tv U.S. Senate CSPAN July 1, 2013 5:00pm-8:01pm EDT
>> and for helping for today's event. thank you to all of you for coming out. thanks to the professor for accepting the invitation today to discuss an issue that i think both of us believe is part of this order. when we were discussing before this began, we have been talking about behind closed doors for a better part of two years now. and that has followed the debate that we have seen inside of the u.s. government or heard about were had echoed about in the difficulties of coming up with policy prescriptions to deal with this crisis. my thanks go to president obama himself to recognize that the regime of bashar al-assad has used chemical agents in syria to
increase military support and as rob mentioned, it is an area of policy flux and we don't all the details and i think that that is going to be where a lot of the debate is going forward. the article that was discussed in foreign affairs about this collapse of syria was based on a recent trip that i made with my colleagues to the syrian border region. we were in every syrian border region with the exception of iraq. i think that this is the one thing that came away from that trip with our policy report earlier this year, i think this will carry us through, i think that the syria that i live in for so long, the one that i have been writing on for quite some time, the one that you know very
well through direct interaction or indirect interaction or whatever -- it is just simply part of this here. quite frankly the crisis that has generated from that environment now, i think that it is a threat to the regional security architecture and is rightfully not only a lot more of the regional powers, but also threatens to have many of the international powers as well. this includes major challenges for the united states going forward. i'm afraid how it is a very situation that is very simple. the basis of my argument is simple. i will explain in this has echoed in recent government analysis, it is not a question
of if we get involved in syria but how and when. attention has to be paid to outcomes and goals. i agree with that. we might not be able to completely end the syria crisis. but by becoming more involved with the assertive and measured approach, i believe we can shape the outcome in keeping with our interests as much as possible within syria's borders. so i would like to say this falls a lot of president obama is recent responses with the interviewer charlie rose. i'm sure he didn't read it and respond to charlie rose. what i want to say is that the president has outlined very clearly what the interests have interest have been according to what he saw. this is the first part of
everything. talking about the destruction and the death toll in syria. we have hit 100,000 killed, depending on the numbers. just this month in syria alone. especially in about half the time. the workers say that it is bosnia on steroids. of course, this hundred thousand migrant, this will be a war that involves a lot of markers that comes around the second anniversary of president obama saying that bashar al-assad had to step aside. now, the death tolls inside of syria are worse than the death tolls of iraq. at the height of the conflict in 2007. there are also considerable regional interests. and i think that this is -- this is something that has not really entered the policy considerations previously.
there is the humanitarian situation and the response on that, checking the iranian influence, i think that now the outflow of refugees into jordan, it was so massive as well as other countries that those countries were simply unable to handle them and that somehow the previous arguments and policies that we could deal with the symptoms of this crisis alone, but those arguments were wearing thin based on what was coming out in syria. those of you who have been there have noted this and those in jordan represent the cities and i encourage you to go there if you can and talk to people who are running the camp if you would like. there is very little security. so that is another major area.
but then the president has outlined what he called a direct interest. this is with the use of chemical weapons and chemical agents in this situation. according to the u.s. government officials. this is also a major concern and one that threatens to take this crisis and all of the displacement that has been generated from it into basically supercharging matt situation and send people running over the border or into neighboring areas. especially staying out of areas where these chemical agents can be used. we are trying to deter the lethality of his arsenal. but i think the biggest take away that i have from my trip,
and one that a lot of my fellow said the institute share is that the division of the country into these three general areas that i have outlined, and each one of these areas we see not just u.s. designated terrorist organizations present, we see them sending and a key part of each area's ability to go in the defensive. the politically within those areas. so this includes hezbollah and the capture of the syrian forces. both in terms of the regime as well as soft power, reaching out to the syrian population and of course we have a local variant also present in the situation. what is this all matter to
americans? many people have pointed to a number of polls that indicate that we do not want to intervene inside of syria. there are different responses about what this might look like. but generally there is a lot of skepticism for various reasons. having to do with our involvement in iraq and afghanistan. with finances and so on. the biggest strategic threat that is emerging out of all this, i think, it really has to do with -- it took me back to my original discussion and i came to washington about five years ago and i had to leave syria. that is location, location, location. the first two years of the obama administration -- we engaged the regime of bashar al-assad. not because we like him or his behavior was particularly good. it was based on the idea that
syria is very important. not only in signing a peace treaty with israel, but also because of the geographic location. people are very friendly but by and large, we didn't have a lot of u.s. interests there. but we have a lot of interest in the countries that surround of syria. in lebanon where the u.s. doesn't have necessarily direct interest a lot of historical interest in remaining military interest there. i try to think a little bit about this and i hear about this every time. those that said we shouldn't get more involved in syria, they said, look at what happened in syria. so those of you that are from there know exactly what i'm
talking about. and in the end it didn't destroy the region were threatened things. so i think that the analogy that immediately came to mind was that for all of the horrific things that happen, will lebanon is a small roadhouse on the end of the law can do for someone that can relate to everything here. this is a regional security architecture. the boundaries that have divided up almost 100 years it has much different demographics. it has not nessarily been
fairly successful. but it was very much a situation down the middle of the metaphor. syria is the roadhouse in the middle of the block. okay? the problem with what we see is that what happens there does not stay there. it is not like vegas. it actually, the potential for spillover is so great and has accelerated over the last few months, whether it is the refugees or the involvement of hezbollah. if you would've told me in a short periods of time come you could watch it rocket from these revenue territories, i said, you have to be crazy. it's the equivalent of hell freezing over. those of you who have been tracking the involvement of this
inside of the country. i don't think what will happen there is staying there. i think it is less and less containable. that in and of itself threatens not only the neighbors but the security architecture as well. right now it is refugees and cross-border fire. it can be destabilization of the border areas and other areas as well. it is true. things don't often burn down immediately. over time, given that we don't have a solution to fight as an apolitical one doesn't seem to be part of it, i think that the potential for this is much greater. and i think that it deserves greater u.s. attention. so this is one that i have discussed with park many times.
and outside of government circles and are not unknown to most of you. one is i believe the first step to all of this is that we need to enforce the chemical weapons redline with president bashar al-assad. when you lay down these lines, you should enforce them. the choices of not doing so reverberate outside this crisis and it will affect our decision in how we will proceed to the region and beyond. i think that is a big concern that many of us have in the military. but i think most importantly, if we don't enforce that, i think that the president, there is every indication based on the evidence that the escalation changes moving out. already we have seen some chemical weapons. if the surface missiles ardea third of the most use in the civilian population in the history of the world, i mean,
you know, we have the civilian population or not and it is there. that is going to cause more people to run over the borders and over the borders into neighboring countries and potentially destabilize them. second, i think that in order to contain this crisis and the displacement, we need to set up safe havens in syrian order regions. we have written about this before in the areas are adjacent to turkey and to be enforced with aircraft flying there. by the way, these are not the only options and i say that in the paper. we have discussed this over the last year or so. they vary from using patriot missiles to more direct actions with u.s. aircraft on those areas.
and then the risks of course go out. it is much more expensive. i believe that next we decided that president bashar al-assad have to go and it is part of the solution, we need to be able to work with the opposition in order to achieve that militarily and politically. the reason i want him to go isn't is because he is a bad guy, the reason why he has to go in my opinion is that he lost his chance to reform this country. to deal with the demographic wave that is overcoming that regime. it had proved very rigid overtime. it has been unable to reform and has been unable to deal with the big elephant in the room. that is if you notice all the armed fighters.
they have very little gray. that is because what you're seeing in syria is authoritarian, following the massacre of february of 1982. there was a massive crackdown like many inside of syria. the economy contracted and for that 10 years, even arab nationalists and communists were arrested and everyone just stayed home and had a lot of children. during that. lack of time, syria was among the 20 fastest-growing populations in the planet. that was why many people inside were actually pushing for the reform. that system and president bashar al-assad need to go in order to reflect true transitions from the tranquil and rigid form of
government into something more accommodating to our demographics inside that country. that is true stabilization inside that country. one that can work from the inside out. we need to work with the syrian opposition in the border regions of syria and jordan and beyond as well as those in the future depending upon if they are developed and when an overworked. lack of time. there are a lot of details about that in my paper. at the end of this, i advocate diplomacy and i don't think that we should throw it away. i think it is something that we should always keep open, but i don't think at this point that what we see is this process is going to yield anything that would lead to a true transition that would deal with the difficult situation side of this country. what i see in the future at the end of this is syria that remains divided into three areas. regime control in the west,
incurred out of the west. various borders and others. at the end of this process we should try to bring the pieces back together. that is very different as a goal at this point. i think it is worth trying to keep syria together, whether it is -- i don't think it's current form it is possible, but something more decentralized. part of those negotiations at long last our huddled along the regime that might feel more confident to have the president bashir and his immediate family leave. that might give them the kind of guarantees that they were like an interim or didn't feel as many that the transition would mean having your head chopped off. i can understand that here. i can understand the fact that the regime has been in the media
through this regime. so instead of starting with the security council, and that we should start with the syrian people and then end with diplomacy. hopefully we would have to have some other kind of diplomatic process, for example switzerland one way or another of others that might be able to step in and hopefully stabilize this horrific crisis. so with that, i will conclude and i will hand over the microphone. thank you. [applause] >> i would like to think all of you for coming out here on this hot friday afternoon at the end of june. i would like to thank rob for the manufacture and he says that he doesn't usually host debates. but oddly every time i come here, he does.
