sector now, feel free to share anything with us at all. [laughter] anything with us at all. [laughter] michael: i think i will take a pass on that one. the threat of a terrorist attack remains a national security threat, clear and present danger along with cyber attack. we have other longer-term strategic challenges, but they occupy policymakers' minds every day. isil is a bigger threat because of its ability to inspire so-called lone wolf or radicalization attacks across the world. but al qaeda is more sophisticated. so if an airliner blew up over the u.s., it would more likely be al qaeda today ban -- than isil. and that remains a significant

danger. al qaeda has suffered losses much they are still very in the game. it can come back in various ways. kathleen: i do think it is a significant threat. i do not think it is overblown. and as discussed in some of the previous panels, particularly with the j johnson, in part it is because of the fact that there is an area, a territorial region, that has been able to occupy -- that it has been able to occupy and operate from. and they do operate worldwide. al qaeda is not permanently out, but we can try to keep them there. to the extent that al qaeda have been significantly degraded is because of a lot of worldwide attention. not least of all the determined -- the two gentlemen to my left and right.

and i think that is what it takes when ford. whether it is al qaeda, al-shabaab, you name it, it takes a concerted, long-term effort with all the tools that we have. kim: did you expect we would still be a nation in this fight now? it is greatt me say to be back in this form. i apologize for not being michael, but it is great to give this band back together. i will also say that i spent most of my time in uniform avoiding kim dozier. [laughter] but it wasn't for lack of respect for her tenacity or the quality of her work. it is good to be with you today. i leftdid not hear --

military service now almost four years ago. isis is not on our scope. the persecution and the violence are threatening and scary to many. and it is a real threat to us. but i think that when we speak of isis as kind of the next generation of al qaeda, we under credit them as an army. al qaeda clearly a terrorist group, but isis is organized and behaving like an army with military military structure -- with real military structure. they seized the territory in a way that al qaeda could not do.

so i think that makes it not an apples to apples comparison. >> and yet there are other threats out there. the asymmetric threat posed by russia in places like ukraine. hezbollah, onf and on. north korea's nuclear threat. are our national security efforts skewed by the threat of isis and al qaeda when they haven't caused nearly that much damage in this country recently as compared to some of these actors?ctors -- other we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. we need to learn how to. i do not think that we send a -- spend a disproportionate amount of time on the isis threat or

that is taking away from our ability to focus on longer-term challenges. now, resources are limited. that is obviously money. sequestration makes it much harder. you will always have challenges with money. people, and the toolset we have. the toolset that the united states has is essentially a cold -- it is usually dissatisfying to the public because it is hard to figure out sometimes why interceded there and not there. why choose to apply power and resources there but not here.

ofso we are in a period unprecedented instability and we are recruiting national security threats. east asia is the most -- is really probably the locust of economic competition. we have three challenges to the world order right now. china and east asia, russia, and city jihadists and many others. -- sunni jihadists and many others in the middle east. but the capability in a to did for -- to defer conflict with china are not the same that you need for counterterrorism and stability in the middle east and vice versa. so you have to have a portfolio of capabilities and strategies to deal with a range of threats. i certainly have never seen such a wide range of threats from the -- high-end

>> the thing is, do you have the tools you need to do the job? to have enough forces to do it and are you getting a chance to do it on the ground? for instance, what is being done in ukraine to fight russian influence their? -- there? i hear pentagon officials talking about russian interference, but i'm not hearing what u.s. special operations is doing about it. and the head of special operations command speaks very openly about russia's asymmetric warfare there. that they have put their troops inside ukraine to direct rebel forces against the ukrainian government. what is the u.s. doing or can it do in return? fridayhe will be here on and i think that would be a good question for him. out, i have been

in the private sector, but the first word in private sector is private. and they had gone to school on special operations sort of concepts in executing that. special specifically operation forces might be doing is something that i won't talk about. i will jump in. it is no surprise that russians are good at unconventional warfare. we have long known that that is something they have continued to invest in and be good at. we have certainly seen them operate in chechnya and elsewhere. the surprise of course is that they chose politically to do this invasion.

definitely not something i would have foreseen. and shouldand can the u.s. be doing about it to go the u.s. israeli focused on middle and i do think special operations -- is focused on working with its allies, particularly in the baltics and -- to sure up the ability of those dates to withstand military aggression. ukraine is obviously much harder. moldova, georgia, ukraine, these are not made or territories. these are not covered by article five and it is much trickier. the u.s. and nato put forward of you that we would spend more time and attention on those partner states coming out of the

will's summit. important i is think it is important personally, i think it is important to provide that to forces and some special operations training should be a part of that. but by and large, our efforts should be focused on sticking to that article five. working by,is through, and with another organization>> well -- organization. doing a proxya is warfare. and then shift back to proxy work, but this proxy war is not just in ukraine and the -- -- ies

>> there is actually a command within the nato structure. there are people from a thrust the nato countries going to work every day that are in training. there is classroom training and field training that takes place. i do want to make sure that there is a recognition of the level of cooperation across the special operations. >> could you be saying that while we don't to u.s. boots on the ground in terms of special forces, teams, treating the locals, there might be european local special forces teams doing the same thing?

>> -- the equipment, the knowledge of each other's capabilities limitations is a very high level. >> but as you said, kim, part of the challenge is both in working with partners such as ukraine. building robust institutions that can protect themselves from a counterintelligence perspective against the russians. winning the battle of influence. one thing putin has done here, you have one in the short term, he has turned the ukrainians internationalists in a way no ukrainian politician could have done. and in the longer term, that is really the big fight. >> so to shift to the fight against the islamic state group in iraq and syria, the u.s. has a choice at this point.

