Transcripts For CSPAN3 Discussion Focuses On Women In Combat Roles 20170404

Okay. I guess we have a break. We can get going. Welcome to everyone. My name is mack owens. We are an independent graduate school of National Security affairs. We offer three masters degrees. We offer an executive and a professional masters as well. In addition we have 18 certificates. Were very happy to cosponsor this event with mark meyer whom i will introduce this very second. Weve got a great speaker who is done a great deal of work in this area. Its a topical topic as you know. I think that department of redundancy department. We are cosponsoring this with the center for military and diplomatic history. Mark miller, say a couple words. Great. Im dr. Mark mirror. I wanted to thank dr. Owens, president who have done a wonderful job organizing this event and several others that weve done here and also lindsay markel. We do events on history that have relevance to todays issues. Weve been hosting an average about one event per week since we were formed nine months ago and we particularly like to bring in people who havent necessarily been heard inside the beltway. Theres a tendency as im sure a lot of you know to recycle the same speakers and so we were able to bring in our speaker from california and shes though shes wellknown has not actually spoken publicly in d. C. Before. This is the first event weve done on this subject, certainly one i think that is very relevant to military affairs because its not just a cultural issue but one of military capabilities and readiyness and people on both sides of the debate contend that their policy is better in terms of maximizing u. S. Military capabilities and we do see a lot of history involved in this discussion. Comparisons with things like bringing africanamericans into the military or women into other parts of the military or changing the policy on gay and lesbian service or the history of women in actual wars. We very much look forward to a discussion of what we have learned, what we should learn from the past and maybe what lessons of the past are not the ones to follow. So thank you. Thank you for having us. The introductions continue. Id like to introduce Elaine Donnelly who is the moderator today and elaine and i go back aways working on this topic in tandem, not always together but i mean for the most part weve been taking this issue very seriously for a very long time. Elaine is the founder and president of the center for military readiness which is an independent nonpartisan that focused on military readiness and social issues within the military. She is served on the defense Adviser Committee on women in the services and probably more importantly the president ial commission on the assignment of women in the armed forces. Shes provided testimony to congress, published articles on military personnel issues in a variety of publications and i think probably the most important one she did was the one she did for dick law review which laid out many of the legal issues and was in response to an article by mad lin morris. So she graduate from university of in detroit and she lives in michigan. So elaine will now introduce our speaker. Thank you. Yes. Mack owens and i do go way back. I think the last time i saw you inperson was at the naval war college. And i was there for a seminar and it was a real thrill to meet you and ive always admired your writings and articles about the issues involving women in the military. I want to thank dr. Mark moyer for sponsoring this program and certainly the snut for politics for hosting us here today. Ive also been a long time ad mier of dr. Ana simons on issues involving women in the military. She has been chronically the sweep of history right from the start going back decades ago. I have a note from her from 1977. We were corresponding that far back because of a book she had wrote. This may be the first meeting of its time at a crucial time of change in the armed forces. This is perhaps the first opportunity that we will have to take stock and figure out where are we going with this . Is this a good idea for women or is it not . In 1992 professor anna simons earned her ph. D. In social anthropology at harvard university. Its an honor to introduce her because since then shes been in the field of academia and im sure teaching many students common sense as well as everything she knows in the field of anthropology. Since 2007 shes been teaching at the Naval Postgraduate School in california and prior to that, professor simmens was an associate professor of anthropology at ucla and a visiting instructor in anthropology at duke university. In 2011 she cowrote the sovereignty solution, a common sense approach to global security. She has conducted Field Research in somali and ft. Brag and she wrote a book called networks of disillusions, somali undone. Somalis still a trouble point. Her list of scholarly articles is six pages long but she has been in all the major publications, the new york times, the washington post, boast globe and the africanamerican news. I found it interesting that before she entered into the world of academia she was involved in politics for academe i cant, she was involved in politics for a while. She was an assistant to the governor of arizona, bruce babbitt, and an assistant speechwriter for president carter. I first became aware of her when she wrote her first book, the company they keep. Her husband is a retired special forces officer. But that wasnt the only reason she wrote about this. She applied what she knew about anthropology to analyze that specialized culture of special operations. In that we have something in common, because im a civilian but i have enormous respect for the rough men who defend our country. Their interests, everything they believe needs to be given more study and more awareness. And thats why were here tonight. Dr. Simon has brought insight into the community of warriors. And the funny thing is, theres some people who comment, social justice warriors, but they dont know anything about what real warriors do. Dr. Simon does. I think the reality of civilian control of the military puts on all of us, civilian or former military, we all have a responsibility to watch what happens to the military. Theyre there to defend us and we need to be there for them to defend them. With great pleasure, here is dr. , professor simons. [ applause ] i should actually just go back to california now so as not to disappoint anyone after that introduction. But i want to thank iwp and fpi for hosting. And i also want to thank mark for having invited me, i think, i think i want to thank mark. I say i think, because while ive written on this topic off and on for the past 20 years, publicly speaking out is always fraught. And i would say, if anyone in the room knows of anyone who is a young aspiring graduate student in psychology, theres probably no better topic to focus on than why people respond so emotionally to the issue of women in combat units. Im going to try to stay dispassionate and to be provocative, since i think thats my pedestriagogical deba. Im not speaking on behalf of the Naval Postgraduate School where i teach or on behalf of any other entity in dod. Meanwhile, others in the room, like elaine and other invitees, have