i have to carry my own suitcase, but she has staff that allows her, talk bad about a little bit. she doesn't have to worry about whether lunch is going to be served or not. when it arrives she'll have it while she's thinking about the bigger picture. ..

as chief washingtoncorrespondenn upcoming daily news show. he spoke at the outpost, and untold story of american valor about a 2009 battle in afghanistan. "foreign policy" magazine has described as perhaps the best afghanistan book today. please welcome to savanna book festival jake tapper. [applause] >> thanks so much. i know sergeant burchfield who is in the book and his family are here. is his wife somewhere? does she want to stand? i did what anybody who was in the book -- over there? there she is. hi. [applause] sergeant burchfield and his son are in the restroom which i'm

sure they will appreciate me telling everybody. [laughter] and also i believe the family of body was planning on coming. i don't know if planning on coming to our failure. if they are if they could just and. but he wasn't local national guardsmen who was training afghan soldiers and gave his life trying to save an afghan soldier six years ago tomorrow. i don't know -- they were planning on coming but it was something of a drive. but any case, anybody who is here whose lives are chronicled in the book or lives of loved ones are chronicled in the book, it always means so much to me when they do turn out and come to these events. so if any else are here, please come over and it is yourself after the event. i'm not a likely person to have written a war book. i covered the iraq war a little bit for a few weeks in the abc

news baghdad bureau in 2005 right after our anchor, bob woodruff, was injured in an ied event in that country. but generally speaking, i've been the one who covered -- good to see you. i want to say thank you to my host, the powers family, mickey and his wife, who have been wonderful. [applause] mickey is late because i lost my iphone so we are on a frantic search for it, and he drove me back and searched for parking leader. so thank you, mickey. in any case, i'm not a likely book author for a war book. i'm not a likely war correspondent because i did not serve. i have not been indicted for any

period longer than a couple of weeks. but there was a moment -- embedded. when you have these moments in your life they change the course of your life, you don't often realize them at the time, but you can look at them and in retrospect think well, that must've been when my life changed. and it sounds melodramatic but then you realize it really did change. i wrote a 600 page book about afghanistan, so ultimately that really did have significance to me. for me that moment was in october 2009, i was in the hospital in northwest washington, d.c. with my wife, and our newborn son, jack, and our two euros, then two-year old daughter, alice. i was holding jack. he was day or two old, and out of the corner of my eye i caught a new story on tv. that in itself is not so strange that i can take the day when a certain senator from a western

state was caught or admitted passing his toe in a minneapolis path and because that happens to be my daughters birthday. i'm kind of looking to see what else is going on in the news. this was much more important and significant than that toetapping it, although it did not receive nearly as much attention in the media. and that was an outpost in eastern afghanistan, one that i never even heard of, combat outpost, that morning had been overrun by taliban. and what media coverage, what it was a bit made clear that we knew was that is outpost wa wasn what later be called an indefensible position. it was at the bottom of three

steep mountains just 40 miles from the pakistan border, and the moment for me was not i was holding my son who was hours old, hearing about eight other sons, eight brothers of sergeant burchfield over here, who were taken from the world, as i was receiving my son. and there was something in that moment that just struck, and wanted to know more. i wanted to know more about who these eight men were. i wanted to know more about the other 40 something men who were there who survive. i want to know what his wife could say in such an intense firefight when you're overwhelming attack him it was 53 troops facing up to 400 taliban, all of them have the high ground surrounding the king of. what isn' is it like to face th? what is it like to beat those men, those insurgents back and

then also the big overriding mystery, why would anybody put an outpost there? and i became a journalist for the reason that a lot of people become a journalist, which is there were things i wanted to read and questions i had that were not being answered and not being written. and over the next few months i waited for more information about compote -- outpost keeping. i didn't get it. so i started making phone calls. i started asking people who were there, what it happened, and i started address or reading everything about keeping, which was no longer, today's after it was attacked, the u.s. abandoned its and armed it. and ultimately i became convinced that the story of the battle after having spoken to a number of men who fought there that day, that the story of the