it has chosen to fight through a large coalition, largely hands-off. might there be a time coming when the u.s. has to step -- you would have special forces with an afghan team. team would be allowed to do the fight until they started losing and then the u.s. would step in. [laughter] i think what we did in afghanistan in 2001 was remarkable. and al qaeda. but i wouldn't equates that in the same way as what putin has done in ukraine. i would say that is the marriage of modern conventional precision warfare with unconventional warfare that works so phenomenally. >> -- or do you need to ramp up

the number of u.s. advisers on the ground? joint their controllers? things that would make the iraqi forces, the kurdish forces in the region more effective today to go -- today? ms. hicks: i think there is room to grow, if you will. advisers. there is no doubt about that. but before you throw that out, there is a capacity issue, which is the ground forces that are there to work with. that is where i think there is rightfully a lot of attention right now and try to make sure we can get, collectively the coalition can get the iraq ease forces in-- to get that are, you know, a line to feel some sort of allegiance to the baghdad government.

and then are capable of working with u.s. and other trainers. where we have done that, obviously kurdish forces would be the most obvious example where they have been pretty aggressive. that has worked very well in terms of the u.s. ability to bring in firepower, the u.s. withty to marry ability their on the ground ability, and then the training aspect. and i will add, and i do think that has to be sustained. you cannot do that lightly and limited late and think that will take care of the situation. i think it is a long-term issue. but before we jump in with a whole lot more -- the ground forces can take years to grow. have the luxury of the time it is going to take to bring these forces up to speed?

mike? well, somr. vickers: ,ne motto is you train forces but basically they are going to do the fight. you are a trainer. that takes a lot longer to get them ready than if you are willing to advise and assist or actually go with them on the front lines. when you combine airpower with the ground force, u.s. in afghanistan in 2001 -- ms. kiefer: or afghanistan even now. mr. vickers: no, afghanistan 2001, you can get very dramatic effects in a short period of time. the reason is you have a ground force, and it doesn't have to be the world's greatest growth was, can exploit the effects of air power. if you don't, then it becomes very traditional and it takes a lot of -- a traditional -- atr

itional and it takes a lot of time. and the use of operations for the overuse of special problemns for every this country faces, or did argue that this white house uses them like the ultimate swiss army knife of the pentagon to throw them at problems. do you have the numbers you need to meet the mission set you face? , know you are a few years out but i know it is something you still watch. and you have been watching closely because you have needed them to other go out and protect your intelligence forces or to engage. i, sincers: eric and 9/11, we have doubled the size

-- we have quadrupled the use of these forces since 9/11. that is dramatic growth but they're also in great demand. the definition of a special operation is an operation conducted by forces for which other forces are not organized, trained, and equipped. so it is really a negative definition. and so the question is not should special operations forces be bigger because growth management has been a challenge, it is whether or not other forces should be organized, trained, equipped to do some the things that have fallen on special operations over the last few years because special

operations were sort of already there and add job. ms. hicks: just to make clear on that point of growth management, issue is maintaining the high level of quality that is in the special operations forces. vast expansion of them only makes that challenge that much greater which is why it is time to look at the regular forces to see how that commission in past is going between them and what training is to be done. also onf you look intelligence, community has also grown. in 2006, at the height of the iraq war, we had six of these unmanned aerial vehicles combat air controls, or people call them drones. they have to -- 60 some today.

so there is plenty of capacity. the world is a messy place. so well we are on that subject, due care to give us an update on where the service was when you left? because there was a move to grow it at a briefing about how you all plant to grow it to several thousand people to do the same kind of intelligence collection but of a different nature than cia overseas operatives do. there were reports that planned growth had been curtailed. mr. vickers: it is growing. it is an important initiative in terms of human intelligence, which is particularly important in this world against a range of challenges that you described. and the department of defense and our military have something to contribute to the overall national effort. it is a partner in that effort. .t is a compliment i would add it as a junior partner. it is not rivaling the size of the cia, but it is important and

we have had strong support from the cia in this effort. ms. dozier: it is still growing? mr. vickers: yeah, it is still growing. ms. dozier: you could give us a ballpark figure -- mr. vickers: i won't. [laughter] ms. dozier: ok. but that brings us to another subject. sometimes guns, sometimes remotely piloted vehicles, drones. the targeting end and the rating -- raiding end of special operations gets most of the headlines. it also gives a policy maker a black-and-white solution to the problem. there is a name that wasn't on the list and that name is crossed off the list. therefore, is targeting overused? we have had 13 years in the middle east of some of the most sophisticated targeting the planet has ever seen, yet we

have the growth of a second militant group that has reveled and now surpassed al qaeda. is targeting overused? so, one of the big revolutions in intelligence and the past decade or so has been the operationalization of a certain portion of our analysts, the target is -- targeters. where all these operations are really intelligence driven and the analysts are really at the center of it. back to the strategic effect, you mentioned al qaeda is on its heels in pakistan border region. only one of the senior leaders who were there for the 9/11 attacks is left. that organization is a shadow of

what it was just 5, 6 years ago. so it has been extraordinarily effective over many, many years. ms. dozier: but didn't just push the balloon to yemen? theuse now al qaeda in peninsula have a sophisticated making machine. mr. dozier: well, -- vickers: well, there was turmoil in the middle east at that opened up some front. but we talked about isil. isil was al qaeda and iraq. we knocked down al qaeda in iraq down 95%. a reconstituted in syria. they are back, as well. it was the entire might of the united states for several years and they still survived. why? because syria. there was a civil war in syria that is a good give them a new life. ms. dozier: so you are saying

you can help fight part of the problem, but it wasn't your job to bring stability to the middle east? mr. vickers: well, we tried, but we are still working on that one. mr. olsen: i agree with the ambassador from france that not every challenge is a nail, but there are some males out there that need to be hammered. and i think that part of it is the tactical removal of competent leaders of isil from their positions. the part of it is also the psychological effect of sort of reminding everyone that isil is not invulnerable. that they do have weaknesses capable be exploited by opposition forces. damages their recruiting efforts, it damages their own stick. and withe to reach in precision take out key leaders from within isil.