encyclopedic knowledge of the inside the beltway history of this issue. I know others have inside knowledge of the physiological realities of trying to meet certain physical standards. Im going to defer to them during question and answer, during the questions and answers or the discussion about injury rates, Readiness Challenges and so on. As for the questions i want to raise, they havent gone unasked so much as theyve remained unanswered over the past 20 years. For opponents of women in combat units, those who successfully lobby for lifting the combat exclusion ban have done a masterful job of putting opponents on the defensive. Just the fact that i can use these two words, opponents and proponents signifies who has had the political upper hand. Indeed defense secretary leon panetta was brilliant when he declared that all Ground Combat units would be open to women in january 2016 unless the Service Chiefs could justify which specific units should remain closed. By putting the onus on the Service Chiefs and the civilian secretaries to have to try to defend the status quo, he essentially sand bagged any male in uniform who could only then sound like a chauvinist. They have also engaged in clever slight of hand by equating women serving in combat with women serving in combat units. At this point only misogynists doubt womens ability to serve under fire. Combat is not an issue. Combat units are. I dont know who is more anxious on behalf of qualified women than special operators who some might say comprise the ultimate boys club. From operators perspective, women are already a critical asset for intelligence work, reconnaissance, and certain other sensitive missions. Operators concern, which should be our concern, is how would womens presence help them close with and destroy the enemy more effectively. It cant and wont, unless you believe as some proponents do, that women think sufficiently different from men. Ill come back to this momentarily. First lets review why we have combat units in the first place and why we should want them to be as single mindedly lethal and focused as possible. Unless other military units that are responsible for handling logistics, communications, intelligence, and other functions, Ground Combat units exist to take the fight to the enemy and to kill or destroy more of them than they can kill of us, no matter how long it takes, no matter how little support they receive, and no matter how many casualties they suffer. Casualties. Thats what the enemy speaks to inflict. Casualties or attrition is why combat units have to be predicated on interchangeability. When someone is wounded or killed, someone else needs to be sent to take his place. Interchangeability, meanwhile, brings me back to the idea that because women dont think like men, they add value. But if thats it case, then women and men arent easily interchangeable, are they . A female casualty could only be replaced by another female, which presents major logistical and other challenges. So which is it . Either men and women do think alike and are eminently interchangeable, in which case why add women, or if men and women dont respond to situations differently and dont think alike, well, then, what does injecting females into small 10 to 12man groups do to cohesion . Cohesion, thats a term ive come to despair of, thanks to what academics have done to it. Forget about what you think cohesion might mean. Academics have split it into, theres social cohesion, which is how much people like each other, and then theres task cohesion, which refers to soldiers ability to do a job regardless of their interpersonal differences and dislikes. Increasingly, academics have argued that the only kind of cohesion military units need is task cohesion. To remain effective over the long haul no longer requires that individuals have anything more than the mission in common. Yet has anyone asked those in Ground Combat units or the sergeants make who oversees them how they define cohesion, or whether academics might have gotten this wrong . Although even more significantly, and what academics dont tackle at all is, what wrecks cohesion . Curiously, the studies so common in the services, special operation command, on gender integration, didnt delve into this. Maybe thats because all sentient adults know what can wreck cohesion. But if you dont seek it, you dont have to find it. Many and women have been each others most consistent distraction since the beginning of time. To pretend there wont be problems when young men and women are thrown together for prolonged periods in emotionally intense situations college campuses, anyone . Defies common sense. It also defies biology. There is a darwinist opposition. Cast back through history or literature. Mens abiding interest in women and womens interest in having men be interested creates limitless potential for rivalry, jealousy, favoritism, suspicion, distrust, and friction. Why would we want to interject any of this into combat units . Proponents, of course, say that in the thick of combat, no one is thinking about sex or gender. Okay, thats true. But this is also a classic red herring argument. The potential for trouble lurks after more before the bullets are flying. Spend time around soldiers, when theyre coming down from adrenaline highs or are obsessed or board or frustrated, theyre prone to all sorts of temptations. Red herring argument number two is that men voice the same objections about blacks and gays not so long ago and they got over those objections. Theyll against over the integration of women too. Except attraction between the sexes are all together different than the other ones. Red herring argument number three is that numerous of our allies have opened their Ground Combat units to women so we should too. But why, we should ask, have they done so . One aim for progressive european militaries is to model social justice. Theyre quite explicit about this. Which of course they can well afford to be. Why . Because who in the end do they know will come to their rescue . I dont mean any disrespect, but few of our allies can get anywhere without our logistical help. Thus leaving our Ground Combat units is the only thin line between us and harm. So how, again, will injecting women into their midst make them more lethal in combat . And why havent proponents been made to answer this . Or maybe advocates here would tell us that our Ground Combat units likewise need to serve purposes other than combat as well. For instance, maybe they need to do something beyond excelling at fighting and need to exemplify social justice or equity. But if equity is what proponents care about, then why dont they lobby for a draft . Or patriotispatriotism, womenso defend the United States in the same way men do, why dont they argue for allfemale units . Or why not challenge the Promotion System overall, since anyone, male or female, who is not in a Ground Combat unit, must be similarly disadvantaged . Although here i note more research does need to be done. Are there positions that would or could prepare a woman to be able to eventually compete for a shot at being able to be a wartime combatant commander, without her having had to lead an infantry squad, a platoon, or a special forces team first . Could a woman do other jobs and still be able to viably lead an infantry battalion, a brigade, or division . Which rungs would combat soldiers say they need their commanders to have climbed . Pose these questions to enough men in uniform and it might turn out there is a way or maybe theres several ways to finesse the issue of getting more women into senior military command positions without having to alter the makeup of Ground Combat units. Is it conceivable a woman would have what it takes in mens eyes to lead them effectively without her having been a grunt first . Maybe she doesnt have their speed, their strength, or stamina. But if she proves strategically smarter, why not . If this is one incomplete area of research, a second involves data that already exists. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on studies. But what about systematically analyzing whats already in the records . For obvious reasons, to do with budgets and political sensitivities, neither the army nor the marine corps will voluntarily air their dirty laundry. But how many hours have been lost to investigations and disciplinary actions relating to fraternization, sexual assaults, and allegations of these and other genderrelated issues when men and women have been colocated . Publicly everyone says glowing things about combat support and female engagement teams. And some officers i know are deeply grateful they were sent american women who could search and interact with afghan women. Their teams experienced no problems with american women who belong to either combat support teams or female engagement teams living on their fire bases. But some teams were torn apart. How many . Where is the data . And why isnt this considered relevant . Of course read the studies, and they acknowledge between the lines that looking too closely in this direction would prove devastating. Why . Because one conclusion reached prior to the lifting of the ban is that men and women should really be trained together. You shouldnt just thrust them together downrange. When they train together, they bond more familially. They become protective of rather than predatory on one another, which is interesting, especially since, once again, the very real prospect of attrition is being ignored. But say one of these units that had bonded thanks to training together takes a gender casualty. Then what . Does the whole unit need to be pulled out so it can be retrained together . In other words, the question is, if training together from the outset is so critical, what does that mean when theres attrition . For anyone not unanimous with them, and as i hope im making clear, combat units have no civilian analog. No other entities are designed to be sent into harms way for such indefinite periods of time in order to inflict harm. Wildfire firefighters might come closest in terms of having to copy in a similarly unstable 24 7 environment. But every job you might think is comparable to combat involves shift work. Employees dont only get to go home but they get a break from one another. They can decompress and regroup apart. Not so in Ground Combat units. People say, what about astronauts, surely theyre stuck together and have to get along. To which my first oneword response is, attrition. Does nasa really face attrition and interchangeability challenges once astronauts are in space . My second oneword response is aggressiveness. Even if we forget all the other differences between astronauts and combat soldiers in terms of age, presumed maturity levels, and the extensive screening astronauts receive, nasa doesnt need testosteronefilled fighters. Ground combat units do. But then what else is associated with testosterone . According to what advertisers keep bombarding us with, if you watch any tv at all, with testosterone comes a heightened interest in sex. Now, maybe thats Just Marketing spin and maybe what we were all taught at a certain age in High School Biology class is wrong. But then, in all seriousness, for all the tension thats been paid to cortisol and whether men and women handle stress similarly, what about testosterone . Who has canvassed the literature about that . And if they havent, why havent they and what does that suggest . Missing from the studies done preparatory to opening all Ground Combat units to women and whats been avoided in the debate thus far doesnt just suggest but confirms this i object to has been too politicized for too long. The research is incomplete. At best the studies done are insui insufficiently rigorous. At worst, theyve been biased. If, as seems to be the case, we live in an era where social science is allowed to trump common sense, then at a minimum social scientists should be made to be more thorough, which should mean they need to be sent back to the drawing board on this topic. [ applause ] we have time for questions and answers. You have made some really provocative statements, and i really appreciate it. Just a couple of that come to mind first. And then of course we would like people in the audience to ask you some questions. The argument has been made that we need women in the special Operations Forces because that would make them smarter, that women have more degrees, and graduate degrees, and this would increase the quality of special Operations Forces. This was stated in a recent special Operations Forces briefing. I have a printout here that someone in the army sent to me. And ill also throw this out too, in the same briefing, under the category myths not facts, it says, it is a myth that women are physically incapable of handling the rigors of combat arms, even though the overwhelming Scientific Evidence gathered by university of pittsburgh for the marine corps show that in 65 of combat tasks, the mixed gender groups could not compete with the all male groups. So the evidence is there. But theyre asking army special Operations Forces to believe this. They also say, its a myth that women will be a distraction. Well, what does all this, you know, photo sharing thing all about . If thats not a distraction, i dont know what is. Women will destroy cohesion and bonding. And thank you for explaining that its about survival and trust. Whoever wrote this slide apparently doesnt understand that. It says, unqualified women will be pushed into combat arms to satisfy political requirements. Well, what are all these quotas about . We keep hearing gender diversity metrics, quota, 25 . Some of the leading advocates have said we need a Critical Mass of 33 or at least 15 in the army. What is going on here . Youve touched on it with all the social science taking precedence over common sense. But this stuff is official policy now. And, you know, the military is being asked to believe it. Would you comment . Probably what i should say before turning this over potentially to discussion from members in the audience, is that Political Correctness, how shad i phrase this, Political Correctness for quite some time has run amok. And the people who should be most courageous, because they have multiple stars on their shoulders, very often over the past decade or so have, i would say, been least courageous in terms of drilling down on this question of what it is that actually will help make combat units more lethal and more effective. Instead theyve allowed themselves to be thrown on the defensive continuously. And