very hard, and they know they should encourage the weekend activities that men do, as well quite often hard drinking and wooing the ladies down at the local pub, et cetera. those are all ways that we know work. and we're comfortable with it because we assume that it is the way we do things. and it you know, if it worked for centuries, why should we change it? but there's research that shows that these kind of masculine cohesion units or constructions, if you will, can quite often lead to some extreme and very problematic cases of hypermasculinity, abuse, now i don't know if it's directly related to sexual violence within the armed forces, for example. but it seems to me pretty obvious connection. there's also the link to toxic

leadership that we quite often consider quite acceptable because they are usually quite effective. they create the kind of units that perform according to the standards at the end of the day. why should we fire them if they're effective as officers. while actually they are producing unit cultures that in the end may become really problematic. some experiences with the worst cases of units misbehavior leading to crimes or war crimes, for example. >> we have the business literature out there supporting us more and more. that doesn't mean so much, though. because, again we are looking at combat that doesn't apply because warfare is something

completely different. you can always dismiss that. that's very clear, though. we are seeing the same thing within diplomacy and negotiations and humanitarian affairs that if you have gender lenses. you'll do it more effectively. one might assume that applies to the military affairs and intelligence gathering, as well. unless it's so unique that it doesn't, again, right? we can also obviously look at the impact on noncombat units. and that's most of the studies we have from the past. there's no serious indicators that it ruins it. if there were -- and sometimes you hear this. that we all know that it doesn't work. you can't mix men and women. and we all know what happens, sex and love and what have you. so it ruins unit cohesion, effectiveness, et cetera. now, we've had decades of integrated units. if they have performed so poorly and no one said anything, that would be you know, shouldn't

they be on trial for misleading the country in such an important way. we are talking about direct combat support units who are absolutely crucial to those fighting on the front lines. and, by the way that distinction these days in modern warfare is pretty ridiculous anyway. we have plenty of experience of integration of combat units internationally, as well. so far, and megan would know much more about this than me. but what i'm seeing in my own research is what would be referred to or dismissed as anecdotal these days because we don't have enough cases to make it really quantitative. but seeing very little negativity in those studies. what you hear, first of all, is usually it's an absolute non-issue. it doesn't matter at all. she performed the job great,

became one of the guys. i don't see why sex or gender has anything to do with it. now, that's the first reaction. but when you prod them a little bit, they will actually acknowledge that it is an issue. that it had an impact on the unit, that you had to resolve certain issues. love, sex, again, it happened. but those are not the worst things that can happen to a unit and a good leader can tackle those issues just as any other challenge that many of these units come up with. so it is an issue. and i think we should again, be aware. rather than being gender blind, let's be gender aware. let's adjust leadership so we can tackle those issues that might arise. you also hear really interesting stories of improved effectiveness from inclusivity or gender integration. one being that men overperform when there's women around. so they get better when there's women around.

they don't want to lose to women, for example. more importantly, you hear stories about a matured culture within the unit. and again, we have the diversity dimension that with more backgrounds, more experiences you become more effective problem-solving unit avoiding the group thing. so there's, it's a bit of a mixed bag. but it's looking very positive. and as i always highlight, you very seldomly hear from this anecdotal evidence the opposite that i served with women and it really didn't work. it ruined the unit, et cetera. you hear it from the people who have never served in a military unit but are very vocal about how military units should function because they've seen it in movies.

there's a staggering amount of people who have served with women. and you would think that those stories would seep out more than in the angry commentator fields and in the professional journals that some of them would step up for the sake of the country, for the sake of the organization if it's such an important issue to defend the effective organization. but we don't have that. and that to me is very encouraging. men's attitudes towards women as a key factor. i thought that was absolutely astonishing. and in so many ways provocative. also i would say accurate. it was a way of saying what i've been trying to get for a long time. that also raises issues about

bigger consequences, perhaps of integration, as well. it's not just a nonissue. it's about preserving the existing culture and order. it might be something more fundamental that it has an impact when you mix men and women. it can be rewarding for our armed forces. and let's study that as well. let's try and study the improved impact as carefully as we try and find the negative impact these days. and i'll stop there. there's so much we cover, as well. >> that advances the discussion beautifully. it does indicate that too often we ask the wrong question. how do we avoid hurting the force by doing this? and that's implied sometimes as much as it is explicit. and the real question we ought to be asking ourselves is how do we improve the force?

i think it's fair to say there's an endeavor that has not benefitted from extending the opportunity to join in that endeavor to all of those are qualified regardless of gender or any other characteristic. this feels to me like a case like that. but you raise a couple of important questions if you do. and i want to turn to john and mary beth about those questions. and john you can speak to this with great credibility. is combat, as robert asked so different from every other sphere of human endeavor that rules don't apply? john, you had the experience of -- you're a ranger qualified infantry officer. you had the experience of leading, training and leading almost new combat formation into some of the heaviest and most sustained combat the army's experienced since the vietnam war. so of all of the folks who can talk about this you know, i think you're certainly one of

them. from your perspective given that experience, do you feel that having access to a talent pool of women for your unit would've improved your performance. would you have some concerns as a line leader about that? how do you think it might have improved your performance in the close fight? >> yeah. so first off, i want to say that my views here today are my own, don't represent the department of defense or the maryland national guard. to answer your question. >> should've said that up front. >> you know, there i was, fall of 2008, deploying to afghanistan with my rifle platoon to the valley, to the most kinetic company sector in the war or terror. and my platoon was at 75% strength. when you ask would my platoon

have benefitted if we opened up a greater pool of talent to draw from? i think the answer is yes. we trained up for a year before deploying and we lost people. because of injuries because of you know, drugs, discipline issues. and as many recruits as we would get into the unit as we were building up strength, we would p continue to lose folks. and so we never got 100% strength and into this crucible. and so we kicked out some folks and didn't bring them with us, there were some folks we took overseas that maybe i kind of regret taking them with us. they weren't necessarily physically fit enough to do the job. to be an infantry man in the army, you need to be a male and pass you know, the bare minimum

of the pt test. that's a standard across the board. and it's not differentiated whether you're a light infantry man in the mountains of afghanistan or a cyber guy or gal. and so when i think about the, you know, the women that are competing or going through, you know, ranger school right now. you know, made it through. you know, i don't think that 42% of my platoon could've made it through rap week that i deployed with. that's pretty tough challenge. and so to open up the field to have like the best people possible i think would have been a value added. going to the point that robert, you were making about you know, we idealize the band of brothers and unit cohesion. you know certainly i serve with a lot of outstanding human beings. and i thought that our unit

overall performed at a very high level. but, you know, not every infantry man is you know john rambo, right? you have folks like that out there. and i served with individuals who were heroes. but there's other folks that you know, are just kind of barely skating by. and so when we think about, you know, bringing in you know, women into an infantry unit like that, i think in the popular debate, it's always we're thinking, oh you're going to replace, you know, john rambo with jill rambo. and she could never, you know, keep up. but that's simply not the case. right? i think that a lot of women would be able to perform at that same level. at least certainly well enough to have been a value add overseas. getting to some of that discussion about cohesion and

what did it take to build cohesion. you're leading a bunch of 18-year-old, 19-year-old kids and you try to make being squared away, you know, doing your job, make that what it is to be cool, right? so these young soldiers emulating their squad leaders looking up to them they're role models for them. and you make being physically fit, competent at your job, what it means to be a good soldier. and i think we worked at a really high level. now, going to the idea is combat different than working in a business environment. i do think that at least the stress that my unit was put under in afghanistan was much higher than the stress you'd find in, you know, civilian occupation.

