We were economists and bankers and University Professors and parliamentarians, like, we have skills. But theyre so focused on who is actually fighting, that theyre not reaching out to people who have, you know, as mandi like mentioned, this expertise in this set. So i think figuring that problem out is going to help prevent this from becoming because youre seeing the refugee population becoming a radicalization problem as well now. Because really they have nowhere else to go. And its the way and again i think this goes to how good a lot of these radical groups are at actually their propaganda and their recruitment ability, theyre saying, well offer you a solution, well offer you a place when we win. And thats something that theyre doing that no other side is doing. No other side is saying, well, if you come join us, well ensure that you have a socioeconomic role when this conflict is over. And unfortunately what the u. S. And other International Militaries have been doing, theyve been so focused on having the right side militarily win that theyve neglected to really engage with who the Key Stakeholders should be when the conflict is terminated. All right, good, thank you. Questions, anyone . All right. All right, up here in front, please. Doesnt seem to be any. Hi, ambassador jones. Deborah jones and i spent about 33 years in the middle east. But i think you hit on something in your question thats really important, and it gets back first of all, before i start on this, did everyone read debra continuers Washington Post editorial on women in leadership and the essential conflict there because we like, you know, we like our leaders to be forceful, strong, and occasionally angry. We like our women to be gentle, selfdeprecating and not really too angry, like our mothers. We all have mothers and we love our mothers, most of us. [ laughter ] and that leads me into what i was going to say about the middle east, though. And i think anyone who spent any amount of time here and i think the ambassador would agree with me on this, and who spent a lot of times in the houses, in the homes, and that has been the advantage of being a female officer in the foreign service, we spend a lot of time in the homes with the females as well. The question is spheres of influence. In the home, they are tremendously powerful and they make all the decisions and often jokingly refer to the men as the donkeys who do the work and bring home the money, but the mothers make all the decisions. Even more importantly, what we have to realize, in these disrupted cultures, in libya where i served, the only sphere where the government did not intrude, was inside the home. That was the only sphere where there was comfort, and also where the family honor factor is so important. And the down side of that is the womens independence. Because the womens honor is so important. We can talk later about kuwait, because i was at ambassador to kuwait as well. I think the kuwaiti women are the strongest, the most independent, make their choices. But nonetheless, in all these societies, the home still remains the center of gravity for everything. So now with the refugee flows, youve created all kinds of free electrons and thats really dangerous. Because these women come, they cant establish the same center of gravities for these families, for these kids and thats something we need to focus on a lot. They know when their kids are misbehaving a lot of times and they get that. But we need to help them create centers again, within their cultural norms that help them to keep an eye on and keep tabs on all these free electrons. Because i agree with you about the young women, their next generation. They dont know how to cook. They were still going home. And now theyre disrupted and were not plugging into that as well. So its really a tough situation, but its an important one. Im glad it came up, im glad you raised that question, thank you. I want to say one more thing on that as well. The other thing about the refugee crisis that were not really talking about, id be very interested to look into and to hear about, is, how much of an impact, if any, external cultures are having on the refugees as they go . Like that would be a fascinating topic. That would teach us about how we can use the military, how we can use Different Countries militaries to solve problems in the world today. Were not talking about it. And obviously the level of influence will depend on the towns, the countries and the regions were talking about, but thats something that i wish we had discussed more. Any other panelists want to comment . All right, i think we dont have any other questions. So lets join in a round of applause for our panelists. [ applause ] so dr. Bell is going to close us out with some remarks, and if i could have the other panelists from the earlier session make their way up, because we have a parting gift for you after his remarks. [ inaudible ] parting gift. [ laughter ] a token of our appreciation. You can come slowly. Just to recap, hey, first of all, i want to thank all the panelists and all the participants who came. I found it incredibly enlightening. And some of you may not realize what you learn from this and youll find out later when youre in some tough jobs, youll go, wow, i really needed that insight. I think its essential that we all assess the experiences weve had, particularly the last 15 or 20 years, understand those, but also chart a path to the future. And intellectually our own military likes to forget the lessons of fill in the blank vietnam, or the last decade of war before were even out of it, and we havent even grasped the way ahead. So i think even understanding what weve done is important but the way ahead is crucial, unless somehow were going to merge into a very lucky and peaceful world, where everyones kind of happily living together and the challenges of irregular warfare and radicalization are gone. Im afraid were not going to live in that world. It would be great, but we might as well prepare for the world that were in. Hey, in the world of cisa, our goal is to take everybody out of their intellectual comfort zone and give them the tools, the ability to succeed, meet the expectations we have, even if you dont think you can when you first come here. Right, fellas . International fellas . Youve achieved more than you thought possible. I thought our comments about expectations were huge and the power of diverse teams and diverse perspectives. Its important to step back, whether its a gender question or some other question, what are the diverse perspectives that were missing, that could give us different approaches or more Creative Solutions to the problem . Because frankly, in some cases, what weve been doing hasnt necessarily achieved the resounding successes that we keep claiming weve had. And so this is an important way to think about it, whether again its gender, religion, generation, ethnicity, subcultural groups, tribes, you name it, how do we include those in a constructive way to move forward as we build the approaches that are going to endure forever . We talked about expectations matter. Thats a key thing. How do leaders set the expectations, how do they set their organizations up for success . And then how do they recognize within their organizations the official standards, the informal standards, sometimes theyre different. How do they then root those out as they go forward . In the discussion of standards, which we kind of got to a little bit, but could go much deeper, from my experience, we always talked about the standards limiting, but we never looked at the aspects in the case of women, where they may have been superior. For example, i remember a subject back in the day when i was a lieutenant, that it came out and suggested that women had superior handeye coordination and dexterity and would make better tank gunners than men. Oh, man, we didnt like that. Because it kind of fit against that. Well, of course then as you do your force design, one option was, we could have an automatic loader in the tank, in which case, Upper Body Strength wasnt that important. The other one was, oh, no, we cant have an auto loader, thats too soviet union. The technology is great. But instead you had this justification based on Upper Body Strength, rather than the key element of the tank, i would submit, was the actual ability to put steel on target. So did i need a better loader or a better gunner . I probably wanted a better gunner. But it was interesting there, what we called standards, we sometimes had a selective approach. So step outside of your own bias. This is an important way to think about some of these issues. The next, organizational cultures, were all part of them, whether its a service culture, or a community culture, or a branch culture, and then leaders may try to change those organizations, but ultimately there are spoilers at the subordinate level. People told they couldnt travel. Is this another example though where yes, theyre supportive at the policy level, at the senior level, but below that, theres some missing element. And how do you as leaders, identify that, follow through to make sure that your campaigns going to succeed . And this is all your responsibility. Now, im reminded in this regard of general andrew j. Goodpaster, uncle andy was the superintendent at west point. Sue will remember him. Ellen. Came in out of retirement, was a retired fourstar general, had been the supreme allied commander of europe. Came in out of retirement as a threestar general, imagine that, to take west point through some very trying times. One was the cheating scandal, a question of professionalization post irregular warfare, and the second was the integration of women in an all volunteer force. General goodpaster, by the account, took his senior staff aside and in the session said, i expect you to welcome im paraphrasing because i wasnt there, i expect you to ensure that the women have an environment that welcomes them. If not ill be happy to shake your hand as you leave and go out the door and leave the organization. So from the top, he set not a flamboyant Leadership Climate but a clear one on what the expectations were of the leaders to make this happen. Now, having seen the other side, it didnt happen all the way down. You know, weve come a long way. There are some serious challenges but the leaders set the tone, set the expectations but also you have to understand that the subordinate leaders have to be fully supportive, whatever your transformation is. This is a question of organizational change in leadership that i think this is just a great example. The other one this flies in the face of the question, were really in a system in the American Military built on the notion of interchangeable parts. It emerges in the world war i army, the tailor system, scientific management, and how can we treat our soldiers, in large case all of our servicemembers, interchangeably. You know, you are all interchangeable parts, if you will, once you graduate from this war college experience. Well, shame on us, in our ability today why dont we treat you as talented individuals of significance, find the skills each individual has, that will be a task for somebodys dissertation when we get our ndu ph. D. Program going but think about how do we really harness our talent beyond the interchangeable parts. Thats kind of the industrial approach to war. Can we have something beyond that as we go forward. How do we see the individual significance of each of us and each of our subordinates. So a couple pieces about irregular warfare because thats kind of my world. I grew up in the world of traditional warfare. The idea was that german town, all those people would be gone, and so the battlefield was inherently clean. We just destroy the enemy and preserve our forces and everyone else all those people that lived in west germany would be somewhere in the rear. My experience over time, however, is thats not the battlefield that really exists. Whether it was in iraq during the first gulf war, or whether its in beautiful beautiful bos kosovo or macedonia or iraq again or afghanistan that theres people that live in this world, the people that we want in our doctrine to kind of ignore so we can focus on the enemy armed forces, when, in fact, the world of irregular warfare by our own doctrine is about this struggle for power and legitimacy and influence among relevant populations. Those populations may be the host countrys population. It may be our own domestic population. How do we think about our