especially like the russian and chinese model where it's a very top-down directed military where you have essentially a military class, like you are all born in. it becomes a not just a profession or a citizen soldier type ideal but a class of people that do this job and you do whatever the leader tells you to do and he takes you to take the hill, you take the hill would expanding the force brings as well is it brings more citizen buy-in into what the military does. and yes, we need strategic planners and we need military professionals, who that is what they do for a living but part of being in a democracy is citizen buy-in, citizen response, this idea that the citizen soldier that both an enabling force. you can draw from a really diverse talent pool and the bigger that pool gets, the more you're going to guarantee you get the right person for the job but on the flipside of that, is that it's going to force military leaders and political leaders

to be very deliberate and very measured in their military decisions. if you have the entire citizenship pool, it's very easy to say, to support going to war when you know there's no way you're ever going to have to fight. when you say it's just this last of people over here, i'm not part of the military establishment, i'm not part of the military class, i will support the war in russia as you are seeing right now is really good at doing this. they're good at drumming up this really strong military that's its own class and they can sell military action to their public very well, whether ornot it's the best thing to do. and having a more , a wider pool from which the military is drawn makes both military and civilian leaders have to be very measured and very deliberate and hopefully also hoarseness's citizens to be more informed about what's is actually happening and going on that military decisions are made when exactly in the

best interest of the country for a military action to be taken and that i think is a very important delineation between democracies and the idea of the citizen soldier and having this wide citizen pool and non-democracies who just create a really big military that they drum up to try to show military might. >> i make one very practical point which is some of our military enemies come from traditional societies and their soldiers are terrified of being killed by a woman. that's a simple fact that facing you know, it might be honorable to be killed by a man but to be killed by a woman is dishonorable so there's another factor there that's very practical. i think there are many ways in which this will strengthen us. >> i think where i struggle with this debate at the macro level is that the reason we are discussing integration is that we've been using,

needing women on the ground operationally for the last decade . i trained male clerks and catch them at the swan level ii infantry units to go man entry control points. we've already been using them . this isn't a choice for the niceties of citizenship, it's a choice because operationally we are, have been and in the future will need to use these email service members so it becomes difficult because absolutely, we will be stronger if we train them and equip them at the entry level. if we allow them to cohesively bond with the units that we are going to work on operationally employ them with. but i do think the theoretical perspective is really important but looking at the realities on last decade for me is where the rubber meets the road. >> we have, professor

davidson has a question i'm a professor but actually worked at fort bragg for alternate locations there so you will imagine that some of our questions come from my students questions i'm channeling today. the distinction of whether there is a distinction between self and the community in many ways seized more be more willing because they have women on cfcs in our elite units working alongside them already. actually, many of the comments you just made but to the other point i want to emphasize, one of which is i'm teaching this course this year that emphasizes the use of natural sciences in terms of thinking about stresses in the main point that comes over that really structures was this idea of variation, the absolutely key toward evolving and improving and everything you are saying, heterogeneity helps us know much and in terms of the cfcs, one of the things that struck me and it's a story but i thought it was very

pointed was eileen in candy which is outside of four bragg and there was a group of cfcs that came down for this war, they were not invited on fort bragg. that's captains of the small stores in southern pines and my impression just from talking to a few of them over dinner because they happen to be having dinner, one of them was an injured veteran was that they feel like they are not, no one is paying attention to what they have to sayabout their experiences . which is really alarming to me and i don't know whether you can explain that just because there were very few of them and whether it's relegated and anecdotal, it surrenders to me that he didn't take more information from them and interview them more seriously and then miss hunter, the other thing that i think we had a presentation on that i thought was striking, there's a very clear out there that the public doesn't like this idea and from what i understand, the polling actually demonstrates the public do expect and want women to be serving.

they are fine with that. so why does admit perpetuate and do any of you have any information on how that has shifted and how that affects what we are discussing as well. thank you. >> i happy about this, cfcs and why they haven't been included in this research and here's my theory. when i proposed this research i was on the staff of the army war college, i wanted to do it through the war college and war college thought it was a great idea and we engaged with general hotel and he was completely on board, but it would be great research and then we got down to his staff and suddenly we began to get perfect. initially they provided large-scale support back in the research. literally for days before these women were supposed to show up in dc, we had 33 women registered, 10 of them

dropped out that weekend because they were told by their leadership at fort bragg that they, this was not officially sanctioned and they were not allowed to participate inresearch so i think there's a disconnect between what senior leaders , some senior leaders at least in this case is saying and what, there's mid-level pushback from leadership that says well, we don't want to participate. it's just, it's really about organizational change and resistance to this type of change and you're going to see it throughout every organization. you're going to see mid-level leaders thatdon't agree with it and they become spoilers . they make every effort to stop the forward progress for the full integration of women. i think that's what happened with the cfcs afterwe did our research in august or in july . august, so, did have a small conference with the cfcs, they invited them to come to mcdill where they spent some time, they spent a short

weekend with them but the cfcs reported back to me and said it was very much backward looking and not forward-looking. they wanted to capture what they had done, they were asking them about how can you inform us about how we should move forward with this mark so they were disappointed with that. i heard from the cfcs there is going to be another research conference with the cfcs down at mcdill, this is fort bragg. this is location, different leadership, and i do think you are seeing internal resistance at different levels. >> this actually i think leads to your question as to why there's still this perception that is not wanted where if you look at the public in general, they are like yes, fine, great. it makes everything better. so a lot of it is this mid-level area and i think there's sort of this mid-level leaders that you feel like it's almost there way to get noticed and make

their mark. if they can oppose this and become very vocally opposed, people will know who they are and as someone who has written quite a bit very openly and publicly about why this is important and i know jeanette can the same thing, we had an op-ed out recently, the comments and responses that come back to it is like, you will get one or two mid-level males or one very notorious and particular retired senior-level mail will publicly make these big statements about how i was in combat and this is all wrong and that just, it gets a lot of attention and because they attack their accolades to it whereas those of us life and have been very vocal about why it matters have been, have taken the road that passion needs to come out of this, emotional needs come out of it. let's look at the facts. look at what have women done and as kate brings up, it has

an operational necessity so now, how do we ensure that there is success in this continued operational success necessity and facts and just passionate discourse isn't as sexy as some guys running up screaming being like, all the dead women. so i think it plays again to this spoiler and again, this is sort of my theory of being involved with it is that it's a way they feel they can make a mark, to make you get known and now they are like the guy who fought the change and was taken over by the social experiment and use all this really emotional, impassioned language that doesn't reflect reality of what's actually happening. >> i'm david, i'm a fellow here at fisa. my question is about that emotional aspects of this.