and so we were really tested. and, you know, there are times when individuals weren't able to kind of keep up. we had a number of soldiers that would go home on r & r and they wouldn't come back because they were you know, scared. they were suffering from ptsd. there was, you know, a lot of issues. and you had other soldiers who were suffering but, you know, were toughing it out and kind of did not see care because they knew that their friends were out there. that if they left, you know, we'd all be soldier down. so that level of stress and the level of cohesion you need to maintain kind of -- just maintain in the face of level of adversity is much greater than what i've found. but most of my experience in the military was not, you know, the

valley. and there were times in afghanistan that, you know, weren't necessarily hell. so, yeah, you want the most cohesive unit possible when you're going into high-intensive combat like that. but most of the techniques and leadership skills that you would use in the civilian sector and the way you can kind of have a broad base of support and reach out to a broad community of people works in the military, as well. >> and to that question i think, mary beth, you led a company of marines on certainly not an office retreat. the invasion of iraq in 2003. can you speak to what that experience was like for you? and some of the leadership challenges you may or may not have had? and i think also possibly speak to this larger question of --

i'm continuously fascinated by the way we look at this as if we're diving into an unknown world that we have not in any way experienced in terms of having women in direct fire combat. does that strike you as accurate? or maybe something's been going on for the last 15 years? >> yeah. for sure. it is interesting that we approach this as though this is the first time we're dealing with this issue. when i see so many faces in this audience. some of them familiar to me. we've been doing this for an awfully long time. the difference, i hope, between my experience on active duty and the experience of the young women i see in the audience is i hope you won't have to fight so hard to get there. when i was on active duty and i served from '99 to 2007 as a combat engineer officer i was in a field that was open to women but there were a number of units within the combat engineer field that were not open to women. so i could only do 2/3 of my job. i was barred from training in a

whole third of my occupational specialty. i wasn't allowed into that part. so we fought everywhere we went. we fought to train. and i'll actually say. i may say "i" while i'm talking here, i was, actually, the only woman in my combat engineer platoon. so it was very much me fighting as a woman to get these training opportunities. but everywhere i went i had things close to me. because i was a woman and closed to my platoon because i was a woman and i wasn't allowed to lead them to certain places. so, you know, one example, i had an opportunity to take my platoon to bridgeport, the mountain warfare training center with a company of combat -- a combat engineer company which was closed to women. there were no women there. i had an opportunity to train with them with my platoon for a month and do the mountain warfare training package. i was told no by a number of people. fortunately, my commanding officer was not one of them. i'll come back to the common theme. despite being told no by several

people, i did it anyways. and everybody survived we did great. and the nice thing was being able to compete with the men up there and i wasn't in competition with them. being able to keep up with them and excel on that mountain, it said something. and the 200 men that walked away from the experience, having seen a woman complete those tasks, having a different idea about women. for the first couple of days i was a distraction to them. i can't deny that. they were fascinated by me. like i was some weird alien creature. they were really, really fascinated by me. but they got over it really fast and the rest of the month went extremely smoothly. and i built some incredible bonds, amazing relationships through that experience. fast forward a little while to a combined arms exercise in 29 palms where i was an engineer platoon commander. and we were organized at that time. they were trying a wonderful experiment where they organized all the engineers into a pool

male, female no matter what part of the field we were in, they put us in a common pool and farmed us out. i was essentially detached from my parent unit and put into an engineer pool to be used wherever engineers were needed. well, when they tasked out my platoon, they forgot i was the platoon commander and tasked me to a reconnaissance company headed out to the field for a week into, you know to practice to train for combat. so i showed up all bright eyed and cheery with my platoon of all men. and immediately, the platoon sergeant for the lar company said, you can't come with us. i mean, there's -- i wouldn't want you to get in trouble. you know there's this combat exclusion rule says that women can't train with combat units. and i said, wow, no kidding. what time do we go? because i'm what you've got and i'm here and this is my platoon and i'm coming with you. and again, for the first couple of days i was out there with

them, i'll admit i think i was a distraction to those guys but they got over it so quickly. and we went on to have an amazing week in the field, built lifelong relationships with those guys and some great laughs about it over a few beers at the club afterwards. just them getting over that process. so fast forward a little bit more to kind of the culmination of my career i think which was the invasion of iraq. i was a company commander. we were in kuwait ready to cross the border with the third infantry division. the first units that went across. and the days before, all of a sudden a colonel who will remain unnamed realized that i was a woman and thought this is going to be a problem. and he told me i would not be able to take my company across the border and i would be replaced after being a company commander for nine months and training my company and doing all the prep work that needed to be done and being extremely well bonded with them and my platoon commanders. two days before the invasion of iraq, i was told i couldn't go.

i was being pulled out of my unit and i'd be replaced by someone these marines had never seen. again, fortunately, i was surrounded by amazing leaders and one of those leaders was my commanding officer. and he kind of did the -- you know. and at this time the fog of war worked for me. and they forgot. and i did it anyways. and it was great. and obviously me being a female did not hold me back from that mission at all. and so, you know, crossing the border was by far one of my proudest moments. second only to bringing everybody home and crossing the border back into kuwait safely afterwards. so, yes, absolutely. this was -- this was 12 years ago now. this is not a new argument. women have been doing this for a long time and doing it extremely successfully, extremely proudly. i am so proud to be counted among them and among you in the audience here. the ones who have gone before me. and juliette snuck out, but i owe a special thanks to her. she busted through that glass ceiling and made a nice neat

hole for me to climb through with my compatriots. i appreciate that. the key was great leadership all along the way. the key was not whether or not i was strong enough to do it. i was. that helped me. but the key was always that i had terrific leaders who trusted in me and trusted in my ability to lead my marines and that was all that mattered. i love what john said earlier, just kind of listening, he didn't say this explicitly but just kind of listening we've broken this down now over the course of the day to being so much about the physical standard. and truthfully and not to discredit the research here, but -- or draw attention away from it, but i'd like to keep the focus on that. because i honestly think that's the only thing holding us back anymore. and it's not going to very long for women. women have figured it out for a long time. and once the standards are thoughtfully made. maybe they're there now. once they're thoughtfully made women are going to figure out a way to do that. and that needs to be the last barrier.

because the talk about any other surrounding issues is gone. we've proved that. my generation proved that many years ago, and the generation, i mean, i've got two rangers sitting in the audience. female rangers. women who went through the ranger course sitting with me. and it's amazing. sorry. i don't know the exact term there. but we've done amazing things. women have done amazing things. and i think that the focus should be on what the true barriers are left. which aren't many. >> thank you. that's a really, really inspiring story. and you talk about decisions made on the basis of what's good for an organization. as you were telling your story john and i were sort of sharing a look like i can't think of anything dumber than switching out a high-performing line combat leader two days before the invasion of iraq because of gender? >> right. i mean, my god. so i think your company's very very lucky that didn't happen. at this point, i think we want to open it up to a conversation with the room.

i'm sure there's plenty to discuss. would anyone like to jump in? we have microphones orbiting positions. >> army national guard. i had a question that mary just touched on. as we were -- as i was talking to -- do you -- and the researchers, too. do you see it more as a generational gap that as we continue on in generations, those things will kind of go -- not go away, but kind of allow it? like she said, when she was in the class with the lieutenants. wasn't worried about, oh you're a female. maybe it's more of a generation as you said, generations before. i think i graduated the same year as you. i saw different things and probably the lieutenants coming out today. that's my question. and is there research being done? but maybe a generational gap as far as culture. we change our culture. i definitely believe it is leadership's ability to change that and make a difference.

>> it's a great question. anybody want to take a crack at the research about the generational question? >> i think there is research that indicates there is sort of a cultural gap. and certainly with don't ask don't tell, there's indications. the problem is that often the leadership is part of the generation that may be stuck in the old culture we're talking about. it may take some time for cultural change. and so yeah. i mean i certainly think attitudes among new recruits. there is indication. especially around issues of gender and don't ask, don't tell. we're very different. >> i think just to add quickly, i think military historically is not great at quick culture change. it takes some time to come along. and while i do see huge differences between the generations of my parents and myself and the young men and women here in the audience, i think that's not good enough, and i think, you know for us to be able to push it gently in the

right way, in a thoughtful fashion is extremely important. and that's why, you know, these panels and these discussions are really important. it won't -- it will happen on its own, but not in enough time. >> yeah. >> i'd just like to echo that. i've been in so many conversations with different levels of command, as well. where the younger generation will say with all due respect, sir, and then explain the fact that they're all already everywhere and they're performing excellent. there's something tremendous happening in terms of the generational shifts. >> yeah. >> so my name is jessica darden, i'm a assistant professor at the school of international service at american university here in d.c. and big shout out to my georgetown colleagues. i would just like to speak to this point a little bit about generational shifts and cultural shifts. so dr. mackenzie brought up the

israeli defense forces, and they have historically had women integrated into their operations. but even in pushing through some of their removals of gender based combat exclusions, they're having an extremely difficult time. for example, women who operate on manned aerial drones are allowed to employ in theater, but not with infantry units. they're only allowed to stay back with artillery unit. so there is still, even amongst the most advance countries in overcoming these hurdles, hurdles still remain. so i think it's a little bit naive to think all these issues are going to go away immediately. in part because of a lot of these developments are tactically driven. and so i'm very excited that came up as point of a conversation. my own research deals primarily with irregular armed groups. rebel groups, et cetera insurgencies. and what we've seen is a lot of the developments in developing world military.

for example, the sri lanka military, in response to the high levels of female participation in the insurgency in sri lanka. so the degree to which these developments are being externally driven from our engagement in conflicts heroic iraq and afghanistan versus internally driven through changes in american culture or perceptions of a role of women in the workforce et cetera, something i'd like to see you speak on. because there does seem to be this tension in the conversation of this panel about whether it's about manpower and manpower shortages and getting full staffing levels. or if it's about acknowledging acknowledging -- as owen harding said earlier, we should all be able to participate in the same roles. so your view on whether this is an externally or internally driven development would be helpful. >> that's an interesting question. >> anybody want to take a crack at it. >> i can start, perhaps.

