jesus christ, making him the center of attraction, surrounding the activities around what christ would have us to do. and we began to focus on our mission and mandate from the savior. there's plenty of ways that the church has remembered. one way we remember, each year we have a memorial service on september 15th at 10:22 the time the bomb went off. there's a couple plaques outside that commemorate the girls. we just added a marker this last year where the bomb actually went off at to commemorate the girls and we did a 3.8 stabilization campaign to restore the church so that people would always know that this was the place where four girls lost their lives that regalvanized the civil rights movement that led to the civil rights act being passed and voting rights act being passed as well. tragedy can turn into triumph,

justice delayed is not justice denied and the rights that we have as individuals today may be free to us, but it cost four individuals their lives. to gain those freedoms. spend the weekend in oklahoma city with book tv and american history tv. saturday at noon eastern, check in on literary life with book tv on c-span 2, including governor mary fallon's must-read political books. senator david boron on his letter to america. also rare books from galileo, copernicus and others from the history of science collection at ou. and sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, oklahoma history on american history tv on c-span 3. tour the oklahoma city bombing memorial with codesigner tory butzer. plus a look into african-american life in 1920s oklahoma, and native american artifacts from the special collection at the oklahoma

history center. once a month c-span's local content vehicles explore the history and literary life of cities across america. this weekend from oklahoma city on c-span 2 and 3. with congress on break this week, we're featuring programs from american history tv. seen every weekend on c-span 3. our lectures and history series continues with former defense secretary donald rumsfeld on the bush doctrine, compassionate conservatism and the war on terror. and in two hours, a look at urban america in the mid 20th century with college professor brian purnell. he teaches a course on the political, social dynamics of u.s. cities after world war ii. american history tv all week on c-span 3. each weekend you can see lectures in history from colleges around the country. they're here on c-span 3 on

american history tv every saturday at 8:00 p.m. at midnight eastern, and sundays at 1:00 p.m. next former defense secretary donald rumsfeld on the bush doctrine. he spoke at the citadel in charleston, south carolina, for two hours. >> well, mallory, thank you so much for your kind words and thanks to the citadel for the invitation and the hospitality and the wonderful tour that i had today. it is an impressive institution. general, it is good to see you again, having served on the joint staff when i was there and with distinction. it is a fine service to have this class on the conservative intellectual tradition in america. i am delighted to participate in the program with so many friends and associates of mine over many decades.

i turn 80 in a couple of months, and i am told that if you multiply that by three and subtract it from 2012, it takes right back to the beginning of the country which suggests that i have lived one third of the history of america. that suggests that i have probably also lived roughly one third of the conservative intellectual tradition in america. now, that either means that we have a very young country or i am very old. or both. as mallory said i spent four years writing my memoir, and part of that time was taking a large 80-year long archive and digitizing a good portion of it, and we established a website to

support the book, and therefore if you go into the book and read a paragraph, you can actually go to the end note and pull up the entire memo that that paragraph came out. and i'm told it's probably the first political memoir of the information age. you know, back in the old days you couldn't do all that. it just wasn't possible. today it is. you have had some very fine talent conservatives here, al, michael marone, ed nease, doug feith who i worked with closely, my old friend art laffer and others. i wish i could have been here to hear their comments and presentations. i think the unfortunate thing is that had this class been held not too many years ago, you would have had the benefit of hearing from some of the giants like dr. milton friedman and bill buckley and other friends

of mine who i worked with over the years. in fact, it was milton friedman who met with me in chicago at a conference and we talked about the concept of the all volunteer army in the 1960s, and he urged me, i was a young congressman, and he urged me to put in legislation that could move from a conscript system to an all volunteer military and there were very strong arguments against it. people said that would be a mercenary military and of course what was happening in those days is we did have a draft system and people were told they had to serve. it was only a faction of the people. women did not serve, did not have to serve. teachers did not have to serve. students did not have to serve. conscientious objectors did not have to serve, and it was just a segment of the society that was told that they were going to not

be the ones to serve, and by the way, the government was going to pay them about 50, 60, 70% of what the civilian manpower was. and milton friedman found that offensive. and i did in fact put in legislation and testify before the house and senate armed services committee on the legislation. and eventually thanks to president richard nixon, it became law. and the united states shifted to a different system, which has really been a great benefit to our country. there is no question but that the armed forces today, the men and women, every single person is there because they want to be there. they raised their hands and said send me, and god bless them for it. but it was that concept of milton friedman's that he pushed and pushed early on. of course the flip side of that is that i also was involved in something that was quite apart from a conservative tradition.