from personal experience and from listening to this debate in public, there seems to be a growing acceptance or realization that this is a good idea. i've been in the air force myself and having fought alongside female fighter pilots , it seems very natural from my perspective but where i see pushback when i talk to people is this idea of opportunity versus responsibility. so everybody that i seek to seems to agree that everybody should have an opportunity, women should have an opportunity to do this but when you use the selective service or when you flip it and say responsibility, then the answer tends to change and i'm wondering your opinion on that, is that a societal thing that we need to get past? when you ask the father if you want your daughter to be able to serve in combat if she wants to they say yes but should she have to, if the nation goes to war it reentered to the draft,

oftentimes they will say no . >> i think that you are talking about people who in general have assertion. i have yet to meet a woman veteran who says women should register for selective service. i think that's just unanimous so i think the women who are looking for the opportunities themselves also think there's responsibility. you know, in terms of society , the selective service argument is i think a smokescreen. my two cents, i don't think we are going to have a draft again in this country until the aliens attacked at which point all hands on deck, i'm just saying. so i don't think there's anyone who's asking for the opportunity would also say i would take on the responsibility so forme , i do agree with a lot of things i said. i think there's a bias among

those of us who served to say we think that universal service is really important for citizenship. we think everybody should have an equal stake in that. but i get that there are people you know, if you'll brought opinion poll of should women be drafted you would get a different answer. i don't know how relevant it is to reality. that's me. >> with that, when we are talking about a motion i think there's a few things. society has to change. if you are saying it's really a three-part questionnaire when you bring in like, you want your daughter forth to fight in combat? a is the way that question is even asked. is just wrong. how many over the past 15 years where we have been in sustained combat operations, the longest time the us has ever been involved in a continuous militarized dispute, how many 18 to 26-year-old male who did not volunteer for the force lie

awake at night fretting over getting called to afghanistan the next day? it didn't happen. it's not like a thing. it is never one to ask that father who has a son who then think their sons going to go off and die in a war if he doesn't join the military, it's not even a thought. but we can again rathole this emotion around well, our daughters getting drawn off the war. number registering for the selective service is not being drawn off for the next day and that's just the reality so first is really that emotion and second, is just the way we frame the questions we are asking. the way we are expecting difference from men and women in third is with the cultural change that yes, you absolutely see one. it's this idea of equal opportunity is equal responsibility and it should be.

it's the same side of the debate not to get too much into cultural society and gender but you are seeing a big push more in the social spirit of equality and parity. that there needs to be equal parity responsibilities and i think it's almost on the opposite side of thecoin , we are kind of engaging in a society and this goes a lot of your question this generation where gender roles and equality in gender roles in society is becoming something that is being talked about a lot more and i would hope and i think everybody here on the panel would hope that this responsibility really gets wrapped up into that conversation and that is refrain in a way that registering for the selective service isn't getting drawn off to war and you're not going to die the next day and even if you are called off in a draft it's not guaranteed, nobody is putting a rifle in your hand and sending you off to fight in a trench. that's not the way that warfare is thought anymore. and so we also with this

conversation need to reevaluate what the selective service is. i think be more vocal about it and hopefully this debate will even just bring up a lot of these citizenship questions again. what is your responsibility? >> i really enjoyed an article recently, one of her subheadings was it's time to take the emotion out of the debate and epidemiologists got excited. either parent of a boy. i don't frame that question of selective service any differently for him then i would for a daughter but obviously my biased perspective as having served and feeling strongly about the responsibility of service for men and for women but it's an emotional debate that we are 10 years past as being emotional anymore. >> all right. ladies and gentlemen

unfortunately we are out of time. we need to take a break but i know the panel should probably stay around if you have a question, please come up and ask them. for those of you looking for refreshments, there's a cafeteria down that hallway and then the ladies men's room is around this corner. with that, give a round of applause. [applause] >>. [inaudibe conversation]

>>. [inaudible conversation] welcome back. our second panel hopefully has a little bit more practical application for many of the students as its focus is on providing irregular warfare with an integrated force. the focus here is on gender integration and how it shapes the battlefield. with an ever-changing threat environment, the integration of women into all military applications provides the potential for unique skill sets to be leveraged and must be considered in future strategic planning. biting irregular warfare with an integrated force. we have three panelists or this panel, our first one immediately on stage right is doctor mandy moore, excuse me, doctor mandy donohoe.

she earned her doctorate at the joseph goals were school of international study at the university of denver. she specializes in international relations comparative politics, conflict resolution and peace studies in gender. mandy is an adjunct professor and internship coordinator for the bachelor of arts program at international studies at the joseph goals goal. she received a masters degree in peace and conflict resolution from american university school of international service and she will speak on women as stakeholders , the value of participation. our next panelist back with us again is miss kyleanne hunter, unfortunately she is replacing doctor howard clark is not able to be here, he found out last minute so we are racist, kyleanne volunteered to jump on board

and replace them. also speaking about the same topic that he was planning on, the role of the integrated military and combating domestic terrorist threats and finally, okay. sorry. then our last panelist is lieutenant colonel jeanette haynie. a cobra pilot and a combat veteran. he is a phd candidate at george washington university studying domestic terrorism and inequality so with that ladies, thank you. >> just push a button. excuse me. i'll be talking today about women as stakeholders, the value of participation, particularly from the lens of post-conflict and peace building or formal peace process is so i'd like to start introducing an organization from idea, the women of iberia mass action for peace which is a group of women both muslim and christian were organized and

the violence in the second liberian civil war, a great documentary on them called pray the devil back to hell for those of you with time and access to track that down. they called for peace talks, in fact they practically forced president charles taylor to sit down with rebel groups. and then led by mima gamal a, a delegation of these women sat in on or rather staged a sit in at the peace process in actors honor. the process that would lead to the opera comprehensive peace agreement signed august 18 2003. the women were not part of any formal delegation, they did not take formal, they did not participate in the peace process. their role in that moment was to enforce the process itself, in fact at one point the women lined up around the building to keep the men from the rebel groups from