as a consequence, will do things like what you just showed everybody in terms of mass production sensitivity training as though that itself does not create both cognitive dissonance and the people who understand fully what reality is but are being told something totally different on the screen which in and of itself then begins to erode trust in Senior Leadership for making them sit through briefing after briefing after briefing in terms of sensitivity training when there are many more important things people have to do. Questions . In the back. Hi, i served two decades on [ inaudible ] thank you so much for everything you represent. The biggest lie in all of this is that its an equal opportunity issue. Its not an equal opportunity issue. Its a combat readiness issue. As long as women or men are pushing for this equality on the battlefield, they will find out that isis doesnt care what gender, race you are. They only care if you can kill them or not. Women will have to fight in hand to hand combat with the men. Isis fights on methamphetamines. They fight high. Theyve fight in a way that weve had knife fights on the battlefield. And women cannot equally defend themselves under that. The second flawed argument is, if a woman can do that, let her. Okay. Weve had 400 women go through infantry Training Battalion and only 30 or 35 graduated. What happened to the other 65 . How many of them lost their careers . How many of them are injured or disabled . I want to see the attrition rates for all of these women who are injured or disabled because i saw it when i was on active duty time and time again, women injured and disabled, unable to reenlist. And when the cost for these women start skyrocketing, which i daresay if the va were to release the stats, women to men, women have a much higher price with this ideology that were going to go out there and kick some butt with the males. Were killing women. Were hurting women. Were disabling women. Thats all i wanted to add, if you can comment. Thank you so much. You speak to the broader point of, theres a lot of data. Theres ton of data. And the data either has not been released or people have disingenuously chosen to not ask for that data and present that data. And so there is a very slanted view of not only whats appropriate, but theres also a slanted view in terms of what the public understands, when it comes to women making it through, for instance, Ranger School, or the first graduates from any one of a number of other courses. So i would just totally agree with you in terms of people need to speak up far more often, demanding that data actually be released, and that all the data come out. I can tell you that of the women who made it through the marine enlisted infantry course, half of them had to drop out because of severe injuries. A small number did try out or expressed an interest in joining infantry battalions. As of the last time i checked, the day before coming down here, there are only three. And one more just the other day, four, out of that group. Now, its a myth to say these women were not prepared for the gender integrated task force test. This is the pool from which were drawing the three, the first three, and then the fourth one came in separately. These women were highly qualified for their tests. And their morale was high. And the men were very supportive. The men were average. The women were known to be superior. Thats why they were there. And at the end of all these tests, and tests in 2012 and 2013, not one of those tests showed any sign or evidence of superior performance on the part of a gender mixed unit. This is not in any way a criticism of women in the military. I hasten to add, i just have so much respect for women in the military. And its frustrating that nobody seems to ask them what they think except the army did a major survey, and they asked if combat positions were open, would you take them . 92. 5 of army women said no way. So when people say, we need a Critical Mass of 15 , how are you going to get that 15 . Youll have to have involuntary orders. Remember, the secretary of defense, ashton carter, after he deliberately ignored the best professional advice of the marine corps presented by then commandant joseph dunford, he said if this is going to be on a an involuntary basis, same as men, nobody should have illusions about this. What about the recruiting survey, also thrown down the memory hole, but weve written about it. If these options were open, marine women were asked, what would you do . 23 said they would leave or wouldnt join the military and 22 of the men said the same thing. Now, what are we doing with this . Were pressing on anyway. Its as if nobody is paying attention to whether this will strengthen those combat units. Theres no evidence to show that it will. But theres a lot of evidence to show that it wont. And i would hold accountable not the women. I think part of the fact that theres a lot of resentment apparently evident on the internet right now, which is appalling and as far as im concerned its something new, i think there is resentment welling up. And it gives me no comfort to say that my organization predicted that if you try to teach men, as in these special Operations Forces slides, you try to teach them that black is white and false is true, when you do that, youll cause men to be resentful of women and women will get the resentment they do not deserve. And i think thats what were seeing now. These are anthropological questions, social questions, military questions. This program tonight, maybe is just the beginning of research that needs to be done. I would say just as a further response, i needed to look at the numbers, two of our students who since graduated crunched what numbers that they could find. They were looking at what it means for women to be i say injected, other people would say integrated, into special forces teams. They used what they could find in terms of the armys physical fitness test scores. If you make some reasonable, very reasonable calculations, out of 76,694 women in the army at the time they did this which was a couple of years ago, maybe 145 of them would actually be able to meet the minimum apft score to actually try out for special forces. So this raises all sorts of questions, because weve so politicized this issue, this scrutiny from the hill in terms of ensuring that what happens, that women actually make it through, the community itself, the soft community is rife with rumors about what was done to get the two female rangers through Ranger School. I have no idea whether the rumors are correct or not. Ive heard a number of things second and third hand. It doesnt matter whether the rumors are correct. The fact that there are rumors itself is extremely problematic in terms of guys assuming what, that there is all sorts of assistance, that there were all sorts of things that were done in order to ensure that at least one but ideally two women would pass. Thats not good. As i say, they very well may have done it totally on their own merits. I dont want to take anything away from them. But the fact that theres doubt and the fact that theres suspicion that they didnt is very corrosive of trust and its very corrosive of confidence that dod actually has soldiers best interests at heart. Another