battle would be a really important story to tell. so i got a contract with little, brown and company, and started writing this book, started talking to troops that its troops there. sergeant birchfield and his fellow soldiers with 361 camp. one of whom you may have heard earlier this week was awarded the medal of honor by president obama. that's clint roma should. one of the many heroes of that battle whose heroics i think are really remarkable and if for no other reason, that he is haunted by the men he could not say that even though there's nothing i could've done and the deathly stabilize. in any case i started writing the book, and i heard from a young intelligence officer named ross broke off a litany captain who had helped set up combat

outpost keating in 2006. and he demanded in his friendly way that we get together for lunch, and we had lunch and he convinced me that the book should be more than just that one squadron of men in 2009 but we should also talk about why the outpost was there. because it was set up in 2006 during a period when, believe it or not, the u.s. had not read expanded into eastern afghanistan. eastern afghanistan is one of the most dangerous parts of afghanistan. of the seven medals of honor that been awarded to troops who served in afghanistan, either the seven were awarded to troops serving in either kunar or another province, the two provinces but it's an unbelievably dangerous place. of the seven, i should point out that three of them were awarded posthumously.

so ross convinced me that i need to tell more stories than just the stories from 2009, that there were other stories that needed to be told. and he told me about lieutenant colonel joe fenty, and he told me about the okuma national guardsmen, buddy hughie, whom i told you about not long ago, told me the shared, one of the medal of honor winners as it is referred to the was a posthumous medal of honor award he. recipient. so ross convinced me but then i started hearing from this other guy, lieutenant dave roller who was with the squadron that took over from ross' kid. data from 191 camp. they took over in 2007. dave roller wanted me to know about the guys that didn't make it back from his group. his commander, captain tom bostic and staff sergeant ryan,

and private first class chris pfeifer, and he also wanted me to know about the successes that the u.s. troops had in that region in their year, and their deployment year. because it wasn't all for naught, he wanted me to know. there were things that were achieved. and pretty soon i had a much larger book, and a much larger task, hands, which was to tell the stories of this one outpost. and in doing so i realized these guys have forced me to write a better book, to tell and more comprehensive story, a story not just where i could talk who paid the ultimate price, but a story about why it's so tough to achieve what our troops have been trying to achieve in

afghanistan. and why the test is so difficult and to the afghans are within the u.s. is trying to partner. and the difficult it is for them to do what the u.s. is asking them to do. and that's how i came to write "the outpost." there was a review and a liberal publication about my book in which the author criticized the subtitle of the book, a and untd story of american valor. he thought it was -- it wasn't a negative review, but it was a thoughtful review. i don't want to criticize them, but this one section is he thought that i was trying, using a subtitle to mask what was in

the pages inside, which is, they can be read, if one is inclined to oppose war that way. it can be read, if one is inclined, to support the war in afghanistan that would. i wrote it as a star, as a narrative. this is what happened, these are the people who are making it happen and to whom it happened. but he thought that some out until story of american valor was false advertising. and i disagree, and respect the. and the reason is because i don't think that valor has to do with whether or not you support the mission, or whether or not you think the u.s. should be involved in this war, or you think that the way it's been waged has been lies, or that you

think the president and the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs of staff have given you everything you need to conduct your war here i think of valor as something else. i think of valor as a courage that is rooted in a selflessness that most of us cannot even imagine. a selflessness to help a brother, whether that brother is american or afghan, a willingness to go to own life at risk, to help that person survived. and i guess that i can understand why this reviewer thought that it was, you know, a cheesy way to try to get rid stators to buy my book, but that's not -- his perspective -- my projection of his perception i should say. but to me, writing this book

caused me to re-examine so many things about how i view of patriotism, how i view valor, how i view courage, how i view the 1% of this country that pays the price for the rest of us even if we don't pay much attention to the. and when i say we, i mean the media. but also the public. the ones by speaking of -- as long as i'm speaking for reporters, i will also speak for all the americans. this book gave me, i hope, a better journalist. i know it made me a better person. and the reason it did is because of men like sergeant birchfield, and men like clint romesha, and women, both here and the homefront, and also serving abroad. there were women based at combat

outpost keating in 2006 and 2007. they were military police. they are intelligence collectors but there were women there. which is one of the reasons why the whole question about why women should be serving in combat positions is kind of moot because they kind of have been. but it made me a better person because it made me realize that in washington, d.c., and i always speak for myself, in washington, d.c., my coverage of wars has been glib, and my coverage of conflict has been flipped hundred and a janitor in -- the focus on trivial political moves is part of our political coverage and it will always be that way. and is not to say it should go away and we should only cover wars. but we don't cover them enough.