own legitimacy and our inability in American History to prosecute longterm irregular warfare campaigns . Because ultimately we lose domestic legitimacy over time, and so the question about our tie to our citizenry is really an important aspect. The second is, ambassador jones comment about spheres of influence. In American History, the argument that won the day, why women needed education was that women were part of a separate sphere, and the sphere was the protection of the family and the education of the next generation. And so ultimately that moved forward, whereas much more radical views of american womens incorporation into this new fabric of American History in the constitution really didnt happen. Abigail adams ultimately is going to be the wife of president john adams, but in march 1776, writes a letter to her husband, remember the ladies and shes envisioning i believe something much more politically inclusive but over time, women do have a huge dimension in irregular warfare, whether its in the recruitment or counter recruitment, whether its in the domestic piece, whether its as spies, combatants or part of the peace process. If we come from traditional background we kind of leave some out and lose those dimensions. So ultimately i would suggest that what we see as conventional warfare and a phased approach to warfare where we have the conflict phase and then the post conflict phase, our own experience in iraq and afghanistan should lead us to suggest that maybe thats a kind of false choice. Why is it that level of violence was higher in the post conflict phase in both iraq and afghanistan . Shouldnt that alone say that we need to rethink some of our fundamental assumptions about what happens and what fades . The other one is the post conflict activities are supposed to happen simultaneously with the conflict phase. How do you do that if you havent incorporated women into that . Hmm, i dont know. Another great thesis topic. But think about the logic we have has been built up on a very conventional approach that may be out of tune with the contemporary security environment. And what are the implications then if your doctrinal approach is inconsistent with the reality that youre in . The next piece i would just add, weve changed our definition of jointness since Goldwater Nichols was passed and implemented in 1986. Joint then was working together of the different branches of the u. S. Military. Our definition today of jointness is not just u. S. Military, but combined multinational, and its interagency hence our diplomats, intel folks, Law Enforcement professionals, National Security professionals here, intergovernmental, and it includes nongovernmental organizations and private volunteer organizations. Holy cow, if thats the joint team youre supposed to work with, this challenge of working with women on your team, imagine that the team weve defined is inherently international multiethnic, mixed genders, et cetera, et cetera, and so we have to break out of some of our constrained approaches. For our allies, if youre going to work with americans or frankly, many partners, i think youre going to encounter these teams of the future. Whether youre completely comfortable with this or not, welcome to the world where youre out of your comfort stzo, all right . Think about joint from a huge perspective but also the power that comes with those diverse perspectives, much like the classroom, theres power in these diverse perspectives on just an understanding alone. Im going to hit a couple more and then i promise ill be done. Great example of the role of women in conflict i think is exemplified by one of our malian graduates, nema from mali, went back in time for the collapse of northern mali, was the deputy of the southern sahara region, and then interesting perspective, you know, as the forces came in to one of the towns, of course the women, the girls, the kids are all hunkered down, because theyre expecting this is just another armed group, will probably be violated, raped, et cetera, et cetera, but instead she comes out and they realize oh, its a woman and theres a woman with the force that is just liberated our town, we can now come out and revitalize the economy, we can, you know, all of the things that instead of waiting for days to see whats going to happen, suddenly the town reemerges as a thriving entity because they saw her as understanding that but also then the force would be mitigated in how it acted to the civilian population with her presence there. So i think its a power. Example from our own alumni of where weve seen the examples today on how individual women part of the team can bring different perspectives, but also can change how the population responds to them, and can we create an enduring solution. And then certainly for you folks working radicalization counter radicalization and reintegration pieces, recall if you will the post 2004 saudi approach that families had to be part of the reintegration strategy to be effective. If you didnt bring in families and tribes, traditional structures, so in some cases today were talking about nontraditional roles and others very traditional roles. Your task as a strategist is the art of figuring out which work best, how they integrate, how they come together to produce a successful outcome in your strategy. Also i had to thank ambassador jones, this notion of the center of gravity, what is the center of gravity in irregular warfare . Is it the enemys armed forces, which we love to target, or is there some other structure, political structures, family structures, oh my gosh, and what are the implications of that if your force doesnt have the ability to understand where the center of gravity is, let alone interact with it. So this, sorry to bring in all your different course topics here, but think about the implications of this topic for our world of irregular warfare and whether its a radicalization, counter radicalization, effectiveness of teams in combat, post conflict, development, you name it. And the last piece irregular warfare is inherently political at its heart, much like the American Revolution we saw. We should be conscious, i believe, that these wars are accompanied by profound Political Economic or social changes. Maybe all of those. And those