question. Yes. A quick question. My name is andrew stack, a former paratrooper. I worked as a war correspondent in iraq for four years. I was in abu ghraib in 05. The pao at the time was a female captain. Were Walking Around post, we had a mortar barrage coming in. I looked at her and i said, you do realize youre not allowed to be here, dont you . She laughed. I guess my point is this, that this is hypocrisy. At the bottom line, its hypocrisy. And everybodys infantry. If youre a cook, youre infantry. If youre in that theater, youre infantry. Do you know what im saying . Everybody has to carry a weapon. Lets clarify what you mean. The direct Ground Combat units are the ones that attack the enemy. Infantry, armor, artillery, special Operations Forces. I understand. Navy seals. They attack the enemy. Some people are subject to contingent combat, they get fired on, they have to fire back. Thats still not the same as the units that attack the enemy. So our subject today is the im sorry if im being a little bit offtopic, but from my voi viewpoint, if youre being shot at, youre being shot at, at the end of the day. Sometimes women can be as or more courageous than men. Theres ample evidence of that. But being courageous in a firefight or coming under fire and being courageous is its not a difference of degree. Its a difference in kind from being out on your own for an indefinite period of time, where its just 10 of you or just 12 of you, and youre basically stuck. Remember, the mission is to beat the enemy. Its not whether the women are capable or not, ive been around enough women, i know theyre capable. The hypocrisy is what . Maybe im not clear on what youre saying. The fact that were talking about this still. Were not political footballing. Were serious about this. Were talking about the official line was no women in combat. I understand what youre saying, theyre not in active outgoing units. But the fact of the matter remains is that if its raining bombs, its raining bombs. We know everybody is in danger, thats a given, we know that. But the marine report asking for exceptions, which they had every right to file with the secretary of defense, said that if you gender integrate units, it would interfere with mission and combat lethality. Those are the four keywords and the secretary of defense treated them like trash, because he doesnt care about Mission Accomplishment or combat lethality. Its all about gender diversity, metrics and quotas. Im going to call on professor owens, if you would like to comment. I would like to respond to that point. If youre in a combat zone, chances are youre going to get shot at, and thats one thing. But i think as elaine pointed out, i was in vietnam, and the fact is when youre an infantry guy, platoon, something, when you come under fire, you turn and attack the enemy. If youre basically a motor transport unit convoy or Something Like that, and you come into an area where youre under fire, the idea is to get out as quickly as possible. And again, thats why i think the distinction is between being in a combat zone and being in a combat unit. The purpose of which is to close with and destroy the enemy, which is different. If youre a paratrooper, that was your job. I was an infantry guy, that was my job. Its different. And by the way, the combat service support, combat support, combat engineers, all these sorts of folks, clearly come under fire. They are subject to being killed or wounded, all these sorts of things. And thats not really what were talking about here. The issue is women in these combat units. And i myself was the marine corps did what they were supposed to do in terms of saying, okay, were actually going to try to test this. Were going to have some sexually integrated units here and some allmale units and we will basically compare their performance. And as elaine said, about 65 of the time, the allmale units did better. Thats the difference between being in a combat unit and being in a combat zone. And i think that distinction is the most important one we need to make. By the way, i want to say, if you think that women in a combat unit is a good idea, read two books. One is a novel, for me its a roman a clef, because it was about my unit in vietnam, it was called matterhorn. It was written by a good friend of mine. Read that book, and read 1 million steps, but a marine platoon or Marine Company that was deployed in the hellman province. You see the difference between being in a combat zone, being in an f3, where the purpose is to destroy the enemy. Thank you. The book i would suggest is a book about what happened in afghanistan, the outlaw platoon by sean, i forget his last name. The firefighters they were constantly engaged in, it blows out of the water this myth that everybody is in danger and its no different. These guys had to go out over and over and over and attack the enemy. I wondered how the author even got back to write the book, thats how intense it was. I think we have more questions. Yes, right there. Second row. I spent my misspent youth, im a marine knocker, did 28 years in reserve and infantry and military intelligence. I actually wrote a paper for command staff in correspondence in the mid80s, claiming that women should be specialty as long as they met the standards, which was my thing, plus the fact that when my infantry platoon in vietnam, we would go 15 days between showers, and all the women i met in the army, in their mind none of them particularly thought that was a good idea. And i would throw in, i had a classmate of mine in charge of the medical units in iraq in 04, and he told me his biggest problem was fraternization, and it wasnt with the iraqis. It was within the medical units. And one last thing. As a taxpayer, im really frosted with that west point graduate reserve major, the third Ranger School graduate, took 180 days for a 61day course. As a taxpayer, i had to pay her three times longer than whats normal just to she could finish the course. And i think ive heard the same said of my classmates in emails about the Ranger School people. Theyre claiming one of the generals at benning supposedly became an instructor to help the two lieutenant captains come through as if an active duty guy was going to argue with the cg of benning. So anyway, but the whole thing is, i think youre just not going to have the numbers. When i did research in the 80s for my paper, the canadians, i think they started out with 450 women to form an infantry unit and i think they had like five graduates, or one. And so what do you know with one qualified infantrymen . Its just craziness. Whats going to happen with the four women who have qualified and are in infantry battalions. The men in barracks will have to give up 50 of their latrine or shower facilities to accommodate the women. In the field theyll be sleeping side by side in twoperson tents. And theyre in separate units. So theyre not going to have any mutual support. And the real irony is that when theyre in a unit where theyre supposed to compete with the men, even if they were the top notch, top performers in the previous unit, theyre going to be at the bottom of the ratings, which is very frustrating. Nobody wants to be on the bottom of the ratings. So again, why are we doing this . I respect those women who made it