father's response was it you would never make it. he had no knee. the first thing i said, doesn't the navy know about your knee? he said of course not. to make a long story shorter, she graduated -- she graduated -- he graduated. aaro always knew that god allowed him to achieve his dream. because of that, his father and i knew that no matter how vile the circumstances around his he was doing --
we knew he was exactly what he was meant to do. i want to spend my last couple of minutes telling you about to be applications of the lies being caused by rules of engagement. we absolutely are convinced the rules of engagement claimed his lies and 29 other americans. here are couple of stories we learned. there is greg buckley, jr. he was a moraine that called and told his -- he was a marine that called and told his dad i will not make it home. he said, i will be killed by one of the afghans i am having to partner with on the base. guess how he died? he was killed by one of the afghans on his base. soldiers were unarmed but the afghans were not. they opened up fire on a group of men and killed three
americans and wounded one very tragically. the second thing is about jordan. he was on an american base and while our men are not armed because we're trying to play political games with our soldiers' lives. the afghans are armed. instant,articular jordan was walking across the pavement while an afghan was manning the watchtower on their base, armed with a machine gun. men below and the killed two. and kept shooting for so long that jordan's life could have been saved. anddy could do anything jordan strangled on his own blood. is -- this the most
egregious. we learned from a ranger friend on by ayou are fired taliban member and they run behind a rock and duck down, when they pop back up, you are not allowed to open fire on to you verified they did not lay their arms down. this is the insanity that cost life.no his he was out on a platoon and they came under fire by taliban members. the first thing that taliban did because they know the rules of engagement is they ran into a building. do?s what sandrino had to he had to call his base on his radio and ask for permission to because theyn opened fire on down. guess what to be answer was? no.
sandrino began arguing they are bad guys and they opened fire. the answer continue to be, no, until sandrino was shot and killed. is unacceptable. we had a member come to us and say their greatest fear on every operation is being shot in the by the afghanad component they are being forced to work with. he says there are constant standouts. this man was 2.5 years short of a retirement package when he that he loved. his quote was "i did not join to be sacrificed. i joined to fight." he quit. we are losing our bravest and brightest and strongest and heroes. they have been betrayed by this
government, by the senior military leadership was not all of them, but people in key places that are not getting this right. another thing the member told us when he tried to display tar leaders what was happening in those raids at tonight, they told us we were being ill logical. -- illogical. that is on acceptable. said, they do not have a voice of their on him is up to us to defend our defenders. [applause]
can you imagine? one head after another. and yet this administration did nothing. they didn't put force in place. so, again, we're going to fight isis. i'm not in the administration. i'm running for congress. and the commander in chief is the executive. but i would hope he would consider putting no fly zone immediately between iraq and syria. that's not about the air. the no fly zone allows you to look at what happens across the borders, allows you to have some air-to-ground camability -- capability.
allows you to box them. we have to box them and arm the kurds with what they need to win. we have to work with the sunnis. the sunnis aren't happy. if you know about the sunnis and aman, aman is like a pastor, a mayor. the aman is the kwenty sen shall structure of that village. they don't like having their structure for centuries put on its head. so i think there's an opportunity. the opportunity is to work with the sunnis, work with the kurds and eradicate isis through american leadership. if it takes boots on the ground, it takes boots on the ground. but we have to fight this battle there and not here.
and shutting down the southern border for our nation that built the panama canal and the turn of the century, you can't tell me we can't build the fence, build the facility, build the structure that we can secure our border. i bet if you ask governor perry, i think governor perry could shut down the border. empower them to shut do you know their border. they live it every day. someone asked why would you want to run for congress? america is a fourth quarter team. we didn't get involved in world war ii until they sunk our battleships and we didn't really get involved in our war on
terrorism until they knocked down our towers. if you haven't been to new york and walked around the hole or read the names of the firemen or the passengers, i think every american should. we didn't get involved in our government's financial calamity until the government was shut down. i can tell you people are paying attention. we're all the stake holders to make sure this of this country's success and prosperous. if i asked how many trust the united states government, that answer would be appalling. probably been to 60 countries and fought in a lot of them and i can tell you what happens when a country of people no longer
trusts their government. it is africa, it is the middle east, but it's not here. we all have a stake in making sure we hold our elected officials in bureaucrats accountable. we deserve the truth. we can take it so with that, thank you very much. it's been a wonderful opportunity to come to washington, even though i prefer montana. but it's great to be here and thank you for the host. [applause] >> instead of having just questions and answers -- people can certainly ask questions, but it's also a time for comments from people who want to comment.