[laughter] i would like to thank andrew for what he has been doing over the last two years. both robin and her have alluded to the many many workshops and events and discussions we have been involved with. one of the things that is most impressive about andrew, and i think another of him other people and it's that i see in this room is that they have been focused on trying to solve problems in syria with what i think are part of the partisan debates about them. trying to find workable solutions and i think that is where we all need to be working on. authors do not choose their own titles. as the editor of the middle east channel on foreign policy, foreign policy.com, i get to choose them on those articles. on foreign affairs, his article is entitled serious collapse and how washington can stop it. i fully and completely agree that syria is ll
humanitarian horrors, the strategic boy, everything that is described more or less goes along with our understanding of what has happened in syria. we have no disagreement in the strategic situation of the reality where the danger where the general balance of forces in the ground. or for that matter, on the moral and strategic imperative to solve the problems they are. on the likely reality of a civil war that is going to stretch on for a very long time. in other words, there is no easy or quick fix to the problems of syria. our disagreement primarily lies where some associate editor added how washington can stop it. i don't think that washington can stop it. i think that it has been doing some things. might be able to try some other
things. at the end of the day, the magnitude of what has happened in syria is well beyond the ability of the united states to control. and i want to be clear what i mean by this. most of those, including answers is around a certain set of limits and i can can't tell you how many times mockable beers i have heard the words that nobody's talking about boots on the ground, thank god. no one is talking about this. my point is that even with boots on the ground, 150,000 troops occupying damascus, we couldn't stop it. we proved it in iraq. it doesn't mean that we could actually solve this problem. no question about that. but then we have to solve the problem of the collapsed state, a shattered society, and the repatriation of what is left in what has been left behind. i think any serious discussion,
and i include andrew in this category of the syria discussion has to begin from the past of understanding what syria that syria is going to look like at the end of this game and the middle of this gain as well as now. when we talk about only the president, if only he would do this, if only he would arm the rebels, if only he would create a safe area or really mean it when he says that the sheer matte must go all the problems must be solved. no serious person really believes that. i think we need to understand that her arguments are taking place as part of the margins. what we might affect with humanitarian situations in the strategic situation and the political situation and the magnitude of what is happening as well beyond the ability of any minor or major fix coming from washington.
what that means is it is absolutely and completely true that the president's strategy for syria has not called the problems of syria. i think part of the strategy have been useful. parts of them have been disastrous. parts of them have simply been good ideas that have not worked out. we are very clear that when you have a situation with millions of refugees and sectarianism spreading through the region, that is not policy that you want to hold up. but the problem is that none of the major alternatives are any better. i hear from senator mccain and others in everything which the critics predicted would happen if we intervene have happened anyway. in some ways that is true. syria is a disaster. but we are not embedded neck deep in it. many are caught in the plotless pressure to expand commitments and go deeper, stay longer, have a surge of troops. people talk about this slippery
slope like it is a throwaway thing where it is a slippery slope that we are worried about. we cannot do that. you have to think about what happens when someone doesn't work. something actually need to think about the various policies and i think three of the four of what we put forward, i'm happy with all four except for he didn't quite completely describe number one, which is not just enforcing though conventional weapons but airstrikes to try to take out this in the article. i basically think there has to be a firm and clear line between any kind of direct military intervention and a whole range of things that we can consider. i think that the current part of occupying the rebels comes close to that line that doesn't cross it. but airstrikes and enforcement
of a safe area and declaration of a safe area with a stated or unstated commitment crosses that line. once your cost, unless you can give me a clear story by which the conflict and, and i think that we are on a slippery slope that leads to exactly what everyone says they are not talking about, which is bloodless escalation. once you are in, you are in. you can't say that didn't work, we are going to walk away. those of you who remember the debate in 2011, when it didn't look like it was working, we have to remember that the same people who argue that they were never talk about boots on the ground ,-com,-com ma they started talking about boots on the ground. once you're in it, you have to win it. i think we need to be extremely cognizant in this situation. now, let me talk about some of those steps. including my general sense of how this is playing out in what
i think we can and cannot do. generally speaking the argument about arming the rebels in washington has been largely irrelevant. february of 2012, we have been talking about where we might go. it would be a way of showing what we are dedicated to. you can't do nothing. that looks bad. we find something in the middle you can do. but it might help a little bit on the margin. i'm surprised it took so long, but i don't think it matters very much further was a point at which it mattered. that was roughly between november 2011 and march of 2012. when you are seeing a debate taking place inside a victory of or in opposition and across the region about whether to shift
from a peaceful uprising to a motorized conservatory. that is a serious debate in the were very real reasons at that i've got time to avoid the militarization of the complex. i fear the time and many others in this room did it as well. because of the recognition that bashir matt had an extraordinarily difficult time dealing with a nonviolent challenge and a moral challenge where it was a peaceful uprising in the area. ..
>> a ground where he was much more confidente at winning. the militarization has been a disaster for the syria revolution and almost everything was predicted by the syrian advocates of non-violence has been validated. there absolutely a terrified of the victory that is increasingly seen as the insurgency and we now have a strategic stalemate at very much of the expense of the
syrian people with the possibility to have control of a functional stage and i expect the civil war if they had to win issa aside falls or survives i see the logic has gone too far to be overturned at this point. it doesn't mean we should not try but the thing is that andrew is discussing and the reality is the militarization from the uprising in to the insurgency is a moral and strategic and political disaster one that assad thwarted now begin has brought syria to where it is now. that was a year-and-a-half ago when the debate mattered but now it doesn't really matter because it is felipe
militarize. it is now a multi cited urgency -- surgeon see where we debate how a and the mortality by which we will support an insurgency. this is very different than before but whether the kinds of steps in drew was talking about likely to help this insurgency it is not necessarily the goal with their different ways to support that insurgency is more or less likely to produce results to serve american interests. to this point those have been defined as trying to find some kind of political transition which preserves what rudimentary functioning of this day remains to find some way to prevent that
seems to be the inevitable cycle of state failures reinstates breakdown or somalia that it appears work headed. the steps being discussed would accomplish that and it could be that syriac -- syria is unique id just as every other case but with the comparative inexperience and the studies of the extra go support tell us this kind of international support for insurgency goes to the weaker side tends to make the war is lager am bloodier, more difficult to find a negotiated outcome at the and and create the exacerbate the feelings of the entrenchment of the
political economy as they are associated with the insurgency and make it less likely to have a democratic course stable regime when the war finally ends. most to do eventually end. now it could be that syria is different. it has not have been did two 1/2 years but if anybody could point me to a single case in the hess -- history of the world for it has worked if it could happen and it is extremely frustrating we could not find one. we could talk about some examples that are popping into the minds but the french support will not cut it. if you have to go back that far that i am not convinced. the logic of our being rebels, given everything that i just said is essentially boils down, it
has been fully adjudicated on the op-ed page and why we moved to trying to arm the rebels. the logic is if we start our being a the syria grovels a couple of things will happen. they will stabilize the battlefield prevent the rebels from losing and enable them to respond to what many people they ink is the rashid military advantage. with the diplomatic end game that will be more likely to get to the end game if they try to bargain from a position of strength. as part of the insurgency and with the group's there would like to support so if they give them weapons they
could weaken the appeal of the two hottest of the radicals a and therefore by arming the opposition referred there the battle of lois lerner and we can veggie hottest who alarm us. and that would give us a greater stake over postwar syria to win the gratitude and the political support with post assad syria with the rebels who have won an accord negotiated a transition. this sounds good and i have heard it expressed extremely well but i am simply not convinced and the step of the chain the argument that
the u.s. providing arms would make a significant difference in the strategic equation rests on a couple of assumptions that i don't think are right. it is a flotilla of weapons they have been falling for the last year and a half and they would be entering into a crowded market of weapons. it is not like it was a year and a half ago where you have first movers advantage to make a strategic qualitative difference. now you become one player in a crowded field. so number one, yes you will strengthen that if you have more or better weapons but it is a change on the margins, and not type. number two, is this will get to the point and i will say something positive to the end.