through ranger training, i really do. Im not making any statements impugning what they did. But i understand that two are in the infantry, one is not, has left, and all of that training went by the board. So i do want to introduce someone in the audience that i think brought a very refreshing aspect to this. In an interview actually it was an interview with president obama, and it was moderated by jake tapper on cnn. And captain Lauren Serrano is here as an individual. She said something, im going to read to you exactly what she said, a very respectful question. Good afternoon, mr. President. A study of the marine corps revealed that mixed gender combat units performed notably worse and that women suffered staggeringly higher rates of injury. Just one of those statistics showed that mixed gender units took up to 159 longer to evacuate a casualty. Again, this is where it gets real. As the wife of a marine who deploys to combat often, that added time can mean the difference between my husband living or dying. Who would have thought it . Why were these tangible negative consequences disregarded and how can the integration of women positively enhance the infantry mission and make me and my husband safer . Well, the president just sort of rambled on, he didnt really answer her question. The point is, the concerns of this marine captain with a background in intelligence and writing awards because shes spoken out so very well, it doesnt seem to matter. And thats really a shame. Other questions . Bob . I wondered whether you considered whether theres something far more deeper and ominous than simply the illogic, common sense or illogical social science or mysterious motivations. Some have said that the declaration of the fungibility of male and female is ontological anarchy. The creator, all mighty god, in whom all military people swear their oath, so help me god. But it seems to me the discussion has never really attended to a serious moral component. I recall talking to one marine corps general who suggested that the issue was not a matter of military readiness that concerned him, it was a matter of what kind of civilization do we want to build. I would like to comment on the dependence of it. So i know this comes up in discussions very often. And i just should say that while the question of to what extent were civilized, if we allow women to willingly sacrifice themselves on behalf of the rest of us, is not a question that i necessarily its not a question im going to answer here, though i think lots of people agree with you, because it certainly seems that they do. And i should say also, when it comes to questions of physical standards, ive always worried about this issue of physical standards and whether the physical standards will be changed, to what extent theyll be changed, when theyll be changed and all the rest of it, because there will be exceptional females who are going to be able to do whatever it is that many males are able to do. And the question that ive always grappled with as to do with small unit integrity and whether small unit integrity should be sacrificed in order to enable a few Exceptional Individuals to be granted some kind of set of rights. Its an issue they might say of equity. But one of the equity questions that never gets asked is, there are lots of equities, there are lots of stakeholders. For instance, dependents are stakeholders. I know my husband would kill me if i left it that hes a retired officer, hes actually retired and enlisted nco. And very proud of that fact. And so i have a little bit of insight, not as much as many wives these days whose husbands have deployed nonstop, but nobody ever bothers to ask dependents, wives of combat soldiers and marines, but how they would feel and what it would do to them and what it might do to their marriage in terms of the concern and worry, when theres a fully capable female on the team for prolonged periods of time with their husband, whether its a rational fear or its an irrational feeler, again, its a little bit like these rumors about what happened in Ranger School with the women who went through Ranger School. It almost doesnt matter if the rumors are true if enough people believe in them. It corrodes and erodes trust and it erodes and corrodes confidence. And so i would submit, again, with all of the other data that needs to be collected, somebody needs to do a genuine survey of dependents. And dependents dont just include wives. Dependents also include children. And the Army War College a number of years ago did a study, because the chief of staff of the army was quite concerned about the effect of all these repeated deployments and the fact that fathers were away or fathers and mothers in this case were away, the effects on children and adolescents in particular. So were talking about lots of implications, lots of ramifications. We can ask some very profound questions about what it will do to retention, not just attracting, who youre going to attract into the military, because i dont doubt that lots of 18 to 20 to 22yearold males will still sign up. What i do worry about is what happens when that 15year veteran suddenly now has to contend with all sorts of genderrelated questions when it comes to either the Ground Combat unit hes on or the Ground Combat units hes commanding. Those headaches, those additional headaches, those additional concerns at home, are just one more reason for that family team to collectively say, were done, 20 years, were out. Then what does that do to retaining all sorts of experience, all sorts of knowledge, and what does that do to retaining people who have sensibilities about what it is families actually worry about. I totally dodged your question. So thank you. Not exactly. You raised the questions that havent really been asked. I can tell you on the president ial commission, the subcommittee i served on about families, we did a Conference Call with about 50 submarine wives. Is submariners have a very high divorce rate, its a very high stress environment. My father was a submariner. And the wives said they werent as concerned about the sexual issues as they were about safety. Distractions that would cause certain things to be unseen and disasters to happen. And on a submarine, its the same as being in space, its that hostile an environment, they knew what they were talking about. And of course that figure ignored too. So yeah, its a big issue that needs to be discussed. Bill in the back, hi, its good to see you. The Old Washington headhunter psychologist stan hyman talked about the bond between mother and child. After desert storm, theres a photograph, the man is holding the infant, the mother has just come back. She extends her arms and the baby turns away from her. The bond was broken. That child will never trust anyone. And the Family Dynamics involved in this, the people who push this i think not only dont care but would like to break up families. And two, when youve seen those who are horribly wounded, its bad enough if its a man, but if its a woman, she will either never get married or if she does get married or is married, she will be divorced, because just look at what happens with women who have had breast cancer. Well, i dont know, weve seen some severely wounded women and they seem to be its a challenge to