george rice. shattered every day for victories that were purchased by his buddies overseas and stolen here at home. i wanted to thank you for that. that said, i want to revisit one of the elements that defines this most important of presentations. i wonder if the panel would elaborate upon the role that strategicic operations have had in the united states against -- say directed energy weapons that would divest the u.s. adversaries of their tactical advantages of hugs noncombatants
with the goal of united states -- >> i know it's a complex question. it's a challenging one. anybody have any comments on that? jeff or ryan? >> the enemy obviously knows that they cannot -- they haven't got a chance. they also know that we have this idea that somehow we want to be quote unquote humane. and they use that to their own advantage. they will use women and children such as hamas. they'll hide behind churches or whatever they can for the advantage. they also realize the issue of propaganda. they know if they can win the propaganda war, they can win the war. militarily we were not defeated in afghanistan, we were not in defeated in vietnam. the politicians did not win
because they did not understand the overall -- people do not understand what the military is to be used for. my presentation is real simple. i'm a conservative. we're very simplistic people. i notice my liberal colleagues, they go on for two or three sentences. our conferences are -- we get it. but somehow the enemy understands the fact that we are confused people. we're not exceptional -- and they use it against us. so we don't think like they think. we want to think that the enemy thinks like we think. they do not think like we think. and that's their greatest weapon. we have the technology, but they've got the propaganda weapons. i can tell you other stories on
how they use them. >> any other comments? >> yes. this has been a very, very interesting presentation by all speakers. as a mother of a son who was in afghanistan shortly after the bomb, i can express how heartbroken -- my sympathy for their status. i can imagine my situation if the same had happened. but my son happened to have also been at the base in afghanistan where a lieutenant -- a major general -- lieutenant major general shot at the base there.
however, while all the speakers have a lot of very strong and important points to say, particularly with regard to the shaping, i felt that unfortunately i wish the coens had not opened this up with a very stacked and politicized presentation. i think it takes away from the importance of the issue and makes it more clouded because as the professor from st. mary's pointed out, this is not somethinged that new. this has been going on for a long time. we can look back to the end of world war i when we had our military shoot upon our own soldiers afterwards when they
were on capitol hill begin their promise rights. so we do have a history in our own country of our forces. this is not new. it has to be addressed. but to address it in a way that it was initially presented, i think that's a disservice to the blood that has been spilled. thank you. >> certainly your opinion. any other comments or yes. i'm sorry. go ahead. >> i'm russell king. i'd like to direct this question to professored a dock. the catholic church has a just war doctrine, where military force is a last resort. i think tokyo bombings and others were considered unjust and seems to me that might be a
validation of do an italian air -- doctrine of terrorising populations in order to win wars. for the first amendment we have no national church but there are countries like the russian orthodox church. and the man who developed rose born export and ak 47 and that sort of thing, before his death, on the one hand he expressed no regret over the fact that jihadists had used his weapons because he pointed to the politicians and then he expressed a regret but the russian orthodox church said, well, he made those weapons to defend the mother land. he's not responsible for what happens to them in saudi arabia. my question is russia is a signatory of the geneva convention but i think they used
proxies, but their weapons are going to the groups, so we would do good by pulling the carpet from them. i'm wondering where the russian orthodox church can have a war doctrine where you have looser rules against the enemies than they have against you. >> a just war doctrine is by the 1949 -- article 51, that's the moral side of war. but right now the rule of law, as you were, as found in article 51 in the u.n. charter, which recognize that you may use violence, but only in self-defense. we don't go into long diserations about the just war doctrine. the issue is you may not use force in an addressive way. when we go to war, we're doing
it in self-defense. we can argue about what self-defense means, but no nation is perfect. and the rules of engagement have been around for a long time. when president bush was in office, i would raise cane about some of his policies. by job was to tell them how to fix it. i'm about fixing stuff. so pardon me if i didn't include president bush in some of my criticism, but he's not, but he equally shares the blame for some of these rules of engagement that has developed. i think that's important to learn. the rule of law is really article 51 of the u.n. charter. we have the inherent right of self-defense, the god given right. that right was recognized as customary international law, the law before the u.n. charter was drafted in 1945. so that's the touch stone that we operate on.