we don't cover -- you could probably go an entire day watching any network or any cable news organizations and it wouldn't be mentioned that we have 60,000 troops in afghanistan right now. so we don't mention it enough. we don't talk about it enough. and that reflects and also perpetuates the problem that we don't think about it enough. i certainly didn't. i certainly did not think about what it meant to troops on the ground when i was covering the war in afghanistan from the comfort of the north lawn of the white house for abc news. in 2009, and i would cover the president's wranglings with the pentagon over his debates over troop surge levels, 10,000 troops, 40,000 hits, 30,000 troops, numbers tossed out like i'm talking about, baseball

scores. and its flipped and it's superficial and i never thought about one u.s. soldier when i was covering the 30,000. there's one u.s. soldier and his wife right there. when you talk about troop levels and is 35,000, 40,000, you don't understand one. and i think the moment of holding my son and hearing about eight, and holding jack raymond tapper and think about, oh, my god, i can't imagine what those moms are feeling right now. and i now know a lot of those moms from combat outpost keating, from 2006 through 2009. and i know that every day for them is like that moment i had when it was imagining losing

that precious baby. and so, i can't come up with a solution, and thankfully it's not my job as to what we can do to connect people more closely to the sacrifices being made so that people are not glibly calling for troops run into battle every time there's a conflict that becomes a talking point on the news, or everybody, every time agile thinks a solution to the conflict is, well, let's than 100,000 more soldiers in there. i can't tell you what needs to change but i can tell you that the fact that we are so disconnected from these people who do this for us, for not a lot of money, for time away from

people that they love, love them, and possible to envision. that even though the war in afghanistan, the combat mission will be over at the end of 2014, even though we know there will be troops there for a long, long time after that but it did special troops and such, this war will never be over 400 of thousands of americans. who have lost family members or lost friends or who have scars that will never see from the outside but if you know these people, you know they're not the same people that they were a year or two ago. there's a great story if you haven't read it today, you should, it's on the front page of "the wall street journal" about a marine who was, the last one of 12 men from his unit in iraq, and he has now, i guess it's been called, i'd never heard this before, it's being

called moral injury. it's not quite post-traumatic stress disorder, it's something else. it's a haunting. his soul is haunted by the fact that he made it back alive and the other did not. and with hundreds of thousands of these people, brothers and sisters and fathers and moms, who were not connected to. a gentleman come and is quoted in the book, and he's quoted not by name, but you would know his name if i told it to you, which i won't, said that he was worried about how it the easy it has come for the u.s. to go to war. because the way that our armed services are set up right now, it's almost like the romans hiring legionnaires to fight. now, i know in savanna you guys know about hiring people because i was all about the mercenaries. but we can't go on the pending

that this 1% of the population isn't doing the things for us. we just can't do cannot saying we should have a draft or that we need to raise taxes or when you have a national service requirement. that's not for me to say, but it's not sustainable for us to keep doing this. and keep sending these people to fight these wars, and the average american knows the names of more kardashians than medal of honor winners recipients. the names kia. so i think what this book did, for me, it was a way for me to confront this and myself, and a way for me to try to do one small part to try to correct this so that people would know the names of those who have

served there, including those who made it back. because theirs is just as important. they are in many ways the walking wounded, and in that way it's been incredibly rewarding that people will have read "the outpost" and for the most part, liked it, enjoyed it is not the right word, but found it meaningful. and what i always say is, and this is not mocking -- this is not, it's not the poetry of some of the great war books of our time by hemingway or dispatchers or things they to do it to reporters but that i tried to write in a way that people would find readable but i know it's not as poetic as many of the other authors speaking here this weekend. but it is a readable book, and the stories are moving because

they happen. the stories are moving because they are real. not because i wrote them. and so i found the experience very, very rewarding. and i found it very moving. i hope if you haven't read the book you will give it a look, not for my benefit, you know, go to the library and read, i don't care about the money part of it, but just because maybe you'll learn the name of somebody, and that will mean something to you in terms of connecting to the war in a way that it now does to me. so with that i'm happy to take any questions you might have. [applause] >> if anyone has a question -- yes, i was going to say raise your hand.