lead a good life. I dont think it would be fair to say that because their beauty is gone that theyre not still beautiful people. But youre absolutely right but youre absolutely right about family separation and the theories that child psychologists have. My subcommittee looked into that very deeply. There were at that time, 1992, there were some new studies starting and we havent heard anything about them. This topic has gone right down the memory hole. Nobody wants to talk about it. Instead they talk about gender diversity metrics and getting more women, 15 , 25 in the navy was the battle cry of secretary mavis. The former chairman of the joint chiefs staff, general martin dempsey, he said if the standard is too high, and the women cant meet it, then we will question the standard. And why would you question the standard . Because you have to make it more womenfriendly. Now, this can be done in various ways. You can take the toughest programs out, the toughest tasks. You can change the scoring systems. You can pass people through even if they didnt pass. You can pretend that reality doesnt matter. And that is to a certain extent what is happening right now, the extent of it, we have yet to see. I think the marines have held the line as well as they can. But the army was way too compliant in going along with president obama and the special Operations Forces Community Also capitulated. They should have given support to the marine corps and the very datadriven presentation they made, which is also being shoved down the memory hole. Enough from me. More questions. Yes . I was going to say, yeah, they have been reporting on cnn about the corruption in the military, and one of the things that theyre worth on is you cant come out in the military with dont ask, dont tell, and say i am a christian, muslim, or jew. Thats leading to a public and civilian injustice in terms of social activity. What can be done to combat whats going on in the civilian world, what the military is doing promoting life after death with all that we went through as far as the crime going on in the country from a civilian perspective, the military acting as if we can live as if there is life after death. I think youre asking is religious liberty being threatened by the new policy regarding lesbians, gays, transgenders, lgbt personnel in the military, is that your question . That you cant come out in the military saying i am a christian or a muslim or a jew. Or anyone who supports traditional values. The myth that repealing the 1993 law regarding gays in the military has gone smoothly, thats a myth. Five major changes have been negative. One being the attack on religious liberty. The second was gay marriage and benefits, both of which were denied by the Obama Administration at the time. Then you have lgbt, transgender is the issue now, being upheld as a Civil Rights Group with special privileges. The last one regarding recruiting and retention, that will come later, but if our economy gets stronger, were going to see some serious disruption. But on the t part of it, the transgender, doctors and nurses are facing a moral dilemma. Theyre being ordered to do something they consider a violation of medical ethics. Ive heard from two military doctors, and they said, how am i going to do this and teach people under me when i know you cannot by changing a sentence on a paper, a man into a woman or a woman into a man, you cant do this. It is the ultimate theory that is falling apart. Its the doctors and nurses. A lot of people will be affected. This hasnt gone into effect. Lgbt, small number. Social injuring is butting up against military readiness. What those in this room are trying to say, wait a minute, the military is there to defend the country. Its not there to advance social agendas. The newest survey, a focus group, the women surveyed said yeah, its a social agenda, Everybody Knows its a social agenda. There is nothing there to benefit or strengthen the military. So i come back to what i said before, its up to civilians, including civilians in congress, who voted to repeal that law, they need to be held accountable for the problems that they caused. And then we can see if theres some other way to proceed. Another question. Yes, art. My name is arthur schultz. What i bring to this discussion is 20 years as an armor officer. I was in vietnam. My cab troop led what was called the cambodian incursion. 60 days of constant maneuver, fighting one time after another. I would never want to see any women in that because that goes through at least pms cycles which nobody yet has talked about. When ive asked that question, im told that a woman loses 50 of her strength during that cycle. Now, we talked about task cohesion. Task cohesion seems to me, it has to be built on the ability to do the task. Im an armor officer. Armor is not just driving a tank. If you hit a mine, youre going to have to change the track, change the track pads, change the road wheels. Thats a lot of demanding work. And i cant imagine women having the ability to pick up a road wheel, pull out do all the other things, or particularly to do it when youre under time constraints or youre damaging rams downrange. We all talk about combat. You mentioned infantry. A large part of the infantry has to be able to throw a grenade. I saw a woman marine trying to throw a grenade, she threw it three or four feet in front of the sandbags and everybody had to hit the ground. That is a physical reality that nobody has addressed. Are we going to take that off the list . That is automatically a communicator to any other infantry guy that that person is not capable of doing the job and so i dont see how you get task cohesion or evacuating people. Picking i mean, weve had i was a Tank Company Commander as well as a cad troop commander. Uploading after youve had a battle is strenuous. Then you get up and go again. Plus youre living in confined spaces. Im sorry, but its a bunch of whatever. Now, i was not in any unit that had women other than at headquarters. But i had a friend, when i was at tredoc, 19 early 70s, who commanded the first air defense in europe, in agregreece at the time. It was one of the first units that integrated women. He said that was the worst job he ever had, he would never push it on anybody else. He said once a woman has sex with somebody in the unit, everybody else gets jealous, its a male thing, okay . Yet science says it doesnt happen. You look at all the reports of sexual harassment. I didnt tell here we are saying, oh, were going to push them together and expect that not to happen . Thank you, art, i appreciate your comments. What you just said reminds me of what an admiral told me when i visited the navy s. E. A. L. Community in coronado in 1992. He said pretty much the same thing. He said because men have to live and deploy in intimate, and i do mean skin to skin, conditions in order to stay warm, you introduce sexuality into that community rememb community, he said, and youre going to have disruption like you never had before. And he said its not the womens fault, whether theyre happily married or not, the men will compete. Why are we pretending these things dont matter . Strength test, 17 of the women could not do the job. Only 1 of the men could not. 33 on another heavy task could not do