climbing out of a window to escape participating in the process so we begin to see the role of women in formal processes, why their participation is necessary. are stakeholders. they have a vested interest in the cessation of violence, us vested interest in the resolution of conflict in their lives . but they don't sit at the peace table, at least not very often. another case i will get to in a moment is northern ireland where women did sit at the peace table and i will talk about why that's important. at the report of the secretary-general on women's peace and security, states that often women are excluded because they are not military leaders or political decision-makers or because they did not participate in the conflict as combatants. women are assumed to lack the appropriate expertise to negotiate or they are left out going to discrimination

and stereotypical thinking. captain o'rourke writes a piece called walking the halls of power, understanding women's participation in international peace and security and she talks about five distinctive types of participation. the first is the role model argument in which women participate as role models. hey look, we can do it too. the second is the justice argument area participation as representation in which it is simply argued that it is fair and just that as 50 percent of the population, women have a role, a right to participatein these processes . the third is the larger dream argument, participation as deliberation in which it is argued that women's participation is process oriented, that women contribute differently to the process of peace negotiations. fourth is the expertise argument. participation as expertise. in which we need the expertise on issues that

affect women's lives the way that the conflict as been in generals or issues that don't generally get brought into peace processes otherwise. i'm sorry, i skipped number four. the different agenda argument. participation as inclusion. securing the women, excuse me, securing the participation of women as beneficiaries of the policies enacted in the agreement. o'rourke argues that these forms of participation fit on a spectrum ranging from descriptive participation, that is representation by women in which women are physically a part of the process and on the other end, substantive representation or the representation of what we broadly characterize as women's issues. women's interests on the other hand. o'rourke argues that more and more we see that women's

peace and security agenda as focused on women's interests so substantive participation rather than on women's descriptive participation in which women are actively participating in these roles. so i'd like to introduce my second case study, the northern ireland coalition. in 1996, elections were announced to the northern ireland peace forum. formal peace talks that within the three decades of violence in northern ireland known as the troubles. an existing network of civil society actors in women's organizations put in a phone call and said, will there be women at the table? the very trite answer they got back was sure. if they're elected. so women engaged in the process of forming a

political party, the northern ireland women's coalition. what was interesting about this particular peace process is that the voting for the parties that would be represented in the process occurred in sort of two different levels. so members of political parties would run in their own district when we think of politics at home today. but there would also in what they call the top up process, a sort of comprehensive vote in which votes would be accumulated across northern ireland so that some of these smaller minority parties would also be represented. the process wasn't designed to include women but it certainly benefited them as the northern ireland women's coalition ran against some of these larger, well-established parties and of the 10 parties that were elected to sit at the peace talks, the northern ireland women's coalition, i will just call it the coalition came in night at 10. so they had two women, a protestant woman and a catholic woman, monica

mcwilliams were elected to sit at the peace talks. now, they were a challenge to what they sort of laughingly referred to as abnormal politics, the normal politics of northern ireland which was very divisive and focused on the violence. in the process or during the peace process rather the chair would assign papers. homework, really for the delegates, those who had been elected to sit. the members of the more well-established parties didn't take his homework very seriously. the women did. they met with their constituents, they met with their party members, they hired legal experts, they sought out academics in the field. they took very seriously these writing assignments so as a result, the peace agreement was signed in 1998 as a lot of the language from the coalition cause they took this process seriously.

earlier on in earlier stages when the rest of the parties otherwise the men at the table did. with the coalition, we can see all five of o'rourke's arguments for women's participation in different ways. first of all, the coalition as role models. women were proven capable of successfully organizing, managing a political party as well as getting elected to office. politics again was synonymous with the violence so even at the peace talks, elected members, official leaders of parties really acted very violently, very aggressively. the body language was very aggressive. when the news or rather when men acted this way toward other men, it was knocked noteworthy. it was not on the news. but suddenly seeing this aggressive behavior against

women, these two elected women and their constituents in the party became extremely newsworthy so these women not only showing themselves as role models for what women are capable of what also became role models for what normal politics ought to look like. they became role models that showed in contrast really the childishness of the aggressive and abusive behavior these men were carrying out. the second argument, the justice argument. the coalition was representative of women as well as a number of other constituents who really just wanted a cessation of violence only works just being fair to representing women in this cause. they also serve justice to other voices, alternative voices who had not been party to the violence, had not been party to the conflict and otherwise

women of the coalition oriented, very deliberative political style, but there was an alternative to the violence of the conflict. there was a middle way in which a party could be representative, just of one side or the other, but a form of politics in which communities were accessed, in which local voices were mobilized, and in which advice was sought for improving the situation. the different agenda argument in which participation is seen as a form of inclusion, one of

the proudest moments for the coalition according to its members and the good friday agreement was the civic forum which was meant to be a body that would fit parallel to the new government, be made up of civil society members, women's organizations, community actors, and it would serve as a media in terms of translating local community voices and needs towards policy and the government as well as serving as a sort of translator of new government policies and laws back in. today 78 percent in southern island is woman. they make up this majority voice in a field that was

developed largely as a counter response to politics , which they saw as pure violence, so including the civic voice was the method, there are two fellows going to call it their baby, which is accurate considering how many of them concerning issues of motherhood, but they consider the civic form and access point. as part of the different agenda counter to the pushing and pulling the power that was going on the other parties to the other thing that the coalition pushed was integrated education and environment today still nearly 20 years after the violence ended in which cast the kids get a catholic schools and protestant kids go to stay run but otherwise protestant schools. so pushing an expiration

education system is part of a different agenda. women's participation including alternative issues. the final argument is the expertise argument. women in the coalition were able to engage with expertise rather than having a speak for them, they engage with expertise in terms of seeking out legal expertise, academic advice and contributing to the piece agreement, they spoke on behalf of the expertise rather than as work cautions us that expertise on what women's issues are what women's interests are hesitant to speak for women. the coalition slips they

became experts in their own right. the stakeholders and conflicts. as the un report describes the usually characterize decision-makers of representatives, not participants in combat roles axis woman i -- regularly left out of such processes. women are particular category because they experience of participate in public differently. the participation peace process fall fiber present can be achieved and can desperately or -- excuse me, descriptively and substantively change peace processes for much more inclusive arrangements.