richard nixon went up to camp david back in 1970, i guess, and when he came back down, he had decided to impose wage price controls on america and i remember george schultz came to me and said i want to run the wage price controls for the united states of america. and i said i don't believe in them. and he said i know, don. that's why we want you to do it, because it's such a bad idea. sure enough, they were imposed, and what we did was try to manage them so they didn't distort our economy so we wouldn't release a lot of the smaller companies, we had the larger companies report, and tried to manage them so that we did not disrupt the market system. one day i got a call from my friend milton friedman, and i said, don, are you doing a terrible job managing the wage price controls of the united states.

i said you're wrong, i am doing a spectacular job. we're letting people out so we're not distorting the economy and we have no permanent employees. every person we hired was detailed over so we could move them out and didn't create a permanent bureaucracy and milton said, i know that's what you're doing, but he said the problem is you're doing such a good job that people are going to get the wrong message and begin to believe that wage price controls actually work which you and i know they don't. and that was the other side of the conservative tradition. it is arguable, of course, that the modern political conservatism was launched by bill buckley and barry goldwater. there is no question but that it has done an enormous amount of good for people with president reagan at the helm we saw conservatism brought down the soviet union in large measure

and communism. it helped spread freedom to places like eastern europe. the free market policies have been a major cause for the stunning economic growth in our country, and other countries as well, like chile, south korea, japan to mention a few. i remember the first time i met bill buckley. i was called back as ambassador to nato to washington when gerald ford became president to chair his transition, and he had never been elected president or vice president. no one knew him around the world. i had been ambassador and had contacts in europe and he said, look, there is a conference going on in izmir, turkey, and i want you to go there and explain to people who gerald ford is and what our policies are going to be, and that dr. kissinger is going to be continuing as secretary of state, and kind of be reassuring. and the name of the conference was just the opposite of the

conservative tradition, supposedly. it was the builderberg conference. and i went there to izmir, turkey, walked in, looked around, didn't see too many people i knew, and looked in the back and in the middle and there was bill buckley. i said, oh, my goodness, and i sat with him and he introduced me to a woman sitting next to him who i had never met, and we talked. it turned out the woman sitting next to him was a young, british parliamentarian named margaret thatcher who played a role in the conservative tradition. years later when president reagan asked me to become the special presidential envoy for the law of the sea he sent me to japan and germany and the netherlands and england and france to meet with the leadership to try to talk them out of supporting what was called the sea bed mining section of the law, the sea treaty, and one of the stops was in london, and i met on

10 downing street with mrs. thatcher. and i started explaining to her exactly what this provision of the treaty would do. and i said basically what it does is it creates an authority, quote/unquote, kind of an orwellian term, and that authority would be in charge of the riches under the sea. and president reagan wants me to persuade you if you will to be supportive of his position that he is not going to sign that treaty because he doesn't think it's a good thing for country or the world. and she looked at me and she said, mr. ambassador, that sounds to me like the international nationalization of two-thirds of the earth's surface. you know what i think of nationalization. she had been dismantling the nationalized industries in england and was very supportive. in any event, i am very pleased to be here. this is a terrific institution. it is a symbol of service

throughout many decades now, and i thank each of you for your patriotism and your dedication. first let me make a couple of comments about things i am not going to talk much about. the phrase, the first time i heard the phrase compassionate conservatism was a friend of mine named joe jacobs. he wrote a book entitled compassionate conservative, and he was a conservative, and he was compassionate, and he described that concept. this was back, i suppose, in the late 1970s, and he was a businessman who cared about the country greatly. he kind of talked about softening the edges of traditional conservatism, the image that republicans might be indifferent to the plight of the poor, that conservatives might not be understanding of minorities and the importance of

equality under the law and equal opportunity. he was a thoughtful person, and i know that this topic has been discussed before, so i will not belabor it. neoconservatism, my friend don feith spoke here on that, and i'm sure many of you heard him. he is a very thoughtful, knowledgeable person. and i read his remarks and found them most interesting and instructive. that period of the reagan administration and the ford administration and the nixon administration, we had this pressure for detente with the soviet union. and it was a theory that there were ways to find accommodations with the soviet union, and richard nixon and actually lyndon johnson began, and then