it. The men, only 1 . So if your son is a navy s. E. A. L. Or in an armor battalion, would you want your son to be on an aircraft doing High Altitude low entry thing, knowing that 30 of those parachutes are not going to work . Why do we elevate risks like this . Again, it really makes no sense. And i think weve got two more questions before we have to wrap up. I just want to interject and say, i dont i want us to be very careful and not do a disservice to young women, many of whom are extremely ideal i say particulidealistic, ive spt of time in villages all over africa, where hygiene may not be exactly what it is that were used to. So i think we need to be extremely careful in terms of the kinds of arguments that actually get made in the 21st century about what it is that young women can or cannot do. And what we need to focus on, again, is what is it that is going to make combat units more lethal and more effective. And somebody actually be able to make a very cogent, very persuasive argument that there will be a need for all female unit of direct action oriented individuals who will be able to go into someplace unrecognized and do something. I dont think that we should automatically dismiss the idea that women arent capable. The question the question that we should be wrestling with is, what do we already know is likely to happen to small unit integrity when you introduce women into otherwise all male units. And its not just sex thats going to rear its head. Yes, competition. But there are also emotional bonds that tend to be different, very often, between men and women than between just men or between just women, especially when were talking about heterosexual males and females. So to only talk about sex is to also do a disservice to the very complicated effects or dynamics that result when men and women are together. Thank you so much for saying that. Because there are so many new issues right now, it doesnt help to stay in the past. I agree with you, women cope. They do things that you or i well, i dont know about you, but civilian women wouldnt dream of doing, and i admire them for doing that. But the empirical evidence cannot be denied, and it is being denied, and thats a problem thats got to stop somewhere. You have your hand up. One more. I think you can kind of see where the argument goes when you start with a social darwinism theory thats based on an essentializing of male and female. I wanted to get back to what you were saying, lets go to the crucial issue of social cohesion and a small group of people of 10 to 12. I want to argument out. The premise as i understand it is that youre saying its a darwinian principle that men will be sexually aggressive towards women, first of all, i think thats really dangerous to say to assume that all men in the service will with this compulsion to want to engage her in a sexual liaison because theyre in a group of 10 to 12 people in a small unit. I think that is doing a disservice to our military and having an identity as a soldier. Irthink thats unfair to men. The second thing is may i respond first . Let me finish f we follow your argument out that we need an all male combat unit because being men, and i assume you mean heterosexual men, they will be more cohesive and work more functionally. So my question is how does a gay man fit into the social cohesion of a heterosexual 10 to 12 person unit . And if we do a darwinian premise about the rape proclivity of men which i think is really unfair to men, can you then imagine a gay male and female heterosexual unit that would function better because the sexual tension is gone . We need to wrap up. What is so disturb sgt centralizing of male proclivities based on tes toss roan or a chemical element that men. Caller control and therefore they would okay, enough. Please, we need to wrap up. Women are too gentle to pick up a gun and fight. Maam i think its dangerous. You repeat that word four times. That was not even said by anyone on this program. And then you exaggerated what was said in a way that is almost bizarre. But to deny that men and women are different, that counter theory is that we have to eliminate masculinism and masculinist tendencies in the military. The aed voluntary cats of women in combat are serious about that, too. They have been since the 1990s. So what you are suggesting that masculine ti is disease . Some people believe that. What were saying is we need professional behavior between men and women and acknowledge that people are human. They make mistakes. Theyre not perfect. Training doesnt solve all issues of personal character. If were going to have a strong military, we need to allow for. That we need to encourage discipline rather than indiscipline. Some people are stronger than others. We know. That i think its really unfair to try to put words into our mouth that are unfair what you say unfair to men. We respect both men and women in the military. May i ask you have the last word. I appreciate the degree to which you embroidered and rewrote most of what i said. I would just pitch back to you this question. If you dont like the idea of centralizing which is a classic academic term these days. How do you address the attrition interchangeability issue or challenge that will always be faced by combat units . If you do not consider people to be interchangeable, then what do you do in terms of attrition and in a war . I leave you with that to pond eastern a ponder and ask everybody else to thank you again for embroidering what i said and turning it more or less inside out. Maybe like a mobius strip. Ladies and gentlemen. Will you please join me in thanking our guests. There is a little time to continue the discussion outside. Thank you very much for your attention. The senate advanced the confirmation of judge neil gorsuch. The vote was 5544, a simple majority was needed for that vote. The democrats say 60 votes will be needed to confirm judge gorsuch unless republicans change senate rulelelelele many jart leader mcconnell plans to hold the confirmation vote on friday. Follow it live on cspan2. Saturday, book tv is live from the 15th annual Annapolis Book festival in maryland. Beginning at 10 00 a. M. Eastern oushgs coverage includes a Panel Discussion on income and equality with katherine eden, author of 2 a day. And then at 11 00 a. M. Eastern, a discussion on criminal justice with a book adnans story. The search for truth and justice after syria. And author brian stolars with his book grace and justice on death row. The race against time in texas to free an innocent man. At noon eastern, author discussions with mark schriber, my search for the real pope franceses. At 1. 306789 p. M. , author michael hayden. And at 3 00 pm eastern, thomas dolby author of speed of sound. Watch the 15th annual Annapolis Book festival live on saturday at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan2s book tv. In case you missed it on cspan. Clinton watts of the Foreign Policy Research Institute had the Senate Intelligence hearing. Through the end of 2015 and start of 2016, the russian influence system began pushing themes and messages seeking to influence the outcome of the u. S. President ial election. Russias overt coverts sought to sideline them on the political spectrum with adversarial views towards the kremlin