ms. hicks: let me jump in. i think it is really important to remember that we are operating under authority. these are authorities given in time of conflict that include the ability to use targeted approaches for capture, for intelligence gathering, and in some cases, for targeted killing. so i just want to start their because i do think -- there because i do think the drone debate has become unhelpful. does it have strategic sense? absolutely. and as policy makers, we have to be mindful of that reality. but if you look at the progression of warfare over time, we don't invade villages, we don't buy in large strategically bomb anymore, and the fact that we have it will set now that allows us to reduce the number of civilian casualties -- and we have really reduced the number of civilian

casualties in a conflict -- that is important to tell. are there civilian counsel to use that occur? yes. address that.d to but i think it has been a good tool in the toolkit. used well. and something we should continue to look at. and then back to eric's earlier point, isil is different than al qaeda in the sense that it is an army. you have a different strategy to attack that then you do al qaeda. there are common elements against the leadership, but you have to defeat an army with an army. ms. dozier: and yet isn't every drone strike a potential recruiting tool for the opposition? mr. vickers: well, there is that three out there. but we have an obligation to protect united states of america.

you know, it is funny, we have a lot of surveys in pakistan. the closer you are to the strike, if you are local, the more in favor of it you generally are. why? because the guys getting stuck other guys oppressing you. the more removed you are from the fight, the more you complain about your sovereignty being violated and lots of other things. but it has been a very, very affect the tool. kathleen talked about authorities. i just don't buy that argument. yes, it is a tough business. but it is a very effective one. mr. olsen: drones are in option. but when you compare the option of using a drone against the option of firing artillery rounds or dropping a bomb or putting a force on the ground, it is not that good an option.

for one thing, it can linger. it provides the ability to be patient in the decision to strike. it can be recalled without any effect at all, if that becomes the decision. a drone is actually a farmer disciplined -- far more disciplined way of precision strikes. ms. hicks: i just want to say that i think with this issue also gets to this information campaigns, which we are not great at. what would you say by an information campaign? ms. hicks: when a strike occurs, you are pointing to the fact that it was a recruiting tool. sometimes there is a factual -- there has been an attack and sometimes there is something of that happens. the taliban attacks would then be described as u.s. jones backs. so something happens and information is exploited on the

other side. if we jump ahead now to isis, they have an incredible recruiting capability in a very low-tech way. twitter is extremely simple. my children tweet. ms. dozier: you are not talking to isis. talkings: they are not to isis. they follow taylor swift, i think. but we in the united states -- this is back to the tools that issue. it is not a challenge that is best met first and fundamentally by a government organization in the light of day trying to tweet positions.vernment's it has to be more organic than that could and it has to be regional. in this case, it has to come from within the region. mr. vickers: and the best recruiting tool for these groups is attacks. you look at why people are flocking to isis, it is because

they had -- think they have established this caliphate they are successful. ms. dozier: and that brings me to the transparency piece. we discussed it before hand. it turns out we don't agree on this one. so i believe that when special operations forces are used so frequently in the operations often become exposed and social media, the rates that -- raids that got al qaeda -- and the raid that got the benghazi ringleader also in libya, that all broke on social media. so should there be a disclosure plan for every special operation? so that if it does become exposed, you can take part in that information campaign is that of what i often encounter is a spokesman or an official

i have i have a check -- to check to see how much we can declassify. well, -- mr. vickers: well, that is because we live in a fairly open world. and there are plans to be able to adapt rather rapidly to that. but there are also things we want to keep secret because we want to do these raids again. so we don't want to tell them exactly how we did it or who the forces were and put them or their families at risk or anyone else. ms. dozier: but there is a difference between saying this unit carried out this raid by helicopters, etc., etc. versus saying we acted -- some of the news releases we are seeing from actions out of syria right now, for instance, the pentagon announced that there was a drone strike the other day that took out the leader of the cores on group -- cores on --

group. there it is. a little press release. have a plan like that for every operation? mr. vickers: well, i think they do. mr. olsen: i agree with mike. it is not a forward leaning plan. it is a response plan. but there is no -- it is not always best to announce even your successes because sometimes even the confusion of the success, who survived, who didn't, who -- and the kind of operation itself when revealed can disadvantage us. so it is always very carefully considered. ms. dozier: so how about instead things that might be useful in terms of the information war by saying things that you know what the press?

this administration has had hot periods and cold periods in terms of when it will bring groups of reporters in two get briefings on what they are saying. but why not release the thellite images that show movement of russian forces into ukraine? why not release that study were talking about saying that more -- most pakistanis near a strike support the strike? mr. vickers: it went public. it was done by ngos and other. ms. dozier: i thought you were quoting a dod one. mr. vickers: no, there is a lot of information out there and we did share satellite information with our european allies to make the case for them. those are tools of foreign policy. we have done that throughout our history. the cuban missile crisis, i could become a lot of times. but we don't want to give a really high-end capabilities

that will show an adversary exec we what we can do to two cases, so we have to think about what you're going to release and how. ms. dozier: but i don't see it happen very often. it is a tool that the pentagon has employed in the past, such as when georgia was invaded and the press was being told one thing by the russian side. we had intelligence agencies tell us, will here are the satellite images we are seeing. the "to commercial -- then we could go to commercial groups and verify. so that gave the reporter a way to see what you all were saying rather than just having to take it on faith. we showed forces coming across the border, etc. ms. dozier: why not more with isis? -- [indiscernible] [laughter]

mr. olsen: it wasn't up to us to decide the policy in revealing operational information. so we stayed out of that. special operations command stayed pretty cool throughout it. >> [laughter] ms. dozier: so just a couple more questions before i open it up to the audience. the "new york times" had an article out recently about to navy seals and the joint special operations command. one of the officials quoted in the article anonymously said that the joint special operations command investigates jsoc. special operations does not hold itself to the same accountability standards as the rest of the forces. i can only speak from my own frustration. i would sometimes -- i found out, for instance, in an alleged strike that hit allegedly a wedding party in yemen, i found out that general l had ordered

an investigation into that. as a reporter trying to report to the american public, that jsoc was trying to investigate itself. and be responsible. why not publish more of this? in that particular case, the investigation was done by -- someone else. mr. olsen: i don't give much credibility to an anonymous source. and many of the other sources in the article have not served any time lately. and i can say that most of the time, almost all the time, areial operations forces

for bigger operations, certainly when there are other operations on the ground, they are almost always in support, almost always operating with the approval of the commander. they employ other forces in almost every special operation. airspace has to be cleared. logistic support has to be provided. met the circle support. intelligence analysts. ors is not a secret society something that operates independently. it operates with much transparency. no, not to you. but intentionally not to you. >> [laughter] full transparency within the chain of command and within the structure that is provided to do that. and i will say that as a matter of policy, a chain of command