>> tell me your name and where you're from. >> i am from new york city. hi. i'm wondering if your book impacted abc, you know, the people that are in charge there, and you had to leave because you are leaning a certain way against the war? >> i don't understand the question. >> well, you did have a point of view in writing this book, and obviously it was against war, greed. and i wondered if that it anything to do with your leaving abc and going to cnn? >> okay. i would respectfully disagree with a couple of assertions embedded in that question.

[laughter] the first one is that the book is antiwar. it's not antiwar. it is pro-truth about war. i'm not saying that we shouldn't have been in afghanistan and even saying that we shouldn't have been in eastern afghanist afghanistan. in kamdesh. i'm saying if you're going to send troops there we need to make sure that they have everything they need so they can fight this war. that's what i'm saying. [applause] i did write it in such a way so that, because i don't offer many opinions in the book, that people can draw their own conclusions, and it might be that war is awful and we should never wage wars. that's not what i think but i wrote it in -- obvious i think were softened butter don't think we should never wage wars. my great uncle died fighting world war ii. i certainly think that was a

worthy sacrifice. but i think people who support war and support the war in art war and support the war in afghanistan, i know people have supported war and supported the war in afghanistan have read the book and liked it as well. because the point is not we shouldn't fight wars. the point is, our troops are precious, and we need to guard them and make sure they can fight these wars and do their jobs. and if that means that we don't put outposts, small outpost at the bottom of three state mount, that's the conclusion for generals and colonels to reach. but it's not an antiwar book. and i think the fact that the book has been embraced by the soldiers as it has shows that it can be read in a different way. in terms of my leaving abc news, which was a wonderful place to

live, and i also lived and worked for 10 years, it was entirely because i wanted to and to my own show, and cnn gave me the opportunity. that's really -- it was a tough decision to i really loved being there. i loved working with george stephanopoulos and robin and diane sawyer and everyone else. wonderful people. i had a great time there. i was personally ready for new challenge but i've been a correspondent for 10 years, and anchoring seemed like a pretty cool thing, and i will have my own show on cnn and we will see if i'm any good at it. thanks. [applause] spent how we doing? lieutenant tom witkowski. going to be heading over to afghanistan next weekend. >> just a quick question but i know what motivated you to get into the correspondence, writing content. i guess i really appreciate what you did for us, and it just

wondering your opinion how we could get more correspondence with us to tell our stories? >> first of all, thank you for your service. [applause] stay safe over there, please. and is that your wife or girlfriend? speak my wife. >> god bless you, too. because i know as little attention as the soldiers get, the soldier's spouse as did even less, so thank you so much. i know when i was embedded for a week in afghanistan, it was probably the worst week in my wife's life and i didn't have a gun with me and i wasn't running at doing anything dangerous. this is a larger -- the question about how could we get more reporters telling the stories? first of all there are a lot of great reporters who are trying to do that the war in

afghanistan who have written other books, sebastian younger and jonathan krakauer, michael raddatz wrote a wonderful book about iraq. i think there are two things. one is, the appetite of the public needs to exist in order for publishers to tell these stories, the willing to spend the money to tell these stories. thankfully the public has been pretty receptive to to my book and other books about the war, so that's good. now getting some of these stories told on television or film is a different matter. it's a different matter. though i have to say i was will happen when seen in getting all our to tell clint romesha his story, which was a wonderful opportunity. the other problem in addition to trying to make sure the public is interested, because these are not depressing stories. they can be very inspiring, wonderful stories, very moving