>> thank you. hello again. so, what i'm going to talk about here, describe why you need women at the table. and what it really does to ensure, and that is a biga big part of it. the goal is to have a lasting piece. to bring this back to counterinsurgency and irregular warfare context, if you look at either the data correlation of war, data fit you cpd data fit, the two biggest in here, collection, formally declared wars and irregular military conflicts that are out there find that the overwhelming majority of irregular warfare which is defined as either a state fighting and nonstate actor

for multiple nonstate actors fighting within a state of brought to an end by negotiated settlements. they are very rarely is a formal all-out military victory or formal surrender that is achieved in these contexts. a lot of people have experienced trying to figure out but the endgame is in the in-state. they are learning more best some sort of negotiation in some sort of what he called a cease-fire or peace process will you need is multiple parties with multiple stakeholders working for analysis on this , there is very good analysis of the data as how

to get disagreeing parties to come together. what gender integration and the actual battle space of counterinsurgency and in the battle space of irregular warfare means for getting the right people to come to the table as you pointed out , women were seen as legitimate, there for a legitimate reason, just a window dressing bringing women into the counterinsurgency battle space matters. as we briefly discussed the

makeup brought in as to the purpose of integrating women as opposed to doing some of the other military powers in china and russia are doing now. the 1st thing to really highlight with this is that we need to fight the wars in the battle space probably could. >> you not having infantry troops lining up on either side of the trenches and shooting each other and whoever kills more people when's. if fighting in people's talents, and people's villages. enemies one day and bread so the next day. this is the reality.

other parts of south asia. raising violence against the state and ultimately you need away. the most important factor in counterinsurgency is populist buying and civilian buying. if you look at the data from what we have done in afghanistan that the cultural support teams and ellen has probably much more anecdotes on this than just the wrong number data i was able to fly groups where women were involved side-by-side with men in the entire clear hold and build operation. they went in, fought alongside men to get delavan

out, reinforced villages until the women out of the stakeholders of the village came out to ensure their own personal physical security as well as a villages economic security and men were very involved in the new leadership in established in the communities. he have not seen a resurgence of taliban. similarly in a few case studies in sierra leone where you had no region female peacekeepers very much involved in the process and brought women in and taught women how to fight physically and secure themselves economically. you did not see a resurgence of extremist violence. so what you have here is a three-pronged phenomenon, one where women are setting the example of being equals with men, when you have

western forces are stabilizing forces, even if it is from a neighboring country, you have men and women fighting alongside each other, the precedent in the example set that there are egalitarian expectations, and that tends to bring women and security. what the security or stability means and how we ensure the stability and security will we leave and what this does is it legitimize women as stakeholders in their own security, legitimize woman as stakeholders in their economic and legitimize woman as political stakeholders. that is really number one. the 2nd thing that happens is woman as integrated forces is you end up with violence mitigation. a professor at your

university shows that paramilitary violent tactics actually have an inverse strategic effect to counterinsurgency. going in to an area that is trying to win the hearts and minds, if you go and to start killing people in the going with the goal of, we are going to take over x terrain and hold it and bunker it and you end up with strategic. you may get tactical victories. you intend to employment population against her principles. the goal is to get the

population cannot support the insurgency in black and white terms. most of your familiar, but to do that you need a more holistic approach to your fighting tactics. you need the complex decision-making out -- that goes beyond just us to store this building because it may be used as an enemy stronghold to the long-term consequences, and what are the long-term effects of this military action? and it has been seen in the units that had either lioness programs attached to them, you have got much more of this long-term thinking that was brought into the tactical level. so the tactics of how do we ensure both our own

security, the security of the village married up with a long-term strategic goals of needing to win the hearts and minds, to simplify it, this village. you see women as a constraining force for the use of excessive force and violence. additionally, to take it out of just iraq and afghanistan, if you look at the data on excessive use of sexual violence and elizabeth would put together a phenomenal data set that goes back to pre-world war ii, whether it was built by soldiers, and again, they are documentation issues, data reliability because i'm sure there's much more than is reported. whether was soldiers using rape as a weapon during

interrogation, during, you know, just when you cover villages and then on the flipside, being used against captured soldiers, you see the presence of women in units, whether they were in peacekeeping units, women and rebel groups that the use of sexual violence as a tool diminishes quite a bit. and you know the use of sexual violence during war is outside the scope of the panel, but very briefly, it creates a lot of cultural barriers to reintegration and post- conflict settling. so i'm happy to discuss more of that in the q&a if you want, but the bottom line comes down to the fact that women serve as a mitigating factor which creates one less stumbling block to reintegration, post, settlement and to

reestablishing legitimate and lasting piece. to end on a note there is a lot of popular stories on the play on this idea of a motion. very prevalent in this.this. you will hear reports coming out of columbia now or turkey and iraq, or even about us soldiers. you never want to be captured by a woman because she will torture you far worse than an e-mail. and begins is really builds up a lot of these cultural constructs. if you strip again pull back some of my own research or i have done some of this they

actually do the exact same thing. they have a very, very strict, very coherent and of the this is how you interrogate a subject, this is how you treat prisoners command there is no evidence that women deviate from the script. however, the perception is of a woman is doing something like this it must be far worse. it's more insulting to me as a man that it will make you do this to me. whether it is a pro or con i don't have an answer. the place to this emotion in this rhetoric that you see used. pull back to the counterinsurgency side that they are essential

facilitators turnover. >> you have to bear with me for a minute. i felt a lot more comfortable hearing about and thinking about information being shared. how diverse groups are more equipped to handle complex challenges. i'm taking it in the little bit of a different direction. a little bit of background. i grew up being the only woman in my squadron and constantly hearing, i've never flown with a woman before. the separation, like i was expected to be different. congrats to undecided is a

joke to look at the impact of gender inequality or different levels of female leadership on state security questions, and to my surprise i found there is obviously evidence out there that women do have a different effect in leadership in gender inequality, security issues, and am sure some of your nodding your head. it was surprising to me as a cobra pilot. there is nothingthere's nothing i can do that they can do. i took some of this emotion, not emotional, but as it turns out i was wrong and then learning more every time. right now i'm looking at is the impact of gender equality not necessarily on face value with the impact of gender inequality on domestic terrorism as an enabling condition.