are going to affect the course of the conflict, but also the solutions afterwards. If youre not attuned to those, if youre not savvy to how those are happening, then you missed a huge dimension of whats going on. Anyways, we want to, you know, go back to the way it was before the conflict, but instead the conflict itself is already changing the societies, the people, the views there. We have to be attuned to that and if this incorporation of gender perspectives helps you understand that, so much better. So you know, the last piece i would just mention, just as part of africanAmerican History month, got to go back to our American Revolution roots. Remember we started the year that way. Were looking at political opportunity structures, looking at social movements. Were looking at the transition into violence, political violence, and then ultimately irregular warfare and Something Else at yorktown, right . But if you think back, theres a huge question in the war. How do i get appropriate, sufficient manpower to fight this greatest army on earth . British army, right . Oh, wait, with he hear this from the other side, right . One of the choices they have in early 1777 is to begin to form integrated units, and then ultimately large number of former slaves are in the ranks particularly in colonies like rhode island, where you know, by some french observers later more than onethird of the units are former slaves. Ultimately whats my point . One is theres as combatants see it,er this fellow combatants and becomes ultimately the definition of all men are created equal starts to change in many peoples minds based on that experience. The second piece it creates a free black population in the northern states that will be different than the Southern States and it will play out ultimately in the questions of abolition and civil war in the united states. So a longterm social change brought about by integration of folks in the armed forces, and then you know, i hate to say it, but from the armys perspective, it turned away from those lessons after the war. I hasty to say it, theres sometimes a cultural backlash if you will against this, where they decided no, we dont need anymore integrated units, and that experiment would have to wait then for the 20th century to actually move forward to the next level. So dont assume just because there is integration, heres my moi point, dont assume because theres integration at some levels that it will remain, that the institutional pressures, the traditions, the cultures, wont actually suppress those, and then fail to learn some of the incredible pieces there. So your task is to keep an open mind, be creative, but also remember that individuals matter and find the best ways to harness those. So thats my huge theme. I want to thank two groups though, first i want to thank the folks in our college that made this possible that kind of keep pushing the edge. Its part of our dna, if we will, how do we push the envelope, take people out of their intellectual comfort zone, and then force them to create these creative integrated strategies on how to make the world better. No pressure, right . But for our Team Ambassador greta holtz thank you, dr. Marat, commander taylor, Lieutenant Colonel francis, major ben tagget. The neat thing about that is, oh look, that was an interagency and joint service team right there to help put this together and then miss keene, miss audler and miss jamie hague. Of course she puts her name last but shes pretty much the animous behind this. Please put your hands together and applause for the folks who helped put this together. And the last one i want to thank our panelists today. I think they exemplified what were try igto do here through scholarship, through policy analysis and in some cases, as they admitted, some of their ideas have changed through the process of their research and their scholarship. And so many of you may have a similar experience this year. Thats great, because it will bring you to even a deep every level of understanding, but thanks for the commitment. Thanks for what youve done for this group, and whether you realize it or not, alumni years from now this event has opened up different perspectives in ways they didnt really appreciate at this time. So for each of you, look at this, got a Pretty Amazing book, you may already have it, if you do, we can come upstairs and cash it out for a different one. I would offer to our panelists and any of our guests if you come upstairs afterwards the second floor ill give you a quick tour of the school and see what else we do and go ooh, wow, pretty neat. Women on the front lines of peace and security, it was cosponsored by department of state, department of defense at the time the National Action plan came out. Its really Pretty Amazing document, and with the forward by the secretary of state and secretary of defense. So i just want to say thank you. [ applause ] lets give our panelists another round of applause. [ applause ] i want to thank dr. Bateman for moderating this, for pulling this together intellectually, for being agile enough as folks have changed to kind of bring that. I would hope that this starts a conversation for many of you. If we can facilitate it, im happy to and i think youll see some great stuff. So last, let me just close where i began. Hey, at cesa were trying to be cutting edge, looking at the strategies and policies of irregular warfare, counterterrorism and the demands of the contemporary security environment. Our world is about diverse perspectives. We have alumni from 92 countries and i find each opportunity i engage with them that im the beneficiary and the task now is how do we move that to make our world better. Thank you much for coming today and with that, lets go. Have a good day. [ applause ] earlier this month president obama sent to congress his proposed budget for next year. Members of the cabinet have been testifying on capitol hill about the budget, and today secretary of state john kerry, just entering the room, goes before the House Foreign Affairs committee. He is shaking the hands there of elion engel, ranking democrat and ed rils the chairman. The state departments proposed budget is 50 billion that includes 4 billion to combat isis and 6 billion for humanitarian assise