stories that's not eating spinach and i know this is the longest for ever, but it's not. it's not adding to the weariness of the war that is inspiring people to one of the problems is the pentagon. pentagon does not want great enough when it comes to telling these stories, allowing us to tell the stories. so often reporters only swoop in one of some horrific event, as opposed to other types of stories. i think that the pentagon could cooperate more in supporting us. i was talking about this earlier, you know, when i think back about the stories of jessica lynch and pat tillman. a good place would be to start about not lying about stories that happen. friendly fire, people die in from the fire accidents, and that's horrible, but when lies are told, it will not point

disgrace is the owner of the soldiers that have died, but turns the public off from trusting the pentagon. it's a disservice to you and your fellow troops. but i think that beyond not lying, i think there needs to be more openness. this is not a personal complaint because the penness. this is not a personal complaint because the pentagon was very cooperative today, or i would say not uncooperative? [laughter] not hostile? they were pretty good. they let me in bed for a week with the medevac team. i think there's more opportunities for me to tell stories and talk to people. public information officers are very controlling, and i understand why, but that gets in the way of reporters trying to do their jobs. does that make sense? please be safe. hope to see you here next you.

i won't even write a book. just come back. [laughter] >> hi. my name is michael from charleston, south carolina. i'm here today with my six-year-old grandson, cooper, whose father was on the 19th of this month -- killed in action. and i just want to thank you, jay, for writing the book. it's been part of the healing process. it's help those of us who have suffered or lost immeasurably and i don't see it all as an antiwar book, and thanks for writing it. >> thank you. [applause] >> i was asking about you at the beginning. i didn't know if you were here. there was a lot of traffic. high, cooper. how are you? cooper's dad, buddy, a very,

very brave man with the obama national guard -- with the oklahoma national guard was taken six years ago tomorrow. i believe. the 19th. to say, okay. so thank you for being here. i'm fine. >> given your experience in researching what do you think of the reaction against chuck hagel being secretary of defense, and then who was clearly reluctant to send soldiers into harm's way having been there yourself? >> it's an interesting -- the question was about former sergeant, former senator chuck hagel and infantrymen who is two purple hearts, and all the

controversy over him. without weighing in on him per se, i like personally the idea of people who have served in uniform having a say in policy decisions in which many in uniform, and women in uniform are sent into harm's way, as a general fought. obviously, i don't have a position on senator hagel whether or not he should be secretary of defense. i do think it's interesting, and the last three or four weeks i have wished my shows up and ring so we could talk about this at some like him but do think it's interesting, the idea of senator, former senator now secretary john kerry, and possibly secretary chuck hagel, two men with i think five purple hearts between them, and both of them, although they voted for

iraq and afghanistan, so can't say they're completely -- although maybe john kerry didn't vote for iraq. i can't keep it straight. but in any case, what it does, and we were just talking about this over lunch, what it does to a man or a woman to have killed someone and to have had friends killed, and whether or not that actually is an asset or possibly even a liability when you're serving as a secretary of defense or secretary of state. it's a really interesting question, one woul we haven't td about as a nation before. i did a night lying in 2004 about john kerry and the idea of what killing a man, especially this one event we killed a viet cong, what they did t today. i interviewed a number of shipments, fellow veterans, and we talked about what it did to

him. and he said it's something he doesn't like to talk about. it's something that i think on cinema to a degree. and there is a lot of discussion about it. and the fact people come if you talk to troops, a lot of civilians will say stupid things like wow am have you ever killed anybody? it's not fun. it's not again. it's something that can really mess you up. i mean, i guess it can also not measure up but still be pretty troubling. for others it's kill or be killed. i did what i had to do. but it's an interesting topic for debate, more largely. there's a guy, lieutenant colonel grossman, he talked a lot about what he calls -- what killing just a person. i wish, i hope we can talk about a more because we're going to have a lot more of people who have killed walking our streets as this next, last were crossed

and. i kind of evaded your question. >> my name is larry sprague from savannah, georgia. about two-thirds way through youbook but one of the things tt struck me is that in this post yet mostly 19, 20-year-olds, noncoms in their 20s. you might, the captain was what, early '30s? so there might be, what, two people in the '30s, and yet he's negotiating treaties and agreements and a very large area. so what question is that -- i'm really struck by the responsibility that the united states puts on its junior officers and its troops. and in some ways it looks like to make it somewhat unprecedented. and france i think that's one of the reasons why we're so good. but is that an accurate observation speak with

absolutely acted observation that these troops are -- the book takes place during a big push in the military strategy called counterinsurgency, which is basically nationbuilding am hoping to build up a nation or a village by village. your hopefully connecting them to the afghan government and convincing them to not be cooperative with the insurgents. so that's counterinsurgency. and yes, these troops from a lowly private to the captain on the outpost are called upon to be ambassadors, to be civil engineers, to be diplomats and also of course to be soldiers. and it is complex. i mean, mostly mostly the troops rise to the challenge. absolutely. but it also illustrates how difficult this work is.