terrorism obviously is very relevant. more so that was earlier. we still don't fully understand the factors that cause it, what brings about. we look at it from the supply side generally. a lot ofa lot of programs and policies that are set to counterterrorism and violent extremism are set up from the supply side angle. what i would really like to do is bring it back. go and talk about why an integrated military is uniquely suited to addressing the enabling conditions that going to domestic terrorism, specifically in this instance. to talk a little bit about initial findings. very informative. done some great stuff. less skeptical of what i found later.

he worked for classmate in the naval academy, nonprofit. that made it his life's work to do in combating terrorism and they started including women as counterterrorism agents to counter radical, they are doing it on a very deep level grade level. i sent running about extremism. they talked about women as counterterrorism agents, violent extremism, and they are seeing some success. i found that academically there is very little support one way or the other for the role of gender inequality. if you extend the security theory in general you can see where the lines you drawn.

i started looking at it, and interestingly enough i found that, i'm still trying to my reservations. a strong, significant support that women in the political sphere, the greater the impact of the greater the lower rate of domestic terrorism. makes me more excited to kick it down the next trip. you know, i mentioned out a lot of them rely on supply side. how do we get women involved i think in some ways we are looking at that.

we will always as women and men see grievances and i don't know that playing whack a mole we can never stop terrorists. we can do is create conditions that keeps them from developing and keep radicalization building. some fascinating work on the role of feminists values crazy acceptance among both men and women in the impacts of those. on the use of violent conflict. specifically looked at the arab-israeli conflict and found that a number of states. both men and women have more feminist attitudes about women should have equal rights were left in support

of military force and i'm more interested in finding alternative means. i find that fascinating and it has reflected my experience as marine and i am hoping it will reflect my research into domestic terrorism. but the role of norms and outcomes in society that is more open equal opportunity for men and women in the inclusion of women in every level of the peace process, that society, mentioned populace by in my enabling conditions of the society to foster or help prevent terrorism. well, keep all those in mind. and acceptance of violence and normalization of violence.

sorry go even though we all know marines, not all very nurturing are universally specific, but those things become more accepted culturally on a wider scale has the idea that women are worthy of respect and inclusion. as becomes more accepted. tie that in to how an integrated military can better address, i have a little story, a five -year-old son and two older daughters. i heard a friend of mine has

us on the same age. his son ran up and was crying about something. he turned his sonnets. crying like a little girl. it took me a minute, and that in say anything right there. as his son andin my son aged which one will be more open to different outcomes and different methods and clearly there is more. a simplified version of the story, but it is an idea of our cultural change can impact our ability to deal with other cultures. in a peacekeeping environment those factors become critical. an integrated military and that affords respect will be a lot more accepting of traditionally feminine

characteristics and will accept different options and outcomes. so that is kind of it in a nutshell. >> thank you. as we open up, just to remind everything, still on broadcast television. wait for the microphone from one of the interns, state your 1st name and affiliation. one over here. >> for bragg. thank you very much for your comments. very helpful.

in my interest in question and concern to my how that plays in. in terms of the peace process, negotiation or military combat units, how we don't inadvertently essential eyes, assume constructed notions of gender in the name of equality. in terms of how explanations are made,, and somehow we can kind of deal with that, and, and i think it is not exclusive to the military. thank you. >> yeah. they will spend a lot of time thinking and writing about this. this is one of the reasons that we got in. in both of our personal

lives where we were both the only women in our unit of the jobs we did, we very much have this idea, delicately as a woman. just another pilot. treatment just like another pilot. but then on the flipside to get out and get emerged in this research and find more and more evidence, a lot of these things that are culturally associated letters nurturing on motherhood are speaking about security issues that are more than just physical state all is important. how they really should mac and the biggest thing integrating woman does is that it opens it up for individuals to be looked at

for what they bring to the table rather than necessarily assuming a lot : do you: you want to call the essential eyes are culturally constructed notions of masculinity. and where it is true that each of us brings very unique perspectives to whatever our perspective happens to be based on how we are socialized and whether we are socialized as a woman, based on a religion, based on our race, based on our socioeconomic status. we all carry a lot of layers of cultural socialization. they spoke very well to how it makes you stronger and now you need to stay more diverse, but things that integrated women does whatever form it takes, however an individual then

chooses to wrestle with her masculinity issues space bar well to that but what it does is opens the door for individuals expectations more working with female rebel groups in latin america, the presence of women that empowered other women to do things outside. so women fighting, if you look at the most sort of black and white socialization a minute women, men are the protectors and women need to be protected.

there is a big duality there. but women take on the role of being the protectors and do it very overtly, it is a very visual, obvious break and then norm. and what it then does is just open the door for women who felt constrained by other norms to say i can be a politician. i don't have to accept -- i can take responsibility for my own physical security, economic security, my own stake in what happens to my family. and however that plays out i think that is where this integration has its biggest effect in the long-term, counterinsurgency environments. >> i agree. i have a hard time hearing.

anyway, had one thing. it's not just whether or not specifically have the qualifications as she mentioned the more important thing that comes from immigration is worthy of respect worthy of consideration because of our ubiquitous this and how much attention is put on this we have a unique opportunity by integrating to make cultural statements to other countries of suffer which is

huge and is something that we have seen and i think has potential. >> you know, we have done a really good job i think of explaining the value of moving away from that. it is obvious away from the question. but we have also seen really fascinating cases of the essential eyes roles that women are expected to play being extremely empowering on their own. women his mother's be very politically active participating in conflict. in ways that we don't expect that are nontraditional by mobilizing that essential identity, that sort of

prescribed role, and so i think one of the things that i wrestle with in my own work is also not diminishing what essential roles can do for us even as we're trying to move away and accept. recognizing the potential for value is a better way of water trying to get at. the essentialism has worked. a number of the women who participated were participating vocally and overtly as mothers and is women acting within a traditional roles, but the legacy left behind was fascinating, all of these

traditionally very regulated parties, there was a tradition in capacity. again bringing women into their own party leadership in getting elected in the roles. so even the sort of empowerment that came with working with centralized roles initially enabled a break from the more broadly. so i think the alternative is to how we frame that. >> if you are envisioning -- the us military in northern ireland, any kind of piece agreement, let's talk about,

they don't have as much respect for ms. roles and you have women who are primarily acting as mothers as activists as well familiar matter of perspective will be accorded the amount of attention it will receive will be very different depending on the levels of respect which is part of how i can play such as usual. >> another question over here. >> good morning.