but if we were able to establish a unified supply chain that we were the only supplier of weapons or at least were able to direct the flow of weapons from turkey, jordan, , etc., to unify the flow of weapons into a unified political opposition that would have oversight over a unified military force. but none of those conditions apply. we don't agree on the close with our major allies. they spend more time competing with each other with the opposition and with constructing a unified strategic plan. the fragmentation and the political dysfunction is not something over here while the insurgency is over here. one supports the other. money flowing in from the
saudis and now from us, all this does is help to increase the fragmentation and separation internal battle between of the local militia or force with we with membership in a very degrees of control over different areas. but as we have been to put much more effort into this centralization and political leadership of aid to the syrian opposition than thinking providing arms would do the trick. but the bottom line is the army of the rebels has been going on for a long time it unless we can get control over that we will simply add to it than qualitative the
changing yet. the assumption that we can radically change says through the provision of arms assumes this area of external backers are maxed out and have given everything they can and we add to the mix to shift to create a balance favorable to the opposition. or maybe the ford backers of assad increased aid did you have the us go a torrey latter aid is an empirical question if they are maxed out by siegel evidence that they are. third, i simply do not believe we will drive away jihadist by becoming less involved. the rest of the world is what we are involved the jihadist love to be there even more.
they will continue to fight us to use our involvement in public as a pretty good argument as to why the ones receiving weapons are not authentic representatives against the infidels. the idea that they will say we had a good run but now the americans are finding the moderate levels makes it exceedingly unlikely. of the united states was correctly worried the weapons would throw to the jihadist groups and now we're told the cia has said they will not go to the assad -- jihadist. this is ridiculous. that is what they do. the bombs wind up in the
basket but the idea there is some bad jihadist but most are the opportunist and a fight because they have better weapons then they will come to our side. the key part of the chain is insane because once we have attracted the opportunist to our side with better weapons , and the wind shifts so why in the world wouldn't say switchback? what would hold them in place? a strong and centralized command and control but that does not exist. the idea the provision of weapons will somehow marginalize and isolate and remove the jihadist presence strikes me as a deeply
implausible particularly because the insertion of more guns moving up the ladder means of fighting will get bloodier or nastier and all the pressures that you so correctly identified will increase and escalate there may be some examples out there of people becoming more moderate and less disposed to radical ideas as the conflict increases in the state collapses and the blood flows. more likely radical ideas will become more attractive as the estate collapse accelerates. i assure there are some rebels in we can support them but but to have lasting influence or control over them more in line with our values that we can place bets on them that they will deliver on our behalf.
i think if we give guns to a particular general to that community we will not support you anymore you will say okay we will go someplace else. one of the things that i hear now unfortunately that has changed in catarrh it even before that with the saudis to take the lead now in the organization i was just throw this out there if you're counting on saudi arabia to be non islamic opposition i am sorry but i cannot help you. i don't believe that. [laughter] what would our main the rebels be good at? deflecting pressure in washington for a while a in
deflecting pressure in the gulf in give john kerry chips in diplomacy and to further strengthen us relative to others and they will be good for a month and then be right back to where we have been to having arguments about when and whether to begin airstrikes and a no-fly zones. we should be doing much more to the political opposition and to channel aid through the political leadership both the military and nonmilitary and we have been trying to knock heads with the allies in the gulf may be the provision of arms will give more leverage to fall in line may be. but we should do those things but i will not stand
appeared to promise this is the magic solution to solve this problem. i think that is a depressing way to end this but i shall. [applause] >> thank you both very much. and a great pleasure to be the devil's advocate against both of your positions. with the higher strategic level of the objectives with the tactical implementation level. let me ask each of you a question. first, you mentioned in your opening remarks three parts of syria effectively with
three different terrorist organizations fighting each other. it is a very good question. isn't this a great blessing? three terrorist organizations killing each other? we will come back in the year and there will be fewer terrorist in the world. let's protect to make sure it doesn't overflow the borders isn't that a reasonable strategy? on the other side the iranians are all in, hezbollah will be louis to we really want the iranians to win here? shouldn't the fundamental prime directive to use "star trek" terms. [laughter] to be in sure that they
don't win to do whatever is necessary to make sure that that terrible calamity doesn't happen? gentleman? >> bad is the first time you have asked me that question but not the first time of this discussion. it has a whole hearted calculus to its. the sworn enemies of the united states the tentacles have killed americans all fighting each other doesn't that sound great? again it gets back to the situation it works in tel it doesn't work and that works until the conflict becomes uncontainable within the current boundaries and that
is what i argue it becomes difficult do do that because what you end up doing is destroying a country the people also with the extremism among three different areas. that is not in our interest. making this more dangerous to the media allies with turkey, jordan, israel, leba non, iraq but making it more dangerous is settled feel comfortable or safe at all the way this kind of battle with this kind of group is centered around the area that we have the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the middle east. i realize now most
assessments are they are in the regime hands. we cannot guarantee that going forward. video these are loaded into shells to be fired. this is not stuff that can easily be kept under lock the and key over time. that in itself has a number of downside risks. that superchurches and since it global and that is why president obama outlined it as a direct threat. there are a number of ways but as the conflict experience with ibm rory about is it is perfectly feasible going forward that we could have the boundaries but in the defacto cents we have so many syrians it will
become part of what they talk about that now probably don't want. and diphenyl that it itself the destabilization of jordan is also a threat in that area filled up with the extremist. so get with the question and i guess i say this in the article directly but i will say your id away in most ways this is a political operation because we are shaping the are rapidly changing environments. so just like mark said it makes it much more complicated at heart. the one thing i would add of the four steps that i outlined they don't have to go in order or at the same
time but the great challenge of leadership going forward i learned this from the iranians to watch adversaries in battle with the scum of there very good to look at the full negative board of options to turn this not off in this one on in their very good at that because obviously they don't have public pressure to go up the escalation schaede. they could do this then do what they want but marcus wright often tied sealock to into a situation we believe we have to go all in. i don't think that is what will win it is syria. we don't know what happened there are some unknowns but it will be a much more complicated situation. i totally agree on was recently in israel with the senior intelligence official whom i respect very much and
he said to us at the end of the day when we were thinking about the crisis, this is the most complicated challenge that israel has ever faced. i was taken aback. he said i did not say it was the biggest but the most complicated. interior no where close to the end. i don't think it is just the united states but the others think along those lines as well. >> they are good questions for about i want to of the size that's i a agree with a lot of recommendations and he does have a good and useful politics first approach with the military action in support of the
political objectives. i did not mean to say that you didn't. fed is important but i don't agree with your question but i let them fight it out that they kill each other what's the problem? they are killing thousands of syrians it is not the whole sum game but the flypaper idea to attract all the bad guys is silly because you are generating or exacerbating the radicalization process elsewhere that one of the most worrying thing is about what could be happening is the way this turns into a
region in y or international campaign that actually is very much along the of lions in bosnia or others use the media, mosques, religious networks to mobilize people to get them to private -- to provide money and not just the jihadist but the mainstream that we are working with. what you are looking at is kernels of popcorn and as of may, over and die in syria but more are popping all over the region so the addition there is a fixed number but on the other side are we really going to let them win the? this gets to the strategic question of overall goals
which we have not decided as a policy community, is serious civil war which needs to be solved or a front against iran that needs to be one? it is different things. the steps that could be taken to stop the killings or find a political transition are not of what if you wanted to do was to fight it out. i understand you gave that strategic objective will be difficult and it goes back that we don't agree with our allies. so of the jordanians and the turks would prefer to solve the problem because it is readying their country but the saudis would be perfectly happy to keep fighting iran to the last dance syrian so that
strategy makes perfect sense. what to rethink? we have not articulated it. >> let's open the floor to your questions then we go to the far back make sure you identify yourself with the microphone. >> just a fascinating discussion there will not be a new winner but. >> whose side are you one? [laughter] >> i was at a conference in houston and did you hear different ways that one of the speakers presented the argument that far from being the security architecture was the artificial overlay from outsiders that has prevented the inevitable sorting out to the ship
taken place in the 1920's after the collapse of the ottoman empire. the colonials defended it from happening than the restraints and now it is happening is they can't be prevented it we should step out of the way in go with the winner. you don't agree with that? >> i don't agree. the reason why i see it as a major concern is a lot of things have happened since the boundaries were drawn. nations commit as imperfect as they are were built with security agreements and armies were raised. . .
>> but the reason why i wrote this article is very clear. that is that i see the meltdown that we have had in syria as a threat to u.s. interests on a number of levels. it is 100 years old for better or for worse briefing just letting everyone get it out of their systems is not my spirit i think we should put some constraints on none. i think you all know that is
just the way it goes as much as we can shape that come i think that is very important for our assets. >> my name is edward joseph with johns hopkins. i agree with the previous questioner. i would like to take a month's challenge, if i could come in to give you an example of where the army insurgents have been. i would underscore that the training of bosnian forces were a key determinant. this improvement in the capacity
of the ground forces made this difference on the ground in the droppings to the negotiating table. with someone who i am sure you are quite familiar with, we had talked about the way that the differences were examined between bosnia and syria. among them is to get two entries for and about fossae on steroids. meaning that you have to have the order of 500 to 600 casualties to have the impact it had in syria. my question to answer is that -- if we are going to have to hold it there. >> can i ask a question we met.