it is a great question. and it's you're opening pandora's box here, as well. the short is it's both. we haven't talked at all about u.n. security council resolution 1325, the u.s. national action plan on women, peace and security, which are -- you could say a more rights based argument that this is the right thing to do. we have to empower women, gender equality, et cetera. at the same time, those come from an understanding that the existing order isn't working and that we can improve the way we create peace, development, humanitarian affairs by higher representativeness of women. so even there, it's a combination. operational experience from the last decade is hugely important. we've learned a lot of lessons there. so they all combine. so the way i try to avoid that issue of deciding whether it's the right thing to do or the smart thing to do is to say that

there's a difference between that sort of very difficult fundamental chicken and egg sort of discussion versus how we sell this. as an agenda to a highly reluctant organization. and the rights based arguments to me simply do not work. they will acknowledge that it is really important with gender equality and improved opportunities for women. but we're in the business of war. we can't deal with that within the military. is the response you get. but if you do explain it with examples scenarios that indicate where it has an impact on operational effectiveness you will have their ear for a little while and sort of crack a door at least gain access to the organization and explain yourself. i find that argument always gets their attention, at least, when you focus on the operational effectiveness.

i would encourage you to do that, not because it's the real reason why we're doing this, but because it's the most effective in terms of organizational change which is what we're approaching. but you're also touching upon a number of how -- so how do we go about this integration process? and you ask a really good question to the last panel about the engagement teams cultural support teams et cetera. there are necessary capabilities. i think most would agree with that these days. we're never going to fight a war where those capabilities are irrelevant. so how do we do that? now, we can create female m.o.s.s female engagement teams with the function that fills the gaps of the existing organization. but this is the panel on unit cohesion. and we all agree that it is a very important thing for military effectiveness and unit performance. so if you have ad hoc solutions

if you bring in a woman to the special operators or if you add a female engagement team to an existing platoon when they go out on the patrol, that's always going to be a liability because they will not be as cohesive and trained together as they will be if that platoon has those functions baked into it. i would always say, first of all, get the women into the units, if they need them rather than add that as a specific sort of add on to the unit. apart from the fact that having female m.o.s.s et cetera, will always then create the risk of feelings of different standards, for example. so if you have a ranger platoon where you hypothetically have standards that no women have so far past. and you add a few women because they need it. it's always going to be seen as a second rate ranger even though they might be performing extremely well. i would avoid that.

but, again, as they highlighted in the last panel, we have to look at all of these standards and rethink them. >> unfortunately we have to wrap up the conversation so that we can move on with the program. i would encourage everyone to continue it outside where the cliff bars and the coca-cola are. but thank you very much to the panelists for joining us and thank you to all of you for being part of this conversation. >> thank you.

okay. welcome back, everybody. from a not real break. i'm lori manning, and i will be introducing our next panel. my background is 25 years in the u.s. navy. i guess i'm one of the few navy people actually here today. and i have been an advocate for women in the military from my time on active duty onward. and it's my great pleasure today to welcome what is probably the last panel. i'm guessing most of you who have been here now know that there's a new book out it was published last week by harper collins called ashley's war, the unfold story of women soldiers in special operations. >>

or special operations on the battlefield. it's the story of lieutenant ashley white u.s. army officer and her sister soldiers who weren't all soldiers there were some air force. and possibly marines or navy women who also participated in the combat support teams. and all of these women served with special operations forces in afghanistan. and it's important that the american people know their story. most of the public has no idea what women have been doing for the last 14 or 15 years in iraq and afghanistan, starting with the lionesses, the female engagement teams, and then the combat support teams who actually got training before they were just thrown into the job. which is very rare for women sometimes. usually, the men get trained and then they do the job. women usually do the job and

then get the training and the authorization to do it. that has been the pattern for about 70 years now. i was -- and that's why i'm so glad that we have not only gale but also we are selling the book. it's important that you know this story and you tell it. we don't want this chapter in american history to be lost as so often happens with things that women have done over the years. and we are extremely fortunate to have not only gale with us. gale, by the way, if you think that's a familiar name is the best-selling author of "the dress maker" also set in afghanistan. and i will leave you to look in your program booklet to see the rest of her biography. it's impressive. credentialed not only as a

writer, but the fields she writes about. foreign affairs and those sorts of things. pleesz look please look there. with gale on stage are three women who served in command. in cultural support teams. at different times over the past three or four years in afghanistan. and we have three up here and others in the audience. the three on the stage are megan malloy of the u.s. army, wave. anne cleman of the united states air force, and the u.s. army. so please welcome gale and our female cultural support team members. thank you. >> is it easier for you if i sit here or go up to the podium? does it make a difference for anyone? okay. so i'll sit here. this for me is a privilege. first of all, it's a privilege

to be on stage with all of you. second of all, it's a privilege to be talking about a book that's out. it's just you and your laptop. and now, it's out in the world with all of you. so it's nice to see it again. this for me has been two years of cross country travel a lot of holiday and express stays. and conversations with some of the most seasoned military leaders to talk about what happened in 2010 and 2011 that led to women on the battlefield alongside special operations. and this, for me, began with the question that led to more questions that after months and months and months finally led to answers. a marine said, well, this was 2012.

i said, what what was a female soldier doing on a night operation in afghanistan? who were these people? why were they there? and how do we not know about them as a country? and those sets of questions really led me on this journey. and what i have learned after conversations with folks like admiral olsen, general mcchrystal and soldiers who have executed some of the most difficult missions that the united states military has seen is that in 2010, admiral olsen had an idea, 2011 a poster went out, and there were people starting in the end of 2010, going into the start of 2011 who answered the call female soldiers become part of history, join special operations on the battlefield in afghanistan.

and my personal journey with this started in ohio at the home of mr. and mrs. white. who were lieutenant white's parents. and i sat in their room which had been ashley's, in the spring of 2012, i'm sorry, 2013 at this point. and i asked them about their daughter. it was not her death that had defined her, but her life. but she was one of those rare people that never talked to you about what she could do who simply let her actions speak for themselves and who was one of those people who was much happier doing her job and going home to her husband than doing her job and telling you about everything she had just done. and i saw a lined piece of paper

with written in black letters, you are my motivation. there was this whole team of women who had answered the call to serve. not once but twice. and i focus on ashley and her team because ashley's death was the moment that threw this program that was built for the shadows into the public spotlight. in may of 2011 about 55 to 60 of the women are chosen after 100 hours of hell as it was called on ft. bragg. and these women were then

spent -- they were chosen in march or may trained in june and july and deployed by august. they were seeing the kind of combat that fewer that 5% of the military sees. men on their 10th 11th and 12th deployment. and some of these rangers alongside whom the women that served were people who had -- if you added up the number of months, talking about three and four years straight. so you could imagine some of the skepticism that greeted them when they have to take people out with a different training cycle. a different selection process, and, by the way, they're female. but what surprised me about so much of what i learned was that battle hardened soldiers like these guys, finest, fittest men alongside many considered it the biggest privilege of their career to go and serve alongside. they actually welcomed the women that were coming.

maybe not initially but certainly by the end. because as they said as long as they delivered each night. as long as they paid the rent we wanted them out there. and some rangers said to me, we should've had them on my fourth and fifth and sixth deployment. not my 10th, 11th and 12th. often times, what i've surprised people by saying, if they could get -- help them find the things and the individuals that they were seeking that was the most important. because what has led admiral olsen, admiral mccraven and others to put out this call for female soldiers was not a social nicety or a gender norming, it was a battlefield necessity. male soldiers could not access the female soldiers they needed to speak with. that was the driving force behind the request for forces that came in from the admiral. we need women out there because if you cannot talk to half the population, you're missing things that are out there.