the holistic approach will focus on education so is more of a generational approach should be more of the transformative occupation approach only take over a country and say okay you needneed to have a certain amount of women inside your government. >> so, and what i have seen evidence wise -- and this is where it is good to have dialogue. it comes down to measuring outcomes. the evidence that points to the 1st case being the best way is education socialization so that you learn it becomes more organic.

gender roles and tolerance roles become more accepted you will organically create a society where women are viewed more. the way the metrics are typically measured is that 30 percent. when this happens. the 2nd is that right women. if you were just to go out and say many 30 women to do this, there is really no guarantee that you are getting women with the skill set, the desire, the experience to perform the

job well. also frequently what ends up happening is the a lot of co-opting. this is a big problem that you saw in kuwait. they made a really big deal about opening parliament. the abundance of this literature that having women matters, but what you did is have a political partythe political party saying you, you, you, and you are going to represent us. they are not representing their own experiences or any sort of kind of bottom-up organic desires. they are just perpetuate the status quo. so the evidence points to this to follow i think the case of room wonders one that speaks to this well, the power of organic change they had a situation along

over because of the horrific genocide, numbers wise he didn't have a lot of men left to be political activists, to run the military. so you had women having to take on those roles they had to figure it out because there wasn't the sort of structure, when you this amount of women. as a result we see thatthe generation that are coming up now becoming leaders motherland from observation, from what sort of education these women felt was important part of that it becomes organic. it does not become having women for the sake of having women but individuals who seen what women have to do and see what sort of security concerns need to be employed and fully internalize.

that has become a security stabilizing force. this whole notion of respect and the norms that are brought in, there are as many males who can speak for the benefits of respecting women's rights and individuality as there are women. that is largely impart to social relations and that the gender innovation comes down to being able to respect individual abilities , putting more on the table and saying there are more ways that will connect than just the centralized version. unfortunately wherever we go in and do anything is a military particular image results and to come back with the sort of metrics, you have widgets a, b, and c

and we measure them. this will perpetually be a problem when you have to have an actual result in say we did one, two, three. it is stable now because their ask percent of women in the parliament. eczema in this negotiation, the un resolution obligation but it does not ensure that anything will happen the next time whether it is elections with the next generation is actually being taught to internalize a sort of actual integration. >> the millennial generation coming in and taking over the lower level and mid-level leadership positions in their attitude toward don't ask don't tell and gender integration are by and large different than

the senior leadership. has been interesting to see but it is an example of how it is good and sometimes needs a little push to remind those in charge that there is something else going on. i also say that social change has to come from within. we have goals and measures and policies to promote the kind of change we want, but we don't always respond the way people want us to. the change we are hoping for is not always the change we get. the case is interesting because the change that was forced upon the existing population by virtue of the genocide was not a positive

one. it was not something that the survivors with joseph that are really amazing exempla. that did not necessarily correlate with the reflected change in existing social expectations. just a fantastic number of women in the legislature and then at the same time there's a president that has sought and taken reappropriated more and more powers. at the expense of any potential change of empowerment that being a part of the legislature might have inferred on this generation of women for the 1st time a republican official roles.

and so what it means to have that change truly taking effect and be long-lasting is -- it has to be driven from within. >> thank you. another question. >> i have one. counter radicalization and you radicalization issues, conducted an alumni engagement event. over 40 alumni from the middle east: muscle in europe, africa, southwest asia, and one of the topics in the conference was on radicalization in particular and how that point a radicalization with foreign fighters leaving countries of those that were there to

go fight the islamic state command in discussions it came out that in particular from muslim countries that the role of the mother more so than any other family member influenced either the radicalization of the counter radicalization of both young men and women family members. in your own research of using something similar? if so that are ways it they can leverage. >> absolutely. basically brought and committee level leaders and women in top them and what to do with a notice it. they are still very small and low-level, but they have had some success. have done similar work command for women his

mother's interacting with local police forces. i think the small successes are encouraging. we have yet to harness that i'm a white aggregate scale which is kind of worm looking because it will obviously vary by culture. gathering and discussing a meeting. they can all think of a few. so it varies culture to culture. there is definitely an association we just need to figure out how to capitalize. so i am looking at the radicalization of immigrant communities and the role that the mother place. so looked at microlevel

familial gender roles and is funding of there was not much there. but something that i've found thati have found that has not really been addressed i don't think very well in all these anti- radicalization programs especially when you seek kids who live in the west leaving and going and that is where right now still very rough corollary. i don't have a robust data set. and communities where children's father and mother's targeted because of their culture and religious beliefs so where there is a lot of very anti- islamic sentiment because they tend

to be more identify was muslims saw a very good sense of radicalization and it became almost this perverse protection mechanism where children grow up expecting their mother take care of them. his natural bond. well what happens when the culture and to which you are supposedly going to get a better life, this idea of immigrants, moving to the west because it would be better and 90 see that culture particularly targeting your mother when that's person in that identity becomes targeted the becomes almost this knee-jerk radicalization response.

this is radicalization dynamic that has nothing whatever he much. we talk about what is and immigration, talking about increased tolerance. there's lot about tolerance that we really having the wrong response? is radicalization really a response that you don't feel like any other recourse? the supply side? it hits the supply side and demand side. your creating an environment where children can feel helpless. radicalize groups of done really well marketing themselves.