cannot investigate within its own chain. it takes an outsider to do an investigation. so it may be within the special operations community, we may appoint an air force component related to investigate something that happened in a navy component, but to think that that sort of -- is sort of some secret cover up thing, there is never, to my knowledge, been any sort of revelation of some kind of cover-up that took place within the special operations investigation. ms. dozier: so what is their track record? of investigations within the force. mr. olsen: there are multiple investigations. i am speaking historically. i do not know the case now, but when i was there, there were multiple investigations underway every day looking into things that just didn't seem like, to committees or other leaders or in response to allegations that have been made in some way

against the force, there were many actions that were taken place, you also don't know about the disciplinary actions that are taking place sometimes to protect embarrassment of an individual or some other aspect of force capability. and my own sense -- it has all been quite well disciplined. ms. dozier: but i don't see secrecy is necessary to protect the embarrassment of an individual who might have committed a crime or done something wrong under the military court of justice. >> those things become a matter of record. not open record. so, last question, iran. through, andoes iran is allowed to ramp up its

energy only nuclear enterprise, will the u.s. intelligence community know if they cheat? mr. vickers: i have high confidence in the ability of the u.s. intelligence community to monitor processing's in iran, particularly compliance. there is always challenges with verification, but that is the structure of the deal. we know a lot about iran. ms. dozier: one of the generals from special operations who is serving on the ground in iraq right now said that he had -- head of the force inside iraq honestly believes that the u.s. is supporting isis and they learned this through intercepted communications, etc.

can the deal with iran in any way foster sums out of understanding between u.s. forcesand the iranian iraq, such as those misunderstandings go away? ms. hicks: i think you can look with some hope to the fact that we have been able to sit down for a negotiation with the iranians and not just the u.s., but also with our european partners and others. you can look with some hope to improve understanding, but i think that is next to a long road. the conspiracies in the middle east run every which way. if you were to have had that same conversation with somebody in the uae, they would probably tell you the u.s. and iran have struck a deal together to divide up the middle east. the reality is we are in for a of instabilityd

in the middle east with crosscurrents running every which way and the u.s. will have to be able to talk to parties in the region and reassure them as best they can about u.s. interests. mr. vickers: look, there is a lot of conflict points between the united states and iran that haven't changed by this deal. ,hey are supporting the leader who we want his removal and the transition of power in syria. supporting the terrorists in yemen. in iraq, we find ourselves on different sides from time to time, try to undermine our influence. ms. hicks: -- everywhere. mr. vickers: so there is a whole range of that. ms. dozier: just one last follow-up, how quickly will we know if they cheated? weeks, months, days? mr. vickers: well, it depends on what they are doing.

but it just depends. some could be hours, other things could be weeks. but, you know, you cannot just treat like that. guilty -- , large cheating takes some time. others might be hours, others a week. ms. dozier: so does -- mr. vickers: the question is then what you do about it. ms. dozier: so does opening up of relations with iran, the slight opening, me that either the u.s. or other intelligence services could have greater visibility on what is going on? mr. vickers: i think the deal structure is to try to give us greater access. and access is generally a good thing, but we are not fully dependent on that. ms. dozier: without, i would like to open it up to the audience. please wait for the microphone. guy's one.

i have a -- guy swan. i have a question about sequestration. two weeks ago, we saw a large announcement by the army cutting down 40,000 troops. sequestration could take that down another 30,000 and that does not include cuts to the army national guard and the reserves. given that our special ops forces depend so much on the conventional force and the military services for enablers, recruiting, what kind of impact is that going to have given we are doing more with our special operations forces? thank you for that softball. i had the pleasure of being in texas the day the army announced it would be making cuts paid so i kept my head low. -- and so i kept my head low. it is going to have an effect overall.

look, the united states has made a decision to reduce the amount it is going to dispense -- going the base at least on budget. and that is a political decision that has to do with how we spend what we tax, how we spend on our domestic programs, and of course the national security peace. defense is the tail on the dog. those of us who live in the defense community, it all goes our minds because we live in that tale -- tail. but the rest of the public, they are not focused on that. and unfortunately, i think the reality of the facts, whether it is the army drawdown, whether it is readiness decline, whether it is the off template that forces the feeling, which is going up in several key areas, whatever it is going to be, that is going to be lagging unfortunately. and that is the reality we have to live with it the telltale signs that we have underinvested

in our military will come too late to fix some of the problems. then we be back in our usual mode of trying to catch up. we do have this release valve, if you will. funded throughs that. one of the last -- things we have worked on for the last 10 years or so. we will continue to live withoutyear for socom inability to plan long-term. and when it comes to the stress the high as where we are trying to do high-tech buildout, it is extremely challenging to do that in the world in which we don't know from year-to-year with the budget is going to look like. just predictability, even if it is a low level of funding, just predictability will help us plan because of the fence we need for the nation going out for 10

years over these challenges we face. mr. vickers: and sequestration is also particularly mindless. it cuts your least effective program by the same amount it cuts your most effective. i would say it depends on how the services prioritize. i think i have used a biological analogy. tend tonisms at risk shrink to protect their core. and the special operations forces are not at the core of any of the big service tip abilities, so the services -- provide the kinds of things in their budgets that special operations needs. but most of the growth over the last decade has not been in the corps -- core, it has been intelligence analysts, tactical air controllers, it has been these things that in a perfect

world would be provided by the big services. operations has to do it themselves. so i think what sequestration will do is put more pressure on each of the services to find within the reduced budget to invest in the kinds of things that special operations depends on. ms. dozier: next question. wait for the microphone. >> sheriff from charleston, south carolina. well-publicized, al qaeda communications, about the brutality and the impact that had. isil has been exponential in that regard. what is your assessment of what i would term as sort of an impotent, sort of an