>> okay. >> he said that to interfere would be futile. he agreed with that. >> stop, stop. okay, bosnia. i'm glad you mentioned bosnia and did not confuse it with kosovo like some columnists. yes, you're right. what tipped the balance is the arming of the croatia military and their conventional victory against the serbian forces. it does not include the balance of safe areas which are unenforceable, airstrikes were, which make very little contribution to the actual resolution of the conflict. there is only the full-scale arming and the victory of the croatian army. i am not sure who you envision playing the role of this army in this scenario.
but it was not the army of insurgents great it was of the insurgents. at the end of that conventional military victory, there was debate in process in which we took this and legitimated it in power, made him a key part of the solution and he shows up many years later after kos about. basically what it involved was agreeing to the petition of the country and legitimated in the role of the architect of the massacres and being willing to wine and dine and not seek international justice. basically having now been forced through a major international peacekeeping operation with the overt acceptance of russia and the neighbors. if you're willing to go all the way and envision bashar al-assad's roll and find someone to play the role include
avoiding international justice and i think that that is a possible path. that is not the one that most peave in mind. yes, it is a very good experiment to work through. i'm not sure that it has the lessons that some people might think. >> we can take a couple of questions over here. >> was the president to precipitous and talking about diplomacy estimated dead for all practical purposes. >> thank you. >> when you start and we can hear part of the discussion.
>> okay. as you know, there was a recent announcement about the supreme military council, which is essentially beyond affiliate. that organization was created from the same time of saudi arabia and we have part of this map that tracks a little bit of it. overall, it has many good qualities and people who i have met. now, the problem is, in my opinion, the growth of extremism and within this a number of leaders. now, why that problem? >> two instances i can think of. they are closer politically and in terms of thosewith extremist
so the weapons that a provide could very well leaked out. i think mark pointed out a lot of others and people told me how this would work as well. the loading of weapons is exactly -- is a very common one. so that is my first comment. this is also very important to i take issue with the administration. in my opinion, geneva has also been dead when it came to negotiating an. we changed the language women that went vladimir putin. we said said all of this had to be agreed upon by mutual consent. i think what it did is it seems
like a difficult way to get this through. but it made it unenforceable. so you have to get the opposition at the time it was seen as a check on the opposition with the regime's announcement of calculations in this process but. i think what it does is no -- it gives this process that lease online. i have covered two syrian elections in my life and it was not pleasant. i can tell you that they were begging me to vote and explains that was, there is a less than zero chance of anybody else then bashar al-assad will win if he runs in 2014. it will take a lot more than the now.
that is what i drew up the administration for it and the transition means we move it from this area of people over to a group of people that represent the demographic area and those who have changed over time. so i don't see the meeting happening soon. in the united states and russia at odds, which will keep it from happening. >> okay, and neither questions? >> yes, i mean, there was a huge amount of pressure for the president to come out and take his position in moscow. it is were my all-time favorites. the idea that this was a ability to committed cell and clearly it
wasn't. it's exactly what the red redline dignity created a set of expectations. and i think that we all, all of us on all sides, we were convinced that we were not among this group. i think we miscalculated the ability to survive. my calculation was as long as it was peaceful uprising been butchered, it was part of the moral force of nonviolent protest and what this would be do to the syrian senator in the middle ground and that he simply couldn't survive in a way. want to turn into a military confrontation, my estimate tatian went way up. i think the people that wanted an early military intervention talked about this. it clearly was not right. i think that we all, not just the president, we got to run. it is part of a descriptive statement and that is a reasonable and poetic judgment
as a statement by the president > okay.ould not have been made. questions here and then in the back. >> okay. thank you for this trip that discussion. i have a question about what has been here. a great deal of evidence in congress and the united nations. there is part of this and we have a declaration by the president. as far as i know, we don't even have part of that. we have the head of the eu and diplomacy thing that the rebels use chemical weapons. so what is part of this and why has the administration not present at the?
>> okay, let's go back to the front. >> this is a good part of the question. some say know your enemy and know yourself. bob said she would do whatever is necessary. the american people want to support that. what do you think the american people would support and what degree of intervention? >> in the back. >> i would like to get mark and andrew to enter each other. had andrew, tell us what happened when mark was wondering about what was going to happen if we don't solve the issue and the syrian war continues to get out of hand. and the no-fly zones are not
enough. if you could answer the main concern which is what happens when this becomes much more regional, that would be great. >> okay. when we start with that. >> this is the final round of questions. >> i'm glad. then she asked me a question. okay. i expect this to talk about this as it shapes the entire region. the question about this from before, the arab states are so much more resilient. i am really shocked in some way is that there are those who haven't left iraq after that speaks to something about the
resilience and powers of that fragile state structure. i feel that lebanon and syria are interrelated and i think that there is a very high chance and i'm surprised there haven't been more over from syria and lebanon fighting then we have already seen and it could now happen with things being openly involved. i think that jordan will be okay. i think that jordan for better or worse has long experience with the refugees and indemnity security threats americredit handling those things. i think others will also be okay. the one i'm really worried about is iraq. who has it's own internal issues. it's going on for a long time.
the violence goes up and down and all of that is constant. increasing personnel back and forth. it does introduce this and i don't know how responsive your question is. but thinking about the spread spreadout, i think that that is where we might play out, that is the one that worries me the most. >> it is a good question. the obama administration was concerns because of the slamdunk that we had on the rock. and the embarrassment that comes from not in been established in spectrum from now. we are very cautious about that from the beginning. the assessment is shared by the uk and france.
of israel from i think that they also share that and it might be something slightly different from something that i heard earlier about what we eventually heard, some of which we eventually hurt. in order to gather that evidence, it was not only based upon the accounts of what happened with those inside the country, but those that actually were involved in bringing out doctors are treating those patients and those who had been exposed to the agents and also those who have been part of this as well. they tested those individuals and bodies and found that they were exposed to moderate doses of staring. that is the information that i know out there. there is probably a lot more of it given the other waste go about it. that is how they think about this with a high degree of
certainty. the fact that it came out of the white house is not insignificant given how hesitant they were to the slamdunk to recur. what happens is the leadership. and i know that that is a very casual thing to say. i know that is not a casual standpoint. what you do is look at what is happening inside the country and you turn the knob off and another on and it is hard because you are a political presence that counted for being a wimp under certain circumstances. in this particular case, given the complexity, i think we will have to find a way to navigate all about. the american public is cautious. they are cautious now, given the way they believe it is affecting
them and the way it has been articulated. part of this is framing the issues and the risks accordingly so that when an increase occurs, that the american public is ready for it and ready to do what is necessary. right now we don't know what that is. but all this is in the neighborhood and i realize that they don't occur in syria. but the risks of that can spread. i grew up in a community where oil was discovered in the 19th century and what was the lesson we learned growing up in history class was an important part of this is not supplied at the price. that is another way this could affect the everyday americans. so the we are talking about this
affecting our allies. this is where other allies such as jordan, where they would have to respond accordingly. i outline in this piece what i believe are assertive measures and ones that can help shape this conflict positively. >> thank you. i just wanted to echo the last comments. my own view is that i find all of these polls about america's interest in engaging this in the sense that if the leadership of the united states explains whether it is important or not, one certainly shouldn't expect average voters to talk about its importance. it is when and if the leadership says it is important. then we can judge whether or not we think it is important. but we are not there yet.
we may not be there yet. that, i think, is the end result of this debate is that we don't really know what the overall strategy as. although we have a pretty good reasonable consensus on what to do even in the absence of a strategy. it is very fascinating. on that note, thank you for joining us. [applause] >> we will do it again next year. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> president obama this morning expressed his condolences to the families of 19 firefighters killed battling a wildfire outside of phoenix, arizona on sunday. in a statement from the president said that they were heroes and highly skilled professionals likeo ross the coy
put themselves in harms way to protect the lives and property of fellow citizens that they would never meet. michelle and i join all americans in sending our thoughts and prayers to the families of these brave firefighters and all whose lives have been offended by this terrible tragedy. president obama today is in tanzania were wrapping up his three nation tour of africa with visits last week to south africa. the president today was joined by former president george w. bush for a ceremony in honor of the bombing there in 1998. president obama holds talks on thursday news conference with the president of tanzania and visits the power plant. first lady michele obama participates in women's education, health, and economic empowerment and the president and first family are scheduled to return to washington on
wednesday. the congress on three this week, we are featuring booktv interviews and discussions with non-fiction authors. a look at technology on the internet beginning at 8:35 p.m. with randy zuckerberg, former marketing director of facebook and mark zuckerberg. she is author of a soon-to-be published book that has a children's book companion. and we discussed who owns the future jeered cohen discusses his book the digital age. watch this tonight at 835 eastern on c-span2. on c-span tonight we will show you what southwest airlines ceos have to say about air travel in this country as they take questions from an audience at the university of denver. then we will open up our phone
lines and ask you what advice you'd give the federal government for improving air travel in the united states. we recently asked the same question just outside washington dc of ronald reagan national airport is based. two i think the most significant thing that i have seen over the last year, the most significant thing that i see is obviously to have a security checkpoint and having more of this beyond just the major metropolitan areas, which would be fantastic. and this would potentially increase the number of routes with potential crisis and i think about as significant if you are a last-minute traveler like i am with a significant amount of money compared to just a few months ago. so i think those are the two big things that we would like to see. more regulation is part of these measures for the government. especially for the consolidations of american and
u.s. airways. beyond that is just getting into that as well. so that is giving people a vice to do that i think that the airline, i play mostly delta, there can be almost a 600-dollar difference for different airlines from detroit and philadelphia, for instance. it is crowded enough up there. i think that yes, we have now is okay. any more of this would be interesting. >> eating there is a role for the government to make any new rules or regulations that would help that? >> i think all of these airlines merging has to do with the general populations. i think that travelers are at the mercy now.