people that are out there. and that was what led to the call that said female soldiers become part of history. now, there are -- what has impressed me and struck me about every, is no matter what year or class they serve there is a bond we've almost never gotten to see among female service members. even though they were going out to different bases in ones and twos, they have a spirit of bonding and sister hood i've never seen among service members or as a country we've had a chance to see. and what is funny and incredible and remarkable about them if you read the end of band of brothers, the reason he wrote that book was the way the soldiers interacted with one another. confessors and biggest boosters

imaginable. and only they know what they experienced and how much it meant to them. i got to a point about eight months in where i felt like i could answer almost every question i was being asked almost because i felt like it was a script. you know this is the best job i ever had. these were the people that mean the most to me. i would have done this over and over again if somebody had let me. this was the mission that mattered. and for me, this whole story is not about politics. it's about purpose. and it's a hero's story that we haven't yet heard as a country, and that we really should. because it is about people who only wanted to do something that matters at the center of an incredibly long war, doing a mission that had real value to some of the most important

people deciding what happened in this war and people who only wanted to serve alongside the best of the best. and this was their chance. so you had the finest, the fittest, the most fierce and also the most feminine women who answered that call to serve because part of what they had to do particularly on the night operations side was to quickly show in the heat of the battle they were female. so they would board the bird, go to the house deal with whatever would happen on the mission would happen. and then the women would go up to deal with the women and children and women they're working with and take off their helmets and show that they were women. because otherwise, under body armor and night vision it's hard to know who is male and who is female. so this to me was a story about a team that came to love one another and their mission in the ways that we as a country hadn't seen.

and who really were a by and large accepted by people who simply wanted to get off target and complete their mission in the best way possible. and i did feel very strongly that particularly in the case of ashley white, this was somebody who had made a mark that no one had paid attention to. because upon her death lieutenant general who was then head of army special operations command goes to her small town in ohio and said make no mistake about it, these women are warriors. they have set a standard for what it means to be a female in the united states army the finest army in the world. and he talks in a very public and very moving way about what they had done and why it mattered. and the next day at her funeral, the colonel gets up and gives the speech about the man in the arena, which many of you will know as teddy roosevelt speech.

and says, this is written for a man, but it actually could have been for this female soldier. and he says ashley your ranger brothers will be out there continuing the mission. you will not be forgotten. brothers will be out there continuing your mission, you will not be forgotten. and i must tell you that no one in this book who spoke with me did it because they thought they should do anything that should be remembered. they spoke with me because they didn't want their teammate forgotten. because ashley white's obituary led with the fact that she was a member of the north carolina national guard, which she was. but as mrs. white told me that's not what she died doing. she died on a mission she believed in alongside the best of the best, and we're incredibly incredibly proud. so all of that was behind the story of how i came to write this book. and the two last things i want to lav with on the book, and

then i can't wait to talk to you, which is that this was an incredible team of all-stars and it wasn't just ashley's team. let's say you get cst 1 to 8 in a room. first of all, you're going to look around and you won't believe your eyes that there are all these incredibly powerful women that we just don't know who are serving in the united states. and second of all on ashley's team you had a west point track star, another west pointer who'd played high school football all four years and actually wanted to stop after the first year but because they said people told her that girls can't play football she had just continued playing. concussions began. she just wanted to be in glee club but she didn't want to give anyone the satisfaction of being right. and then you had one former intel officer who'd served in bosnia who had helped the fbi bust drug gangs in pennsylvania. you had another guard member who

was on her third deployment in the war on terror. you had another who had driven trucks in iraq. all of these people wanted to be there. more than they wanted to do any other mission that they'd ever done. and at the end of the first weekend of interviews i did with the white family, i asked mrs. white, what would it mean to you if a little girl told you she wanted to be like ashley? she paused. she said it would mean everything. and she said there was a woman at the funeral -- now, this funeral, as i'm saying this entire special operations community attended. it was -- there were hundreds of people of all ages vietnam veterans, korea veterans little children with their hands and prayers lining the streets. and they all came to salute first lieutenant ashley white

with her husband. with her rotc sweetheart who had pushed her to be the best she could and the best she ever had been. and this woman came up to mrs. white at the end of two days of ceremony, had just put red roses on her casket, and she came up and said mrs. white, you don't know me but i brought my daughter here today. and i brought my daughter here today because i wanted her to know what a hero was. and that's why this story matters. because there are hero stories all around us. we do not see and do not acknowledge. and this was one way to offer a small salute to people who have served and sacrificed and given so much and who really are the hero story we don't yet know and need to. so thank you so much and i look

forward to the conversation here. [ applause ] so i would just like to go down the line. if you could tell us what -- your name and what mission you did and what years you were there in afghanistan. >> is this on? >> yes. >> my name is annie kleinman. i was in csd-3. so i was in the class -- or the group that took over for ashley's group. and i -- what was the other question? i'm sorry. >> what kind of -- what mission you were doing. >> i was on the dm mission. >> sergeant first class megan malloy. i was part of csd 5. so we just got back in '13. and i was part of the village stability operations mission. >> janise marquez. csd-2, which was ashley's mission. also the first set of all volunteers to go out to do the csd mission. there are a few here who are

from there as well. it's hard to listen to you talk about ashley. i see people getting emotional in the audience. and i'm like hold it together. i did the vso mission. >> i would now start with you because you're most recent and then i would just work out. what attracted you to the mission and who first told you about it? >> initially i heard about it with csd 2 was the first time i heard about it. and i had wanted to go then and my commander wouldn't let me and my commanders wouldn't let me and it was just -- >> because you needed -- let's explain to the audience. you needed to get -- because it was a one-year mission, you needed to get sign-off from your commander because they would just be down one person, right? >> correct. and so eventually my commander happened to be gone for a month and i got my x.o. who had responsibility -- >> that's innovative leadership. >> so she signed off on it and a

couple months later i was at selection. as far as what drove me to do it, this was -- i did three previous deployments all in iraq and i honestly didn't realize that there was the gender issues as far as -- i was the only female out on most of them. as a medic they basically just yanked me from whatever unit i was at and were like hey, we need medics on this mission, whether 4th infantry division on my second deployment, one of the other infantry battalions needed medics to help search the females and we didn't have a team or anything like that and they were like, well you can keep up plus added bonus you're a medic. so they just pulled me right in. and no issues. just i went to work and i was a professional and they were professional. the deployment with 3rd engineer battalion where i served as a medic with route clearance which officially is a position that's off limits to females, but again, they needed medics, they couldn't leave the wire without them. so i got pulled.

and shortly after i came back there was the whole thing about the combat exclusion. i was like xwtcombat exclusion? i've been doing this for a while now. and i started hearing stories from friends of mine who had done it. demare was in the iteration before me and she had told me about it and she talked about like the sisterhood and about these wonderful things these girls were doing and these opportunities we would have. and i jumped on it as soon as i could. it was an awesome tonight. i'd do it again in a heartbeat. >> that do it again in a heartbeat i'd heard 750 times in the past two years. and that's the thing that struck me. not just what you all had done but how much everyone missed that mission. there were people willing to tank their careers to just keep doing this mission alongside special operations. and i met them all the time and i'm sure there are tons i didn't have the opportunity to meet because it was like one after the other after the other.

this was the thing that meant the most. and there are two things i want to pick up on before i ask you one more question. medics, and i know a lot of these people, long before there was a cst program there was hey, we need a female to go out tonight, you're coming out with us. i met so many people who had gone on these missions and who were just really glad to see it institutionalized by the cst program. one medic told me a story about her commander said hey, do you want to go out and get bad guys? she said i knew the answer was yes. soon she left her base and i think within a week and a half was out on -- alongside rangers going out on these missions. and the second thing i want to pick up on is you talk about the combat xlus policy. when secretary panetta announced the lifting of the combat exclusion policy and it was -- it's in the epilogue of the book five months later special

operations held a press conference and he cited all of you. i think it was major general michalek at the time. said these young girls of the cst may well have laid the groundwork for ultimate integration and specifically cited the cultural support team's work. and as a writer i was like oh, no, everyone's going to discover this story. but the truth was no one was paying attention. but you know he -- it was direct credit. obviously there's so many people upon whose shoulders epa of you stands stands. right? that history is there p. and thanks to laura manning. but i do think it is important to know you all were singled out in the history of this whatever happens. can you just talk about why you wanted to do it? you said you immediately knew. did you immediately know you wanted to do that position? >> my husband was the one that first told me about this. the funny thing at the time is

we both were in the air force and he was trying to convince me to switch to the army. and he was like hey, check out this cultural support team thing. it's awesome. you get to go out with special operators and you've got to switch to the army, though, that was like his pitch. and and i was like that's ridiculous, that's not going to happen, that's crazy. he actually flew reconnaissance aircraft that would provide overwatch for teams on the ground. and he was like, i'm telling you there are women on the teams i can hear them on the raid, this is actually happening. i think i told him he was full of it. about a year later i started looking at the program. i would reads the website and read the instructions and i was like they're never going to let me go, i'm in the air forget, i'm a reservist. this is crazy. and no kidding, about two weeks later i got an e-mail from the air force special operations command because i was assigned there at the time. and it was asking for volunteers for air force women assigned specifically to adsoc. it turned out to be a one-time