international response to this. is anything in your mind concrete directed towards isis to emphasize or the incentivize that kind of brutality? >> we are certainly have to the incentivize that by killing as many of them as we can. [laughter] mr. vickers: but, you know, i so has a were -- isil has a war against everybody. we will do with them in a future day. right now, we're focused on the west. and he didn't pay attention to that. isil makes war on anybody. and it has been successful to some extent. it's brutality backfired. that is what led to the awakening. and at some point, it is going

to backfire on isil. the sunni areas of iraq, if you tie to look at it in straight military terms and see how do 2000 guys in vehicles defeat an army of 50,000 that we spend $25 billion training, it doesn't -- is because of the politics, the frustration with the central state, etc. and that will turn on isis at some point. ms. dozier: jennifer. >> thank you. jennifer with fox news. i have a question. do you see a time when women conserve and special operations forces, delta force, rangers, navy seals, and if you were still commander, do think you would be asking for an exemption later this year? and for the panel as a whole, do

think the u.s. created isis by invading iraq in 2003? mr. olsen: well, i will answer the first question and let the panel get to the rest of it. >> [laughter] mr. olsen: there have been female operators in the special operations community for a long time. they have gone as far forward, they have stayed along, they have lived under the same conditions as the man. they serve in our military support roles, they have performed with great distinction , sometimes quite heroically. is much more opportunity, i think, for women to serve across the special operations community. so i do see increased roles for women across special operations. that doesn't mean i'm a

proponent of all military occupational specialties being open to all women, all the time. but i do think there is much more that women can do in very important roles in combat in environments. and i will open it to the rest of the -- followks: just wanted to -- ms. dozier: just wanted to follow. women had the physical attributes to join a seal team, what you think it would do to unit cohesion to have her on the team? mr. olsen: well, there are women who have served on platoons and green berets and the marine corps. but that is different than everyone on that team relying on that woman to drag them out of the firefight or risking getting shot and then

having to deal with her being -- (202) 748-0003 for it is, -- mr. olsen: it is, it is. the question is what will it do to unit cohesion? i don't think that is the right question. it is what does it do to tactical decision-making in the field. which is a big question about how tactical leaders will respond to being in a position to take the first bullet on a target. there has been great success with women on targets, and the cultural support teams, which have been written about sums lately that were quite effective, but i would just remind you that there will on target was not to become bet soldiers. wasthe first thing they did take their helmets often let their hold -- hair down and corralled the women and children

and have a very important mission on the target that only they could do. that kind of role that women can perform that men can't do something we had to seek every opportunity -- ms. dozier: but you would feel more comfortable with that than having them in a direct combat role, going to the door first as the shooter? mr. olsen: if you are asking me personally as an american male, the answer is yes. i don't want to sound like an old white guy. >> [laughter] mr. olsen: i think that we are only having part of the discussion on women and comment. and this wasn't supposed to be about that. >> [laughter] mr. olsen: but since you asked, i think we need to ask ourselves as a society if we are willing to put women in the front lines to take the first bullet. are we willing to cause women to serve in units against their will, as we do men?

about 30% of infantry units are meant who did not volunteer to be on frontline combat. if we are willing to order women into combat, not just let them volunteer for it, then that is an entirely different opportunity. if we are, as a society, willing to stop saying women and children first and instead say every man for himself on a sinking ship, then that is the kind of discussion we are to be having because it does affect how we think about women in very dangerous roles. so that is kind of my sense at this point. the decisions will be made here in january of 2016 regarding what roles women will have. ms. dozier: and that last question -- did the invasion of iraq help create isis?

or create? mr. vickers: to create, no. they were formed before the invasion in 2002. left afghanistan and made his way into iraq. did it intensify the growth of al qaeda in iraq after 2003? you bet it did. and then if you move forward to the rise of isis after al qaeda and iraq were largely defeated, it is really a creation of the syrian civil war, a lot of them operated from their -- there during the iraq war. al qaeda and iraq is not just jihadists, it is former iraq

military officers and others. and then, you know, created by -- or at least allowed to expand by iraqi government actions and how they managed their state. ms. hicks: completely agree. ms. dozier: so, on that note, thank you very much. and conversation to be continued. >> [applause] >> tonight here on c-span, portions of the annual netroots nation conference from phoenix. you will hear panelists discuss how to elect more democrats to local office and strategies for electing more women and minorities. >> it is also helping candidates to understand that they do have some of the resources that they need in order to raise

competitively. every state has a different lot about who gets paid, who doesn't, how much you are allowed to contribute. but so many women who are, like, i am not rich, i don't have a lot of rich friends, i cannot run for office because of that. the basicitting on list of 5000 and four that has 5000 contacts in it and i always ask them, namely five people right now who if you told them they were running for office, they would be so excited. they always have 25. and many of those people have never been asked to contribute mutually by a political candidate ever. >> again, you can watch the entire discussion from this year's netroots nation conference here on c-span. tonight, panels on electing local democrats and on electing

minorities and women. >> this weekend on the c-span networks, politics, books, and american history. c-span live from the iowa state fair. candidates speak on the soapbox beginning saturday at noon. we will hear from republican rick santorum and him across lincoln chafee and senator bernie sanders. sunday afternoon, more coverage with republican candidates than carson at 5:00 followed by george pataki on c-span2 saturday night at 10:00 eastern. senator claire mccaskill on her life and political career. and the discussion on finance campaign laws on c-span3 sunday morning at 10:00 eastern with residential candidates visiting the iowa state fair, we will

learn about the fair's history and the tradition as a stop on the road to the white house as you look back at the 2008 presidential race. saturday evening at 6:00 on the civil war, historian and author john on the 1864 battle of mobile bay, the resulting union victory and the closing of one of the confederacy's last major ports. get our complete schedule at www.c-span.org. bloomberg -- club inonal press washington, d.c. port remarks on race issues in america. we will hear from the reverend john richard bryant, he is senior bishop at african methodist episcopal church. -- it plays an important role and we will get to that in a moment. first, i want to introduced arcs -- -- our distinguished head table. from the audience is bright, writer for diplomatic courier

and board member for interface voices on mpr and a national press club member. robert mcpherson, correspondent for a jobs press and the national press club member who covered the charleston south carolina shooting and has covered other mass shootings in the united states. shawna thomas, senior producer for nbc's "meet the press," and a club member. bishop william bilbo, prison -- , i guess that the speaker. bruce johnson, anchor, reported toward w usa channel nine cbs and one of the newest members of the national press club. we are so proud to have him. the reverend dr. cecelia williams bryant, wife of richard bryant and a guest of the speaker. [laughter] breaking news editor

for usa today. she is a past president of the national press club in the current vice chair of the club's speaker committee. skipping over our speaker, jeff beaulieu, news editor for al jazeera english. the vice chair of the national press club board of editors and the member who organized today's luncheon. thank you. a supervisor of the african methodist this couple church --african methodist episcopal church and the guest of our speaker. george thompson of thompson and associates, a national press club member and he invited bishop bryant to be our speaker today. denise barnes, chair of the national newspaper association and publisher of "the washington informer," and a member of the national press club.