he can charge higher prices and especially if you look at business travel. they are gone all week. so i think the government certainly can regulate airfares and it would be in the best interest to do so and we are hoping to make this a little bit quicker and smoother. >> we would like to get your thoughts on the questions tonight following the program at 8:30 p.m. what southwest airlines ceo gary kelly. >> they had a tremendous role and we were talking about some of the things that martha gave george. without going to camp every winter. it was huge. he thought so. it wasn't as valley forge. it was every winter of the eight long years of the revolutionary war and she hated it. it was dangerous. it was roads that were dangerous and those who had a prime part
of this. he felt that so strongly. she would organize the other officers wives and those would have the entertainment and good times for the soldiers. especially as far as washington who said that he couldn't have done it this way. and he begged him to come to camp every year. >> as we continue our conversation, yale university law and science professor discuss first ladies from martha washington to michele obama tonight at nine eastern on c-span.
>> on c-span3, watch american history tv in prime time this week. starting at eight eastern, a look at the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg and a discussion on the influence of president kennedy's 1963 speeches about the cold war, including his remarks and then more presidential speeches from president reagan and president obama. american history tv tonight starting at eight eastern on c-span3. >> the panel authorized part of the defense authorization act as part of the federal advisory committee that will conduct systems used to adjudicate crimes involving sexual assault in the military under the uniform code of military justice. this portion is 90 minutes.
>> i would like to talk about the response of this panel. i would like to open up the public segment of this meeting this morning. i would like to introduce the responses. >> welcome to the first meeting of the public response system of the sexual assault panel established by the section 576 of the national defense authorization act of 2013. i am patricia hamm of the panel. the panel includes barbara jones and i just want to let you know that c-span is here recording today's public meeting, but it is not being broadcast live. the agenda for today's public meeting is divided into three sections. first come the panel will hear from lynn addington, she's from
the american university and ms. delilah rumburg, chief executive officer for the coalition against rape. second, the panel will hear from gary patton, the director of the sexual assault prevention response office of defense. and the senior executive advisor of the same office. finally, today the panel will hear from fred bork, the historian and archivist for the army general quarter and captain robert krell. we have not received any request for public comment. i request or refrain from photographs during the presentation session. madam chair, are you ready to proceed? >> yes. >> thank you. good morning. on behalf of myself and my colleagues, i would like to welcome everyone.
i would like to welcome them to the first hearing of the response panel and i also want to thank the chief who has graciously made this possible. it is in courthouses that important matters are considered with the objectivity and independence. this panel will hero and to hear all sides and find the facts necessary to report thoughtful and sensible recommendations to congress and the secretary of defense. it is the investigation and prosecution and adjudication process in the military. in doing so, we compare results
and look for effective strategies and best practices. we will do that. but central to that work, to specific tasks loom large. one is to consider how our military may better protect and support the women, as well as the significant number of men who are victims of sexual assault. of course, to identify effective strategies to prevent sexual assaults from occurring. the second is to examine the role of our commanders come and not just as decision-makers under the uniform code of military justice, but also as those responsible for ensuring the operational readiness of our military and essential to that critical mission is responsible for creating a command climate with zero tolerance for sexual
assault. this includes the legislative proposal currently being debated in both houses. we are committed to working efficiently to provide recommendations we know that before we can address the problem in the military, we must understand it. to that end, as the colonel told you, we have three sets of presenters. professor lynn addington will focus on the civilian sexual assault statistics providing us with the demographics, if you will. the who what when where in american society. where possible, she will also
identify parallels and similarities between the civilian and military survey results. although we will be looking at numbers, we recognize that there is no number of sexual assault that is acceptable, but the surveys can help us to identify things. we will describe the unique problems that are presented for the victims and the types of support and services of the victims need in the civilian and military world. she is uniquely qualified to discuss these issues and she's not only the chief executive officer for over 18 years, but she is also a member of at least two prior studies into sexual assault in the military and one of them being the 2009 department of defense task force on sexual assault.
that particular task force studied many of the issues before us. as you have heard the general and the doctor will present this and general patton is the head of the assault and prevention office within the department of defense that is accountable for the prevention of sexual assault and for the creation of policies and programs to assist victims. he will discuss what is currently being done in each of those areas across the areas and together we will offer some data relating specifically to sexual assault in the military. then we will hear from the u.s. army colonel fred bork, who currently serves as the regimental historian and the judge advocate general corps. and also captain robert crowe,
who is a representative of the joint services committee. he will discuss the historical context surrounding today's military and justice system and uniform code and the role of the commander in our code. he will take us through a hypothetical assault case and walk us through the progress within the military justice system from the victims reported the crime to its adjudication. these presentations are broad and will generate more questions than answers. but they will provide the necessary foundation for the panel's work. we thank you very much for your attention. professor? >> i would like to thank the judge in the panel for providing insight. i hope is that we have context for victimization and reporting
issues. the focus is on civilian crime data where do my research and my work. but also judge jones and his request asked me to do some comparison with military data that is available and also the comments about the workplace gender relations survey that was done in possible work that can be done as well. starting with a general overview that started this morning. we have two main sources of this. these include uniform crime data program and it was reported to police by someone else. these are local and state and it is collected by the fbi. we also have a kind of complementary data source and
that is focusing our comments on that. those are survey data and they really get to the reporting of a crime and to get a better understanding of the current picture and i will talk more about that in a second. these complement the military sources that you will hear more about and basically it is the primary defense of sexual assault, which is unrestricted reports that someone will come forward to give that information. then there are two surveys that are done. one is by the department of defense and workplace gender relations survey's. and it has done part of this survey that was done with the
military sample in this includes military report. those are two surveys that get out. again, as includes underreporting of sexual assault issues. also crime issues more broadly. as i have mentioned, we have focused on victim and civilian data and i guess we are rather crude on basic comparisons and that is because there is a challenge looking at two different data systems and the different way that data is collected. so the issues to be mindful of include the slides and basically you had said that issues of the survey design have differences between the civilian data and the military data that has been part of this data. probably the largest one is the scope of what it included and we
are looking at sexual violence, which is attempted and threatened rape and sexual assault. but the military data also includes the non-conceptual sexual touching. those types of things can be included in this. but it explicitly screens for those and we might get more counts from now. i think that is reflected with the data of a third of the incidents that are reported and are part of this and are a report for oral or anal sex. and another third are talking about this. again, there are differences as far as how the survey is conducted and again, there are
just differences that can affect the data. the web-based is probably one reason that there is a lower response and they can have a lower response with the telephone service. so i would say it's more of a workplace oriented title and actually the first 30 questions that i would be able to obtain a copy of earlier this week. it is about the workplace and what kind of response that we have on this kind of surveys and the crime surveys. people might think of this in a particular way. the crime survey versus summit in their workplace and a different context there.
then with regard to classification that they have a pretty expensive screener questioner and the respondents get them to remember the specific things with the incident that happened by somebody that you know, the different locations, specific behaviors and very expensive report that gathers data. the military survey does that all with those types of behaviors. it is someone that is talking about particular response. if i could talk about the next
slide, please. >> it is not just about sexual assault, but there is more out there as well on the survey that covers these nonfatal violent crimes. we are talking about the details of the incident reporting and a lot of unreported crimes in the incidents themselves. >> in addition to the design issues, just a few points i want to make sure about. presenting this data as i mentioned. it is not age-adjusted for the military or adults. also for the sexual assault
data, it was relatively rare thing, especially with the reference data. the details all provided are based on e-mail victims and also a couple years of data and most of the findings i present are part of this and female victims and include data from most recent report and with all that i will get you some data here as well. this gives us a context of the issue of the trends over time with serious nonfatal crime. it is pretty consistent and
violent crimes are aggravated a salt and it is .9 in 2010. this includes the individuals over age 12 and providing context in 2011 and this includes 104 per thousand over age 12 and again we don't want any serious violent crimes to occur but it is part of this to some degree. the caveat is that they are not really culpable. so we have civilians in terms of information for each group and data and the total rate of
violence has dropped over time and this is over age 12 to 1.8% of females over age 12 and in 2010 we had about a quarter of a million and 100,000. and again with the military data again, based on percentages, slightly different with the different ages who got 12 and above of the military data with active-duty females and then with the scope we also have the largest scope of unwanted sexual contact in the military data. we are also looking at details being based on the greatest
effect so it is just one per person. a prevalence of the data points there. also with regard to trends, it is kind of difficult with the data points as opposed to several years of this information. >> there's a lot about victim demographics vary at this has to do with female victims as i mentioned about 9% this is a fairly small raiding it is hard to do a lot of disaggregation of particular characteristics. as to include an overall picture of the victims of sexual
violence. so again these are female victims of all ages over age 12. it is a crime of younger women under age 34 that involves people with lower income households and the suburban areas and we have many differences in ethnicity and sexual violence and this is based on the ntsb data of 2005. again these are the differences of the surveys and some of both
there is a question about a difference in the underlying population or because the person was responding to this with the greatest effect. multiple offenders might have a greater effect. it looks like 7% partnered with the military data and again it is not clear based on these numbers whether there is a difference because of the design with the internet partners. whether they have a victimization experience were different than the population were different because of the workplace experience of the military survey.