the inherent right of individual self-defense or collective self-defense. if we don't lead the world, no one is going to lead the world. every u.n. mission has been led by the united states. we have a responsibility. we can't go back to our borders and say it won't come here. it's already here. we've had over 100 people according to the f.b.i., probably 300 that have left this country to join isis. this movement inspires people. that's the propaganda people because they see in isis something they haven't seen since 9/11. when inspired, they are dangerous. there's hundreds and thousands and jihadists amongst us that are inspired by isis. they don't need to go to isis to spark violence. they can do it here. that's the threat. we've got to anticipate the threat and do something now, instead of react to it. >> there's a lady in the back.
>> my name is sherry. i write for people that don't have military backgrounds -- trying to say why we need boots on the ground. they don't want that. i have talked to many people because -- people don't have a relative -- the rules of engagement how they educate people to boots on the ground -- >> that's what woodrow wilson said before world war i. he said it's thot the military we need to prepare but the people. we need leadership to come in and identify who the enemy is. it's okay to have the world islam in the f.b.i. manual, which they struck out. it's okay to recognize that there's distinction between islam and radical islamic extremists. it's not a battle against islam. it's a battle against radical islamic extremists. they have killed more muslims than they have killed christians
or jews. and they are growing. >> what force is capable snm? you've seen pictures of isis with tanks. some of them are armor. who is going to defend and who is going to establish a military dominance if it's not us? is britain? the entire british army can be in the kwal come stadium in san diego? so it is us in many cases. and we are the best force on the history of the planet. someone talked about russia. well, take a look at the russian pictures that are m -- coming out of the ukraine under dissimilar uniforms, the apcs
don't have the same wheat set. -- wheel set. russia don't have the projective -- when russia invaded the peninsula, they gave a softball approach. we as a country should have approved the keystone pipeline. and we should have as a nation looked at capturing our liquid natural gas, liquefying and probably supplying europe that gets most of their national gas from russia and then we have a crude excess we could have relaxed on the restrictions. but if you're going to check soviet -- i'll say soviet because putin is soviet -- i think you hit them square in the face with the free market. if you take the energy sector
out of the russian economy, there really isn't much there. i think as a nation militarily we're not going to put a battle group in the black sea, not going to put troops in the crimean peninsula. but economically we can deliver a fatal blow at our choosing if we decide to do that. >> bombings? >> i mean we can compete with them. i can guarantee if we liquefy -- in north dakota alone, every day we flare or burn about 3.5 million barrels equivalent of gas because we can't build a pipeline. 3.5 million barrels equivalent of gas. the price point overseas in europe is about 8.5. the price point here is almost four. so we can compete.