sainted john, a freelance photographer, club member of the national press club photo committee. [applause] i also want to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences to this event you can follow the action on twitter. use the hashtag npclive. that is npclive. it has been almost two months since the mass shooting in charleston, south carolina. nine worshipers, including the pastor were killed during a weekly bible study inside the historic mother emmanuel african church.t episcopal quickly after the tragedy, bishop bryant called the nation to prayer. barely 24 hours later, there was a vigil in the packed in

sweltering morris brown ame church just blocks away from her the shooting occurred. that they, reverend bryant invoked the african-american .egacy of resilience he said that the shooting suspect, dylann roof, had "picked the wrong place and the wrong crowd." bishop bryant then discussed the problem of gun violence. the days that followed saw a massive outpouring of sympathy and the global dialogue on forgiveness, faith, race, and guns. since those early days after charleston, much as happened. the confederate flag was removed from the grounds of the south carolina state capital and from other public places. the nation's continuing struggle with racial division has

continued to play out in the streets of ferguson, missouri. there have been new incidents of mass gun violence in lafayette, louisiana, and chattanooga, tennessee. and reports of gun violence continue daily in washington, d.c., chicago, and in other cities and towns across america. the reverend dr. martin luther king, who once spoke in this very room right about where i am a 1967g, he said in essay, he asked the question -- where do we go from here? chaos or community? perhaps are guest today can try to answer that question. please give a warm national press club welcome to the presiding and senior bishop of the african methodist episcopal church, the right reverend john richard bryant.

[applause] acknowledge let me my wife, my partner in marriage and ministry for 46 years. [applause] i am happy to have the patriarch of our family here, mr. charles robinson who will turned 90 later this month. [applause] i'm happy to have my sister here, cynthia bryant, god bless you. [applause] jamaal harrison

bryant. [applause] wilkinsodson michael ray. [applause] i have a host of sons and daughters in the ministry here, so they may have thought i would get an amen in this crowd, so they came to give me some backup. [laughter] let me share in the next 20 minutes or so what all of us june 17, wednesday in the ground floor of mother emmanuel african episcopal thi

church. the young stranger comes in that he is treated like a fellow program. whoits amongst the people are studying the word of god and praying. , gets up andater beginsloaded gun, he tempted that gun -- to empty that gun to human flesh. .loors, walls, ceilings it, thenads, empties , and empties it.

people, none of whom ,hose name he probably knows dead in the pull of their own l of their ownpoo blood. , what aorrible night , but afterperience it, believe it or not, some good stuff happened. it is almost like easter that comes after good friday. .ome good stuff

amir of the southern city comes and spins -- spends the night amongst the people. when i arrived the next day, this is how he was described to us.y a layperson, he loves that is the mayor, he loves us. while reporters, tv anchors were searching for motives, he said crime., this is a hate some good stuff happened. bothovernor showed up and the governor and the mayor

participated in what we as a church call the ministry of presence. when it is not so much what you , it is what your presence communicates. so the governor of this southern stays ands and she says, we will bring the perpetrators to justice. some good stuff. was able to get a church and of a real

pastor.ption of a real they were murdered while studying the word of god. pastored by a man who loved family, lovedis his flock, loved his community. floor because he was a state representative and an important vote was coming up. his seatmate said, you are going to stay with this boat -- this

vote? he said, no, i'm going to a prayer meeting. i have been elected here but i have been selected there and i have made it there that my first priority is the church, so he rushed to death. mother emmanuel demonstrated the anystian gospel better then diligent in any seminary. any the knowledge and in any seminary. love those who despite fully -- you, and in thee d

face of what real christianity , it got the attention of the nation and so much of the world. some good stuff happened. mother emmanuel had security , and on the security camera, a captured the image of this young man. there andement was they announced they would use everything at their disposal to bring the perpetrator to justice and in quick order, he was arrested. some good stuff happened.

communicationd and fromnd the world around the country. $10,000 in oakland sent . -- areong soulmates lifelong soulmates, the quicker , who first befriended us when we started over 200 years word to me that we want to do something. we have a retreat center if there are those in the community who just need to get away or need to have someone to help please, contact

us. we would like to welcome those persons to the retreat center for your charge. calls, and thee various nominations -- nationstions from other .ll wishing to share our grief some good things happened. in the city of charleston, s.c., services held in the heart of the black community. and acteds showed up .s if they were not afraid

restaurant and while eating, the patrons kept coming to share the .ondolences don't try to pay for this meal. we just feel so bad as the city that this has happened. them, blacks it to lives matter. -- they acted as if to them black lives matter. the governor of the southern

state said it is time for the .lag to come down ney wasstor pinck elected, such a young man elected, france said to him, you will finally be able to bring that flag off of that tax paid land. and he said it will not happen in my lifetime. and he was right, but it .appened that is some good stuff, isn't it? stuff?t is the bad the bad stuff, for me, is the guns.

nation hasfair this with the guns. -- a like owning a pimple pitbull that keeps biting people and to keep defending it because you love it. that gun, the violence in their , when homicide takes place in the home, present is the gun. increasing suicide, the instrument of choice is the gun. 2010, over 8000 people have been shot mistakenly in our

national parks by the gun. emotionalwe make gunstment to hold on to the , and of late, it seems as if we have fallen madly in love with the gun. legislative houses all across the country are making new arrangements that the gun will be present in new places. president of nra said that pinckney's death was his fault. , he norhe had had a gun

his members would have died. facts do not bear that irony. we keep saying the gun will protect us and yet it seems to make us more violent. we sell more and we own more guns than any nation in the world and we are the most violent nation in the world. .t seems to increase it i said in south carolina that in my city that look like we were going to win the stanley cup. we had to get the people together because if they win, they did not want them to tear the city up.