especially when you're trying to figure out in one village who the bad guy, who's the good guy. there may be a good guy whose son is a bad guy. happens all the time to a check, you are absolutely right. i hope you like the last third last back unde -- [laughter] >> we have 10 minutes. you have one? okay. spent on kathy. i'm from cincinnati. we talked about disconnect, it's hard to see the victories in this type of will, like when world war ii, you know, hitler was taking italy, taking friends and we took it back and when it was over we defeated the enemy but it seems like when we left iraq, we didn't feel a victory. and when relief, the troops pull out of afghanistan you don't feel a victory. my middle son is in the army and

i want to feel a victory. i know you don't know the answer, but in your opinion when you left afghanistan and pakistan five years, 10 years now, will it have made a difference on whether we have changed things and worse the victory? that's what i want to know spent wow. so there's nothing riding on my answer here last mac just an army mom's peace of mind, that's all. [laughter] no big deal. i would not say that it's for nothing. i'm going to avoid the war on iraq for afghanistan reasons but there are collisions been made. our achievements. the afghan national army is being built the. the afghan police forces are being built the. will it sustain? what last, i don't know. i hope so. i don't know. i can't say. when i was there in 2011, the

troops with whom i was embedded said that they were confident about the soldiers and policemen themselves, they were more concerned about the less sexy story about logistics, would they be able to be supportive. with it would have medevac helicopters. where they have ammunition and food supplied for th helicopters. where they have ammunition and food supplied for them after the afghan government, you know, it's relatively new and still try to figure it all out. in terms of the larger question of where are the ticker tape parades, i don't know, but i'll show a. i mean, you know, i'll tell you, i think that it would be smart for any politician to start throwing them. so when people and our troops are coming home, whether or not you support the war. you can support the fact that people are willing to sacrifice for something greater than themselves. the lieutenant, the lieutenant governor of delaware, read my

book, and i think that this is, this is something that politicians, they want to do something. he reached out to me and he said can i invite some of these troops to my inaugural, he had just been reelected, lieutenant governor of delaware. okay, just the lieutenant governor of delaware but he wanted to do something. he had three of the troops from, three of birchfield's guys come, and they spoke at a talk to junior rotc, and then they wore taxes at the inaugural ball and i got to celebrate and welcomed. certainly that doesn't happen for all too many people have served in iraq and afghanistan, by do think some sort of welcome home would be appropriate. again, whether not you support the military action. i guess we have like five more minutes. this guy with the indiana shirt really wants to ask a question.

it better be good. [laughter] >> i guess my question is, what resources our fighting men and women acting in afghanistan? and then suddenly, as we go into fading out of afghanistan, how much is the powell doctrine going to be on the minds of our leadership at the pentagon and in the wider? >> say that last part again. >> the powell doctrine. >> the overwhelming force committee going to use force, twinges overwhelming force. >> it seems like we're going to be shrinking especially the budget cuts. >> the kinds of resources that the troops did not get range all over the map, but i'll focus on one resource that was a huge problem for him, throughout the lifespan of the outpost, that is do so but not enough helicopters in afghanistan to do the job. so in 2006 when you're setting

up the outpost, one of the reasons why they sent up at the bottom of the three steep mountains was because they need to be near the road, and it's not the only reason but it's one of the reasons. and it needed to be in the road because they didn't have enough helicopters for resupply so they needed to resupply by convoy. that's because most of the helicopters were in iraq and in 2007 in fact, there were 20 times more troops in iraq than they were in afghanistan. and with the commensurate levels of air support from helicopters et cetera. and in combat -- in combat outpost keating that change because the convoys were start getting attacked and people start hitting injured and killed. and by 2007, they were no longer doing resupply us by roads. they were only doing them by helicopter. from 2007-2008-2009, the pilots flew their left and left.