we can sell europe, liquefy natural gas at a better price point than what russia can do. and that's how you beat them. that's how won the cold war. they cannot compete with american innovation and technology if we're allowed to innovate. >> my name is monica. i'm one of the co-authors with billy vaughan. i just wanted to point out in answer to this lady's comments that i'd like to actually thank you and mr. coen for what you have done in making this possible and bringing people together to discuss experiences in fact. and while billy and i are working on this book, i want to point out that i came from a background that didn't really understand the military very well. and also i came from the
experience of setting policy history in my undergraduate years at u.t. berkeley and i wrote my thesis on a policy that was drafted by a relative of mine. today is the 160th anniversary that justin war was elected as a u.s. congressman. eventually he assisted abraham lincoln in getting elected as presidents but he drafted a policy entitled the moral act, which became part of the genesis of the rotc, the reserve officers training corps. and i observed and studied the history books on how j.f.k. during his administration leveraged the moral act for political capital. i received the obama proclamation on moral act a
little over two years ago during the 150th anniversary of the moral act. frankly, it's nauseating. i i agree with this lady that things are used for political purposes. what's different about this story is we are finally getting people on the ground in washington, d.c. to discuss this. finally. and we present facts, we present testimony, we present the truth. and the other side, if they want to disagree with us, all they had to throw at us is a fledgling weakened ideology. i'd like to thank you because what's happening now needs to be discussed. it needs to be amplified in a way that we've never seen before because this is -- we are hearing the cries of our men on the battlefield asking for help. and i can't emphasize more that
if we are mot the voices for our men on the ground, then we will have no voice left. thank you. >> thank you. >> early in the mr. vaughan's speech he brought up the fact that his son and three others were in an old, inappropriate helicopter. and it brings up the question that is -- the lack of budget contribute today the situation and what can be done. >> the money has not been an issue. unfortunately, it is just a nonurgency -- the money has been granted for how many mh 47s to be built? >> two a year. >> what's the total? the money has been allotted for 10 to 15, somewhere in that
range. mh 47s, specially equipped helicopters that should have been used o than raid that night. but they haven't been built. they are building them at a rate of one a year. >> no. two a year. >> excuse me, two a year. the problem is we have a 600% increase in special operations missions over a three-year period. we went from 84 a month -- 66. >> 66 a month in 2008 to 3 -- >> 334 >> 334 a month the month our son died. so there was no increase in special operations equipment, >> aviation. >> what we have here is a problem of an overzealous reaction to stopping the threat, doing everything we can to eliminate the threat without the proper equipment to make that happen.
and so what it did was it cost lives. in the testimony from the military, there's a quote that says this was a regular trail of tearsful we knew a day like this would come. we knew this would happen. we couldn't stop the tide from blowing. >> ryan, he may be able to add more to this that we don't know about. what we were told, we have 61 of the special operations mh 47s and they have to use those a lot in afghanistan because of the elevation. and we were told at that same debriefing privately, because i did bring that up that we have 61. i was told mr. vaughan, your numbers are correct. privately, i was told by the admiral of special warfare, billy, if we have 60 we can only have 20 at a time because 20 have to be down for maintenance, 20 have to be used for training.
so at any given time we only are able to use a third. the thing that i'm saying, we learn as parents, not as experts. what we're told by admiral craigen what their budget was a year and now they will for the next several years build two special operations choppers. my answer to him was, sir, some good healthy competition might make it possible to build a lot more than two a year, the way our special operations are being used all over the world, you know. i don't know if that answers your question or not. >> i'll make a point that i don't blame the seals for riding on an older craft. you know, there was a company that was in trouble and the seals are trained to run to the sound of guns. so they did exactly what they should have done. first available aircraft, they took it. and unfortunately, that aircraft
took shots in the back and the individual perished. but the seals did the right thing, in my judgment. when you have people in trouble, you take whatever craft is available at the time and you -- that's what you're trained to do. that's your job. >> and it's been our point, by the way. as i said, you couldn't have kept our son off that. they would have gone in if they had a bicycle and an ice pick. that's why we need to have the best available, much as in benghazi. >> this will be the last question. >> if i could challenge the panel on this subject. it's my belief that the role of military in afghanistan is not search and destroy mission. this is intertwined with the