when you win, emotions run high. so you put out of control emotions and flickr -- and liquor together, now add the guns -- is that insanity? head, you know? hip, you know?ur that is what we are returning to. take it to school. take it in a restaurant. wear it on your hip. what is the fascination? -- what is the fascination with this instrument that can do so

much damage, so much harm? that is a bad thing. the gun hasn't moved an inch in the aftermath. it is free. , we are stillth .tuck with racism racism in this country has been .laguing us from the beginning i was telling some people, i have churches in india, and i was reading an article about next decade,the they are supposed to surpass china and population but the scholars say they will not pass china because india has the cast

the cast system which takes a large group of people out of the next and china does a better job of integrating everybody. racism, where large proportion is thinking,tion and it is a challenge. it is a challenge to our political system. the 2012 election, the republicans said repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly that they were standing on the side of the .% the democrats said repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly we are for the middle class.

nobody spoke for the poor. [applause] and african-americans had made us have in that more of risen to the middle class but the shame is that those at the are increasing in great and nothing is being done about it. i have watched the republican debates. they you believe that andd spend that many hours

nobody deal with racism? eating away at the fiber of this country. , the need to look down on ,omething, to not see somebody to not see, to not see. invisible in the culture, to not see. that half -- that over half of african-americans are not graduating from high school. cannot see it. -- to not see it. that there is a

different set of laws for blacks than there are for whites, to not see it. cannot see it. -- to not see it. an article written in "the new york" magazine about one week ago, they were reporting on research just done that found , white the schools rulesen who offended the were either given medication or sent to therapy, counseling. glaxo offended the rules -- blacks who offended the rules or to prison for

the same infections -- for the same infractions. a psychologist reported in the downarticle that a study -- that by study done by researchers that in the eyes of looks, black children older and larger than their white counterparts. see -- listen the way a black as described who breaks the law. child.s the term used, hugis delinquent or t

because in their eyes, he looks so menacing, he looks larger, he looks older than his white counterpart. brownn who killed michael monster.ived like a and the grand jury agreed. racism, it is a challenge to the church, it is a challenge to the because in the name of jesus of nazareth, our liberator and emancipated or, we cannot be silenced more otherworldly.

and watch our people or fail to see our people are suffering. part of my district is detroit with there is still amongst the black community 40% unemployment. ratesese unemployment so high and no job training. they act as if black lights don't matter. i resent it when i say black lives matter and people respond "all lives matter." i ain't talking about all lives. [laughter] [applause]

it is clear in america that some do not matter. i am talking about bringing attention to the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed, who are still human beings, who still need to be rescued. who still need the ministry of presence. challenge to the white church. how are you able to sing hymns and not mention what is going on right around us week after week after week after week after week ? it is a challenge to law enforcement.

it is a problem when the , of good police do not put the bad place in check. it is a challenge to law prosecutors, when they see our black differently than they see a white. the prisonllenge to industry which has been called the new jim crow. i think my 20 minutes are about up. [laughter]

i am not finished but i will stop. [laughter] and receive what questions you might have. [applause] >> let's start with a question about the gun, which you talked about. gun control, gun legislation. aftermathike in the of the shooting, there was no budging. how optimistic are you of any kind of regulation forthcoming, and will it happen at the state level or the federal level question mark will congress take any action? what is your outlook of the gun policy front? mr. bryant: "not in my lifetime." thank god for god's time.

>> amen. my prayer is the people will get enough. i do not see the change coming from a legislators. but when we get enough of the violence, it is so alarming to look at statistics and homicide rates globally in the developed world as compared to the u.s. 10, 20 times greater here. agoad an article not long about the murders and the shootings by police of citizens.

certaine like in a country, that year, 3, 4, in our country, 370 something. enough, and when good people start remaining silent -- >> all right. i am hopeful that then the change will calm. -- come. mr. hughes: in the last two church has ame experienced teat of strategies that directly reflect the state of race relations in -- of after americans in the united states. the miamirt time, church found itself in the religious spotlight usually consumed by black mega-churches p or what is the church doing with this opportunity to help civil rights movements like black lives matter and what are the local church is doing? mr. bryant: glad you asked. [laughter]

a lot of our churches are mega-churches. a lot of our churches have been on the fighting line continuously. without publication. i am now a bona fide senior citizen. [laughter] 70's, you would call the news conference and news would show up. today, you can call the news conference and nobody comes. happenned in charleston , emanuel has been that doing ministry for 200 years. brother here who

said he was at bible study in emmanuel last wednesday. it was packed. most of the people were white. they did not know it was there. i responded to a letter that said all of this marching and protesting does not mean anything, you all have not done anything. i've wrote them back. some, i write back. i said, never confuse the as thee of the camera presence of our activity. the cameras left charleston and are now following trump. [applause]

but last week, i had a tour. my son has opened up a center, a school, feeding 500 young people. they are in baltimore. [applause] i was able to walk around and see young people in large ,umbers, so quiet and orderly behind new computers. with satellites hanging from the ceiling, learning about saving and investing from those who were experts. being exposed to the arts.