richard nixon and gerald ford continues with secretary of state kissinger as the leader of that movement. the theory was not unrealistic. it was that you ought to be able to find some areas of accommodation and if you are steely eyed and careful, you ought not to compromise so on something that you shouldn't compromise on. but by the same token, you might try, reach out and see if you can achieve a relaxation of tension, which the word detente suggests. the problem with it was that the soviet union at the time was increasing its capabilities and was on an uptrend. the united states was decreasing its capabilities on a relative basis and we were moving into a roughly a band of rough equivalents where they were superior in some areas, we were superior in some areas. i don't know any american military person that wanted to

trade our military for theirs, but the trend lines were wrong. they were adverse to our interest without question, and there was a big debate in the united states about what they were spending as a percentage of their gdp on defense and conservatives and neo conservatives, people like democrat senator scoop jackson and others stepped up and expressed concern about detente, as did i. my concern was a different one. it was clear to me we had to reverse the adverse trend. we had to invest in our military if we were going to have peace through strength and have the kinds of deterrent capability necessary for our country to be able to contribute to peace and stability in the world. and the problem with detente was they had all these pictures of our presidents and the general secretaries of the communist party toasting each other with champagne glasses for agreements that were not really terribly

important in the last analysis. but it left the impression that, well, the soviets really weren't bad. they were not bad. they were kind of okay because we could have meetings and we could have meals and clink our champagne glasses and the effect of that was to erode any interest in improving our defense capabilities, to erode our willingness to step up and put a higher percentage of our gdp into defense. when i came to washington out of the navy in 1957, eisenhower administration, we were spending 10% of our gross domestic product on defense, same thing true in the kennedy administration, the johnson administration, and today i think we're spending about 4.5 or 4.6% of our gdp, so anyone would suggest that the debt that we're facing and the crushing deficits are a result of the pentagon or the defense department are simply not looking at the facts. it is all in entitlements

because we actually as a share of gdp we are half of where we were back in the '50s, '60s, and in that period. in any event, the work was put in and during the end of the ford administration and thanks to the later the reagan administration, the kinds of investment that were needed were actually achieved although the four years of the carter administration actually reduced defense capability during that period. a third thing i am not going to get into extensively and is libertarianism. i guess we all wish we could live in a world where we could all be libertarians and have a small federal government. but unfortunately, that's not the kind of world we live in because the first responsibility of government is to provide for the security of the people. and we live in a world that is dangerous. we live in a world where weakness is provocative. we live in a world where the

idea of another country providing global leadership forces one to say, well, which country do we want to do that if not the united states? and that's tough to answer. you look around the world, and there are relatively few countries that think like we do, that have the same values, that have the same capabilities that we do, and so i think most conservatives agree on the need for smaller government, less taxes, less regulation, and separating private lives from government, but many of us disagree on the subject of foreign policy. i simply do not believe that the idea of some form of isolationism is a realistic thing in the world we live in today. i was speaking at leavenworth the other day to i think 1,400

plus majors, and i suppose some lieutenant colonels, and they asked me what do you worry about when you go to bed at night? i remember i was asked that question by a senator from kansas when i was being was as question by a senator from kansas when i was being confirmed for the pentagon back in 2001, and my answer was in effect intelligence. it's a complicated world. there are closed societies. there's a lot we don't know. and it's a dangerous world. i worry about intelligence. i didn't answer that question that way at leavenworth the other day. i answered it differently. and it goes right to this point of our country's i believe responsibility to contribute to peace and stability in the world. i answered by saying i worry about weakness on our part. i worry about our withdrawal. i worry about our management of our economic affairs. no one thing specific -- i could have said korea. i could have said iran. i could have said terrorism. i could have said any number of

things. but i said what i really worry about is a sense in the world that the united states is withdrawing, that we're less willing to contribute to peace and stability, because if you believe as i do that weakness is provocative, that it is strength that preserves the peace, then a weakness causes people to think about doing things they wouldn't even think about doing if they saw the united states behaving in a way that suggested we were not withdrawing but that we were there, around, capable, not the policeman for the world, not the nation builder for other countries but the country that was there and willing to contribute to peace and stability. the -- two things i will touch on. as mallory said, i'm going to talk a bit about the age of terrorism, the iraq war, the freedom agenda that's been

discussed, the challenges of fighting a war, the first war in history in the information age, and lawfare, and also a few comments about the inadequacy of our institutions, our domestic institutions as well as our international institutions. first, the age of terrorism. my first experience with that was when president reagan asked me to be middle east envoy after 241 marines and navy corpsmen were killed in beirut at the airport. and you'll recall a truck loaded with explosives drove into the barracks where the marines and the navy corpsmen were billeted and blew it up. and we put some forces in along with two or three other countries and things were not going well. and i got a call from george schultz and president reagan asking me to leave the company.