nomen -- know moon would be the optimal conditions. that's just one example. they want to close down the base. the kernel and lieutenant colonel want to shut down combat outpost keating, and one of the reasons why, of several that general mcchrystal said no, was because he had helicopters that were involved in a military operation knows of the outpost. so we couldn't use those helicopters to help shut down the base. i think that's the biggest example. there were other types of resources, but it is just an example but in terms of the powell doctrine, you know, he's not in a military or the government anymore, and what we're getting is something closer to a very different kind of doctrine. i think personally, president obama, not personally. i say this as someone who has reported on this. president obama probably would

not have -- president obama 2013 would not have ordered the surge of troops in afghanistan that he did in 2000. i think he feels differently about the use of force. i think he feels its limitations more, and is less willing to just listen to a general saying we need a search, we need a search. it worked in iraq, we need to do here, too. i think he is less willing to do that. so going forward i don't know who will follow him as president, i would expect -- i would not expect more military, more use of force by president obama. rather, i would expect more strategic and the way he's been used to doing sanctions in syria, sanctions and iran. i would be very surprised if even were willing to do another libya type operation. so that's all the time we have. you've been a wonderful audience. and very good looking, if i may say so. [applause]

thank you. >> we would like to hear from you. tweet us your feedback, twitter.com/booktv. >> the british navy had a large impact on the war of 1812. while and alexander virginia with the help of our local cable partner comcast, we sent down with denver bronfman to discuss the navy's will. his book is "the evil necessity - british naval impressment in the eighteenth-century atlantic world." it's next here on booktv. >> the british empire in 18 century was really a maritime empire. as an island nation they depended really heavily on trade and controlling really the trade of their various colonial territories. they needed a very powerful navy, and the navy needed been. and so british naval ships

really sailed the world but were especially concentrated in the atlantic. this is how the system affected american colonists. when british naval vessels came into various ports, but often lost men because of the three d's. death, disease and assertion. the way they could resupply the ships was to capture the colonists. so in that way america was introduced to really what i can think of as a nasty underside of the british system, that in many ways they benefited from and appreciated but they got some hands as, you know, what was really involved and the obligations of being a british subject. the issue of suppressed those are important for the american colonies throughout the 18th century. it was always one of the most unpopular parts belong to the british empire. one thing that we forget as

americans today is that the american colonists actually love to be part of the it reddish empire overall. all the way through the seven years war in 1763. in that since the american revolution was something of an aberration. but there were these various issues that emerged very on, and one was in pressman. during the american revolutionary era, which was incredibly unpopular in the 1760s and 1770s reading up to american independence, it appears in the declaration of independence as one of the grievances against george iii. probably during the american public, various vessels were captured by the british. century is again a choice but to join a british naval vessel of the to into a horrible prison in england. you know, some ended up serving unfurnished naval ships. so the american revolution ended

in 1783. a decade later the british were not -- when you were with friends. the french revolution and eventually the napoleonic wars. those ones with less than 7093-1815. the british navy needed more men than ever. and the failures of the war, needed about 140,000 sailors. and so couldn't really spare anyone. one of the practices of the british navy was to stop ships at sea from other countries, and check to see if any british sailors were on board. because it was illegal in the british system to serve for another country. and 100 a british sailor was to hide from the press gang would be an american merchant ships. and so when the british stopped american merchant ships on the high seas, this was seen as a violation of america's sovereignty. and various american

administrations, starting with george washington, continuing with john adams, thomas jefferson and ultimately james madison, all rejected this, something as a violation of americans saw burns right. the british navy -- needed for sailors that were available at the time. favors in the british empire worked on merchant ships and on naval ships, and this was fine in peace, but in times of war, there was essentially more need. so what the british navy did is they used a forcible conscription system, impressment, in which it was actually legal to violently apprehended men and put them on ships. because the american colonies were members of the british empire, that meant that american sailors also could be impressed.