thing. it was really lucky that i volunteered for that. that specific rotation. but it was literally -- i got the e-mail i think on a wednesday. and then on monday i did the army pft. on tuesday morning i did the march and then i submitted my package on wednesday and it all just took off from there. >> how long until you were deployed? >> i want to say i went to assessment and selection about a month later and then went through training two months after that and was out the door another two months after that. >> right. >> so it happened -- once it actually -- once the ball got rolling it happened really quickly but it was a little bit of a process. and i had this kind of weird cognitive dissonance going on. i was like i'm not going to be in combat. it says objective's going to be secured before they bring us in. and my husband was just like you don't know what you're talking about, like i see the group moving and there's no rear guard that comes up afterwards. and i don't think it was until i was actually running out the helicopter, like oh, that's what he's talking about. >> and in fact, everybody had

that moment. there are a lost expletives in the book. so forgive it. but you're all familiar with that language. one of the gals telling me the story, the book opens with a mission. and one of the gals telling me about it she walked in after the first combat mission and was like this shit is serious. than she didn't know but there's something about how quickly it all happened. right? and you know you're going to be there but there's still that moment where like oh, yeah. >> during training the way we talked about it was oh you're going to walk with a platoon leader that's going to be separate from the assault element. you're not going to be with the people in front. and at the time we were like oh that's so -- like the platoon leader's right there. he's 20 feet back from the front squad but for some reason it was like we had bought into the whole combat exclusion thing, so we were telling ourselves it's not actually going to be combat, the objective's already going to

be secured. it's not going to be -- >> and the reality was -- >> there wasn't bullets flying directly at me but it was 50 feet, 100 feet away. the funny thing is the jag that briefed us right before going into theater, this is right before the combat exclusion was lifted, he goes, oh you're not attached -- or you're not assigned to ground combat troops. you're ten feet back. we were like oh. [ laughter ] that's good to know. >> one of the things that i was working on answering, i always had the question of where did the name come from, and it was really interesting because admiral olsen was talking about it was the best of a bunch of bad options. cultural because it was culture that meant that that was the whole reason for the rff initially. the request for forces. support because we didn't want people to think that -- we already were getting criticism. it was a back door way into front line roles for women.

and team because everything in special operations is a team. so that's where the name came from. but i mean you've seen these missions now. right? it's very hard to say that you're so far back that -- i mean, that's just not the way that that kind of combat is happening. what led you to do this mission, and what did it mean to you in hindsight? >> i was a student at the defense language institute in monterey. i was studying pashtu and my commander comes up to me one morning and says your scores are fantastic, he said but i have bad news. he told me about my follow-on assignment. i was just devastated. because i wanted something exciting. everybody does after that. i wasn't scheduled to deploy for another year and a half, so i would be sitting on a base for a while, and i didn't want that. so the following week he comes

into my classroom and he said, hey, we need to talk. and i think i'm in trouble. but he sits me down-e said, so this flyer came across my desk and it's asking for women to serve with special forces. and i'm like, you're kidding. i thought he was joking for the longest time. until finally the message came out, and so i started to apply. but during the application process my branch manager denied me and i feel like every commander up above my company commander was just turning me down. i'd like to echo mary beth in this. it's that one person who mattered, who was willing to fight for me. so we took it up to the inspector general and finally my branch released me to do this mission. i had just graduated from the pashtu language course right before going to cst selection and it was almost like i finally had a purpose. the military wasn't just being in the military, following everybody. now i was able to be a pioneer

in a program that hadn't started yet. i think actually the first group of girls were going through training as we were filling out our packets. so it's this brand new concept of putting them on these teams and training us and being able to go and fight in the front lines. and to me it was exciting. when we finally got out to afghanistan, it was this whirlwind of everything i thought it would be and also everything i thought it wouldn't be. >> tell me more about what you thought it wouldn't be. >> well, you don't really know. there was a lot of gray area, going through training. we were told our mission was supposed to be maybe this, we might be doing some of this, some of that, until you finally get out there and the team you're working with is like sit down, let us tell you how it's done. and then you're like okay i'm ready. and you get all of your training and you start to really go and practice and rehearse with these

guys. i thought, like she said, i thought i would be out to engage with women and children, be with the mission commander, kind of standing away from everything. but that's not how it ever was. there were times when i was the gunner. the entire last three months of my deployment i was a gunner. and then i would also still go into these villages and talk to women and children and go into their homes and i thought it was pretty interesting to be able to talk to them in their native tongue and really bond with them without the use of interpreters and see who they really were. >> that is the best person for the job, is the theme that comes up over and over again. there are a lot of people i met who are in this story who were in jobs at one point or another that were coded for men. because their commanders were like you're the best person for

the job, so you're in it. you know, there are people who served as xos or people who are doing -- number two roles or people who are in holes that were really from an hr standpoint, from a human resources standpoint supposed to be reserved for men only. but their commanders would say this doesn't make any sense, you're the best person for, it we're going to leave the paperwork blank and one gal said, yeah i'm going to have such bad language on c-span. one gal said yeah, i looked like a sh i am tbagitbag for two years because it looked like she had done nothing when she was in a job that was only supposed to be filled by men. i think it's a story -- you can say what you will but there is so much leadership that went on in terms of people saying i know what the regulations are but this is war that we're fighting and you have to be innovative and you need the best people. and so they were using the best people that they had and they were trying to give them

opportunities and i really do think it's the stories of leaders who were trying to be as flexible as they could given the rules. just like the attached thing. they went to the lawyers. the so com lawyer said you can attach them to special operations units. it's perfectly legal. and so that's how that happened. and i think that was -- you know, we can think of it what it will but that was a need from a battlefield commander in the field who needed a capability for his forces. and that was what was driving the decision while the combat ban was very much in place. and i do think that secretary panetta and general dempsey very much acknowledged that the reality had long surpassed the regulation when it came to these women. one of the things i just wanted to ask before we go to questions is how did this mission change you? because everybody i've had the privilege of spending time with was profoundly changed by the experience of both their teammates and the men alongside

whom they served. >> i have some very dear friends from the deployment i still keep in touch with. we talk about babies now and grad school and of what life afterwards, but we still keep in touch. i think the other thing is also everything else, it's a little easier. i'm in grad school now, and if i don't get my paper perfect, you know, no one's going to die. there's not bullets flying. there's no rpd -- it's a little bit lower -- i live in boston. so we had 100-plus inches of snow. i was actually wearing my afghanistan boots i was tromping around in. i was like, this is fine. i'm not falling in a four-foot pit. it's not a big deal. but everything else is -- it's just a little bit easier in comparison. >> it definitely made me think about things a lot differently. so i definitely had done a couple of deployments before, so

it wasn't anything new, but on those deployments it was a very cut and dry mission. if you go out and do this, if they shoot at you you shoot back. if someone gets hurt you fix them. i mean, it was this and that. and going into -- especially on the vso side -- >> village stability. sorry. >> on the direct action side i felt they had had a more cut and dried mission whereas on the village stability operations she hit it just right. they told us kind of one thing. when we did the pmt -- >> mission training. >> sorry. yeah. they told us something totally different. and when we got out to the actual o.d.a. they were like yeah, no. >> these are the teams -- >> the teams that we were working at. >> at one point when we first got out there we were like you need to make yourself more important than the work dog because the working dog has a spot on the team to go out. you need to prove yourself more important and valuable than them because that's the only way

you're going to go out on a mission. from then on -- and i was blessed with an absolutely awesome partner out there. and her and i got together and started coming up with what can we do for this team? how can we gather this intelligence and how can we gain that bond with the women and children out there so they're willing to give us this information that will potentially help out the team? that really makes you have to think hard. that is not an easy thing. i'm not a super creative person. and between the two of us that's helped me immensely with my career ever since then. i'm looking at things differently and definitely more in a leadership way. the girl i was deployed with down rain sj my best friend. we literally call each other every couple of days. you know, we talk together, we live together, we cry together. it's a bond. even just getting together with the other csts here who i've

never met before, we all share that bond. it's so easy to come together. we've all been there and done that. it's a very small group of people. >> that bond i'm telling you, the first time i was in a room i really thought i was being pranked because as a storyteller you do not get to meet people who really have a connection that we have never seen in a way that we've never known and that has been so important through 14 years of war. it really is a very tangible thing, that connection to one another. and cst, you know, 2 to call a cst 8 and they would immediately understand each other. they would really be connected to one another. and they would be able to help one another in ways the members of these teams in different classes would understand one another better than probably anybody else they'll ever work with ever again.