i was running a pharmaceutical company at the time. to leave that and help out. so i did. and it was -- it was a new experience for me, who'd kind of served in the pentagon during the cold war, here was something that was notably different from the cold war. it was terrorism. and i remember at that time people were writing books and giving lectures about the end of history, if you remember that. the theory was that communism was kind of behind us. and i ended up speaking to the u.s. army association and talking about terrorism. and i said to them, look, as lemmon wrote, the -- this is back in october of 1984. 17 years before september 11th, 2001. and i said, first, as lenin wrote with characteristicic

terseness, the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize. it's not to kill people. it's to terrorize. and it's to alter their behavior. it's a technique. terrorism is growing, i said. in the 30 days ending last week -- this is 17 years before 2001. in the 30 days ending last week it's estimated that there were 37 terrorist attacks by 13 different organizations against the property of citizens of 20 different countries. this is 1984. and i pointed out that terrorism's not the random work of isolated madmen, rather it's state sponsored by nations using it as a central element of their foreign policy. i went on to say that terrorism works. my point was that a single attack by a small, weak element, not even a nation, maybe an entity of some kind, a network, a terrorist attack by a small,

weak nation or entity, by influencing public opinion and morale, can alter the behavior of great nations and force tribute from wealthy nations. unchecked, state-sponsored terrorism is adversely changing the balance of power in our world. and i went on and i said that "while security is important, terrorists can attack anytime, anyplace, and using any technique." and it is physically impossible to defend at every moment of the day or night against every conceivable technique. and that being the case, i went on to say that terrorism is a form of warfare and it has to be treated as such. we can't think that we can defend against it. i watched what happened in beirut. truck goes into the barracks, kills 241. so the next day they put revetments around all the buildings, these concrete things

around. so what did they do? terrorists started lobbing rocket-propelled grenades over the revetments. sought next thing they did was the u.s. embassy down on the coronation beirut, they hung a wire mesh over it to bounce the rocket-propelled grenades off. sounds logical. for every offense there's a defense. for every defense there's an offense. so what did they do? the next thing they did was they started hitting soft targets, people going to and from work. the point is there isn't any way to simply defend. that causes anyone with an ounce of sense to say that means you must go on offense. the only way you can deal with that problem is not to treat it like a criminal act, where once it happens you're going to capture the person and then put him in jail or punish him or more likely indict him in absentia, because you can't find him.

he's gone. and in any event, that is the -- the lessons i came away with back in 1984. the election took place in 2000. shortly before that, president -- governor bush came and spoke here at the citadel, and he talked about the future, and he talked about the need to bring the military, the armed forces of the united states into the 21st century, out of the industrial age and into the information age. and then came 9/11, a day that cast a shadow over the entire bush administration. the attack on the seat of economic power in new york. the attack on the seat of military power in the pentagon.

and except for the courage of the passengers on the flight that was brought down in shanksville, pennsylvania, undoubtedly an attack on the seat of political power, either the white house or the congress, the capitol. and it was a day none of us will ever forget. the president of the united states properly recognized that the purpose of terrorism was to terrorize and to alter our behavior and to cause us to change the way we live. and he did something, made a decision that was notably different from our country's behavior through different administrations of both political parties in the preceding period. decided that they had to go on the offense. and to use the phrase that was cited earlier, that given the

lethality of weapons in this decade, a decade of after 2001, and the risk that it could be not 3,000 people killed but 300,0 300,000, caused him to conclude that he had to declare a war on that and do everything conceivable not to defend only but to reach out and make everything that terrorists do harder. make it harder for them to move around between countries. harder to talk on the phone. harder to get money. harder to raise funds through their financial networks. harder to find a country that would be willing to house them and be hospitable to their planning and training and latching of attacks on free people. in my view it was the right decision. he was criticized for it because it was different. and that's