i wrote back to the person, just because you have not seen it on tv, doesn't mean it is a non-reality. it is real. i walked through it. just the cameras have gone. and other things have taken but we do notmore have a mechanism to share it. so we are the church. enough. we can never do do, it's not nearly enough. much is going on to continue to make a difference. then we have to learn to share through this medium, twitter,

facebook, those are our new reporters. when the reporters going to come, we can reported ourselves. a lot is going on and a lot more needs to go home. mr. hughes: are the destructive tactics of the black lives matter movement that we have seen lately at campaign events, does that just -- is that justified or distracting? is it as disorganized as the occupy movement? do we need a clear goal like what we saw 50 years ago in mr.ama question mark bryant: i once passed in new england and it was a first-generation who basically came from the anglican church

and now they were in the ame church, trying to get used to our noise. [laughter] theyp in a board meeting, do not know how to have church. you are preaching and their whistling. .hey shouting right on that is not church talk. they should say a man -- amen, hallelujah, thank you, jesus. [laughter] i said to the brother, i said, now, suppose i got up from my seat and came where you are and hit you in the head with a hammer. would it be proper for me to tell you how to say ouch? [laughter] [applause]

scary to us. that is what i tried to say this morning. there is a large group of people who are suffering. one in four in the criminal justice system. jobployed, cannot find a here to add insult to injury, and are stilljobs poor, because the jobs pace a crowd thats is the has erected. really we need to try to run in shape,f it and gives it

that we think we could take that movement further down the road. what they have said to us is we have heard what you have said and we have tried it. when we can see people going inn and catch it on film, living color you see it. we are still angry. the way we responded years ago when we were taken through workshops, we have got to catch up to that. country, across the there is a deep feeling of

for people who feel that in this culture and in the society, there lies do not matter. they are saying, "hey! look at me. i'm a man, i'm a woman. i have needs like you do." and we have got to run behind them, cleaned it up, calm them .own but it is the response of the human soul that has been ignored. mr. hughes: mentioned racism and a got questions about racism. while the confederate flag in the rebel flag no longer flies in capitol grounds, what needs to be done to change the racist conditions that created an unapologetic killer like mr. roof?

another question or along similar lines says it is very good to take down a symbol of racism such as the confederate flag at the statehouse. how do you take down the racism in people's hearts and minds? mr. bryant: brothers and sisters of goodwill. of -- a lot has been said. i live in chicago when i was at , and it wasion about 50-50 black and white. telling the police what they will do and telling the police

where they can go. around.turned i kept -- [laughter] i kept my face front because they will not get killed. another brave young man i saw on withews who saw the police his foot on the neck and brutalizing an individual, he tackledt take it and he the police are the miracle, he did not die. -- the police. he did not was that die. he tackled the police and he did not die. so i am praying that as brothers seesisters of goodwill,

what is going on and speak out. the kind of racism i'm talking about cannot be legislated. the kind of deposits made in that young man'life, that birth that level of hatred. i'm talking about the african-american community. like you areeated nothing long enough, you act like nothing. in like manner, we have got to take care of that. intove got to do that job the hearts and spirits of our people.

even when everything around you tells you you are no good and you have no destiny. it is up to us to give them another message. on september 2, back to your situation, we will be back in this facility. news conference, ame church, the cme church, and ame zion church. on that date, we are going to roll out an agenda of what we to make these united humane and more united. and so, you're all invited back on10:00 in the morning

september 2 for the national press club. this questioner asks, on the scale of one to 10, how much progress have we made to realize dr. martin luther king's dream? mr. bryant: if you had asked me that six or seven years ago, i would have had a different answer. our greatest blessing has turned ourto be at the same time greatest pain. the election of barack hussein has unearthed a fear --

>> hey! mr. bryant: and that is what has triumphed so much right now. they fear in this country. it lightly when there are those who cry. we want our country back. initially, i said, who has your country? [laughter] this is noderstood longer a country of white, male privilege. nothing has melting in this pot.ng

it is a s andtew. -- isit is a stew -- it is a stew. butoes not have to blend, -- [laughter] year, gay: this marriage has become legal across united states. married in united methodist church. where does ame church stand on gay marriage? candid people get married in the ame church? if it does not accept it now, do you see that changing?

mr. bryant: the american has been filled with gay-rights. programming. all the tv shows. all the movies. school curriculums. legislation. gay. but nothing on race. [applause] you have given us the small window to talk about race and

.uns keep my hourt to to talk about what america refuses to talk about. [applause] mr. hughes: some of our nation's's public places such as government and schools have found the need to secure this place with armed security. how can black churches better protect their congregations from hate crimes in a hostile south? mr. bryant: north, east, south, and west. that is a serious question. i do not want to see churches harmed -- armed.

i do not want to plaintiff that. >> amen. mr. bryant: and so there is no move afoot to arm the church. we have to trust god. violent culture. what happened in south carolina can happen to anyone in our churches, mosques, or synagogues. i would hate the church would follow suit on culture. and everyone armed to the teeth. what it has demonstrated is that it really does not work. we are armed to the teeth. and we are killing each other. left and right.

the church would be a violence free zone. if others come in with something else on their mind, we will not take there were -- their approach or their response. we will continue to trust god. before i ask the last question, i have some housekeeping. the national press club is the world passes leading professional organization for journalists and we fight for a free press worldwide. for more information on the club, visit our website and to donate to our nonprofit journalism institute, visit press.org/institute. a new orleans mayor will address the club head 10th of the anniversary

present on september 2, south carolina governor nikki haley will speak at a national press cup -- press club luncheon. and the press club will host its annual 5k for scholarships, journalism training, and press freedom. present ourlike to guest with a national press club mug. [laughter] [applause] i would now like to ask the last question and, believe it or not, somebody managed to [laughter] get us a donald trump question. [laughter] if donald trump comes to you seeking pastoral guidance -- [laughter] what would you tell him? [laughter] you must be born

again. [laughter] [applause] mr. hughes: a follow-up question . what would dr. martin luther king advise trump to do? mr. bryant: i have absolutely no idea. [laughter] ask kingard people questions.

what would be in his heart and his mind, very seriously, and i know we left -- we laughed. but when you listen to the and you listen to what he is running on, it is money. and i really do believe that what we need in leadership are those who think deeper than the material.

and that is why when i talk about the people in south carolina saying this mayor loves , and we need in this country that sees us, that thaturden is their burden, , but are no easy fixes counsel, prayer, collaboration, needs to take place. anybody who says, i am worth so much, so i can be your leader, no. you must be born again. soul, spirit and of the

to be the father of the nation or a mother of a nation. mr. hughes: how about a round of applause for our speaker? [applause] i would also like to thank national press club staff organizing today's event. if you would like to wear more about the club, go to our website. thank you for we are adjourned.