there are both types of sexual assault in areas with use of alcohol with regards to the location activity, it is kind of challenging to compare the data because there is different questions that are asked. particularly the victims home is a very common occurrence or place where the sexual assault occurs in the activities are not surprising because you are at home. what was the most comparable to the military data and again these are not age-adjusted. but again there might be the differences between the military and civilian world with 41% is
slide gives a little bit of comparison between the civilians that included the age adjustment issue of females 12 and above and also with the military, it is a type of unwanted sexual contact and what is the difference between unwanted touching versus attempted sexual integrators and completed sexual intercourse and that sort of thing. i think that those would be important to look at. when we look at reasons of reporting it to police, they do ask that we look at all reasons why and then a follow-up with the military data and that is
why the percentage is little different we would need to look at why females are reporting and one defender to stop hurting him and not wanting them to hurt others and again, i think this is a place where the importance has disaggregated the sexual contact in the military data to better understand who is reporting on why they have motivations were reporting. it is a little difficult to this point.
that is the most important reason in the civilian data is why we are not reporting to police in the military survey. 47% in the military survey talk about this. again, those were all responses that could have more than one answer. finally, i wanted to just make some concluding remarks. i provided this to you with sexual assault, which is a serious crime that is reported. when you look at this, the rates are lower than it has been declining over time. it depends on younger women and lower income women and it involves those that are known victims and those that have this
reporting. about 65% are not reported to police and when victims to report it, they do want to prevent the current crimes from continuing or preventing future victimization and not reporting is often. that is one of the big concerns for not reporting. this something that i received on monday. i guess i have two thoughts on. there's a lot of data that is collected and it exploited the data. i want to squeeze as much resources as i can. i think there's a lot that can be done with the current data, given the caveats of limitations and that sort of thing.
i would divided into three areas. one is breaking out a lot of the data and i think that it would be very helpful to understand the patterns of what is going on and the touching and the sexual assault, what is kind of going on and i think that this is aggregating it with the type of behavior that is really useful is where it occurred with installations and what is going on there. they wanted to leave this and what would be a more serious regions this is definitely
doable with reporting that i mentioned before. they are reporting the military and civilian. but they are going to help me out here. it is an important thing to look at. it is based on the activity of experience and the reasons for reporting and reasons for reporting and satisfaction of the services and more like they have been experiencing this completed sexual intercourse and how it is better to understand
pinpointing the important behaviors. the other thing is to look at areas from the data that seems like basic training that is a fairly small percentage. this includes women who are at basic training that are in risk. that is just me as a civilian. in this includes the risk of exposure to different areas as part of deployment and that sort of thing for those areas where it occurred. so we can understand what is going on there. another thing is the survey asks
members if you are unsatisfied with what happened were dissatisfied with certain services, why is that. so that is very important. that is important information. if we want to know what is going on, i would like to talk about what are the reasons why. sometimes people don't fill them in. and we have the justice statistics in looking at this and looking at that other follow-up of information that is very important. the questions about would you do the same thing all over.
that information is very interesting to explore what is fair. so if you are looking at looking at additional questions or improving this come back to do some data points to start building upon that. that is presumably there and it would indicate that there is a possibility of exploring this. and we have talked about the global changes. it includes the teachers of the scope and focusing on whether or not there is a specific survey. ..
>> that is a good question that if you do have overlapping jurisdictions. for the fbi the crime reporting program data, if you are interested i could help you out. but from local police, the campus police, state police police, county police but they are all different police organizations included in the data. depending on the victim all, or whoever reports to the police, it could be through the campus police said it depends on their relationship or it is reported within the municipal police takeover. but the data is included
>> thank you very much for your presentation. just a couple questions. first of all, is someone word to massage the data or suggested we done, what kind of a task would that be? how long would it take for the derek chen the you mentioned leases to be analyzed and reported? tenure? two months? cliche computer button? water we talking about? >> it depends on a few things. on the number of people that you have it will not take ted years but it depends and again it's have the
frequency of the actual numbers but how long and complex they are maybe a few months that the researchers are doing coating it would not take 10 or five years but unfortunately what we call qualitative data which is not pushing a button as much as other comparisons if you look at what we call contingency tables to put variables together. that is not quite as easy as pushing a button but it is a whole program you can utilize. >> this would be very helpful to you think to the military in terms of understanding how to improve with the victims?
the mike correct? >> i agree. the one caveat is it depends on what you have got whether they do or not we know that taking surveys or filling out forms we can be more or less detailed beat depending on average restore our time but it would be worth exploring to see what information is there it might be a complete bust. but with my work with the data to look at some of the other categories to put in additional information to understand a little better what is going on in the victim's mind for the paradigms' of the responses that we saw that might give
to a particular question to realize there was a whole other area out there we had not thought about why someone is dissatisfied or someone is dissatisfied or responses to questions. >> the breakdown of the information you recommended by the nature of these sexual misconduct, could that be done with the existing data collection? call along with that tape to do? >> they can do it in two seconds but i would think that but would not take long to do because might understanding of the data but i have seen this survey instrument to do an analysis so keep in mind i am extrapolating but the survey asks a person did this happen to you?
yes or no. how many times? based on the incident that had the greatest effect what was the behavior that was involved? so you could get the behavior then from that question do the analysis with the contingency table. >> ellen to take up too much more time but can you make recommendations about how you would change this form and why? >> do you want me to make those right now? >> if you have some thoughts right now that would be great. >> i would break those down i think we have two areas there so one is of global long urged changes in the context to take out the work place survey to make it a
rate / sexual assault survey to focus on that there has been quite a lot of research and after looking at this area and the national academy of sciences has a panel to look at some of the best practices to studied sexual victimization issues. i would recommend a screening and classifying as two different steps sova screening of the particular behavior is defined for the victim or you cannot consent a lot of sophisticated not that they are not bright people but talking about consent become a did this happen to you, yes, sir, know what i find with consent is later on in the survey people are asked
asked, were you drug drug, threatened with ruin your reputation? they might not have thought about as that being against there consent to force sexual activity but you have to make it through the initial identification to get those questions. another survey by break that out to put that up front the person knows we are threatening to do your reputation so bringing those up front that everyone has a clear definition and is thinking about the same thing. then classifying those behaviors first and then to classify as unwanted sexual activity or sexual intercourse so there are
more uniform understanding. also i would say changing the incident that has the greatest effect on you? i am not sure what that means. i think it has different meanings to different people which there are some benefits to that but it is not clear and also how frequently at least with the data that i got that the frequencies was not reported out but if all people reporting five or six or seven, what does that mean? and specific things with questions that starts to get into the weeds a little bit but i would happy to make further recommendations may be better in a memo by be happy to work with you further on that. >> the fight to just follow
up on a power struggles it is the iceberg we do know the shape of and we don't know the baseline across different institutions and prosecution. how often has the and cbs changed the question mantids >> that is a great question because that is the kicker you want to change because you realize with the question but ncvs basically had one major redesign that occurred implemented in 1982 and right now i am part of the current redesign looking at it again so i am working with them on the crime survey but one of the interesting things that was added was a specific question is the screaming --
screaming and incident report. when the things that change was the screener specifically asking about unwanted sexual activity because before that it was thought that government should not ask about rape or sexual assaults so it is a change from when it was implemented in the 1970's that it was reported because victims were responding to general questions about assaults and behavior in that 1982 redesign those were specifically asked and that is often why if you look at the data you often see that it starts in 1992 or 1993 with the redesign period but basically the questions have remained fairly stable since then --
1982. >> we will take you up on your offer to help us and one of the questions i don't want to answer now, but whether the on-line surveys are the best approach i understand this survey had a very slow percentage of return rate and some were not even complete. but in any event we will be talking to you. >> i am more than happy it is an incredibly important issue and i am more than happy to work with the panel in any way that i can. thank you. >> good warming -- good morning. it is a pleasure to be here today. my name is delilah and i have been here 18 years there prior to that starting in 1981 i was the director of a battered women'selter as we