they are really good at reaching the children how to spot signs of radicalization , but as we think about the west what are we doing to assimilate familial units. thatthat facilitation can happen so that would have the power and ability to spot and prevent radicalization as opposed to the targeting being the catalyst for it. >> and on the same note us military coming in and recognizing the funds, integrated military and

understanding of roles is better equipped, but if we don't do aa better job as a country and internationally of harnessing the role of women in more traditional societies terrorist groups are doing it in a doing it fairly well. this is your duty as a mother to push her son in this direction, to send this message. if we don't offer a different narrative or at least some version of that out there we have lost part of the battle. >> thank you. other questions from the audience. right here in front. >> thank you. i am one of the external guests. i work as a consultant and i just wanted to pick up on the thread you are putting out there related to mothers being into protective is him

and how you think the migration where we are seeing throughout europe might impact that in the decades to come, and other intervention points we might be able to make in the near term that will prevent the trajectory going forward? >> so i think that is a million-dollar question. i think there is a few factors. one is that we don't have a really good harness on how big the migration and refugee problem are. more middle easterners we

want to go live in europe. whether it's themselves or their families, they feel like it's better. and so that is wednesday. near the refugee in the asylum-seekers who because of the potential conflict they don't have a home any longer. i think we need to look at those two separate issues. one is with the migration side they really just comes from the different

conversation. this refugee and asylum prices. and so i want to -- they have their say want to return to. the bigger question is to be the role of the international community and ensuring you have a fruitful lasting negotiated settlement, you are able to put them programs to address the radicalization issues that are going on in iraq right now how do you get them, the islamic state?

how do you negotiate? if that can happen this brings in something else. the asylum-seekers in the negotiation process. now in turkey and these are all very university educated women they just had no place to live in a place to work. talking about why the negotiations a failed. that we will talk to us. we were economists and bankers university professors there so focus on

who is actually fighting they are not reaching out to people who have this expertise. figuring that problem out is going to help prevent because you are seeing the refugee population becoming the his them know it ago. the skills that are good a lot of these radical groups are in the propaganda and are proven ability. and that is something they are doing that no other side is doing. socioeconomic role. and unfortunately with the

us and other international military seven doing is focused on having the right side militarily when that they have neglected to really engage with you the key stakeholders should be on the conflict is terminated. >> all right. right appear in front please. >> lesser jones think women in leadership because we like our leaders to be forceful, strong, and

occasionally angry. .. >> >> that often jokingly those who do all the work to bring the money but more importantly what we have to realize that in libya for example, where most recently served the old lease fear the government did not intrude its inside the home

the only secure there was food and comfort in order but the family honor factor that is so important in the downside of course, is women's honor is so important that it leads to the other problems that you have we could talk about kuwait there was the ambassador there as well as the strongest in most independent but in all the societies it is still the center of gravity for everything so now with the refugee flow you have created free electrons and that is dangerous because they can't establish the same center of gravity and that is something we need to focus on a lot. they know when their kids are misbehaving we need to

help them create centers to help them keep an eye on the free electrons because i agree the next generation they don't know how to cook and they're still going home. and you're not plugging into that as well. but i'm glad that came up. >> one more thing. the other part of the refugee crisis is malady a fascinating topic in we're

not talking about that and that level of influence will vary greatly. >> if we don't have any other questions? [applause] >> now we will close this out with remarks we have the party and get after his remarks as a token of our appreciation. [laughter] >> just to recap and first of all, want to thank all participants and the panelists who came by from incredibly lightning and so

that you may not realize you have learned they will remember that later i think it is essential we assess the experience is a we have had the last 15 or 20 years to also chart a path to the future intellectually our own military before even out and we have not even grasped though wellhead that is crucial, somehow we will emerge into a peaceful world restaurateur route warfare and radicalization are going. it would be great but we might as well prepared for the world we are in.

but our goal is to take everybody at of the to give them their to will or ability to succeed even if you thank you can't prepare you have achieved more in san you ever thought possible and of power of those diverse teams so whether a gender question or another whether those perspectives we're missing to give a different approach or more creative solution? because that hasn't necessarily achieved the success that we keep claiming that we have had to. so whether it is gender or religion ethnicity tribes

tribes, how do we include those in a constructive way as we build those approaches >> talk about expectations matter how do leaders set them up for success and how did they recognize the official standards sometimes they are different in with the discussion of standards because of what much deeper but from my experience we've never looked at the aspects in the case of women where they may have been superior. i remember back in the day the women had superior i can coordination.

>> so then one option was in which case upper body strength wasn't that important but another was we cannot have another that is too much like soviet union technology is great but instead based on the upper body strength. i would submit was the ability to put steel on target. but it is interesting how we call standards was a very selective approach so step outside of your own bias important way to think about these issues. next organizational cultures or community culture or

branch culture and leaders may try to change those organizations at the subordinate level but at the last minute they were told they could not travel the we were told they are supported at the policy senior level but below that there is a missing element and how do you identify that to make sure your campaign will succeed? this is all your responsibility now in disregard the superintendent of west point to come in and out of retirement a retired four-star general supreme allied commander of europe and came in as a three-star general to take west point

through trying times in one was the scandal of professionals asian with regular warfare imagine that in the second was the integration of women in the all volunteer force and took the senior staff aside and said i expect you to welcome and to ensure the women have an environment that welcomes them if not i'll be happy to shake your hand as to leave the organization and walk out the door but he said not a flamboyant but claire on the expectations of the leaders to make this happen. it didn't happen all the way down we have, long way there were some serious challenges but the leader set the tone in the expectation that they

have to be supportive whenever the transformation is it is organizational change of leadership that is a great example the other flies in the face of the question we're in a system of the american military built on the notion of interchangeable parts the taylor system scientific management had to retreat soldiers interchangeably? you were all interchangeable parts for the college experience shame on us while we treat you as talented individuals with those goals that should be a task force of today's dissertation but how do we harness our talent

beyond those interchangeable parts can we have something beyond that? how do ec the individual significance so a couple pieces of our regular warfare. i grew up in the of world of traditional warfare and all the people would be gone the battlefield was clean we just destroy the enemy and be preserved our forces and most people that lived in west germany my experience over time is that is not the battlefield that really exist whether iraq in the first goal for or beautiful bosnia or macedonia or iraq or afghanistan but they're people that live in this

world so we could focus on the enemy armed forces but in back tyrone doctrine talk about power and legitimacy and influence among the relevant populations they may be the host country population or our own domestic population had we think of our own inability to prosecute a long-term warfare campaign that we lose domestic legitimacy over time? so it is an important aspect second about the spheres of influence in american history the argument that one day why women needed education is there in a separate sphere of the protection of the family and the education of the next generation and ultimately that move forward we're much