and the dogs thing -- so that was actually a very real question. after ashley died one of the historians asked her replacement in kandahar, this is in the book, do you want to keep doing this mission? because you know, after vietnam the dogs program went away. we ended up needing to revive it. and she had a laugh like oh we're dogs now. but the truth was the comparison was somewhat apt. it was a capability built for a specific mission. and she said nothing would dishonor her memory more speaking of ashley, than shutting down this mission. we all want to go back out there and more. right? and i'm sure each one of you experienced that. and then that life-saving, you know, what is the information -- what's the value you add? i read ranger impact awards -- or not read. but i know of ranger impact awards where they said this

person helped us to get this information that we would not have found if this, you know, soldier wasn't there, about some of the csts. that there were people there was information, there were things that were very relevant to achieving that mission that were found because those women were there, which is why i think we're sitting here today, why the program continued as long as it did. i'm going to ask you that question. then we'll open it up how it changed you. >> i think first and foremost, i'm a lot more confident. and it's not that i wasn't confident before. but now it's just through the roof. and i think too it opened a lot more doors. doors that i don't think would have been opened if i didn't have the combat experience that i have today. for example, for a lot of the work i do in south america, foreign military commanders invite me into their offices to talk about my combat experience and talk about how to fix his programs because of what i've

done. had i not been a cst, had i not fought on the front lines, i wouldn't stand a chance. we wouldn't be talking to them. i wouldn't have a lot of the clout that i do. i think too that's the reason why i have a lot of the business partners and colleagues that i have, is they're willing to put that confidence in me because i was willing to put myself up front and i was willing to fight and learn. and no matter what it took -- like all of these girls, i know i spoke for all of them we fought so hard to get into this program. it took so much energy and effort and mental exhaustion and you're learning something that is completely new to you. all the while knowing that you're not getting all of the training that you deserve but you're going to go out there and you're going to put your best foot forward. whatever foot that may be. >> my last thought is this was the most self-selecting group of people who chose themselves and who -- all of whom got either

forwarded the e-mail or handed the flyer and most of whom were told i would never do this but this sounds like it would be perfect for you. right? seven and eight and nine times. some of the girls i talked to were like -- i had like six people forwarded to me within a 36-hour period because they were like, didn't you always want to do something like this? one of the gals in the book when she was 19, she just hated being a girl because she said everything noble is out of reach. you know, she wanted to be infantry. she wanted -- all these things she wanted to do that she couldn't because she was female. and here was -- she was about to sign up for another mission. and as soon as she got forwarded the e-mail was like oh, no, started writing essays that were actually not asked for by the application, called everybody she knew who might be able to help her, and was like no one is going to keep me out, i will seriously -- i will park myself in front of bank hall at bragg, at ft. bragg if they don't take

me. so i just want to open it to questions and say this for me has been a huge privilege and a great responsibility to write a first draft of this history that we as a country should know about heroes we don't. so thank you so much. [ applause ] let's start with the white and blue dress -- oh sorry. the mike. >> christie. congressional service and a veteran. when i was in the service if i had this opportunity i would have jumped at it. it sounds amazing. but i was worntding we heard from mary beth about how being a woman was a distraction sometimes and we heard from the woman at the ranger school what a great reception they had in the training pipeline. and i was just wondering what your experience was when you joined these special operations teams from the men in the unit. >> i had two vastly different

experiences. i worked with two different teams, and you could tell the difference in the amount of training that the men had received on working with cultural support teams. in particular, the first team didn't even know they had women on their way, but we were already on the helicopter en route. so it was very, very difficult to convince them that this was -- this was the new thing, having women on your team is in. so it was a constant battle to get on patrols to get respect to become a part of the team. but when they left and the next team came in and took their place, they had been briefed on how to use a cultural support team how to use them to interact with the women and children and really use us to benefit the overall mission. and it was amazing. probably the best experience

i've had in my life. we were active. we were used. they were professional. we never felt any sort of sexual exploitation or manipulation. whereas i feel like a lot of youths in the military do have things like that because the women aren't as respected as they should be. >> i was pretty lucky. same kind of thing. when i got there, we were definitely outsiders, but any of the enablers were. it wasn't just because i was female or -- we were definitely kind of -- you know everybody wanted to know what was going on and who we were initially and i think that's just kind of normal, that's happened every time i've been to a new unit. but after that especially once they realized how we could be used, how much information we could bring in, we were very accepted and really never had an issue. they treated us so well and always went out of their way to make sure -- i don't even want to say they went out of their way because really they treated us stoirds

ought there with that. >> i had an easier time. one reason was cst-2 did a really good job of laying the foundation for us and really proving csts could perform and

added value to the mission. i was on the d.a. side. so it was a much more well-defined kind of structured role for us. i absolutely had no issues with any of the teams i was with. they were fantastic. they were super professional. and >> they cut the pj. and that -- at that point i really -- >> so pj is a pararescueman. that's a air force person. they go through two years of training. they're fantastically trained. their job is to be there to do crisis management in case something terrible happens leek a helicopter goes down or

something. they're the ones kind of managing all that. they're search and rescue specialists. they cut the pj from the mission and turned to me and said cst go get ready. and i went okay. so that really kind of shows, the first said you have a specific skill set, you know, we need you on this mission. and i was like, okay, i'll try not to mess up. but that definitely showed how much they value csts. >> you hear the stories that one gal said my biggest fear was not dying. one of the biggest csts on the direct action side. my biggest fear was not dying, my biggest fear was making a mistake and letting my teammates down. and you heard that over and over again. and they really were i think on the direct action side -- crystal jokes, general mcchrystal joked in our interview that the n in ranger stood for knowledge. and that was the joke. but they really did because it was such a transparent mission set, you either helped to find the person or the thing or you didn't. and if you did you were much more easily and -- a part of the

team because you proved your value. i talked to one ranger, first sergeant who did 13 combat deployments, and he said a job well done stands out. these girls wanted to be there and they had heart and grit and they paid the rent. so i think that sort of goes to it. i can go to the back and then come forward. >> so as the military looks at whether or not to create -- or to have no exceptions to the combat exclusion rule, has anyone from the services asked you about your experience and whether or not you know -- looked for your input as they think about whether or not there should be further exceptions created. seems to me you all, you know, unlike training, you all have actual direct experience that would be very instructive. i'm just wondering if anybody's asked for that.

>> no. me no. but i have also been out of the military since the end of 2012. perhaps their experiences are a bit different. >> no one on my side. and honestly that was something a lot of us were really frufrlted about when we came back, because we got together and put together about a 14-page a.r. with everything that we thought that could have gotten done better and some other things. and i kind of -- to be completely honest we were a little disappointed that that seemed to have gotten filed in a garbage can somewhere. that was a little bit frustrating. and i know i've heard that from a few of the other csts as well. but no. and again also getting back to when we did come back that was because we weren't assigned, we were just attached. it did kind of screw up especially on the officer side, a lost them really got off on their k.d. time. and they weren't doing their command time. they weren't doing their x.o. time. not only did they make that year-long sacrifice and potentially sacrifice their lives, but a lot of them sacrificed their careers as

well. because that's a big chunk of time. because the cst program is not well known within the military. when i've got sergeant majors looking at my board to see if they're going to get promoted, they don't know what a cst is. and oh, by the way, i'm wearing a special operations combat patch but it's not on my ear because it's not allowed to be. that's an issue with coming back with that as well. kind of off track. but -- >> i was not approached by the military but because i was working at the air force special operations school i heard kind of through the grapevine that jsou was doing the university. i made the point to reach out to the guy and we did just a quick interview but i haven't heard what the results were or any follow-up from that. so. >> good afternoon. losing my voice here. major robin johnson. i'm actually here with my rotc roommate. served in the military together.

we always talked about there's a linear battlefield and we'll be in the division rear. in 2002 i was in a small outpost with 3rd special forces group. so i'm really, really grateful for this book to be written and for you to share your stories. thank you. i wanted to ask you a little bit to what the lady just before me asked but specifically if you had an office call with the joint chiefs what would be the one thing that you would tell them on the way forward? how did they as the senior leaders get it right? what would be your one talking point that you would start with? >> well, equality is not sameness. but in this i feel that women deserve the same amount of training. no matter how they receive that training that all men on the battlefield have received in the past. think of yourself as a military commander for a second. and you're in the middle of a mission. and the guy to your left and to your right has the exact same amount of training as you do. now, change those two people out

to someone who has lesser training. you'll have a little bit less confidence in that person. right? so just imagine how much wem can amplify women on the battlefields if they just had an equal amount of training. >> and probably something similar. i just want the same opportunities that everyone else has. and i'm willing to -- if i need to work harder to get those opportunities, then that's fine. we talked a little bit about standards previously, and i absolutely agree with everything almost everyone on that panel had to say because it's really important that the standards are there but it's important we make sure we're using the right standards and not just something that's something based on research done 40 years ago. so i just -- yeah, i feel like those opportunities need to be there for those of us that want to go out and get them. and -- yeah. >> i would say as far as some of these assessments that are happening right now with ranger school and with the marine, you