that experience behind me. we're the oldest coalition in the country organized in 1975 and we work for the elimination of sexual violence for sexual assault and we manage contracts with crisis centers that serve all victims of all ages and provide resources and training and promote public policy to enhance public safety and we also operate at a prosecutor's resource on violence against women and as mentioned in 2009 i visited installations in iraq, kuwait and texas and north carolina and other
continental installations to assess the response of sexual assault and we made recommendations how the military can improve services that i was asked to talk to in regard to my experience about the issue of sexual violence from my 30 years of experience including that time on the task force and based in my experience there are five important things it is pretty simple and it can serve for everything that we do. they want to be believed, second, they want to know the have the right to privacy and they will be upheld and thirdly to have access of confidential services and to be treated with care and respect and also, note that the offender will be held accountable. if we let those five things
direct what we do it will make things easier. it can seem overwhelming but when we take action to prevent it asceticism and attitudes allow them to be valued over others we have to end repression and sexism it is learned and supported in a larger culture that mixups violence as a norm has come a male dominance and power over others in the objectification of women and children these cultural norms speed sexual violence of all forms from sexual harassment to unwanted touch, rape, a death. most people who perpetrate sexual violence is someone in the survivor dow's. 80% know the perpetrator that goes up that 90 percent on college campus. is not just a woman's issue in we have talked about it but the majority of service members who were sexually
assaulted each year are men. the pentagon recently estimated 26,000 members experienced unwanted sexual conduct up from 19,000. and 53% to golf for attacks on then by other men. also sexual assault is never the survivors faults. ever. it is a direct result of society's misbelief house survivors should have done more to prevent their own victimization but we have to remember the fault lies only with the perpetrator. any time he or or she commits a sexual act against another person without that person's consent includes the unwillingness or inability
to consent and perpetrators target individuals with vulnerability is an isolated and unlikely toward -- to a teller when they do they're unlikely to be believed. sexual violence can occur once repeated the overtime a kabir verbal physical emotional or psychological. in 23 the cbc released the report that did the comparison. according to the military of the sexual violence survey the prevalence assembler of on the u.s. population of active duty with an aunt eliza active-duty bet and with respect of deployment history active duty with and who were deployed with the three years prior to the survey were significantly more likely to have
experienced contact sexual violence during that period compared to active duty women who were not emploed. sexual violence is of major health problem that the survivors experience physical injury, the mitchell health consequences such as depression, anxiety depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, a suicide attempts and other health consequences. prevention efforts have to start early with relationships and family is. further research would improve our understanding of the factors that increase the risk against women and men including factors that may be shared between the military in general population and additional research would be important to improve our understanding
how military specific factors such as the planet could change the risk. funding this research should be a priority for congress they need courtney is services to prevent further victimization and the response must be strengthened and better courtney to help navigate the system to access counseling and needed services and resources in the short and long term. military nurses can receive sexual assault training but they are not required to be certified sexual assault nurse examiners said it has been shown to prevent and provide for an sec evidence to facilitate the prosecution of the rape case. survivors may be reluctant to disclose for a variety of reasons i shave and fear of
retribution or a belief they may not receive the support from law enforcement. they also may not be enforced adequately are consistently. it is important need to enhance the trading efforts to better engage survivors and to hold perpetrators accountable. up article published in 2003 focusing johnson focusing on the rape and military environment and three-fourths of the women raped did not report the incident to ranking officer of these one-third noted they were uncertain how and believed that rape was to be expected in the military. 1/4 indicated it was a ranking officer once said 11 negative 1/3 said it was a friend and they believe nothing would be done in reporting which make it worse or the military career
would be adversely affected. we heard that consistently but of course, they reported it was a disaster in behavior's were strongly associated with rape and officers allowing or initiating commons to female soldiers had in increase in the likelihood of rate. that women had significantly elevated odds of raping a neighbor of living or working in environments that were sexualized those that allow better for sexual conduct and significantly increased the woman's risk of rape. and that is the most severe form. a report in 2009 found
sexual assault is vitrine 70 and 90 percent of the veterans. demonstrating the role of leadership contributing to the environment that tolerates or encourages behavior that eventually results in a sexual to military women supervisory contact can promote healthy environments supervision is clearly indicated in the signing. the sad their findings appeared the task force with sexual assault in the military and we divided the assessment to four critical topics strategic direction direction, printing, training , and accountability. it repeatedly observed it was sporadic and it consisted and commanders frequently told us it was
the and funded program mandate and they had to resource locally and now was a problem. the distinct funding is essential for the sexual assault prevention and response program. it said that the department should revise the structure to reflect the expertise necessary to oversee the primary mission of response in training and accountability. but to evaluate the program to insure the services comply with the standards. to be actively engaged in policy development of legislation. we support this and the authorization of a language that a has a more sexual
assault contact and that is wet the said that is critical as well and committing the services in response has adversely affected the quality and consistently it was recommended the secretary defense establish uniform sexual assault prevention and course structures at the execution and bubble to push your consistency. the task force recommended a comprehensive strategy encompasses strategic direction, direction response and accountability this has communication plans in any policy must also line with the strategy in we recommend we work with the military services and the national experts of sexual violence prevention.
it had no means to step into response in trading efforts reid asset they look at the prevention strategy based on the intended outcome at the department of defense in to collaborate to design a systematic evaluation plan. in to develop training policies to exercise oversight over the military service training program sexual assault program must drink in individual knowledge to prevent and respond to sexual assault and i think each has their own plan and i think this is an see as one of the ways to do a better job of that. also the house authorization act needs to develop a
curriculum on sexual assault and i hope that happens and it is made demonstrable progress in reporting was one of the things that we accomplished early on that with counseling without in gauging law enforcement is with the needs of victims of sexual assault but we still have a lot to accomplish. the military has ben at the vanguard to shoot turn research into investigating rape now taking the investigation and course and i hope the doctor will tell you more about that when he is here because it is ground-breaking information. of i was a victim with the past i love my case to be
prosecuted by the state and not the military. they have read the term constitutionally required evidence more broadly than any civilian corps including the u.s. supreme court. basically the bouncing of the victims' privacy versus the accused to cross-examine is gone as long as the court finds something relevant i support policies that protect survivors privacy. i believe also the alleged perpetrators should not play a role to decide whether to prosecute. communications between sexual assault survivors are not currently afforded under military law and in contrast 35 states cover povich for communication but in the victim and the advocate it limits the effectiveness in the community.
and noted data issue is recommended to the task force but now we are evaluating the outcomes of the counseling services including the client satisfaction surveys in direct service outcomes i recommend this be implemented by the department of defense in there recommend we evaluate these military justice prices -- crisis and looking at policy recording results of investigation of the impasse to see that as critical. i recommend to members of the armed forces if relevant have access to qualified civilians because the victims' rights is a highly sophisticated area of lot to
enhance the quality of service. the task force recommended to the secretary of defense establish a sextant -- sexual assault advisory board it should include outside experts sexual assault prevention with response and training to the federal agencies. it is minor understanding there has been a sexual assault prevention response integrated team develop and i don't think that is what the task force had in mind and it does not seem warm and fuzzy if you are a victim. improving the visibility and to establish consistency in the programs and the instructions around the services creating a sexual
assault response coordinators' and victim advocates are critical for success. i urge the department to look at the programs with a strategic strategy reported by a clear plan for continuous evaluation. sexual assault does occur in all cultures but the condition under which it occurs depends on the value and the norm of that culture. military culture has its own value, rules, customs and norms. beyond the physical wounds victim's psychological reaction, common reactions include the gse, fear, anxiety, lack of concentration, depression, t he wrist drawl and other issues. military victims are unable to perform there assigned duties due to medical treatment or counseling were
relocated to insure their safety. they continue to serve in the same units are likely to have diminished abilities due to concerns over personal safety. whether the service member or civilian to violate the discipline did trust trust, selflessness and honorable conduct. the military services must fully integrate strategies and training the right to have the appropriate and legal process in the military culture. we have to recognize and a range of service options and in addition it should be available on the ongoing basis to each survivor so they'll be ready for a particular service at a different time.