concept that limiting civilian casualties is key to limiting the expansion of extremists within afghanistan. so do you believe that this current r.o.e. in afghanistan is not necessary to win -- could you describe an lt ration that would still win at civilian casualties -- >> we all should be concerned about civilian casualties. again, you look at -- that's why we have our field commanders and quality force we do. looking at the situation and -- the situation generally dictates. when the rules of engagement become narrow so you can't conduct battle when necessary, you can't pursue. if an individual goes across the
border, even though you're looking at them maneuvering and you know that force is armed and dangerous, you can't engage. if we learned things from vietnam, it doesn't seem like we learned a lot because we're repeating the mistakes of past wars when you can't engage clearly a combatant or when an individual is threatening and has a weapon and is approaching because he hasn't fired yet, you're not allowed to engage or he runs into a house with a force and -- this is not a game. it has consequences. if -- consequences if you don't engage. if they run in a safe haven, it's like children playing on a playground. but the consequences are dire. and in many cases there are children -- i can say our
children because mine are fighting as well. i'm thinking you have to trust your commanders. that is -- part of that is mitigating collateral damage. and i agree with that, that you should as a commander look at the civilian population. if you can pick and choose a time, then let them walk away from the civilian group and then engage. if you don't have that luxury, then you evaluate how important that high-value target is. and there are some value targets that, no matter what, that they are worth engaging because consequence of not engaging them means a significant loss of life. >> go ahead. what i was going to say, sir, military records show that as we implemented the coin strategy in afghanistan, civilian casualties
by the nato forces did go down. our warriors casualties rose sharply. but also the afghanistan civilian casualties and deaths rose sharply from deaths by their own people, their taliban. because when we backed off -- these are military records and we have access to them and the military knows this. those casualties went up because they intim dated their people -- intimidated their people because we were not coming after them as much. >> the law of war does not allow you to target civilians. you cannot target civilians. it allows you to make that determination. you make that evaluation and then you target. but -- and i'm not opposed to
all rules of engagement. i'm opposed to supersell yus rules of engagement. it doesn't work. the obama surge cost us 1,000 casualties. the taliban is stronger after surge than before his surge. so we have a lack of strategy at the top level, a lack of understanding in terms of r.o.e. and the tactics at the level where the rubber meets the road. ed that the problem. we don't understand what we're doing there. and the greatest tragedy is -- these people hide behind women and children and they use that against us. now, by the grace of god, we had victory on a silver platter given to us when we killed osama bin laden, the president made the right decision. he could have blown the building up and accused them of whatever.
obama took a gutsy decision. a good tactical move to keep the eyes on target and kill osama bin laden. he was a figure that you can't imagine the influence he had on radical islam. when we killed him, that was a huge psychological blow to the enemy. at that time our president should have got on tv and said, we win, you lose, we're leaving. whether you're a liberal or conservative, when we leave afghanistan, we lost. you cannot -- unless we can keep the lid on as long as our military is there. when we leave, that country will go right ba to where it was -- back to where it was with the taliban and all the stuff that occurs before 9/11. you not stop it unless you're willing to leave us there for 100 years to maintain order. we had victory on a silver
platter. hell enkeller could have figured it out. our president said the new taliban -- what? they are going to join with the karzai government with an individual that sentenced a person that converted to christian -- sentenced him to death. i'm sorry your country is a basket case, but we have to look at our best international interest. do you know how many al-qaeda are in afghanistan? less than 100. president bush drove them out in 2001. it's the taliban. their goal is to drive borders out to impose their vision of islam on society. i'm sorry that that's going to happen, but it's not my job to fix the world. it's our job to protect our national interest and use the blood of our soldiers. and it's precious. we use that when it's in our best national interest. >> thank you all for coming today. we appreciate your listening on
this important topic. thank you, john and thank you at the institute. we appreciate [applause] . >> on use makers, mary ka henry president of the service employees international union, talking about employment numbers, the the minimum wage and politics. here's a portion of her remarks. >> we aren't just about raising abability to bargain living wag across the service sector in this nation because we know when service jobs become good jobs, we are going to help create the next american middle class that includes everybody this time. and we want to continue with to work with brothers and sisters in the labor movement on raising auto parts jobs and walmart jobs. so we have lot to do, but the fast food workers have made us believe the seemingly impossible could be possible again in t