know infantry office course i would say that once we have the right standards in place that you just need to be patient that maybe it's going to take a couple of iterations or whatever to have those women volunteer and to go through those courses and succeed but i would counsel against any sort of knee-jerk like oh, no nobody made it through this first two tries, we're just going to shut it down. so it's going to take time. it's going to take, you know, a little bit of process to build that up. but i would just say be patient and you know the right women for the right jobs are going to come along. >> i'm just going to close with one final comment which is that i was at bening two weeks ago. it was a terrific opportunity to go visit the last of the preranger schools. and there was a retired sergeant major really focused on standards and saying listen, if these women can meet the standard then that's great. and you heard that over and over again. and then you'd interview some of the observers there because you couldn't interview for very good reasons the actual students, the

soldiers. and they said nothing would hurt our cause more than for the standard to be changed. right? and that all we want to do is to be able to meet -- to have an opportunity to meet that standard. and one of the narratives i think that has been missing from the whole discussion of women in combat is the valor piece. because we've talked a lot about different stories that are incredibly important about women in combat but we've really missed the valor and the courage and the service and the strength and the grit in what they've already done. and relate privilege that so many of them that i've had the privilege of spending the time with by the people they've gotten to work alongside, who really are some of the finest writers in the united states military. i would just leave you with a

thought that we could use right now a reminder of the power of character in action. and i really do think these women, this story are a reminder of that. so thank you so much. [ applause ] >> so we're not going to take another break because we have so much to get done here. the next people can step down, thank you. what we're going to do next is is -- pardon me? oh. yes. right now? >> no. >> during the reception gayle will sign books. right now we're going to -- on the schedule it shows representative sanchez and representative mcsally. both of them ended up canceling just last week. but they both prerecorded what they wanted to say.

so we have both of them captured on tape. we're going to play their tape. they're pretty short. there's about five minutes for representative sanchez and then ten -- less than ten minutes for representative mcsally to talk about their interest and focus on this topic. so just about 20 more minutes, and then we'll have a reception. >> hi. it's congresswoman loretta sanchez, and i am so sorry that i am unable to be here in person. but thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion in regards to what i consider one of the most vital issues facing the u.s. military. the full integration of women.

as many of you know, i have at times been a lone voice on this issue. but i have always tried to be an extremely loud and strong voice on how women have become an integral part of the military. it is important to show why it's time for women to finally be able to join any military occupational specialty if they are willing and able to do so. today we have gathered to discuss what the services and the department are in the process as two dates approach quickly. october 2015 and january 2016. so in about six months each department will have validated its gender-neutral occupational standards and completed all of these studies. in less than ten months women will be integrated into what i

hope will be all tsh let-- let me say that again. all open positions and units. laertds from all services have committed to this deadline. and i'm going to do my part to ensure that these deadlines are met. however, it's not just about meeting these deadlines. each service will have an opportunity to present a case for exceptions to this policy. and i believe it is our responsibility to make certain unnecessary exceptions are not accepted. you see, time and time again female soldiers, marines, sailors, and airwomen have proven all we have to do is look at iraq and afghanistan, they've proven that they are just as capable as their male counterparts. and time and time again servicewomen have been placed in combat, but they've been denied the recognition.

so we're standing at a critical point in this integration process. there's no time for the services to question whether or not we should be fully integrating women into all specialties. that question that's been answered and now it's time to act on it. i believe it's a disservice to women in the military for any of the services to be dragging their feet in this process. and i know -- i understand that many of you have concerns, especially with the marine corps and their integration plan. well, i'm here to tell you i'm aware of these concerns and i will continue to push for answers in terms of their ground combat element integrated task force and their resistance to

opening certain specialties. i'll also be focusing on urging the department to be more transparent on where we stand in terms of this process. along with working together to ensure that each service is doing its due diligence in educating and training its members in order to conduct a smooth implementation. you see, we can allow women to be in. we can have women there who want to be there. but if the men allowing them make it difficult we're not going to get the results we need. so before i conclude i want to thank women in international security and its combat integration initiative, alliance for national defense, reserve officers association, and no xechgss exceptions for organizing this discussion. and especially to express gratitude to ellen herring, holly hemphill, and gray jacob

for all of your support these past couple of years on this issue. i look forward to continuing this work together and ensuring once and for all that women are provided the same opportunities as men in our united states military. thank you for -- once again for allowing me to participate in this discussion. and i wish you all a successful event.

i'm retired air force colonel mcsally. and i'm currently a congresswoman for the 2nd district. >> can you provide a little information about your background and why you're interested in the integration of women in ground combat positions? >> great. so i was in the ninth class of women to attend the air force academy. graduated in 1988. when i went to pilot training after graduate school while i was in pilot training congress repealed the law restricting women from being fighter pilots. and so -- and then after that it took till 1993 for the pentagon to actually change its policy. so i was in that leading edge of

women becoming combat pilots and timingwise i was in the group of the first seven women selected in the air force to transition into fighters. and the first to actually fly in combat and later on the first to command a quiter squadron in combat. i flew the a-10 warthog, got my little necklace here, which is a wonderful airplane. and i have 325 combat hours in iraq and afghanistan. and served 26 years in the military and retired as a colonel. you know, i've been deeply passionate about giving women opportunities to serve in any roles, in any capacity, in any service. i think we need to pick the best man for the job, even if it's a woman. and i personally experienced some of the emotional debates about why all women can't do certain things and therefore all men can. during the debates of whether women should be in air combat. and so those same flawed arguments have been used related to ground combat. and i've studied the issue. i published on the issue. and i've been a really strong

advocate to make sure that any woman in our country who has the capabilities to serve is able to serve in any position she's qualified for. >> what was it like to be one of the first women who was actually able to fly fighter pilots within the area of operation during campaigns? >> well, the transition was one that really showed me as still a young officer that leadership makes the biggest difference. we previously during the debates had a chief of staff of the air force testifying before congress against women flying in combat aircraft aircraft. and he would be asked things like so you would rather pick a less qualified man over a more qualified woman to go fly these aircraft? and he would say things like -- i'm paraphrasing. yes, i would, and i know that's difficult to justify but it's just the way that i feel. and so this is our leader, who set the tone and the climate for the transition. of course, he had to get behind it once the secretary of defense changed the policy. otherwise, he needed to resign.

so he sort of got behind it. but obviously he had been very vocal against it. and it was a challenging transition. there was still a tremendous amount of hostility, a tremendous amount of emotion about why women as a hole either couldn't or shouldn't be flying fighters. and that's really the same argument you'll see for ground combat or other positions. the arguments are lumped into women as an entire group, as a class, can't do this, they don't have the ability, and so that doesn't treat people like individuals, which is like the foundation of what our country's all about. and then there's the women shouldn't do it, you know, the cultural women are not supposed to be warriors, that's up to the men and all the cultural things. and so we were fighting those two very emotional and irrational arguments as we transitioned into fighters. so there was a lot of hostility. a lot of people wanted us to fail. you know it was a lonely journey but i was really honored

and thankful that i had the opportunities. and once you prove yourself you see the guys i was in a squadron with, they very much respected me, and i really was a part of the squadron. it was often the people who were not in our squadrons who were still dealing with their own insecurities, that would try to figure out how to derail us. especially when we started getting promoted to flight lead instructor pilot, and getting promoted in the ranks. then some of the hostility got stronger. but you know you prove yourself and do your job and that's all that really matters. the airplane doesn't care what gender you are. >> now you are a congresswoman, you who do you view your role in overseeing military policy as it relates to servicewomen? >> so the way the founding fathers set p our divided

government, we've got co-equal branches, the legislative branch provides oversight to the executive branch. we've got the defense department, starts with the commander in chief down through the operational chain of command down. to overturn the policy making

the servicewomen wear the abaya in saudi arabia. i went on a one-woman lobbying campaign to do that. as a citizen i had to get sponsors in the house and the senate and have them shepherd it. the bottom line is congress has a tremendous role and we've got very few veterans in congress. we have very few female veterans in congress. i'm the only female veteran in the republican side in congress. and so i am an important voice and a rare voice. we definitely need more of us there. having served and having sefshds as a woman to be providing oversight to their policies related to how women are being integrated. so i intend to be doing that as an important voice. >> do you think the department of defense should allow any exceptions to full and complete integration of women into ground combat positions? >> do i notno, i do not. i've been very vocal on this. i've published on it. back in 2007. continue to be a voice in the media, at these conferences in the past. i think we need to set standards across the board for every job and i think we need to pick the best person for the job and treat people as individuals. i saw that the secretary of