there should not engage in any process for example, they should have access to mental-health services even if they are not interested in pursuing a court martial. all members of the armed forces of associated personnel should have access regardless of the status. the military should require officers to inform the commanding officer with the electronic database in data on the outcome should be collected and analyzed on a regular basis to insure continued functioning of this system which should be uniform, however i want to caution with additional information it could be completed in with information from the investigation and
interviewing many times traumatizes the victim. the discussion of the court martial should be taken out of the chain of the command for the survivor is special prosecutor should be appointed to handle sexual assault cases in the justice system and these prosecutors and investigators should be trained in uncertified according to the standards established by experts and address a victim interviewing the neurobiology, trauma, make sure they have the support and also to participate in the military justice system. with the sexual violence statement that i sent earlier i encourage you to review that. i know how crucial the issue of confidentiality is to those of the civilian network and there are only two promises we make to
survivors. the informational be kept confidential and there will be believed. they forge a bond that allows us survivors to know that we hold a sacrosanct the telling of the most heinous crime they stand by the survivor as they navigate through the criminal justice system. we owe our service members the same right of privacy and advocacy that exists in the local community. most important to we need the enforceable victim's right statue to. preventing sexual violence in responding to survivors will enhance military readiness. mutual trust and respect are key to performance well-being and sexual violence is a pervasive problem across the general population and preventing all forms of sexual violence stopping further harm by providing support
services, legal assistance and holding perpetrators accountable are more important to address these important health problems. thank you. >> thank you very much. there was a lot to think about. they give for your comments i have too particular comments you talk about the good military character that is admitted that can you talk about the impact that has on a victim's perception of the trial and on the outcome? >> again, the victim wants to be believe that no one there character to be brought before the court but there was a case recently an officer's conduct overturned a conviction it is about believing the victim sedated
commit a crime that they are believed and let justice and prevail. i think that is where that is coming from we should not have the ability to overturn a case just because it is not a good citizen. most of the perpetrators of sexual assault appear as find and outstanding. they don't walk around with the sign on their head. >> one other question related to the cerebus is that you just mentioned that the restricted option has come under fire what about the active-duty service members? >> we heard how nine ships oyment
a real concern we understood the commanding officers felt like they had to know with that appointment but still victims should not have to tell. i think it is important and they should have access. now if there were 20 or 30 people in the field and they had to be flown out by helicopter you cannot be that quiet but to preserve that option is critical. because if you don't have that and do try to force the victim you will not have a good case in the way. i think it is clear that is the important option. >> i have a question. it is true though, isn't it that with the upper -- perpetrator to be held
accountable is the evidence that can be presented against the person in charge and that depends on that action of the victim at the time especially with rape and violence and sexual assault. to you have recommendations for the military are maybe we will hear this is the case that we're told it's this happens that don't wash, and save their clothes and bedding? >> i think to understand your question it is critical what happens if they dray restrictive reporting they should still have access to good medical care right then and there in that is why it is critical if they have good support a lot can be
unrestricted so the first critical moment when somebody reports it is critical that they are believed than they give good care. the one thing we heard consistently that they were treated with lack of respect. if the system had believe them to treat them respectfully we would not have a lot of angry soldiers. once it happens if they were treated with care and respect there would have been in a much better place going forward. >> i a grave 100 percent they should be treated with care and respect but in terms of being believed i understand the advocate will make the commitment i will be the view by investigators and prosecutors are ethically and necessarily inclined and directed to keep the objective you. we don't necessarily believe
or accept it is completely untrue the statements of robbing victims are malicious wounding victims are victims of stuffed. i am sure you would agree there prosecutor needs to take the objective you to assess any case because frankly that least in virginia it is unethical to bring a case to court that we do not believe in or feel we have sufficient admissible evidence. >> i will send you an article it is excellent and the steady that i was talking about that two weeks of intensive training phase said they could not figure out why some women would just giggle or have no affect at all when they were raped and they cannot understand why they did not
present like other crime victims but what this study does is teaching those investigators how to ask the questions. once they would ask a certain way than they got to ditchers what do you remember there like the sound? the trauma of the sexual assault does a lot you may not remember the fact or you will contradict yourself so that training for prosecutor's investigators is so critical because of rape crime is very different than anybody experiencing something that dramatic it is different than stealing your purse. that is why that understanding how that trauma is so critical. the other thing i would like to make a statement on that i saw a time after time was you take the jagged and
sometimes they're prosecutors or a defense attorney. and understand how that happens experiencing both sides but some other attorneys i have talked to buy you think it is critical they give the prosecution before the defense because what the anecdotal information is and they come in after being a defense attorney first there of most jaded thinking that all victims lie because that is the defense many times they lie about their innocence. i have heard that consistently from the jagged the military that i come in contact with maybe that would help because the training to flip that around the there prosecutors first rather than defense. i believe in justice but what can we learn from that and how can we more
effectively tries those cases? >> going back i did not catch that to retraining is that military investigators are going through is that taught? >> spirit people are shaking there heads back years. >> maybe that is something we want to talk about because sanders and this person is giving all the training to have a contract with all the prosecutors and military investigators and there are some very, very good training programs outside the military i am not suggesting he does not do a great job. i am not observing him but the national district attorney association repeatedly has trainings in this area as so do most state prosecutors better open to military members. >> one of the programs that we find is a train
prosecutors as well. he is one of those that gets it. the other thing that i do hear consistently it still feels like the military is not listening to civilians with the years of experience is but from what we know we learn from the victims you have got to let the victims and the informant we know in drug we do that is why the civilians have a bigger better perspective because we have lifted from 10 or 30 years and that is how we learned what victims need and want to become whole again so i encourage you we try to encourage that at the task force this military installations in 2009 to
have a rape crisis center near the installation has not happened consistently so with their communities they will have does that access to on the ground knowledge to better serve that knowledge is critical with an important piece to standardize. >> i wonder if you could elaborate on your observations of the role of alcohol? it may not be precisely right but 50 percent of those incidents involve alcohol into based on what the military might do differently? >> number one focus on the of perpetrators as an excuse
and the education we talk about risk reduction it needs to be a part of it. but i told my husband did you go out and get drunk you don't go rob a bank if you don't have a propensity to rob a bank. this is what people forget. so these perpetrators we were drunk. no. you don't just become a rapist because you are drunk. you use it as an excuse. a dozen change to you are in we all should be aware that. it is critical that alcohol is not an excuse is because the female or victim was strunc is not an excuse for raping and we just have to focus on the perpetrator.
>> can i follow up? with the data there is an important point that the questions with the workplace gender relations survey were using alcohol? it is not separated out. it does put those together and also an important point with those types of unwanted sexual conduct to see what is the touching or the attempt to better understand the relationship with alcohol and unwanted sexual contact that would be a step to better understand. >> a newsstand my question was open-ended was as
adjusting alcohol is an excuse but focused more on overall prevention because in these situations is seems alcohol it is difficult to know sometimes exactly what we are talking about. one of my concerns going for word is what prevention benefits for alcohol use will be helpful to you diminish the events going forward? >> we need more research dollars and i know the navy had a good program so i think they have been trying to find ways to educate again the doctor is the expert on people to use alcohol to perpetrate and he probably has more knowledge from his steady about
prevention but it is the struggle to drill down the primary prevention alcohol abuse as well as sexual violence. >> but i also think it is important to talk about the incidence of the fact uc it could be more or less? it had the greatest defect become as the offender was drunk or less because he was drunk so maybe it would minimize it so it would be very interesting with another research question because we just know about the one incident of victims have the greatest defect so that skews this a little bit. what is the true issue? in by another way to
desegregate the data this is an instance where alcohol was involved this is the type of behavior and then reporting how does that affect reporting? , i was drinking or he was drinking sweet would be interesting to see but it goes to the point of pinpointing the efforts because the people of not reporting because of alcohol that is a completely different issue than i don't care for alcohol is involved or not if there are different ways to frame that point but this is based on the data that we have. >> i want to go back to the issue of the rape shield law and concern how it is utilize to the military. could you elaborate on that some more especially the
voluntary court of appeals? >> as it did research for this we have an example of a woman who had an affair and to then her husband found out about him be that the perpetrator then later she was raped and the fact she had an affair and committed adultery was injured in to the case. and that impacted the outcome of the case of that is an example spee mickey say this is different in the military from civilian courts? >> yes with the rape shield law year prior history cannot be brought into that. >> i wrote the federal rape shield laws of a very concerned about this problem. we will find out more about
it. >> just the fact that the perpetrator is the of standing officer with a clean slate could be the reverse of that's people's prior experience should not impact. >> have you seen any positive changes since then? oh lot of your recommendations more about improving training. >> i don't think it is where it ought to be, no. said they think they're always working on a but it is not where it should be. we still talk to victims and survivors in things we hoped would be changed and they haven't. i did read the strategic plan the night before last
and it says follow all the recommendations from the 2009 report and a member that served on the task force also recommended it is a good place to start to be implemented because it was intense when lynn addington presented before that panel so just going back through the report to determine how much has been implemented by its there trying to make progress but no where near where they need to be at. >> to know the task force did interviews with their own surveys in 2009 in the air in the process of looking at all the data even
beyond what your survey did. what would you say is the utility of that for our panel? >> i think if it can't hurt but the main thinning is the victims' input that will drive more about what needs to be done. the surveys of the boots on the ground the people that access the of military care that is where you get what will make a difference to survey the people that served in this into what they tell you. even with our relationship with the center for disease control, it also informs what we do around primary prevention for the work we
have done is a crisis response in the us cdc makes their primary prevention and so instead of going out to provide 600,000 students a pennsylvania received a program that lasted 30 minutes and this cdc said it does not work any more. we are saying go to the community to be with 12 parents talk to your children in we have many experts out there and that
is why they need to work in the community with primary convention those trading stalled prevent sexual assault. people talk about the training's but they have to be developed differently and in small groups where we actually have the interaction to talk about the core ethics and beliefs because once you talk about those kinds of things than you find out those big classroom training is salem not prevent sexual violence we have to find other ways to do it. >> thank you very much we will take our lunch break
he begged her to come to camp every year, and the troops adored her. laid -- lady washington is here. >> making a transition from journalism to books is exhilarating and completely overwhelming and frightening but wonderful. >> why tide you make that choice? >> i had long wanted to be working on a book because of the freedom it allows you to dive into a topic and to off on tangents and have enough time to really explore it fully.