and once i said was impressed on the ship, he was essentially on that vessel until that particular war ended, or until he died or until he escaped. those are really the only three ways out of the situation. impressment was often compared to slavery in its own time. assassins were different but they had some similarities. when he said was impressed, we have some first hand accounts. they often likened themselves to enslave africans. the really important differences were that slavery was permanent, it was hereditary, and nothing was passed down to the following generations. and, of course, there was few, if any, not any benefits. impressment only lasted for the duration of the particular war, and then sailors went free. they were still paid a wage by the british navy, and i think the single most important way to

tell the difference between the two systems is that we have amazing records of some enslave africans who wanted to be impressed. that means they sought freedom in the british navy. so that clearly shows that impressment provided a certain amount of freedom that wasn't available under slavery. indentured servants in colonial america also worked under certain term of service. the way it worked was that a laborer in england they didn't have really great prospects could come to america. and essentially the cost of that voyage, that person pledged to work for a certain number of years but usually four to seven years. and at the end of that endanger, that person was free. and ideally he would get some plan, some benefits. so in my book i compare

impressment to indentured servitude to slavery. we often think of the 18 century as the age of enlightenment and age of liberty. and it certainly wasn't those things, but it was also the era of servitude. more people crossed the atlantic ocean to come to the western hemisphere under some condition of i'm freedom than they did freedom. we don't exact figures about the number of men who were impressed, and that's because the navy didn't keep track. when every person entered a ship, nina, the person person'ss written down but their exact circumstances were not clear. so the best estimate for the number of men who were impressed are somewhere between half and two-thirds of for mewhere betwed two-thirds of for any given war. so using those numbers, we can safely say that about a quarter of a million men were impressed during the 18th century that makes it the second most common

form of forced labor, forced service in the british empire after slavery. the great quote by a british admiral and 18 cents, philip cavendish, and he says they are awful and his when they find out they can't get away. and by that he meant that when he said was captured by a press gang, he was offered a bounty, if you'd like to take but if he took the bounty, he was automatically a volunteer. who wouldn't tlunteer. who wouldn't take the bounty? the problem in taking the bounty from the press gang is that that sailor had no legal recourse to get out of the navy. and there were certain ways, certain legal means that if you could escape, if he wasn't a sailor. that was the quickest way. because legally the navy could only impressed seamen. so if a person could show that some of the occupation, that they were impressed illegally, then they could get out. one way that this happened was

through their family offshore. so this institution affected a lot of people, a bigger cross-section of society rather than just the men who were captured. and the wives and mothers and other relatives would petition the british admiral to give the men, to get them in a. another thing they could do is they could file for a writ of habeas corpus. this basically meant that they were captured illegally. at that point the navy would have to show the court that this person action was a sailor and that he belonged in the navy. there was always a certain controversy about press gangs, and whether they were on the up and up. you know, whether they acted properly. they were certainly susceptible to bribes. men got out of service that way. and so really there's a lot of legends about press gangs and recruiting. it's in english lower.

one of my favorites is, you should ask be careful when you're sipping and a tavern because summer crew could always put a shilling inside of your glass but and if you accepted that shilling, just like the bounty, you essentially were saying you were volunteering for service. so you wouldn't want to drink the. that's one reason, according to legend, that to this day and classes in england are glass, clear, so you can see what you were drinking. there's some amazing moments indialantic world involving impressment in the 18th century. one of them takes place in november of 1747 when a small british fleet under admiral charles noel was sailing from canada to the caribbean, and they stopped over in boston. and like so many british commanders needed men. and so what he did was what the british do. it took about 50 men from the

boston area and put them on royal navy vessels. this cost -- this cost boston to explode in protest. to go straight to violate some rules about impressment in massachusetts at the time. and the most important one was that the british navy was not to take massachusetts sailors. that is, men who were born in economy. and that's exactly what trying to do. and so the crowd rose up. to actually captured his officers. so in a sense they turn around and impressed other british navy officers, held them hostage, took over the town for three days. that governor of massachusetts, william shirley, fled. he went to one of the islands in boston harbor. and the only thing that ended the whole commotion is that noel threatened to fire on the town. if they didn't release his officers. well, at