defense made some comment in the last week about how women may be more susceptible to sexual assault if they're integrated into combat units, and i really am concerned about that line of thinking and have spoken out about this in the past. we have certainly a huge problem with sexual harassment and sexual assault. but to think about this, that we would have a potential rapist or assaulter who is in a u.s. military unit and is functioning there and serving there and deploying overseas and as a part of our communities when they're back home and that we would put a female servicewoman, you know, in their midst and therefore somehow that would make her subjected to sexual assault and somehow that would then be like her problem when you have a potential assaulter and a rapist in your unit and you would be okay with him just staying there and maybe committing assault on other civilians somewhere else, i mean, i know that's not what they're saying, but the point is if you have a perpetrator or potential perpetrator in the

unit we need to rout out the perpetrator. we don't need to close out the opportunities of women to be in that unit because we have potential perpetrators in that unit. that's the kind of logic that the taliban and other extremist organizations use in order to keep women segregated from men in their societies, that we're trying to do it in order to keep women safe. that's really flawed lodgic and we shouldn't tolerate it and we shouldn't confuse the issues as we're dealing with sexual assault and women's integration in the military. >> what would your response be if at the end of this year the department of defense decides to keep some occupations or units closed to women? >> my response would be that that's unacceptable and i would look forward to certainly hearing them out as to what their arguments are but in my role of oversight we get to make the final -- you know, the final say. so i intend to work with my colleagues, and i like my new colleagues to make sure we give women every opportunity to serve. that's our plan.

[ applause ] >> so in closing i'd like to say that we here at wise plan to continue the combat integration initiative, to have follow-up events like this, to stay on top of this topic, continue to research, study and publish on what's happening. and unfortunately, there's some rumors we're hearing that there's the potential to extend the deadline that members of congress who have been lobbied i don't know by who, but there may be an amendment in the works to extend the january 2016 deadline for the services. so we definitely plan to watch this and try to figure out or understand why that might be happening. if you'd like to stay up with what we're doing, please go to our website. sign up for our newsletter and become a member of women in

international security. and lastly i can't close without saying thank you to the people who have been running around this room today. you see them. stephanie brightsman. brook steadman who actually isn't here but she did a lot to put together this event tath. julian den icky, gabe daily, mark kong. and chantal diunga ondrat, who almost three years ago she opened her arms and invited us in. the military, myself as the first military fellow here. and has really backed this initiative and effort to study and follow the combat integration of women in the military. so thank you all for coming. i've got to say this too. to the women in this audience who had really, really stepped out and been pioneers, we saw three on the stage, but there were many, many more of you in the audience. these ladies here who went to ranger school. there were other cultural

support team members in the audience. i've gotten some marine friends here, cobra pilots who didn't even hear their stories, but there's just so many unbelievable stories in this room. and so thank you all for coming today, and i salute all of you ladies. [ applause ] >> please enjoy the wine and catering. >> can you make me a plate? what do you want? >> everything. >> cheese. >> the supreme court hears arguments tomorrow on same-sex marriage cases from kentucky, michigan, ohio, and tennessee. at issue are whether same-sex

couples have a right to marry and whether out of state marriages must be recognized. about 2 1/2 hours of oral arguments are expected. you can hear it all here on tapes tomorrow at 4:00 eastern time. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2, hear on c-span 3 we compliment that koj by showing you the most relevant hearings and public affairs events. then on weekends c-span 3 is the home to "american history tv" with program. s that tell our nation's story including six series the civil war's 150th anniversary visiting battlefields and events american artifacts, history book shelf with best known american history writers the presidency lectures in history, and our new

series reel america featuring government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span 3, funded by your local cable or satellite provider. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. at the international. consumer electronic show in las vegas earlier this year we spoke with university of california san francisco cardiologist dr. michael blum about developments in medical technology and the future of medicine. >> you have to bring. together those two very different organizations, two different dnas and cultures to get to that space where we need to be. we're not going to invent these sensors and build huge cloud data databases. that's what they are going to do. they are great at that stuff, but they don't know about clinical process or doing clinical trials, discovering what really works. so we're working on these novel

partnerships marrying the two up and trying to attack the space. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span 2. the house science, space and technology committee held a hearing last week on the benefits of hydraulic fracking. the process of injecting water, sand and chemicals into rock deposits deep underground to release natural gas. republican congressman lamar smith chairs the committee and eddie johnson is the ranking member.

>> the committee on science, space and technology will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare recesses at any time. welcome to today's hearing on the science behind hydraulic fracturing. i'll recognize myself for an opening statement and then the ranking member. the combination of hydraulic fracture fracturing and direction of drilling called fracking is arguably one of the most significant technological advancements in the history of the oil and gas industry. this technological breakthrough helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs been the catalyst for reserging manufacturing sector, and has enabled our nation to be more energy independent. as with any type of technological progress from oil and gas development any risk must be evaluated carefully by the use of verifiable science.

unfortunately opponents of hydraulic fracturing make claims based on the possibility and not the probability of associated risk. the environmental protection agency has used this agenda-driven approach to wrongly assert a connection between hydraulic fracturing and ground water contamination tam naigs. an order that halted natural gas development only to have the texas railroad commission invest and find the epa was wrong. in wyoming the epa released a report that claimed hydraulic fracturing caused water contamination. however, it was later discovered that the report had several glaring weaknesses. among them the report failed to take into effect naturally occurring natchural gas, it was not peer reviewed, it involved poor sampling and lacked data transparency. the epa was forced to abandon its investigation. then in pennsylvania, the ppa reinitiated an investigation into ground water contamination

after it had first agreed there was no contamination. seven months later the epa indicated that oil and gas. development was not the cause of the contamination. the decision to reinitiate the investigation was based on political pressure from activists who oppose hydraulic fracturing. it is incredible given their track record that the epa is now working on another large study to suggest a causal connection between hydraulic fracturing and ground water contamination. their refusal to accept good science knows no bounds, which is why we should be suspect of other findings by the epa. their political agenda drives their science agenda. perhaps most troubling is that epa study does not include a risk assessment in their analysis. this means the study will be focused on possible problems with hydraulic fracture inging,

rather than is what is likely or probable. the mere possibility that something may occur will do little to help regulators e evaluate the overall process. the science overwhelmingly shows that high dralic fracturing can be done in an environmentally safe manner. even the administration agrees and has repeatedly said that potential risk can be avoided through modern technologies based on sound science. president obama has stated that, quote, we should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer, end quote and that the natural gas boom made possible has led to quote, greater energy independence and we need to encourage that, end quote. in fact, even the current administration of the epa said, quote, there's nothing inherently dangerous in fracking that sound engineering practices can't accomplish, end quote. why does the epa repeatedly and publicly work with the process that causes water contamination

to be forced after the claims are subjected to scientific scrutiny. meanwhile the allegations make headlines, the retractions a footnotes. the bias against fracking is the opposite of the accepted science scientific method. highydraulic fracturing made america an energy leader, yet there are still those that believe that regardless of the science shs the process should be banned. activists who spread misinformation about the science in an attempt to convince americans that there is no way fracking can be done safely. the administration relies on questionable studies and reports that are paid for peer reviewed by and disseminated by a network of environmentalists with an ideological agenda. using scare tactics to impede oil and gas will cost our communities jobs, our states revenue and force us to increase our dependence on foreign oil.

safe domestic natural gas production has benefitted the environment, the economy and the hard-working families who now enjoy reduced energy cost. that concludes my opening statement. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for her opening statement. >> thank you very much, and let me thank our witnesses for being present. i am from texas, and i served with your father in the texas house. he was there when i got there and he's still there and i got there in '73. i am pleased that the oil and gas industry has done so well and most especially during the obama administration's tenure. however, i'm also a nurse by training and i'm sensitive to the need to protect public health even as we develop new fossil fuel resources.

this hearing is advertised as being about the science of fracking, but the majority of the witnesses consist of state economic regulation and development officials, a representative of a firm set up to run public relations for the fracking industry is and a scientist who has been paid by one of the largest fracking firms in the country. that does not sound like a promising panel to honestly examine the scientific questions. looking at the majority's material and testimony it is clear that this is a hearing designed to give a platform to attack those who question the safety of practices within the industry. in particular there is a focus on undermining local communities that are considering have adopted limits or bans on frack

fracking. more than 500 local communities including some in my home state of texas have raised drn concerns about the practice of acking and have considered our past bans to restrict fracking activities. these of our constituents dealing with real issues, real environmental and public health implications. we should not belittle or diminish their concerns or simply dismiss them as unsophisticated. instead i'm going to suggest that the answer to calming the fears of local communities is not to be found in attacking their u motives or information but through more transparency by by. the industry and more effective regulation by states and the federal government. people have concerns about the fracking industry because they can see it is largely unchecked. for example, in the state of colorado, with over 52,000 active fracking wells the