That they currently exist in, were just going to have weaker product delivered later. I think we need to have some reform as the next round. And i think theres enormous potential there, not just in the military departments but between the military departments and osd, within osd, and further out into the headquarters in the field. Well, i thank you for that. And you are uniquely situated now to play a key role. And i agree with you. Just flatout reductions is just the first step. You have to its a little bit like sequestration in that its a meat ax when we need a scalpel and so i would look forward to having you play a role there given your unique background. Finally, the source of great frustration this committee, all of us members, is this continued cost overruns on weapons systems. Weve made some reforms. Were putting the Service Chiefs more involved. You are aware. But it still seems to go on. And every time we really need something, we use that expedited process, which we used for
Lifetime e a took place a lifetime ago. And its collapse seems so unimaginable. If i can indulge you for a second, the year before the collapse, i had organized a conference. Withe was more associated the cold war. Some of you were there. Of talk aboutt the integration of europe. , knownial the soviet was talking about the reunification of germany. Off desk also the time john and bill had begun their series on sovietamerican relations, the first time sovietamerican scholars got together. Scott armstrong had just come up with the idea of a National Security archive. But the end of the cold war . Not a chance and no discussion. Notequently, one is remarkable, what is now much closer now than we were then, by reaching a consensus regarding events in germany, and then of course, there aftermath. These questions concerned the drivers, whether they be individual, state, or international. These questions concerned consequences, whether they be international, state, or individual. These questi
Four decades or even more, its a little short of remarkable that were marking 25 years since the fall of the berlin wall. Its remarkable because on the one hand we can recall that event so vividly, but on the other hand, it sometimes seems like it took place a lifetime ago. Its also remarkable because for those of us who pursued our degrees and published our first books during the preceding decades, in some cases before the construction of the wall [ laughter ] its collapse seemed so unimaginable. In fact, if i can indulge you for a second, the year before the collapse, i organized a conference on john foster dulles. No one was more associated with the cold war. Some of you were there. There was lots of talk about the integration of europe. The soviets new thinking. Glasnost. Perestroika but no one was talking about the reunification this was the time john gaddes began their conferences on soviet and american relations. First time soviet and American Scholars got together. And Scott Ar
Scholarship about the causes for the fall of the wall but the proximate causes, the short term events are not wellknown in the nongerman speaking world and so i decided for the anniversary to try to put together that story as best i could and then of course as always happens when you start researching something it becomes more complicated than you expected. It ended up being a fascinating rg 31 so let me just gallop through some of the ideas in my book and then if we have questions we can talk more about them. I want to talk a little bit about the precursor to the night of november 9, 1989, when the wall opens. And then a tiny bit about how we think about these events, memory and legacy, themes that my colleagues will emphasize as well. So its important to say that the first unexpected event actually happened not in berlin but in moscow which is to say there were a rapid series of deaths. In 2 1 2 years there were four leaders of the soviet union, of course, after brezhnev died. Then a
Locally, but throughout the country. It is very needed. Thank you. My name is audrey, i am an associate professor. My question is, in light of the videotapes we have seen, where they are shooting people and just leaving them on the ground to die what are the legal grounds for police regarding giving lifesaving means when their shot someone. And the walter scott case, they live. They say they provided cpr, they did not. What are they legally required to do . To leave them there to die so not to mess with evidence . I was going to ask him, he stepped up for a minute. The question is, we pose the question repose the question. What are the legal requirements for police when using lifesaving means . Are they supposed to leave them there, so as not to disturb evidence . Or are they supposed to save their lives . In the walter scott case, they lied and said they did cpr. Can i have my cocounsel address this . We are dealing with the same issue in cleveland. I will be very direct in response.