more radical views into the new fabric of american history and the constitution didn't happen and abigail adams ultimately the wife of president john adams in march 1776 writes a letter to her husband remember the ladies i believe she is more politically inclusive but over time women do have a huge dimension in warfare whether the recruitment or counter recruitment or if it is the domestic peace spies are caught patents were part of the peace process so again it comes from a traditional background and we leave that out. alternately i would suggest what we see as conventional

warfare and the approach to conflict imposed conflict bays that our experience in iraq and afghanistan leads us that is a false choice while that level of violence was higher in iraq and afghanistan? that we should rethink the fundamental assumptions the other is supposed conflict activities should have been simultaneously had you do that if you have not incorporated women? i don't know. but think about the logic we have that may be out of tune with the contemporary environment and what are the it applications is that consistent with the reality

that you korean? we have changed our definition of the weakness that was implemented 1986 then was working together of a different branch of the military today is not just u.s. military budget is interagency as diplomats until professionals inter-governmental and includes non-governmental organizations holy cow per curve that is the joint team you are supposed to work with them this challenge of working with women on your team imagine the team we have defined is inherently international multi-ethnic

so we have to break out of some of the constraint approaches if you work with americans are partners in think you'll encounter these teams for the future so welcome to the world we were out of your comfort zone so think about that from a skewed perspective but the power that comes before those diverse perspectives like the classroom there is power just with the understanding alone just a couple more than i am done a great example of the role of women in conflict is exemplified by one of our graduates who wetback justin time for the collapse then northern mali from the southern sahara region an interesting perspective as

the forces came into one of the town's of course, the women are down because they are expected we will probably be violated and raped but instead they realize i was a woman that has just a liberated our town we can come now to revitalize the economy instead of waiting to see what will happen suddenly the town we emerges as a thriving entity because they saw her understanding that but also it would be mitigated to the civilian population with her presence there is mitt is a powerful example for alumni of where we have seen the examples today of how individual women can bring different perspectives also engage how the population responds to

them and create the enduring solution and also other radicalization and reintegration to recall the post 2004 saudi approach that families are part of the integration strategy if he didn't bring in the traditional structure some cases non-traditional roles others are very traditional your task as a strategist is to figure out which works best how day intergrading come together to produce a successful outcome with your strategy and also the notion of the center of gravity what is center of gravity in warfare? are they the armed forces or another structure political structure or family structure oh my god and what are the implications if you

don't even have the ability to understand the center of gravity let alone interact? so to bring in all your course topics but think of the implications of this topic for our world of your regular warfare if it is our radicalization post conflict you name it and the last piece a regular warfare is much like the american revolution we should be conscious that these wars are accompanied by a profound political economic social changes or maybe all of them and they will affect the course of a conflict but the solutions afterwards if you are not attuned to of those are savvy to how they are happening and you have mr. huge dimension of what is going on and to go back

to the way it was before the conflict but instead the conflict itself is already changing society and the people's views and give this incorporation of gender perspective helps to understand that so much better. the last piece is part of african-american history month with the back door revolution we started that way looking a political opportunity structure and the transition into political violence and then something else that yorktown but there is the issue of question how do i get appropriate and sufficient manpower? we hear this from the other side one of the choices in

early 1777 is to begin to form integrated units with a large number of former slaves and colonies like retirement whereby some french observers more than one-third of the units are former slaves as combatants see all to believe is the definition of all men are created equal based on that experience the second piece is a population in the northern states that is different than the southern that will play out to the questions of the abolition and civil war so the long-term social change brought about by integration of those in the armed forces

and i hate to say at the from the army perspective it turned away from those lessons after the war but sometimes there is a cultural backlash for they decided we don't need any more integrated units than they would have to wait for the 20th century to go to the next level so don't assume just because there is integration at some level said it will remain that the institutional pressor pressures the tradition of a culture will not suppress those that fail to learn those incredible pieces your task is to keep an open mind and be creative but also remember individuals matter find the best way to harness those. thanks to the group that is my fame and those in the college he made this

possible to keep pushing the edge as part of our dna how to push the envelope and forced them with these creative strategies' how to make the world better. no pressure but for our team and ambassador, thanks for your leadership doctors doctors, lieutenant-colonel, indonesia and about that is it was interagency team right there to put this together and then of course, jaime puts her name last but she is the animus behind this. a big round of applause. [applause]

also to our panelists they exemplified we're trying to do a tour sponsorship and policy analysis and in some cases some of the ideas have changed through the process of their research and scholarship many of you may have a similar experience that is great because it will bring you to a deeper level of understanding thanks for the commitment to what you have done for this group if you realize it or not they will look back at this event to open different perspectives in ways they did not appreciate at the time. very have the book if you do

have it come upstairs we will cash about four different come upstairs after words there will give you a quick tour of the school to see what else we do the book called with men on the front lines co-sponsored by department of state and department of defense when the national action plan came out it is an amazing document by the secretary of state. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[applause] oslo thanks to dr. bateman for pulling this together i would hope this thursday conversation for many of you a free can facilitate dyewood be happy i think we're trying to be cutting edge looking up strategies and policies of regular warfare in counterterrorism and the demands of the security environment we have alumni from 92 countries and i find each opportunity to engage with them i am the beneficiary so how to remove that thanks for coming

today. have a good day. [inaudible conversations] if >> we see people from all

over the world. here is in laredo for those that were coming from mexico but we also see a number of people coming from south america a and also from ecuador. >> how are they making the trip? >> they're contacting organizations are they will finance the trips to the united states pay between at least $1,500 in the

techniques that they use are fraudulent documents and how long that trip will take and then there will be smuggled and transported or fewer just dropped off at the international border. >> most are criminals there dedicating their lives to smuggling aliens or narcotics but the people would be safer to do a humanitarian effort and the migrant getting to the united states whose only job is to collect that and then

to find himself to be exploited with the actual transportation we see women being raped people are robbed and kidnapped and exploited for more money they are being transported because they're criminals they just want to get away after being caught by the police or a border control they can't walk anymore or they fell ill than they are abandoned in the desert we have seen over 33 deaths in the first six months with a